PM on Radio 4: what is gender identity?

He did seem to be very normal, in terms of not denying sex, but his position is nonetheless political. He wants to be non-binary in law (ie force other people not to enquire about or openly acknowledge his sex) and he wants his personal decision to conceptualise his own gender non-conformity as a non-binary gender identity to become the accepted position in society.

Conceptualising being gender non-conforming as taking you outside sex might make sense to him because of how he has interpreted his experience of the imposition of gendered norms, but we know on this board that people seeking to opt out of sex (or to make other people pretend that they are sex-less) does nothing to challenge the false linking of sex with particular traits, personalities or feelings. His stance is deeply unhelpful (and damaging) to those who acknowledge it is impossible to change sex and who instead seek to challenge gender norms and normalise gender non-conformity, in whatever way (big or small) for everyone.

So while his position may appear moderate, in terms of his political objective it is every bit as extreme as someone who believes sex is a spectrum or seeks to make it morally reprehensible to use sex based pronouns.

I thought ED was doing a better job of asking impartial questions until ED provided an opening for Jeffrey to talk about those poor transwomen in men’s prisons.

That's quite interesting. A person who recognises their sex but doesn't think it's helpful or healthy for then to be reminded of it when it's not relevant.

Like most of us campaigning against forced pronoun usage at work, etc.

Was they this Jeffrey Baker?

www.dentons.com/en/jeffrey-baker

Just heard it. The NB Jeffrey person - who I have not come across - was happy to be recognised as male, as a man, and according to ED, presented as a man (so no blue hair, I guess). He was aged 50. I did wonder what the point of declaring himself NB actually was - he said it was his way of challenging the patriarchy (eh?)...no further explanation.
He sounded unaggressive and not that bothered about pronouns, and just 'appreciated' other people putting pronouns in their sig etc.

It was clear to me that he was just using the tag of NB as a way of showing he resisted all stereotypes, and he more or less said that, and had no real answer to Evan when he said 'but a man can be a man with a 'feminine' side....' He just accepted that of course that was true, but he just disliked being thought of as a man. There was some personal history there, too, which involved him having been told he was 'the man of the house' which he did not want.

I found it interesting, and emphasised that not all NBs are quite as bonkers as others, mainly because Jeffrey was happy enough being sexed as a man.

Tonight it's going to be: what is non-binary, how should pronouns be used?

After sitting through the entirety of last night’s HOL prisons amendment debate, I’m all out of caring about pronouns TBH. If it’s A-OK with the wokies to expect women (adult human female) prisoners to tolerate male sex offenders in their jails, why should the rest of us accommodate people’s pronoun preferences? If the compassion only goes one way, I’m entirely within my rights to turn off my tap. Not a drop more.

Yes, "My wife told me to do it, she encouraged me and was so happy because we became matchy-matchy unconventionals"

Hmmm. Would be interesting to know what their friends and family recall.

Did anyone else wonder whether Lucy's wife was being entirely selfless when they persuaded Lucy to cut off their penis?

[quote nauticant]These days I wince when I see the name Angela Saini:

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/what-is-a-woman[/quote]
Oh no . Such a confusion of sex and gender.

"That’s not to say there is no need for research specifically on women’s health. There is, particularly when it comes to reproductive health and autoimmune diseases that disproportionately affect women."

Nnrgh! which women are disproportionately affected Angela? The male ones or the female ones?

On the "Lucy" show yesterday, the BBC took inordinate trouble to indulge a very odd veillard, who apparently has had their dick cut off.

It was not worthy of national broadcast.

Odd that Lesbians are targeted as causing trouble for trans. I'm not a Lesbian and I bloody well will continue to be troublesome.

Perhaps another one of those twisters - make it only about Lesbians and then non Lesbians wont mind. Do they think we're that shallow?

ED made sure they chose sides by refusing to properly ask not just what the ‘philosophy’ of trans women is, but what the problems are in the demands trans women are making of women and girls.

These are the sort, such as one reported on another thread, filming himself in ladies’ changing rooms with an erection. Some masturbate to used sanitary items from the bins. Some have a fetish about having a baby and breast feeding it, but unlike women find that fantasy feeding sexual. Men like this are troubled souls who are not going to be talking about this on Radio 4.

"Troubled souls" is one way of putting it. You're right, of course - they're not going to email PM asking if they can talk about their sexual fetishes to Evan Davies. But PM really does need to invite a trans widow on to talk about what it's like living with a man who has AGP: the bullying, the narcissism, the gaslighting. Otherwise once again it will look as if the BBC is choosing sides in this debate.

Having read some accounts of trans sexuals on another thread about fetishes, it seems some boys/men present themselves as more typically feminine and might go on to be attracted to men if they are not caught up by feeling they must be women; but there is another group who are more typically masculine and attracted to women but who develop a fetish to wear female underwear and clothes and are aroused by this. They come to want to be the self same woman’s body they are aroused by, as though aroused by themselves. These in the second group are called transvestite fetishists, also autogynephiles, but that last word has all but been erased from studies as taboo/hateful. Obviously people knowing about that would not gain them sympathy.

These are the sort, such as one reported on another thread, filming himself in ladies’ changing rooms with an erection. Some masturbate to used sanitary items from the bins. Some have a fetish about having a baby and breast feeding it, but unlike women find that fantasy feeding sexual. Men like this are troubled souls who are not going to be talking about this on Radio 4.

I can understand that some people accept the belief that someone can be born into the wrong body given I was brought up in a religion that taught we have a body and soul and the soul 'enters' the body rather than is generated by it (for want of a better phrase).
What I cannot understand is how many organisations treat the belief as though it were a fact.
Especially given that some people are non-binary or have different gender expressions on different days. Do they have more than one soul? Or a soul that doesn't fit any of the bodies on offer?

I really agree that these bonkers concepts seem 'truthy' to people
and it's not just sexism, I think in a way it's even deeper than that- the notion that we are fleshy machines animated by a mind/soul which is immaterial...that even makes an intuitive sense to me and I don't believe it! It's really embedded in Western thought.

And this is why we have such an uphill struggle, as dismantling that assumption requires abstract critical thought. I know that the vast majority of people have a commonsense recoil at the idea of men in womens' prisons, or that a person with a penis could be called a woman.

But I think those same people can go along with the thought experiment, 'imagine having a woman's brain but you are trapped in a man's body', and their instinct is to be kind to those people (this is about the level of analysis Evan Davies is at, evidently)- so we need to speak to that instinct I think.

I think the reason that a female soul or female brain makes so much sense to people is because sex stereotypes are so ingrained, so ancient, so widespread they seem real and natural. There is some female essence which transmits femininity and men can magically have this too sometimes. I think we have a real uphill battle with this debate simply because the basic premises (which are ludicrous) are accepted due to sexism.

This is so true. Have you read Inferior by Angela Saini? It really opened my eyes to how much is just accepted as being differences between males and females when it is just sexism based on bad science.

I think the problem with this debate is simply that so many people are willing to accept and not question the concept of a “female soul”. If you read the Hansard debates about the gender recognition act, a few Lords talk about trans women having a “female soul” and this is not argued against at all. It just makes a deep kind of sense to people. I saw another televised debate on the BBC, and this woman said “trans women have a female brain in a male body” and there was lots of nodding agreement from the audience. These concepts don’t seem immediately or on their face absurd. They seem truthy. They make sense. And this is why genderism has been able to make such progress.

Imagine that the debate was between a black person and a white person who said they had a black soul, or a black brain in a white body. The immediate reaction to this is that it’s racist nonsense. There is no such thing as a “black brain”. There is no way a white person could have a “black soul”. The entire concept is just ludicrous.

I think the reason that a female soul or female brain makes so much sense to people is because sex stereotypes are so ingrained, so ancient, so widespread they seem real and natural. There is some female essence which transmits femininity and men can magically have this too sometimes. I think we have a real uphill battle with this debate simply because the basic premises (which are ludicrous) are accepted due to sexism.