Womans Hour Wed 23rd April.

Thank you! What a spectacularly good interview from Susan, deftly batting off all attempts to put a negative spin on it.

I don't think it matters whose 'side' she is on, provided the matter is handled with impartiality and professionalism.

The interview was decidedly chilly and lacking in enthusiasm but, despite the contrast with WH's general output, I don't think we have the right to demand warmth and enthusiasm. This is overly reminiscent of the 'nothing but complete capitulation is acceptable' stance we've received for far too many years from the TRA movement.

A degree of bias was present that did irritate me, which was that the issue too-often came back to 'how will transwomen be feeling about this?' This is not women's responsibility. Our objective was to protect our own rights, not to persecute others or take rights not belonging to us. This all along has been the fundamental difference between the GC and GI positions.

Susan Smith handled those questions like a champ. She placed the onus of responsibility firmly back where it belongs: with men, suggesting in the most measured, calm and civil way possible that the rest of the world's problems are not women's to fix. And at the very least she wasn't shouted down in the usual aggressive style of today's interviewer.

Overall, the interviewer had the effect on me of the most tempting chocolate cake staring at me from the bakery window, only to eat it and find it completely unsatisfying and tasteless. The interviewee had the reverse effect.

I agree @IsabelleSE19 that the falsification of legal documents like birth certificates is alarming, and shows us just how close women have come to the wholesale loss of nearly every right our foremothers won for us in the 20th century.

Unfortunately I don't think we have heard the end of this.

See if the Sex Matters YouTube channel is streaming it?

Susan Smith brilliantly clear and measured... a seriously good interview and worth a listen.

I live outside the UK, and short of paying for a VPN which I wouldn't need otherwise, the BBC have removed the Sounds app now for people like me.

So I cannot listen back to this, and am very sad about that. Be kind to me now!

I thought it was a decent interview: questions were on the cold side but she was probably under strict orders to not appear friendly / remain neutral! And SS had uninterrupted time to respond clearly and coherently.

I very much enjoyed how SS put the blame on the organisations (looking at you, Stonewall and Dentons) who mislead everyone.

I hope there’s a real chance now to turn this round and put this back on men to be more accepting and sort this out. As happened with the gay community several decades ago.
Not our problem, you sort out your attitudes amongst yourself lads!

I'm guessing that as an occasional interviewer on that programme, you would feel very much obliged to ask the 'correct' questions and adopt the 'correct' tone. She sounded pretty tense. Susan was brilliant - very clear and articulate, talked about the need to ensure the work is now done. Well done and thank you!

But the interviewer had to put forward the counter argument, but she didn't interrupt Susan and this allowed her to give a crystal clear response.

@Bookgrrrl they never show their original sex more than this. As you say they have no understanding that women feel endangered by strange men but nor do men in general, they walk alone or go jogging after dark without a thought. Many men are taken aback to hear how many things women don't do to keep themselves safe

I thought there was too much about what will the poor transwomen do. I haven't much sympathy for men who have stolen the rights of women, myself.

Agree. Just listened to it. Claire listened to all the answers and it was a let women speak

I find ‘men who identify as women’ will suffice.

All the presenter could think of was to ask about how this might make some men a bit sad.

And was told firmly that it was up to men to sort out their issues, as gay men had had to do. (If I heard correctly.)

I've just listened to WH. I thought it was a good interview, because Clare did not interrupt her, played devil's advocate and then gave her the space to put a very clear argument across.

I believe it was pre recorded which might account for the difference in "tone" and sign off.

Yes, I was struck by the way it was only about how this ruling would affect 'transwomen', when it affects all trans people, because the definition of women as biologically female people affects transmen as well.

Why didn't the presenter ask how this ruling might upset transmen because they would have to accept that they are still women?

All the presenter could think of was to ask about how this might make some men a bit sad. No sympathy for any female people, even those who identify as trans.

I thought anyone can edit Wikipedia. But I have just gone in and removed those words only to have them revert back. Oh well, got better things to do than fix Wikipedia (like I could anyway, it's well past rescuing).

I'm willing to bet money that WH will "balance things out" with a parade of stunning and beautiful trans identifying males as guests, to talk about their latest projects (usually some sexually outrageous, semi auto-biographical novel that would never have got near a publisher if it were anyone else), their beauty regimes and why they are just so, so beautiful, stunning, mesmerising and more woman than any woman could ever possibly be, and their sadness at all the meanies out there who are waiting around every corner to do them harm, especially those old boomer ladies in their lethal wheelchairs brandishing their sharp, poison laced stickers.

Did anyone listen to Nicky Campbell today? Some pretty outrageous comments from a 'woman' called Marilyn. And a Labour MP (can't remember his name) being very hostile about Rosie Duffield

They cite Pink New as their source for FWS being anti trans 🤣

Emma Barnett was not bad, iirc. She did a few strong interviews around trans identifying males in women's sport.

Anita Rani fawning all over Paris Lees, then going on Twitter to berate her critics as meanies (in total breach of her impartiality obligations as part of the BBC current affairs team - my complaint was ignored) was my cue to switch off for good.

Wherever Jenni Murray is today, I hope she feels vindicated and rightly angry for everything the BBC put her through after her years of service. WH never was damaged forever when she left in the way that she did.

How will we tell? Women, against all odds don't want to tell - we just want men to do something they're asked. God forbid though!

Over 5000 people, mostly women, donated to the crowdfunder - it's there in black and white so the 'bankrolled by JK' just doesn't stack up. It's erasing the contributions of women AGAIN.

Trans activism was however bankrolled by public money via the literal Scottish Government.

Thanks for mentioning this. Just listening now. My word. These MPs are squirming, but at least they're there and stuttering through a statement of their views.

I am constantly baffled by the plaintive cries of "but how will you check" followed by "will you do genital inspections" (you'd be so lucky, it's as if they WANT someone to rummage around in their pants)

whereas the reality is that most of the time there is absolutely NO DOUBT at all of which space they should use