Support Emma Barnett

[uneffingbelievable]

Woman's Hour presenter is being social media abused for her interview with the CEO of an endometriosis charity and her use of the word woman

When is this madness and bullying going to stop?
Emma was right -well done

In that case it may be that they are trying to drum up publicity to grow the charity or something. Job done I suppose.

'a female prostate clinic.'

JFC.

I would expect a CEO of the charity to be someone with plenty of knowledge and experience. Sounds like this one was given the job over a coffee! As a charity shouldn't you interview at least?? Is this a paid position?

Jodie’s friend was on my local Facebook group suggesting we listen to her friends fantastic cause.

However it was Jodie herself who bought in the “ inclusive “ language according to that interview. And she was arguing that it the “ womb like tissue” is not actually womb so it doesn’t have to be women. Despite it being 99.999999% suffered by women. Just why would you do that? Why confuse actual biology with a social trend.

More coverage from the Daily Mail (it's only the first part that's new, the rest is a rehash of previous reporting):

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12758137/BBC-defends-fair-robust-Womans-Hour-interview-host-Emma-Barnett-faced-pile-trans-activists-challenging-transgender-CEO-endometriosis-charity-not-using-word-woman.html

including an interesting suggestion that Steph Richards misrepresented the nature of the interview in order to encourage a pile-on onto Emma Barnett, and that this has encouraged the BBC to back Barnett:

'Both contributors understood that the focus of this interview was the widespread criticism of the appointment of Steph Richards, a trans woman, as CEO for a women’s health charity.

Good to see the BBC has been supportive of Emma. I'm sure everyone's feedback helps with that.

The interview prompted Richards to later post on X, formerly Twitter: 'Did Emma Bartlett (sic) want to talk about #endo or the word "woman"?

Seeing as it was Woman's Hour and it's a condition that affects Women, I'd guess the answer is BOTH.

Perhaps Richards should stick to selling prams and child seats which seems to have been Richard's previous day job. Well, one of them anyway.

Talking bollocks on R4 wasn't quite the Willy Wonka golden ticket to greater things Richards yearns for.

He won't even use the word 'woman or women' in conversation about the disease which only affects women.

I listened to that interview. I am in awe of Emma Barnett. She was calm, measured, asked relevant questions clearly and concisely. To me, it was clear that Emma knew exactly what she was talking about and was dogged, but not bullying, in trying to get answers. How refreshing to hear an interviewer cutting through all the waffle and incoherence usually spouted by trans activists.

She's also not pretending prostate cancer is a disease suffered by people with a womb, or penis-free people, or trans men, or any other bollocks. And she has a health care background. And she doesn't let her personal politics get in the way of doing her job.

Just like my male gynaecologist isn't trying to tell me he's a woman! I really rate him - he's an expert in his field - but if he tried to draw me into some alternative reality then I would stop trusting him.

A lot of TRAs seem to think 'but ... male gynaecologists!' is some kind of gotcha, but it's the opposite. Women will likely trust men with demonstrable expertise, who are bound by clear codes of conduct, understand boundaries, have legal safeguarding responsibilities, don't get huffy if you ask for a woman instead, and are comfortable and fastidious about using a chaperone system for patients. They don't trust liars.

I wasn't holding out much hope that the interview wouldn't be 'stunning and brave' nonsense.

But, you could have knocked me down with a feather!
Well done to Emma. I take back my early cynicism.

It’s a minuscule charity that needs a boost, perhaps input from people with experiences beyond having endo themselves You don’t need to be affected to work for a charity- I donate and support and publicise many charities I’m not directly impacted by. I understand, recognise, respect that drive to help other people.

Steph could do all that- volunteer, boost, publicise, support, fundraise- without needing to be visible in the process, without needing a job title.

I wonder why Steph got a fancy job title for their assistance? And photos everywhere, including ones that suggested Steph themselves was a sufferer?

I love Emma , so will be doing that- I'm a liberal person and have no issue what people want to define themselves as- love and let live I say - but when it starts getting as woke as this then my heckles start to rise

I just listened to the interview - wow, how brilliant was Emma Barnett. She was polite, cool, persistent and they both absolutely floundered under questioning.

Ultimately the trustees do have the decision making power around who to appoint to run a charity (with some Charity Commission caveats around people who have been bankrupt or excluded due to having committed offences). A CEO of a charity for gardeners does not have to be a gardener as long as they run the charity to fulfil its charitable purpose, but in most cases doing so will involve supporting, acknowledging and empathising with the particular needs of the majority of gardeners. Not campaigning against gardeners who want to call themselves 'gardeners' rather than 'non-indoor builders' or 'assigned outdoor technicians', or prioritising the needs of the tiny number of gardeners who work with bonsai trees over and above those who work with ordinary plants.

It was also interesting how Jodie the founder described the appointment process. It sounded as she had been thinking of appointing someone, bumped into Richards at an event and then perhaps Richards offered to do the role? Plus announcing the appointment at an event. Charity events can be quite celebratory, so it is unlikely that the room would have gone against the founder, not to mention that it was a fait accompli.

I've contacted the BBC in support of Emma Barnett, praising the BBC for the refreshingly impartial interview. I did it from the medical & statistical accuracy perspective. It is EB's actual job to challenge error and obfuscation from charities, politicians and activists. She did her job, and did it well.

Ben Bradshaw MP on X/Twitter is coming across as quite unhinged over this interview. He's another one for the special padded room they're going to have to build in the Commons so that the chronically upset can have a nice lie down. Lisa Nandy's getting a chaise longue in a safe corner away from the book shelf.

Done the feedback for Emma Barnett - it took a minute and is very easy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/comments-feedback

Oh gosh pickled whatever could a male person who has their very own trans organisation AND is their region’s labour ‘women’s’ officer, want with added access to women’s health committees where they can be instrumental in creating policies that will negatively impact female people?
It is like an extreme activists dream, this role. It will take little time but imagine the access this gives this person? Particularly with a change in government, a regional Labour Party women’s officer, CEO of the region’s endometriosis charity, diversity award winner for inspirational woman of the year, and all while running a trans organisation that hold’s conference days where politicians sit with extreme trans activists, is almost guaranteed to be included in as many women’s committees as that activist wants.

All the influence to make changes that are likely to harm women because those changes will prioritise gender over sex when sex should be prioritised.

But apparently, there is nothing to be concerned about. In the freshly released statement, it is all just a fuss based on transphobia. No concern mentioned has merit at all says Richards. It is only hate.

Not sure I understand why it’s an AIBU but my god I am SO PLEASED Emma Barnett is drawing attention to this craze. It’s a men’s rights movement rebranded as progressive. You can’t erase sexism by erasing sex.

I’ve sent a supportive comment to the BBC as well, and it was easy to do. I came from the angle of being an endometriosis sufferer myself and how the disease is often overlooked largely because it is a women’s health issue, so it’s especially important to ensure that campaigning charities have people in charge who are knowledgeable and effective in post. Also lobbed in a comment about how EB is generally a brilliant presenter just in case.
I want to see more of this sort of thing on WH so hope they will see from comments from “normal” listeners that it is worth the flack from a tiny minority…