Woman's Hour

[Glinner]

I think this is a very good point from another thread.

"Worth also emailing Woman's Hour if you haven't already and were pleased by the 'sex and gender' series.

Seems there's been quite a lot of negative feedback.
One never knows the motivation of people who write in in significant numbers.

It was an unusual opportunity to hear from amazing speakers such as Helen Lewis, Kathleen Stock, Rosa Freedman, Michelle Moore etc.

It would be a shame if what seemed like the beginning of discussions about women's rights came to an abrupt end as 'people didnt want to hear about trans issues'

That there is some tension with presenters & BBC editors seems likely.

Dr Nic Williams (Fairplay for Women) commented after the episode she was on re sport, that writing in would encourage/ enable (?) coverage to continue.

Mail on Sunday:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6500285/Listeners-complain-trans-debate-says-Womans-Hours-Jane-Garvey.html "

Thanks. I'll write in support.

To be fair, they did spend a whole week on the issue. And they haven't been accused of rampant transphobia. Only "I'd rather hear about cooking for Santa" or whatever.

They would have got through to thousands of listeners though. And I could guarantee their figures went up.

People just don't understand it.

I was interested to read a debate on the Ann lister plaque in a local Facebook group. People liked the expression "gender non- conforming " because it didn't use that awful word "lesbian". They had absolutely not a clue that it was an attempt to "trans" Ann, years after her death. It was doubly depressing.

I imagine most women's hour listeners hopelessly confused with all the "cissing" and essentially chatting shit. They think it too ridiculous to have any impact. Oh god I wish that was true.

Anyway small bit of good news, Ann's plaque (despite opposition) will now include "lesbian". Thus shocking the pearl clutchers, and annoying TRAs in one epic move.

done

As a long time listener I thought it was odd they hadn't tacklers it but also listening between the lines so to speak, I could see they wanted to (various other topics over the year before skirted the edges) but needed to get it 'right'. And they absolutely did.

Jenni of course got it ages ago but has to sit on her hands. Jane clearly does.

Worth also mentioning the TRA issues Hull university have had over naming a building after JM.

www.change.org/p/vice-chancellor-university-of-hull-for-the-lecture-theatre-at-hull-university-named-after-dame-jenni-murray-to-remain

I think it's partly that people don't understand (and I think this is actually a deliberate function of all the jargon terminology in Genderist circles) but I do also think it's because people don't actually believe it when they do understand.

No one actually thinks men are women, or that men can become women. It's a rarefied intellectual exercise to ponder notions of being 'born in the wrong body etc. but no one seriously believes it's possible to change your sex.

So what you face, when you being this up, is an initial, significant hurdle of trying to convince your listener that not only are there people who genuinely think men can be women if they want to be badly enough, but that these people have the ear of academics and government.

That alone is a fact so outlandish as to be almost unbelievable, before you even get to the issues around the consequences. It's quite a challenge.

I think they did a great job when they did eventually cover it, BUT it did feel like they'd come in slightly too far into the conversation.They should have done a 'basic intro' discussion, and made it absolutely clear what the issue at hand is - that the word 'woman' can now refer equally to someone with a penis and a beard, and all of the wider implications of that. Occasional vague mentions of 'male bodied' didn't spell it out nearly plainly enough.

I agree with pp that the people who are bored with it are the people who think it's a niche area that only affects a teeny tiny minority in big city arts jobs, and don't understand it's going to affect every woman, everywhere.

I normally never listen to WH essentially assuming it was something that belonged to my mothers generation (she is 89!) - plus I dont have a garden and dont bake.

I would love a programme that included issues relevant to me and my life.

Interestingly the only time over the past 40 years that I have heard people mention something they had heard on WH, was when I was gently mentioning the GRA consultation deadline. A couple of people had heard the, not very good, WH programme so were aware of the topic but did not understand the issue.

It was brilliant that they then did a series which can only helped women realise how huge it is.

WH have a choice. They can stick to traditional 'womens interests' or they can spice it up a bit by giving a small proportion of their programme time to big issues facing women.

A bit like MN. The target audience is clear. However do you limit your remit to comfortable stuff or be brave. I suggest WH take a peek at MN visitor numbers to get a sence of how much women want their voice on the tricky issues.

A friend mentioned the Diva discussion to me, but she'd only caught parts of it, and said 'I thought it was really mean of that lesbian woman to say there shouldn't be a magazine for trans people.'

When I explained that Diva was (nominally) a lesbian magazine, she was just baffled.

Have emailed in-never normally listen to WH but those discussions they held were riveting-just for the sheer lunacy of it all.