Paris Lees interviewed by Nick Robinson on Radio 4 now on.

[R0wantrees]

Just listening...

The additional recording is very telling, that the trans activist aims are to "educate" the public to think differently, that it's worked with the younger generation via social media and schools, now they are going to work on the older generation now via the traditional media and PL was enraged that NR would not play along and ruined an opportunity.

I got the impression NR can see that the Emperior has no clothes on and can see what PL and others are trying to achieve, that he can tell they are extremely touchy and OTT, he is used to more stoic characters and that PL has too fragile an ego, so is unsuited to political debate.

PL was wrong footed because NR gave opportunity for the "poor me" story, showed empathy, crucially NR didn't let the empathy stop his critical thinking, NR didn't lie, NR did his job properly, PL failed at what is usually a successful tactic so out came the rage.

PL was wrong footed because NR gave opportunity for the "poor me" story, showed empathy, crucially NR didn't let the empathy stop his critical thinking I have seen a county court judge do this with a fence dispute where the a person who claimed the fence had been moved had not a scrap of evidence (because it hadn't happened) and was allowed to say everything they wanted, questioned extensively and politely and given every help to state the case, then it was totally dismissed and the report was watertight, no appeal possible. It is hugely impressive.

There have been a number of recent media interviews which if they were written down as a transcript would be really interesting to consider and analyse.

In some cases to show innacuracies, or to deconstruct the argument made.

In others to demonstrate rhetorical devices, propaganda techniques etc.
cf people.howstuffworks.com/propaganda1.htm

PL should stick to wide eyed outraged journalists like Schofield and Derbyshire in future.

Robinson has too much experience of slippery, lying politicians using every tactic and manipulation going.

^^ this

Rowan I still don't see wh discussing what is the the the biggest threat to women's rights

This was exactly the tactic used at my mandatory trans trg at work. Transwoman tells assembled entirely female room how awful it is being dysphoric, but how being misgendered is even more awful and states her aim is for everyone to leave the session truly believing she is a woman. She bottled though and didn’t outright ask at the end. Good for NR. PL is obviously way too used to people lying in an attempt to be nice. No one believes a man can ever magically become a woman. But being polite and trying not to hurt their feelings has got us into this fecking mess. Glad people are starting to stop short of knee jerk affirmation now.

How come this didn't get more publicity at the time? It's a very clever interview

Pratchet may be now the Government have released their statement there will be explicit discussion?

I truly hope so. They've been terrified or complicit so far.

Re the comment above about persuasive language devices eg propaganda:
there's an extended comment on the following thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3241837-Why-has-the-trans-lobby-been-so-successful?pg=5

PL on women's prisons: women kill women so are you saying women should be banned from women's prisons?

PL on changing rooms: ban lesbians?

PL: is it right to say black people shouldn't be Uber drivers?

PL: is it right to say gay people shouldn't be teachers?

It's a common tactic of TRA - instead of justifying why sex segregation is wrong, they use other people in made up scenarios. Of course it's not right to stop black people becoming taxi drivers - but nobody is campaigning for that, similarly for lesbians in changing rooms.

It's pretending to illustrate the absurdity of excluding TIM from women's spaces, but all it does is change the subject. It is a tactic to avoid talking about male violence.

I will look at the propaganda thread, I don't know how it is broken down.

PL hasn't worked out that the fluff journalists are on primetime daytime TV, they are all about emotions. Victoria Derbyshire is the Middle-class This Morning, they play the game Paris is very good at winning.

Nick Robinson plays a different game, he plays you try to bullshit me, see what you can get away with and see what you can't, his guests know this and play along. Nick is confused that Paris is outraged and Paris is outraged as Paris is used to winning with fluff journalists like Owen Jones.

Fluff journalist get to look good, be outraged and tell people off for wrong thought. Paris gets to play poor me and be the Emperor.

I've copied the extended comment across because it seems it may be of interest

this is a really basic guide

Propaganda Techniques

people.howstuffworks.com/propaganda1.htm

"A commonly used technique is name-calling, which takes its cue from playground behavior. Often, this technique is utilized to divert attention when someone is trying to avoid answering a question or providing hard facts.

The bandwagon technique encourages the viewer or listener to join the crowd by aligning with the most popular, successful side of an issue

Glittering generalities are very common in political propaganda. Glittering generalities combine words that have positive connotations with a concept that is particularly beloved.

Card stacking is the presentation of only the details, statistics and other information that impacts public opinion positively. In other words, the bad stuff is left out entirely.

The plain folks technique is designed to get ordinary citizens to identify with a political candidate or other figure that they otherwise may have nothing in common with.

Propaganda based on fear is designed to scare people into choosing sides.

The transfer technique is more subliminal (operating on a subconscious rather than conscious level) than the other techniques we've discussed. Using this method, a group or person attempts to align themselves with a beloved symbol in an effort to transfer the status of the symbol to the cause they represent.

Many other propaganda methods exist, but they subsist on the same basic principles as the ones listed above: Manipulate the message to portray an issue or person in the most favorable light possible, and when necessary, make the opposing side look shabby in comparison.

Many people believe that propaganda does more harm than its proponents would admit to. Some go so far as to claim that propaganda is a bedfellow of censorship because they both serve as tools for repression, confusion and suppression of information

Of course it is important to acknowledge that the use of these makes no comment on the worthiness of the cause. They have been employed to great effect by many admirable people

I think PL seemed surprised that Constantly repeating the same old argument didn’t make NR agree. Well done Nick.

From interesting and significant 2013 Guardian article:

' Voices from the trans community: 'There will always be prejudice'
It's more than 50 years since the UK's first trans person was outed in the press. So how do members of the community think life has changed for them since?'

(extract)
"In 25 years, [James] Barrett has seen trans people become "a networked bunch" – more so than other people, he thinks – thanks to the internet. [Paris] Lees , who also works for Trans Media Action, says social media is the "essential catalyst" for the transformation of trans people in society. "Society is in transition and we've woken up from the operation and there's no going back. We can't pretend that trans people don't exist any more," she says. "People have been taking the piss out of trans people for 60 years. The narrative on trans issues has been controlled by people who have no understanding of them. Social media is about us grabbing the narrative back and telling our own stories – this is our reality, this is what we go through and this is what matters to us. We're here, we're in your face, we definitely exist. That's the most important thing – realising we exist."

www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/22/voices-from-trans-community-prejudice

Paris, yes you are a person you exist, you are trans you exist. I don't have to believe you are a biological adult human female for you as a person to exist, you can't make me or anyone else believe what we don't. Paris you are not a Jedi Knight that waves your arm or a a fairy that waves a magic wand, or an Emperor wearing special clothes. You are a standard mediocre unique person like everyone else, who exists.

Anyone can find anything amusing, you can't stop that Paris, there will always be someone laughing at you for a variety of reasons in life, just like everyone else, it's part of being human.

Transpeople are become more visible and talking more about themselves and their experiences in the media - which is great. But at the same time expect women not notice or talk about how our bodies and experiences are so very different.

What stood out was in the beginning part of the interview PL describes the bullying (/abuse?) at home by her father, having all "girly" toys thrown out and being ridiculed for being basically a gender non conforming gay boy.

This story echos that of Jackie Green and many other angry TRAs.

I really feel for these children.

Something really terrible has happened in society over the past generation that has doubled down on gender roles, stereotypes, and lead so many (young) people to believe they need to mutilate their healthy bodies to fit in better.

, I don't think it's just past generations unfortunately.

People have been taking the piss out of trans people for 60 years

That isn't nice and I can accept it can be damaging. But how can people take the piss out of trans people while at the same time denying they exist? It sounds a bit Schrödinger to me. (Although I suppose quantum mechanics is an improvement over religious ideology.)

The long version is worth a listen to if you have time.

Interesting that in the bit following the interview, NR said something along the lines of, "when I asked you questions about what feminists and other people are concerned about, I thought you would say we need to talk about the concerns but actually you were angry that I was asking the question" and PL in response witters on about the questions not being legitimate but young people get it and the old ones will be dead soon.

That point by NR will go over very well with listeners to that programme and any reasonable person really.

And his response when PL asked if NR thinks PL is a woman was extremely telling. Of course he doesn't think PL is a woman, he's just being polite. I wonder if India Willoughby was there if IW would have screamed "I'M A REAL WOMAN" at him.