All Hail - Justin Webb Today Programme

[SidJS]

I know this was touched upon on another thread - but how great was Justin Webb this morning??!!!

Radio 4 Today Programme 1 hr 13 mins in - sorry can’t log into BBC to provide a link.

Yes - he is a man - he could do serious damage to a woman - that’s why we need female only spaces...

Today Program is finally keeping the dream (female only spaces) alive

I've just caught up.
Thank you Justin.

Jo has swallowed this hook, line and sinker. Every time she evaded the question and spoke about 'vulnerable' tw, constantly ignoring women, all I could picture was Karen White.

Jo is a disgrace, but you'd definitely get the same with Corbyn.

Rachel Johnson was on Sky News' review of the papers last year and she was GC and with Andrew Gilligan too, Boris must know - which makes plans to reform the GRA even more of a sick joke on women.

I do think its sexism , and I loathe the lib dems. Just because Jo Swinson doesn't know what a woman is doesnt mean women dont exist and that sexism isn't real. They have plugged this policy (my guess is they wont be doing that again) but Labour have self Id as part of their manifesto too. All.party leaders need to be asked this, otherwise theres a risk it will just be seen as some some obscure bonkers lib dem ideal when in fact its woven into all political parties.

I bet no one from the BBC will even think for one second to ask the two main parties why they are promising to undermine women's rights.

They just said on radio 4 that both Johnson and Corbyn have refused to do a full interview on the Today programme.

All.party leaders need to be asked this, otherwise theres a risk it will just be seen as some some obscure bonkers lib dem ideal when in fact its woven into all political parties.

Yep. And if not on the Today programme, then somewhere else.
This crap is already everywhere from schools to police training and civil service 'equality' advice, which recommends re-education for women who turn around when they see a man in the women's loos.

I don't trust any party to get this right atm. They are all clueless.

They just said on radio 4 that both Johnson and Corbyn have refused to do a full interview on the Today programme.

I do agree that the focus on GRA reform is stronger in the Lib Dem manifesto than in the other parties. For instance, they are committed to removing the spousal veto so it is reasonable to expect Jo Swinson to receive more scrutiny about this than other leaders. However, without this board, as someone living in England, I would not know about the different positions within the SNP. I suspect that the Conservatives do not see GRA reform as a priority. They have honed down their priorities to a very few areas, like Brexit, more police and tighter immigration. Labour support single sex exemptions. The problem is that none of us know if/how they would enforce them

The leader debate format allows party leaders to be faced with the same questions. However, both Labour and Conservative leaders rarely give proper interviews, as opposed to sound bites, except to their favoured broadcasters or journalists. It is a real problem for democracy.

Labour support single sex exemptions.

But they also intend to reform the GRA to self ID, which means people can be legally recognised as the opposite sex via a simple declaration with no gatekeeping.

Single sex + self ID = mixed sex.

And they intend to do this regardless of the outcome of the consultation, which is undemocratic and goes against the principles of public consultation.

GRA reform isn't even in the Tory manifesto, as far as I'm aware. Let's not forget, they're the only ones who have seen the consultation responses, so are probably aware of what a disaster reform would be.

Labour wants to reform the GRA but maintain single-sex exemptions under the Equality Act. This is a bit daft as a policy but it is very different from what the Lib Dems are offering. Under Labour, you could change your birth certificate to read female but it still wouldn't allow you into women's refuges, women's changing rooms etc. The Lib Dem policy is full-on TWAW.

Except John McDonnell told us that they would open the Equality Act for debate after introducing self id.

I am surprised that there hasn't been more discussion of the 'I could do you enormous damage because of my male body' comment. It certainly made me feel quite uncomfortable hearing a male journalist speaking in that way to a female politician.

There was quite a bit of discussion of that comment in the first few posts of the thread, Ali.

I am surprised that there hasn't been more discussion of the 'I could do you enormous damage because of my male body' comment. It certainly made me feel quite uncomfortable hearing a male journalist speaking in that way to a female politician

Why?

It certainly made me feel quite uncomfortable

That's exactly the point, though. Women's vulnerability in intimate spaces because of an instinctive alertness to potential physical risk or danger. that's why we have single sex spaces, services and sports - to mitigate that.

I am surprised that there hasn't been more discussion of the 'I could do you enormous damage because of my male body' comment. It certainly made me feel quite uncomfortable hearing a male journalist speaking in that way to a female politician

Me too, which is why I think it was brilliant. I'd also like to discuss it more as it's been on my mind.

I wonder if the discomfort was because it is true almost universally between men and women and yet seldom mentioned. I remember when I was a fit, gym obsessed 20 something and I met my weedy, lazy, smoker of a boyfriend. He was 2 stone lighter than me. It used to really piss me off that he'd win every arm wrestle and could just pin me down during a play fight.

Now I'm a bit older, I can only really be friends with men who are willing to interrogate themselves about how their maleness affects the females they share space with. I think ALL males should do this. It could almost be a right of passage growing up. It's got sod all to do with identity or sexual orientation or hair style or clothing. It's about acknowledgement of the material reality and added class privilege resulting from the chance occurrence that they were born male.

Under Labour, you could change your birth certificate to read female but it still wouldn't allow you into women's refuges, women's changing rooms etc.

How would you keep them out? Anyone who has a birth certificate saying 'female' is female as far as the law is concerned.

The single sex exemptions mean that some services and spaces can be for only one sex (which can be changed, thanks to the GRA). Labour haven't mention the gender reassignment exemption, which is a separate exemption subject to the 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim' which leaves it open to interpretation by the service provider, and also to being challenged by transgender people who think they should be allowed to use the service.

Labour's comments about single-sex exemptions are meaningless with a policy of self-ID.

I wonder if the discomfort was because it is true almost universally between men and women and yet seldom mentioned Yes I think that’s probably the crux of it. There are unspoken rules in the way in which men and women interact to keep the illusion that there is no difference. Speaking about it is taboo because for a man to mention it is to acknowledge that he has power and has thought about how he might use it.

For example, at work I’m quite often in one-to-one meetings with colleagues in a room that isn’t really overlooked so is quite private. Most of these colleagues are men who are younger than me and junior to me. Generally I have the room arranged so they are on the other side of a table and keep quite a business like dynamic so there is no real awkwardness. There was one man (thankfully now left) who would come to my side of the table, sit too close to me, spread his legs wide and look directly at me with a smirk. I am 5’4 and 8 stone, he was about 6 foot and quite big. It was clear from his manner that he was using the physical situation to intimidate and undermine me. I felt that I had to carry on with the meeting as if I hadn’t noticed as to do otherwise would be to recognise his potential power and undermine mine. I found him quite threatening and was surprised at how much it affected me but there was nothing specific to call him out on.

I have no idea about the relative body size and strength of Justin Webb and Jo Swinson but assuming they are both fairly average for their sex I guess he is probably right. Of course, he seems like a nice bloke and I doubt Jo has any reason to fear for her safety (!) but his comment quite clearly exposes the power dynamic that’s always just below the surface. Effectively he’s saying it would be his choice whether he hurt her and in acknowledging that it undermines her position as a leader. I was quite surprised that he chose to do that so directly given all of the concerns about threats to women politicians.

If Justin used the arm-wrestling example upthread next time that might be a better bet.
To say it once is fine, to keep saying it might become creepy