Podcasts covering the SC judgment

[peakedtraybake]

Could we have a thread of interesting podcasts?

Subpar from the FT. Starts with a close but no cigar summary from Robert Shrimsley, who mentions concerns about single sex spaces, but quickly moves on to trans rights being rolled back, and ultimately concludes that concern about trans rights issues is an import from the US. No evidence of understanding of women's concerns about males in our spaces nor of the silencing of women over this issue.

www.ft.com/political-fix

@VioletparisI thought Matt Forde was uncharacteristically low key. It’s unusual not to come out of one of his podcasts knowing exactly what he thinks. But he did just let Bindel talk-which was great.

I haven't had a chance to listen to this yet. Matt, like so many other commentators is probably just keeping his head down. I don't get these people who spout about every other subject when they know they will get abuse from the far right (not on at all! ) but seem even more terrified of TRA. Or are they just scared of losing their liberal, leftie credentials in the eyes of the media luvvy brigade.

I listened to the workplace one with Kellie Jay yesterday and really enjoyed it.

Triggernometry has Maya Forstater on the latest show. I have never heard her interviewed and she is SO good - clear, coherent and evidence based.

podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/triggernometry/id1375568988?i=1000705154516

Matt Forde had Rosie Duffield on when she was persona non-grata in Labour so I give him some credit for that.

Another podcast - Matt Forde's Political Party - just released today with a longish interview with Julie Bindel.

Forde is usually pretty woke - I always assumed he was a TWA lefty liberal, but he does a reasonable -ish job. Ms Bindel is superb - funny, realistic, down to earth. It's a heartening conversation.

oops sorry I didn't RTFT updates

Great minds and all that , please excuse me ...

I do give Matt Forde huge credit for having her on his show at all, to be fair. He’s on tour at the moment, and I suspect he might lose ticket sales….

The podcast Outspoken with White & Jordan discusses the FA decision following SC judgement from 9 minutes onwards. Jordan defends the need for women’s sports to be sex based. They have on a trans player sharing their views. Worth a listen.

I’ve listened to a few of these and really enjoyed the Double Jeopardy episode with Karon Monaghan, The Two Matts, Maya on Triggerpod, Peter Daly on The Gender Critical Law Society podcast, and Maya on This Isn’t Working.

This episode of Fearless Diversity is also a good listen, and they’re planning to do a second episode which I’ll be looking out for podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/supreme-court-ruling-part-1/id1811642376?i=1000708576689

I’ll also add this interview with a transwoman, who starts by sounding quite reasonable and open to dialogue and then goes on a mind boggling descent all the way to the Supreme Court ruling being like genocide, and this is from somebody who has a professional job. It's hard to believe an adult who should have the power of rational thought is saying all this podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/ep13-trans-womens-rights-and-what-the-supreme/id1781301613?i=1000706327345

The second episode covering the ruling from Fearless Diversity is out and it's worth a listen. They cover some of the reactions to the ruling and hint at a third episode as well.
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/supreme-court-ruling-part-2/id1811642376?i=1000710390639

I've been looking out for more podcasts from the other side in the hope that I can find something which explains the trans activist position in a coherent and logical way. I just don't think there is a coherent and logical way to explain it.

I listened to this one which was released on 16th of April and describes itself as an “emergency podcast about the Supreme Court ruling. They’re not sure whether the Supreme Court ruling is “vague and hopeless and unenforceable” or whether it amounts to “being cancelled as a community”.

They think the big losers in this situation will be “cisgender women”, because now ciswomen who are tall or have short hair or who are “of a certain age” or don't wear court shoes are going to be challenged in “bathrooms”. They say that “a bunch of white 50 year old men” have decided what women should look like and what they should wear which is interesting because the Supreme Court judges were not all men and I don't recall in any of the 88 pages of the judgement any legal demands for women to look a certain way or wear specific items. They think that this will be a penny dropping moment for “ciswomen” because everybody in the toilets who isn't wearing court shoes is going to look like a man.

The trans woman on the podcast claims to have “lost my white male privilege” due to transitioning, but doesn’t really explain how their skin has changed colour (I’m guessing it hasn’t). The woman on the podcast who describes herself as cisgender says that she has never, ever seen a transwoman in a women’s toilet. It amazes me that the only female people she has ever seen in women’s toilets are of short to medium height, with long hair, younger than “a certain age” and are wearing court shoes.

It's the same kind of bizarre memes and total misunderstanding of the GC position as the rest of the TRA stuff, although I’m not sure, listening to any of this, if they actually understand their own position.

There is a second episode which I haven't listened to yet.

https://transvox.co.uk/episode/transvox-our-reaction-to-the-supreme-court-ruling-emergency-episode

@Opinionpolecat you have a stronger stomach than me….I can’t listen to their drivel in anything but small doses