Professor Robert Winston on No Fear or Favour podcast

[WarriorN]

Sounds like an excellent listen

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/no-fear-no-favour-the-seen-in-journalism-podcast/id1840257603?i=1000744601364

Thanks, just listened. Interesting bit from 6:06 on, where RW talks about chromosomal variance in humans and its prevalence. That has long interested me.

Is that the moment where Fiona Bruce said to Professor Winston about his scientific and medical specialism, ‘Ooh, many people wouldn’t agree with you?’

What a BBC luvvie she turned out to be.

He meanwhile is a good man.

I think 6.06 is just the podcast studio, after they included audio from Question Time.

I am just catching up with it now - so long since we heard him!

Must make time to listen to this - I thought the Seen in Journalism written summary was excellent… especially the juxtaposition of the BBC’s right of reply (‘we don’t blacklist people’) and the list of all of the programmes Prof Winston made for them (‘none of them are available on iPlayer’).

Part way through it. He talks quite early on about people “changing their gender” and says many have done so and are much happier because of doing so.

He does say later that there’s not enough research or follow through, but I find the continuation of the idea that there is a separate “gender” that can be changed troubling.

I would much prefer reality being reasserted, that people changed their physical attributes in an attempt to resemble the opposite sex. Some of them may indeed be currently happy, but that should never be presented outside the context that it is impossible to demonstrate that this is due to whatever “treatment” they received being in some proven manner “successful”.

We’re on very dangerous ground here. People may have been happy after lobotomies. It still doesn’t mean that was the correct or most appropriate treatment.

A great interview covering a very wide range of topics. Well worth a listen.

I don't watch telly, and don't use iPlayer routinely. Those who know your way around it, is it unusual for series like Winston's, from the same era, to be no longer available? Or are his an exception?

I used to love watching the millennium children programmes. Why they'd have Fanny ruddy Craddock programmes on there and not those I don't know. Was it "child of our times" or something like that

Stuff comes and goes on iplayer. There doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason to it. There are a few BBC period dramas I went looking for recently and were surprised to find weren't on there. No idea why. It's not as if they wouldn't have the rights to their own content.

So in the interest of fairness I'll say, who knows?

I wonder if they want to protect the privacy of the children involved now that they are older?

@nicepotoftea That did occur to me too, especially after one of them died. Great programmes though

I am no expert on this by any means, but rights issues seem to be the reason why many programmes are not freely available. It must depend on what was agreed contractually at the time the original programme was made.

It is moments like this which mean that I will never watch Question Time again.

Surely the whole point is that trans people DON'T change their gender?

They claim to be part of the opposite-sex sex-class that they can never be part of, on the basis that womanhood is a category based on age and gender, and their gender is opposite to their sex?

IMHO it is literally impossible to give TQ+ ideology an inch without beclowning yourself. It is literally impossible to be too hard-line, clear and unbending on this issue. I have no doubt whatsoever that when we look back at this ideology from - say - 2040, people will be saying things like "she was great, but why was KJK so soft on this issue? Why did it take her until 2031 to get properly hard-line?"

Very interesting, thank you.

It was interesting the bit when he talked about medical school recruitment processes - and suggested they might not be getting the right candidates in the first place - ones that aren't merely smart but will also think critically as well as understand the view from the patient. It was interesting that he spoke of experience of people dying - do they not have that in modern training? Perhaps because there is so much more information for a doctor to learn, it's hard to balance that with practical scenarios?

Hmm. I listened to this episode and thought the interviewers were excellent, but Prof Winston... not so much. He was quite wooly in a lot of his answers - I don't know if he has deliberately avoided the topic (which as a fertility specialist strikes me as odd) but he struck me as uninformed, vague and confusing. He talked about 'chromosomal sex, hormonal sex' etc etc on the QT clip - which is confusing in itself. And then he talks about changing gender, which makes no sense unless you define gender as 'secondary sex characteristics'. He avoided questions about the use of egg freezing in TG populations, and vacillated between 'not enough research' and 'it is oversold to people wanting it for social reasons'.

He was clear that he doesn't like the BMA as he thinks they are political and have brought doctors' reputations into disrepute. But his discussion of the PA debacle was uninformed. I also didn't get the assisted dying piece - he used to be anti, and now thinks it is important because palliative care isn't perfect? There was some odd stuff in there about class, poverty and expectations. Again, his opinions were either poorly conveyed or underinformed.

Overall, I got the same sense that I get listening to some other older scientists and doctors. He was revered in his day for his broadcasting, his knowledge, his compassion. And his record is wonderful. But I do not think he should be the go-to on the modern debates unless he makes a much greater effort to inform himself of the details and certainly did not come across as a fount of clearly conveyed wisdom in this episode.

And yes @newusernameSA2 of course there is experience of people dying in modern medical training - in hospital, in GP, in palliative care. His understanding of modern training seemed, again, woefully uninformed.

Agree 100% with @FinallyASunnyDay. It was so dull and meandering.

I had an image of Prof Winston constantly trying to drag the conversation out of dangerous (uncomfortable) waters.

The line that caught me was when he said he hadn't been disappeared- "'See, I'm on here talking to you now (sic)". Which reminded me of the old trope in the early days around GC people, eg Kathleen Stock'; "obviously not being cancelled as she is on podcasts and in newspapers everywhere!'
As if he had internalised this idea.

It was a very uncomfortable listen for me.

It felt to me, like he was in some or all of these: denial/disbelief/cognitive dissonance/deep hurt.

Or maybe that the damage had been done, and he couldn't face anymore and just wanted an easy rest of his life now.

I did wonder what podcast he thought he was being interviewed on too.

I also agree with @FinallyASunnyDay that he seemed strangely uninformed and contradictory.

I did think early on, that maybe he is just totally unaware of the bigger political context and what that probably did to his career. But then, I was struck by the fact that he never expressed any curiosity about, or sought clarity of any of the (brilliantly) direct questions he was asked , eg about egg freezing for gender treatments. This really suggested to me that this was about avoidance rather than misunderstanding or lack of awareness.

Fascinating interview in some ways, for trying to work out what was going on for Prof Winston, and admiring the skill of the interviewers. But mostly, as I say, uncomfortable and left me feeling a bit sad actually.

That was my impression too. He sometimes seemed to be answering a different question to the one that was being asked, so I think he was trying to steer away from the topic. The whole thing felt a bit meandering as a result.

I wonder if he didn't realise what a landmine he was stepping into with his unequivocal comments about sex on Question Time, and he is much more cautious now as a result. He mentions grandchildren, and I wondered if they have "re-educated" him about gender.

I wonder if he didn't realise what a landmine he was stepping into with his unequivocal comments about sex on Question Time, and he is much more cautious now as a result.

Yep. This sums up the overall impression pretty well for me.

Still wondering why he went on the podcast though!