Woman's Hour on Maya Forstater today (9th March)

I thought Maya was great, I'm sure most listeners would agree with her. EB job is to pay devils advocate and she's great at it. I actually thought doing so today she sounded a bit daft because Maya was so clear and, well, sensible. Thought Maya came out of it rather well.

Emma's questions mostly focused on whether it wld be possible to say these things in a kinder way. Thats all they have now, but I guess that's the focus of the tribunal - she has a right to her belief but was the employer justified in sacking her for the specific ways she expressed it, in the contexts she expressed it? I still think uninitiated listeners will find the straight talking in some of the tweets read out jarring. Because the whole subject has been cloaked in conventions of speech that don't allow the actual facts to be stated. I really hope the outcome is good so that we can know it is possible to state the facts where necessary, without fearing job loss.

The other thing which maya alluded to but it didn't come out much, is that it doesn't matter how kind and mild you state it. To say anything at all is enough.

Maya was incredibly calm under pressure. Like many of you, I was rather surprised though that Emma pushed back when Maya talked about safeguarding

I did enjoy several times throughout, whenever Maya was asked did she regret it, or think her tweets were this that or the other etc, the straightforward "no". No follow up waffle, or trying to justify herself, just "no". And the silence afterwards. Powerful stuff.

They mucked her about. Offered interview, then changed it, then said only interested if she won but could it be an exclusive, and she told them to bog off.

That's right. They were hedging their bets and then missed the feminist interview of the year. The relations are probably a little frosty.

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1388174265674051586

I've noticed it before with Emma. She is quite intent on asking awkward questions, but sometimes they don't then flow from the answer that she gets provided with.

It's like the challenging question is the focus, rather than developing further on the answer.

It means that she sometimes doesn't progress with the subject. So you're left with the feeling that there is more to be said, and a slight lack of comprehension over what the actually issue is that she's trying to get at.

It becomes less about resolution and more about interview technique, in my opinion.

Glad to hear MF has been allowed to state what she believes, but I don't like the presenter and think she is someone who likes to be seen as 'woke'.

Not had chance to listen yet but EB is not woke. She's probably the most aggressive interviewer around ATM but unlike, say, Paxman she gives people time to speak and asks open questions unless she gets evasive answers.

I like EB normally - but I also thought she lost her way with the " jumping to worst case scenario" line. MF was answering the specific question of would she ever misgender someone, after MF had already stated she wouldn't in a professional situation.
But I did like that MF was able to explain that her discussions were on twitter because there was no place to have them in real life.

Is this the first time WH has interviewed Maya since that time she was lined up and then the interview was pulled when she won? Am I remembering that right?

I've just listened to the whole programme in the car. I don't listen to WH normally so I'm not familiar with the journalist but I didn't care for her style (especially followed as it was by a load of gushing over Joss Stone ffs). I assume she was playing devil's advocate but it just made her sound obtuse a lot of the time imo. If her intention was to give MF the space and ammunition to sound deeply reasonable, she didn't really need to as MF sounds deeply reasonable anyway - much more calm and generous in reply than I would have been, I'm sure.

I'm very familiar with MF's case but have never heard her speak before. I really wish her luck in court. She was restrained in what she said, but the whole thing must have been a nightmare for her. I like a bit of a scrap myself but what she's been through would have made my head explode.

I didn't hear it. Was it just Maya on her own being interviewed?

BBC interviewers are supposed to play devil's advocate during a 1:1.

I was interviewed by Victoria Derbyshire once (I think it must have been for 5 Live) and it was the same, because the subject was in essence political. The chap on before me had been involved in an awful family disaster and she was much more gentle.

I thought it was good, Maya expressed her entirely reasonable views very clearly, the uninformed listener would've been utterly baffled by EB's line of questioning.

I don't for a second think that EB believed what she was asking, it's what Maya will likely face in court.

The next battle may be lost - and it will be devastating for Maya if it doesn't go her way but she's achieved so much more in the wider context, a win would just be the cherry on top.

It was a shame EB didn't draw out the fact that women have not been able to have this conversation and if it weren't for people tweeting like Maya did so many would be none the wiser as to the impact of males in women's spaces.

I'm not sure if Emma Barnett lost the thread a bit, but I thought the line of questioning about the circumstances under which Maya would misgender someone a bit strange.

"When would you misgender someone?"
"Not in professional life, but potentially in this sort of harmful, dangerous situation"
"Why do you always jump to the harmful situations?"

I didn't hear the interview but I think the job of a journalist to probe and challenge, not just to offer a sympathetic ear.

Maya did really well. It was all a bit #be kind from EB.

To be honest, when you start criticising someone for being "woke", you've lost the argument.

That was interesting. I think it was right that Emma didn't give her an easy time and was challenging. Some of the things she challenged on were fair criticisms. Maya had time to answer and maya was excellent at bringing in the wider context and why this is important. She did very well. I don't know if maya was worried about affecting her case, but at some points I was thinking 'yes I understand that some ppl will be offended by that tweet, but that doesn't mean she should be sacked for tweeting it'.

Emma said the issue has come on to the news agenda and that's why things have changed. I was thinking that is because of maya and others. They have forced it onto the agenda.

Good, interviewers should push hard, then people get to hear who can confidently and coherently back up their statements and who will just waffle and bluster.

Having listened to Emma Barnett over the last few months on WH, I would never describe her as “woke”.

It sounds like she’s doing her job as a journalist to challenge and not to just agree with the interviewee.

I actually think Maya did pretty well - and being challenged actually got her the opportunity to explain (briefly but still) that safeguarding means operating from the worst possible scenario and thinking the unthinkable.

I’m constantly stunned by organisations such as the Scouts in Maya's case, and the recent thread about advice to school governors, who deliver robust safeguarding training on the one hand, and then introduce wide open loop holes for sacred castes through inclusion policies.

The more light given on this issue the better.

More power to your elbow Maya. This is not a drill.

Women with concerns on this agenda have never been afraid of robust debate or questions, it's exactly what they've been asking for!

Exactly. And until now Woman's Hour rarely allowed this to happen, because TRAs tantrummed about it.

Emma is a formidably good, challenging interviewer, but unlike Anneliese Dodds, Nancy Kelley, that BBC director etc, Maya isn't trying to hide anything, which makes all the difference.