India Willoughby, Question Time Thu 2 Feb 2240

Anyway I can't watch any more. Watching people proudly lie and wilfully misrepresent things over and over and over is too depressing.

It's the sheer weight of the dishonesty that gets me down. We can all see it. It's dishonest and it's disgusting.

Thank you Venus 😊

It's amazing to me how many of them are admitting 'we don't know, we don't have enough information'... as to whether the rapist is male or female! So they are openly admitting there needs to be some criteria which is the opposite of what they have been proclaiming.

It must be difficult to realise that the affirmation and fawning from people around you is not necessarily genuine.

IW is happy to berate and coerce people into complying.

You would have to be a fool to think that any coerced compliance is coming from a genuine place.

I think what you witnessed wasn’t any penny dropping. IW was just frustrated by an inability to coerce everyone in the room. Dammit you people with free wills, free, thoughts and free words!!! Do what I say damn you! Do it because I say so!

This...beautifully expressed.

I'm worrying about her, too.

Unlike the MRAs who barrack women's meetings and marches, she hasn't covered her face, or worn a paramilitary "uniform" of all in black, she's not hiding behind a placard or a megaphone, or supported by umpteen of her friends - she's very vulnerable and so is her family. These are horrible people she's contradicting.

I think most men who speak of rape in connection themselves are at risk of being imprisoned. Because they are less like to be the victim than the perpetrator.

😂😂😂

OMG I had assumed that 'if I was raped what prison would I go to' was a slip of the tongue but no.... that was a fully formed thought India had and broadcast to everyone.

Yes because they damn well know how preposterous the notion really is. They know exactly what he is. If they can't stand by the courage of their convictions thrn hth do they expect us to.

What bigots don’t realise is that dogs come in various shapes and sizes, and some are even smaller than the average cat. Also, some cis dogs have pointy ears. You can’t always tell if the animal you see walking on a lead, sleeping in a dog basket or chasing a ball is a cat or a dog, so self ID is the only system that works.

Some cats and dogs simply don’t fit into your binary boxes. However, I do concede that if you leave a box (of any kind) in the sun, a cat will probably get to it first and do their best to make themselves fit.

Bloody hell, IW can't answer a question can they? Up there with the most tedious politicians. What has number of articles got to do with single-sex spaces?

I don't understand why NS and Jenny Gilruth can't just say what they really believe - that Isla Bryson is a woman. According to the bill passed in the Scottish Parliament, any man who says he is a woman is a woman. That is what self-ID means. Everyone is who they say they are. Nobody else can have any say at all in the matter. There can be no exceptions to this. Exceptions mean there is gatekeeping which goes against the principle of self-ID.

Do they not understand what self-ID means?

I noticed the silence after IW's "contribution" and did not feel sorry for IW. It's abundantly clear that those who refuse to acknowledge women's concerns and thought others agree with them, are going to have a rude awakening when they step outside of their bubbles.

Women have been nice, been patient, read all points of view, engaged in the science, in the polling data, in the minutiae of the law, even gone researching the Hansard from the GRA stitch up debates.

We know full well what's been done to us. And we won't stand for any more of it.

India even got away with an incorrect answer on Pointless. Nobody else ever has. I was so disappointed in Richard Osman.
Whaaaat? Was is acknowledged that the answer was wrong but she kept the point? (Or i guess that isn't how it works on pointless but you know what I mean).

I think it is significant that the audience applauded the use of s35 when the tory mp was speaking. That surprised me. Glasgow is generally pro independence and pro snp. (Glasgow voted to leave the union in 2014 i think.) The bbc do try to make the audience representativ. I thought that Scots who were against the grr Bill might still dislike the UK government's intervention because it interferes with Scotland running itself. But if this audience is anything to go by ppl are so usupportive of the Bill that they are even pleased that the UK government is stepping in.

That was the most flaming and heated qt I have seen in ages. Maybe since brexit. Or maybe this was worse.

The tra types in the audience have nothing clear to say. There's no actual point, it's all based on feelings and moral indignation. But the actual moral code that is being offended against is never fully articulated, and anyhow the rest of us never signed up to it. The young man's head shaking was like a believer hearing blasphemous speech. I don't feel 'bless him' about him. These young people have an illiberal approach that they are taking into institutions and work places. It is the opposite of the liberalism and pluralism which we need to underpin our democracy.

(Sometimes whether someone appears to be male is relevant, such as when analysing claims that no-one will know if TW are in female toilets - a transphobic claim in itself, as gender is not gender expression and being a woman shouldn't require any type of appearance - but this isn't the case in this thread).

Just about to watch now.

I know many people disagree but can we please not be nasty about people's appearances on here? I'm sure many women could be called masculine-looking and it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to whether they are women.

There is enough to criticise about what people claim to think. I won't be part of mocking appearances. It's what India does, ffs, and we are better than that.

Asymmetrically sized eyes can be due to medical conditions.

I think it’s important to keep responding to the oft-repeated claim that trans people are extremely vulnerable by asking: to what?

Because, the answers to those questions are likely to shift the debate considerably.

• What exactly are trans women more vulnerable to than the result of the population?
• What are trans men more vulnerable to?

Sometimes the sort-of-answer given is about rates of self harm and suicide. Sometimes that’s framed as if it’s other people imposing this on trans people. But that’s ridiculous.

If the risk to be managed is poor mental health leading to self harm and suicide, then the solution is acknowledging the mental health issue and providing much better mental health support.

Instead, we get deeply irresponsible narratives about genocide by inevitable suicide due to lack of adequate validation. And, yes, trans people - especially adolescent females - are hugely vulnerable to this incredibly harmful narrative.

Or we are given an answer about increased rates of violence - often given based on US information and with important context left out. It matters a great deal that the increased risk of violence is actually a result of being involved in prostitution, for example. It’s not a trans vulnerability; it’s a sex work vulnerability.

These claims are disingenuous. They want to obscure the problem because it is deeply inconvenient to admit that sex work is, in fact, not some wonderful empowering thing for the vast majority of people involved in it. And those who don’t experience violence from ‘customers’ are lucky rather than anything else.

The crime statistics for the UK indicate that TW are less vulnerable to being murdered than the population as a whole. Even when compared to men. Far, far less vulnerable than women are. It’s likely the same is true for violence generally.

Even if TW are more vulnerable (than other male humans) to violence in male spaces, the problem is male violence. Making women and girls more vulnerable by letting any man who wants to use their single sex spaces is not the answer that problem.

Every time a politician stands up and claims that self-ID and doing as you’re told ‘being kind’ are requirements because trans people are the most vulnerable people need to ask ‘vulnerable to what?’ How are they vulnerable? Is validation and going along with their fictions the answer to this vulnerability?

Actually quite important as they're talking about the mental health of the women.

Unit 4 too which sounds v problematic as it holds the most vulnerable women.

In The past was a very positive supportive environment but now is a dumping ground.

You’ve got to question what’s wrong with some of these politicians’ critical thinking abilities. It’s like they’ve been utterly brainwashed.

It was quite noticeable, wasn't it.

As I said earlier, there were times when I felt a bit sorry for IW and that was one of them. It must be difficult to realise that the affirmation and fawning from people around you is not necessarily genuine.

So, that's Boy George's "goddess energy" is it? Pissing in the ladies toilet! That makes you "a goddess", but only if you're a man.

I suppose you could argue that he prefers male victims though.

They seem to be discussing this in womens hour right now.

Wondering if they're just completely avoiding the subject of men there altogether.

The report sounds horrific however and definitely worth air time over blokes thinking they're women tbh

Either stupid or a liar.

Multiple identities going on there

God, that's awful. Seeing pictures really brings the reality home. I wish the conversation in the media would include images like this- we are talking about PRISONS (and I wonder what people are actually picturing in their minds when we talk about them) and bring the conversation back to the actual women in the stories; the prisoners and the victims. Otherwise it just stays in the realm of intellectualism and sensationalism. Rather than the ACTUAL REALITY.