AntiSocial on Radio 4 started right now (Friday lunchtime) on misgendering

[nauticant]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001xfw6

The programme consistently fails to meaningfully engage with trans.

No, I don’t think so. More likely gay. Possibly just not wholly invested in understanding or appreciating the potentially negative impacts on women.

So far I’m not impressed with the handling of this important topic. Chalmers’s opinion it’s going to be fine. Police Scotland (who are nice to trans people) say it’ll be fine. Hamlin saying just don’t be unkind and it’ll be fine. Now omigod another bloody academic from queer studies now speaking. I’m giving up.

Women wear your scold’s bridles so you don’t stir anything up, don’t hurt menz feelings, don’t be deliberatively unkind.

Know your place and it’ll be fine. God. What could possibly go wrong.

He’s doing a shite job here. The tone of voice in reference to the Forstater case. His choice of guests and the time he’s giving them makes clear his position on this matter.

they seem to be trying to make it as dull and wearying as possible so that any concerns are just bored out of the listener.

Queer academic asked about Forstater case and to be fair she is explaining that misgendering isn't permitted in the workplace to the extent that it amounts to harassment.

Who is the academic @nauticant?

Missed her name but I'll mention if I hear it.

She's now talking about NCHIs and the Miller case.

Professor Sharon Cowan, University of Edinburgh.

Ah yes I'm familiar with her. She's awful.

Misgendering compared with flashing.

The police apparently record NCHIs in order to map rises in actual hate crime. Likened NCHIs to indecent exposure (non-crime!) - both escalating to major crimes!

Is this an opportunity to complain to BBC using their own wording from the Justin Webb report?

I believe they just "gave the impression of endorsing one viewpoint in a highly controversial area"

The introduction of NCHIs by Cowan has inadvertently moved the conversation into a more helpful area, and makes clear as day that the suggestion of a restrained Police force and nothing to worry about is misleading.

I think she went to a Scotgov hearing thing about single sex spaces and upset some survivors of male violence.

x.com/dis_critic/status/1752036454878904720?s=46&t=SPorwN-mokktL467rcZ57g

www.holyrood.com/comment/view,how-a-service-set-up-for-traumatised-women-forgot-its-core-function?s=09

I’ve heard this podcast been very even handed before, on these issues.

I’m disappointed if he doesn’t push back.

The first legal expert was talking about how it was about “stirring up hate against groups” but everyone else is still talking about individuals. Surely the worrying thing is that while women posting GC views might be in the clear with regard to hate against individuals, from what the legal guy said, there is a concern that we would be campaigning against a group.

Talk about the group thing people!

Will the threshold is always as high as rape or genocide?

FFS Hamlin is utterly inarticulate. Hopeless.

Softly softly my foot.

For the first 10 minutes I just assumed I was listening to a man called Jay, until he said he was a transwoman.
Oops, could I be arrested for that thought?

The "criminal threshold" - what exactly is that? Do we all have to go through what Harry Miller went through? I mean it sounds like women calling men men will be automatically presumed guilty until proved innocent. The punishment will be the process.

Surely the worrying thing is that while women posting GC views might be in the clear with regard to hate against individuals, from what the legal guy said, there is a concern that we would be campaigning against a group.

Yes, that's how the TRAs want it used, but obviously many of them will play that down.

It seems that the genderists are saying that all law cases need to be put out of one's mind, and the only case to consider is this one:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-64905216

I assume they mean the original case and not its successful overturning.

This came on while I was driving and I had to turn it off as driving angry isn’t good. The first few words angered me in fact.

Did they mention R v Scottow? And the successful overturning of that?

I'm not sure I can bring myself to listen to it.

R v Scottow seems not to exist in this universe.

I can imagine looking at that might include looking at the complainant.