Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Woman's Hour 18/11/2021 Nancy Kelley CEO of Stonewall

451 replies

Abitofalark · 17/11/2021 23:32

From the programme notes:

"Nancy Kelley is CEO of Stonewall, the largest LGBT rights charity in Europe. She speaks to Emma about her organisation’s work and gives her reaction to recent high-profile withdrawals from Stonewall’s Diversity Champions workplace inclusion scheme, including the BBC."

Hmmm...yes, we've heard - and dissected - the previous pronouncement from that quarter about the BBC pulling out of the Stonewall scheme. Let's see what waffle and spin come out in this interview.

OP posts:
DadDadDad · 19/11/2021 07:18

@Abitofalark - on the off-chance you missed it, I posted transcripts of the first half of the interview last night. I might get round to more over the weekend unless someone else gets there first.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 19/11/2021 07:26

That's a great analysis, Redtoothbrush

bellinisurge · 19/11/2021 08:02

This "oh it's just like section 28 in the 80s" stuff.

You know what else we didn't have in the 80s? Safeguarding processes. We trusted (usually) men to be who they said they were. Be that teachers, priests, social workers, sports coaches . Which meant predators could groom people into thinking they were who they said they were. And exploit the trust we give teachers, priests, social workers, sports coaches.

And now we don't trust men to be who they say they are. We have safeguarding/gate keeping processes. Or, at least, we had. Until self-id.

EmpressaurusWitchDoesntBurn · 19/11/2021 08:06

This "oh it's just like section 28 in the 80s" stuff.

I’d say there are definite similarities.

The Section 28 fight was all about the right to be openly and exclusively same-sex attracted and for that to be respected as a sexual orientation. And now we’re having that fight all over again.

bellinisurge · 19/11/2021 08:12

I became an adult in the 80s. Activists are creating a moral panic (to use their terms) about the threat to trans people. As long as single sex spaces are respected, fairness in sport is upheld and language that allows women to talk about themselves isn't removed, most people don't give a shit how someone identifies.

borntobequiet · 19/11/2021 08:19

Every decent man I know (and that’s pretty much all of them) is aware that some men are abusive and violent and that abuse and violence is more common among men than among women. They also know that on average men are bigger and stronger than women and so women are more at risk from men than vice versa.
I’m fairly sure that men who are offended by this are not decent men, but ones who might be abusive and violent themselves if given the chance.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 19/11/2021 09:01

I’d say there are definite similarities.

The Section 28 fight was all about the right to be openly and exclusively same-sex attracted and for that to be respected as a sexual orientation. And now we’re having that fight all over again.

Yes exactly! 🎯

Ekofisk · 19/11/2021 10:27

I noticed that there was quite a lot of “that’s historic” or “that was before my time” side stepping, e.g. with the Scottish Government aim of erasing all gendered language (woman, mother etc).

FlyingOink · 19/11/2021 10:51

@Ekofisk

I noticed that there was quite a lot of “that’s historic” or “that was before my time” side stepping, e.g. with the Scottish Government aim of erasing all gendered language (woman, mother etc).
Historic from two years ago. I have tins of soup in my cupboard that are more historic than that, I'm sure
RedDogsBeg · 19/11/2021 10:53

Great transcript DadDadDad, thanks.

Abitofalark · 19/11/2021 11:00

[quote DadDadDad]@Abitofalark - on the off-chance you missed it, I posted transcripts of the first half of the interview last night. I might get round to more over the weekend unless someone else gets there first.[/quote]
Ah, I saw it after I posted back to you, and thank you so much. It's a mammoth task to do even the first half, never mind the whole thing. I wish we could find an easier way to generate a transcript.

OP posts:
DadDadDad · 19/11/2021 11:10

Yes, I might have bitten off more than I could chew - I'd foolishly assumed it was a 5-ish minute interview, not half an hour! I'm well over halfway, so I might as well as continue. But if anyone wants to take over transcribing from timestamp 19:50 or so, please do!

Wildheartsease · 19/11/2021 12:13

Thank-you @DadDadDad - I'm keen to read this too.

Helleofabore · 19/11/2021 12:35

Thank you DDD. Your efforts are appreciated. It is even more clear in text how she twists and aims for neutrality. The reality is that if her quotes are at risk of being interpreted in ways she doesn’t intend, she , as a senior exec spokesperson for the primary lobby group who set the tone in the UK and further afield, needs to either immediately clarify her statements (which she never does) or she needs to start running them past a PR consultant.

That she does neither is a good indicator that she knows damn well how they will be interpreted, and relies on being able to lightly and sweetly say… oh that, meanies misinterpreted it.

TheSilveryPussycat · 19/11/2021 13:44

Do you think it has occured to them that "maternity service"comes from "mater" - Latin for "mother"?

ScrollingLeaves · 19/11/2021 14:26

“TheSilveryPussycat
Do you think it has occured to them that "maternity service"comes from "mater" - Latin for "mother"?”

I think that bit probably went over their heads.

EmpressaurusWitchDoesntBurn · 19/11/2021 17:47

I’ve finally listened to it. Emma Barnett did a magnificent job.

DadDadDad · 19/11/2021 17:49

Continuing the transcribing, this wraps up the section discussing beliefs on gender and sex, including around lesbians dating. (follows on from my post of 22:39 yesterday)

NK: So, I kind of want to emphasise two things. The one is the first thing that I said. I’m a feminist, it is completely core to my beliefs that nobody should ever be pressured into dating, into sex. We should only choose to be with who we want to be with. I’ve got, you know, many friends who have all kinds of dating preferences. I respect all of them wholly. So it’s really important, I think, to be really unequivocal about that. There’s a difference between saying we might want to think about something and saying you are prejudiced. It’s completely possible to have dating preferences that aren’t to do with prejudice. It’s also completely possible to have dating preferences that are. I guess in the context of LGBTQ dating, there are quite a lot of issues and debates about filters in dating apps, these sorts of things, and conversations about where is it that what we’re doing is having a preference and that’s kind of we want who we want, the heart loves who it loves, and where is it that we’re influenced by kind of negative stereotyping of all kinds, I think is healthy.

EB: But you’re not just a random person on the internet. You’re the Chief Executive of Stonewall. So what you say does have influence. And so by even floating the word “prejudice” in the same sentence as those who feel they have perhaps been labelled prejudiced for this view, do you not see why that’s a powerful statement to even put out there?

NK: So, I’m really happy with what I said. It wasn’t intended to label anybody’s dating choices as right or wrong. I think that thinking about how we choose to date as lesbians, is something that’s mostly for lesbians, right. And, for me, I’m a trans-inclusive feminist so I do believe trans-women are women, so I wouldn’t make that exclusion. Other people don’t agree with me, other people I know and love don’t agree with me and that’s okay.

EB: Do you believe that literally or metaphorically, that trans-women are women?

NK: Literally.

EB: I ask because beliefs are not the same as facts. And when it comes to women, a tribunal this year ruled that gender-critical beliefs, such as the view that sex is fixed and should not be conflated with gender identity, does qualify for protection under the Equalities Act. So that’s been described by some as a landmark ruling. Has that changed Stonewall’s approach under your guidance?

NK: So, gender critical beliefs and all kinds of beliefs have always been protected under the Equality Act and it’s absolutely possible for people to hold gender critical beliefs without expressing them in a way that’s harmful to trans people. So the distinction here which kind of comes back to the conversation we were having earlier is between what we believe and how we express what we believe, and whether we are expressing these things in a way that is not harmful, even if unpopular, even if difficult to listen to, or expressing them in a way that is harmful.

Chrysanthemum5 · 19/11/2021 17:50

I've listened to it. I thought you lot were exaggerating, but no - there is a lot of nervous laughter, and pauses. Anyway, we can thank Nancy for agreeing that biological sex is binary and cannot be changed, and that 'mother' is not a term which should be removed, and that not everything is transphobic. Thanks Nancy!

DadDadDad · 19/11/2021 17:51

That "Literally".... I'm used to hearing people being emphatic that TWAW but it's that unequivocal "2+2=5" commitment that is so chilling.

DadDadDad · 19/11/2021 17:53

And the section on J K Rowling and expressing one's views

EB: It’s about actually if people feel they can also talk in the current climate how they wish to. Is J K Rowling transphobic?

NK: I’ve no idea, no idea. I’ve never met her. I think she’s definitely said things—
EB: You don’t have to meet somebody. You’ve talked about, it’s an expression of their views. She’s expressed her views. On Twitter, she’s talked about how this very set of views are her views. I can give you direct quotes, but they are very well known, and again there’s another reason I’m asking you about this because “I stand with J K Rowling” for another story is trending on Twitter as we speak. Is she a transphobe for saying it the way that she has said it?

NK: I think that I have read things that J K Rowling has said that are harmful in terms of their impact on the trans community. Whether – for me – whether you would describe a person as transphobic is less important than understanding their harm.

EB: But I need to know. Our listeners need to know what the CEO of Stonewall thinks about one of the most famous and successful women from this country. Is she a transphobe or not?

NK: I think, as the CEO of Stonewall, that she’s expressed some views that can cause real harm and I also think she’s expressed some views that don’t. And I think—

EB: What has she said that has caused or could cause harm? This really strikes to the heart of it. Because you’ve actually changed what you’ve said. It’s not about the way she said it, you’re actually now saying what she said can cause harm.

NK: Yes, so when we talk about ideas that are based on the concept that trans people are automatically, particularly trans-women, typically a risk to cis-women, which some, not all, of J K Rowling has said historically has pointed in that direction, then I think that does cause harm to the trans community, when such a prominent person expresses those views. Because it reinforces the idea that trans people are dangerous or are to be feared. And whether that’s J K Rowling’s intention, I’ve got no idea, I’m sure it isn’t actually, I’m sure it’s not her intention to cause any kind of harm.

EB: But what if those assertions are based on actual cases, so not saying all, but saying this is the concern with having people who are not biologically female in refuges. ‘Cause that’s a lot of what she’s talked about.

NK: So, I mean, if we go back to talking about domestic abuse and refuge settings, we’ve got a situation where many refuges run on a trans-inclusive basis and many don’t, and use the Equality Act exemptions. And from my perspective, the important thing is that everybody is able to access a service. I guess what J K Rowling has said is that her preference were she in that situation again – I know that she’s got a history of domestic abuse which she’s talked about – then what she would want is to be in a refuge that excluded trans-women, or that’s how I would understand what she’s said publicly on the topic. And those services exist.

EB: So, what’s wrong with her saying that?

NK: I think that when we are saying it in a way that implies that it’s not about our own feelings of safety, but about a risk that’s posed by another person, it underlines – it’s not in a vacuum, is it?

EB: But those two things are the same.

NK: I don’t think they are, actually.

EB: No, but, you can say that they are. But she’s going to say she’d prefer that. It’s very good to have an example. I’m sorry she’s not here to respond - we’ll of course ask for her take on this. She is allowed is she not – I’ll ask you – to say that? Based on her experience.

NK: Of course.

EB: But you’re also saying she can’t say that because it’s going to cause harm because it’s going to point people to the idea that those individuals are violent and to be feared. So which is it, Nancy?

NK: So there’s a world of difference between a woman who is seeking access to a domestic abuse refuge and saying, you know, “I don’t feel safe around trans-women, can you accommodate me in that way?” And whatever we think about that, whether we think it’s justified or unjustified, she should get support. Everybody who needs that support should have support, and they should feel safe getting it. There is a world of difference between that and saying not in that situation, not when you are—

EB: But she was imagining she was in that situation. She’s a writer, she’s a person, she’s allowed to imagine.

NK: Sure, but, but, extrapolating into an abstract situation that you are not in, when you have such a big reach, I think it would be helpful to be aware that that reinforces stereotypes about trans-women.

EB: We haven’t in this actual bit of our discussion been able to distil what is transphobic? Because you’ve just told me a woman is standing at the door of a refuge and she wants to only have biologically born women in that refuge with her. That’s okay, because she needs the service and she hasn’t got millions of followers. But if she happens to have experienced abuse – or not, but in J K Rowling’s situation she had – and has millions of followers, she can’t say the same thing because it will have potentially created a view of trans-people that could be harmful.

NK: I’m not saying, and I don’t think I have said that anyone can’t say things. People can believe and they can say whatever they choose, right, and that’s what—

EB: But the question was what’s transphobic?

NK: But fundamentally, this is where the balance between our free speech, all of our rights to speak freely and express our views, and the protection of people with protected characteristics comes into play. And there are some contexts, like the workplace, where they come into play and they can interact often quite closely, and there are other contexts, like the kind of public square and debating issues in public where that’s a much less tight coupling. You know, nobody is going to bring an Equality Act case, I hope nobody’s going to bring an Equality Act case about this interview and for anything I’ve said, for instance. But if you are asking if some of the views, you know, if some of the views that J K Rowling has expressed, do they echo very common forms of transphobia? Yes.

RedDogsBeg · 19/11/2021 17:59

So Nancy Kelley would date a TW, aye right she would.

HoardingFloralBuntingInACervix · 19/11/2021 18:19

Always with the 'preferences' shit. Fuck off, Nancy.

FlyingOink · 19/11/2021 19:18

DadDadDad thank you.

It is even more grim in writing. Kelley hasn't even backed up her supporters' ideas, she's so wishy-washy on everything.

Dating preferences are fine but not filters on apps. Single sex refuges are fine but talking about why we need them isn't. People can't change sex but TWALW.

ScrollingLeaves · 19/11/2021 19:24

Can someone explain the apparent contradiction between these two statements from NK quoted below (thanks to DDD’s transcript)?

EB: That again, wasn’t my question. Yes, you could of course have surgery and hormones, but do you believe a person can change their biological sex?

NK: So, I don’t believe, and I don’t think anybody believes, that trans people’s bodies are identical to cis people’s bodies, no.
…………,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,…,,,,,,,,,…,....….….……
EB: Do you believe that literally or metaphorically, that trans-women are women?

NK: Literally.

Given that after NK said that she believed “literally” that TW are women she went on to talk about ‘harm’ caused to people through how views are expressed, is it possible she was hinting that she was choosing the expression ‘literally’ so as not to cause harm? ie being kind? (I haven’t quoted that bit.)

I just can’t make sense of the contradiction.

Swipe left for the next trending thread