Women’s Hour not fit for purpose

[IdaBWells]

So we can’t even have an HOUR a week and hear women speak during that time, male bodied people are centered.

See, this is why we HAVE to have Women’s only party lists, Women only sports, women only spaces because if it is not clearly defined that we mean BIOLOGICAL difference men will find a way (and the current one is to say they ARE in fact women) to erase us and tell us to like it and be nice about it.

We are 50% of the fucking population and through media alone they can think they can bully us by Orwellian thought police into earasing all our boundaries. While heterosexual men can be as laddish as they have ever been and never have to change or budge over for men in dresses, women are told, as ever, that we are the problem and now our privacy and boundaries around our biology is wrong.

I have to have a rant. I remember my mum when she was pushing boundaries and taking on bullying males in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s listening to Women’s Hour and I’m sure it was actually worth listening to?

Why can’t we have ONE televised show that would be on for an hour every week, run by all women that actually talk about what women want to talk about and not be a mouthpiece of the latest male propaganda. We don’t have one. Loose women doesn’t count, I mean meaningful discussion.

Women are now statistically more educated than men in the UK but we are treated as if we have no brains.

We must have a new women’s movement that is based on BIOLOGY and reality.

I think you are right to question if "Woman's Hour" is fit for purpose. If it unable to effectively address some of the most controversial issues around women's identities today then all that is left are some nice recipes, childcare, caring and a bit of chicklit.

Wardrobehamster I’d be interested to hear your mum’s thoughts. Personally I would imagine if you were completely new to the issue that today’s program would have left you confused and baffled. What it definitely did not convey was any sense of urgency on a government consultation that ends on Friday!

Women and girls, who gives a shit, right?

At least MN got a mention

Definitely agree, she's bright enough, and she has a good track record on reporting women's issues. But she doesn't know anything about this.

She won't be left to her own devices though. The emails and texts will be constant. They won't leave her alone.

Apols, I was responding to Ida there.

She won't read mumsnet. She is of an age to think very little of 'mums'.

It's not her fault, really. But the people who appointed her knew what they were doing.
No. It is her fault. It's her JOB to know the subject inside and out. Most people would not keep their job if they didn't bother to learn everything they need to know : chefs, nurses, call centre reps-ordinary people who are paid shit money are expected to complete training and process information in order to perform effectively.
This "Gender and identity" correspondent just hasn't bothered, and I reckon she's earning a damn sight more than most people are.
I don't normally listen to radio 4 but I'm disgusted by the blatant disregard for women's opinions, lack of airtime for actual women and misrepresenting issues that actually affect women.

I hope you've all tweeted them your disgust. I only caught about 10 mins of it en route to a meeting but it incensed me. I have got to email back British Gymnastics to tell them why I won't be renewing DD's membership this year too.

Women, real women, biological women, women from birth whatever I am allowed to call myself... are being marginalised by this debate and it's shocking that someone of the calibre of a WH presenter couldn't be more incisive and insightful about that!

P.S. "Front hole hour" made me snort my coffee.

OK, fair do. Yes, it's her job.

In the interests of accuracy, Front Hole Hour doesn't really speak for 80% of the people it's aimed at

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0000qpk
Just putting the link here for listening to later

In the first week I started saying what my thought were about this on Twitter I got called transphobic, a bigot and a TERF. I got suspended from Twitter for saying Aimee Challenor was a man. The very next day my Twitter account was hacked and my Twitter handle had been replaced with my real name. I can’t prove who did that but I’m pretty damn sure I know. I’m just an ordinary woman but I’ve had this kind of abuse that WH doesn’t mention. Let alone all the appalling abuse, rape threats. threats of violence, bomb threats, libel, silencing women who have tried to talk about this have faced. WHY WERE’NT WH TALKING ABOUT THAT???

Destinysdaughter do you think you would contact Megha Mohan and tell her your story? BTW I have just noticed that my autocorrect changed her surname to Mohamed for some reason and I also misspelled her first name, apologies to Megha.

WH are just missing a huge story for women and the involvement of women and Destiny your awful experience is a great example of women’s experience when they put their head above the parapet to get involved, they are actively and aggressively silenced and intimidated.

IdaBWells I won’t see my mum until next week, too late for the GR consultation. When I do see her I’ll try and get her to listen to the podcast. I’ll also try and remember to tell you all what she thought.

I can’t remember the proces now but I know it took me a while to understand what the GR consultation was about and then that it was open to public comment. It has been badly communicated. I am sure that most people in the UK are oblivious to it.

Honestly, I couldn't bear to listen due to fear it would be as bad as it turned out to be.

Did JG really shut down Dr Nic when she mentioned Karen White?

Yes she bloody did.

I thought it wasn't altogether terrible but the BBC's demented need to balance out views at all times, no matter their merit or popularity, is why you get one listener comment read out saying "you're all just bigots" and one read out saying "I'm concerend about safeguarding" regardless of whether they had ten of the former and 1000 of the latter.

And the show itself was definitely not balanced. Someone analysed speaker times (sorry, can't recall where I saw this) and the result is striking:

46% pro self-id voices
36% neutral voices
18% gender critical voices

Far too much time was allotted to yet another male pontificating on the needs of the trans identified male, demonstrating that the BBC still did not understand that this is not an issue predominantly of concern to trans people.

Also I wish that Bex Stinson hadn't been pre-recorded and could have been responded to by the studio guests. Because they flat out lied and/or misrepresented the facts. A lot.

1. Implied that GRA not working because only a few thousand (just over 4900 to be exact) GRCs have been issued. Neglects to mention that 5000 is precisely how many people were expected to apply as this law was written for the tiny number of transsexuals in the UK

1. Claimed that proving "living in one's chosen gender" is costly ("costs running into thousands") and cumbersome to fulfill the requirements. This is an allusion to people getting private treatment to transition of course, but actually medically transitioning is NOT a requirement to receive a GRC. So whatever people pay, it's not to qualify for a GRC. And the proof is bills in one's new name and stuff like that btw. No more cumbersome than the proof one has to provide to apply for a new bank account or some such.

1. The PANEL, oh boy, the panel. Yes, you never meet them, but civil servants locally help trans people fill in the form and collect the evidence and put it together in the most favourable way. This (according to trans orgs) is a valuable service but Stinson here makes it sound like trans people are all alone.

1. "Nobody knows who the panel is." Again Stinson deliberately leaves out pertinent details. An application for a GRC is a legal application. The Gender Recognition Panel is a normal part of the UK's Courts and Tribunal system that includes employment tribunals, family courts, immigration appeals, criminal injury and so on.

The last up-to-date info where the head of the panel, the head of the admin team and the deputy responsible for the members are named is from 2014 when Action for Trans Health was publishing the office address of the judge and asking trans activists to "pop down there and let them know what you think". That might explain why I can't find more recent names.

But generally speaking, the names of members of particular courts and tribunals are also not made public for obvious reasons. They are independent members of the Tribunal judiciary though and while they may indeed not be experts in transsexualism, their job is to inform themselves and then decide accordingly - as they do in all other Courts and Tribunals. Presumably there is a group of such members who will be called up repeatedly - but I don't know.

So a totally normal occurence not something sinister at all.

1. "The panel do not get to meet you and can't ask questions" true in general, but the panel can and has called upon people to appear in person.

1. "You can't appeal if they decide one way or the other" Doubly incorrect. As with all other tribunals, one can appeal on a point of law (ie if the process wasn't followed correctly) but most importantly applicants can re-apply. There is no limit given to how often, but one must wait six months after being refused before doing so. (Explanatory Notes to the GRA, Chapter 7 Section 8).

1. Stinson also made it sound as if refusals of applications were common. In actual fact the rate of refusal hovers around the 5% mark.

1. Good question from the interviewer on people who oppose self-id. Stinson couldn't reject that women are oppressed, randomly listed things women fought for couldn't do but brings it back to TW can't walk the streets safely. Quite how sex self-id will solve that particular issue no one knows. The interviewer certainly doesn't come back on that one

1. "The idea that there could be competing rights - the government said it wouldn't reform the EA, so there can't be competing rights." Really wished at this point the interviewer was better informed. Competing rights have existed since the GRA was made law. Not even the EA could solve the issue - on the contrary it acknowledges that there are competing rights, specifically referring to people with GRCs being excluded. Because many public bodies and orgs and services have adopted self-id already, we do know there are competing rights of course with plenty of evidence now to prove it.

So just because the government says it won't change the EA, rights compete because of the GRA as it stands, not because the government acknowledges or denies it.

& to add both Stonewall and the government were intending to change th EA. Stonewall has campaigned to remove sex based protections:
James Kirkup
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1004635839480164352.html?refreshed=yes

"Some facts about the events that preceded the Government statement here that the coming consultation on the Gender Recognition Act will be narrowly drawn and not affect the Equality Act’s single sex exemptions.

I offer these facts because some are claiming “there was never any question of removing/amending EA exceptions.” Those claims are either mistaken or dishonest.
August 2015
Stonewall submission to the Women & Equalities Select Committee says MPs should amend the EA to
“remove exemptions, such as access to single-sex spaces” (continues)

I feel so let down by women's hour, in quite a personal way some how.
I would have believed they would have been at the forefront of giving space to women's rights debate.

The opposite has been true.
It feels like a serious betrayal that has permanently altered my view and relationship to WH and the BBC more widely.

They should have been covering it more than once anyway, with updates without bias.

My Dad heard it and thought it was a load of "fluff" with serious discussion sidetracked.

Is your Dad aware of the issues Gulags or new to them?

Spiked has had more comprehensive coverage of the issues than the BBC's Woman's Hour FFS.

R0wantrees I can't get the link to the James Kirkup thread on the campaign to remove sex based exemptions to work. Do you have another one as I thought I might send it to Maria Caulfield.

Procrastinator1 Do you mean JK's twitter threadreader? posted above at Wed 17-Oct-18 01:50:20.

You can get to it via twitter link: twitter.com/jameskirkup/status/1004635839480164352

scroll down and the link to thredreader will be there. Its easier to read in a single document.