Pilgrim Tucker, who spoke at the meeting last Tuesday, being stitched up on TV tomorrow?

[Datun]

She has tweeted that she was invited to talk about self ID on the Victoria Derbyshire Show being aired tomorrow at 9am.

But she had no idea that the interviewer was a transactivist. They only told her afterwards.

How much longer is this bias going to be pushed by the BBC? Will a gender critical woman be invited to interview a transactivist.? You know, in the interests of ‘fairness’.

How are women supposed to counter the #nodebate when it is being rigorously upheld by the BBC?

I sincerely hope the programme is fair and balanced, despite my misgivings...

mobile.twitter.com/PilgrimTucker/status/969544468750880774

I completely accept all the points people have made. I think it was a reasonably judged strategy for the audience and context. Hopefully it will lead to more. They were forced to agree a conversation is a good idea, which is actually quite a big step!

Well done to everyone brave enough to own this publicly, and to everyone on here whose determination has ensured that many more of us now understand the issues.

(By the way, I was in no way criticising Nic or Sarah with my suggestions. I thought they were great AND I think we need some bluntness!)

Donkey

I don't disagree with anything you say. I can feel your frustration emanating off my screen, and I share it.

I can't tell you the number of times I have imagined myself in just that situation. And, of course, I'm always incredibly incisive, blunt, irrefutable and victorious.

But Sarah and Nic have been doing this for several years, now.

They know the pitfalls, they know how things get twisted. I think the difference, in this case, is that the two TIMs on the TV came across as eminently capable of being taken down. They had virtually nothing, and they didn't do themselves any favours.

But that is not how this normally plays out. Both Nic and Sarah would have been subjected to the most vile abuse, personally, professionally, in every single area of their lives over this issue.

If they were treading carefully, I should imagine it was largely due to experience.

In hindsight, I think it's reasonable to assume they could have gone in a little harder, though. But hindsight is 20/20, as we all know.

You have to remember, this is virtually the first time where TRAs and feminists have even been allowed to debate on television.

It's unknown territory.

But it's a precedent. You can say the most undeniable things, in a perfectly reasonable way, as you pointed out in your post.

There are two things to consider. Firstly, it's being given the opportunity to talk in the first place. People are not going to host feminists if they aren't at least, partly, convinced of their stance.

Secondly, you are talking to people who are on a huge spectrum of understanding of the issue. From people who have never heard of it, to radical feminists who totally get it.

And I agree. Saying so rapists are going to female prisons will hit that spectrum on every point.

But, given, there are at least 15 different, individual objections ranging from children to women, to perves, they had to concentrate on one or two.

And rape refuges was obviously going to have to be one of them, because of the rape survivor who was booked in to speak.

It looked to me as though Pilgrim Tucker had said a whole load of stuff, that just did not get aired.

We are at the mercy of the people who run the platforms that allow us to speak.

But thank you for your post. It was a relief to read it.

I thought they played it very well. They came across as two lovely reasonable everywomen, concerned about children and everybody being treated fairly, when we were being set up to see a pair of angry feminist ballbreakers (with the greatest respect to all angry feminist ballbreakers here, including myself)

I can't imagine what would be more likely to make people go 'hang on a minute ...'

This was just the first step in the right direction, wasn't it? At some point we will be able to have the frank conversation called for by Donkey and others, but the media narrative right now is so stacked against GC feminism that to go in so hard and so bluntly would have only cemented the "nasty TERF" stuff being pedalled (very successfully) by the TRAs

What about if LangCleg's question were put to the trans activists: There is no barrier to convicted rapists and child sex offenders getting a GRC. Why not?

I reckon the answer would go something along the lines of: "Being trans is not a choice, and is completely separate to criminal status. You are suggesting that all transwomen are paedophiles, just like people used to say about gay people. This is transphobic bigotry, you nasty TERF"

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

At the bottom are your basic needs of food, water and shelter.
Then comes your safety and health.
Above that your social belonging.
Above that comes your esteem and worth.
And at the top comes self-actualisation.

Why are we putting people's whose basic need for safety after those who seek validation of their identity?

Rebecca Roots came over as nice, but not knowledgeable or bright. She made several points that were so so poor- her mum doesn't have periods, women who had hysterectomies are still women, I was beaten up by three men, why can't I go to a refuge?

Oh, and there will be checks and balances (no, that's the point, you're trying to take them away).

As for Clara, Well I don't think she did come across well. Sympathetic feminists imagine shar8ng a room with Rebecca, i think, rather than Clara or Heather.

TallulahWaitingInTheRain
I thought they played it very well. They came across as two lovely reasonable everywomen, concerned about children and everybody being treated fairly, when we were being set up to see a pair of angry feminist ballbreakers (with the greatest respect to all angry feminist ballbreakers here, including myself)

Don't tell anyone but I am one of those angry feminist ballbreaker in disguise!

I am one of those angry feminist ballbreaker in disguise!

DonkeySkin
I have read your feedback on the way Sarah and I pitched our arguments. I do understand your frustration - I share it too - that we can't go one and just say it like it is.

Rightly or wrongly I see this as a long game. My objective was show a concerned woman who was reasonable and compassionate - someone who ordinary people can easily see themselves agreeing with - and to dispel the myth set up by the TRA that feminists are transphobic bigots that must never be engaged with. It was a first to get two feminists on with two transwomen like that (and god a lot of pressure was put on behind the scenes to balance the panel up!) and I think if I went on too strongly I would have played into the TERF myth. We were never going to get every point in - and some are too complex for a casual observer - so I decided not to discussion trans lesbians or sexual fetishists for example. I went for the Guides example because its about kids and parents will be engaged by it. I also said the word penis and male quite a few times and the final 'here we are a two women and two transwomen' was a deliberate challenge to the claim that I consider transwomen as women. If I had come out with transwomen are men it would have shut down the debate I think.

Like everyone - when I watch things back I wish I'd managed to say this and say that - but hopefully this is a start that will open the door to more debates - each time we can push things further and further. If nothing else next time a TRA says its no debate and I will not debate with transphobes we can point to this. This was proof that debate can be had. Our job next is to keep pushing at the door now its ajar. Plus I am not professional telly person! I'm on a steep learning curve for certain but hopefully what I lack in finesse I make up for in authenticity :-)

And regarding my 'nobody wants to take rights away from anybody' I was meaning women don't want to take rights away from trans people so we should be allowed to speak. I wish I had been clearer as its seems that could be easily misinterpreted to mean I thought the reverse too! Which I don't. Trans people are grabbing at women's rights for sure. Its useful feedback to hear how things come across.

.

Well done, I thought you did very well. How the debate is framed is infuriating and it's so hard to get across what we need to.

I am learning from you and all the other sisters commenting here for the inevitable time when I have to speak up.

As far as I could see the whole thing was set up to prove that trans people are nice and people are scared of sharing bathrooms with them. You could easily have been lead up that dead end and left arguing a load of rubbish to prove the point but you all hung on to say that was not the case, everyone is totally normal and you left them with a couple of issues to think on and digest. As you say, this leaves the door open for more. You did good. If I had been anywhere near a would have fallen over before I even got to the first hurdle.

Thanks so much.

There is so much to be done in such a short time that sometimes I feel despair but this has given me hope. It is another step forwards.

I loved it..

Have been struggling from a personal professional and institutonal perspective to work out what I understood and believed in respect of this debate...having tentatively become aware of it only 4 mths ago...

I found it well balanced with the debate afterwards from Sarah (will have to Google all the participants afterwards)!...

@cockapoo ...you hit the nail on the head...

The key word is Penis...

Without one you are more welcome in public toilets...if you are truly a women then psychologically you should be more than willing to give up the phallic ...

If you are not gillick competent then the children's act still is the over riding legislation....with standard single sex exemptions for refuge and societies...

If you are in transition...then basic human rights are more than sufficient as per any other minority....

But if you wanna keep your dick...then you're not a women...if you want to lose it then the medical model continues to be required..both by way of psychological and surgical intervention.....

As you say....self identification cannot possibly stand as a piece of robust and protective legislation...

Rather whole idea is a basis for such bad law I don’t know why no one is seeing that.

I was pretty happy to see the way the debate played out after the frustratingly edited bits at the start.
I agree that going in too hard could have been counter productive and the long game makes sense. Both women managed to come across as entirely reasonable not as a raving man-haters which is also hugely important. The case for just wanting to ask questions/ debate also came across loud and clear.

cockapoo it was so brave to speak about your experiences and thank you for doing this

doctorw well done and thank you

Just managed to watch prog.
I thought you were all brilliant. So helpful to have someon brave enough to share own experience of needing safety of a refuge.

When I was a student a radio journalist asked me to comment on a big billboard advert for wondabra, “Hello boys” or something. The microphone was hosted in my face and I completely clammed up and talked nonsense.

You all came across as concerned, thoughtful and well informed. Great.

I liked nobody is trying to take anyone’s rights away. It was like an invitation to agree that is the best way forward.

I liked the returning to male violence, Girl Guides, refuges, prisons, all women shortlists. Loads of calm, pertinant points #timetodebate

I watched on catch-up with DH earlier. I got the distinct impression that Root had not appreciated there would be no gatekeeping for self-ID, as Sarah had to correct Root. Root then looked like they were having their own penny drop moment.

Clara needs some media training if they plan to make TV appearances a regular thing.

Totally agree @boatyardblues

Root then looked like they were having their own penny drop moment.

Yes, the look of shock and confusion was clear. But I’m not sure if Root wasn’t aware OR was more shocked that women ARE aware what it means, as they’re so used to silencing women aka #nodebate. Maybe Root just realised that he wasn’t dealing with a couple of transphobic ‘hysterical’ women, but two very calm intelligent women. How’s that no debate working for you? Does it still seem like a good approach? 😁

@ CockapooMum Thank you!

Thanks DoctorW. I do have more of an understanding now about why you took that particular approach and what you say about playing the long game.

And thank you a million times over for all your hard work on behalf of women and girls

@DoctorW thank you so much. I though you and Sarah were both excellent. I was scared to watch this but after, I felt that the amount of progress made had been huge thanks to your utterly rationale, sensible and non-confrontational approach. I can't imagine anyone watching the segment without any background knowledge of the situation could have formed any view other than 'wait a minute...we need to talk about with this means'.

@CockapooMum. You were amazing. I'm sorry for all you have been through. Thank you for sharing your story.

DrW I think if I went on too strongly I would have played into the TERF myth

You played it exactly right, thank you for being so elequent. And here’s to many more discussions like this!