Woman's Hour - Cast of Pride & Prejudice (sort of); Nancy Kelley, CEO of Stonewall; Frida Kahlo

Episode Date: November 18, 2021

Nancy Kelley is CEO of Stonewall, the largest LGBT rights charity in Europe. She speaks to Emma about her organisation’s work and gives her reaction to recent high-profile withdrawals from Stonewall’s Diversity Champions workplace inclusion scheme, including the BBC.Pride and Prejudice (sort of) is a sweary, anarchic reboot of the classic Jane Austen novel by Scottish writer Isobel McArthur, in which an all-female cast of five play all of the characters. Originally written for a summer season in Glasgow’s Tron theatre, after a 6 month regional tour the all-singing and dancing reinterpretation has landed in London’s West End to much applause. Isobel and her co-performer, Tori Burgess, are live in the studio.Frida Kahlo: the famous Mexican artist whose images go far beyond galleries, is being described as having the last laugh this week. Reproductions of her work are everywhere and her face and style adorn merchandise wherever you go. But this week in New York she broke a record. A self-portrait featuring her husband, Diego Rivera, who it's widely acknowledged treated her badly but also whom she adored, sold for a whopping 34.9 million dollars. It's the highest price ever paid, at auction, for a Latin American artwork. And - here's the twist - it's more than Diego ever got for his work. Ruth Millington, an art historian and critic discusses.Presenter: Emma Barnett Producer: Kirsty StarkeyInterviewed Guest: Nancy Kelley Interviewed Guest: Isobel McArthur Interviewed Guest: Tori Burgess Interviewed Guest: Ruth Millington

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. I'm Natalia Melman-Petrozzella, and from the BBC, this is Extreme Peak Danger. The most beautiful mountain in the world. If you die on the mountain, you stay on the mountain. This is the story of what happened when 11 climbers died on one of the world's deadliest mountains, K2, and of the risks we'll take to feel truly alive. If I tell all the details, you won't believe it anymore. Extreme, peak danger. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.

BBC Sounds. Music, radio, podcasts. Hello, I'm Emma Barnett and welcome to Woman's Hour from BBC Radio 4. Good morning and welcome to the programme. An exclusive interview for you today with Nancy Kelly, the Chief Executive of Stonewall. It's the first time she's given an interview since the BBC became the latest major organisation to pull out of its workplace schemes, citing concerns about perceptions of impartiality on public debates about transgender and women's rights. You'll hear that interview shortly.

Also on today's programme, learn why Frida Kahlo is having the last laugh. And hear from the creator of a new all-female, hilarious adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, as to why karaoke was a key tool in telling the story anew. But first, get to all of that. Our exclusive interview with the chief executive of Stonewall, Europe's largest LGBTQ plus charity. If you've never heard of the organisation until recently, you could be forgiven for thinking all it campaigned on was trans rights, as that's what most of the media coverage and social

media commentary focuses on regarding its present day work. But Stonewall was formed as a lobby group in 1989 when a small group of lesbian and gay activists came together because they were devastated that a law had been passed that included the infamous Section 28, which banned the promotion of homosexuality in schools and local authorities. Stonewall pledged to fight for its repeal and for broader social and legal equality. Since then, it has helped to do just that, lobbying for legislation to equalise the age of consent, for instance, and to allow same-sex couples to marry and adopt.

More recently, Stonewall has also campaigned around trans rights, attracting both praise and strong criticism for its stance on gender identity. As well as campaigning, Stonewall also runs workplace inclusion schemes, which one estimate puts it covering 25% of the UK workforce. There are more than 250 public bodies in its Diversity Champions scheme, and some have chosen to leave this year, most recently the BBC, departing last week, you may remember, in addition to Channel 4, Ofcom, the media regulator, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. When I sat down with Nancy Kelly, the Chief Executive of Stonewall, yesterday for an exclusive interview, I wanted to get her reaction to that news, as well as her views on recent public debates around sex and gender, which have led to accusations of transphobia being levelled at, for example,

one of the most famous and most successful women in Britain, J.K. Rowling. Now, if there's anything you hear that you wish to comment on, you know I am all ears. You can text me here at Woman's Hour on 84844. Text will be charged at your standard message rate. On social media, we're at BBC Woman's Hour or email me through the Woman's Hour website. But I started my interview with Nancy Kelly, the chief executive of Stonewall, by asking why she wanted to do the job she's been doing since June last year. I'm a lesbian. My life has been absolutely transformed by the work of the movement and by Stonewall. You know, I've been married for

15 years now. I have to pause and get that right to my wife. I've adopted two children, which was illegal until very recently. And it just felt like an amazing opportunity to try and, I guess, repay all of that by helping to make things better for LGBTQ plus people now. Well, the emphasis with the coverage and debates about Stonewall, which represents LGBTQ plus, as you say, has been a lot on the T, a lot about your work on trans rights, which we are going to come on to. But actually making reference to what you just said about having children as lesbians, the group, of course, still works and campaigns on lesbian, bisexual and gay rights. And a case that was only in the news last week about a lesbian couple fighting the rules on IVF.

I also understand that you are as an organisation behind. That's right. So the Wonderful Wagon are being incredibly brave and stepping up and bringing a judicial review of the current rules on IVF and they're incredibly discriminatory and if I think back you know when I was first thinking about starting my own family we started down a fertility treatment road and then decided adoption was right for us and I remember seeing a working class lesbian couple in the waiting room having just been told about this, and they were crying because they knew that they would never, ever be able to access that treatment. So it's so important to us as part of our campaigning on equal access to family formation

and healthy LGBTQ plus families to get this rule changed. When you refer to Wegan there, you're talking about Megan and Whitney Bacon Evans, known collectively as Wegan in their work as influencers, just in case people were a bit confused. Oh, thank you. I was trying to be fashionable and use the fashionable Insta contraction, but I'm too much of a mum for that. I don't do fashion. I have to explain. Right. So let's get, though, to another part of your work. And it is the part that I have to say that a lot of scrutiny is happening about at the moment, which is the tea and the trans rights side of things. And only last week, the BBC joined the likes of Channel 4, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Cabinet Office and pulled out of Stonewall's Diversity Champions Scheme and Workplace Equality Index, citing concerns of the perception of impartiality when it comes to BBC coverage of the debate over whether trans rights impinge on women's rights in certain circumstances. Do you agree that the BBC needs to

be seen to be impartial on this? I definitely agree that the BBC needs to be seen to be impartial on kind of all issues really. It's the national broadcaster. It's really important that people can trust, particularly news programming, I think. What I don't agree, and I think BBC didn't agree in its own statement, was that being part of a workplace inclusion programme, in this case, the Diversity Champions programme, was having any real effect on impartiality as opposed to kind of a perception. And I think maybe just for listeners, it might be helpful to talk about what the Diversity Championseme is and does, because it's quite often talked about in shorthand. But what it is, is a scheme that works with the diversity and inclusion team or the HR team in an organisation around how the workplace can be more inclusive. So how you can work with internal staff groups, how you can have more inclusive policies, you can access training, those sorts of things. It's very similar to other charity schemes like the Mind Index and the support you would get from Mind. But the sense where you say the BBC doesn't agree with itself, well, it obviously did,

it pulled out. And I suppose the question here is, do you think true impartiality throughout the organisation is possible when you're being lobbied and paying to be lobbied? Because as per our previous part of our discussion, you don't deny you're a lobby group. So I guess there's a difference between whether or not participation in the scheme had an impact on impartiality, which as I understand it, the BBC rightly says it didn't, and whether it's perceived to. So that's what I was referring to in terms of the statement. And we do two very normal things. We're an organisation that wants change, you know, as other charities do. We support people around inclusion and then a completely separate team, campaigns and policy team. We might engage with the media. We might engage with policy officials.

We might engage with politicians. And, you know, we want the world to be a better place for LGBTQ plus people to work. We want the world to be a better place for LGBTQ plus people to live. You know, we're really proud of the work that we do to create change. But the organisation is one. They may be separate teams, but they abide by the same rules and the same views and the same beliefs and the same principles. Are you saying those two bits have different views? Oh, no, we believe in the same thing. We believe in the equality of LGBTQ plus people. OK, but you're making a distinction there, I suppose, between teams.

And I mentioned there that the BBC pulled out of two things, the Diversity Champions Scheme and the Workplace Equality Index. Surely you see a conflict of interest when you're marking the homework of an employer like the BBC on promoting some of those beliefs and views. For instance, the manifestation of that, for instance, people being encouraged to declare pronouns and then the BBC having to cover the debate over whether people want to do that.

I mean, my understanding of the BBC, you're more of an expert than I am, so you can correct me, is that that's a difference between practice in terms of workplace inclusion and editorial decision making. I mean, it's absolutely right. Workplace Equality Index, people that don't know, is a kind of progressive benchmarking tool that anyone can enter. You don't have to be a diversity champion to enter it. It's a way of kind of understanding where you are on an inclusion journey. And we would encourage all sorts of things, including inclusive policies,

sharing pronouns where people feel comfortable. And we would notice that if people were doing it and say, that's great, that probably makes colleagues feel more comfortable. They're marked on it. Yeah, that's right. You don't just notice it. It's registered in your index. Absolutely.

But Nancy, you are making it sound like you're just like, oh, you did that. Cool. Actually, it's on an index. It's a benchmarking tool. Absolutely. And that's why businesses have paid to be part of it. They want to look exactly, as you say, like a welcoming and inclusive place.

So you don't pay to be part of the Workplace Equality Index. You pay to be part of the separate scheme that's DC. But absolutely, this is all about businesses who want to be more inclusive. And when we're doing benchmarking, we give people feedback about what they're doing well and where they could improve. But this comes down to perception and I will come away from the BBC. But surely you understand that if you are marking the homework of an organisation down, if they don't follow what you say is the way to behave, that first of all, that can create a perception of being on one side or the other. That's the perception point of the BBC.

I had one of the top executives on the programme only a few days ago. That was his point. Sure, Roderick. Yeah, I do. Of course, I understand how that would create the perception. I guess what I would put on the other side is what the BBC actually does in terms of its coverage, which I don't think does evidence any sign of being kind of aggressively pro-trans rights. And in fact, some of the coverage has tilted a bit the other way recently. So I, of course, understand why people might have that perception. In reality, I don't think we've had any real influence over editorial policy. It would be lovely to have more.

We would love to be able to kind of have a great amount of influence over the way that LGBTQ stories are covered by everyone. You would love to have more influence over the BBC and its editorial policy. We'd love to have more influence in the world. We want a world that's more inclusive. We're talking about an employer that just left your scheme because it was concerned about that. But you say that, and I suppose you've just said they're two separate teams.

So which is it? You've got your HR team. We as Stonewall would love... But you are displaying the exact issue here. You're bleeding the boundaries. The point that I would make is that whether we're engaging with employers through the diversity champion scheme, or we're engaging with a media company or any other organisation, we're always going to be interested in progressive change. That's what the job of Stonewall is to do. But that's been the concern by some. Just to broaden out, because as I said I would,

of course you're involved with lots and lots of organisations and lots of campaigns. Again, if you're marking an organisation down because they don't follow what you say is the way to behave with regard, let's say, to, as we are talking about, trans rights. Do you think that's tolerant? So, I mean, organisations ask us to give them feedback on inclusion of lesbian, gay, bi and trans people. And that's what we do. We don't have the power to mandate what they do. We're advising them. And so we give that feedback and people can choose to act on it or

not, and they can act on it in a range of ways. So I think that's good practice. I think it's about inclusion. I think that's inherently tolerant. We're not able to kind of control other organisations, what they do. We're advising as we've been asked to. Would the Scottish government have moved up or down the index if they hadn't removed the word mother from its maternity policy? So I think you're referring to some documents from a couple of years ago that came out in a Freedom of Information Act request. I am, yes. I should give it its proper citation from the Stephen Nolan BBC podcast. Sure, sure. So the first thing to say is that we're not interested in removing or erasing the word mother. I'm a mum. I'm married to another mum. There's lots of mums in our house.

When we offer guidance on how organisations can make their policies more inclusive, we do typically offer three different options to people. We say you can use additive language. So you might say mothers and other pregnant people. You might say mothers, fathers, parents, etc. We say you can use gender neutral language. So that would be kind of pregnant people or parents. Or we say you can address policies using the word you. So when you become a parent, actually, that's what we use in our own HR policies at Stonewall. I think in that document, which is a historical document, there was a notation that said... It's not that historic. It's only two years ago. It's 10 years ago if it's historical,

if not more. But it was indeed taken out of context of the conversation, which was about those options. And it's absolutely the case right now that all of our guidance suggests that those are three ways that people can make sure that everyone knows that policies apply to them and they are included in them. But in that same Freedom of Information request, it showed that the Scottish government could have added other words, but instead Stonewall, the scheme, you weren't CEO, but the organisation that you're the CEO of now, pushed them to remove all gender terminology? Yeah, so again, my understanding is that we were talking about a range of options in our meetings with the Scottish government at the time, but our policy, our guidance offers all three options,

and that's what we promote now. Sorry, so just to be clear, the Scottish government still has the word mother within its maternity policy? and those i think so i haven't i haven't checked it today but i believe so yeah but they're going to be marked down potentially or not no no so that's not part of the marking okay the marking all right the marking scheme this year definitively does not mark anybody down but right now i should say they're also still part of Stonewall as we are talking to each other now. Can you see why even having those conversations, why it was even

suggested, because it was quote unquote in front of me here from that Freedom of Information request, the removing of all gendered terminology that was pushed for, can you see why some women feel this approach is erasing their identity and rights as women? I definitely see and empathise with that. I definitely understand that perspective, which is why my focus is really on trying to say, well, we want an inclusive outcome. And I think the vast majority of people and particularly the vast majority of women want an inclusive outcome. And there's more than one way of achieving that. And kind of focusing on language is not the right way to do that. Focusing on a range of ways to achieve a positive outcome. With all due respect, your organisation has people focusing on language

right now. Hence why it's on my radar. I wouldn't be thinking, should the word mother come out of a policy or not? Or should people be added, if documents didn't show Stonewall was engaged in that very discussion? Of course, I guess what I'm saying is focusing on one type of language is not the way to achieve an inclusive outcome. I think giving people choices, giving different organisations different ways of talking about inclusion that work for them is right. Of course, I understand, you know, it's a deeply emotive term. I would be really upset if my children didn't call me mum. I absolutely understand why the word mother is so important to so many of us. Let's bring it away from human resources,

companies and those sorts of terms for a moment and bring it perhaps to the heart of what you believe as the chief executive of Stonewall, you you know and you're guiding it in the latest chapter of its long existence do you believe a person can change their biological sex definitely believe they can change their sex characteristics some but not all of them that's that's what the purpose of people going through a medical transition for those that go through a medical transition is that again wasn wasn't my question. Yes, you could of course have surgery and hormones, but do you believe a person can change their biological sex? So I don't believe, and I don't think anybody believes, that trans people's bodies are identical to cis people's bodies.

No. When you say cis for our audience, you mean? People like me, that when I was born, they said, that's a girl, And I've remained a girl for the rest of my life. I haven't transitioned. Because again, we're talking about language. That's not language that lots of people will be familiar with. Other people will be. That's right. And mostly we don't need to use it, right? I think we only use the kind of cis, trans language when we're talking about differences between cis and trans people.

Rest of the time, we just get on with people and men and women. So when I ask you, do you believe a person can change their biological sex? Your answer is? If that is everything that goes into making a sexed body, no. Because with this part of your belief that you talked about, being able to do part of it, as you put it, I don't wish to misquote you. It is one that has led you to believe that there is such a thing as trans lesbian and trans gay men, trans lesbians and trans gay men.

And if lesbians do not want to date trans women, that they should consider whether they are prejudiced. And in fact, you compared it to antisemitism in an interview with the BBC in May. Quote, you said, with all beliefs, including controversial beliefs, there is a right to express those beliefs publicly and where they're harmful or damaging, whether it's antisemitic beliefs, gender critical beliefs, talking about what we're talking about, beliefs about disability. We have legal systems that are put in place for people who are harmed by that. So just to be really clear, that is a quote from me, but I wasn't talking about dating as a lesbian. That was a quote from an interview, as you say,

quite a while back. And it's quite a clumsy quote where I was talking about quite a complicated issue, which is how rights to free speech and rights around academic debate can come into conflict with like workplace protections and how you deal with that so so I was talking about people have a right to free speech and that is incredibly important in a democratic society where they're expressing their beliefs in a way that is harmful and they're doing that say in a workplace the equality act protects workers against racism or antisemitism against homophobia or transphobia. So I did say it, but I wasn't talking about dating.

Well, specifically, I think it can be applied. That was my point. But I take the point about the concepts within which you're saying it, because I was trying to get a flavour for our listeners of your tolerance and what is considered OK and what isn't. As the Chief Executive of Stonewall, I'll give you some more words very recently of yours back to yourself, if I may, this time in response to a BBC article specifically about lesbians who say they've been pressured into having sex with trans women. You said, quote, nobody should ever be pressured into dating or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to.

But if you find that when dating you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions. We know prejudice is still common in the LGBTQ plus community. And it's important that we can talk about that openly and honestly. Well, there is a huge issue there for some women, lesbians, who have spoken out about this, who believe calling them prejudiced for this is wrong. So I kind of want to emphasise two things. The one is the first thing that I said. I'm a feminist. It is completely core to my beliefs that nobody should ever be pressured into dating, into sex. We should only choose to be with who we want to be with. I've got, you know, many friends who have all kinds of dating preferences. I respect

all of them wholly. So it's really important, I think, to be very unequivocal about that. There is a difference between saying we might want to think about something and saying you are prejudiced.'s it's completely possible to have dating preferences that aren't to do with prejudice it's also completely possible to have dating preferences that are and I guess in the context of LGBTQ dating there are quite a lot of issues and debates about filters in dating apps these sorts of things and debates about filters in dating apps, these sorts of things, and conversations about where is it that what we're doing is having a preference and that's kind of we want who we want, the heart loves who it loves,

and where is it that we're influenced by kind of negative stereotyping of all kinds. I think it's healthy. But you're not just a random person on the internet. You're the chief executive of Stonewall. So what you say does have influence. And so by even floating the word prejudice in the same sentence as those who feel they have perhaps been labelled prejudice for this view, do you not see why that's a powerful statement to even put out there?

So I'm really happy with what I said. It wasn't intended to label anybody's dating choices as right or wrong I think that thinking about how we choose to date as lesbians is kind of something that's mostly for lesbians right and for me I'm a trans inclusive feminist so I do believe trans women are women and so I wouldn't make that exclusion other people don't agree with me other people I know and love don't agree with me and that's okay. Do you believe that literally or metaphorically that trans women are women? Literally. I ask because beliefs are not the same as facts and when it comes to women a tribunal this year ruled that gender critical beliefs such as the view that sex is fixed and should not be conflated with gender identity, does qualify for protection under the Equality Act. So that's been described by some as a landmark ruling. Has that changed Stonewall's approach under your guidance?

So gender critical beliefs and all kinds of beliefs have always been protected under the Equality Act. And it's absolutely possible for people to hold gender critical beliefs without expressing them in a way that's harmful to trans people. So the distinction here, which kind of comes back to the conversation we were having earlier, is between what we believe and how we express what we believe and whether we're expressing these things in a way that is not harmful, even if unpopular, even if difficult to listen to, or we're expressing them in a way that is harmful. It's about actually if people feel they can also talk in the current climate how they wish to. Is JK Rowling transphobic? I've no idea. No idea. I've never met her. I think she's definitely said things.

You don't have to meet somebody. You've talked about it's the expression of their views. She's expressed her views. On Twitter, she's talked about this very set of views are her views. I can give you direct quotes, but they are very well known. And, you know, again, there's another reason I'm asking you about this, because I stand with JK Rowling for another story. There's lots of stories like this is trending on Twitter as we speak. Is she a transphobe for saying it the way that she has said it? I think that I have read things that JK Rowling has said that are harmful in terms of their impact on the trans community. Whether you would, for me, whether you would describe a person as transphobic is less important than understanding their harm.

But I need to know, our listeners need to know what the CEO of Stonewall thinks about one of the most famous and most successful women from this country. Is she a transphobe or not? I think as the CEO of Stonewall that she's expressed some views that can cause real harm and i also think she's expressed some views that don't and i think her views what has she said that has could cause harm this really strikes to the heart of it because you've actually changed what you've said it's not about the way she says it you're actually now saying what she said can cause harm. So when we talk about ideas that are based on the concept that trans people are automatically, particularly trans women, typically a risk to cis women, which some, not all,

of what JK Rowling has said historically has kind of pointed in that direction, then I think that does cause harm to the trans community when such a prominent person expresses those views because it reinforces the idea that trans people are dangerous or are to be feared. And whether that's J.K. Rowling's intention, I've got no idea. I'm sure it isn't, actually. I'm sure it is not her intention to cause any kind of harm. But what if those assertions are based on actual cases?

So not saying all, but saying this is the concern with having people who are not biologically female in refuges? Because that's a lot of what she's talked about. So, I mean, if we go back to talking about domestic abuse and refuge settings. We've got a situation where many refugees run on a trans-inclusive basis and many don't and use the Equality Act exemptions. And from my perspective, the important thing is that everybody is able to access a service. I guess what JK Rowling has said is that her preference, were she in that situation again, I know that she's got a history of domestic abuse which she's talked about then what she would want is to be in a refuge that excluded trans women or that's how I would understand what she said publicly on the topic and those services exist. So what's wrong

with her saying that? I think the I think when we are saying it in a way that implies that it's not about our own feelings of safety but about a risk that's posed by another person it underlines it you know it's not in a vacuum is it that one of the very common those two things i don't think i don't think they are actually but you can say that they are but she's going to say she would prefer that and it's very good to have an example i'm sorry she's not here to respond we'll'll, of course, ask for her take on this. But she is allowed, is she not? I'll ask you to say that based on her experience. Right. So but you're also saying she can't say that because it's going to cause harm, because it's going to point the people to the idea

that those individuals are violent and to be feared. So which is it, Nancy? So there's a world of difference between a woman who is seeking access to a domestic abuse refuge and saying, you know, I don't feel safe around trans women. Can you accommodate me in that way? And whatever we think about that, whether we think it's justified or unjustified, she should get support. Everybody who needs that support should have support and they should feel safe getting it. There is a world of difference between that and saying not in that situation, not when you are... But she was imagining she was in that situation. She's a writer, she's a person, she's allowed to imagine. Sure, but extrapolating into an abstract

situation that you're not in, when you have such a big reach, I think it would be helpful to be aware that that reinforces stereotypes about trans women. We haven't in this actual bit of our discussion been able to distill what is transphobic. Because you've just told me a woman is standing at the door of a refuge and she wants to only have biologically born women in that refuge with her. That's OK because she needs the service and she hasn't got millions of followers. But if she happens to have experienced abuse or not, but in JK Rowling's situation she had and has millions of followers, she can't say the same thing because it will have potentially created a view of trans people that could be harmful.

Not saying, and I don't think I have said, that anyone can't say things. People can believe and they can say whatever they choose. But the question was what was transphobic? Fundamentally, this is where the balance between our free speech, all of our rights to speak freely and express our views, and the protection of people with protected characteristics comes into play. And there are some contexts like the workplace where they come into play and they can interact often quite closely. And there are other contexts like the kind of public square and debating issues in public where that's a much less tight coupling, right? You know, nobody is going to bring an Equality Act case. I hope nobody's going to bring an Equality Act case about this interview and anything I've said, for instance.

But if you're asking, are some of the views, you know, are some of the views that J.K. Rowling has expressed, do they echo very common forms of transphobia? Yes. Professor Kathleen Stock, who resigned from Sussex University after 18 years after student protests and what she describes as a sustained campaign by some of her colleagues over her view that you say is protected, that trans women are not biological women and that biological sex is real. Trans women, she doesn't see them as women. Should she have been fired by Sussex University? So I don't want to comment in detail on the case because I don't know anything about it that hasn't been reported in the press but I'm happy to kind of make. Well you must have you must have been pretty familiar with it because it was reported with reams and reams of coverage. It was reported a lot in the press but I don't know I don't know anything about the inner workings I don't know anything more than was in the press. I think that the critical thing here is that everyone, whatever their characteristics, should be able to both learn and work in an environment where they're free from harassment, from discrimination, from

abuse. I think that is a kind of absolute statement. And for universities, they also are balancing that with legal requirements around academic freedom and free speech that are really complicated. And where those things come into tension, there is a really complicated set of decisions for universities to make. And they are for universities to make. Sussex University because Kathleen Stock feels that part of the reason she said on this programme that students were protesting was because the university had adopted your organisation's approach to this subject contributing to this climate. So again I don't think we have anything to do with the specific circumstances in Sussex. I know as I think has been widely reported that staff and students had raised concerns about Professor Stock over a long period of time. In some reports, trans students and

colleagues have talked about their perceptions of whether or not it felt safe to kind of work in an environment or learn in that environment. And that matters. And Professor Stock's experience of working matters. Both of these things matter and they're very, very difficult to balance out, which is why I wouldn't dream of adjudicating in a circumstance I don't know anything about, really. I'm not asking you to adjudicate, but I will ask you something I ask of politicians, because you are a leader of an organisation that's incredibly well-versed and is hoping to guide policy on this. Did she do anything that meant she should have been fired? Is she a transphobe as she's been labelled? I mean, I understand why you want to ask me the question, but I simply don't know the

answer to the question. I've not met Professor can i can i put some more met her colleagues it's become a very important moment and in case for people who who care and follow this because even if they didn't follow anything about trans rights they care about freedom of speech which we've been talking about throughout this and there were other students other trans students and other trans people who stood up for her saying all she had done was express her views, whether it's in her book or in her lectures. So again, I would never comment, we don't comment and don't get involved in that kind of HR decision making. And so all I can do is... Well, it wasn't an HR decision in the end, she resigned. She walked down a corridor, a tunnel to get to her workplace.

And, you know, there's posters on the wall, stock out. There's things I can't say on the radio on the back of the toilet door. And I'm not saying you're responsible for this, but this is real. This is happening. There is a climate. What do you attribute it to? I mean, I have got a lot of empathy for Professor Stock and that experience I experienced quite similar things it won't surprise you to know in my job I'm a woman in the public eye there are many many people that disagree violent with me and they do many of the things to me that Professor Stock experience. So online abuse, hate mail, protests, those sorts of things. So

as a human, I would never want to deny that those are really, really distressing experiences. And that's important to be clear about. But I don't know what the content of any of the complaints were that were made. So I don't want to kind of stray into talking about things I don't know what the content of any of the complaints were that were made. So I don't want to kind of stray into talking about things I don't know about. What is really, really important is that we protect people's right to free speech and we also protect people's rights to safe workplaces, everybody's rights to safe workplaces. And decision making about that balance is a matter absolutely for individual employers. It's anti-bullying week you do as we've talked about represent the views and champion the views and experiences and lives of lesbian gay bisexual and trans is there anything you want to say to to somebody who's

listening who perhaps is having a hard time at the moment, or maybe is the parent of someone having a tough time? Because that perhaps is a lot clearer to say and talk about where those boundaries are. So I guess we know still that 50% of children at school that are LGBTQ plus are bullied because of who they are. And a lot of children are bullied because of having LGBTQ plus parents. So my own children have experienced that.

I think the first thing that I want to say is that everybody in the movement, including at Stonewall, is doing everything we can to change that, to make it better. And it is so important for children to reach out and speak to a trusted adult, whether that's their parent, whether that's a teacher, whether that's a kind of youth worker, and tell people what you're experiencing. And I think for parents, it's so important to feel like you can challenge your school to do better for your children. We don't have to accept bullying and exclusion in our schools as a norm. It shouldn't be a norm. And there are lots of resources and lots of people out there

who really want to help important to to hear that and i just finally with you if i may you you reflected on this and of course as women's i interview a lot of women in the public eye is it something that you are enjoying is it something you're enduring uh that experience of course you know take that very seriously you talked about, the abuse that you receive. You know, just just take us into that, because obviously people will also look up to you as somebody who's in a leadership position, especially perhaps from those those backgrounds that you're talking about with those characteristics. So most days it's a job that I enjoy. And some days, because of the things that you're pointing at, it's a job that I endure. And I don't think any of us, anybody, but particularly women and women of colour in particular, that we know experience really extreme forms of online abuse.

None of us should have to put up with that. That shouldn't be the price of having any job, yours or mine but I also I'm really fortunate I've got a very stable tiny cozy house with a loving wife and and two great little boys and so I take a lot of comfort even at the end of a day that I've had to endure from coming home and kind of taking off my chief exec of Stonewall Hat and and being mum. Well Nancy thanks for having the hat on for this discussion. Thanks for having the discussion and a lot of ground covered and very important ground. Thank you. Thank you. Nancy Kelly, the Chief Executive of Stonewall, speaking to us in an exclusive interview. Of course, I'm sure the first of many conversations and lots more to discuss. We checked with the makers of the Stephen Nolan BBC podcast about Stonewall,

what evidence they had seen from that freedom of information request regarding to the Scottish government that you heard us mention there in the interview, and that Stonewall asked the Scottish government to remove such terminology. The producers of that podcast sent us Stonewall's Workplace Equality Index feedback document for 2020, which clearly identifies as one of the priorities for the year ahead, quote, removing remaining gendered terms such as mother from your maternity policy. We then contacted the Scottish Government to ask if the word mother is still in their maternity policy, and they say that they have not stopped using it either internally or externally. They also say we take a range of advice and guidance into consideration within the context of our legal obligations in respect of equality. Finally, we've approached JK Rowling's management for a response to Nancy's opinions on what she said in this debate, and they've said they will not be commenting.

If you'd like to hear, if you missed a bit of that, you can go back and listen to the full version of it, of course, on BBC Sounds, or if you'd like to hear some of my recent interviews, which I referred to in that interview with Nancy Kelly, for instance, with Professor Kathleen Stock or with the BBC Director of Nations, Rodri Talvin-Davis. You can catch up with them on BBC Sounds in full. Many messages on this interview with things that you wanted to say. For instance, Sarah's got in touch to say, I'm a 55-year-old straight woman, mother of six, and I'm listening to the interview with Nancy Kelly, Chief Executive of Stonewall, and what she's saying seems to make sense to me and seems very clear. Gayne has got in touch to say, though, she's full of contradiction and can't seem to

make up her mind what she thinks. Thank you on behalf of all women who don't care whether someone is trans or lesbian or gay and will defend their right to be what they are, but want to retain the right to be called a woman and who will never bow to this pressure and censorship and who will never put a pronoun at the bottom of an email. A vocal and vociferous minority are threatening free speech and democracy. And Charlie's got in touch to say as a lesbian and a feminist, I've never felt pressured into taking anyone as a partner. Partner is a choice by definition, talking about different parts of the interview there. And another one here. I am a natal female woman, but I have never had, quote, a gender identity. I absolutely reject the label cis, as it implies that I embrace a traditional female gender role, which I emphatically do not.

More and more messages to come in. Please feel free to get in touch. 84844 is the number you need to text me here at Woman's Hour or on social media. We're at BBC Woman's Hour. Now, let's go to the women's theatre troupe tearing up the West End. Pride and Prejudice, sort of. Those brackets are important.

Perhaps if you didn't see them and you were going in to see Pride and Prejudice, you may be surprised because it's a sweary, anarchic reboot of the classic Jane Austen novel by the Scottish writer Isabel MacArthur, in which an all-female cast of five play all the characters. There are many. Originally written for a summer season,

this adaptation in Glasgow's Tron Theatre, after a six-month regional tour, the all-singing-and-dancing reinterpretation has landed with a bang in London's West End to much applause, and I have to say, because I was there the other night, much laughter. To give you a taste, Darcy, played by Isabel, is not very good at communicating and is a real grump. Charlotte Lucas is shown to be a tragically repressed lesbian. Mr. Bennett is literally just a chair and a newspaper.

No body in the middle. Lizzie Bennett is Larry with a strong Northern Irish accent. I'm joined now by Isabel McArthur, who, of course, I'm saying she's written it, she's performing in it and also co-directed it. You're a fan of many roles, Isabel. And her co-cast member, Tori Burgess. A warm welcome to you both. Isabel, I'm going to start with you.

I have had the privilege of seeing it. The energy and the laughter is huge. Congratulations. Thank you. How on earth did you go about condensing that book into such a different way? It's certainly a challenge. I mean, one of the things that was clear reading the novel initially is that there are so many characters and there's a tremendous amount of plot to fit in an incredible incisive satire and comedy and just so many delicious things that

you want to include in any adaptation. So picking and choosing was certainly challenging, but from a character point of view, there's easily, so there's something like 119 named characters in Pride and Prejudice. So the initial challenge was to say, right, how do you reduce this down to those which are absolutely essential for the telling of the story so that Austinites don't feel shortchanged in some way, that they get the story they love, but also that those of us who are completely unfamiliar with Austin, which was certainly true of many people in our original audience in Glasgow,

can follow the story clearly from start to finish, not needing to have done any research or have any prior knowledge. And then having that set of essential characters, divide them somehow by five in such a way that an actor doesn't end up falling in love with themselves at the end of act one. You've miscalculated. And also just, I will bring you in a moment, but there's a great use of karaoke. Yes, karaoke is the love language of this piece. It just struck me always, if you're in a pub listening to people sing karaoke,

there all humanity is on display. You've got triumph and tragedy, peacocking, you've got terrible crippling shyness. And so I felt that it was a cultural access point that most of us felt we could relate to and had seen and therefore was a great way in. Let's have a taste of that karaoke Young Hearts Run Free say I'm gonna leave a thousand times a day it's easier said than done when you just can't break away you just can't break away young hearts to yourself be true don't be no fool Tori, let me bring you in at this point, because I have to say a big part of watching it is that you do feel like you're then with those characters in the pub

and they're singing along. And so much, of course, about Pride and Prejudice is about love and young hearts. Yeah, absolutely. It's such a joyous show, and I think that's something that we felt that even, dare I say, pre-pandemic when that life existed you know when we did it in Glasgow it just was the most joyous thing and

and every night it kind of felt like oh we've done it we've we've done the show again um and then now to do the show when we feel like everyone really kind of needs this laugh yes and even seeing people react to the show with with face coverings on and sitting there, you can still see their eyes twinkling and they're laughing. And I think that's something that's really kind of special. And that's something that you don't know

until you try with an audience post-pandemic. I mean, who could ever say that? Can you remember all the people you play? I can, yes. Who do you play? So I play five characters. So I've got quite a hefty uh track as as we already is the most of anyone on stage oh really yeah so i play mary bennett um i think

i might say that she's probably my favorite at one point we there was something on twitter where someone said mary for prime minister agree with that wholeheartedly. And I play Lydia Bennett, who's also very fun. And she, I play her Mancunian, which is where I'm from. And it's... Good woman, so am I. Yeah, absolutely. And yeah, so she's a little bit close to home as like a teenage me, I think. And I play Mr. Collins, a slimy Mr. Collins, and everyone's favourite auntie, Mrs. Gardner. We go from absolutely loathing you to loving you and then back again. It's just quite confusing.

I mean, and of course, I should say, Isabella, I thought I should blush when you walked in because your Mr Darcy is quite something. Oh, thank you very much. Straight into it. But it is incredible how well, just by not really moving actually with that character, you could take us there.

This has been the biggest revelation for me, both as a performer and as a woman, which is that I have spent my life as an actor playing women or occasionally animals. Or, you know, it depends whether you're in panto or what you're doing. But ultimately... The mortgage calls, right? If you're lucky enough to get a mortgage as an actor. Well, sorry, yeah.

That's a bigger point. You can come back for a housing debate. Sure. Goodness. But I appreciate that so much of my inherent physicality, and that's what any actor has to be honest with themselves about before they can be chameleonic and take on other roles, is about letting other people in. I'm doing it now with my hands.

You're each two metres away from me, but I'm trying to say, look, I'm including you. I'm talking to you both. I'm not the enemy, I promise I'm on your side and suddenly to play this high status, rich, eligible handsome man

is to be able to stand completely still and be the total centre of attention and do nothing Nothing to create space, nothing at all No, and of course then everybody moves around you you become the axis on which everything else swings and it has blown my mind and I see it now in every room that I stand in and operate in but have you taken it on because

I what I have to say is someone who obviously as sort of part of my job is conversation. I'm in the business of it. I'm very comfortable in silence. I let silence hang. And I do it in my real life, too. But it is quite important as women sometimes to learn to step into that, isn't it? And has it changed you? Oh, utterly.

Occasionally you come up against situations and maybe particularly in our industry, but anybody does in their professional lives, where you go into a meeting and you say, well, here's my idea and here's my proposal, and people will sit silently. And you go, well, of course, I could change it. Or, you know, if you don't like anything, this is a terrible tactic, isn't it? But you realise you can play their own game.

It's quite high stakes, I should say, silence on the radio, because, you know, people then start turning it up. And they're thinking, has Emma just dropped off? Has the guest dropped off? Has everything gone? Let me come to the idea for you, Tori, about one of the things that struck me so quickly, it's the first bit of it, is, you know, you're wearing these white dresses,

which are the kind of the neutral bit of the uniform for the servants. That's how you all start together on stage. And you've got your rubber gloves on and you sort of what's been described as you bother boots. I just say, you know, Black Doc Martens or whatever they are, those sorts of boots. Other brands are available. How important do you think it was to remind the viewer that servants made it all happen? I mean, it's so important. And especially for me as a working

class actor I'm like that for me is relatable like all that sort of stuff is and I never as as a young person as a teenager I never saw myself reflected on stage or people that I know and associate with in growing up so it's like yeah and they are the matchmakers they did everything and I think in the novel there's maybe what like three mentions of a servant comes in and wipes the table. And it's like, I think what Isabel's done amazingly well is this is just such a fantastic vessel for storytelling because no matter where you go, cleaners know everything and they can dish the dirt, like, on everything.

And I think that it's such a good storytelling. And we all love playing the servants. We love it because it's... It's totally freeing, isn't it? And you can narrate, can't you, Isabel, on what's going on. I mean, there was that brilliant line, and it just made me laugh. It's no spoilers, and of course, people know the story, hopefully. Or they may not.

But there's that brilliant line, you know, where we make all the lovemaking happen, or something to that effect. The clean just appear that's it you get you how can you have a whirlwind romance without clean bedding um it's the well I think you can but that's that's another discussion I suppose as well beyond that I mean doing all the matchmaking it's that the servants facilitated the making of great art for centuries and Jane Austen herself wouldn't have written the novel she wrote without those people keeping the household going,

because otherwise that would have been the work of her and her female counterparts and her family. So I think it's hopefully a doff of the cap to the servants that have allowed us to enjoy all kinds of poetry and prose and concertos and so on. I have to say again, with being lucky enough to see it, and I'm sure people have, of course, as it's been been moving around, people on their feet at the end standing ovation. Is that just my night? How's it going with the audience reaction?

Come on, you can do that thing that you're also not very good at potentially as a woman at boasting. Humble brag, humble brag. Go on, Isabel. I'm delighted to say we've had about 40 standing ovations. The first night we put the show on in Glasgow, they all shot to their feet, didn't they? And we were shocked, visibly shocked that it was that popular. And I think there is something essential here, which is accessible about the underdog, the overlooked and undervalued getting their moment that people do feel like applauding. And it's so sarcastic as well though it's it's not it's not in that way it's got a worthiness to it but the worthiness isn't

part of the experience and it's just very funny no audience wants to be dunted over the head with some message that a playwright streamed up in my view as a playwright who's dreamed up and i did love in one of the reviews i read that somebody hadn't noticed the Pride and Prejudice brackets sort of and was expecting to see the traditional. A bunch of people with received pronunciation knocking about a drawing room. Yeah. Well, it's definitely not that. But there is so much of it in there. And congratulations on an amazing adaptation and amazing performances to both of you.

I should probably mention your other cast members, Christina Gordon, Hannah Jarrett-Scott, Megan Tyler and others I know are part of it as well. But Pride and Prejudice, sort of, is booking through to April 2022 at the Criterion Theatre in London. All the best with it. Go and have a sleep. It's very energetic and you've got more to do. Thank you so much. Now, Frida Kahlo, I mentioned

her right at the beginning of the programme. You may be a big fan. The famous Mexican artist whose images go far beyond galleries is being described as having the last laugh this week because, of course, reproductions of her work are everywhere. Her face, her style, her merchandise, wherever you go, some also may not like that and wonder what she may have thought of that. But this week in New York, Frida Kahlo broke a record.

A self-portrait featuring her husband, Diego Rivera, who's widely acknowledged treated her badly, but also whom she adored, very complicated relationship, sold for a whopping $34.9 million. It is the highest price ever paid at auction for a Latin American artwork. And here's the twist. It's more than Diego ever got for his work. Ruth Millington is an art historian and critic. Ruth, is it the last laugh? It absolutely is.

And I just love the fact that it's the ultimate act of revenge here. I think we can call it a piece of revenge portraiture. Yes. Can you describe the painting for us? Well, it's a small but mighty painting. It shows Frida Kahlo. She's staring out at the viewer and Diego's face is on her for one of her portraits. And in terms of what this meant, he's in her mind's eye. How do we interpret it? Exactly. So Rivera pops up quite a few times in Carlo's portraits. And often he appears on her chest, symbolising that he's in her heart.

Here, he's on her forehead. And it's the idea that, yes, she is thinking about him. And I'd say in all of her portraits, what's interesting is she includes him, but the subject is still her. She's showing the effect he is having on her. So here it's the effect on her subconscious, her mind, the pain he's caused

her. Yes. And that pain was complicated because it was infused with such love as well. Yeah. So they were in an open relationship and they got married twice. They got married, divorced, remarried again. And I think this year was a particularly tough year in the second time round of the marriage because Rubera started an affair with one of Frida Kahlo's close friends which felt like the ultimate betrayal to her and so this is what brought her to paint this really powerful portrait and now showing that pain well now a record-breaking portrait and the record having been held previously by her husband yeah i mean brilliant ultimate act of revenge but also i think ultimate acts of validation for her as well i think there's something in that um people are finally giving due to so many women artists among them frida carlo

and it's fantastic to see that yes and and i suppose just to ask as well because so many people even if they don't quite know this painting, but thank you for describing it so well. They are drawn to her, especially so many women, even if they don't know the stories, they don't know about her relationship. What do you think it is that that is that language of connection? Well, I think she painted very honestly her lived experience, her experience as a woman. She painted miscarriage, abortion, she painted about the surgeries she underwent in really frank terms. But at the same time there's something quite stoic about her paintings and the Mexicans call her the heroine of pain. And she presents herself as sort of in control of that narrative.

And I think that differs from the way that a lot of men have painted women as going mad from romantic relationships gone wrong. But even in this portrait here, Frida Kahlo is crying, but she's still very much in control. Her gaze is pretty steadfast. She's looking directly out at the viewer as if she is trying to take control of this experience. And also we should say, excuse me, as someone, you know, I live with chronic pain. I have something called endometriosis. But I often

relate to her when I read about her personal health. At the same time as she's dealing with some of these emotional issues, she, you know, due to a bus accident when she was young, which is quite graphic and people can read about in more detail. Not too graphic to mention, I meant there's lots of complications that come after it. She's living in pain while drawing and she's often bedridden. Yeah, exactly. And she is expressing this through the portraits. And it's not just the physical pain there's also the emotional pain she suffered with infertility and I'd recommend people look up this painting called Roots which shows her lying on the landscape which is a cracked earth barren and she she wrote to one of her doctors

at the time saying she was just filled with so much pain because she couldn't bear any children and she's expressing all of these in the portraits I think people can relate to her works because she is she's expressing female experience what it is to be a woman and so many things that we go through yes and and I do know that painting very well indeed it's it's hugely powerful thank you very much for for taking us into where she was at when she was painting this record breaking painting. And my goodness, as it's been described, ultimate revenge or the last laugh. Ruth Millington, thank you for the descriptions there. An art historian and critic on that record breaking sale of one of Frida Kahlo's paintings.

Lots of you, so many of you have been in touch about our exclusive interview with Nancy Kelly, the chief executive of the LGBTQ plus charity and organisation Stonewall. A message here from Richard, who describes himself as a cis gay man listening in Wolverhampton after what they've done to my trans siblings at the LGB Alliance, which was a spin off from Stonewall from some of the same founders will never speak for me. Stonewall in defending my trans siblings is, does and I stand with them. They aren't perfect, but neither is the BBC. And Sarah says, I was hoping for more clarity from the chief executive of Stonewall. She was unable or unwilling to give a direct quote of JK Rowling's alleged transphobia. Does such quote exist? She dodged the questions. Thank you for your time and company today. I'll be back with you tomorrow. That's all for today's Woman's Hour.

Thank you so much for your time. Join us again for the next one. Hi, I'm John Ronson, and I want to tell you about a new podcast I've made for BBC Radio 4. It's called Things Fell Apart. If you've ever yelled at someone on social media about, say, cancel culture or mask wearing, then you are a soldier in the culture wars, those everyday battles for dominance between conflicting values. I was curious to learn how things fell apart,

and so I decided to go back in history and find the origin stories. There was this ping, and there was a bullet flying around the house. I had no idea, but I've uncovered some extraordinary people and the strangest, most consequential tales. Subscribe now to Things Fell Apart on BBC Sounds. working on one of the most complex stories I've ever covered. There was somebody out there who's faking pregnancies. I started like warning everybody. Every doula that I know. It was fake. No pregnancy. And the deeper I dig, the more questions I unearth. How long has she been doing this? What does she have to gain from this? From CBC and the BBC World Service, The Con, Caitlin's Baby. It's a long story, settle in. Available now.