Any Answers - call from BBC

[highame]

Got any input just in case they call back?

I've just had a call from the BBC for any answers. Unfortunately a bit unprepared so waffled but she understood. I might get a call back but I wasn't clear enough.

Anyway, my question was did they think Government had gone far enough with GRA given number of people opposed to Self-id

One of you lot would have done a lot better but you never know I might get a call and will be a bit more prepared.

Got any input?

No advice I'm afraid, but bumping in case someone more helpful has any input.

This is your chance to make your point (if they call), do you think it went far enough or should we rollback false birth certificates?

That the GRA is irrelevant now that same sex marriage exists.

The only 'trans right' not currently being met is the 'right' for biological males to enter biological females sex-segregated spaces (like hospital wards - people relate to that one) - and the decision on self-ID simply upholds the right to keep them out.

As there is absolutely no way to tell the difference between a transwoman and a man pretending to be one, because they are both biological males, self-ID was highly vulnerable to abuse by predatory men, of whom there are many. Examples abound on the This Never Happens thread.

Definitely the GRA being irrelevant. What I really want to do, is to say the EA needs to be improved and that women are to be properly consulted. Our rights have been eroded by stealth and we need to take back our space. Trans rights are good in this country but they cannot be enhanced by taking away women's rights. We were up for talking but Stonewall et al didn't want a debate, perhaps they want one now.

Women at the forefront of this debate are battered and bruised, they need government to do more on the Equal Rights Act because although many women are happy that self i-d will not happen, there are plenty of people who are very happy to give away our rights.

If they call, will do my best but need to keep on track and not waffle

You could say that many LAs and statutory bodies as well as private businesses seem to have been persuaded by Stonewall to remove the protections offered to women by theirs sex-based rights in the Equality Act 2010: they have replaced the word 'sex' with 'gender' and no one really knows what this means and it causes confusion and has effectively led to self-ID be default. So now it's time to strengthen women's rights under the act, remind everyone that women's biological sex-based rights are protected by law and to examine whether the GRA is now irrelevant.

Can you type up your statement, as it were, and read it out over the phone? Don't speak to quickly. Lots of people read written statements really fast and it's not always easy to follow the train of thought. Well done and good luck!

Looking at how this is going down on twitter I see:
saying that transwomen are transwomen is the same as racism
you're worried about cismen, transwomen are completely different
women will get raped anyway so what's the problem?

The topic is now being discussed on Any Answers.

Trans person:
The only one who understood is Lisa Nandy.
It's only about the birth certificate. I can self-ID in all other areas of my life.

Conversation isn't worth having if there are no trans voices.
BMA says doctors should play no role in granting of GRCs.

Nicola Williams now!

Radio is great, men sound like men!

Would you say the callers have been a person who identifies as a man, then Nicola Williams, then a person who identifies as a woman?

Omg the irony of listening to a deluded bloke complain about "outing" himself.

And the hyperbole of the previous man describing a doctor/psychiatrist or possibly psychologist as "a strange little man".

It's only about the birth certificate. I can self-ID in all other areas of my life.

Those other areas that are allowing self-id for official statistics should be investigated.

That was pretty poor. I haven't listened to AQ for a while but caught the end of the Covid discussion and the trans.
Didn't listeners used to get cross-examined, asked to justify / explain / defend? That was just Anita Anand on the end of a phone going "uh-huh". Waste of time.

I am not a fan of Anita - she waffles too much and pins nobody down.
Julian Worricker is much better

That was pretty poor. I haven't listened to AQ for a while
Sorry, meant Any Answers. Don't listen to AQ any more either!

I meant to say good for you highame for attempting to get on the show.

Nicola Williams (Dr Nic?) excellent, very calm and clear. Great point that they are not asking for "trans rights", they are asking for women's sex-based rights!

That third person! Talking about not being able to keep your trans identity private without these changes to the law. As if we can't tell just by looking or listening?! Also said the issue had been "trivialised" down to tw in women's spaces. Yeah right, single-sex spaces is such a trivial issue. Also the hard work and commitment of having to learn to "talk, walk, dress" in their new identity ffs.

Any Answers | Radio 4
GRA discussion starts at timestamp 34:59:
www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000my29

I caught this in the car and am ashamed to say I absolutely swore my head off listening to it.
Nicola was great, and the only caller to be talked over and cut off. The last caller really made my blood boil, ‘trivialised’?? FFS they have no thought for anyone else it’s all about what they want and screw anyone who gets in the way. Honestly I was shocked by my own swearing capabilities.
I thought Anita was awful but I’m not sure what the point of her role is?

Sorry didn't see this thread so commented onthe existing thread. Okay to repeat myself?

I listed to both AQ and AA this afternoon.

Just as an aside the programme seems to have deteriorated. ie listeners questions dont get answered as politicians just go into an election type speel. And for some reason the presented seems to think they should be part of the discussion - and nearly always ignore the question and try and get some "gotcha" moment from an MP.

So in the QA part, was pleased for a BBC programme to even hear anyone say women have sex based rights.

But of course when it came to any answers, had to have a mother of a child suffering greatly. (Maybe she should wonder where her child got the idea that you can "be a gender"?).

Then Nicola Williams (haven't I heard that name before??) very clear, making the point about even if you change your birth certificate you dont actually change your sex, and this is why women have been campaigning to preserve sex based rights.

But of course had to finish with (ie no balance here) some man going on about how it just isn't right that he cant just say he is a woman and be accepted as that. And people (ie women) just keep coming up with these trivial irrelances just to be horrid to people like him.

(Have to say I didn't hear all of it clearly, but this was the impression given.)

I wasn't in a position to try and phone in - but now wish I had made the effort. Did anyone else try, or did in fact the BBC represent the calls received, ie 2 to 1 saying trans people had been let down?
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4033109-Any-Questions-Radio-4-8pm-tonight?pg=3

It's tipped over into plain silliness now.

Women need single sex spaces.

That some male people find this very sad and upsetting, and that some male people have specific needs, does nothing to change the fact that women need single sex spaces.

Two separate issues. Male needs should be met, and third ways will have to be found. Removing single sex spaces and sex based rights from all women (regardless that they are needed) in the hope that this will improve life for some males, is sexist insanity.

They are talking about excluding some women from any provisions or services so that males may choose from all the provisions and services for their better happiness. It's not defensible. It's no good pretending those females don't exist, or trying to say it doesn't matter that they will be stripped of provisions and services, it's not defensible.

Single sex needs for women and the needs of males must both be met. There's no other sane way forward. (Unless your version of 'inclusion' and 'diversity' and 'kindness' is a really bizarre one, or like Judith Butler, you've just become completely fixated on thinking about penises)

Great post Michelle