Gender Wars - Channel 4 - 10pm tonight

I heard that interview. Kath Stock must have the patience of a saint, both putting up with the toddlers at Oxford Uni, and then the inanity of a radio host.

She really sounds anything other than considered and calm, but even she couldn't suppress ironic laughter and exasperation at the constant refrain of "...surely you must see your words could threaten, people have the right not to be subjected to your opinions, if certain people consider you hateful..." yada yada yada.

I think it's all even more arousing with women's apparent consent.

😂😂
I sometimes wonder if she's vain enough to check her mentions on here and realise how many of us fancy her! 😂

It was DEFINITELY Doc Stock's day yesterday though. And Moral Maze on R4 tonight too!

Oh they all want to win the Nobel Peace Prize for coming up with the 'moderate solution', like that woman who interviewed Doc Stock this morning on Radio Sussex. 'Oh but if if you were just a bit more moderate, don't you think ...? I'm glad Doc Stock laughed at her.

It's the same with Labour's stupid cliché, ''we need less heat, and more light'. My own Labour MP actually came out with it the other week when I last spoke to him. Oh do fuck off; and (a) don't patronise me with the utterings of flea-brained Lisa Nandy, and (b) what's wrong with a bit of 'heat'? When did passion die a death, become offensive?

Linda was not giving this person the seal of approval, even though she can have certain discussions with them. I hope she will ask them to desist from entering womens spaces from now on.

Of course, C4 can be smug with themselves, they created a 48 minute oasis of calm discussion. But nothing really achieved.

Exactly.

The only thing that could be achieved by this is that, since everybody now understands that reasonableness and calm is the order of the day, they actually have a bloody discussion. With enough time for everyone to speak, with all the facts.

Although, given that's something that women have been asking for, for I don't know how long, I'm going to go with a wild guess and say that probably won't happen.

Unfortunately, being the friend of a person is no recommendation that this person has the best intentions for women at heart. It simply doesn’t work that way.

All it means is that Linda Bellos views this person as a sparring partner, it may mean they are friends, it may not.

I agree a follow up programme specifically looking at problems caused for women & girls, when males self id as women-such as womens prisons, sports, hospital wards etc. is much needed. Society is not much bothered if an adult female decides to 'live as a man.' Its the effects on the loss of females single sex spaces that is problematic

I thought that article was remarkably even handed and even potentially GC considering it’s the Guardian. I get the feeling that Lucy Mangan wrote it very carefully and managed to slip in a sentence or two in the form of questions. Eg about transitioning is just saying “I am a woman”, and that (fear of) male violence is at the root of most of the issues being discussed. She wanted more episodes going in depth like many PPs here.

I do wonder what the impact is on her being one of the remaining higher profile women journalists left at the Guardian, and seeing what happened to some of her former female colleagues.

Women rarely chat to someone in the cubicle next to them, even if they're a friend. I'm guessing that's a validation thing.

Maybe the friend he went in with kept him talking to warn anyone who came in after them.

This needed to be Ep 1 of a 24 ep season, 7-10 seasons at least.

Felt to me like a failed pilot for a show, no-one underinvested in this story will learn much from either side. Those invested will have no reason to switch allegiances.

Of course, C4 can be smug with themselves, they created a 48 minute oasis of calm discussion. But nothing really achieved.

No Debate to be replaced by Superficial Debate.

Too many men on the programme, and not enough ordinary women. Julie & Kathleen were great, as was Nicole & Elanie , however there was not a word about trans widows, women’s prisons, women’s sports, not enough about self ID. It was a wasted opportunity, as it didn’t let those of us women who are not intellectuals or lesbians to speak imho.

Honestly, it's quite unbelievable that Went thinks that their respectful concession to women is to hide their presence from said unsuspecting women?

They genuinely believe this! Happy to have it in a documentary.

So Went is a male individual, who understands that they're male but totally appreciates where women are coming from because when they're sitting in a woman's toilet, talking to a woman in the cubicle next to them, and a woman comes in, they stop talking??

Fucking hell, you need to be limbo dancer to get under that bar.

And I don't believe it anyway. Women rarely chat to someone in the cubicle next to them, even if they're a friend. I'm guessing that's a validation thing.

And it's almost worse.

Went knows their presence is upsetting to women and does it anyway, but just tries to disguise it.

And fondly imagines that's a plus, in their favour, of 'reasonableness.'

I take it back. Even a limbo dancer would struggle.

In fact, three.

Oh no. Just realised I included a pronoun, which I didn’t intend to do, as I’m not sure what pronouns KJW uses.

Do I need to report my post and ask for the pronoun to be changed to say KJW instead? Worse still there’s two of them.

A number of things struck me about KJW’s contributions.

He made a big deal out of the scientific studies which show that there is “significant male advantage” in sport, and therefore a legitimate reason for retaining single-sex female-only sports.

He mentioned that he’d stopped loudly talking whilst using the female toilets as it would be obvious that a male person was using them, which could be frightening for women, but didn’t say that he’d stopped using the female toilets. In other words recognition that women’s perceptions of safety/risk/threat might be a legitimate area of concern. But no recognition that women’s right to privacy and dignity, as afforded by single sex female-only spaces might be a legitimate consideration.

I think that gives an indication of the arguments which will be deployed in the future to argue for males who identify as transgender to have access to single-sex female facilities and provision ie “there’s no significant male advantage here”, “there’s no actual safety risk here”.

It was a very successful programme from KJW’s point of view. KJW and LB were presented as the moderate ‘open to debate’ individuals, that others ought to emulate. The implication of highlighting them in that way was that it created the (incorrect) impression that KS and JB are not willing to debate in the same way. Which of course they very much are. DP’s view was that, for anyone coming to the topic for the first time, KJW and LB would be the participants most likely to be seen as the most sensible and sympathetic in the programme.

The C4 programme didn’t expand on Went’s comments about their presence in women’s spaces making women uncomfortable and what the solution could possibly be.

Went has recently been discussing the issue of TW in women’s sport, saying their position has shifted from TW inclusion at all costs to fairness and safety for women.

https://twitter.com/timesradio/status/1663509236150861825?s=46&t=fMjCB4vFfh_N6mYE72mhHw

Thanks. I was unaware a date had been set. I thought Rishi was still playing silly buggers and using the threat of a parliamentary debate as a GE wedge issue.

We will finally see MPs and parties true colours on this matter. Politicians won't be able to hide behind pointless platitudes anymore.

The BBC as unbiased here?
Maybe BBC Verify should be renamed BBC Obfuscate.

I remember probably saying the exact same words in 2019. We do live in hope that ‘reasonable’ discussion will change minds. However, I have learned it won’t change the mind of the likes of Went , it changes other minds who then enact the changes we need.

Went has had the discussions time and again. I have seen Went have the discussions. I don’t believe that Went has changed positions. Went has a friendship with Linda Bellos. It believe this has been a long friendship that I learned about from this board. So Went has no doubt heard every single argument and not changed Went’s mind or actions.

At this time, it is the people who will make those changes that will force Went to have to change position rather than discussions with Went that will make a difference. Those are discussions that have been prioritised and are happening. Went is Went and will continue to be all for Went and while Went is fine but to roll out as a ‘reasonable’ speaker, as is Hayton, they need to be acknowledged as who they are and who they are not.

As long as we are honest about them, we can always acknowledge they appeared reasonable in this program. But know that is about all we can acknowledge.

I'm finding it hard to stay optimistic. The BBC, amongst others, are currently doing a hideously one-sided onslaught of articles with half-stories being told that paint a picture in support of keeping the Equality Act exactly how it is, with all of its ambiguitity. However, there seem to be quite a few people standing firm. The pushback from the Lords (I think it was the Lords?) in support of Baroness Falkner, for example, gives me hope.

@RealityFan it's the debate in parliament about whether the Equality Act needs firming up to make it clear that sex means biological sex, not gender identity or legal gender. Pretty much everything that needs straightening out (except sport, as that's already covered under clear guidance and law... it was just mostly ignored until recently) is underpinned by this. There was a big petition (>100,000 signatories) to say clarification was needed and an even bigger one (from a "trans rights" perspective) to say that it wasn't. In fact, they said that it was a "change" being proposed, not clarity.... which in itself highlights just how important the clarity is, when there are many people and organisations who think that the current wording allows transwomen to self-ID in to women's spaces and services. I suspect a post-debate debrief in pub with some celebratory/commiseratory beers would be a good idea whichever way the answer goes 🍺

I thought Went came across as a decent person who was trying to find common ground. The documentary obviously only showed edited clips. If Linda Bellos thinks he's worth engaging with, that's good enough for me

The era of EDI dominance is (hopefully... June 12th)

You're way more optimistic than me about this debate.

Yes, I really think that all that’s been discovered here is that humans like to have sex with other humans

hardly ground breaking stuff

😂

Just watched it, after reading this whole thread. I thought Doc Stock sounded very upset during the tiny clip of her Cambridge debate that they showed. Kass was a [expletive deleted] to her and did Kass’s cause no good imo, maybe trans people and activists across the land were roaring their approval at Kass’s rudeness.

So much scope for a whole docu-series on the subject, but on the whole this was a fair attempt by C4 in the 48 minutes it was given.