LGBA on Woman's Hour 19/05/25

X thread for those without an account

Here’s a little story about what it’s like to go on @BBC Woman's Hour. I’m afraid it’s not a happy one. I’ve come away with a poor impression of the integrity of everyone involved in the show. But there’s still time for them to redeem themselves… 1/9

Last Wednesday, I was interviewed by Nuala McGovern @Nuala McGovern. She started by asking me about the Supreme Court judgment in FWS. I explained that what the court had ruled was that, for the purposes of the Equality Act, trans women are men. 2/9

Two days later, Anita Rani @anita rani interviewed Sacha Deshmukh of Amnesty. She put it to him that I had said the Supreme Court ruled that trans women are men. 3/9

Sacha replied that what I had said was wrong. That the Supreme Court ruling had related only to the Equality Act, and not to other laws or “gender” in society more widely. But THAT IS WHAT I HAD SAID! 4/9

Anita returned to the question of what I had said a little later, and again Sacha claimed that I had misrepresented the judgment by saying it was about laws beyond the Equality Act, and about society more broadly. AGAIN, MISREPRESENTING ME. 5/9

Anyone listening to my interview would understand that my claims about the judgment related to the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act. But anyone who had not, and who listened on Friday, would get the false impression that I had misrepresented the judgment. 6/9

I have been in communication with the producer of Woman’s Hour since, who at first was unwilling to accept that there was anything to see here. After some back and forth, there will apparently be a “clarification” during today’s programme. 7/9

But I fear that what will be said or implied is that I WAS UNCLEAR, when I wasn’t. What happened is that I WAS MISREPRESENTED. What’s needed isn’t a CLARIFICATION, it’s a CORRECTION, and it’s not of my words, it’s of Anita’s and Sacha’s. I also think I'm owed an APOLOGY 8/9

So tune in at 10am – Baroness Kishwer Falkner is on, apparently – and listen for what they say. If they don’t admit to misrepresenting me – or worse, if they misrepresent me again – I will be making a formal complaint. 9/9

I assumed I was being a bit cheeky with that image but it looks like it was more accurate than I'd intended:

https://x.com/HJoyceGender/status/1925111333906698291

Does anyone know when the EhRC will be on? Is it today?

The vast majority, almost all, womans hour listeners will have been seriously unimpressed by the little boys in the ladies gotcha. It's so far away from most womens experience to think that the presence of male children puts in doubt the importance of the social convention that keeps men out of the ladies.

I think some womans hour listeners will have found some of what Helen & to a lesser extent Kate said to be too forthright and afronting. But all except the most brain-fogged pro gender types will have understood it and 'got it' on some level.

I think there is genuine sympathy about transsexuals being barred from the loos they have been using, but I doubt there's much sympathy for tw being barred from some lesbian dating apps and social events.

Haha I hadn't seen that before. She's great

Well, I came away from it thinking Nuala wasn't sensible...

Nobody (sensible) could think it was a good gotcha surely?

Yes, I know, but I think she was repeating it because she actually thought it was a good. 'gotcha'; Her tone of voice by that point sounded desperate, like she was clutching at straws. She also pushed it by asking stupid things like what the age limit was/should be, trying to get HJ to say what age limit organisations should set.

But it was RMW who first spoke about boys in the ladies’ loo (as a sort of defence or gotcha). I think that’s why Nuala brought that up…to get Helen’s POV on the subject. Which is fair enough I think.

You nailed it.

I just can't get past the bit in the Helen Joyce interview where she pounced with that stupid question about boys in the ladies' loos.

I could watch that video all day long and never get bored.

That Germaine Greer interview came up on youtube for me first thing today. I did enjoy watching it again.

I have listened to all the interviews in the series. It is annoying to me that Ammesty Sacha was not pushed in the same way as all the others. He was allowed to waffle and be vague without being pressed much to clarify. But otherwise I think the interviews were equitable. Robin was pressed on some points which will have been uncomfortable. It is ridiculous to press a lesbian on why a lesbian is someone who doesn't fancy anyone male, but it was still right to do it given the context, and allowed kate to give absolute clarity. We don't need interviewers to be on our side or even to be friendly. We need interviewers to get people like Kate ftom lgba on the airwaves and ask her the questions that allow her to set out her case. Because once Kate (& others) set out their case they win. In court or on the airwaves. Not everyone will agree, and that's fine, people will have different views, but enough people will get it and agree. As long as the case can be put with clarity eventually the tide will turn.
Kate was excellent. Really excellent. Well done.

This series is ultimately about the SC decision and whether trans is offensive or not didn't come into it.

oh piffle. The BBC big themselves up as the ultimate "two sides" fence sitters. The LEAST they should be doing is prefacing every statement by every guest by saying "this may offend some people". Not just do it to one "side" of an argument (insofar they are treating the reality of biological sex as an argument)

I'm really not hearing the hostility or bigotry tbh. I have listened to half the interview and the interviewer does interrupt and talk over Kate to a certain extent but is that to undermine her or is it to help hammer home the main points? Obviously for us here on FWR we are very well versed on this issue and the arguments but the casual listener might not be so it is necessary to clarify, for them, what exactly Kate means when she says "men" as the water is so muddy. Once clarified, move on.

I can understand why none of the sex deniers have been asked about people finding their beliefs offensive. This series is ultimately about the SC decision and whether trans is offensive or not didn't come into it. For the genderists all they have is their personal offence. Germaine Greer put it best for the sex realists side when confronted with the "some people find what you say offensive and hurtful" question - "so what?".

Just listened to it. How horrible and hostile the interviewer was. She never shows this condescending and unsympathetic attitude to any man pretending to be a lesbian, or points out how offensive his pantomime is.

Kate did splendidly despite Nuala's bigotry.

I don't suppose anyone pointed out that when previously lesbian only groups were forced to allow transwomen to attend this didn't actually help these transwomen find relationships? Lesbians weren't attracted to them. I understand some transwomen are under the delusion they are biologically female, even with a penis. But those who know better shouldn't have to play along with it.

I wonder if their editorial policy is changing a bit. Either as the SC ruling sinks in and they and the rest of the BBC* realise they need to be more mainstream, or as they listen to the arguments without Gríma Wormtongue (excellent image, nauticant!) TRAs pushing Stonewall law constantly.

I did note that Nuala said the series of interviews they'd been doing was to look at the "dilemmas" the SC judgement had created for organization. But Kate showed (so clearly) that the dilemmas have been there all along, organizations just constantly chose to ignore the dilemma and favour TRAs, Woman's Hour included. It's possible they are peaking a bit as they host some proper looks at it (despite is almost entirely being framed from the male POV).

*See also the BBC news article on Jamie Wallis using "they" pronouns when they clearly know he wants them to use "she".

Edited for formatting

(Oops I typed 'love' not the intended 'live' on my post above: suppose it still applies!)

RMW didn't get an 'offensive', but did get something along the lines of 'some might not share your perspective'.

Once, and very quietly.

Someone on twitter counted: RMW - 0, Helen 1, AI - 0, Kate - 2

I remember watching that conversation unfold in real time. 😀One of the many things which helped me to peak.

I believe that TRAs have been flooding the BBC with complaints about Helen Joyce in particular and her description of trans women as men. I saw something on X - there seemed to be a campaign going among TRAs to complain to the BBC. So I guess this is their way of calming them down.

That is much better!
After @nauticant had posted that article I put a response saying the premise was sound even if an arsehole said it first, but it has been niggling at me all day. That the source should be a nasty piece of work did bother me.
I found it hard to believe the saying originated with the man in the article, it seems the sort of sentiment that will have existed as long as governments have opposition and sounds a bit Orwellian or early Russian revolution, or from many other struggles in the last century and this.
I really hope he has plaigerised it and it's not original to him.
From now on I will use the Tony Benn example especially the last sentence: if you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not love in a democratic system'