Women's Hour features interviews with Professor Alex Sharpe and Professor Rosa Freedman as part of 'Sex & Gender' series **Thread title edited at OP's request**

[kesstrel]

The topic is "The law on sex and gender".

Cissexual has to be the result of them finally understanding that very few people, least of all feminists, align with gender expectations.

So is this a new term to describe someone who hates their anatomy, or thinks it's wrong? As opposed to hating their gender (stereotypes).

It's too little, too late. Because under what circimstances would someone hate their genitalia, if it wasn't because they didn't want to be that sex. It's the same argument, just one step backwards.

Plus, it eliminates everyone who absolutely does want to present as the female/feminine gender, but loves their penis.

Scorrrre.

Did Alex say, between sniffs, "cissexual" and "cisgender"? There is more than one version of the cis?
I don't get the cissexual especially.

I adored the "I thought it stood for sister" comment on Twitter. Perfect.

I find it difficult when listening to the radio to get past the sound of the voices. I wish trans women would choose clearly female names so that those of us who are/may be on the autistic spectrum can clearly identify what the heck is going on.

There was a stage when they were calling us cissies, which was particularly lovely.

Thanks datun
We crossed posts there. I was busy googling it too. I thought I'd misheard!

Alex could just have said: "Cis is a word we use to describe people who aren't trans."

Alex was studiously avoiding claiming that they had invented a word for 99.9% of the population, because Alex needs to be validated.

There is no way in hell the general public is going to accept that the definition of a cisman is not a woman who identifies as a man.

Laughable.

"exclusive feminism" its "like bubonic plague"

It’s in the soil.

So it gives you unsightly boils and a fever then?

Who else punched the air when Rosa finished?

In a discussion of the programme on a fb group I am on :

Oh, and any TERFs here feel inclined to argue, I won't indulge, so just block me instead.

#nodebate then? How very fucking novel. Trying hard not to bite on this one as I don't think it's worth it!

(Waves to fellow GC radio 4 fb group members!!)

I wonder what the experience of using social media looks like when you've banned everyone who understands how babby is formed.

Blocked, rather.

It seems Alex Sharpe managed to present arguments less cogently than in this conversation piece that AS and Rosa Freedman (with Rosemary Auchmuty) did earlier this year:

theconversation.com/what-would-changes-to-the-gender-recognition-act-mean-two-legal-views-103204

I'd say that was three - nil.

Feminism's coming home.

What I am taking from these WH slots is that there are moves to change the narratives to ones that the TRAs think are more defendable amongst the masses. Today's new narrative was the shift from cis gender to cis sexual.
I think this reflects an awareness that the #no debate fight has been lost and so the narrative needs to change.
I really hope we get to a stage where all interests can be respected, discussed and considered without anyone experiencing such discussions as a hate-fest.

Oh Alex, that didn’t go so well. It never happens apart from the times when we know it has, and GC women are like the plague, well that’s just amazing reasoning isn’t it? What a total fucking prick. On balance I think nodebate was the right choice, because Prof Rosa would have wiped the floor with you and made you look even more incoherent and vitriolic than you managed by yourself. I know it would be going some but your viciousness and stupidity is without end, it would seem.

Well done Rosa, you rock.

Feminism's coming home.

Looking at the WH thread, I'm not sure.

So many womenhave no idea what's happening and announcing they're bored of such a 'minority issue'. It's still playing out as a minority issue, not something with extended, unintended (?) ramifications for safeguarding and so much else. (Plus so many of the issues raised in the #OneLaw4All conference.)

On balance I think nodebate was the right choice, because Prof Rosa would have wiped the floor with you and made you look even more incoherent and vitriolic than you managed by yourself.

Very true. Refusing to debate makes them look pathetic, but actually debating makes them look enormously stupid, which they probably see as worse. Correctly, as it happens.

Did Alex say that cis-woman was another term for natural woman or real woman? Does that mean Alex doesn't think transwomen are real women?
The whole 'debate' is confusing because others say transwomen are real women (India W for example).

so today we have moved on to what the law says about sex and gender. Is the safety of women and girls genuinely threatened by the reform of the gender recognition act allowing people to self identify now as female or male and what does the law say about the rights of all women and how should the law should be interpreted.

so in a moment I will talk to Rosa Freeman who is professor of law, conflict and global development at the university of reading and rosa is also a barrister

first up err Alex Sharp is Professor law at the university of keel, she's a human rights barrister and er um Alex you are a trans women,

So many womenhave no idea what's happening and announcing they're bored of such a 'minority issue'

That's fine.

I agree, we are under time pressure. But viewing as a minority issue is part of the process.

Asking if it's a minority or saying it is, is moving the narrative forward. Because people will reply and say no, it's going to affect 100% of the population, if anyone can be any sex.

What's happened on mumsnet is a microcosm. Which is why they are being relentlessly pressured to shut us down.

People start off wondering what all the fuss is about, decide it's nothing to do with them, then start to see it in more places, so go and take a look.

Then someone in their kids' school, a relative, a newspaper article, pushes too far into their conscience for them to ignore it.

So they go looking and ask questions. As soon as they ask questions, the no debate and fury it provokes does the job.

Did Alex say that cis-woman was another term for natural woman or real woman? Does that mean Alex doesn't think transwomen are real women?
The whole 'debate' is confusing because others say transwomen are real women (India W for example).

It was Jane who was giving examples, I think.

Alex agreed. Because disagreeing would've taken Alex down a rabbit hole of no return. Claiming that men who identify as women are real/genetic/biological women is an insanity too far. Alex knows that.

I don’t get this
Trans women want to be women yet they don’t have a scooby about women
Dismissing fears and actual debate
Which bits of us do trans women want to be

OK so you know you are coming onto BBC Radio 4's Women's Hour.

You should have been listening last week and be aware that you will be asked for clarification on jargon terms used.

How hard would it be to prepare?

Cis is basically the opposite of trans, so someone who is not trans. But instead of using a negative "non trans" we use the term cis, spelled "C" "I" "S". This term comes from (latin?) and is used in chemistry it means in the same place, where "trans" means across from.

(I think that's right isn't it? tip for the next TRA who wants to go on Women's Hour).

Also, might be worth preparing your actual arguments a bit too, so you don't come across as a defensive fool who doesn't really understand the point they are trying (badly) to make.

Rosa was great. Until tomorrow then....