The Grauniad on a damaging “reality” show

Going back to BB5 (sorry but I really was an avid fan then). Nadia was clocked pretty quickly as a man by Victor and Jason. Most of the UK knew. It is revisionism at its finest to say Nadia passed as a woman. Nadia was massive, walked like a builder, had an adams apple and a very manly chin.

24 hour live footage was available at that time, and anyone who watched could see the manipulation of the audience. Nadia was a nasty piece of work, a bully, yet none of this was shown on the hour long programme each evening. Nadia was presented as the poor victim. BB5 was bonkers and fabulous in equal measure. Never watched again after the terrible audience manipulation. I think also it was the last series to have 24 hour live feed.

Fight night was awful, again lying to participants on your show never works out well. The obvious racism was uncomfortable. The sex under the table was awful.

Who is this we?

How apt it is to compel speech and insist others lie and be party to deceit on a thread about the fall out and consequences of doing just that.

One names reality.

The other seeks to hold up a lie and a fantasy at the expense of reality and other people.

And unfortunately this doesn't protect or stop reality of the individual coercing and demanding to use wrong sex pronouns because biological sex still exists and cannot be changed.

We need to stop pandering to it. It causes harm to more people to lie. Including to the person who wails about pronouns.

Who is 'we'?

'Misgendering' is a term invented quite recently. It only makes any sense if one accepts the premise that people have an inner gender essence that is unconnected to material reality.

Some people believe in a gendered essence.

Some people are willing to go along with it to be kind.

Most deal in the material reality of biological sex. As mammals evolved by dichotomous sexual reproduction, that's just not something that can be identified or theorised out of.

'Misgendering' as a word is a term that describes a sin within a faith that most people don't subscribe to. It's akin to scolding atheists for eating non halal food.

‘We’ as in you and gender ideology believers.

Mangling language is nothing to aspire to, especially when the harms are becoming clearer to many

I'm aware that you do. And that children have been told they are being bullied if they are "misgendered". The precise point of my post is that a boy was told he was a girl and called she/her. The boy was lied to. The young adult that boy became seemed to think that the whole world would agree he was a she. But actually that sleazy show was based on the premise that she was a he and that men feel angry if they are tricked into falling for a man.
Children have to learn they must be truthful. Telling them lies is twice cruel.

Misgendering vs correctly sexing.

In a nutshell, a perfect demonstration of why we should not be trying to use the same words for two different things.

If trans people exist then sex is not gender.
If sex is not gender then the genders should not have the same names as the sexes.
If the genders did not have the same names as the sexes no one would ever have come up with the idea that a man's gender could entitle him to women-only resources.

The whole edifice is based on nothing more than making one word mean two different things then pretending the two different things are the same because they have the same name.

I thought a fairy died, or am I confusing with Peter Pan? 🧚‍♂️

We call that misgendering.

And then God kills a kitten.

Also known as correct-sexing. Hopefully, as the madness lifts, MNHQ will feel able to stop pandering to activists and allow us to speak the truth.

We call that misgendering.

I think my comments are getting deleted because I refer to the subject using pronouns based on biological sex and the given name that went with them.
I said when a child is surrounded by lies, then they might not appreciate how others feel about being deceived.
And that a person who has not developed adult sexuality due to being given puberty blockers from age 11 won't be able to imagine what it is like to be heterosexual or homosexual.

Is that okay now?

Now I’m wondering what’s getting deleted

The idea that straight men have to check their sexuality is just as bonkers as saying that to gay men.

There's a really strange idea that men who don't want to have sex with other men are just homophobic. Like heterosexuality is just sex for people who aren't open minded.

If its true that Miriam just wanted love from someone who saw him as a woman, its a risky way of doing it. And isnt it an indication that 'transition' needs to be when people are ready to understand other peoples boundaries and sexuality?

Reading between the lines (news article and podcasts) I think Miriam was lured by the prospect of fame, affirmation and possibly an altruistic desire to raise the public profile of transwomen.

The producers were a gay couple known at the time for making 'progressive' content. I imagine it was sold to Miriam as a provocative series that would challenge people's perceptions about trans people and sexuality.

In the late 90s I spent a summer working as a runner on a trashy talk show. The 'researchers' were adept at telling people what they wanted to hear and the often vulnerable guests were easily steered.

This is where conspiring to deceive children is despicable, and many people intending to be kind don't or perhaps can't imagine the consequences. Hugo started taking hormones at age 11. Did he ever develop adult sexual desire? Was he able to fully appreciate what it is to be heterosexual or homosexual? And surrounded by lies, did he appreciate how very wrong lying is?
The whole setup reminds me of a nasty joke where a group of men get a friend drunk and hire a transvestite prostitute to see how far the victim will fall for the deceit.

You're welcome.

No judgement on anyone who has used it

Very good of you I'm sure, to allow us the use of a word that has an obviously different meaning in the given context, and which is a naff euphemism when used about death, anyway. I'm sure we are very much obliged for your indulgence 🙄

My point was more that I could see how Miriam might had unrealistic expectations.

Yes I agree. It's one of the awful aspects of transactivism today - you have people like Rivera, desperate to believe that they can be the sex they want to be, and you have idiots thinking it's kind to encourage them in this belief.

I think ironically that Nadia would pass less well now as people are seeing more trans people in the media and it’s something people think about when meeting new people.

YY. There's no way I wouldn't work out Nadia's sex if I saw BB for the first time tomorrow, I'm not sure if I would have then, without the knowledge that I already had, as I said.

Sorry...

I'm also a bit 😬about the use of the word 'passing' in a thread about someone who's dead.

No judgement on anyone who has used it, they've not used it inappropriately. It's just a weird juxtaposition.

Yes I agree.