LGBA on Woman's Hour 19/05/25

[Greyskybluesky]

Kate Barker-Mawjee will be speaking on behalf of LGBA

Haha I hadn't seen that before. She's great

The vast majority, almost all, womans hour listeners will have been seriously unimpressed by the little boys in the ladies gotcha. It's so far away from most womens experience to think that the presence of male children puts in doubt the importance of the social convention that keeps men out of the ladies.

I think some womans hour listeners will have found some of what Helen & to a lesser extent Kate said to be too forthright and afronting. But all except the most brain-fogged pro gender types will have understood it and 'got it' on some level.

I think there is genuine sympathy about transsexuals being barred from the loos they have been using, but I doubt there's much sympathy for tw being barred from some lesbian dating apps and social events.

Does anyone know when the EhRC will be on? Is it today?

I assumed I was being a bit cheeky with that image but it looks like it was more accurate than I'd intended:

https://x.com/HJoyceGender/status/1925111333906698291

X thread for those without an account

Here’s a little story about what it’s like to go on @BBC Woman's Hour. I’m afraid it’s not a happy one. I’ve come away with a poor impression of the integrity of everyone involved in the show. But there’s still time for them to redeem themselves… 1/9

Last Wednesday, I was interviewed by Nuala McGovern @Nuala McGovern. She started by asking me about the Supreme Court judgment in FWS. I explained that what the court had ruled was that, for the purposes of the Equality Act, trans women are men. 2/9

Two days later, Anita Rani @anita rani interviewed Sacha Deshmukh of Amnesty. She put it to him that I had said the Supreme Court ruled that trans women are men. 3/9

Sacha replied that what I had said was wrong. That the Supreme Court ruling had related only to the Equality Act, and not to other laws or “gender” in society more widely. But THAT IS WHAT I HAD SAID! 4/9

Anita returned to the question of what I had said a little later, and again Sacha claimed that I had misrepresented the judgment by saying it was about laws beyond the Equality Act, and about society more broadly. AGAIN, MISREPRESENTING ME. 5/9

Anyone listening to my interview would understand that my claims about the judgment related to the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act. But anyone who had not, and who listened on Friday, would get the false impression that I had misrepresented the judgment. 6/9

I have been in communication with the producer of Woman’s Hour since, who at first was unwilling to accept that there was anything to see here. After some back and forth, there will apparently be a “clarification” during today’s programme. 7/9

But I fear that what will be said or implied is that I WAS UNCLEAR, when I wasn’t. What happened is that I WAS MISREPRESENTED. What’s needed isn’t a CLARIFICATION, it’s a CORRECTION, and it’s not of my words, it’s of Anita’s and Sacha’s. I also think I'm owed an APOLOGY 8/9

So tune in at 10am – Baroness Kishwer Falkner is on, apparently – and listen for what they say. If they don’t admit to misrepresenting me – or worse, if they misrepresent me again – I will be making a formal complaint. 9/9