Woman's hour: what sex means in law

[WarriorN]

I'm a bit behind (enjoying the Reith lecture, another thread...)

But it's the head line feature.

Let's see how it goes....

Title is how they introduced the item.

Speaking to a man ( missed who) who's giving the different arguments on either side

It came across as broadly neutral to me. (At least for the BBC.) I think it being a live case in the Supreme Court meant that they were somewhat respectful of their being two sides.

He's emphasising that women's groups say that it could impact half the population, due to single sex spaces, hospital wards, sports, refuges

Yes - also highlighting how it could affect lesbians.

There was no way WH could avoid this case.

I'm not grateful they're covering it; it would have been the end of WH if they didn't.

I've just put the radio on... has it finished?

I think the result is at 10:30?

The discussion/ explanation was the first item in the first 15 mins

They say they'll continue following it

Though they always say that and I'm really not sure they ever come back to it on this topic...

Following...

Adding this here too from the BBC. It surprised me how well written it was:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgv8v5ge37o.amp

Obviously the next step would be for them to understand why it's so important... and then recognise the harm they are currently doing by enforcing a belief in gender identity and that it is more important than biological sex... like in their news reporting (e.g. obfuscating sex crimes by men who identify as women by simply calling them women) and children's programmes (e.g. encouraging children to believe that they can be any "gender" and/or it's hateful not to accept this, such as in My Name is Leo or When Mum Becomes Dad). However, one step at a time.... come on BBC... you can do this.....

STARTS at 10:30. So hopefully they'll report again tomorrow??

As an aside @BonfireLady I was delighted recently to learn that the resident BBC r4 inside health/ science GP, Margaret McCartney, is a total terf and director of Beira's place.

Sounds positive.

Hopefully she wanders around the news floor sharing her wisdom 😁

Sadly there seems to be a woeful lack of understanding in health news, given how little focus there has been on this and the fact that the BBC still seems oblivious to the scale of the medical scandal. I'm still so angry at their Cass Report coverage and the onslaught of content from transwomen lamenting it's impact on waiting lists.

Hopefully WH will actually be following this case and their journalistic curiosity will kick in about the impact of sex ceasing to exist as immutable in law. They don't need to openly admit that many of their presenters have been turkeys voting for Christmas but a shift away from doing this would be welcome.

Well he won't be invited back!

Who is the guy, anyone know?

Thanks Warrior I will listen later (I've pretty much stopped listening to WH now because it's way too captured).

Shelagh Fogarty, who has made it clear in the past that she knows what a woman is, covering this now on LBC
She'll be opening the lines for discussion - please call in or message
To contact the presenter in the studio, call 60 60 973 0345 60 60 973 text 84850 or WhatsApp 60 60 973 0345 60 60 973

Shelagh's question for discussion
GRC - should it confer all biological sex-based rights?
Shelagh says no

Thanks bore - where can we listen?

This tweet says it's Phil Sim. He's the journalist on the well-written BBC Scotland article that I linked earlier.

https://x.com/BBCWomansHour/status/1861349188363030583?t=yWzRpI_o-xpRa_ew44aMUw&s=19

Go Phil 💪 Hope the BBC doesn't shuffle you off sideways for your impartial reporting 🤞

Thanks @BonfireLady

You can listen again on Global Player App. LBC, Shelagh Fogarty show from 3pm.
Shelagh was brilliant, she is very courteous but unapologetically a sex realist.
Several transwomen callers and some very sensible women.

I thought the reporter was reasonable and balanced. Nuala sounded like she was being dragged over hot coals, showing no interest in the topic, and apparently unable to name the “ campaigning groups” . At least FWS got included by him.. I had no idea that Amnesty was intervening. How can they, having knowledge about the reality women live all over the world? They used to be respected, but now?

I wonder if Nuala is in rather a difficult place right now, what with having to confront the implications of “be kind” being comprehensively spelled out to her.
Not that I have any sympathy for her.

Indeed. She sounded rather lost and confused.

It's a shame that Phil used the word "gender" on a couple of occasions when he clearly meant sex but otherwise he did a great job.

We've had decades of gender and sex used synonymously and interchangeably. Plus it does leave some phrases sounding hilarious if you avoid using the word gender e.g. "the gender pay gap" becomes "the sex pay gap". Which sounds ambiguously like it might be about pay differences within prostitution or porn. D'oh.

Personally I never use the word gender these days unless I'm referring to gender identity, gender reassignment or the GRA. It sometimes just means I need to use longer phrases to avoid comedic ambiguity e.g. I talk about the pay difference between the sexes. I don't "correct" others' speech but I do explain that I make the distinction to avoid the conflation of sex and gender identity. Hopefully this court case will sort that out at a legal level ... 🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞 If it does, the conflation becomes irrelevant because it stops anyone enforcing gender identity belief as fact in law. Well, it does in the Equality Act anyway. Obviously it leaves the ridiculous GRA looking frankly even more ridiculous.

Actually, I'll correct myself on this bit..... (arguing with myself never causes offence and it helps me to navigate all this stuff 🙃)

The conflation [of sex and gender (identity)] becomes irrelevant because it stops anyone enforcing gender identity belief as fact in law. Well, it does in the Equality Act anyway. Obviously it leaves the ridiculous GRA looking frankly even more ridiculous.

One place where it remains highly relevant, regardless of the outcome of this case, is where it causes confusion. A key example being in school RHSE materials, where children end up with information that suggests it's a fact that everyone has a gender identity. Using the words "gender stereotypes" instead of "sex-based stereotypes" for example opens the door to the idea of many different genders or having no gender at all. Which in itself opens the door to children believing that they don't have a sex and that all of it is a social construct.