Woman's Hour Jo Swinson Now - 6th Dec

[AbsintheFriends]

Andrea Catherwood (?) interviewing and being quite tigerish. Seems to be in a mood to take no shit.

Emma Barnett
Jo Swinson

[12:50]

EB: A striking policy of yours, away from Brexit, is the reform that you want to make to the Gender Recognition Act which will allow anyone, without any doctor involvements - something we've discussed here at length on Woman's Hour - to change their gender on all official documents. Gender self-identification, as it's referred to, would mean a blanket law which could mean any predatory man could self-identify as a woman to gain access to women, in what have been traditionally women only spaces, especially vulnerable women, for instance women's shelters. Do you understand why some women are very concerned about this?

JS: Well, I think everybody wants to have confidence, of course, that if somebody's the victim of domestic violence, domestic abuse, that there are safe spaces for them whether - you know, whoever their partner was and whoever they are as an individual. And so it's right that all of those spaces can properly assess the risks, and in exactly the same way that you wouldn't allow into a women's refuge the same sex partner of a woman who had been being abused, you also wouldn't let somebody who was a - who was a risk of abusing whoever ...

EB: You might not ...

JS: ... they were.

EB: ... you might not know they were an abuser and they might, as I've just described it, try and ...

JS: Look ...

EB: ... abuse this law.

JS: Look. [sigh] We have a real problem here that there are many vulnerable people in our society, many vulnerable trans women ...

EB: How many?

JS: ... and trans men ...

EB: How many?

JS: ... in our society.

EB: Do you know?

JS: Well, the - well, we know that the rates of mental health problems, of people attempting suicide, is much higher in the trans community.

EB: I just wonder ...

JS: You know [inaudible] ...

EB: ... when you were writing your manifesto, did you figure this out? Did you get some data on how large this group is?

JS: Well, I - I mean, I ca - you know, we could go and - we could go and look it up in the census, this is obviously a small part of the population, but I mean, I do challenge ...

EB: Is it hundreds?

JS: ... I do ...

EB: Is it thousands? Is it millions?

JS: I - it's clearly not millions. I imagine that, you know, the trans population in the country is clearly in the thousands. But I definitely challenge the suggestion that if it's a small number of people who are ... feeling driven in some cases to suicide, that this is not an issue we should be addressing. Everybody is ...

EB: But what about ...

JS: ... everybody matters.

EB: ... what about their vulnerability versus someone who's in a shelter and doesn't want that space to be open in any way to someone who could abuse this reform to this act ...

JS: Look ...

EB: ... in the way I described?

JS: There's not a hierarchy of equalities. Everybody's rights as an individual matter and ...

EB: But by reforming this you may create a hierarchy.

JS: No I - no, I - I entirely disagree ...

EB: Well I know that, it's your policy.

JS: Yeah, sure, so we need to make sure everybody is protected, and at the moment there is a group of people who are facing huge discrimination, huge bias, and as I say, that has very, very real consequences, in terms of violence, in terms of self harm and potential suicide.

EB: But I'm talking about - I'm not talking about those people. I actually asked you a question which was about those women in women's shelters ...

JS: And - and that ...

EB: ... and you have completely ignored those people ...

JS: No! I have not! I started ...

EB: ... and gone towards ...

JS: No!

EB: ... the people who you're now going to say ...

JS: Emma, the ...

EB: ... will be able to come in, who may be able to abuse them.

JS: No - no, the first thing I said was that every shelter needs to be able to keep people safe, and to do so on the basis of risk, and frankly - you know, that - whether somebody is cis or whether they are trans, that risk assessment needs to be done and I reject the suggestion that trans women are more likely to do that. But what you're saying is ...

EB: That was not my suggestion, to be clear.

JS: Well you're - you're - OK ...

EB: I was saying that there could be an abuse, ironically not ...

JS: So ...

EB: ... by the group that you're seeking to protect - by people who are going to try and use this reform in a dangerous way.

JS: So ...

EB: So by opening the door with that reform it will be on your head.

JS: No, so the answer is to have proper risk assessments and structures in place to prevent abuse. I - you know - and that's clearly the ...

EB: So the 2010 ...

JS: ... that's clearly the answer.

EB: ... the 2010 Equality Act sets out sex as a protected characteristic. How will you guarantee women's sex based protections when you've reformed the Gender Recognition Act?

JS: Look, I think that - you know, trans - trans women are women. And women, whether they are cis or whether they are trans, whether they are gay, whether they are straight, whether they are bi, whether they are black, whether they are white, whether they are asian, whatever their mix of characteristics are, you know - you know, nobody is just one thing on its own, and equality law does not work if it either tries to elevate - you know, one protected characteristic above others, or doesn't recognise that people have these multiple characteristics. Because we all do, and we all face different ...

EB: But the law ...

JS: ... prejudice and discrimination on that basis.

EB: ... the law does have to be precise, which is why lawyers have rowed about this. They are in dispute over this exact question and you haven't given any clarity in your answer.

JS: I - I mean - I do - I do, I recognise that there is controversy about this. I think there is - much of the media reporting, I'm not saying this is of yourself right now, but certainly in much of the print media, much of this reporting is sensationalised, you know, the discussions around you know, going to toilets and such like. I mean, I don't know the last time that somebody asked you for your birth certificate when you went to the loo, because you know, that just does not happen. So I think there is an element of this debate which has ...

EB: ... which has been sensationalised ...

JS: Exactly.

EB: ... but I'm not sensationalising it and Woman's Hour doesn't do that. I know you're not saying that, but the 2010 Equality Act sets out sex as a protected characteristic. I ask you again, Jo Swinson, how will you guarantee women's sex based protections if you reform this act?

JS: I don't believe that there is a problem in making sure that we can protect the rights of trans men and trans women, and also protect the rights of cis women, and make sure that we can give those spaces which are safe for women, whether that's refuges, whether that's other spaces, that we can make sure that that works. It's not beyond possibility to do that.

EB: What kind of feminist are you, Jo Swinson?

JS: An enthusiastic one.

[on to the stuff about Lord Rennard]

[19:14]

BovaryX

Kathleen Stock's piece on the inquiry is very illuminating
medium.com/@kathleenstock/womens-place-talk-full-text-house-of-lords-oct-10th-2018-b1f3d70c4559?

And this thread
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

TimeLady thanks for the links, very interesting indeed

The obvious follow-up question to all this rubbish about risk assessments always being necessary anyway, is 'In that case why don't we just have mixed sex refuges and risk assess all the men, just as we do the women?'

I would love to see that question put to every politician plugging this shite. I wonder if they'd just keep digging until they found themselves actually recommending that, or whether they'd be forced to admit that there are more things to consider than just 'This one probably won't actually rape or hit any of the women.'

Not that risk assessments could possibly be even that effective when it comes to unknown men - certainly not without a Layla Moran posted at the door of every refuge.

Fuck me, that was a car crash - and not just on self-ID. Hasn't she had any media training?

Swinson did a degree in Management at LSE and has a background in marketing and PR

The Purported

Thank you for the link to the Kathleen Stock article, that has really helped clarify this for me

With all due respect to Emma (excellent interview), many of the questions were predictable, but still JS floundered. If your flagship policy is funding childcare, you are going to get questions about fairness to people who don't have young children. And the answer is not to say, "er well I know it's important because I'm a mother of 2 children" (so fucking what?), but "child-care benefits the whole of society by allowing parents to participate in activities that benefit us all, whether through paid work, which increases tax revenue, or by undertaking other important activities like caring for elderly parents". By making this her first question, EB was actually giving JS an easy intro, but still JS fluffed it.

Pencils Yet again I am on awe of your transcription skills, thank you so much for taking the time to type these things up

I'm pleased that Emma Barnett consistently pushed the point that sex is a protected characteristic. She'd also done her homework on the legal disagreements about how the GRA and the EA interact.

EB: ... the 2010 Equality Act sets out sex as a protected characteristic. How will you guarantee women's sex based protections when you've reformed the Gender Recognition Act?

JS: Look, I think that - you know, trans - trans women are women. And women, whether they are cis or whether they are trans, whether they are gay, whether they are straight, whether they are bi, whether they are black, whether they are white, whether they are asian, whatever their mix of characteristics are, you know - you know, nobody is just one thing on its own, and equality law does not work if it either tries to elevate - you know, one protected characteristic above others, or doesn't recognise that people have these multiple characteristics. Because we all do, and we all face different ...

Equality law does not work if you cannot identify which protected characteristic is the reason for the discrimination (sometimes two or more) and in most cases it also doesn't work if you cannot identify an appropriate comparator - i.e. someone in the same situation but who does not share the relevant PC.

Clearly the law is not Swinson's area of expertise. That's fine, right up to the point where she advocates changing the law.

• certainly not without a Layla Moran posted at the door of every refuge

She has so much potential, and is definitely wasted as a mere politician.

Can we clone her so there's one for each refuge? I reckon there might be some ESRC funding in this if we pitch it right. Call it a queer transhumanist Action Research project.

It could get expensive if you have to pay them.

They could get quite useful though - you could do away with jury trials and save a fortune in the courts. The county courts would love one or two to sort out garden boundary disputes.

Just catching up on this interview now. Agree Emma Barnett was brilliant, and I’m hugely relieved to hear this policy being robustly challenged. But I’m devastated by what a car crash Jo Swinson is turning out to be. I desperately want the Lib Dems to do well in this election, in order to do as much damage to Brexit as possible and to destroy the Tory figures. I’m probably going to have to vote for them, because they stand a much better chance than Labour in my constituency. But I find their stance on gender deeply deeply disturbing and I’m really not sure I can hold my nose sufficiently to endorse it.

The Libs always have to fish in a small pond. Charlie Kennedy was a good man, if a little pickled. It's been downhill all the way since him.

Great work Pencils!

The obvious follow-up question to all this rubbish about risk assessments always being necessary anyway, is 'In that case why don't we just have mixed sex refuges and risk assess all the men, just as we do the women?'
This.
And a question around cost. How much will it cost a refuge to take legal advice, draft a risk assessment programme and defend themselves against men appealing the outcomes? Or defend themselves against men who think being risk assessed is discriminatory? Or having to risk assess everyone because Jo Swinson thinks lesbians are a threat to other women?

Thanks for the transcript btw.

Jo Swinson's notions of what she reckons the EA says are a good example of a wider problem.

Lots of people seem to think that the EA just says we should be kind and nice to everyone and never exclude anybody from anything. If that's what it said it would be a much shorter document:

1. Be excellent to each other.

2. Party on, dudes!

Lovely sentiments.

Meanwhile the EA has 218 sections and a further 28 schedules, each of which contains up to 107 further paragraphs. It's a huge, complex, messy piece of legislation, vast chunks of which are dedicated to explaining situations where it's lawful to treat different people differently because to do otherwise would be batshit and/or harmful. You don't have to read it all (I haven't) but it's worth a quick look at the contents page, just to get an idea of the sheer size of this piece of legislation.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

Yy FlyingOink and how much would their insurance premiums rise?

FlyingOink and how much would their insurance premiums rise
And when the organisation is a state-funded one, like the NHS or the Prison Service, and a woman locked in a cell or a psychiatric ward with a man who then attacks her sues, will taxpayers end up paying for the folly?
When the organisation is a smaller, charitably funded one will they even be able to get cover after a claim?

We need a Dentons type leak from a major insurer to find out.
I suspect even the insurers are uninterested because women thus far haven't been litigious enough.

Sorry if somebody has already posted this
womansplaceuk.org/2019/11/25/why-do-we-keep-banging-on-about-the-importance-of-single-sex-spaces-for-women-who-have-been-subjected-to-mens-violence/

Karen Ingala Smith on the reality of risk assessment.

On the Prison note, a man in a women's prison in Argentina has impregnated one of the female prisoners. He attacked her when he found out she was pregnant and has now been released (it sounds like they didn't know what to do with him).
Abortion is illegal in Argentina but it seems self-id is legal.
Not sure if there has been a thread on this:
www.womenarehuman.com/transgender-detainee-who-impregnated-fellow-inmate-is-released-from-prison-to-prevent-further-incident/

It's amazing that the LibDem line on women is: "Never admit they exist and if an interviewer suggests they do, always being your reply with 'transwomen....'"

begin your reply

Sigh @ me.

Karen white was risk assessed and put into a a women’s prison and went on to sexually assault female prisoners.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life

Jo Swinson is well aware of this but because she is a misogynist she thinks that’s a price worth paying. Go and fuck yourself Jo.