India Willoughby, Question Time Thu 2 Feb 2240

Handmaiden's on now.

I've just got to the big beefy bloke telling women to have faith in the state to protect us.

Yeah right.

'Predatory Lesbians' sounds like a new Netflix hit. Not sure whether it'd be a depressingly misogynistic show written by porn-addled wokeboys or a kick-ass woman centric sensation where murderers/abusers are eradicated by an elite group of secret crime fighters...

I suspect that India likes the idea very much though YetAnotherSpartacus.

Anyone remember a few years ago and IW was on Big Brother and there was a thread. And some folks were confused by the initials and Ian Woosnam started trending? 😂 Fun times. I also recall poor Anne Widdecombe being harangued by IW after innocently saying 'he'.

India just proving that India is not very convincing doing the womaning. Sorry India but you’ve shown your brain works and thinks as your biological sex no matter what's on your passport.

Oh goodness, India! Predatory lesbians. Really? Can't you do better?

*themselves, not herself - sorry

I've not heard of hormone washing in the womb, but I can't imagine it's good news.

I haven't heard of this in relation to humans @ReneBumsWombats , but I have in relations to puppies.

In a litter of pups, if there is a large number of puppies of one sex (eg as with our spaniel 11 pups, 9 males and 2 females), and the minority sex pups are between the majority ones, they can become affected by the hormones of the other sex. Our little cocker bitch, for instance, lifts her leg to pee like a male dog (a proper "pee-up-the-wall", not just a "don't-want-a-wet-paw" lift). I assume that this happens with other animals which have larger numbers of babies at a time. This is because a bitch's uterus is shaped like a "y", with two horns, and the hormones are pretty much free flowing even though each pup has its own amniotic sac. (I don't pretend to understand the mechanics of this.)

As far as I know (but I'm not an endocrinologist or a biologist so could well be wrong) this is unlikely to happen in humans because we don't tend, even in a multiple pregnancy, to have enough babies of one sex for the concentration of their hormones to "overwhelm" the baby of the other sex.

It will be interesting to see how androgenised the babies of transmen are, when their mothers - sorry - gestational parents have been pouring testosterone into herself form months or years. This social experiment isn't just affecting the safety of women it could very well be affecting the health and mental well-being of newborn infants.

IW's frustration speaks volumes about IW's view of women.

To IW, a woman is a shell, a surface appearance, a skin to inhabit. IW thinks that IW can climb inside that shell because to IW it is unoccupied, empty space. Hence the "better woman than you" comments - IW thinks IW is making better use of a "woman" shell by occupying it with IW's personhood.

The frustration is all "But I've put on the "woman" surface, I look like you, surely that is all it takes, why isn't that enough?" Absolutely no concept that beyond the surface appearance of an adult human female there is an actual human being.

India is the gift that just keeps on giving ...

Both the Beauvoirian and Butlerian approaches, broadly speaking, agree that there are concepts we call sex (male and female) and gender (man and woman). The core distinction, I take it, is one of direction.

I'd have to go back to de Beauvoir but she was mainly talking about 'woman' (as a social expression of femaleness) and as defined by socially constructed femininity (in a patriarchal society where this was defined by men for their benefit and pleasure.

I was reading some hideous paper about why men can become women <a class="break-all" href="//(www.cambridge.org/core/journals/hypatia/article/trans-women-are-or-are-becoming-female-disputing-the-endogeneity-constraint/090DEAA53EA17414C5D3E8D76ED5A75C" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here) and it struck me that there may be something that we need to stop doing when trying to find common ground

From this part here:

"Both the Beauvoirian and Butlerian approaches, broadly speaking, agree that there are concepts we call sex (male and female) and gender (man and woman). The core distinction, I take it, is one of direction. On the Beauvoirian approach, sex is prior to gender, such that the concept of woman is understood as a series of roles and norms that are interpreted from and imposed upon people who are female. On the Butlerian approach, on the other hand, gender is prior, such that we categorize bodies as male and female in order to fit the socially constructed roles of man and woman."

I think there is something in the interchangeable way in which we use female and woman that seems to be causing some of the confusion and animosity. IW does not refer to 'herself' as female, but does refer to 'herself' as a woman. And in some ways that does line up to what many GC's believe - that gender is more variable.

Maybe all I am saying is that we need to get our words right here - use female in all interactions to be totally exact.

As someone who failed their English gsces I love posts like this, as I generally have no clue as to what the hell is a noun, a verb an adjective etc.. Although I can remember watching the birds outside the window whilst primary school teachers droned on about them.

Even i understand the above now!

India even got away with an incorrect answer on Pointless. Nobody else ever has. I was so disappointed in Richard Osman.

Whaaaat? Was is acknowledged that the answer was wrong but she kept the point? (Or i guess that isn't how it works on pointless but you know what I mean).

The answer to a question was "tenterhooks", and India answered - quite clearly "tenderhooks" and this was repeated by Xander, as per usual, and acknowledged by Richard, who then repeated both right and wrong answers, confirmed it wasn't quite right, but credited the right answer (IYSWIM).

Bearing in mind that I've seen competitors lose questions on something as simple as saying a plural instead of a singular noun, or a mispronunciation, or (as Willoughby did) making a small error which meant a wrong answer, I was a bit miffed. Should have scored a straight 100 points, but was allowed to get (whatever) points were allocated to the right answer.

(Yes - I'm petty. I don't like cheating)

The snp woman can't say isla is a man, because she has passed a law that would allow isla to be a woman in law if he wants. As far as I can tell he would meet the criteria for a grc under the bill. If she says 'that ones a man' the question will be 'then why do you want him to be legally female for all purposes?'. If she says 'that one's faking it' the question is 'what does faking mean under self id?' I know nicola has almost said he's faking, but that is a dangerous road for them to go down.

And who's to say Isla's trans identity is not genuine? Yes it's convenient, and he's inherently untrustworthy, but if the criteria in our society and law is that what matters is how he sees himself (& that's what's claimed) then who's to say it's not true. Not nicola, not no one.

And that's where we are.

It's like Fawlty Towers. I'm so embarrassed for her that I can't watch without cringing in agony.

She totally fails to make sense and the comment about being sent to a male prison if she is raped really is a case of 'paging Dr Freud'.

Windia.

Windier?

Just catching up - India really is a windbag.

Sugarfree yes agree, American or Canadian and English.

Haven't read every single message on here but did anyone notice how deferential FB was to India? (I know she didn't want India to feel ganged-up-on and that's understandable.)

But at one point, FB said something like, "if you'll forgive me, India, I need to get round everyone" and you can hear India in the background say "Yes" 😂. India gave Fiona permission to continue.

Glasgow people are generally straightforward thinking.
Neither the young woman or the young man who spoke had a Glasgow accent.
I thought she sounded American and him English but I'm not always the best at guessing accents.
Anyone better at accents than me want to take a guess?

Broadly I agree with not commenting on appearance. However, this is a person who absolutely believes that their appearance is what makes them a woman. That the extensive cosmetic surgeries they have undergone to alter their features is what gives them the right to access women's spaces. India often says (and I think did so on QT) 'where should someone who looks like me go?' India seems to believe that the more surgery they have, the stronger and more undeniable their right to womanhood and the rights and spaces women have fought for, while simultaneously fighting to be listened to and taken seriously, not judged on their appearance.

I think India's carefully, expensively constructed mask of femaleness should not be verboten (especially as it seems that the process of India's transformation is incomplete and their appearance often noticeably alters between media gigs.) It's one of the aces India feels they hold, and proof that they are 'more of a woman' than us cosmetically unenhanced, barefaced womb-havers.

twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1621284905299722241?s=20&t=yAKcsRP9ZdhAmljOT8gmpA

Link to the Ella clip from QT Twitter (hopefully)

It's just such a RELIEF to hear this stated so clearly and firmly for all to see.