Did anyone listen to Samantha Kane on Radio 4 yesterday who has changed gender 3 times?

[TheFoodtheFadandtheFugly]

I had it on by coincidence as I was making dinner yesterday. It had interesting content. It is absolutely this person's choice to live as whatever identity they want. But they talk about masculine attributes … and living as a man and a woman and which one is easier. In particular:

At 6.30 the presenter asks something like: What would you say to women who say, "these are men who feel that they are women, but only we know what that really is."

The reply "Well that is nonsense. There is no hierarchy of womanhood. It is exactly the same experiences as any other female... even hormonal changes [it continues]… "

So there it is - my biology counts for nothing. Is there any point in even thinking of a rebuttal? This was broadcast on the BBC in the evening and there was no take up by the presenter on it, although it was a personal interview and not exactly Question Time. If I have misconstrued I apologise - but I will not be told I have the same experiences as someone born biologically stronger than me with different reproductive parts!

Ultimately, it left me frustrated! Did anyone else listen to it? Or anyone who can form a more articulate response?
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bclbmv

Samantha Kane has changed gender three times, from male to female and then back to male, before transitioning a second time to female. She tells Dominic Lawson the powerful story of her personal journey, and the challenges she faced whilst building three careers as a barrister, entrepreneur and published author. And she replies to critics who have questioned whether transgender women like her should be considered 'real women'.

I didn't hear it, but I would definitely agree with the statement that there is no 'hierarchy of womanhood'. One is a woman, or not a woman. In other words, a man.

I get frustrated listening to pieces like this where such bullshit is spouted and not challenged, but I think it's useful to get it out there. I imagine most people listening to Radio 4 in the early evening would be rolling their eyes in disbelief at the arrant nonsense.

SK is a funny one. I didn't hear programme - will listen later - but as I recall they were a very confused individual. After transitioning back to being a man, they claimed that they'd rushed into a decision on the back of a breakdown following divorce and then decided it was too much work to maintain being a woman (mainly due superficial things like appearance etc). But, after surgery, there were issues attached (or not attached!) to returning to being a man.

I think the whole story is desperately awful and a pretty grim warning. At every change, Samantha insisted they'd never been happier, who they should be etc and yet that was patently not true. I'm not sure Samanthat really found happiness but I imagine they are still dogmatic in insisting that they are who they are meant to be and its all authentic.

To clarify, that's funny peculiar not funny haha. I don't there's anything remotely amusing in this rather sad story!

Frustrating interview. No doubt because it was so brief, but surely there was room for a bit more critical thinking. Asked what is the difference between living as a man and as a woman, Kane's entire explanation had to do with which set of stereotypes you conform to and how you get treated as a consequence.

The interviewer did not explore at all what it was like growing up in Iraq in the 1960s and 70s as a boy who struggled with male stereotypes and who seems to have been bisexual, if I understood the last bit correctly. That can't have been easy at all. When gender stereotypes are strictly policed, it's no wonder that some individuals come to believe that as they can't live up to the ideal of how someone of their own sex should be, they must actually belong to the other sex. It's about as binary as you can get, really, in spite of all the protestations to the contrary.

I heard it. Distressing and frustrating all in one. Shocking to hear him dismiss the pain and distress caused to his family with just a couple of words. And no follow up on that point from the interviewer. Made me think of the trans widows thread on here. Sad.

If being a gender is just like 'putting a jacket on', and biology doesn't matter, how does this person know they're female? They make it sound like gender is socially imposed, so how can it also be a feeling?