Munroe Bergdorf 'What Makes a Woman' Channel 4 16/5

[R0wantrees]

Extract from Radio Times:
www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2018-05-16/what-makes-a-woman-review-munroe-bergdorf-transgender-activist-debate/

"There are more moments of vulnerability when Bergdorf attends a discussion by a feminist group called We Need To Talk. There’s a real sense of menace in the air as transgender people gather outside to protest the meeting of so-called TERFS – Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists – who believe trans women are not female but are in fact men threatening to infiltrate women’s space.

Bergdorf is extremely articulate in one to one interviews so it’s a shame she doesn’t feel able to stay and debate them, but it’s also understandable – the atmosphere inside the meeting is toxic and she’s surrounded on all sides.

“When we [see] events like this, which directly are designed to deny [transgender women’s] very identities and the fact that we even exist, it’s extremely hurtful and concerning,” she says as she leaves. But she later sits down with one of the organisers, Venice Allan (aka Dr Radfem, just in case you were in any doubt).

They have an interesting debate about female and transgender rights, but it ends tellingly with the good Dr declaring “feminism is about women!” when surely feminism is about equality....

Concludes:
What Makes a Woman provides a valuable grounding in the ins and outs of the transgender debate for those of us who could use it – but it’s also a profile of a intriguing, sensitive, likeable person who is herself still on a journey of discovery."

What Makes a Woman is on tonight, Wednesday 16th May, at 10pm on Channel 4 and available afterwards on All4

Regarding the comment about posing for Playboy, I was browsing through the #whatmakesawoman hashtag on twitter on saw some of the photos (I think). All I'll say is that much strategic use was made of shadow.

I could go googling but that really does not appeal.

R0wantrees what! Please say they addressed that horribly sexist view after they stated that

Bergdorf implied that the results were based on the brain scan, the researcher specifically mentioned the questionnaire not the scan from what I recall - I'd have to watch it again (groan) but it seemed to me like a the researcher was being very careful to give the result to MB that they had identified MB as "transgender".

There was absolutely no evidence provided for their findings. It wasn't like they pointed to brain scan images and said this bit or that bit.. there wasn't a 'science bit' with technical language and numbers etc was there? No examples were given of the sort of questions on the questionnaire.

We saw Bergdorf lie down for a scan, the the researchers bemusedly asking MB to get back up and remove a haircut because it was screwing up their reading, cue MB giggling. They did the scan then cut to MB sat in a hotel room filling in a form or thinking about filling in a form, something like that. A small bit of MB narrating nothing of note. Then cut to MB starting a Skype call or something to get their results, and an awkward "we have identified your results as trans gender" moment followed by MB pretending to look like they'd just had all their dreams confirmed. It played out a bit like getting pregnancy test results in front of an audience. Really really weird.

Hairclip not haircut

Screenshot of MB's Tweet re: Playboy...

TwittleBee
Jenni Murray wrote an article in The Sunday Times magazine and was publicly rebuked:

www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/05/jenni-murray-transgender-not-real-women-sunday-times-magazine

R0wantrees ah jeeez!

THis was the article that Jenni Murray wrote:
(extract)

"This time I was speaking to another trans woman, India Willoughby, who had hit the headlines after appearing on the ITV programme Loose Women.

India held firmly to her belief that she was a “real woman”, ignoring the fact that she had spent all of her life before her transition enjoying the privileged position in our society generally accorded to a man. In a discussion about the Dorchester hotel’s demands that its female staff should always wear make-up, have a manicure and wear stockings over shaved legs, she was perfectly happy to go along with such requirements. There wasn’t a hint of understanding that she was simply playing into the stereotype — a man’s idea of what a woman should be.

We are taught as boys that assertiveness and aggression are good things. There’s a danger, even now, that I’ll act as a man. In a group of women I can become dominant
She described hairy legs on a woman as “dirty”. But hairy legs are not considered dirty in a man. Did she not know that the question of whether a woman should shave her legs or her armpits had been a topic of debate among women for an awfully long time? And that to describe a woman who chose not to shave as dirty was insulting and again suggested an ignorance of sexual politics?"

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/be-trans-be-proud-but-dont-call-yourself-a-real-woman-frtld7q5c

@SaraTree

That is some very flattering lighting they've given Munroe!

Thanks joanSummers, I suspected that the 'science bit' might be something like that. I'm glad I didn't bother watching it.

I'm a bit shocked that the i review is quite so uncritical then - it doesn't raise any questions or issues and seems pretty sycophantic in tone. Maybe the writer just feared getting a load of abuse.

"And given that many if not most women still remove their natural leg hair, is that a sign that we're all uncomfortable with our bodies / dysphoric in some way? "

No, other people are uncomfortable with our bodies.

R0wantrees thank you

It really does come across that people like IW and MB are just that, totally ignorant. Or perhaps they are just narcissistic. Either way, I am unsure why it appears that some transwomen believe that their right to choose their identity should trump the right of women to their identity and their safety?

They didn't really explain the science but I assume they were looking at the questionnaires and seeing whether they could categorise people into different groups based on their answers and then to see whether they could see any structural or functional brain differences.

At no point did they say that they had identified that people have different brains. They just said that they'd categorised MB into the transgender group, which I took to mean their answers matched the transgendered group more closely than either the male or the female group.

I took it to be pandering. Research takes time and is about gathering information and analysing results. I think they were pushed to give a 'result' like it was a Cosmo personality quiz or a sports day race and took the easy option of confirming what MB identified themselves as.

"You answered more As than Bs which makes you a Scorpio!" Sort of thing.

Who would really trust the work of a research group who turned out results like this to participants over Skype or.whatever it was. MB wanted them to confirm a female brain and they gave MB the most vague response they could. God knows why (misled about the sort of programme it was maybe?). Embarrassing all round and I think they probably worked that out around the time MB was giggling over the hairclip.

So so hard to use unclear pronouns here when it is so glaring what sex MB is and tbf they did mention themselves that they are male.

I've got a lovely pair of hairy legs at the moment, I really like them at this time of year, bushy as hell after no shaving all winter.

I will probably cave and shave, to avoid scaring the men.

MB towards the end said, "things are changing, we are becoming browner and queerer."

I honestly think MB believes this was all invented when MB was born.

Messiah complex.

Haven't shaved in years :D

Mind you I seem to have far less and thinner leg hair than I used to.

Me too, Picasso. I gave up shaving in winter years ago. I don't really like the look of them bare and hairy if I'm wearing shorts or skirts in summer, but fully accept that's down to years of social conditioning.

I still don' t get the idea that hating one's leg hair can be seen as symptomatic of gender dysphoria in a man, when it's a type of body hair that both sexes have. I don't think it makes any sense in those terms, especially in individuals who opt to keep their penises (when they clearly can afford and are prepared to have other extensive surgery).

I suppose it just reflects (some) male attitudes to the female body. If people like IW and MB retain narrow, stereotypical male imposed images of womanhood then they want to ensure that their bodies conform to this. But then why would MB be happy to keep a penis? Isn't that a constant reminder of the maleness they found distressing and need to escape from?

It all seems so self-contradictory. If there's this mysterious thing called gender identity that's in our brains, as the trans movement seems to believe, and that means you can be a woman even if you have recognizably male genitalia - then why the hell would a bit of leg hair cause you distress?

It's interesting, several of MB's recent tweets are really suggestive of autogynephilia but that tends to be a hetero male thing and MB talks about being attracted to men in their programme. Miranda Yardley does talk about that a bit here: mirandayardley.com/en/what-autogynephilia-is-and-what-is-it-not-a-brief-note/

It's interesting, several of MB's recent tweets are really suggestive of autogynephilia but that tends to be a hetero male thing and MB talks about being attracted to men in their programme.

I don't think the reasons and how TIM present fall neatly into distinct groups. I'm not saying this applies to MB, but if a man is homophobic yet attracted to men, they are likely to present in a overtly feminine way to attract straight men. So they are not turning themselves into their own sexual fantasy, but the sexual fantasy of a stereotypical straight man.

I've been thinking about this more today - and I thought the contrast between Venice and Munroe was stark.

You've got Munroe - moulding herself, primping and preening to a completely man-made vision of 'femininity,' with loads of makeup, long hair, false nails, cosmetic surgery - and posing naked-ish in Playboy. Made a career out of 'becoming a woman' and telling us all what a woman means.

Then you've got Venice - who is quite simply, unmistakably, a woman. A female. Right down to her chromosomes. Cute, feminine, womanly - she just is.

I think the majority view would be "Pauline's" - when India W shouts at other women "I am a real woman" - women say "oh yes, yes of course" but in the back of their mind they're thinking "but you're not, though, are you. Not really. "

I think even the lefty dude-bros know this deep down. I think even the people who tweet "Transwomen are women" over and over, know this. Otherwise they wouldn't need to chant it. It would just be a fact, a given. As it is a given that Venice is a woman.

Can anyone unpack this for me? How is feeling the need / desire to shave your legs a sign of being uncomfortable in your male body? Women's legs aren't naturally hairless, and women can have plenty of conspicuous leg hair.

Damned if I know. I could knit a sweater with my leg hair, does that mean I'm uncomfortable with my female body FFS. It's such blatant misogynistic claptrap. Men conforming to the male fantasy of a perfect woman, i.e no body hair, big boobed and long flowing locks.

I think even the lefty dude-bros know this deep down.y

Of course they do, which is why if pressed they will admit that they see transwomen as women apart from for relationship purposes.

I mix a lot with cyclists and many of them shave their legs. I don't usually bother as my leg hair is pale and scanty and I'm lazy but my husband has taken up shaving again and says he likes the feel of his legs smooth although I prefer them hairy especially when they're prickly. Some gay men are in to shaving/ waxing although more torso than legs according to my last beautician (eyelash dying I don't like the pain of waxing).