Today it's Amnesty Internation on Woman's Hour to discuss the Supreme Court judgment

[nauticant]

With Anita Rani. I am not expecting much in the way of challenges.

Women saying no to abusive men is 'discrimination' dontcha know in TRA world.

I've complained, again, to the BBC - I didn't get an email verification last time so I presume they just binned it. Here's hoping today's works, eh.

So according to him, rather than transwomen staying out of single-sex spaces, women should simply not have male partners or male family members. Thanks Amnesty

Annoying she’s not challenging more but maybe letting him run on and on lets him sound as inconsistent and incoherent as the whole matter is?

I think Anita let him show his true colours, and display his total disregard for the rights of women and girls.

Clearly not read the judgement! It’s 88 pages (and each one a joy to read!)

And more than that, the specific type man who thinks so little of women that he wants to appropriate their language, remove their right to self-definition and trample their boundaries.

Many men do understand and respect women's need for single sex facilities and spaces. The ones who don't are amongst the dangerous ones.

And ignore 50% of the worlds population who are actual women.

I know, I couldn't believe he came out with that. What a bloody strawman. It just goes to show that if someone is trying to justify the unjustifiable, they will resort to nonsense arguments.

The Amnesty bloke seemed totally out of his depth. I am so sick of people like him using emotionally manipulative arguments (1% of the population, most marginalised group ever etc) to coerce others into agreeing that women shouldn't have rights too.

It would have been amazing if HJ had been on at the same time as him.

He said that trans people are affected by domestic violence as are other women.

That wording to me suggests that when he says trans people he's only thinking about trans identified men.

Well it’s a fact that some trans people do face discrimination and have a right for their voices to be heard

I think I'm going to have to listen again to absorb the full ridiculousness. But honestly, they used to be such a reputable trustworthy organisation. What the fuck happened, and on whose watch? Surely they can't ever come back from that kind of offensive, ill-informed, ignorant nonsense.

I was just thinking this! Helen would have eaten him alive and sounded sane and good humoured and brilliant while she did it. Bloody love Helen.

Thank you all very much for the updates. I completely forgot about WH today because there's no GCSE pickup until later!!!

Yet another email to so called WH today. I wondered why they were so incurious about the effects of the SC ruling on women...
I forgot to ask whether they had read the Janet and John version for the intellectually chalenged

He said that we shouldn’t exclude people from services because of how they identify.
What, not at all?
Men (however he sees them, cis or trans) are excluded from women’s spaces. Excluded for a reason. What reason?
FFS

I now think that the first question on all of these interviews should be, "have you read the judgment?"

If yes, this should be followed up with a series of very basic comprehension questions so that the guest can prove that they have, in fact, read it. Then the interviewer can get on with the business of seeking an opinion on it.

If no, the only response is surely, "then what earthly use are you to a discussion about it?"

Well women get some choice as far as partners goes at least. Whereas 6ft 5 paedophile Dolatowski being in a toilet labelled as single sex when you go in - not so much choice there, is there? Or Isla Bryson walking in mid pee?

Karen Danson would obviously have CHOSEN not to share with Rose if given a choice, which she wasn't until she complained and now she has to get changed in a completely inappropriate space with all the other women who feel the same. Whilst 'Rose' gets the entire female changing room to himself.

I wish she'd asked what's to stop one of the violent abusive 'cis' men being discussed calling himself Isla in order to go into spaces deceptively labelled 'women's'.

OMG that was very boring - a man (who unbelievably went to Cambridge and isn’t a lawyer) talked a load of nonsense!

Did he actually say. 'cis women'? 🙄

This goes some way to explain why Amnesty International has lost all sense of what they stand for. How sad they have been taken over and captured, reducing their once respected name to trash.

He was so bad I zoned out! Sorry to hear Stonewall declined an interview!

The judgement is actually 88 pages, so that's a fairly liberal definition of "about 30 pages".

Laura Bates on after - a good juxtaposition with that woolly twaddle.

Before the interview started I thought “I bet it’s a man”, and as soon as he opened his mouth, yep, bloke.
So we’ve had 3 long segments on the SC ruling this week and two of the interviewees have been males, whinging about how the nasty, stupid cis-women (hate that phrase) won’t let them have their way. So like determined toddlers they are just going to keep on and in and on about how it’s NOT FAIR, until we capitulate and let them into our private spaces.
Well, as far as I’m concerned we’re not going to and they can get their validation, and whatever else they are after, elsewhere.
Now I fully expect this post to be taken down for using the word bloke, and being unkind.