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

[Abitofalark]

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.

@IvyTwines2

And of the use of the word 'not feeling safe', very important if you are a student at Sussex uni, but 'transphobic' to mention in the case of women seeking refuge from violence.

YES!

The very last word by EB in reading out listeners' messages: "She was unable to give any examples of JK Rowling's alleged transphobia."

Cracking interview. Thank you Emma. You have got it. Nancy did not come over well especially on the do you believe you can change sex question. And all the stuff about harm.... well we women certainly are experts on all sorts of harm and it’s not at all the same thing.

When you're trying to unravel something I think it's best not to pull at every loose end at the same time. There were a number of issues which Emma Barnett could have addressed in this interview but didn't. I think she prioritised pretty well.

@BaronessWrongCrowdRex

Hang on. If people can not change their sex, Nancy. How are transwomen literally women?

Because of their inner woman essence of course.

But nk should be pinned down to answer that question, because it reveals the batshittery that is it at the core of gender ideology.

Because legal protections are based on sex, because risks are because of that.

So if nk insists that tw actually are women because of inner essence, not their bodies or their needs because of them, then they don’t need to use the word that’s for the sex of adult human females that is delineated in uk law. Or our sex based protections.

So nk should be expected to answer that question, because it pulls the thread out of all gender ideology.

@JustSpeculation

When you're trying to unravel something I think it's best not to pull at every loose end at the same time. There were a number of issues which Emma Barnett could have addressed in this interview but didn't. I think she prioritised pretty well.

It is really about pulling the right thread. Then the loose ends are more obvious.

Just listened. I like that EB commented on "people will look up to you as a leader". NK came across very poorly, from the way she interviewed, the tone of voice she uses, to her total lack of logical and analytic skill. Several points in the interview she tried to brush things away. Her statement that she didn't know about JKR or much about Kathleen Stock was entirely disingenuous. In her position it is her responsibility to research and fact check something so relevant and high profile. I don't get the impression that she actually has the capacity to understand the arguments that are being made on behalf of women. She has taken a side. Sadly I don't think it was even willful misunderstanding. If she is the CEO I dread to think of the calibre of the rest of the organisation.

Compare to the dignity, intelligence and sensitivity of Bev and Kate.

Sorry, haven't read the full thread, will come back later. Wanted to post thoughts post listen. Quite incredible!!!

Wow Emma. That's such brilliant interviewing technique. At one point I said out loud 'my god you are so good'. Luckily only me & dogs in the house! She picked up on things and pushed them just enough.

Some important things that came out if this:

Stonewall would like to have had more influence on BBC editorial policy. The official line is that they don't influence that type of thing, but her answers showed she is disappointed they haven't influenced more.

Stonewall ceo says it's possible to hold gender critical views and express them in a way that is not transphobic. Its the type of expression that's the problem (tho her answer to jkr question showed she doesn't really think this in practice).

Nk thinks trans ppl can change some sex characteristics but not everything, so if changing biological sex means changing everything about sex, then it can't be done. But trans women are women literally not metaphorically.

She couldn't give a proper account of how jkr's views are transphobic or harmful.

NK acknowledges that some women say they need a refuge to exclude transwomen, that's their need and they should have that service. She said many refuges exclude trans women currently, and many include them.

She couldn't really speak on k stock at all, which was weird.

The interview was shaped by the issues that have been raised by gender criticals and the noland podcast. It wasn't shaped at all by what Stonewall would like to talk about. They are having to respond on the back foot to a news agenda which was shaped while they were saying #nodebate. So stupid. I'm not sure listeners got a good idea of what the Equality index and diversity champions schemes actually are even.

I'm continously amazed this is finally happening.

@Melroses

It is really about pulling the right thread. Then the loose ends are more obvious.

Yes. I think she chose her threads well.

To sum up NK.

Lots of tinkly laughs, hm-mms, I'm a lovely lesbian with a lovely family, I'm so lovely and I have lovely views and I really don't know anything about Kathleen Stock or JK Rowling and SW members make their own decisions, they are nothing to do with me, those decisions are historical, I'm lovely and I'm really not influential at all.

@JustSpeculation

When you're trying to unravel something I think it's best not to pull at every loose end at the same time. There were a number of issues which Emma Barnett could have addressed in this interview but didn't. I think she prioritised pretty well.

I think one of the things she did really brilliantly was introducing these really massive pillars of argument - can you change sex? Are TW literally W? Are lesbians bigots? JKR, Kathleen Stock - and gave them space.

She fed NK the question, probed when necessary and pulled NK back when she was being deliberately evasive, but mostly she gave her the rope and let her use it herself. And, when NK was feeling relief that thorny question was out the way, EB hit her with the next one.

('Hit her' being a metaphor. At no point during the interview was NK's physical safety in jeopardy.)

Thanks for all the contributions on this thread - will listen later.

I want Jeremy Paxman to come out of retirement to get an answer from trans ideologists to the questions what is a woman and why are TW women.

I'm really not influential at all.

Yes. The downplaying of influence was huge!!!

@Manderleyagain

Wow Emma. That's such brilliant interviewing technique. At one point I said out loud 'my god you are so good'. Luckily only me & dogs in the house! She picked up on things and pushed them just enough.

Some important things that came out if this:

Stonewall would like to have had more influence on BBC editorial policy. The official line is that they don't influence that type of thing, but her answers showed she is disappointed they haven't influenced more.

Stonewall ceo says it's possible to hold gender critical views and express them in a way that is not transphobic. Its the type of expression that's the problem (tho her answer to jkr question showed she doesn't really think this in practice).

Nk thinks trans ppl can change some sex characteristics but not everything, so if changing biological sex means changing everything about sex, then it can't be done. But trans women are women literally not metaphorically.

She couldn't give a proper account of how jkr's views are transphobic or harmful.

NK acknowledges that some women say they need a refuge to exclude transwomen, that's their need and they should have that service. She said many refuges exclude trans women currently, and many include them.

She couldn't really speak on k stock at all, which was weird.

The interview was shaped by the issues that have been raised by gender criticals and the noland podcast. It wasn't shaped at all by what Stonewall would like to talk about. They are having to respond on the back foot to a news agenda which was shaped while they were saying #nodebate. So stupid. I'm not sure listeners got a good idea of what the Equality index and diversity champions schemes actually are even.

Great post Manderleyagain - thank you for summarising. I was going to go back and listen again to get an overview, but you've summed it up really usefully. (I may still go back for the sheer enjoyment!)

At the beginning I really thought that Emma hadn't quite got a grip on the subject because it was too big and wide-ranging and she wasn't really being specific enough. Oh wow, how wrong I was. In future I'll trust her skill - she really is showing herself to be a magnificent journalist and presenter.

So according to Nancy, JK is allowed to state she doesn’t want to be in a refuge with a trans woman, at the door of the Refuge, but if she says that on Twitter it is problematic and makes trans people feel unsafe?

I will assume from this day forth that Nancy is allowed to say TWAW in the stonewall office but not on Twitter.

Im not very highly educated but can someone explain how she can come to that conclusion and think the general public will agree with her.

@Helleofabore

I'm really not influential at all.

Yes. The downplaying of influence was huge!!!

Yet Ruth Hunt got a peerage out of it 🤔

She really doesn't know anything about JKR or Kathleen Stock?? What utter BS.

I would really love to know, exactly how one goes about showing they have gender critical views without being labelled a transphobe. Because what I got from Nancy is you can date who you want but you can't talk about who you prefer because transphobia. You can request a female only space when going to a refuge but in hush hush tones. You can talk about your lived experiences and how you would feel if going through that today, but not if it reaches a wider audience than your own backyard.

All I'm hearing is yeah you can be gender critical as long as you shut up about it

I would have loved some expansion on that "literally" statement.

My feeling is that EB is hoping that this is going to be part 1 of a two (or more) part interview for when the wind has changed even more. NK can be invited back in to be asked: "in November last year you said X, in the light of what we now know, could you tell the listeners..."

Talking of Ruth Hunt she is very notable by her absence in all HoL debates on these issues considering she is the main reason a lot of it is now being debated. All of a sudden she appears to have nothing to say.

If that is the best Stonewall can do for their spokeswoman then it's quite heartening for those of us who find them dangerous and somewhat bonkers. You'd think at least they would employ someone who can speak normally without all the stupid rising inflections (are you asking or stating something? - comes across as a bit thick and not sure of anything she says), and she says she doesn't know about Kathleen Stock? JKR? Believes that a trans woman has actually become a woman? Embarrassing.

All I'm hearing is yeah you can be gender critical as long as you shut up about it hmm

Exactly.

It fitted with 'I'm not influential so I can say what I want, SW members make their own decisions blah, blah but people like Kathleen Stock and JKR should watch what they say because they can cause harm'.

Yeah, right. SW with its millions, its 750+ members, its access to and infiltration of government, media, schools, universities, law, healthcare. So not influential...

I knew Nancy was on the run when she dashed for the cover of the disabled, the Chinese, the obese, people of colour et al. 🙄 Oh dearie me. Well done EB !

@CriticalCondition

To sum up NK.

Lots of tinkly laughs, hm-mms, I'm a lovely lesbian with a lovely family, I'm so lovely and I have lovely views and I really don't know anything about Kathleen Stock or JK Rowling and SW members make their own decisions, they are nothing to do with me, those decisions are historical, I'm lovely and I'm really not influential at all.

Fab .

Has there been any response on Twitter yet? I'm not great with Twitter and tend to rely on relevant posts being pointed out to me sadly, otherwise I fall down a rabbit hole and ending up hating the world and myself and not necessarily in that order...