Woman’s Hour Tuesday

[Angryresister]

Apparently they will be discussing the GRA not changes.

That was a shitshow. Nic fading in and out and sounding distorted and unpleasant to listen to, Jane Garvey being dismissive of her, HP's rambling 'me, me, me'/ misleading 'wah, not fair' evasive and emotive and not piked apart by Garvey. If Justin Webb had been on the case it would have been very different.

I have a friend who knows that there's something not right about men being allowed to 'become' women by just saying they are but hasn't come the full GC mile. She pm'd me after the programme and said she's confused even more now, had transpeople been deprived of rights like HP said and was Liz Truss's decision not to allow self-ID unfair — so I don't think the message was loud and clear at all except to those of us who already know it.

I grew up listening to WH and now I just want them to put it quietly to sleep. If the programme can speak up for women's rights in far-flung parts of the world, why can't it speak openly about the biggest threat to women's rights this country has seen in the last 50+ years. Shameful.

Send your complaints to:

Email:

[email protected]

Twitter: @BBCWomansHour

Write to us:

Woman's Hour, BBC Radio 4, Broadcasting House, London, W1A 1AA

Instagram: bbcwomanshour

Facebook:

www.facebook.com/BBCRadio4

I have.

[quote Kit19]Wild Woman Writing Club has done a summary of what wa said on twitter

twitter.com/wwwritingclub/status/1310868333118590976?s=20[/quote]
The Wild Woman Writing Club's version is much clearer and I'm surprised at what I must have heard but didn't absorb (perhaps because I was standing in my kitchen making soup). I found Nic Williams quite difficult to hear/ listen to because of the bad quality of the broadcast and my rage at Peto got in the way of hearing some of the specifics, so well done WWWC.

I'm afraid the bit that leapt out at me was Nic saying we needed to show compassion. I'm not in a compassionate mood.

How can we possibly be saying, years down the line, that the factual statement that women do not have penises and that a transwoman is not a woman, is a step forward. It's a measure of how patriarchal and woke the BBC is that a simple statement of biological fact is regarded as taboo-breaking.

Nice to see Jenni’s name there to be added to letter

I'm afraid the bit that leapt out at me was Nic saying we needed to show compassion.

Hmm... Haven’t listened - but did HP mention about showing compassion to women and girls?

I’ll take a guess - NOT!

Apparently they received a lot of emails which will be included in the podcast... mm

I'm guessing Heather Peto insisted on being introduced as a women as a precondition to appearing. Others (Jane Fae I think) have refused to appear on the show live because of the real and present danger posed to them by women who speak the truth.

Obviously the BBC should not have bowed to this but they are craven arseholes so listeners will just have to rely on their own ears to work out what's actually going on...

Does anyone have a transcript? I thought Nic's responses were clear and precise.

If the programme can speak up for women's rights in far-flung parts of the world, why can't it speak openly about the biggest threat to women's rights this country has seen in the last 50+ years.

THIS.

I am so sick of this now. I think with all the progress that has been made in the last few months, the team behind WH need to think very carefully. They are not going to come out of all this well if they don't find their courage.

One pro one against and one mentioning Scotland . Not worth bothering with, and I doubt reflects the numbers of emails received. The pro trans one went on about femininity,

I share the fury and frustration with the need for women to be compassionate. However, I think it's important for the voices speaking publicly about this, to people who aren't so aware of the issue, to maintain a compassionate tone, simply because lots of basically decent, right-thinking but unaware women will be alienated from the GC position if it comes across as being cruel or unpleasant.

There's SO MUCH wrong with that, I know, but articulate women like Nic Williams, talking sense, firmly asserting facts, but advocating kindness too are hugely helpful to getting message across at a time when the tide is definitely turning. It's not about women being mean, it's about women having the right to boundaries.

For info: Heather Peto was calling for Rosie Duffield's head recently:

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/heather-peto-and-the-benefits-of

For the sake of balance, here is Heather Peto's very detailed explanation of Peto's suspension and tribunal etc:

heatherpeto.substack.com/p/rebutting-transphobic-trolls-6a1

I do think it's really important that people like Peto are given ample time to state their case to as many and as wide an audience as possible.

I would encourage anyone who is uncertain to read more of Peto's own words, such as that really informative blog post.

So, let's encourage Peto onto the radio more often to talk about women and women's rights. So long as we also have a woman like Nic on for balance, I think it's okay to discuss these things. It's so important to have these debates out in the open.

I think it would help if people like Peto were not presented as the status quo, and the status quo represented as an attack.

People expect the presenter of a long running programme for women to be the starting point of where reasonableness lies, so that they can understand and gather their thoughts.

Having something clearly that unreal presented as moderate is confusing for listeners and is why they feel they cannot respond or say something. Because they must be wrong.

However, I think it's important for the voices speaking publicly about this, to people who aren't so aware of the issue, to maintain a compassionate tone, simply because lots of basically decent, right-thinking but unaware women will be alienated from the GC position if it comes across as being cruel or unpleasant.

I think that's a really good point

For anyone who is interested in finding out a bit more about Heather, there is a very informative thread on 🥝 🚜

Oh wow, that blog post by Peto is just...wow. They really come across as completely deranged. And narcissistic to a degree I don’t think I’ve ever encountered before. And this is the person WH decided to give credibility to? Jesus.

What I couldn't understand from Peto, was why Peto was talking about sexual harassment of Peto at work.

What does that have to do with self-id?

It's blindingly obvious that Peto is male, if they are getting harassed at work or attacked in the street that is very wrong.

Peto being able to get a birth certificate stating they are female only serves to produce false documentation. Self-id is about making that process simple.

Again, nothing to do with what Peto was talking about.

It's hard to argue with nonsense.

I'm guessing no one else would come on and 'debate their existence' but I think they would have been better off having no one than Peto who appears to have a rather flimsy grasp on reality.

Glinner also has some info on Peto.

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/heather-peto-and-the-benefits-of

Did I really hear Peto refer to Michelle OMABA when quoting Obama's "When they go low..."?

I doubled back and heard it a second time. 🤷🏼‍♀️ I think Peto must have misread from notes. I'd have notes if I were being broadcast, too, to be fair.

I strongly advise that no one here take a trip to the "fruit growers" website and search HP's profile...

Dear Lord. All those provable lies! Couldn't they have got someone who didn't have a history like this?

If Peto were able to get a new birth certificate, would it be as easy to change the birth year (1970 to 1983) as well as the birth sex (MtoF)?

Not everyone gets a PhD, and even fewer by age 13...

There is something exasperating going on behind the scenes. I expect that someone has had to work very hard to get the slot at all

At least they are discussing it, badly and late, but, they have, at long last, discussed it. I think Jane Garvey is toeing a line, without her balancing act/performing-being-harder-on-the-GC-position then I doubt this discussion would have happened at all.

Agree.

And no matter how much Jane Garvey pretends to be harder on Nic, and how much extra and uninterrupted time is given to TRAs, it's very difficult to make the TRAs sound anything other than selfish, entitled and colonising, and for women asking for our lawful sex-based rights to sound anything other than entirely reasonable.

So it still helps.

I just wonder, how often do you ever hear a woman on air announce a sad and hard feeling, and the presenter turn immediately to the other guest to repeat "X, y says they have sad and hard feelings...." with the clear implication on all sides, "what are you going to do to fix y?"

Women don't do that. Women don't put up with that sort of behaviour from other women. Women don't have the expectation that declaring an uncomfortable feeling will immediately result in the other person dropping everything to provide them with nurture.

As is further evidenced by guest y having zero interest in guest x's feelings, uncomfortable or otherwise, or providing them with any kind of reciprocal care: guest y sees guest x merely as the aggressor in doing things that cause guest y to have uncomfortable feelings. Like insisting that female people should have rights too.

Try that on AIBU as a woman poster and you'll be handed your arse and directions to a grip shop.