Beth Rigby interviews Iain Anderson

He sure is a weaselly one! I am fed of hearing 'we need to have a calm conversation' which has been trotted out by various politicians for a number of years now. No one ever gets pinned down to a date when that could actually happen.

Also that clip has this bit at 0.59:

BR: But this is a problem, isn't it? Do you see this as a problem?

IA: Look, so I think it's a problem in terms of the perception of the conversation but the way in which w..

That photo does a good job in illustrating the unfairness. We just need an interviewer to point out that if Lia Thomas lined up in speedos rather than a women's swimsuit, everyone would be pointing out that 'He's a man' (gotta love KJK for shouting that out!)

He was crumbling so badly!

Very interesting interview but I wish Beth had asked if he believes that women that don’t want male bodied people of any sort in their single sex spaces are transphobic. Also are there some men that don’t actually believe themselves to be women but get sexual pleasure from dressing as one and whether these people should be in female single sex spaces.

Yes. Publically and significantly, I think.

As said before, Starmer needs to look at this, and learn. The shark has been jumped. The age of No Debate is well and truly over...how do we think the like of Cathy Newman interviewing Iain even just a year ago would have compared (clue, she would have let him walk all over her)?

If this is the best that the weaponised propagandists for TRA can manage, and "best" is a contradiction in terms based on that, Starmer has no chance to turn word salads and thought terminating clichés into reasonable policies and understandable and fair concepts.

Time for Starmer to again perform one of his now famous and totally expected u-turns, and pivot to reality.

Because if the Tories do go down the schools social transitioning debate wholeheartedly and delay the trans conversion ban, but Starmer objects, to push to keep the current confused status quo, I believe he'll learn to regret this.

He needs to watch this interview, and wake up and smell the coffee, pronto.

Make no mistake, Sunak will absolutely wring this for all it's worth ahead of the GE.

I would love to know what questions Beth had left. She had to keep coming back to get some answers to her questions. She must have had a heap unasked.

Anderson was a long time Tory member who supported Liz Truss for leader. He only switched over to Labour a few months ago.

It's a bit like 'let us have this small insignificant peice of paperwork that will be of no interest to anyone' .. and then 'this paperwork now proves philosophically and legally that men can become women and you must re-structure the entire society around it.'

Every facet of gender ideology relies on this sort of sleight of hand. It's remarkable (and depressing that so many are taken in by it).

Great interviewing from Beth Rigby.

Worth bearing in mind Anderson is a big Labour supporter. And is also selling the Labour Sex Fudge.

I wish transing children had been brought up. Seems an enormous elephant in the room.

Considering their "strategy" is they "want to have a conversation" you would think he would be able to do precisely that!

Have the conversation man!

I really enjoyed this interview. As someone who is GC and follows media and social media, I often feel tired of listening as nothing new comes up for me or, in my view, the public. Maybe because Beth is an excellent interviewer, or maybe because IA is new to me.

TRAs are very aware that they are at risk of being boxed in to a corner. If they expose 'self id' as being nothing more than a person simply saying how they feel, then they risk people saying, 'well, what's that got to do with sex, and therefore how can that possibly mean you should access single sex providion'. If they say that gender identity is something more than feelings, they then head towards the need for some test of differentiation between 'common old, everyday' feelings and 'special, unique to trans people' feelings.

I think IA knows this, and was struggling as a result.

No debate really was their best (and only real) option.

Beth was brilliant and really exposed Iain for the pathetic weasel he is. But I wish she'd answered better when he asked her if trans people be banned from sport. No, Iain, they can compete in the correct sex class.

He doesnt believe his words he just wants to retain the funding stonewall receive for pushing the trans agenda. Thats why the interview is similiar to that of a politician - we're witnessing someone who doesn't believe what they are saying, whilst also trying to be as vague as possible to appease as many possible, and give no definite answers he can be pinned to.

I found interesting how often he pointed to the GRA. He used that as an answser to some of Beth's probing. 'Do you think women should have women only spaces?' - ' we have had the GRA for a while now ...'

what he is effectively saying is 'well the law states people can legally change sex, so there'.

It makes you realise what a tactiacal move the GRA was. Once in place it can be referred to, to prove how someone can change sex in the eyes of the law, and then how can you argue with that? We see Indignant Willybooby do it everytime he flails his passport around.

It's a bit like 'let us have this small insignificant peice of paperwork that will be of no interest to anyone' .. and then 'this paperwork now proves philosophically and legally that men can become women and you must re-structure the entire society around it.'

And pivoting straight from ‘a small number of people’ to ‘we want to make it easier for people to change their gender’

Iain: let’s all relax about this because there are hardly any trans people

Also Iain: let’s get loads more trans people!

and the answer to ‘should men be in women’s single sex spaces?’ Being ‘werrrll the legislation says they can so…’

is he even capable of addressing whether something is morally right?

Beth Rigby <chef’s kiss>

Iain Anderson: we’re talking about a very small number of people

no Iain, we’re talking about 51% of the population you misogynistic wank trumpet

of course you’re not because you never give a single thought to women because they’re not real people are they?

sweaty little weasel

What a peculiarly inarticulate man!
Starting every answer with 'sooooo..' to give him time to think.

Absolute trainwreck. Major help to our side. If you are writing to MPs remember to refer to this interview.

Yes… but we still uphold women’s rights!

Don’t you mean biological women? (Using Beth’s words

No… just all women… don’t you know that 96% of women support trans rights.

I did love Beth coming back on that with, well women CAN support trans rights while wanting single sex spaces to be single sex. Because in the past that would have been called out for transphobia!

he personally was terrible - came across as someone who either doesn't really agree with the stonewall tilt towards being largely a trans rights organisation or else someone who refuses to be honest about this having happened - but for me the biggest blow came at the very beginning, reminding viewers of Stonewall's mighty past achievements, eg on gay marriage, and the unspoken contrast between this and what it's been reduced to (albeit with a much larger budget and headcount) today.

“he said he hoped to be able to calm them!”

Yes. This was very clear. He wanted to assure them. While upholding the fact that those male people are the very women he considered should be there.

Because the GRC.

Then when that was exposed, he went for the ‘look at the census’!

He literally had his lie exposed then pivoted to ‘but it is so few’!

it is a script. We all know it. We have all argued against people who deploy it.

'In 2015, the charity wrote to parliament's women and equalities select committee seeking a review of the Equality Act 2010 to "remove exemptions, such as access to single-sex spaces".
Asked if Stonewall was wrong to take that stance prior to his appointment last year, Mr Anderson told Beth Rigby:* *"I wasn't in the chair at that point."
However, Mr Anderson was then asked if his definition of woman meant a biological woman or a transgender woman who has received a gender recognition certificate allowing her to be treated as a woman under the law. He clarified his position, saying: "This is the sort of question that politicians are getting right now, the sort of 'what's a woman?' question.
"Look, I think we all know what a woman is and I think as I said as well, though, since 2004, for almost 20 years now, we've got legislation that allows someone legally to change their gender. Right so somebody can transition from male to female, from female to male.
Asked if that meant they could go into a women-only space, Mr Anderson said: "They can, yes".'

So a woman is anyone who wants to access women's spaces. Got it.

Does this make Stonewall Megaphobic?

What really incensed me was when BR asked "what about women who object to having male-bodies in their single-sex spaces?" and he said he hoped to be able to calm them!

Not to do anything about it - just to shut them up so it's not a problem he has to deal with.

The argument was basically the same as "fuck off TERFs" and "only lesbians who agree with us are welcome here" - it's "why can't everyone just be kind" all over again.

I'm extremely glad he agreed to the interview though, as it was a perfect illustration of how trans rights conflict so fundamentally with gay rights, and of the fact it's not possible for women and gay people to "just be kind" without also acting to their own detriment.

Stonewall trying to take a middle-of-the-road approach to trans issues is illuminating, as I feel like this guy is just stepping out of his bubble and realising what we all realised several years ago.

The swimming podium photo gets to me each time!

Well done Beth.