Thread by @MForstater

On @BBCWomansHour at 10: Interview with @stonewalluk Nancy Kelley

I hope @Emmabarnett challenges her on comparing women who won't pretend that they can't see sex to anti-semites, and lesbians to racists if they rule out dating any men.

bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00…

Also how she thinks their guidance to allow males to self ID into "female" spaces (changing rooms, toilets, showers at work, uni etc..) accommodates Muslim, Sikh, Jewish women ...

Emma: why do you want to do the job.
Nancy: I am a lesbian. I am married. I adopted children. My life has been transformed.
So to repay Stonewall for its work for LGBTQ people

Emma: question about case about lesbians and IVF
Nancy: Wegan - the rules are incredibly discriminatory. equal access to families for LGBTQ people

Emma: lots of emphasis on the T. BBC has pulled out of Stonewall. Concerns on impartiality about trans rights & womens rights.

Nancy: agree BBC needs to be impartial on all issues. Particularly news. But being part of Workplace policy doesn't have real effect on impartiality.

It is a programme that works with HR. How to have more inclusive policies, and internal groups. Similar to MIND and other charities.

Did it have an impact on impartiality or is it perceived to?

We support people on inclusion and in a completely separate team we engage with officials and politicians.

Emma: but can you differentiate between the two teams? There is a conflict when you are marking the BBCs homework

e.g. Stonewall tells people to declare pronouns, and then the BBC covering the pronouns debate.

Nancy: yes we mark it. We provide feedback.

You don't pay to be part of WEI. You pay to be part of Diversity Champions. We give feedback on how they can improve

Emma: You mark the BBC on its policy. it creates the perception of being on one side or other.

Nancy: the BBC is not aggressively pro-trans rights. They have gone the other way

We would love to have more influence on how the BBC covers LGBTQ

Emma: you are displaying the problem here. You are bleeding the boundaries.

Nancy: yes we want progressive change. That is what we do

Emma: do you think when you mark people on their approach is that tolerant.

Nancy: people can chose to act on our advice or not. It is up to them

Emma: would the Scottish Government have been marked up or down if they hadn't removed the word mother. from the FOI

Nancy: that is a historical document. It was taken out of context.

We give different options. Additive language, pregnant people say "you" etc...

Emma: but Stonewall did push ScotGov to remove all gendered language.

Nancy: we give options. The marking scheme does not mark anybody down for using the word mother.

Emma: can you see how removing of all gendered terminology is removing their rights as women

Nancy: i see and understand that. We want an inclusive outcome. Focusing on language is not the way to do that.

Emma: with all do respect that is what your organisation is doing

Nancy: giving people choices. Different ways to talk about it. The word mother is important.

Emma: Do you believe a person can change their biological sex?

Nancy: they can change characteristics

Emma: But can they change sex?
Nancy: Trans bodies are not the same as cis bodies...

<discussion about trans and cis>

So can people change sex?

Nancy: No

Emma: asks about trans lesbians and about Nancy comparing gender critical lesbians with anti-semitism.

Nancy: I wasn't talking about dating as a lesbian. I was talking about a complicated issue. Free speech. Academic debate. Workplace protections.

Where people are expressing their beliefs in a way that is harmful. I was talking about workplace not about dating.

Emma: Reads back: "nobody should be pressured into dating someone not attracted to ... but worth considering societal prejudice"

There is a huge issue here

Nancy: no one should be pressured into dating who they dont want to. There is a difference between saying you might want to think about something saying prejudice. Dating preference can be prejudiced or not

Emma: what you say has influence. Even floating the word prejudice is a powerful statement.

Nancy: i am happy with what i said. Not intended to make dating choices right or wrong.

I am a trans inclusive feminist. I believe trans women are women. I would not make that exclusion.

Do you believe that literally or metaphorically?

Nancy: literally

Emma; asks about Forstater.

Nancy the difference is between belief and expressing the belief. Is it being expressed in a way that is harmful.

Emma: is JKR transphobic.
Nancy: I have no idea. I have never met her.
Emma: but you have read what she said. Is she a transphobe for saying what she said

What she has said is harmful on the trans community. It is less important whether she is transphobic.

She has expressed some views that cause real harm

Emma: you say what she said can cause harm
Nancy: if we see TW as a risk to cis women, then that does cause harm to the trans community. It reinforces the idea that trans people are dangerous or to be feared.

Emma: what if those concerns re: refuges are real.
Nancy: many refuges run on a trans inclusive basis and some don't. Important is that everyone can access a service. Her preference is to exclude. Those service exist

Emma: what is the problem with that?
Nancy: when she says it is because of a risk, not a perception.
Emma: its the same thing. She can say that.

Nancy: there is difference from a woman saying "i don't feel safe around TW can you accomodate me" she should get that support. But there is a world of difference from saying that in the abstract. It reinforces stereotypes.

Emma: you haven't told me what is transphobia. A woman at a refuge can say it but JKR cant say it.

Nancy: people can say what ever they choose.

Fundamentally this is the balance between our freedom to say what we choose and the workplace where people with protected characteristics must be protected.

Do some of JKR's views echo very common kinds of transphobia? Yes.

Emma: should Kathleen Stock been fired for what she said?

Nancy: i only know what was in the press. everyone should be able to learn and work in an environment where people are free from harassment and abuse

Free speech obligations. Decisions are for universities to make.

Emma... universities that have signed up to the Diversity Champions.

Nancy: it was nothing to do with us

Trans students raised perceptions of whether they felt safe. Kathleen Stock's ability to work matters. I dont know.

Emma: is she a transphobe. Did she do anything that meant she should be fired.

Nancy: i've not met professor Stock. I don't know her. I've not met her colleagues.

We don't comment and get involved in HR decision making

Emma: she was harassed. This is real. There is a climate. What do you attribute it to.

Nancy: I have empathy for professor Stock. I experience the same thing. online abuse. hate mail. protests.

I don't know what the content of any of the complaints that were made. It is important that we protect everybody's rights to safe workplaces. It is a matter for individual employers.

Emma: asks about bullying
Nancy : children are bullied for being LGBTQ+ and having LGBTQ+ parents - important to reach out and tell someone. Parents don't have to accept bullying.

Emma: are you enjoying or enduring being in the public eye.
Nancy: most days i enjoy. Some days i endure. No one should have to put up with it. I have a good life at home.