PigeonLittle
Thank you for transcribing the first programme, that was very enlightening. Especially in view of the fact that India subsequently said that they felt ill and upset because they'd been eliminated, was it? On the programme? By Stock.
I mean, Kathleen couldn't have been more pleasant and civil.
This narrative that there is something specific in one's body that means one should have been born a girl, is obviously, based on all the evidence available, not correct.
It's just a different form of body dysmorphia.
Kathleen stock was very kind in her framing of it. That some people absolutely genuinely think they should've been born the opposite sex and she believes it's because they are attracted to the stereotypes of that sex. From what I can tell, she's calling that gender identity. And she thinks it's a legitimate characteristic.
Wanting to inhabit the superficial stereotypes of the opposite sex is something that is born out all the time.. And something that formerly was largely accepted by both the public, and the transsexuals of yore.
The difference now, to my mind, (in my opinion HQ), is the addition of AGP as a motivation. That does not allow for anything other than the narrative that the person is actually the opposite sex.
There is no wiggle room because the person is just trying to solve the issue of discomfort. It has to be that they have changed sex, or that woman does not mean biological sex.
It's my understanding that Kathleen stock doesn't set much store by AGP, which is why perhaps, her version of what a gender identity is and what a lot of TRAs say it is, is so different.
She thinks it should only matter when you're basing laws and policies on it. The problem is, for many transwomen, there can be absolutely no exceptions, whatsoever. Because that would indicate doubt.
Even though there appear to be quite a few people who want to get down to the nitty-gritty, none of them seem to be talking about the actual nitty-gritty.