R4 now Tuesday 7.51 am

[somethinginoffensive]

Discussing Stonewall.

@WinterTrees didn't you get the memo?
Stonewall is a trans organisation now because all the gay stuff has been sorted.
Everywhere.

It's an old tactic I first saw used in the 80s. The interviewee starts out with attacking and accusations so the interviewer is diverted by trying to defend themselves. Less time to discuss the actual issues.

Well that didn't work out too well for Benjamin did it. He looked like an utter tool. Maybe he should take a crash course in the importance of coherent debates, logic and facts.

@WinterTrees

Wait a minute, wasn't the slot on the Today Programme to discuss Stonewall and why it, as an organisation, has lost so much support lately? (sorry, can't remember how the segment was introduced.)

Why then the tantrum over having two gay men discussing it, and no trans people? Stonewall is still supposed to be an LGBT organisation, is it not? Why is it being put forward as an outrage that one letter from that acronym wasn't elevated above the others?

Yes - Simon Fanshawe was there as founding member criticising the organisation. BC was there because Stonewall refused to take part.

Benjamin should have been much better prepared than this. I couldn’t believe he trotted out the ‘it’s just paperwork’ line regarding Self-ID. I remember an irritating meme with Owen Jones, (possibly interviewing Shon F?) where he incredulously laughs in a ‘why you getting your knickers in a twist’ way about self-ID and says ‘it’s just admin’. I wish I could find it!

BC must have known he was going to have to hit back with some substance - quite telling that he was unable to muster up anything half-way credible. I bet Ruth Hunt is glad she’s reclining in the oak-panelled House of Lords, probably thinking ‘thank fuck I got out when I did’ What a legacy she left for Nancy.

@Erikrie

It's an old tactic I first saw used in the 80s. The interviewee starts out with attacking and accusations so the interviewer is diverted by trying to defend themselves. Less time to discuss the actual issues.

Well that didn't work out too well for Benjamin did it. He looked like an utter tool. Maybe he should take a crash course in the importance of coherent debates, logic and facts.

I saw a lot of Twitter comments that JW interrupted BC and was abrasive.

It would be interesting to see the Venn diagram of those commenters and their reaction to India W's Good Morning appearance with Posie Parker and the performance of the interviewers.

JW was a bloody marvel!! How right he is - on SW/PrickNews logic he, of course, could identify as a woman on a Tuesday.

It would be interesting to see the Venn diagram of those commenters and their reaction to India W's Good Morning appearance with Posie Parker and the performance of the interviewers

Ahh but the interviewers on that occasion were prepared to throw away logic with a singular focus on being kind. That's what is required. To shut up, ignore the reality and just be kind. This is the approved activist position. Hence those interviewers would get the equivalent of a 5 star stonewall rating. 👍

@Mollyollydolly

The only thing that would have made that perfect was if LGB Alliance had been on.

Simon Fanshawe is very close involved with LGB Alliance: he gave a speech at their inaugural meeting.

Just a reminder to everyone here that the LGB Alliance welcomes everyone who supports the rights of LGB people. You don't have to be LGB to sign up to newsletters etc.

lgballiance.org.uk

[quote BoreOfWhabylon]@Tanith
It's an old tactic I first saw used in the 80s. The interviewee starts out with attacking and accusations so the interviewer is diverted by trying to defend themselves. Less time to discuss the actual issues.

Also a tactic beloved of politicians. Stupid stupid man trying it against an interviewer of Justin Webb's calibre.[/quote]
It's also a tactic we see on these boards all the time:
'Tell me about ....' thereby derailing the conversation away from the thread (often on to toilets - funnily enough I've never seen a derail into, let's say women's sports or prisons).
Or sometimes we're presented with a list of questions.

And we run around (me included) to answer them and the discussion is lost.

Not Justin Webb: 'Your statement is noted,' he said (or something very similar). 'Now are you going to answer the question?'

I think we can all learn from that.

Why didn’t stonewall want to take part? Running scared, and realizing what they’re fighting for is bullshit.

Bunbury has extensive detail on those (and other) tactics:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3438714-Bunbury-s-Public-Service-Announcement-2

Yes - Simon Fanshawe was there as founding member criticising the organisation. BC was there because Stonewall refused to take part.

It's interesting that the Today Programme piece is being framed as a trans rights discussion. It's like they're now admitting the bit no one is supposed to say out loud - that the T has very little in common with LGB and was only ever using it as a trojan horse.

lovetomato

Not a meme, but was it this interview with Ruth Hunt?
The clip isn't long but the 'it's admin' bit is at 2.28

www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10156799051311323

Just listening again. "Benjamin Cohan, thanks for your time, Stonewall could have come on but didn't' sounds so neutral but the contempt in his voice! Delicious.

Stonewall have realised that at the moment every time they or their behaviours are examined in the media they end up looking like a toxic organisation. However, even when they hide, if someone tries to speak on their behalf they end up looking even worse.

Now would be a good time to reformulate their media strategy. Oh.

Just finished listening.

In a nutshell Fanshawe makes a well considered, reasonable statement to express his opinion that Stonewall has lost its way by taking a position that's divisive and furthermore refusing to acknowledge and engage on the subject of women's rights in order to find a way forward.

Cohen them beautifully illustrates what Fanshawe has said by going on an aggressive ranty diatribe, refusing to answer questions and when pushed mis-represents the truth.

Lesson to Stonewall: we know you're probably "in hiding" at the moment hoping the bad press will blow over, but if you're invited on Radio 4 it's wise to turn up because otherwise you'll get contributors like Cohen who'll make matters worse and provide additional bad PR (not that we mind of course....always happy to see Cohen do his bit for women's rights).

[quote EmbarrassingAdmissions]Bunbury has extensive detail on those (and other) tactics:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3438714-Bunbury-s-Public-Service-Announcement-2[/quote]
Yes Bunbury is very good on dealing with derail attempts. Maybe JW is a fan

NancyDrawed you star, that’s EXACTLY the clip. The aforementioned Ruth Hunt spectacularly downplaying the significance of Self-ID. And Owen finding it hilarious. Please take a look at it if you haven’t seen the clip (at the time code Nancy helpfully gave). I wonder if Ruth and Simon have sat down recently to discuss this issue?

I really, really enjoyed that 8 minutes.
I am still suppressing chuckles, several minutes on. Might bookmark for future cheering up...

@WeeBisom

So, David Paisley has just tweeted his outrage that 'gay cis men' spoke over trans people. He recommended Katy Montgomery to the BBC, but the BBC wanted people connected to Stonewall. But I find this anger very telling. He really doesn't seem to care, or realise, that it's just men speaking about a woman's issue.

Freddie McConnell is also mad that journalists are discussing trans people's basic rights and humanity without talking to them. And to be honest the cognitive dissonance is making my head spin. Sorry, Freddy but for years your side has refused to engage in debate and has even made 'no debate' a slogan because your 'existence' is not something that should ever be discussed. There are multiple trans people who have sworn they will NEVER debate this issue. So if trans people refuse to speak about it, you can't very well complain If trans people are left out and their side is left looking like fools.

Very snide comments from Freddy about JW challenging BC about his use of the word cis. I mean, let’s face it Freddy, if anyone mis genders or mis calls you the wrath of the Furies descends in a red mist of pain and hurt feelingz. Insinuating that JW is somehow hiding his “trueself” because he objects, quite rightly , to someone who should know better (both from personal experience and as a journalist whose first priority should be the truth) making assumptions about his identity is beyond spiteful.

@McDuffy

I really, really enjoyed that 8 minutes. I am still suppressing chuckles, several minutes on. Might bookmark for future cheering up...

In terms of exposing the looniness in all it's splendour, It ranks right up there with Posie and Harrumph

The daily Mail are chortling loudly about it.

Re India on this morning, I've seen it before but I feel so much more able to see the smoke and mirrors.

🎻 s first of all. A full male career in the bbc reaping all the well publicised benefits of being male and earring a wage as a tv journalist. Hmm.

And the comparison of trans with a baby who's been born with a disability, framing it as "biology gone wrong" and gone wrong for that a baby? That's the intersex appropriation. Low low low blow.

@Mollyollydolly

Just listening again. "Benjamin Cohan, thanks for your time, Stonewall could have come on but didn't' sounds so neutral but the contempt in his voice! Delicious.

I enjoyed that bit too.