Woman's Hour Tues 20/11/18 "Why is the current debate about sex and gender so often called “toxic” - we hear from @Bex_Stinson and @helenlewis"

[MrsSnippyPants]

twitter.com/BBCWomansHour/status/1064804876327235584

Me too Lang*. She was fantastic. So very pleased, as I have been a great admirer of her for some time and subscribe to the NS podcast.

I also understand her wish to be fair and kind. Don't we all want to be that? But not just to trans people, to all people, including, er, women.

It was fascinating listening to BS frame the argument
They are masters of the slippery argument. When asked about groups of people (trans, women) BS managed to reduce it to the personal.
BS (with all the power of Stonewall behind them ) feels vulnerable ergo all trans are vulnerable.

"We offered Stonewall a space here to discuss this issue live and defend their views and policies, described by many feminists and LGB activists as homophobic, misogynistic and in contravention of equal rights legislation, but they declined stating that it is 'unsafe' for them to do so in public, despite offering private training around the country in schools and workplaces."

This is what platforms should say when Stonewall refuse scrutiny and accountability. And then they should make a point of asking the guests that turn up, "does this raise questions about whether Stonewall should be giving private training in this area, if they refuse public scrutiny?"

I suspect that Stonewall trainers are rarely challenged. Sessions will be very carefully manipulated with TWAW & #nodebate laid out as the framework.

Yes, that’s what I meant when I said they were in control of the narrative.

I meant that in theory, the exact same issues could come up in a training session but Stonewall don’t shy away from those- because they control the narrative. I didn’t mean that the issues are actually raised by anyone, sorry prob didn’t explain very well.

"does this raise questions about whether Stonewall should be giving private training in this area, if they refuse public scrutiny?"

^THIS. I think this is exactly the line we should be pushing if they continue with #nodebate

"does this raise questions about whether Stonewall should be giving private training in this area, if they refuse public scrutiny?"

Emphatically. The evidence base for the content of training should be available for scrutiny and there should be an explicit ethical framework within which that evidence is assessed.

And then, that training has to have an impact assessment for intersections within society, HR, law and policy etc.

Rosa Freedman's comment:

"I am a woman"
"I feel like a woman"
"I have solidarity with women"
"I feel safe in women's spaces"

"I won't come into a studio and talk to a woman about women's issues on Woman's Hour"

Ladies and Gentleman, I give you Bex_Stinson from Stonewall

twitter.com/GoonerProf/status/1064828108145070081

Rosa Freedman win's the internet.

does this raise questions about whether Stonewall should be giving private training in this area, if they refuse public scrutiny absolutely. Can we complain? They get public money after all.

If MN had a 'like' button I'd be leaving a trail of hearts all through this thread. Especially for this -

Stonewall's position is the reason for the toxicity. When any group makes demands that society changes on their behalf and strips out rights from other groups and then frames it (as they have done from the outset) as a no debate issue, then any challenge - no matter how reasonable - is always framed as hostile.

Will listen to this later - any idea how long the segment is?

Re Helen Lewis fence-sitting, I think she really does believe TWAW but is not crazy or stupid enough to believe some of the things that usually go hand in hand with that slogan (sex doesn't exist, women are the oppressors, etc).

I think making a point about TRAs refusing to turn up is a great idea. Remember Have I Got News for You and the tub of lard? Maybe have a lipstick and some glittery high heels on the chair.

Also thanks to JG.

What a difference it makes when the interviewer isn't doing their special sad voice!

This seems like an excellent series. Why the hell wasn't it out out before the GRA consultation ended?
Because, BBC bias.
While I disagree with her on TWAW I think the fact that this was her opening remark was fantastic. It immediately, but almost subconsciously, tells the listener that the person speaking is not an extremist. How’s can she be when she agrees TWAW? To follow on to make sensible, rational, well phrased opinions was excellent and will enable any listeners buying into the “be nice” rhetoric that actually, Helen is being nice but she’s still right. Much as I love Julie Bindel et al Helen will be that much harder to smear when she’s just been so reasonable.

All I am hearing from Bex is NAMALT.

Feminists: Men as a class represent a threat to the safety of women as a class. Certain spaces and services should remain female-only in order to minimise risk to women and girls.

Decent man: Yep, makes sense.

MRA: Not all men! How dare you suggest that I am a rapist just because I'm a man. Feminists hate men!

Feminists: Transwomen are male and the evidence available suggests that they pose much the same statistical risk of violence as any other male. There are also more and more cases cropping up of men who are clearly predatory using trans identities as a way to access potential victims. So there is no reasonable justification for allowing transwomen to be an exception to the rule of no males in female-only spaces.

Trans activist: But not all transwomen are predatory, how dare you suggest that I am a rapist just because I'm a transwoman. This is literal violence.

The thing is, all feminists, even the most liberal intersectional queer theory loving feminist, will reject NAMALT as a valid argument when it comes from the transparent MRA. But when the male identifies as a woman, suddenly NAMALT is a very persuasive point

The TRAs probably mistimed their recent no platforming of Jenni Murray. I doubt it went down well with the WH production team

What got me was how hypocritical it was to refuse to come on the show live because there was a danger from feminists while then taking it personally when JG said transwomen were statistically more likely to be violent. That's not okay but it's okay to label all feminists as dangerous.

There must have been a hell of a rebellion in the Woman's Hour offices.

I can't wait to hear the inside story when all this is over and they are making tv programmes about it all with titles like 'The decade Britain went mad'.

There must have been a hell of a rebellion in the Woman's Hour offices.

Do you think there was a throwdown and rumble between the Woke and the GC?

I've heard that there is a group of GC women at the BBC fighting for better coverage of this issue. So I imagine there's been a bit of a battle going on and that the WH's programmes this week represent a concession. Better late than never.

If any of those GC women lurk here, huge round of applause to you.

Do you think there was a throwdown and rumble between the Woke and the GC?

Maybe they realised that actually nobody at all really WAS woke and all the ones they thought were were just pretending because they thought THEY were woke and....

Now we just need that to happen in the rest of the world please.

I'm going to start making stickers that say "Here be TERFs" and put them on the door of toilets and other female only spaces, as apparently we are just so damn scary that no TW will dare to come in

only slightly joking

Lol olennas

Well. Helen came across as reasoned, humorous, intelligent and she was fantastic. She clearly didn't need luck.

Bex hiding away from the scary Helen was absolutely ludicrous. The whole thing is looking more and more pathetic as the spotlight shines.

I'm more than half-expecting, given the way that on both days the feminists wiped the floor with their TRA opponents, that on the other days the TRAs will drop out, citing BBC bias and hostility and saying they are too fearful to take part in the remaining debates.

Considering how many programmes the BBC have aired on this subject where all the participants were unquestioning supporters of transgenderism I think it would be perfectly fine to replace a baulking Stonewall representative with one of the transexuals who are currently castigated as truscum, and have them debate the issues with someone from ManFriday. Perhaps covering topics such as who is now sheltering under the trans umbrella, sissification porn, the prevalence of AGP in heterosexual men who chose to transition in middle age after benefiting from decades of male privilege to establish themselves in their careers, and if it really is unsafe for MtF transexuals to use the men's facilities which sex should be responsible for changing that situation?