Wonderfully articulate interview w Joanna cherry

[JacketPotatoFoodOfTheGods]

On Woman’s Hour this morning - so well put Joanna - thank you!!👏👏👏

Wasn't she brilliant!

I dont normally listen to WH anymore because of the infuriating blatant bias etc.

Feeling a bit emotional after Joanna Cherrys section.
SHE WAS SO DAMMED GOOD. Articulate and calm and knowledgeable and more than a match for Nuala thingys nonsense.
She made so many good points but I will steal the comment that trans people have the same protections as everyone else but they do not have the right in law to be treated as a woman. Im always looking for very simple statements to counter the #bekind mantra.

Its beyond unfair that I should be so happy over a simple opportunity to state our case and dare to hope.

Do read Joannas book. It gives insight into the sorry state of our provincial, corrupt, (no better than student politics) and pitiful Holyrood assembly. Not sure Westminster is any better but at least Im grateful they intervened on self ID.

Im going out for a nice coffe to celebate. #womenwontwheest.🥳🥳🥳🥳

Edit. And no inane drag queen contribution for “balance” 😱😱😱😱😱😱

She absolutely put Nuala's gas at a peep! Nuala is such a handmaiden, I can only imagine her blood pressure must have got very very high. Joanna was very calmly going through the details ,with Nuala trying to interrupt (and just not managing). Particularly liked this exchange:

J : "I know that you often give a platform to women and, eh, men who identify as women, who hold the opposite view from me, and that's fine, I support free speech; but I think it's very important for your listeners to know that there are many women out there who hold the view that I hold, that there's nothing wrong (N attempts to interrupt again but J ploughs on) with that view, indeed they have the law on their side."

N: "And that, I think, Woman's Hour, we hear from everybody, that's very much part, eh, of, emm, our, errrrm, structure and the meaning that we have with this programme, to hear from as many voices and as many, eh, different points of view, and , then, our listeners can decide. But we are having you on today for your memoir" [yadda yadda yadda].

She was near speechless. Apopleptic, methinks.

Wow.! What a great interview. Brava!!!

They're taking their sweet time to make it available. 🫤

Amazing. So many truth bombs 😄 Nuala did sound increasingly panicky as the interview went on. To be fair to Nuala, she was probably anticipating the onslaught of complaints they will receive about how transphobic the BBC is. They feel they have a duty to say "contested issue, different viewpoints blah blah". But Joanna made her points perfectly 👌🏻And Nuala was much less hostile than usual.

Thanks I will listen later. I avoid WH especially when Nuala is presenting as she just annoys me but I would like to hear this segment.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007qlvb/episodes/player

Sorry thought this episode was available. Wonder how long before they put it up.

Ta. It was taking so long, I was starting to worry.

It's just a pity the interviewer kept interrupting Joanna with inane drivel, and pointless comments. Womens 'is so badly staffed these dats days theur presenters are an embarrassment

Has anyone else asked them when they’re going to have Sex Matters or For Women Scotland or a barrister like Naomi Cunningham or Akua Reinforf who knows what the law is on?

I seem to remember asking them several times. And what we got was Robin Moria White.

I have not listened to WH on a regular basis for years as I can’t abide the Handmaiden that is Nuala McGovern. I yearn for the good old days when Jenni Murray was at the helm with her rigorous intellect, sadly WH is in steep decline.

I shall listen to Joanna Cherry with interest and delight in the bits where NM is tied in knots.

McGovern managed to be less hostile than she usually is to GC guests. She still managed to shoehorn in her usual "many disagree with you, yadda yadda".

JC starts at 14.10

Which Joanna mercilessly countered with a long, pointed notice to all closeted GC women out there that they are not alone, that they have been recognised to have the law on their side, and that there are even trans people who agree with them. She was great throughout the interview, but man, I was laughing when she managed to put that one in!

She was only less hostile because Joanna Cherry was indomitable and slightly scary, and didn’t take any nonsense or interruption. It was a tour de force, glorious to listen to. And glorious also to hear the Nuala meeting her match, for once.

Or as I saw him referred to on X today, “Robin ‘Barry’ White”.

Bit of a digression (sorry), but an important one I think:

I heard part of an interview on WH this week in which the presenter said something I found shocking and scary. It wasn't in relation to trans issues, but it seemed related, in that it felt like a comment made in fearful anticipation of complaints from activists.

The interviewee was a woman who had conducted long-term research with women sex workers in a number of countries, and she was making the point that she felt it really important to be a supportive presence in these women's lives, partly to win their trust and partly for ethical reasons. As an example of the support she gave she mentioned that she had sometimes loaned women the money they needed to gt an abortion safely, rather than going to dodgy back street abortion providers.

At this point she was interrupted by the presenter, who started reciting something about how not everyone agreed that abortion was ok and 'many of our listeners ...da da da'. The interviewee tried to push back rather mildly (I think saying something along the lines that she was simply responding to the practical needs expressed by the women themselves), but the presenter ploughed on with more 'balancing' remarks.

Since when does the mere mention of abortion require BBC presenters to throw up their hands and give a performance of respecting the views of anti-abortionists? The interviewee was NOT at all making any campaigning points in favour of abortion. ALL she did was mention that she had loaned money so some women who wanted an abortion.

It felt utterly sinister. Something that is lawful and accepted in our society, but it can't be mentioned without paying lip service to the (American-originated) activists who want to dismantle that consensus?! How is that ok?

(Small edit for clarity)

That IS very sinister @MyThreeWords!

I agree - in this context it was inappropriate to make this additional comment

About time WH issued some sort of apology for the way they have treated us over the last 15 years, ignoring our feedback and requests. They are asking for material for their readers week, let’s see…

Listened to it just now. Great interview. Apparently it’s Listeners Week next week and we can choose the topics. I’d suggest ‘Should the puberty blocker trial go ahead’. Any other suggestions?

Robin "Barry" White 😆😆😆

And Robin/Barry should be happy with the name, since he said himself that he deliberately kept his deep manly voice as it gave him the advantage of male gravitas in the courtroom.

Yes, I was thinking similar, after hearing yet another BBC interview recently where a woman made a case about sex-based rights, and the interviewer immediately countered with "of course many people disagree".

Do they do that with EVERY point that anyone makes about anything?