Women's Hour - TRA barrister on

[Apollo441]

Anyone care to discuss the content of today's women's hour. They had RMW on who's interpretation of the Supreme Court judgement seems questionable. Please stick to discussing content as we have already had a thread deleted.

Well that didn’t take long…anyone know why the other thread was removed? Are we going back to the bad old days?

I would love to hear a synopsis from those who listened, wasn't able to. Will go to Sounds later of course

There was not much content to speak of apart from a man telling us on Woman’s Hour why his feelings are so much more important than those of women’s….he was not even asked about how women might feel when he decides to ignore the law. Afterwards when Nuala read out emails about care, there was actually one which said what about getting men into care work! As someone here said the irony of this is overwhelming.

It's a bit difficult to engage when we don't know why the thread was deleted, maybe @mnhq could enlighten us?

presumably some readers are uncomfortable with the level of evaluation and scrutiny the discussion was attempting to facilitate...

So anyway, gist was RMW was asked if she (#BeKind you cruel TERF monsters) would respect the Supreme Court Ruling, and she didn't say she would.

Probably removed because the fragrant RMW tends to hang around FWR with the report button unsheathed.

I’d say it was well worth a listen.

There may have been some surprise when Nuala asked some excellent sex based questions and asked the interviewee to consider how women might feel. There may a brief moment of stunned silence.

Then the interviewee came up with the rather genius proposal that women who want male free spaces should be accommodated with provision of such spaces. Obviously women have been saying this for years but we needed someone with some real ‘gravitas’ to suggest it so that action will be finally taken (and they can take credit for coming up with such a clever idea).

No name was proposed for such spaces but I vote for ‘The Ladies’ (as per SC approved definition).

More audacious questioning from Nuala - “what happens is we call a man a man” and “why is it rude to do so?”

The show finale was the interviewee claiming that insulting people is only ok if certain specially approved people do it and that as no woman has challenged said interviewee in the toilets (if I hear a man’s voice while I’m in a female cubicle I have tended to freeze and silently wait til they leave so I’m not surprised) then they are determined to ignore the SC ruling and continue to use our spaces.

Enjoy listening later.

🤮

Oh! I thought you meant something else...

The arguments appear to be that as women often take their young sons into women's changing facilities because they worry the men's isn't a safe space for young boys, middle aged men must be allowed into the women's because..... err...
And women's toilets must allow men in as well but there can be special women only toilets for women with pre approved reasons (religious, abuse etc).

I'd guess the SC judgement is unlikely to be overturned if that's all they've got. 😀

...as no woman has challenged said interviewee in the toilets...

I, for one, remain absolutely convinced that this is because all the women immediately recognise a fellow female.

As I understand the barrister world, that particular commentator doesn't actually specialise in equality law? Unlike say, the divine Naomi Cunningham?

Somebody on the deleted thread had done an analysis of how many TRA's had been invited to appear on Women's Hour versus the number of sex realist women and orgs. Does anybody have the stats?

Also, did I hear that Baroness Falkner is going to be on next week?

Does a lot of pro boner cases for TRAs

There's a Twix thread that had got to 43/13 but was still being updated.

Not sure whether you can guess which side dominated this ratio.

I'd posted a message to WH. Here it is again. If this thread also disappears... well, draw your own conclusions. I thought it was civil and within boundaries. Have not yet listened to programme.

Why have you invited Robin Moira White on to Woman's Hour? The recent Supreme Court Ruling spells out that legally the term 'woman' means a biological woman. We need to hear WOMEN'S perspectives, not those of someone who wishes he were one. There have been so many ways in which the needs of women have been undermined that this feels like a waste of time. How about inviting a lawyer who upholds women's rights against erosion? That's more important than making biological males feel they can share our safe spaces.

https://x.com/blablafishcakes/status/1750102590564466909

Deliberate typo? @Tallisker

So let met get this straight: RMW offered as solution to have a space for men, for transwomen and women and women only? Which is exactly what the EHCR stated in the guidelines that all transactivists despise?

Oops a deliferate mistale - sorry!

I think it's only certain women who would be allowed women-only spaces. Probably a pre-approved list by our overlords.

It was a bit odd that the presenter didn't jump on the "if a women can take her 8 year old sons into the ladies, you should let me in", with a "but they are made to go into the the male loos and changing rooms by themselves after they turn 8 to protect the dignity of women and girls" but then it struck me that perhaps none of the presenting team have kids?

Thanks for the X link BTW; I knew I'd seen it somewhere.

So 3 - male, unisex, and female? I thought the TRAs couldn’t possibly function in anything other than female spaces?

It sounded like the proposal was men (to admit men and transmen (female)), women (women and transwomen (male)), and "religious women" who cannot share spaces with males.

But the law says you can't label the men's and women's toilets as men's and women's if in fact they are mixed sex, as the definition of those two terms is biological, so that suggestion falls at the first hurdle.

Ah, but it would be labelled "women", not "unisex". And it would be communal and men who didn't claim to be women wouldn't be allowed in*. That's what would swing it. (Stop sniggering at the back.)

*How could they tell?