Women's Hour Tomorrow!

[MsBeaujangles]

The consultation is going to be discussed tomorrow on Women's Hour. They are asking for our views!

Men winning Women's sports. Men taking Women in Business and Women in Tech awards. Men being womens speokespeople in Politics and Universities. Christ, in 2018, why wouldn't any clever girl not want to be a boy!

Oh yes - that BBC person with the title that JG didn't know was an embarrassment. Unfocused and irrelevant.

And agreed with all posters pointing out the preferential treatment / time for the pro GRA pronouncements.

It would be interesting to listen again and measure the airtime given to each guest. Someone did that after the genderquake shitshow and it was quite the eye-opener.

And considering how many of us took considerable time and effort to email in with our comments. Was that just a total waste of our time?

Jane did say she has a truck load of emails to wade through for the pod cast.

procrastinator he’s offered his services for free to one of the organisations representing women in this space. Love the man.

I can't quite get over how strongly the counterpoint to the GC view was based on how people feel, tbh, to the point where the only response that really came through in an attempt to engage with the actual fact based arguments was 'You sound scared'.

It's like these people have closed off their rational abilities and focused on feelings to the degree that all they notice is emotional content, and have absorbed this strange 'positivity' mantra that insists that personal impression trump reality.

I have a phrase running through my head all the time when I hear them or read them, and it's "Are you out of your fucking mind?"

Shame sport wasn't mentioned actually,

Possibly as a result of the broadcast (because of timing rather than anyone referencing the program), someone has tweeted

Access to precisely which women-only safe spaces depends on one being able to show a birth certificate? This is an emotive issue, but don’t jump on me - I am really trying to understand the concerns of those who oppose changes to the Gender Recognition Act.

I don't hold any hope for women hour actually dedicating any real time and investigation into:

Sex and science

Men being counted in crime statistics that were once female only.

The medicalisation and infertility issues of young people on medication to halt puberty.

Young women binding their chests - I mean what the fuck??

Safeguarding of children.

I could go on but no chance of it being researched and aired - no chance.

I thought it was very interesting..not balanced but some key problems for me were raised like you can live like a woman, ‘identify’ as one (whatever that actually means) but you can’t be one...That’s important to me..However, i was totally thrown when the Rabi came on and talked about ‘they’..I thought she had two kids...what complete sad batshittery. My compassionate side felt very sorry for her daughter/son (I didn’t catch what she had) the mental torment must be debilitating. Also, if the WHO have removed gender dysphoria from a recognised list of mental conditions then how will people who suffer from it get help...and why 80% of trans women don’t remove their male genitalia is a discussion for another episode of WH..🤪

Anyone have a working link so I can listen, the one on the bbc just throws up an error message when I click on it

The bit I shouted at was about marriage and consent, though I thought Debbie (I think it was Debbie) answered that well saying that the person could do what they wanted with their gender, it was getting the GRC that was the issue. If the partner doesn't want to be married to someone changing gender (sex?), why should they be forced to be? It's not stopping someone getting a GRC, they just need to get divorced first. Though whoever it was who emphasised that lots of partners were woke enough to carry on with the marriage annoyed me too!

Oh yes - that BBC person with the title that JG didn't know was an embarrassment. Unfocused and irrelevant.

Megha Mohan (just in case you're reading MN)

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5983969/BBC-hires-gender-diversity-correspondent-cover-issues-sexuality-race.html

And sorry I missed some of it - was butterfly mentioned?

Megha is going to find this job very hard. Hope she's good at twister.

One edition, up tight against the Friday deadline, is not enough to cover all the issues involved.

I don't get why no one can see why the equality act just cannot work if you have self-id.

How can you have discrimination on the grounds of sex or exemptions to discrimination on the grounds of sex when you can no longer define what sex is? The GRA takes away the definition of sex in a legal sense.

Also, your birth certificate is not your legal identity. It is only the record of your birth. It interacts with other information to give you a legal identity. Legally falsifying it and closing the records makes no sense. Maybe they should stop closing the records if they make changing it available to all?

Blooper It appears to be on the iplayer but you might have to register to hear it.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007qlvb/episodes/player

I really hope that now they have 'started the conversation' they will slip it in more frequently to other items, as a reflection of how it is slipping into every aspect of women's lives. So, if they have a cyclist on, ask about Hannah Mouncey etc

On the issue of spousal veto, the TRAs always make out its about them being forced to get permission, when it's actually better framed (in the context of an adult personal relationship) as them having to get consent.

In any situation where two people have entered a legal partnership, one has to get consent from the other before making fundamental changes to that relationship. This is how it should be.

By making it sound like their partner is an authority they have to bow to when TRAs use the word permission, they can pretend the relationship is unfair and act like they're being infantilised and dominated (something that many middle aged male transitioners otherwise seem to enjoy play acting when it comes to 'being the woman in bed', 'going through puberty as a girl this time', 'being taught how to dress and wear makeup', etc..). They try to cover up the fact that they are actually talking about a person with equal stake in that partnership whose own life and identity will be affected.

If the government wants to insist on keeping the legal fiction of sex change, the spousal veto is absolutely necessary to protect partners and families.

Thanks BarbaraofSevillle

Nics point that trans women actually want to become female was a good one to highlight the batshittery.

For the average listener with half a brain they will think it's all hunky dory.

But the politician-style swerving and dodging and fudging from the genderist make it blatantly clear that there is an issue, even if you didn't actually listen to the content - people know when people are lying.

I wish that FPFW would get some media training. They don't come across strongly enough. Nicola allowed JG to shut her down several times. JG even mis-named her organisation (Fair Play To Women) and Nicola didn't correct her.

Considering that Radio 4 is usually quite proud of not having a watershed why did this programme suddenly go so coy about mentioning sex-differences / genitals? Do they not realise that the whole point is 'because biology'?

I have emailed. I mentioned sports again. Sports is easy because surely no sane person thinks it's fair.
I also mentioned safeguarding children.
Disappointed but not surprised

I've just been told that because I'm like a racist because I don't believe we should accept male bodied people into female only spaces. Apparently that is akin to a racist picking one terrible example of sexual assault by an immigrant and saying we should close our borders.

Can anyone help me think of a reply more suitable that "oh do fuck off dear?"