R4 now Tuesday 7.51 am

[somethinginoffensive]

Discussing Stonewall.

The clip's available here on YouTube, for easy access.

@DifficultBloodyWoman

OMFG!

I’m listening to it now and it is an absolute car crash. Well, BC’s part in it anyway.

‘Misinformation spread by a homophobic and transphobic media’.
Is he lying? Or is he, ahem, uninformed?

Oh, now we have top trumps!

Great ending - ‘Stonewall could have come on, but didn’t’.

I forgot how juicy the last line was

So Kathy Burke tweeted something about Ben was just pointing out there should have been a trans person on the interview, but has now deleted it. Maybe she realised that a discussion about women's rights and safety should have actually had a woman involved.

Glad she's deleted it.

Radio isn't the medium a transwoman would accept to debate this with a woman.

Just listened to it. Oh dear !
It's a shame the Stonewall single sex exemption campaign wasn't proven but otherwise a great set of interviews.

@Chrysanthemum5

So Kathy Burke tweeted something about Ben was just pointing out there should have been a trans person on the interview, but has now deleted it. Maybe she realised that a discussion about women's rights and safety should have actually had a woman involved.

Just when I thought I couldn't be cringing harder for Benjamin Cohen, I saw his grateful fawning follow-up tweets to Kathy Burke. Including this one - 'Somehow I didn't even realise you were on twitter or I would have followed you earlier.'

My secondhand embarrassment just went off the scale and now I'm rocking under the kitchen table until it abates.

(I wonder if he'll unfollow now she's deleted the original tweet)

@Chrysanthemum5

So Kathy Burke tweeted something about Ben was just pointing out there should have been a trans person on the interview, but has now deleted it. Maybe she realised that a discussion about women's rights and safety should have actually had a woman involved.

And what about the fact that Stonewall, the specific organisation who not only represents trans people, but are the organisation that this whole thing is about, were actually invited and refused to come.

I remember Venice Allan getting the same complaint, at her first We Need To Talk meeting. She had invited something like 24 separate trans people or organisations, all of whom refused.

No debate was never going to work long-term.

Well that was brilliant! Simon 1 Ben 0 loved the presenter. More sunlight pours in...

I never had any respect for the NO DEBATE way of going about things until I heard this interview.
If that's the way these guys reason and present their thoughts or beliefs, they are absolutely right to insist on no debate.

@PleasantBirthday

I never had any respect for the NO DEBATE way of going about things until I heard this interview. If that's the way these guys reason and present their thoughts or beliefs, they are absolutely right to insist on no debate.

Yeh they say “no debate” because they can’t actually debate. They have nothing.

@PleasantBirthday

I never had any respect for the NO DEBATE way of going about things until I heard this interview. If that's the way these guys reason and present their thoughts or beliefs, they are absolutely right to insist on no debate.

It's a bit chicken and egg, he can't reason because he hasn't tested his arguments because of #nodebate.

@PleasantBirthday

I never had any respect for the NO DEBATE way of going about things until I heard this interview. If that's the way these guys reason and present their thoughts or beliefs, they are absolutely right to insist on no debate.

To be honest, I strongly suspect that the reason they have taken the no debate stance is because, deep down, they realise that their position can't actually withstand scrutiny.

I had a discussion with a TWAW friend who said, ' you have made some good points but I can't talk with you any further because you misgendered (male sex offenders)' Again, I strongly suspect she ended the debate because she simply had not thought about and could not address the points I made. Its a way of getting out of a debate you are losing without having to concede any of your arguments.

It's a bit chicken and egg, he can't reason because he hasn't tested his arguments because of #nodebate.

Possibly, but I believe that at some level they are aware that what they are pushing for sounds insane to most people and there are no arguments that will change that, no matter how skillfully made. That's why it's all backroom gladhanding, reinterpreting the law for employers and going at people I WILL FIGHT YOU WITH KNIVES style to anyone who dares question them.
He did a bad job but it was a short interview. He should have been more in control for those two minutes but they're so hyped up on forcing compliance rather than actually trying to discuss what their aims are...

This was a popular comment under the Daily Mail article:

So if the word 'mother' is to be replaced by 'parent who has given birth' what does that make a grandmother? A parent who has given birth to a parent who has given birth or contributed to a parent giving birth.

I remember Venice Allan getting the same complaint, at her first We Need To Talk meeting. She had invited something like 24 separate trans people or organisations, all of whom refused.

It was useful that The Lawyer mentioned that Naomi Cunningham had asked for a lawyer to engage in a discussion about the issues with her and, several months later, nobody has agreed to do this.

The Curious Incident of the Lawyers Who Didn't Argue: legalfeminist.org.uk/2020/11/26/the-curious-incident-of-the-lawyers-who-didnt-argue/

www.thelawyer.com/law-firms-should-ask-hard-questions-about-stonewall/?f

Some discussion here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4264522-Law-firms-should-ask-hard-questions-of-Stonewall-article-in-The-Lawyer

I strongly suspect she ended the debate because she simply had not thought about and could not address the points I made. Its a way of getting out of a debate you are losing without having to concede any of your arguments.

Yes, it's getting you on a technicality. Like Serena Williams serving a ferocious, powerful, perfectly-aimed shot that her opponent doesn't have a hope in hell of returning, but not winning the point because her toe was half a centimetre over the line.

Benjamin Cohen went straight to this technique when he evaded JW's question and invoked the technicality of 'no trans voices'. It's the old tactic of gamesmanship, used by sports people and teams when they can't win on skill alone.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamesmanship

Have you read The Theory and Practice of Gamesmanship by Stephen Potter WinterTrees? It's actually rather amusing.

@Chrysanthemum5

So Kathy Burke tweeted something about Ben was just pointing out there should have been a trans person on the interview, but has now deleted it. Maybe she realised that a discussion about women's rights and safety should have actually had a woman involved.

She tweeted something similar again, saying she had deleted the first because she got the interviewer's name wrong.

I thought kb's short series on being a woman a year or two ago was really very good. I have huge respect for her. She obviously took Justin webb as getting the hump because he was criticised for not having a trans guest. It's likely that she does know about what's going on here and disagrees with us on it. She must have noticed the stuff that James dreyfus has been saying for the last few years.

It is remarkable how BC is trying now to say that JW was 'angry'. JW was perfectly calm and gracious throughout the whole interview. It was BC who kept getting his knickers in a twist and barking out his spiel.

It is truly remarkable how BC keeps denying the reality of everything. Does he (or whatever applicable self chosen moniker) think if he re-tells it how he wanted it to be, that people will accept his edited version over the real version?

Does he (or whatever applicable self chosen moniker) think if he re-tells it how he wanted it to be, that people will accept his edited version over the real version?

Well, apparently it's what stonewall have been doing for cash so, you know...

Possibly, but I believe that at some level they are aware that what they are pushing for sounds insane to most people and there are no arguments that will change that, no matter how skillfully made.

Good point. It can get tedious repeating arguments when they are questioned not in good faith, but for an organisation to try to change the law without winning the argument suggests they don't have one.

Contrast with rape being legal within marriage. The argument against that was won long before the law changed.

@nauticant

Have you read The Theory and Practice of Gamesmanship by Stephen Potter WinterTrees? It's actually rather amusing.

I haven't yet, but I might now

@Cailleach1

It is remarkable how BC is trying now to say that JW was 'angry'. JW was perfectly calm and gracious throughout the whole interview. It was BC who kept getting his knickers in a twist and barking out his spiel.

It is truly remarkable how BC keeps denying the reality of everything. Does he (or whatever applicable self chosen moniker) think if he re-tells it how he wanted it to be, that people will accept his edited version over the real version?

Self identifying himself as calm and reasoned

Around £3 on eBay. Very old school but sometimes I look at our Brave New World and think that not everything in the past was bad.

Does he (or whatever applicable self chosen moniker) think if he re-tells it how he wanted it to be, that people will accept his edited version over the real version?

But this is the crux of his entire position, and that of the entire political position he represents.

The position's version of everything, is what all people are required to accept over and above their own views, feelings, needs, observations and interests, while obediently discarding the unwanted facts and bits of reality that throw doubt upon that version. And that some people get to impose their version, but others don't and must obey the version they're given.

It requires a society consisting of the served and the serving, and the serving do not get to choose their role or say no. It requires accepting that rights are not equal, universal things but that some have more and are of higher importance than others. It would also require a society of madly self sacrificing sheeple, and I think that's where it all falls down.