LGBA on Woman's Hour 19/05/25

I also find the entire premise of a man saying he's a women deeply offensive. Women and girls face unique challenges, discrimination and outright oppression across the world right now and throughout history.

They want to play act something they have no understanding of and we have no choice about. We exist, we're not a fucking concept or a feeling or a nebulous cluster of stereotypes. I understand that I don't have a right to not be offended and that people are allowed to have their own beliefs and we can agree to disagree, but damn right it's grossly offensive.

I know… I found it upsetting too and I think there comes a point where the BBC need to stop saying it. If they want to exhibit ‘balance’ on this (not that they’ve done that to date) a one-off mention of ‘some may disagree ‘ is fine (provided they are saying this to their tra interviewees too). The repeated use of ‘offensive’ to a lesbian woman who is talking about her attraction to other women is not.

The bending over backwards not to offend some shows exactly where the potential danger comes from.

Personally I think it's extremely offensive to try to pressure homosexual women and men to keep their homosexuality secret.

If a lesbian can't say that she's exclusively attracted to adult human females, that is a seriously fucked up situation.

it wasn’t for me. So many still understand it and need very clear language. Also gave Kate the opportunity to underline which men she was talking about

Nuala mentioned at the beginning that they would continue to hear other perspectives? Do we know who?

If they have a TRA on, please let it be someone like Heather Herbert 🤞🏻🤭

I think it's time we started emphasising how fucking offensive it is that any man can claim to be a woman, know what it is to be a woman, or that he has any entitlement to our rights, spaces, services, or words.

Does Nuala consider that saying that some people are offended by lesbians being same sex attracted (and exclusionary by that very nature) might be a tad homophobic?

Although I suspect that Nuala is told to ask these questions, to give the 'other perspective'.

Although, Nuala did have a point about some lesbians being trans inclusive because I have seen people take that position. However, as Kate said, they are free to do so, but now lesbians such as Kate are free not to 👍🏻

Kate Barker talking about excluding makes from the definition of lesbian and Nuala interjects with "some people might find this view offensive' 🤦🏻‍♀️

I actually think it's a good thing. For so long the narrative had been a blanket, unquestioned mantra of TWAW and the backlash to the SC ruling is a result of this, and has gained the lion's share of the media coverage. The injustice! The inhumanity! WH is certainly part of the problem in us finding ourselves in this batshit place, but by Nuala asking that question she gives someone as articulate and intelligent as Kate space to set out the counter argument.

Women listening in their kitchens, cars, offices, who have heard their uni-age kids wailing about transphobia, fascism, Trump-adjacent far right influence etc will now have a clear alternative narrative.

It has always been true that some men find women saying No to them offensive. TRAs are just the newest chapter in the age old story.

Kate was brilliant - loved how she spelled out that lesbians are by nature exclusionary of men and that there is no need to be "inclusive".

So irritating how her "offensiveness" kept being pointed out when the AI and RMW didn't have those accusations leveled at them.

Yes the constant bleating on about how some people might find such views offensive is never uttered when trans activists are interviewed. The bending over backwards contortions are unnecessary and offensive in themselves. Some of the questions were just daft , not deliberately daft. However, no one listening can be in any doubt that the SC decision was the right one. And actually I don’t want to hear any more other views thank you WH.

I'm glad Kate made it very clear how lesbian communities have been suffering. So sad. It's incredible to me how people can't see how homophobic gender ideology is.

This really made me upset. By ‘some people’ they must mean trans rights activists, and I fell that the presenter was only saying that because they were scared of getting complaints from them.
Some people may disagree with the views expressed but ‘offensive’ sets the bar rather higher.

I am so fed up with these interviewers who keep telling Helen/Kate that “some people find what you’ve just said offensive”.

was this said to RMW or Amnesty?

ETA: sorry had that sitting there and forgot to press "post". I think that's been answered (in the negative)

Nuala has done pretty well, all things considered. It must be difficult trotting out the genderist arguments, but at least they’re easily refuted.

When I was at uni I joined an office temp agency for the holidays and ended up being a receptionist where I had to book people in on arrival.

I asked people their name and date of birth but also had to put in their sex for the computer to find them on the system. Without all 3 fields filled in the computer wouldn't move to the next screen. I never once, at all, in months, had to ask people for their sex. I made an assumption based on the brief interaction I had with them and had an 100% accuracy rate. Some of these people were dressed and presented "incongruously" some had names that could apply to either sex, but I never, not once, got their sex wrong after interacting with them for a short while.

It is just ridiculous to suggest that this is a real issue that should overshadow all the other discussions about this ruling.

Nuala is pathetic, yet again

Katethat was brilliant well done. From the explanation of relief as the defining emotion after the ruling to the illustration of lesbian women needing to freely gather you really laid out the issues with clarity and warmth. And you know what, I think Nuala has got a lot better. Good amounts of space for Kate to make clear, understandable points with concrete examples. Maybe actually meeting/interviewing the protagonists in this has opened her eyes a bit. I also think the editors are playing a blinder with an immediate example of sporting women celebrating success together on straight after. I’m pretty sure there was a similar useful juxtaposition last week after the Bundleiser too wasn’t there?

Kate Barker talking about excluding makes from the definition of lesbian and Nuala interjects with "some people might find this view offensive' 🤦🏻‍♀️

We truly are living in absurd times. Hopefully, this interview has done a good job of highlighting that. Kate was amazing. I loved her staunch defence of LGB Alliance.

It was quite moving to hear Kate talking with real audible joy about being able to get together with other lesbians for an organised disco or a night in a bar after 15 years of this having to be done in secret in an underground movement. And these were women who lived through Section 28, which is so often used by TRAs to further their own agenda. And, thanks to her conjuring the spectre of broad, 6ft+ RMW with his deep baritone voice, it was easy to imagine how his presence would alter the atmosphere on that lesbian night out.

Beautifully argued, Kate. And I'll go so far as to say, well-handled Nuala.

I was serreptitiously listening and I think the whole office decided to come and ask me questions! Will have to listen on catchup!
What I heard was great though.

Yup. Never apologised to the listeners for having to sit through the offensive language used or lies told by the men.