Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Any Questions

64 replies

YesILikeItToo · 20/09/2019 22:01

The panel seemed to duck the question, ‘Do you believe trans women are women?’ tonight by saying ‘Sure’, ‘Of course’ and (literally) ‘What she said’. Not really acknowledging what issues the question might raise at all.

The questioner tried to have a direct go at David Davies (who had, to be fair, given an answer indicating that he saw that the question needed to be unpacked a bit) by complaining about parliamentary space for meetings, but not many listeners would have appreciated that, I don’t know if the chairman did.

Chairman seemed non plussed, anyway, that the question hadn’t sparked any discussion, and moved things on by mumbling that ‘Perhaps it was one for Any Answers tomorrow’

Went on the radio 4 website to find out who the panellists were but the most interesting thing is to see that the BBC have summarised this as a discussion about the gender recognition act. A lay listener would have had no clue.

OP posts:
cwg1 · 21/09/2019 14:10

Bump. Phone lines open. Keep calling.

BoreOfWhabylon · 21/09/2019 14:07

Well, Anita Anand has just invited people to call in to Any Answers to discuss whether the law should be changed to recognise transpeople...

hipsterfun · 21/09/2019 14:05

I’ve twice called the other DD’s office to thank him for facilitating discussion of trans issues, and am sitting here cheering this DD for basic common sense on AQ.

I don’t want to give my vote to Labour, Lib Dems or the stupid Greens. Or the Tories.

FML.

happydappy2 · 21/09/2019 13:59

So depressing 3 women said yes and David was the only person to point out his concerns of putting Male bodied people in womens prisons.

zebrasdontwearbras · 21/09/2019 12:17

Wow. That John Humphries extract Shock

I have always been such a supporter of the BBC and having a non-commercial broadcasting corporation, but for the first time ever, hearing John Humphries' word, has shaken that.

'policy capture' - it's happening.

There was a report a while back about rows on a bbc women's Whats App group over whether Transwomen are women. This issue is splitting women, and threatens women's rights, and it's so frightening how it's taken hold. What David TC Davis said should not be controversial, it shouldn't be met with a stony silence.

OldCrone · 21/09/2019 12:13

Lines open at 12.30 if anyone wants to phone in to Any Answers.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/B8QptbJ3M2HXfXn2xycKsx/contact-any-answers

ChattyLion · 21/09/2019 10:30

Thank you for the transcript Pencils

Thing is Sam Smith (not ‘Sam Sam’ as I accidentally called they earlier in my post is NOT only ‘asking’ his fans to call him they/them.
He’s telling the whole world to do it or we are nasty misgenderers if we don’t.

It’s compelled speech.

I probably shouldn’t apologise for writing such long posts because genuinely I am cutting out a lot of what I would really want to say about reality-based thinking Vs magical thinking and the threat this poses to people..

At least (so far as I can tell) there is very little pressure on Non binary people to get invasive surgery, take very dangerous powerful drugs and cross-sex hormones in order to be ‘true’ to their identity, which is a dangerously exacting political obligation being placed on them by pressure groups with nothing to personally lose and everything to gain by that.

I think that’s all still within Talk Guidelines.

I don’t agree with Humphrys on a lot- he is I think sexist and anti-choice, but that extract was spot on, I can imagine there is a lot of pressure if you are working at the BBC never to say what he has said there.

BoreOfWhabylon · 21/09/2019 10:14

According to this twitter thread the questioner is the mother of a trans child

mobile.twitter.com/FeministRoar/status/1175167127789154305

BoreOfWhabylon · 21/09/2019 10:07

Thanks Pencils, I missed that bit!

PencilsInSpace · 21/09/2019 10:03

Quick transcript:

Diane Jones: Does the panel agree that TWAW, TMAM, and non-binary people are valid and worthy of recognition in the law?

(muted applause)

Shaun Ley: Prompted I suppose in part by Sam Smith's request to his fans this week to use the pronouns they/them not he/him, after he came out as non-binary. Liz Saville Roberts -

LSR: Yes, of course.

(muted applause with a couple of whoops)

SL: Minette Batters -

MB: Yes, absolutely.

(muted applause)

SL: David Davies -

DD: Everyone is valid in the eyes of the law, nobody should face discrimination or verbal abuse of any sort. But I would have concerns about allowing someone who was physically male into areas like prisons or hospital wards where women expect a measure of privacy, and I think that most people would agree with that.

(tumbleweed)

SL: Lisa Nandy -

LN: So basically what Liz said and Minette said and not what David said. (giggles and audience laughter) I also think that there needs to be an awful lot more understanding about this, I think we need a lot more education about it, and I don't just mean among young people. The young people in my constituency seem to understand it better than people my age. So I think we need more education and I think we need a lot more support as well for people because, at the moment, especially with Britain becoming less tolerant, more angry, I think this is quite a frightening place for a lot of people. I think we need more support for people at the moment.

(muted applause)

SL: This may well be one for Any Answers, Anita Anand after the Saturday edition of AQ. Let me go back to the questiopner though, Diane -

DJ: Thank you for the panel's - most of the panel's understanding and support and yes there does need to be more education, more realisation. There is an issue when we have elected MPs voting - bringing groups who are anti-transgender into the houses of parliament, allowing them a platform and then refusing to speak to their constituents in their constituency surgeries when requested. And I think that is an issue that needs to be addressed.

------------

The question was whether NB should be recognised in law - that's a whole can of worms.

BoreOfWhabylon · 21/09/2019 09:46

The Mail (I know!) has extracts from ex-Today presenter John Humphrys memoir

sometimes finds hard to resist is social engineering. Yet its job is to hold up a mirror to society and reflect back to the audiences what it sees. For good or ill.

It should not try to create society in its own image. It should not try to place its powerful finger on one side of the scale of social justice.

Which is why I raised my eyebrows when the BBC announced it had created the new post of LGBT correspondent — and the man appointed said: ‘I’m looking forward to being the mouthpiece for some marginalised groups . . .’ It was the use of the word ‘mouthpiece’ that jarred. Obviously, the BBC must give a voice to minorities, but it must not act as anyone’s mouthpiece. That’s what lobbyists and public relations people do. To confuse the two is to undermine the job of a journalist.

Imagine a defence correspondent announcing that he sees himself as the mouthpiece for the Armed Forces. Or the health correspondent as the mouthpiece of the NHS.

Or even, heaven forfend, the royal correspondent as the mouthpiece of the Royal Family.

It worries me that the nation has become susceptible to certain pressure groups in a way that we should all find disturbing.

Academics call it ‘policy capture’. It means influencing policy — even dictating it — through fear rather than argument. They destroy those who disagree with them, often through personal attacks on their character or by sheer intimidation.

A relatively recent phenomenon in the BBC is the growth of groups of employees who conflate and, perhaps, confuse their own interests with those of the wider world.

The logic seems to be that if they feel strongly about a given issue, the BBC should not only listen to them but modify its output to reflect their own world view.

A generation ago, they might have been listened to politely and then shown the door. Today, they don’t need to talk to their bosses: they use Twitter.

One small example was an edition of Question Time. It included a question from a member of the audience who was worried that it might not be morally appropriate for five-year-old children to be taught about LGBT issues.

Some members of the BBC’s LGBT group, including a business presenter, took to Twitter to complain that the question should not have been allowed.

The director of BBC News responded by sending all staff an email reminding them that they’re entitled to their personal views, but not allowed to parade them on social media.

Justhadathought · 21/09/2019 09:43

...and it seems, from the above report, that nobody said the simple word 'yes'.

Justhadathought · 21/09/2019 09:42

Sounds like nobody except for David Davies wanted to acknowledge the existence of the elephant in the room; to the extent that some were afraid to even 'say the words' themselves: " What she said"......

This is utterly mental........

Black is white and white is black, and 2 + 2 = 5

BoreOfWhabylon · 21/09/2019 09:36

Yup. The questions are submitted in advance. Pretty sure Ley didn't realise the questioner's agenda.

Also pretty sure the (famously woke) BBC production staff did.

PencilsInSpace · 21/09/2019 09:35

The COMRES poll of MPs from last October is relevant too. Out of 150 MPs the majority were against self ID and had major concerns about the transing of children but also said they did not feel they could speak freely about transgender issues 'without undue fear of social media attacks or being accused of transphobia'

www.comresglobal.com/polls/mps-and-transgender-issues-october-2018/

James Kirkup in the Spectator:

In other words, the majority of MPs do not feel that they can freely discuss an issue that concerns the welfare of children and the safety of vulnerable women.
That, I think, is about as profound and worrying an example of a chilling effect as I’ve encountered in a career writing about politics and policy. When MPs can’t talk about something important, something has gone very badly wrong.

That finding is shocking, but not surprising. I know lots and lots of MPs who are indeed worried about this issue – since I started writing about this stuff, I’ve grown used to MPs (of all parties and ranks) quietly getting in touch to say they agree that there are unanswered questions and serious worries here.

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/even-our-mps-are-afraid-of-the-transgender-mob/

Thingybob · 21/09/2019 09:28

Shaun Ley explaining the question

"Prompted, I suppose in part, by Sam Smith's request to his fans this week to use the pronouns they/them not he/him after he came out as non binary"

Whoops

LangCleg · 21/09/2019 09:26

Lisa won't get dragged into this debate, there's too much at stake longer term unfortunately.

Very disappointed in Lisa there. I do not believe her to be taken in by queer theory. It's about time she got her big girl pants on. She's happy enough to talk about Wokeism failing her constituents in other areas. Why not this one?

PencilsInSpace · 21/09/2019 09:10

I'm out today so won't be able to call in but if anyone fancies doing so, here is a bit of background:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-mp-faces-sinister-inquiry-mr36m6p3m?shareToken=8fdb8f91afe65c71acf95a163eb9546f

Davies was investigated for allegedly charging for tickets which is against the rules. The complaint, by Zoe O'Connell, was not upheld.

www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/complaints-and-investigations/allegations-the-commissioner-has-not-upheld/allegations-not-upheld-2018-2019/

It was a 'We need to talk ...' event in March 2018 organised by Venice Allan. Speakers were Sheila Jeffreys, Julia Long and Anne Ruzylo.

www.eventbrite.com/e/transgenderism-and-the-war-on-women-tickets-42789335053?ref=eios&aff=eios#

There was a bit of hooha because Sheila Jeffreys used the word 'parasitic' to describe men who buy and wear rubber fetish woman suits and prick news spun this to suggest she had said trans people were parasites.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3194811-HOC-event-trans-as-parasites-Is-there-a-video

Davies also hosted meetings with Fair Play for Women, WPUK and Transgender Trend during the course of the GRA consultation and was threatened with police action for his troubles.

talkradio.co.uk/news/david-davies-threatened-police-action-holding-meetings-transgender-concerns-18101628380

BoreOfWhabylon · 21/09/2019 09:04

Send it to Any Answers, Lion!

Actually, I wonder if the questioner failed to ask the question as submitted originally. The Chair seemed somewhat startled at the attack on Davies and moved swiftly on. Perhaps he'd been led to believe it was about Sam Smith, before the questioner revealed their true agenda.

BazzleJet · 21/09/2019 09:02

Never apologise for eloquence, ChattyLion

ChattyLion · 21/09/2019 08:47

Hopefully the contrast between the others’ unthinking ‘nice’ answers and David TC Davies MP Flowers would have got a few of the audience spider-sense tingling that there could be more to this question.

I can well believe he gave answers on Brexit that I would deeply oppose but I am grateful to him for being actively gender critical in Parliament which no other MP has been. We know there are many who in private will be gender critical but are too cowed by the pressure from the trans lobby to feel they can speak up, which is how come we are still in this mess with women and children’s rights coming last in the queue.

If we all give the BBC our Answers on this they will find it harder to ignore it.

I don’t quite get what BBC thought would happen though with this question: would they expect the panel to congratulate a famous out gay male celebrity (not always an easy thing to be) ‘coming out’ again as non binary? Saying ‘I’ am changing my pronouns, when actually it’s about requiring others to use different pronouns on threat of ‘misgendering.’

I don’t think non binary has got any public traction at all, people are typically confused then eye roll or just smile and nod at the whole idea of adopting a newly invented category. Especially because this requires awkward ungrammatical language to retain any sense of linguistic logic.

That dissonance then gets some people thinking that 500 different flavours of gender can’t be taken seriously.

I notice that the TRA party line is very much: being non binary is totally different to being transgender,

Eg in quoted the Independent: ‘Stonewall explains that gender identity - a person's own sense of gender - is not the same as gender expression, which is how they express themselves. It is also not the same as being transgender, which refers to a person whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth, according to Stonewall.’

(See also from US National Centre for Transgender Equality-
‘Non-Binary Defined:*
Most people – including most transgender people – are either male or female. But some people don't neatly fit into the categories of "man" or "woman," or “male” or “female.” For example, some people have a gender that blends elements of being a man or a woman, or a gender that is different than either male or female. Some people don't identify with any gender. Some people's gender changes over time.
People whose gender is not male or female use many different terms to describe themselves, with non-binary being one of the most common.’

transequality.org/issues/resources/understanding-non-binary-people-how-to-be-respectful-and-supportive)

(I’d say ‘all people’ are either biologically male or female but then I’d talking about actual sex categories.. Grin)

I think the messaging about this gets quite awkward for TRAs because it shows how transgender dogma is about thinking inside the rigid gender box while NB is actually a bit like the start of being gender critical (‘let’s have no gender boxes!’) by saying, ‘I don’t fit in these boxes’.

(Whereas GC people would then go on to say, ‘sex is real and unchangeable for everyone, the gender boxes have always been fake, a trap set to give all the power to those at the top of the patriarchy tree..’)

The obvious difference between non binary and GC belief is that NB also looks to be sex-sceptical (NB believing that biological sex categories are not binary, which is just scientifically untrue, and instead believing sex exists on a spectrum..? I’m struggling to write this because it’s hard to follow the concepts. Hope someone will correct me if that’s wrong. )

And at this point a lot of people feel uncomfortable that getting on board with non binary would require them to adopt magical thinking: that the biological binary of sex, common to all living creatures that sexually reproduce, doesn’t exist as a stable category.. and that individuals who declare themselves NB have simply spotted this ‘fact’ and are bravely ‘owning it’ or being ‘truthful’.

Except all that goes too far against most peoples’ own experience of living in a sexed body, and our knowledge of how babies need to be made, so that’s where a lot of people go Hmm

Sam Sam says he floats between being Male and Female.

Explaining what the terms meant to them, Smith told Ms Jamil: "Non-binary, gender queer is that you do not identify in a gender."

"You are just you. You are a mixture of all different things. You're your own special creation. That's how I take it. I'm not male or female, I think I float somewhere in between. It's all on a spectrum."

inews.co.uk/culture/music/sam-smith-non-binary-gender-explained-593406?amp

For the first two sentences of his quote above- ‘You are just you. You are a mixture of all different things.‘ I was totally with him before he went down his own specialness rabbit hole and conflated sex with gender.

I do think that NB beliefs might easily become GC beliefs if people just keep on actually thinking about it.. sex and gender clearly not being the same thing.

www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/sam-smith-says-life-is-good-everything-is-in-its-right-place-after-changing-pronouns-to-they-a4242221.html?amp

I also think that although Sam Smith has got an initial welcome for adding visibility for NB people (see BBC link below, vox-popping people at the recent Trans Pride in London) because Smith says he won’t talk about his NBness until he is ready to be eloquent about it... once he does talk, (if he ever does, #nodebate culture being what it is..) it will quickly be apparent that the politics or beliefs of it don’t stack up against reality- then at that point he’ll be criticised by the TRA lobby for not doing NB representation ‘properly’ or something, or just for being a ‘trender’ and ‘not really even being NB’.

The TRA dogma would hate it if anyone inadvertently held up a mirror that would make it appear that the TRA lobby are trying to cement people into rigid gender roles via medicalisation, at great physical cost and at a too-young-to-decide age, or while they in a vulnerable state looking for any way out of emotional distress at gender stereotyping and/or body dysmorphia, or because they are misled to believe they can change sex, or because they are sexually motivated by the idea of ‘being’ the opposite sex. And people will notice they don’t advocate for just dressing however you want or more importantly advocate for talking therapies and emotional support for distress, he emphasis is much more on rushing to medicalise.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-49688123

Sorry about the massive post

NeurotrashWarrior · 21/09/2019 08:37

Lisa won't get dragged into this debate, there's too much at stake longer term unfortunately.

nauticant · 20/09/2019 22:30

By the way, David Davies' responses to questions about the impact of Brexit on farming were ideological and really shit. Especially since he was trying to contradict the responses of a well-informed Minette Batters (NFU President).

(Although that said, one would have assumed that a farmer like Batters would understand that mammals come in two distinct sexes.)

nauticant · 20/09/2019 22:24

The Any Questions team fucked up. As Shaun Ley said, he assumed the question was about Sam Smith and his declaration of his non-binary status. They lacked the background to realise it was pointed at one particular panel member, David Davies.

The question was put to the panel of 3 women and 1 man. The way the first two women responded was effectively "the only answer is TWAW, there must be no analysis beyond that". David Davies including analysis and said that intact males shouldn't be put in women's prisons. Lisa Nandy giving the fourth response was so keen to go down the "no debate" route that she gave a flat disagreement that intact males shouldn't be put in women's prisons.

The questioner was asked to comment on the responses and she (?) libelled Davies. Not in a big way but in a sucking of teeth kind of way.

There was a 1984 vibe about the whole thing.

If anyone wants to hear this it's towards the end of the programme. It's the penultimate question. I would be surprised to hear this mentioned on Any Answers tomorrow.

NeurotrashWarrior · 20/09/2019 22:23

Lol bore!

I look Forward to tomorrow's programme...