Woman's hour today, 28th may

[WarriorN]

'Interesting' mix of biology, gender and violence against women and girls...

Honestly, I read a lot into that line up!

I'm currently reading Unnatural Selection by Mara Hvistendahl, "rampant sex selective abortion has contributed to the disappearance of an estimated 160 million females from Asias population'"

That might be a relevant book for Womens Hour to discuss in future...

It's neither one thing nor the other - is this the BBC trying to pull a reverse ferret thinking we won't notice?

They put breast feeding mums for one...

The first item looks quite interesting actually - are the BBC allowed to talk about trans men having periods because that's a female only function?

I can’t listen to WH any more. The presenter is rude and abrasive and the constant mention of the trans issue is tedious. The production team are just virtue signalling.

I thought putting something that does affect women and Transmen due to biology ahead of a trans woman, was pertinent.

"What it feels like for a girl" 🤔

Yes Happy's suggestion is a very good one.

The way I see it is that they have to "be inclusive" so it's important to get some schedule balance by including trans men for obvious reasons.

I'll listen so that I can at least critique. Don't think it's an Emma day?

I find the title of that book offensive tbh.

I agree with pp - struggling to listen to it these days. It just doesn't feel like it used to. Emma is v aggressive which is not what I want from Woman's Hour. I don't mind Anita, but I certainly don't make a point of listening to it when previously I was a regular listener. Sad times ...

Remember when gardeners q time flounced and set up another version? We need that.

I agree OP that book title is offensive. I’m not sure why PL needs to be on WH - surely a general book or arts programme would be better?

Why not an lgbt hour?

@WarriorN

Why not an lgbt hour?

It’s not necessary. They’re already ramming down the issue - the T part, I mean - from every damned angle.

That line up is a complete summary of why I cannot be bothered with women’s hour any more.

Like the presenter said, I’m going to paint my toenails in excitement of the bank holiday weekend rather than pander to PL who would like women to be more receptive of catcalling and anal penetration.

The intro to today's programme was especially girly. This Anita Rani sounds like a "be nice" feminist.

A notable change of approach from PL, I think. Interesting.

I might go and have a look for that 'We're still here' thread from a while ago.

Yes, Anita Rani being quite girly and fawning.

A notable change of approach from PL, I think

I don't know much about this person, how has the approach changed, do you think?

@WarriorN

I find the title of that book offensive tbh.

Agree.

At the end of the PL interview Anita Rani did some additional fawning and then read out fawning tweets. If you look at the replies on twitter that sentiment is in the minority with the majority asking why PL was considered to be a relevant guest for WH.

Now she's just said "women and some transmen" about menstruation related side effects from Covid vaccinations. She seems to be taking this episode to make clear where she stands.

Anita was the interviewer last week who managed to avoid the elephant in the room when talking to the Prisons minister. I think there must have been an agreement beforehand not to mention it. The Minister nervous throughout...

"pregnant people" from the expert. The expert is a pronoun fan with an ironic surname:

twitter.com/VikiLovesFACS

I don't know much about this person, how has the approach changed, do you think?

In the past PL has been very much at the forefront of #nodebate and very outspoken about demanding access to women's sex-segregated spaces. PL also favours the direct approach of getting women to state their support of transwomen in women's spaces. I've seen interviews between PL and Emma Watson, and also PL and Jess Phillips where PL asks 'would you object to me using the same toilet as you?' which exploits female socialisation to be nice, and is also unhelpfully personal, when the issue of sex-segregated spaces is a wider social one and not about individuals who you consider to be harmless. I think this has a lot to do with PL's need for validation, which is also why PL has written several articles about PL's dating experiences, the kind of men PL is attracted to, and PL's enjoyment of public sexual objectification - catcalling, wolf-whistling etc.

The tone of this interview seemed to be at odds with many of the things that PL has previously written and said. I didn't hear all of it, but it seems the book is about child sexual abuse and PL was expressing concern for the young female victims, which is great if it raises awareness and encourages readers to come forward and seek help. However, I'm concerned that things that PL has previously written and said show that PL is not someone who has a good awareness of safeguarding or respecting the boundaries of women and girls.

@daringdoris

Yes, Anita Rani being quite girly and fawning.

A notable change of approach from PL, I think

I don't know much about this person, how has the approach changed, do you think?

Now: thinking about the effect of their presence in women's toilets on others, a conversation is needed about this

Then: I'll use whatever toilets I feel comfortable in. No debate.

x-post with WinterTrees

So I've just had a look at the WH Twitter. The responses to the Paris Lees interview are overwhelmingly critical and include -

'Shocking, interview - softer than the focus of @parislees photo'

'Being a girl is lived reality not a feeling'

'The fawning is sickening and not offered to any women guests you have.'

And many more.

Why didn't Anita Rani didn't read out any of these?

Can you imagine Jenni Murray or Jane Garvey fawning like this? That's it WH, I gave you a chance, I'm done.