Gender Wars - Channel 4 - 10pm tonight

[chouxchoux]

With the brilliant Kathleen Stock.

Anyone planning to watch?

(Apologies if there’s an existing thread I’ve missed).

The C4 programme didn’t expand on Went’s comments about their presence in women’s spaces making women uncomfortable and what the solution could possibly be.

Went has recently been discussing the issue of TW in women’s sport, saying their position has shifted from TW inclusion at all costs to fairness and safety for women.

https://twitter.com/timesradio/status/1663509236150861825?s=46&t=fMjCB4vFfh_N6mYE72mhHw

A number of things struck me about KJW’s contributions.

He made a big deal out of the scientific studies which show that there is “significant male advantage” in sport, and therefore a legitimate reason for retaining single-sex female-only sports.

He mentioned that he’d stopped loudly talking whilst using the female toilets as it would be obvious that a male person was using them, which could be frightening for women, but didn’t say that he’d stopped using the female toilets. In other words recognition that women’s perceptions of safety/risk/threat might be a legitimate area of concern. But no recognition that women’s right to privacy and dignity, as afforded by single sex female-only spaces might be a legitimate consideration.

I think that gives an indication of the arguments which will be deployed in the future to argue for males who identify as transgender to have access to single-sex female facilities and provision ie “there’s no significant male advantage here”, “there’s no actual safety risk here”.

It was a very successful programme from KJW’s point of view. KJW and LB were presented as the moderate ‘open to debate’ individuals, that others ought to emulate. The implication of highlighting them in that way was that it created the (incorrect) impression that KS and JB are not willing to debate in the same way. Which of course they very much are. DP’s view was that, for anyone coming to the topic for the first time, KJW and LB would be the participants most likely to be seen as the most sensible and sympathetic in the programme.

Oh no. Just realised I included a pronoun, which I didn’t intend to do, as I’m not sure what pronouns KJW uses.

Do I need to report my post and ask for the pronoun to be changed to say KJW instead? Worse still there’s two of them.

In fact, three.

So Went is a male individual, who understands that they're male but totally appreciates where women are coming from because when they're sitting in a woman's toilet, talking to a woman in the cubicle next to them, and a woman comes in, they stop talking??

Fucking hell, you need to be limbo dancer to get under that bar.

And I don't believe it anyway. Women rarely chat to someone in the cubicle next to them, even if they're a friend. I'm guessing that's a validation thing.

And it's almost worse.

Went knows their presence is upsetting to women and does it anyway, but just tries to disguise it.

And fondly imagines that's a plus, in their favour, of 'reasonableness.'

I take it back. Even a limbo dancer would struggle.

Honestly, it's quite unbelievable that Went thinks that their respectful concession to women is to hide their presence from said unsuspecting women?

They genuinely believe this! Happy to have it in a documentary.

Too many men on the programme, and not enough ordinary women. Julie & Kathleen were great, as was Nicole & Elanie , however there was not a word about trans widows, women’s prisons, women’s sports, not enough about self ID. It was a wasted opportunity, as it didn’t let those of us women who are not intellectuals or lesbians to speak imho.

This needed to be Ep 1 of a 24 ep season, 7-10 seasons at least.

Felt to me like a failed pilot for a show, no-one underinvested in this story will learn much from either side. Those invested will have no reason to switch allegiances.

Of course, C4 can be smug with themselves, they created a 48 minute oasis of calm discussion. But nothing really achieved.

No Debate to be replaced by Superficial Debate.

Women rarely chat to someone in the cubicle next to them, even if they're a friend. I'm guessing that's a validation thing.

Maybe the friend he went in with kept him talking to warn anyone who came in after them.

I thought that article was remarkably even handed and even potentially GC considering it’s the Guardian. I get the feeling that Lucy Mangan wrote it very carefully and managed to slip in a sentence or two in the form of questions. Eg about transitioning is just saying “I am a woman”, and that (fear of) male violence is at the root of most of the issues being discussed. She wanted more episodes going in depth like many PPs here.

I do wonder what the impact is on her being one of the remaining higher profile women journalists left at the Guardian, and seeing what happened to some of her former female colleagues.

I agree a follow up programme specifically looking at problems caused for women & girls, when males self id as women-such as womens prisons, sports, hospital wards etc. is much needed. Society is not much bothered if an adult female decides to 'live as a man.' Its the effects on the loss of females single sex spaces that is problematic

Unfortunately, being the friend of a person is no recommendation that this person has the best intentions for women at heart. It simply doesn’t work that way.

All it means is that Linda Bellos views this person as a sparring partner, it may mean they are friends, it may not.

Of course, C4 can be smug with themselves, they created a 48 minute oasis of calm discussion. But nothing really achieved.

Exactly.

The only thing that could be achieved by this is that, since everybody now understands that reasonableness and calm is the order of the day, they actually have a bloody discussion. With enough time for everyone to speak, with all the facts.

Although, given that's something that women have been asking for, for I don't know how long, I'm going to go with a wild guess and say that probably won't happen.

Linda was not giving this person the seal of approval, even though she can have certain discussions with them. I hope she will ask them to desist from entering womens spaces from now on.

Oh they all want to win the Nobel Peace Prize for coming up with the 'moderate solution', like that woman who interviewed Doc Stock this morning on Radio Sussex. 'Oh but if if you were just a bit more moderate, don't you think ...? I'm glad Doc Stock laughed at her.

It's the same with Labour's stupid cliché, ''we need less heat, and more light'. My own Labour MP actually came out with it the other week when I last spoke to him. Oh do fuck off; and (a) don't patronise me with the utterings of flea-brained Lisa Nandy, and (b) what's wrong with a bit of 'heat'? When did passion die a death, become offensive?

😂😂
I sometimes wonder if she's vain enough to check her mentions on here and realise how many of us fancy her! 😂

It was DEFINITELY Doc Stock's day yesterday though. And Moral Maze on R4 tonight too!

I think it's all even more arousing with women's apparent consent.

I heard that interview. Kath Stock must have the patience of a saint, both putting up with the toddlers at Oxford Uni, and then the inanity of a radio host.

She really sounds anything other than considered and calm, but even she couldn't suppress ironic laughter and exasperation at the constant refrain of "...surely you must see your words could threaten, people have the right not to be subjected to your opinions, if certain people consider you hateful..." yada yada yada.

*rarely sounds

Vis a vis the debate coming up, I have now emailed the Sex Matters proforma letter to my MP. I would have done it before but I'm pretty sure they just chuck my stuff in the bin as they never even bother to reply - not even an acknowledgement of receipt or "have passed it to appropriate....".

LibDem, sadly.

Luckily I actually know my Labour MP in RL, so I'll drop a hand-written letter round. He knows my thoughts. But he also knows that the vast majority of people agree with them, once they twig on.

I would say, "OK, then put up senior Labour politicians to debate both GC feminists and also trans-rights activists".

If they want calm debate, then I'm sure at least the GC feminists should be able to handle that.

Here is a twitter thread back from 2020 that gives some further Went insight.

https://twitter.com/sarahstuartxx/status/1236311814759219202?s=46&t=HTxp6zC_d4GZ2FFv4a-YeQ

I just read that thread.

Trans/NB looking to get rights back from men, in the course of which women are just asked to budge up a bit.

Why not come right out with it, get off the fucking bus, Karen's!

Indeed Tinsel.

I don't know how many times it needs to be pointed out that even the supposed "reasonable" men with special identities are part of the problem and not the solution.