Jane Garvey - most woman’s hour listeners not interested in the trans debate

[Biscuitsanddoombar]

How is it that women like JG still don’t get it? It’s not the “trans” debate it’s actually the women’s debate because by granting any and all rights designed for women to people who are male, you eradicate everything that was designed for women. That affects half the population of this country! It’s so disingenuous to frame this as being about the “trans” issue and saying ‘oooh well it’s only a few people isn’t it’

No it’s not a few people! It’s all women, everywhere

Jane Garvey exits Woman’s Hour with plea on trans debate

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jane-garvey-exits-womans-hour-with-plea-on-trans-debate-nvqhvxxj7

Why is it so difficult to understand it's about women and children, not trans.

Lucky she’s leaving Woman’s Hour as she has so little concern for women’s rights.

I do agree with her that woman’s hour should cover more issues of importance to women e.g issues around social care but the definition of a woman and who is entitled to access things designed to help woman & girls is not something that is a niche issues

If woman’s hour had been able to do their job properly, their listeners would properly understand the ramifications of things like self Id

To be fair, she was saying that there are practicalities that are much more important to many women on a day-to-day basis than the trans debate (she specifically mentioned women's caring roles). I agree that these can get pushed out of the frame because so much space is given to the battle over women's/trans rights.

JG gave a sycophantic interview with A Challenor about 'coming out as trans' where AC talked about coming out to parents. What was not disclosed at this interview was that AC's father was awaiting trial for child sex offences.

The conversation was ostensibly about the Green deputy leadership contest, but was timed just before the closure of the GRA consultation.

Shameless.

Yes and I agree with her there everything but as far as I remember it, one of the big issues with WH is that they didn’t cover the “trans debate” at all until almost forced into it. Consultations came & went, huge news stories on it came & went, and nothing on it at all on WH. Jenny Murray said that she’d been banned from talking about it.

I fucking wish we didn’t have to talk about trans all the time but y’know...

Just maybe it's a problem with their framing.

Well quite
If WH had covered this issue properly their audience WOULD be interested.

I have spoken to quite a few older women (think church or WI types) and without exception once I outlined what the issues were, and they had got over their disbelief, they were VERY concerned.

@Itsagiven

I fucking wish we didn’t have to talk about trans all the time but y’know...

If we weren't in danger from having the law changed to significantly impact women and girls ....

tbh i think she's right. but her point is framed in the wrong way....

She's not focusing on the issues that people care about by saying that, she's just drawing more attention to the trans stuff. ironically.

Its not centring what women need and want. its positioning it to the side of trans issues which take centre stage...

I'm sure JG enjoys chatting about real issues, but with self ID it will ultimately be pointless (and probably forbidden) because issues that specifically affect the female sex won't have to be addressed in policy when woman/female is just a meaningless identity label available to anyone who fancies it. It's not about 'trans', FFS.

"To be fair, she was saying that there are practicalities that are much more important to many women on a day-to-day basis than the trans debate (she specifically mentioned women's caring roles). "

Whose caring roles? I'd guess more trans men are carers than trans women. By saying caring is predominantly a woman's issue, you're de-centering trans narratives. And we can't possibly talk about how the sexed female body and its functionality might lead to differences in how parents are expected to care for young children, since men and women alike can breastfeed.

To even be able to have these basic discussions of "real issues" in peace, the extreme fringe of the trans lobby must be confronted. Numerous women have been told to stop talking about female health issues in women's groups I've seen on Facebook, all because it was "exclusionary" to do so.

Maybe if outlets such as WH had talked about the "trans debate", ie womens sex based rights, we would not be in a position of fighting hard to maintain the status quo and would have more time for the things that women need.

But there is no point putting all the effort into fighting for what women need when the definition of women is being made to be variable and changeable and based on social stereotypes while everyone ignores it.

Maybe if Women`s Hour covered issues that were more relevant to women, it would have more listeners.

I think it's possible there is a middle ground for reasonable amount of coverage somewhere between the current state of Mumsnet FWR and Woman's Hour.

It's very relevant to "feminism and women's rights" so it gets a lot of play here.

The things going on are very relevant in a more general sense wrt to issues of freedom of speech, conscience, children's health, so it gets a fair bit of coverage in serious publications like the Times, Economist, Spectator, Private Eye, Newsnight.

Surely Woman's Hour shouldn't be covering it less than those general-audience publications? That only makes sense if you follow the TRA dogma that this is purely "anti-trans" and nothing to do with women.

And anyway "most listeners are not interested"?

That's not very Reithian, is it? I thought it was viewed as part of BBC's job to get people interested in the things they should be interested in.

Can you imagine one of those CBBC programmes like "I am Leo" or whatever it was being blocked on the grounds "most viewers are not interested"?

I think JG may not be aware that lots of women stopped listening to WH - and actually the bbc altogether - because of their position on 'the trans debate'.

I used to have R4 on all day every day but not anymore. I don't even listen to it in the car.

I agree this is frustrating: it is not the trans debate, it us the womens rights debate.

And, by way of contrast, let's compare Woman's Hour with the Wings Over Scotland blog.

Wings Over Scotland is about Scottish independence. But Stu Campbell who runs it is seriously into GC, so he's been posting about the rights issue there frequently. (To some extent there is an overlap due to Woke/TRA not-very-independence-minded factions inside the SNP that he's strongly against).

Under the latest post, about the "Help Emily get the puberty plockers she so urgently needs" GoFundMe you will find many readers thanking him for bringing the topic to their attention over the years. Eg:

I would have known little to nothing about all this gender stuff without your tireless efforts, and I for one am just as grateful for the work you do on this as for all your independence blogs. Thank you.

So Stu has managed to get a load of people who came there just for the Scottish independence to learn and care about the issue.

Sure, he's far from unbiased, and it's a very tabloidy presentation, but anyone just reading Wings Over Scotland would be far more accurately informed about the GC vs TRA issue than anyone listening to Woman's Hour or reading allegedly more mainstream websites like Vice. He's not hiding information like Woman's Hour, and he's not just making stuff up like Vice.

If Wings Over Scotland can present the topic and get readers interested, what's Woman's Hour's excuse?

Goodbye Jane. I can't say I'll miss you.

And yes, that interview she did with Aimee Challenor was appalling, gaslighting journalism.

Did they cover Posie Parker's woman definition poster being removed? You'd think most women would be interested in that.

My parents are Radio 4 listening Guardian readers, I have been banging on about this for the last 2/3 years. It's was only after seeing Keira Bell on the news that my dad said "they removed her breasts, who would do that?" [meaning the doctors]

It's like he doesn't believe me because his sources of information haven't been mentioning this stuff.

I can understand that a lot of people wouldn't be invested in the "trans" debate but it's a shame JG can't see that what is at stake is the very definition of "woman". If "woman" means nothing more than a feeling or an identity then everything we have fought for is at risk.

What is the point of all-women shortlists, women's sports, women's shelters, women's support groups, women's healthcare, women's rights if "woman" is just an amorphous concept? When anyone can identify into that category simply by saying so?

I don't understand how people can brush this off as hysteria and scaremongering when it's already happening.