Women's Hour - TRA barrister on

Sometimes I think its important to think about what this discourse means/how it appears to the person on the Clapham Omnibus (or indeed to quote the original - 'man' on the Clapham Omnibus) ie the ordinary person in the street.

I'm annoyed because I put quote a long post on that thread! Mindful of the deletion:

I thought the interview was good and fair. No special voice, and pressed White on quite important things, but let her set out exactly wheres she's coming from.

I don't think some bits will have gone down well with even the more #bekind listeners.
It is worth listening but isn't up yet.

The proposal was that religious women who dont want to share loos with tw should be given private spaces, presumably a single room toilet.

White thinks the European Court of human rights will overturn it (or I guess, issue a ruling that the EA by that reading is incompatible with the convention). She said there are cases being worked up, including one by the judge mccloud.

A Very Important M*n said all the women who want to stop him using the ladies, are mean & wrong & he shall ignore them just like he will ignore the Supreme Courtwho are also very mean and wrong.

WILL NO ONE THINK ABOUT THE MEN WHO WANT TO USE THE LADIES CHANGING ROOMS??????

etc

Apparently Sex matters are on WH on Wednesday! Does this mean women’s hour will finally have that super meanie to the men, Helen Joyce on? <faints>

I thought Nuala did okay with the questions. And she did push back against some of the things RMW said. It's a low bar but I don't think it would have been the same interview 6 months ago.

Ah, but it would be labelled "women", not "unisex". And it would be communal and men who didn't claim to be women wouldn't be allowed in*. That's what would swing it. (Stop sniggering at the back.)

*How could they tell?

It sounded like the proposal was men (to admit men and transmen (female)), women (women and transwomen (male)), and "religious women" who cannot share spaces with males.

But the law says you can't label the men's and women's toilets as men's and women's if in fact they are mixed sex, as the definition of those two terms is biological, so that suggestion falls at the first hurdle.

So 3 - male, unisex, and female? I thought the TRAs couldn’t possibly function in anything other than female spaces?

It was a bit odd that the presenter didn't jump on the "if a women can take her 8 year old sons into the ladies, you should let me in", with a "but they are made to go into the the male loos and changing rooms by themselves after they turn 8 to protect the dignity of women and girls" but then it struck me that perhaps none of the presenting team have kids?

Thanks for the X link BTW; I knew I'd seen it somewhere.

I think it's only certain women who would be allowed women-only spaces. Probably a pre-approved list by our overlords.

Oops a deliferate mistale - sorry!

So let met get this straight: RMW offered as solution to have a space for men, for transwomen and women and women only? Which is exactly what the EHCR stated in the guidelines that all transactivists despise?

Deliberate typo? @Tallisker

https://x.com/blablafishcakes/status/1750102590564466909

I'd posted a message to WH. Here it is again. If this thread also disappears... well, draw your own conclusions. I thought it was civil and within boundaries. Have not yet listened to programme.

Why have you invited Robin Moira White on to Woman's Hour? The recent Supreme Court Ruling spells out that legally the term 'woman' means a biological woman. We need to hear WOMEN'S perspectives, not those of someone who wishes he were one. There have been so many ways in which the needs of women have been undermined that this feels like a waste of time. How about inviting a lawyer who upholds women's rights against erosion? That's more important than making biological males feel they can share our safe spaces.

There's a Twix thread that had got to 43/13 but was still being updated.

Not sure whether you can guess which side dominated this ratio.

Does a lot of pro boner cases for TRAs

Somebody on the deleted thread had done an analysis of how many TRA's had been invited to appear on Women's Hour versus the number of sex realist women and orgs. Does anybody have the stats?

Also, did I hear that Baroness Falkner is going to be on next week?

As I understand the barrister world, that particular commentator doesn't actually specialise in equality law? Unlike say, the divine Naomi Cunningham?

...as no woman has challenged said interviewee in the toilets...

I, for one, remain absolutely convinced that this is because all the women immediately recognise a fellow female.

The arguments appear to be that as women often take their young sons into women's changing facilities because they worry the men's isn't a safe space for young boys, middle aged men must be allowed into the women's because..... err...
And women's toilets must allow men in as well but there can be special women only toilets for women with pre approved reasons (religious, abuse etc).

I'd guess the SC judgement is unlikely to be overturned if that's all they've got. 😀

🤮

Oh! I thought you meant something else...

I’d say it was well worth a listen.

There may have been some surprise when Nuala asked some excellent sex based questions and asked the interviewee to consider how women might feel. There may a brief moment of stunned silence.

Then the interviewee came up with the rather genius proposal that women who want male free spaces should be accommodated with provision of such spaces. Obviously women have been saying this for years but we needed someone with some real ‘gravitas’ to suggest it so that action will be finally taken (and they can take credit for coming up with such a clever idea).

No name was proposed for such spaces but I vote for ‘The Ladies’ (as per SC approved definition).

More audacious questioning from Nuala - “what happens is we call a man a man” and “why is it rude to do so?”

The show finale was the interviewee claiming that insulting people is only ok if certain specially approved people do it and that as no woman has challenged said interviewee in the toilets (if I hear a man’s voice while I’m in a female cubicle I have tended to freeze and silently wait til they leave so I’m not surprised) then they are determined to ignore the SC ruling and continue to use our spaces.

Enjoy listening later.

Probably removed because the fragrant RMW tends to hang around FWR with the report button unsheathed.

So anyway, gist was RMW was asked if she (#BeKind you cruel TERF monsters) would respect the Supreme Court Ruling, and she didn't say she would.

presumably some readers are uncomfortable with the level of evaluation and scrutiny the discussion was attempting to facilitate...