Ruth Serwotka on R4 now

[Igmum]

Ruth S on the Today programme now (starts about 7:21)

Listening. I noticed the manifesto and was joyful. Then i hear Dawn butler weighs in and inwardly groan. This woman talking now is very good.

Well done Ruth. Clear and measured about women's single sex provision rights. Good to hear a voice saying no groups rights should override women's rights on radio 4! Recommended listening

Ruth was clear and informative. Good to hear this being openly and seriously discussed. Great!

Ruth was great. Very clear and explained things well for people new to this issue.

I dont think that Ruth S would be able to explain her perspective in such an uninterrupted way a year ago.

It is baby steps, but I feel that having a gender critical view is becoming more acceptable by mainstream media.

Delighted to hear Ruth's interview this morning. She was clear and calm and got across the important points.

Interviewer Justin Webb seems to be across this and have a decent understanding of the issues, which went a long way in enabling the discussion to make sense to the general listener.

Was she really clear? I was waiting for a concrete example. I wanted to hear her give a more specific example. Maybe I am just to used to Posie Parker.

I thought Ruth was the complete opposite of clear. She was handed straightforward and helpful questions on a plate and rather than arguing in concrete terms about what the worries and possible consequences were, she waffled around the questions.

I've been reading about this for years and I struggled to follow her arguments. I'd imagine most of the Today audience would have not understood what she was saying.

She did far better than I would have done but I don't think she'll have got through to the audience at all.

It’s brilliant that Ruth was given time to actually speak without interruption and also without “the other side” present. I did think Ruth could have been a bit more concise, it’s important to remember the vast majority of people aren’t very well informed about this subject.

Justin did a great job at explaining things too.

In presenting to the public it's important to remember that most people won't have a clue about the basic issues so therefore, go back to those issues and talk, in terms that most of the audience will understand, about those. Most of the audience will have heard "infighting in the Labour Party" rather than penises in women's single sex spaces.

Looking at twitter one issue that did cut through is Ruth's point about blood. That led to a few cul de sac discussions.

I'm sorry to be negative but the overriding goal has to be to put these issues in front of the public in basic and clear terms.

It seemed to me that what Ruth was trying to do was avoid the interview becoming an argument about trans issues. I thought she was very careful to steer away from any potential accusations of being 'transphobic' and stuck to the details of what is going on at the heart of the Labour Party.

She was given just enough time to develop this and did get to illustrate a number of points by the end. I was pleased she mentioned the 'high street' issues.

WPUK have been tireless in working to maintain a balanced, pro-women's rights, stance. They are careful in their use of language and stick to facts. We need this approach but of course we also need women like Posie to say it as it is and cut to the heart of matters.

This interview wasn't the right place for that and I thought Ruth did a good job - especially considering that the BBC has been reluctant until very recently to allow women to talk freely and openly on this issue.

I can see your point, but the heart of the matter is that this is about transgender men trying to override women's rights to separate facilities/sports.

It is yes, but I see this as a series of pincer movements that need to be taken across a number of areas in appropriate ways.

Followup question asked to labour politician.. didn't catch name.

After a LOT of waffle said that single sex spaces such as refuges would he maintained

This was at about 8.45

It all comes back to the definition of woman.

It was Laura Pidcock just now on R4. Just loads more pointless waffle.

Ahhh I heard that. I was wondering who she was and who the ‘bloody idiot’ was.

I thought it was good, but there was a point in the middle of the interview. where she had an opportunity to put across succinctly what the problem is, but she waffled a bit instead. That said, she was much clearer than I would have been, so I'm not going to criticise her for that.

What needs to be said in an interview like this is to state clearly what the problem is:

A man can gain a new birth certificate saying he is female if he obtains a Gender Recognition Certificate. This does not require any physical transition. It is being proposed to make GRCs available on a self-identification basis. If any man can obtain the legal status of female, how will single sex spaces and services for women be protected?

The Labour woman was Laura Pidcock. Big ally of Jeremy Corbyn and famously said she could never be 'friends with a Tory'. Good for Justin Webb for bringing up topic and challenging her on her definition of what would happen to a trans woman who has not had surgical or hormonal treatment in a woman's refuge.

It’s amazing that it is being brought into the daylight so much now.

‘But they say they will protect women’s rights!’
‘Have you seen how they define women - have you seen their women only shortlists?’

I was referring to the interview with Ruth.

A man can gain a new birth certificate saying he is female if he obtains a Gender Recognition Certificate. This does not require any physical transition. It is being proposed to make GRCs available on a self-identification basis. If any man can obtain the legal status of female, how will single sex spaces and services for women be protected?

This. What OldCrone said. This.

This is what every woman who is interviewed should be saying.

I just listened to Piddock’s interview on catch up. She did say “single spaces” (sic) should be maintained but that there should be provision for trans people. It sounded very much like an argument for third spaces and services, which women with concerns about this have been saying for ages they would support.

Though I’ll note it was qualified with a “women need places to heal” statement. That made me wonder if the range of protected spaces would be very tightly defined, so fitting rooms and gym changing rooms would still be a free for all.