Womans Hour Wed 23rd April.

'Marilyn' is starting from a position of authority in telling women what they may feel, when they are safe and what he will permit them, with no acknowledgement that him walking into a women's space makes it instantly less safe for many women.

He's using however unconsciously his male privilege and belief in greater entitlement and power, and expecting that women should defer to him. Which is why he's so cross that this will no longer be happening.

This.

I keep hearing people wailing that oh no, men might feel unsafe and uncomfortable having to use other toilets and spaces!

And thinking - you've been expecting women to embrace feeling uncomfortable, unsafe and being excluded all this time without giving a damn!

The sexism is just off the scale.

Just listening to the R5 Live segment now. Oh Marilyn. He really does answer his own questions though. 'Why can't women's safe spaces work both ways, safe for them and for us?' and then ...'People talk about us like we're all a risk, we're all rapists' ... Marilyn, we cannot tell just by looking, mate.

I have no idea how Marilyn presents, he may well be post-operative (I have less of an issue with that, but obviously he's still male and I know plenty of women WOULD have an issue with that). If I were giving him the benefit of the doubt, I'd say he's genuinely confused about why these Mean Girlz just won't let him in, as he feels he's not personally a risk to them? And that is obviously the crux of his problem. He didn't grow up as a girl and a woman, and nonwithstanding the vulnerability he may feel as a trans-id male, he just can't understand what it feels like to be cornered by a man you don't know, somewhere you can't get out of. He hasn't experienced assault as a woman at the hands of a man.

Men, ALL men, just need to pull their socks up and organise for men. Get those third spaces going. Build more loos (don't just steal OUR toilet space!). Work on acceptance campaigns among men, tell THEM to be kind to men who don't present traditionally. Most women are really tolerant of people who present untraditionally or in surprising ways - but it's not our job to make trans-identified men in our spaces feel comfy there. Men can do this heavy lifting, for a change.

Beautifully put Datun

@nauticant & @BoreOfWhabylon

Thanks both, often to listen now.

I just listened via the Sex Matters link.

It would have been pleasing to have had - and what you would think something called Woman's Hour might be onside for - a more celebratory approach.

But not doing that meant this can't be so easily dismissed. It was like a long-form piece. Some of Susan Smith's answers sounded as though they might have been cut together (don't know enough about radio) but she was never interrupted or cut short and she wasn't actually disagreed with. And my goodness, she was good. All the points out there and then some, with details and clarity (though I do wish she had pointed out that the SG was paying out unlimited taxpayers' money to fight this).

Another woman completely underestimated and ignored circa 2018, and then, boom.

She didn't even say thank you to Susan Smith at the end of it!

i'm intrigued. Why do the obvious questions go to "but how does this affect men?"

I mean - the biggest question the ruling (IMO) throws up for trans identified people is the one about how transmen could be prevented from using men's and women's toilets. Why are the TRAs not pushing for answers on that?

No, it is all about how the trans identified men will suffer so much now women won't be forced to have them in spaces where they want privacy from men.

This is one thing that has always hugely bothered me about the debate. Transwomen say they feel threatened in men’s toilets. As a biological woman, I have no trouble understanding that, and think provision should be made for them (separate from that for biological women). But when biological women say that they feel threatened by having transwomen in women’s toilets, there is no empathy, instead the response is usually along the lines of ‘bigot!’, ‘TERF!’, ‘bitch!’

Why does the pro-trans lobby think the fears and trauma of transwomen are real, but that biological women are just using fear/trauma as an excuse? Women are as deserving of any other group to have their fears taken seriously, and bullying them for expressing perfectly valid concerns is reprehensible. The mere fact that the response to their anxiety is to shout them down/threaten them only exemplifies why biological women need protection.

I suspect part of the lack of empathy stems from the fact that those who have grown up male don’t have the ingrained awareness and anxiety that many women do of their vulnerability around male-bodied people. And I fear that a lot of the young women who seem to support the cause have been fortunate enough never to have been in a position of feeling absolutely helpless at the hands of a violent man.

Society absolutely should be working to make provisions for transwomen. But it shouldn’t be at the expense of biological women.

It's just the flat, studiously neutral tone of the interviewer that struck me. I'm sure she was under instruction though.

Actually 'Marilyn' did raise a good point – that it says that he is female on his birth certificate, which is so illustrative of how far the crazy has gone in the actual legal system of this country. If this bullshit is to be genuinely unravelled, that needs to be fully rolled back. That people are allowed to fabricate the information on their legal identity documents is ridiculous. How the hell did we get here (rhetorical!)?

Radio Scotland had Maya Forstater live on their phone in this morning with Kaye Adams

Brilliant, thank you.

A stupendous answer to it's not safe for these men women's toilets was, well it wasn't safe for gay men in men's toilets, but with a national campaign men accepted it. Let's change the societal attitude and change this too.

'And another space would've been very useful, for people who have opposite sex carers etc. It requires a societal shift in understanding about provision'.

Sensible, grown-up, useful arguments.

I'm finding it a very interesting interview, it's not annoying me

I agree with your assessment of the presenter here rather than that of the earlier posters. I think she is on our side.

The interviewer did sound more like she was conducting an interrogation. The contrast with the second piece was notable.

I've just been back to listen to that. Crikey Marilyn, all I could hear from that was "Me. Me, me me me me. Poor me, poor marginalised and attacked and defenceless terrified little old me. Doesn't matter where they put me in hospital, I'm scared of everyone! Don't care how women feel, what about meeeeee?"

Shame they couldn't have a woman caller. Nope, just a blokey majority yet again to talk about women!

It's always a couple of hours before it's up to listen again. No idea why.

Thanks maltravers!
We cross posted

I found this interview so dispiriting, except it was great to hear Susan Smith. The presenter went straight into "but what are trans women meant to do now?" and what the ruling means for "trans women", "what accommodations can be made for them?". That line of questioning. I couldn't give a flying fuck what these guys do now so long as they keep out of our single sex areas, services and groups like the law says. It's not up to us to make it up to them and figure out alternatives when they've been breaking the law all these years. When were they ever asked how we feel about it? Seriously so annoyed, but still great to hear FWS given airtime.

Okay – I may have been a little hasty in my praise! Will listen again as I obviously heard it differently.

No, not a shill for the BBC and yes, I am very familiar with Woman’s Hour. Stopped listening a lot over the last few years though as my blood pressure can’t take it.

Do I wish that WH was celebrating this incredible win for women’s rights? Of course I do. It’s bonkers (and frustrating and infuriating) that they’re not.

However, I think my point still stands that having an interviewer asking the hostile questions (that are circulating everywhere at the moment) and then shutting up, actually gave SS more opportunity to put her point across clearly and emphatically. With a warmer, more supportive interviewer that focused on the celebratory aspects, there may have been less opportunity for her to do so.

I agree @Rollstar , I thought the interview was fair and SS came across so well. I like Claire Macdonell and the questions she asked were the obvious ones in the context of the SC decision which SS was allowed to answer fully. CM’s tone was neutral I would say, which I didn’t find inappropriate. Well done FWS!

Wikipedia is horrendously captured.

For anyone wanting to hear the interview via a Sex Matters tweet:

https://x.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1914977668816343379

neither. It should be men.

It's utterly bizarre.

If men are getting sad and upset because they can no longer access unconsenting women, the correct response is tough shit. Not, why won't you respect them, ladies? These people are addled.

They don't actually hear what is being said. In their head they've got a completely different scenario to the one that is actually happening. Despite the violent, lunatic thugs running riot across London demanding capitulation, that's not who they see!

And of course, if people genuinely believe that there's no harm in men accessing women without their consent, and they're upset over the ruling, then go talk to the people who assured you it was all fine, and you had every right.

Because it certainly wasn't women. Or the actual law.