Thanks R0wantrees I'm sure that list will be really helpful to some of the many lurkers and visitors. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant that while I do understand why Stonewall would be doing that - I don't think that someone who hadn't read a few threads here already would have grapsed it from that interview.
I think that Stonewall is a 'strong brand', one most people have heard of and know is a gay rights organisation. So they'll have thought 'eh? fighting women's rights? What's that got to do with being pro-gay rights?' I'd imagine that most people either haven't put 'trans' and 'gay' together in their minds, as they are such different things, or, lump everything other than heterosexuality into an 'alternative' bundle that they aren't especially interested in but may feel generally benign or generally hostile towards.
So, I felt that the dots needed to be joined - rather they first needed to be presented e.g. 1) T added to LGB (by whom, because?), 2) T activists become prominent in LGBT organisations, 3) T activist agenda perceived to be in conflict with women's rights by women's rights activists, including lesbians.
But if no-one tells you 1 and especially 2, or makes any distinction between 'trans activist' and 'transsexual' it sounds, unfortunately, as though an organisation well known for defending and progressing minority rights (a liberal 'good thing') is meeting resistance from some women's groups, who may thereby be inferred to be conservative, prudish, stick-in-the-muds, or radical separatists left over from the 70s, who are probably just a bit old-fashioned, one way or another, as aren't all these progressive lefty causes basically the same thing?
To make the point that the rights of all women are at issue, not just the preferences of a few prudes or ideologues, it is essential to state what Stonewall (and other T-activist groups) is, these days, if you're going to refer to them. Otherwise it's just confusing.
I don't mean to be unkind to the interviewee and don't feel I'd do any better, on any subject. It's exactly because I know how I have and might respond to pressure that I 'heard' 'needs a cup of coffee' and 'is mentally on the defensive' so casting about in the wrong section of the brain, instead of 'ready, with a few key phrases, strong examples and a firm but positive attitude'.
The 'women with penises' point did come across. A bit more on why that might make women uncomfortable would have been good. That it conflicts with religious minority rights. That self-ID would allow men with ill-will to enter female-only spaces. Examples of this from the countries mentioned. What I heard was that self-ID had happened in a number of countries and there were no problems to report.
There was another interview on the subject on Today a few weeks ago, at 8.20ish, discussed here I'm sure, with two people going 'back and forth', which worked much better I thought. It made the point about Girl Guides (a simple example that people can grasp, enough, without context) and, while the TRA went on about being attacked on Twitter by rabid women, the other interviewee very sensibly didn't respond to that (had she done so, it would have descended into a 'she said', 'yeah but she said' slanging match and made them both look like loons) and sounded much firmer and more sensible.