Scottish Bill being discussed now on WH

[MagpiePi]

...jsut caught this so don't know who is talking. It started at about 10:17am

I missed the name of the speaker too.

The tone is all very 'nothing to see here.' Polarised debate, contentious issue, but is not really something people are talking about in real life, on the doorstep.

Could that be because it's all been kept out of the media? Could it be that they actively tried to push it under the radar?

A great shame that Emma Barnett is away this week. I feel she would have asked much more useful, exposing questions.

The message I'm getting is it's a niche issue, most people aren't bothered, it's all about social media, and young people are on board. Some nods to why people are against the proposals.

Emma Barnett isn't in the studio. The presenter this week it's Jessica Creighton.

Lorna someone. BBC correspondent

Lorna Gordon, Scotland correspondent.

Live in acquired gender such BS

Lorna Gordon.

The item immediately before this was 'gender-based violence' in the Ukraine conflict. The speaker talked about the additional danger women face in the current situation in numerous different ways.

How can the international community help, asks the presenter?

UN/Government/NGO-run shelters, is the answer. 'Protection measures put in place - sex segregated dorms, safe toilets, things like that...'

Fast forward five minutes...

The people of Scotland are totally fine about making it much easier for men to access women's safe spaces.

'Protection measures put in place - sex segregated dorms, safe toilets, things like that...'

JFC. Can they not hear themselves?

There's such racism and xenophobia at the heart of this ideology. Women in other countries need sex segregated spaces because men rape and sexually assault them if they don't have those spaces. We however have moved beyond that.

Exactly Clymene

In addition to the smug confidence that we in the civilised, progressive UK would never find ourselves in a messy, chaotic conflict situation. The cultured theatre-goers of Edinburgh are absolutely chill with mixed sex facilities, so where's the problem?

A complete waste of valuable airtime on Women's Hour.

No discussion or exploration of the impact of this legislation on women. It was all glossed over as a 'contentious' issue that is divisive on social media with the young in favour but your average Scot at the petrol pump is more worried about the cost of living.

Emma Barnett would have been all over this and properly prised out the issues.

God it really was awful. Skimmed over the fact that 50% population are opposed (a huge uptick from the previous survey and almost certainly due to the increased light being shone on the issues). Absolutely "move on, nothing to see here".

What a total disaster for the women and girls of Scotland.

It would seem that if you are middle class enough this is all about people on social media not being nice about pronouns.

I hadn't heard Jessica Creighton as a presenter on Women's Hour before so I looked her up.

And guess what? Her website says she co-founded Rainbow Noir, a community space for LGBTQ people of colour.

Well, no wonder the questions were feeble.

I have WH on most days, so I've been aware of her this week and she really seems to have been floundering at times. She doesn't have a great command of the subjects she's handling. Makes me appreciate Emma Barnett even more.

@nauticant

Lorna Gordon.

If this is the quality of the journalists in Scotland I pity the women of Scotland even more today.

Barnett wouldn't have been rolled over like that. I hope the Beeb aren't deliberately keeping her away from this issue as they did Jenni Murray.

@WinterTrees

Exactly Clymene

In addition to the smug confidence that we in the civilised, progressive UK would never find ourselves in a messy, chaotic conflict situation. The cultured theatre-goers of Edinburgh are absolutely chill with mixed sex facilities, so where's the problem?

I can assure you this cultured theatre-goer of Edinburgh is absolutely NOT chill with mixed-sex facilities.

@WinterTrees

The item immediately before this was 'gender-based violence' in the Ukraine conflict. The speaker talked about the additional danger women face in the current situation in numerous different ways.

How can the international community help, asks the presenter?

UN/Government/NGO-run shelters, is the answer. 'Protection measures put in place - sex segregated dorms, safe toilets, things like that...'

Fast forward five minutes...

The people of Scotland are totally fine about making it much easier for men to access women's safe spaces.

Yes, it was 'gender' all the way through her speech until she got to 'sex' segregated dorms. And I thought about how trustworthy and safe the UN agencies and NGOs she was recommending, are for women. No hint of awareness in her of questions about those and their conduct.

There had also been a reference, which I didn't catch all of but could have been about Ukraine or maybe the countries adjacent to it, to women not having equal rights in society, parliament and so on, with a kind of implication behind it. And I thought to myself hmm...so we are more advanced and have equal rights here? How come then, the many forms of violence, social and legal disadvantages and ills we are constantly grappling with?

When I heard the piece I just thought Jessica Creighton was out of her depth or poorly prepared. Never come across her before. The piece seemed oddly thin and superficial. Having read her bio I now think she is either in favour of the new law or doesn't want to wade in because of her LGBT connections. Whatever the reason, she failed as a professional journalist on a programme for women FFS to ask serious, 'difficult' questions about a law that is going to impact women.

I hope Emma Barnett can deal with it properly soon.

Apologies BuffysBigSister! I was using that as a generic example (as theatres seem to be at the forefront of removing single sex loos, to signal their liberal progressiveness) and not suggesting that their female customers support it. Sorry if it seemed that way.

So then presumably some of the more enlightened should be denouncing any work on segregated toilets in certain countries because it is simply not necessary . How can they talk themselves out of one rule for us and another for “them” ?

@WinterTrees

Apologies BuffysBigSister! I was using that as a generic example (as theatres seem to be at the forefront of removing single sex loos, to signal their liberal progressiveness) and not suggesting that their female customers support it. Sorry if it seemed that way.

Don't worry, I didn't take it personally

@WinterTrees

The item immediately before this was 'gender-based violence' in the Ukraine conflict. The speaker talked about the additional danger women face in the current situation in numerous different ways.

How can the international community help, asks the presenter?

UN/Government/NGO-run shelters, is the answer. 'Protection measures put in place - sex segregated dorms, safe toilets, things like that...'

Fast forward five minutes...

The people of Scotland are totally fine about making it much easier for men to access women's safe spaces.

I found myself scowling at the radio and muttering 'join the fucking dots, people!' at it.

1. Trees -quite interesting.

1. Acknowledgement that Ukranian women & children were at increased risk from predators and exploitation due to the chaos providing opportunities for, and therefore attracting, predators and exploiters.

1. Scottish women are not at increased risk from predators despite proposed law change, indeed the 'unintended consequences' that self-identification attracts predators, which feminists keep banging on about, is ignored. Women will not be protected because legislators wilfully ignore the inevitable 'unintended consequences' .

1. Extending the Forfeiture Rule to include domestic violence is being resisted by the UK government because there could be 'unintended consequences', even though they never said what they could be. Women's estates will not be protected because legislators wilfully prioritise the undefined 'unintended consequences' .

1. Inability of presenter and interviewee to distinguish between a sexist dress code for customers and sexist uniform rules for staff.

2, 3 and 4 all just segueing into and contradicting each other, hence my increasingly irate 'join the dots'.