Is anyone else looking forward to 'Womans'Hour today?

[Sausagenbacon]

...to see how they spin this?

Yes, but we know how it will go don’t we.

I'll open the book now. Taking bets on there being little to no celebration of what this means to women, and a mass grieve-in on how terrible it is for men when women's legal rights present really inconvenient boundaries.

Have they trailed it as being discussed? They did outline it yesterday, with their Scotland correspondent, Catriona someone.

"how terrible it is for men when women's legal rights present really inconvenient boundaries" nails it, @TheOtherRaven

They covered it yesterday. My bet is nothing today.

Iirc Maya refused their last offer to have her on. ideally the fws team would be invited but I don’t know if they’d have to include TW for balance. So in some respects I’d rather they didn’t and focussed on other women’s issues.

I think now there doesn’t need to be “balance”. It’s been clarified women are biologically women. We don’t need balance when discussing other nouns.
If they had to I would hope they find trans men it being Woman’s Hour .

I was wondering that after I posted. However, yesterday there was a hell of a lot of pandering balance!

But yes, women’s hour can now just be women’s hour!

Woman’s hour is discussing the decision this morning with Joshua Rozenberg ( legal commentator)

But none of the actual women involved? Shame on them.

Goodness, I see that Joshua Rosenberg is married to Melanie Phillips!

Today's presenter is Kylie Pentelow. She introduced the segment in doom-laden tones, as if defining woman in biological terms is a dark day for women.

Not That Sort of Women's Hour.

I thought that was ok.
I particularly liked Joshua highlighting that this only came about because Scotland originally wanted to ensure women were represented - and quelle surprise the trans women muscled in.

It's interesting they got on Joshua Rozenberg to discuss this. He was a hugely respected legal commentator who got the push from the BBC last year, seemly for not being diverse enough. His excellent and informative law analysis programme was binned to be replaced with a podcast-type programme with a frothy legal bants presentation. Oddly enough they turned to Rozenberg to comment rather than the newer and shinier commentators who are now at the BBC in his place.

Joshua Rozenberg is currently on Jeremy Vine on R2 and is being admirably clear and unequivocal about single sex provision now needing to exclude men. 'And when you say 'men' do you also mean trans women?' 'I'm afraid I do.'

The other two commentators, speaking about HR and sports, are being far more handwringing and cowardly.

I read Rozenberg in the Grauniad until I stopped reading the Guardian - which means I stopped at least nine years ago. Doesn't time fly? I imagine he was brought on to add a layer of gravitas. Did he get the push from the BBC or did he retire? He's well into his 70s.

Just had to turn Jeremy Vine off.

I listened because I wanted to see how he covered it.

Joshua Rosenberg was very clear but was clearly aware of the impact of every word he says and how it could be used. The rest of the piece is poor trans women no mention at all about the 50% of the population who will benefit from this decision or why the SC came to this view

Shame on you BBC but it's not a surprise to any of us is it?!

Listening to the sudden announcement of the end of Law in Action on Radio 4, and Rozenberg's career at the BBC, and his evident upset at the time, I got the strong impression that he was pushed out rather than chose to go @JustSpeculation.

All the utterly batshit bolloxy arguments from callers on Jeremy Vine are just proving over and over again how vital and invaluable yesterday's ruling was.

For years I've been listening to this shit and having to go and do deep breaths in the garden afterwards. Now it's over. There's no more 'what about intersex' or fuckwittery about 'Martina' not feeling safe in the men's loo. It's now the law that women can exclude men from their single sex facilities. Time to start your campaign for third spaces, Martina.

Yes, I'm amazed he went back to them for this. They dropped a highly-respected programme listened to by an awful lot of lawyers and replaced it with 'lively' legal chat. It's shocking. I have vowed not to be the older person who constantly harks on about how things were better in my day, but Radio 4 certainly was.

Am I missing something or are people just not getting it?

I’m listening to the Jeremy Vine discussion. “It’s ok, you can still use the ladies’.” “Transwomen can still play in non-elite women’s sports.” “Everyone will just take a common-sense approach.”

Maddening.

I think initially many organisations and companies will decline to follow the Supreme Court judgment and there'll be a lot of very brief legal actions that will be settled or quickly decided with a brief statement of claim relying on the judgment.

Many - as has just happened to me being told I am a bigot cheering on oppression of a small minority.

Just a reminder that Jeremy Vine was a presenter on Radio 4's flagship morning news programme Today for years, the BBC African correspondent, politics editor for the BBC and a full-time Newsnight and Panorama presenter. People seem to have forgotten this and think he's a fool.

He's not. He's playing stupid and you have to question the motivation of an intelligent man who understands the law but chooses to pretend he's an idiot.

Jeremy Vine is a massive knob head I had to switch off yesterday at his dumb act