LGBA on Woman's Hour 19/05/25

[Greyskybluesky]

Kate Barker-Mawjee will be speaking on behalf of LGBA

Reading this thread in full I MAYYY switch WH back on after my distain for Nuala and Helen last week. I didn't even bother with the AI shambles having read the comments on these chats... but so glad Kate did well and was able to state her position firmly!

ETA Helen was amazing, it is just WH approach to interview vs what I heard when they "interviewed" Robin that set me on edge I felt it was so imbalanced!

Did any of the interviewers ever say to Robin White or the Amnesty guy that some people listening might find your views offensive?

And were they ever interrupted as much! Listening to the interview now, and the interviewer is determined to dictate the subject, always circling back, and not letting Kate finish her points.

Yes, I liked that. We’re so used to being told we must be inclusive all the time, to every person in every situation. And yes, overall, inclusivity is a good thing and something we should all aim for, but there must be exceptions! Some groups and situations can legitimately discriminate.

I can’t join a children’s gymnastics club or a support group for people with disabilities or a lesbian book club or a men’s mental health support group because I am not a child, do not have a disability, am not a lesbian and am not a man. I am not in the least bit offended that I am not welcome to join those groups. Most sane people are not offended by being excluded from groups where they do not belong.

It says such a lot about the ego of a person who will not only attempt to join a group they do not belong in, but to then loudly complain about being rejected, and claim victimhood.

This would have been a great point to get across in the WH interview today.

I think that a lot of the reasoning from the TWAW massive comes from a need to constantly be on higher moral ground than those around them.

Until recently higher moral ground has been defined by only one side.

People like Kate Barker are now demonstrating that the true moral high ground lies in protecting existing women's rights rather than eroding them

That is much better!
After @nauticant had posted that article I put a response saying the premise was sound even if an arsehole said it first, but it has been niggling at me all day. That the source should be a nasty piece of work did bother me.
I found it hard to believe the saying originated with the man in the article, it seems the sort of sentiment that will have existed as long as governments have opposition and sounds a bit Orwellian or early Russian revolution, or from many other struggles in the last century and this.
I really hope he has plaigerised it and it's not original to him.
From now on I will use the Tony Benn example especially the last sentence: if you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not love in a democratic system'

I believe that TRAs have been flooding the BBC with complaints about Helen Joyce in particular and her description of trans women as men. I saw something on X - there seemed to be a campaign going among TRAs to complain to the BBC. So I guess this is their way of calming them down.

I remember watching that conversation unfold in real time. 😀One of the many things which helped me to peak.

Someone on twitter counted: RMW - 0, Helen 1, AI - 0, Kate - 2

RMW didn't get an 'offensive', but did get something along the lines of 'some might not share your perspective'.

Once, and very quietly.

(Oops I typed 'love' not the intended 'live' on my post above: suppose it still applies!)

I wonder if their editorial policy is changing a bit. Either as the SC ruling sinks in and they and the rest of the BBC* realise they need to be more mainstream, or as they listen to the arguments without Gríma Wormtongue (excellent image, nauticant!) TRAs pushing Stonewall law constantly.

I did note that Nuala said the series of interviews they'd been doing was to look at the "dilemmas" the SC judgement had created for organization. But Kate showed (so clearly) that the dilemmas have been there all along, organizations just constantly chose to ignore the dilemma and favour TRAs, Woman's Hour included. It's possible they are peaking a bit as they host some proper looks at it (despite is almost entirely being framed from the male POV).

*See also the BBC news article on Jamie Wallis using "they" pronouns when they clearly know he wants them to use "she".

Edited for formatting

I don't suppose anyone pointed out that when previously lesbian only groups were forced to allow transwomen to attend this didn't actually help these transwomen find relationships? Lesbians weren't attracted to them. I understand some transwomen are under the delusion they are biologically female, even with a penis. But those who know better shouldn't have to play along with it.

Just listened to it. How horrible and hostile the interviewer was. She never shows this condescending and unsympathetic attitude to any man pretending to be a lesbian, or points out how offensive his pantomime is.

Kate did splendidly despite Nuala's bigotry.

I'm really not hearing the hostility or bigotry tbh. I have listened to half the interview and the interviewer does interrupt and talk over Kate to a certain extent but is that to undermine her or is it to help hammer home the main points? Obviously for us here on FWR we are very well versed on this issue and the arguments but the casual listener might not be so it is necessary to clarify, for them, what exactly Kate means when she says "men" as the water is so muddy. Once clarified, move on.

I can understand why none of the sex deniers have been asked about people finding their beliefs offensive. This series is ultimately about the SC decision and whether trans is offensive or not didn't come into it. For the genderists all they have is their personal offence. Germaine Greer put it best for the sex realists side when confronted with the "some people find what you say offensive and hurtful" question - "so what?".

This series is ultimately about the SC decision and whether trans is offensive or not didn't come into it.

oh piffle. The BBC big themselves up as the ultimate "two sides" fence sitters. The LEAST they should be doing is prefacing every statement by every guest by saying "this may offend some people". Not just do it to one "side" of an argument (insofar they are treating the reality of biological sex as an argument)

I have listened to all the interviews in the series. It is annoying to me that Ammesty Sacha was not pushed in the same way as all the others. He was allowed to waffle and be vague without being pressed much to clarify. But otherwise I think the interviews were equitable. Robin was pressed on some points which will have been uncomfortable. It is ridiculous to press a lesbian on why a lesbian is someone who doesn't fancy anyone male, but it was still right to do it given the context, and allowed kate to give absolute clarity. We don't need interviewers to be on our side or even to be friendly. We need interviewers to get people like Kate ftom lgba on the airwaves and ask her the questions that allow her to set out her case. Because once Kate (& others) set out their case they win. In court or on the airwaves. Not everyone will agree, and that's fine, people will have different views, but enough people will get it and agree. As long as the case can be put with clarity eventually the tide will turn.
Kate was excellent. Really excellent. Well done.

That Germaine Greer interview came up on youtube for me first thing today. I did enjoy watching it again.

I could watch that video all day long and never get bored.

I just can't get past the bit in the Helen Joyce interview where she pounced with that stupid question about boys in the ladies' loos.

You nailed it.

But it was RMW who first spoke about boys in the ladies’ loo (as a sort of defence or gotcha). I think that’s why Nuala brought that up…to get Helen’s POV on the subject. Which is fair enough I think.

Yes, I know, but I think she was repeating it because she actually thought it was a good. 'gotcha'; Her tone of voice by that point sounded desperate, like she was clutching at straws. She also pushed it by asking stupid things like what the age limit was/should be, trying to get HJ to say what age limit organisations should set.

Nobody (sensible) could think it was a good gotcha surely?

Well, I came away from it thinking Nuala wasn't sensible...