Meanwhile…

That’s perfectly all right yeah?

Horrible, enraging news:

The rage is like bubbling lava right now.

Oh go take a running jump. Women aren’t required to “balance” our rights with those of men.

Our CEO, Sam Smethers, reflects on the importance of empathy in order to balance the rights of both women and trans women in relation to the debate around sex and gender identity.

Trans women are men. Women get to focus on our own rights. Tell the men to have some empathy for us why don’t you.

For me, it’s about independent (evidence-based) thinking, clarity of voice and speaking truth to power. On the issue of sex, gender and identity I have refused to simply pick a side, although I am repeatedly told to, and instead maintain that this is complicated and there are competing rights that need to be recognised.

No there aren’t. It’s not a “right” to force other people to agree that you’re something you’re not, or to take protections or prizes that are meant for a group other than your own.

There are two defining fears. For women, the fear of male violence defines and shapes our world view. This frames the issue of trans rights because some women feel this threat is not being acknowledged as part of the discussion of gender self-identification. For trans people, it is the fear that they will not be recognised and accepted for who they are.

Those are two radically different kinds of fear.

Also, for trans people what they want is to be recognized and accepted for who they are not. That’s the stumbling block. The story is that they “feel like” the other sex and that makes them the other sex, but saying you “feel like” something doesn’t make you that thing unless that thing is itself a mental state. You can say you “feel like” a house or a swordfish or a galaxy, but that doesn’t make you those things. It’s not reasonable to try to force the rest of the world to act as if your personal fantasy about yourself is objective reality.

This informs their response when the fear of male violence is raised because, for trans women at least, they see themselves as women who are more likely than any other group to be targeted by violence…

In other words they simply disregard women. You expect us to compromise with that? Oh hell no.

If someone describes you as a man when you regard yourself to be a woman and have done for some time, it is bound to be hurtful, distressing and will undermine your ability to live the life you choose…

Oh would you please grow up? You don’t get to “regard yourself as a woman” when you’re not one – not in the sense of imposing your belief on everyone else. These are men we’re talking about. Infantilizing blather about “hurtful and distressing” is just that.

People don’t always get to “live the life they choose” anyway, haven’t you noticed? You can choose life as a Supreme Court justice or a top tier movie star, but your odds of being either one are slim. You can choose a love object but if the love object doesn’t reciprocate then you’re out of luck.

It goes to the very heart of who you are. I think this is why trans people often refer to others denying their right to exist. Because it is about their very identity.

Sorry but that’s meaningless. Female and male bodies just are what they are. Be creative about how that plays out in your own case by all means, but female and male bodies remain what they are. One’s “very identity” doesn’t mean anything. Imagination is a powerful thing but it doesn’t actually transform us into what we’re pretending to be.

Living as our authentic selves is what we all want isn’t it?

It depends on what “authentic self” means. If it means a woman or man with a particular temperament and so on, yes, of course, but if it means the opposite sex or a different species or a visitor from Neptune, then no. I don’t think an “authentic self” is something people should think about much once they’re out of their teens. An “authentic self” sounds like a very special self, and I think people ought to stop thinking of themselves as very special. It gets rid of a lot of obstacles.

The “Good Law Project” fundraiser for their attack on the LGBA:

Charitable status is earned by those who serve the public good. Denigrating trans people, attacking those who speak for them, and campaigning to remove legal protections from them is the very opposite of a public good. 

None of that is what the LGBA is doing. He’s not very scrupulous with his accusations, that fox-basher guy.

Whatever sweet nothings the so-called “LGB Alliance” whispered into the ear of the Charity Commission

That’s just rude, and kind of sexist. We’re meant to think the LGBA people are like prostitutes.

…the truth was set out in a speech by LGB Alliance director Bev Jackson on 9 March 2020. She described their real goal as follows:

We’re applying for charitable status and building an organization to challenge the dominance of those who promote the damaging theory of gender identity.”

We’re allowed to challenge dominance. Women are allowed to challenge male dominance. The trans “movement” is riddled with male dominance. Jolyon Maugham is massively domineering.

The money is pouring in of course. Lotta “activists” out there.

Updating to add JCJ’s much more succinct (and witty) take.

Another Karen! Ok she’s not white and she’s not calling the manager but shut up, she is a Karen. She doesn’t do what male journalists tell her to do. Bitch.

Naomi Osaka, currently the highest-paid female athlete in the world, announced that she would withdraw from the French Open. She cited preservation of her mental health, the same explanation she’d provided earlier when she publicly declined to participate in tournament-related news conferences.

“Diva behavior,” declared the lead sportswriter of the Telegraph, following the news-conference revelation. “World sport’s most petulant little madam,” decreed Piers Morgan, taking a break from his bizarre Meghan Markle fixation to harass another young woman of color.

Karen. Karen Karen Karen Karen.

So from my limited, headline-osmosis understanding of the sport, here’s what I have discerned: Damned if you’re Naomi Osaka refusing to participate in a news conference. Damned if you’re Naomi Osaka three years ago, agreeing to participate in a news conference, and then fully half of the questions are about your opponent’s behavior — Osaka bested Serena Williams in a controversial match — and you end up apologizing for winning.

Damned if you’re Serena Williams, asked on the spot to publicly translate your anger into a “teachable moment” for your daughter. Damned if you’re Maria Sharapova being informed at age 17: “You’re a pinup now, especially in England. Is that good? Do you enjoy that?” Damned if you’re Serena Williams having once competed against Maria Sharapova, and a reporter approaches you at the French Open in 2018 with a question he says he’s “been waiting about 14 years” to ask, and the question is whether, more than a decade ago, Williams was “intimidated” by Sharapova’s “supermodel good looks.”

Ok but have some sympathy for the reporters, because what can you say about a female athlete? They’re just not interesting the way male athletes are. Reporters didn’t make that decision, nature did.

A 2016 Cambridge University Press study analyzed the language used to describe male and female athletes in the media. The most common words used for men but not women: “fastest,” “strong,” “big,” “great.” The most common words used for women but not men: “unmarried,” “married,” “pregnant,” “aged.”

…

Hollywood and politics have been dealing with the issue of the problematic news conference for years. The hashtag #AskHerMore was born from the exhaustion of women who longed to be quizzed on anything besides [what] they were wearing or whom they were sleeping with.

What else is there though? Women just aren’t interesting, remember?

H/t Sackbut

NPR is on the job! If you’re at a loss for how to pronoun, NPR is there to help!

Down pointing backhand index to you too, you lovely helpful advicey people.

We heard you the first time but ok I guess.

Shall we read their cute 101 guide? Oh let’s.

“Pronouns are basically how we identify ourselves apart from our name. It’s how someone refers to you in conversation,” says Mary Emily O’Hara, a communications officer at GLAAD. 

No, pronouns are not how we identify ourselves apart from our name. Not basically or any other way.

This guide was created with help from GLAAD. We also referenced resources from the National Center for Transgender Equality, the Trans Journalists Association, NLGJA: The Association of LGBTQ Journalists, Human Rights Campaign, InterAct and the American Psychological Association.This guide is not exhaustive, and is Western and U.S.-centric. Other cultures may use different labels and have other conceptions of gender.

So what you’re saying is, everyone has to get an entire education on this subject, as in many hours of reading and memorization. What if we have better things to do? What if, to be exact, there are more important things to pay attention to? Poverty, inequality, exploitation, climate change, public health – you know, the big stuff. What if a small set of narcissistic people who want you to learn a new language to talk about them just don’t appear very high on that list?

One thing to note: Language changes. Some of the terms now in common usage are different from those used in the past to describe similar ideas, identities and experiences. Some people may continue to use terms that are less commonly used now to describe themselves, and some people may use different terms entirely. What’s important is recognizing and respecting people as individuals.

But we can do that without any “guide to pronouns.”

What follows is of course the usual jargon-riddled nonsense, uttered as usual with solemn confidence as if it were a set of facts as opposed to a sit of silly rules invented by some self-obsessed teenagers. A grown-up organization like NPR should not be anywhere near it.

So few readers.

The blog that former president Donald Trump launched last month after he was banned from Twitter and Facebook is no more.

Jason Miller, a spokesman for Trump, said that “From the Desk of Donald J. Trump” has been permanently shut down after all posts were scrubbed from Trump’s website.

Trump rolled out the blog last month after being absent from social media since January, but his effort to regain some of the attention he received with his headline-grabbing tweets largely failed. An adviser told The Washington Post’s Josh Dawsey that the former president wanted to open a new “platform” and didn’t like that this platform was being mocked and had so few readers.

And the way to fix that is definitely to start over on a new “platform,” and not at all to become a different less stupid more interesting not quite so ridiculous person. Starting over on a new “platform” will fix everything. Readers will be in the high two figures.

The Times reports on the Jolyon/Mermaids lawsuit:

Stonewall has backed transgender activists in a legal challenge to the charitable status of a rival campaign group that is accused of “denigrating trans people”.

I think it’s a little underhanded to call the LGB Alliance a “rival” group…as if Stonewall were some kind of obvious Rightful Owner and the LGBA a trespasser. Stonewall doesn’t own All Things NotStraight, and anyway it’s far more about the T these days.

In their objections to the Charity Commission’s decision, the groups argued that “charitable status is earned by those who serve the public good. Denigrating trans people, attacking those who speak for them, and campaigning to remove legal protections from them is the very opposite of a public good.”

But the LGBA doesn’t “denigrate” trans people. It’s not “denigrating” anyone to say that lesbians are women and gay men are men. The LGBA is of course not campaigning to remove legal protections from anyone.

The groups cited a comment last year by Bev Jackson, a director of the LGB Alliance, in which she explained that her organisation had applied for charitable status “to challenge the dominance of those who promote the damaging theory of gender identity”.

So challenging dominance is wicked now? Do they really want to go with that?

The groups said on their crowdfunding page that “these purposes are reprehensible and they are not charitable; they are political objectives — to roll back legal protections for trans people”.

Only if you define “legal protections for trans people” as the right for men to invade women’s spaces and sports and prizes and jobs.

In court documents, which do not appear to have been signed by its lawyers, Mermaids states that unless the decision to grant charitable status is quashed, it “is likely to suffer financial loss”, as it “may find itself competing with LGB Alliance for donations from the public and grant-making bodies”.

Well that’s just tough shit, isn’t it. Who ever told them they were entitled to a monopoly?

Barrister Dennis Kavanagh at Lesbian and Gay News reports on the kimono guy’s lawsuit against the LGB Alliance:

The public campaign against the LGB Alliance by established trans-focused charities Stonewall and Mermaids escalated into litigation today with an appeal against the Charity Commission’s decision to award the LGBA charitable status (available here). This follows ferocious objections from the groups to the initial application for registration and a campaign of well publicised subsequent complaints to the commission itself by supporters of both charities, (many of which were dismissed as “emotional”). It seems then that 2021 Pride month will set the stage for an extraordinary legal spectacle of large, multi-million pound trans focused charities seeking to silence and effectively destroy a lesbian/gay/bisexual focused one. 

The appeal itself is crowdfunded by and appears to be promoted by the non for-profit company “The Good Law Project” but the grounds of appeal themselves name the charity Mermaids as the entity actually appealing the decision. Passing reference is also made to Stonewall who, following a week of high profile exits from its diversity scheme, make complaint that the LGBA is undermining that scheme.

Nah, Stonewall, you did that yourselves. It was you, Charlie.

Kavanagh says Mermaids may have trouble establishing standing, in which case the suit will be dismissed without getting to make its arguments. (Basically: this is none of your business anyway so your arguments are beside the point.)

The grounds themselves rehearse a number of complaints already dealt with by the Charity Commission and so the appeal, to some extent, represents an attempt at having a second bite of the cherry. Perhaps most strikingly, the grounds appear to claim that anything other than complete agreement with the gender identity position is in and of itself a de facto attack on trans focused charities. The grounds specifically complain that Bev Jackson said in March 2020 “We’re applying for charitable status and building an organisation to challenge the dominance of those who promote the damaging theory of gender identity”. The complaint that this speech is enough to make good the objection may be extremely difficult to establish in law given recent the statements by EHRC chair, Baroness Falkner to the effect that a gender critical position is a protected characteristic and the fact the body recently intervened in the Maya Forstater Appeal Case to protect extremely similar speech and thought.

Let’s hope so. Let’s hope we get to retain the right to say that only women are women.

While Jolyon is persecuting lesbians in London, police in Bristol are persecuting a woman who, according to them, made “transphobic comments” to someone.

Police have released a CCTV image after transphobic comments were made to a woman.

Avon and Somerset Police are investigating the incident that occurred in the St Paul’s area.

The transphobic comments were made by an “unknown woman” in Badminton Road at around 6.50pm on Thursday, May 6.

But can we trust the police on this? Can we trust them to know the comments were genuinely transphobic as opposed to ordinary statements of fact?

Also, do the police ever put out announcements like this when, say, a man calls a woman a bitch and a cunt and a Karen?

Officers have now issued a photo of a woman in their 50s who they wish to speak with in connection with the investigation.

What? What is this woman doing in the police’s 50s? What are the police’s 50s? Is it a part of their uniform?

No, the reporter, Rebecca Cook, must be confused. “What’s that pronoun rule again? I always forget. I guess it’s to call trans women ‘she’ but never ever call a woman that – a woman has to be called ‘they.’ That’s it: a woman in their 50s. Most elegant.”

Stepping back a bit – the lurid headline shouts:

Transphobic comments made to woman in hate crime

Except the “woman” in “to woman” isn’t a woman. This is a man persecuting a woman via the police, and reporters happily calling that a “hate crime.”

A force spokesperson said: “We are appealing for information that could assist us with our investigation into a hate crime in the St Paul’s area of Bristol.

“A female was in Badminton Road at approximately 6.50pm on Thursday 6 May when transphobic comments were made by an unknown woman.”

So now the man is “a female” while the woman is a woman? Isn’t that a hate crime? Aren’t we supposed to call the man “a woman” and the woman a…hmmm what are we supposed to call her? Bitchcuntkarenfemale again?

“Enquiries have been subsequently carried out and we’re issuing a photo of someone who we wish to talk to in connection with our investigation. They are described as a Black female and in their 50s.”

Ah so it’s the police who called the woman “they” and the reporter followed their lead. Why are the police calling a woman “they”? And why is she called “a female” while the man is called “a woman”?

Also…really? The police are losing their shit at a Black woman in her 50s because a man in a dress said she’s “transphobic”? Really?

There’s an update at the top of the page:

******Update: police have now located the woman*******

I hope she doesn’t get the death penalty.

The Fox-basher is persecuting uppity lesbians again.

Should Michael Flynn be court-martialed for advocating a coup? Not quite, legally speaking. (Morally speaking he should be court-martialed and then pushed into a deep mud puddle.)

Flynn made the comment at a QAnon-themed conference in Texas this past weekend. After Flynn delivered a speech to the group, a man in the audience rose and said, “I’m a simple Marine. I want to know why what happened in Minimar [he was referring to the February military coup in Myanmar] can’t happen here.” Amid much whooping and clapping from the crowd, Flynn replied, “No reason. I mean, it should happen”—i.e., a coup should happen here. (Flynn has since denied saying this, but the videotape clearly shows he did.)

…

The First Amendment protects free speech, but the Uniform Code of Military Justice—which applies to retired and active-duty personnel of the U.S. armed forces—doesn’t always. Rep. Elaine Luria, a retired Navy commander who is now vice chair of the House Armed Services Committee, said that Flynn’s comments “border on sedition” and that he should be tried in a military court.

But Fred Kaplan explains why the law doesn’t quite agree.

Still, Flynn poses a problem, especially at a time when Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, himself a retired Army general, is trying to purge the ranks of political extremists and aspiring insurrectionists. One thing that Austin, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, military commanders, and any other officer in the public eye should do is to shun and shame Michael Flynn—denounce him, hold him up as a poster boy for bad behavior, turn the sorry, sordid devolution of his career into a case study of a path not to take.

Former colleagues of Flynn say that his dismissal from DIA—a move ordered by the secretary of defense and director of national intelligence at the time (Robert Gates and James Clapper)—embittered him and made him ripe for recruitment by Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Flynn made his pivot, leading the anti-Hillary chant of “Lock her up!” from the podium at the 2016 Republican National Convention—and has been plunging ever since. His indictment during the Mueller investigation triggered his dive into out-and-out conspiracy-mongering, especially after he was persuaded to retract his guilty plea—at which point he stopped cooperating with the authorities and started adopting slogans of QAnon and talking with alarming casualness about the possibilities—and appeal—of martial law to preserve or restore Trump’s presidency.

Flynn wants to be the face of an insurgent military cabal. The legal military authorities can’t toss him in the brig, and they shouldn’t turn him into a martyr in any case. But they need to counter, quash, ridicule, and otherwise nip his dark ambitions in the bud. They need to make clear, to one and all, that every moral and legal tenet of the U.S. armed forces, every idea animating American democracy, holds Michael Flynn in contempt.

Get busy on that then.

Originally a comment by Nullius in Verba on Happy pride day punch a terf.

(Warning: not new information for many here.) I really do think that these people have somehow reconceptualized words like lesbian from descriptions to memberships. For example, atheist as a description is a word that applies to someone who does not believe in any gods. Believe in no gods? Atheist. Believe in at least one god? Not an atheist. As a membership term, it applies to someone who is part of the group “atheists”. Thus, if one is permitted entry into the group, one is an atheist. No other criteria apply, and this is how we get to normative notions of inclusion and exclusion, of “policing” who “can be” a woman. After all, group membership is political. Admittance or rejection is an exercise of power.

This view explains why someone would feel (violently) confident in proclaiming, “If someone walked up to me and said, ‘Lesbians can’t be attracted to men,’ they’d deserve a brick to the teeth, because that’s a TERF.” Lesbian isn’t acting as a description of reality based on conformation to a definition. Rather, it is acting as a name for a group—or community, if we use the trendy language—which one can join or be included in.

Does this sound like Critical Theory plus Foucault? Why, yes. Yes, it does.

Trump is telling people he expects to be “reinstated” in a couple of months. That’s not how that works, Treasonbro.

The anti-democratic conspiracy theory has been bubbling up in fringe conservative media for several months. It has no basis under the Constitution or any legitimate legal framework.

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell has been a prominent proponent of the theory.

So what? What’s the pillow guy got to do with anything?

Lindell has said August is when he would go to the Supreme Court to present evidence he’s acquired that would be so convincing that the justices would be forced to reject the 2020 election result.

Yes that’s right, that’s what will happen. He’ll go to the Supreme Court and knock on the door and when they let him in he’ll show them his evidence and they will get right to work and “reinstate” the orange criminal.

The Toronto Star says there are more mass graves.

“If you think there’s another Kamloops just coming around the corner, there is one — trust me,” says Lyle Keewatin Richards, the child of a residential school survivor who is part of a group trying to preserve an unmarked cemetery near the former Red Deer Industrial School in Alberta.

According to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, approximately 150,000 First Nations, Inuit and Métis children attended these residential schools. Estimates vary, but the commission put it at just over 4,000 dead, which would mean that more than one in 50 children who went to the schools died there. Most experts say the toll is likely higher.

It was a rate of death driven by far higher levels of malnutrition, disease and abuse than the norm at the time in white schools, experts say.

Many schools refused to send the dead children back to their families because it cost money; instead they dropped them into mass graves. Much cheaper.

Read on.

H/t Your Name’s not Bruce?

Stonewall is having a rough day.

Also as that Telegraph article mentioned, Channel 4 has also dropped Stonewall.

A glimmer of light at last.

Stonewall even worse than we already thought surprise surprise.

Stonewall “threatened” to silence a gender-critical barrister they deemed “transphobic” by having her sacked, court documents have revealed.

Allison Bailey, a lesbian criminal barrister who helped to set up the LGB Alliance, is currently suing the embattled charity, claiming it collaborated with her chambers to put her under investigation.

Ms Bailey, who set up a crowdfunder to cover her legal bills, lodged a claim at the Employment Tribunal against Stonewall and Garden Court Chambers last year alleging that she was silenced “because both my chambers and Stonewall treat people such as me, who hold gender critical beliefs, as being bigoted and unworthy of respect”. 

The Telegraph has seen damning court documents and emails.

In a hearing in February at the London Central Employment Tribunal, Judge Stout refers to a “threat” from Stonewall to “remove” the barrister from Garden Court Chambers – which is a fee-paying member of the charity’s embattled Diversity Champions Scheme.

Rejecting the charity’s legal bid to strike out the barrister’s claim, Judge Stout said: “[It] plainly seeks to put pressure on Chambers to take action against the Claimant, indeed to the extent of urging Chambers to remove the Claimant from Chambers, and accompanies that with a threat about the ongoing relationship between Chambers and Stonewall itself if Chambers does not take action.”

What a good thing that more and more institutions are waking up to the reality that a relationship with Stonewall is not a relationship they want.

Separately, Ms Bailey released a leaked email from Stonewall’s Head of Trans Inclusion to her Heads of Chambers. The email accuses the barrister of: “targeting a woman who works for us (our trans empowerment manager) and calling her a man”, “calling our work on LGBT equality ‘gender extremism’” and “accusing Stonewall of ‘appalling levels of intimidation, fear and coercion’”.

Stonewall says, trying to ruin the career of a woman who disagrees with them.

The email continues: “These actions and their link to Garden Court Chambers, threatens the positive relationship yourselves have built with the trans community through holding events, round tables and meetings for trans people on trans equality and rights.[…] “

Yourselves have built? So they’re illiterate on top of everything else.

“However, for Garden Court Chambers to continue associating with a barrister who is actively campaigning for a reduction in trans rights and equality, while also specifically targeting members of our staff with transphobic abuse on a public platform, puts us in a difficult position with yourselves: the safety of our staff and community will always be Stonewall’s first priority.”

The email also contained a list of tweets that Ms Bailey had “liked” and “retweeted” questioning whether male-born people identifying as women are the same as biological women. 

So they spend their time checking on the likes and retweets of people who disagree with them. Much diversity champions.

Graham Linehan is not bowled over by Paris Lees’s memoir.

I think we’re going to have to do an emergency Mess We’re In on Paris Lees’ memoirs.

This is the start of it. I’m not making this up. This is real. This isn’t a parody. This is actually how it’s written.

Oh gawd, I hate dialect writing. Anyway it’s stupid because it assumes that non-dialect writing represents the way non-dialect people speak, but there are no non-dialect people, so the assumption is wrong and silly and bad.

And if you want any more proof that this is a revolution of mediocre men, have a look at this pathetic review in the Guardian by Kadish Morris. It’s a masterpiece in Trying Not To Give A Bad Review And Being Very Vague About Why It’s Good So You Don’t Humiliate Yourself More That You Have To. It reads like a review I would write if the author had kidnapped my dog.

Anita Rani did better than that on Woman’s Hour – she came across as thrilled and exhilarated enough for a World Cup win.

This is the strongest criticism she can manage. “It does, however, ramble in places, while the racist slurs directed at Black and Asian people are glossed over in a way that makes you question why they were even mentioned.” Talk about trans privilege! Can you imagine Martin Amis getting away that lightly!?

Let alone Dawn French.

H/t latsot

Anti-vax religious loony gets the Covid.

Conservative pastor Rick Wiles has apparently fallen ill with COVID-19 after condemning the vaccines that fight the disease, baselessly claiming they’re being used to carry out a “global genocide.”

Wiles—the founder of the conspiracy-promoting TruNews website and the senior pastor of Flowing Streams Church in Florida—asserted on this show in late April that he would not get vaccinated against COVID-19 and would survive the “global genocide.”

“I am not going to be vaccinated,” he said. “I’m going to be one of the survivors. I’m going to survive the genocide.”

He added, “You and I are witnessing the first global mass murder and it’s being led by Satan’s team on the planet. You must survive it. Do not be vaccinated.”

That last bit is why it’s good that he has it. He told people (people who look up to him) not to get vaccinated against a lethal virus; that’s a bad thing to do.

Then this week, TruNews, in a post to its official Gab account, noted that there was a COVID-19 outbreak at Wiles’ church and asked for prayers.

An outbreak he helped to cause. Nice guy.

Yea, the light of the wicked shall be put out, and the spark of his fire shall not shine.

Last week BBC 4’s Woman’s Hour had host Anita Rani interviewing Paris Lees, who is a man who identifies as a woman. I took the trouble to listen to it and found that Anita Rani was strikingly gushy toward him. Some women on Twitter were critical of this choice of subject and Rani’s gush. Her response:

If Woman’s Hour is a space to discuss everything then why is it called Woman’s Hour? Why isn’t it called Everything Hour?

More specifically, why do women have to empathise with men who identify as women at the expense of women? Why do they have to give up part of this one BBC hour that’s about women for the sake of yet another “story” from and about a man?

Why do women have to put up with having the subject changed from women back to men yet again even on a radio show that’s literally named woman’s hour? Why do we have to put up with being told to shut up and move over and share our hour with men even on Woman’s Hour? Why can’t we have one thing that’s for women?