Helen Joyce finally makes it to Women's Hour today from 10am

[Another2Cats]

Just saw this:

Helen Joyce @ HJoyceGender
Morning all! Guess where I'm off to this fine day - Broadcasting House to discuss the @ ForWomenScot judgment, 4 weeks on, on @ BBCWomansHour! Do listen in. I'm looking forward to debunking some shocking disinformation, and reminding an astonished world that Women Have Rights Too

https://x.com/HJoyceGender/status/1922534653166006316

[EDIT]

Yes, I know I put "Women's" instead of "Woman's" in the title

How about: 'Trying to explain reality to fuckwits?' That's pretty much what I heard HJ doing throughout, amid much patrony and 'what about the men' from the presenter. I am so happy that she countered the predicable accusation of using the mean and hurtful word 'men' to mean a 'man' with the comparative insults against her: calling her human rights activities nazi, brown shirt, hate group and other pleasantries. The contrast is clear for any listener to hear. I'm also pleased she kept emphasising that this was a human rights issue, and without a clear recourse to sex woman would have none.

How she retained her patience and composure to the end I do not know. Her statement as to doing people the courtesy of not expecting them to behave like idiots was quite strong for her - and of course the presenter immediately seized on it.

I didn't trouble to listen to the one on Monday who makes up the law as he goes along. He has nothing to say that's either accurate or worth the effort of hearing.

I knew that! Her brother is a very smart guy, he used to write a column for the NS.

Fgs, @Brefugee , talk like an adult.

What are you on about?

?

I take it that @marmaladeandpeanutbutter is referring to this post. I can't see any problem with it.

’They're not shocked at a reversal of their rights. They're fucked off that their illegal access to women's rights has finally been recognised.’

👍

Robin may not have been challenged in a toilet but I personally have swerved Robin in a toilet because whilst objectively knowing Robin means me no harm Robin is a lot bigger than me, doesn’t remotely pass and is quite intimidating in a small space for a woman who has been subject to male violence. But Robin doesn’t care about that. Robin made that quite clear on Woman’s Hour.

Thanks for sharing that

I am hearing on the grapevine that the BBC has been inundated with complaints for having Helen Joyce on. I've just used their comments system to thank them for doing so but asked why this is the first time they've invited HJ — a journalist of the highest order and a brilliant communicator, involved in one of the hottest topics for women in the last decade — to particpate.

If you'd like to comment, please do:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/comments-feedback/#/Your%20comment

Or complain here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints

Mildly interesting question: does Robin delude himself that he passes, and that's why he's not being challenged, or does he get a kick out of the fact that women are too frightened to challenge him?

Everyone else understood. Sorry, do you need me to explain?

RMW thinks that they are ’somatically female’ after all the effort they have expended on transition. Passing seems to be a goal for many transwomen and there is quite a lot of wishful thinking going for many. Which is profoundly sad and counterproductive for them, let alone women.

I left a positive comment. They ask for a lot of information.

I don’t want to give the BBC my home address. Is there anyway if submitting comments without having to give them my personal information?

I just put xxx and it seemed to work

Question for anyone re listening, did RMW refer to gender dysphoria? I think I recall he did. In which case we're talking about mental illness?

I’ve commented too. They’ve been inundated with enough complaints from me in the recent past, so it makes a nice change. I couldn’t help mentioning the boys in ladies’ loos as a low point though.

I've left a positive comment, although I did feel duty bound to say how poor the BBC's coverage of these issues has been in the past, and how much clearer it is when correct pronouns are used and people are referred to as their biological sex.

I also left a positive comment but asked why it had taken so long (rhetorical question).

This statement baffles me too. It suggests there are numerous ways of complying with/obeying the law-some more agreeable than others.
Organisations not complying with the law following the SC ruling aren't complying in a way HJ doesn't like. They aren't complying with it full stop.
It's similar to those arguing that people are interpreting the law too literally.

I'd go for the latter.

I'm struggling to understand how describing someone using neutral terms like tall and imposing can be construed as a personal dig. Neither of these words is in any way pejorative.

I also said that it was good to hear from a well-informed, sensible and reputable woman rather than from the usual sad parade of men, some with questionable backgrounds. I couldn’t help myself.

In the past I have suspected that objections to easily understood references (and to side discussions) are a symptom of a machine reader that can't cope with the leaps of human imagination, so tries to limit them.

Just saying.