Radio 4 29/01/18 at 1pm - Martha Kearney on World at One

[prettyusefulsometimes]

Will be discussing Labour, AWS and trans women. Didn't catch other contributors and can't find a precis.
I'm going to take some prophylactic paracetamol and wrap radio in bubble wrap/put it on a high shelf.

Madigan sounded like they were stuck in a record. It's off putting and in no way endearing to their 'cause' whatever that is.

But editing mean't that Madigan went first and Bellos was second, so Madigan's speech was lost somewhat.

I disagree entirely with what Nauticant wrote. I didn't get that at all.

And apparently labour do need to be careful:

The myth of the 2017 'youthquake' electionwww.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42747342

What a total waste of an excellent opportunity! Miserably disappointed. I wish Linda had asked Liam to define woman and to explain how a man can belong to the sex that produces sperm, and also belong to the sex who produces eggs!

The presenter allowed the interview to be hijacked and Linda was forced into the defensive.

The average listener will now walk away with the idea that the purpose of the programme was to show that Black "loonie lefty" Labour women are violent!

My daughter signed up and voted and is no longer a member nor is she interested. She is more interested in Brexit and getting a good career post graduation. She is most disappointed in Corbyn's stance post Brexit and will 'never forgive him' for it!!

Were we listening to the same radio segment?

Did she not know JC was never a big EU fan?

I'm hoping that it being featured on World at One means that Woman's Hour will pick it up soon. I don't see how they can go on ignoring it.

Just listened to it on the podcast, didn't think it got the main issues out that need to be said.

Lily sounded so petulant. I could imagine Lily with arms crossed and a scowl - Lily isn't a natural in this position. Lily reminds me of a lot of my gay male friends I had when I was an adolescent.

That reads appallingly!

Was disappointed the nuisance of self ID and GRC was lost.

There’s too much to cover in a WH segment. The issue needs to be examined in depth as superficially it seems to many to be fairly straightforward (be inclusive, don’t fall into the ‘new homophobia’).

If I was Linda Bellos, I'd get lawyered up. Lily is treading on very think ice indeed.

DD 21 does not want 'he' is able to represent women!

There’s too much to cover in a WH segment. The issue needs to be examined in depth

Perhaps it could be a good topic for David Aaronovitch* to cover in The Briefing Room.

• twitter.com/DAaronovitch/status/916664792823291904

Absolutely agreed hipsterfun but I think WH would get the issue to the kind of audience that might not be aware of it currently and would be pretty outraged to discover what's going on. An additional programme examining it in depth, and how we've arrived at where we are, is also needed.

(Incidentally, I've heard trailers for a programme about gender - what it means to be female? - on tonight I think. Must check that out.)

I think those trailers are about a phenomenon where someone changed sex and their work was then recognised (can't remember details) - unconscious bias against women.

WH wouldn't touch with a barge pole following the issues with JM last year imo.

The briefing room sounds good though.

I wish I could have heard:

1. If you follow Madigan's argument to its logical conclusion, you could have an All Women's shortlist comprised entirely of people with penises and none with vaginas. Would that be okay with Labour?

2. Besides, a woman is an adult human female by definition, d'oh. But if Madigan thinks not perhaps a different definition could be provided?

3. List of specifically women's issues ,which pps have listed above.

But yes maybe some other parts of the interview were edited out.

Bit of a dog's breakfast that interview. However, we are still at the stage of getting it into the public arena, which is an important first step. Once it becomes a big issue with everyone there will be a chance to get to the real nub of the problem. Shouldn't take long at this rate now Corbyn as broken cover (well sort of).

By the way, hearing Lily for the first time, my reaction was that they are a camp gay man. All that sibilance!

"HomeTerf* I felt sorry for Linda though. There is SO MUCH to say on this that it's hard to know where to start.

Exactly, and knowing Liam's tactis is always to twist it to make the other person the aggressor, if it had been me being interviewed I would have written down a few challenging phrases and kept repeating them until he gave me an answer.

But then, the thing was edited, mixed about, etc, so it wasn't even a debate of him vs her.

Pointless programme which has not helped our cause one whit.

WH wouldn't touch with a barge pole following the issues with JM last year imo.

Maybe JM having been directly in the firing line of the 'transphobe' accusation for speaking the truth might make them more keen to cover it. But I think it would have to be on one of Jane Garvey's days

What about it being mentioned on the news at 10 on bbc1? Having spotted that happening yet?

Also, I am shocked that the Labour Party is STILL endorsing Liam and allowing him to appear on BBC Radio masquerading as a "women's officer" when we have provided the LP with tons of evidence that he created and admins two secret FB hate groups, spies on women members and non members, collects secret dossiers on them, and then lists them on a hit list inviting them to be harassed and abused.

Why is Labour still endorsing him? Because they agree with his witch hunt of women who don't think women have penises?

OnLiamsList - yes, it's impossible to debate with someone only parrots meaningless phrases ('hate speech') and focuses on their own emotions. (Oh, and won't actually debate anyway.) Pointless and frustrating.

I'm hoping you're right whoput and that it falls into the "all publicity is good publicity" camp.

Why won't Woman's Hour touch this? Did JM get too much stick and they feel their fingers are burned?