RM being interviewed on R4 PM today

[Doyoumind]

Just seen that RM is tweeting about appearing on R4 at 5 today.

Maybe RM merely sought the women's podium and thought no-one would care?

I saw an article yesterday saying that the BBC are being investigated by OFCOM for a perceived decline in impartiality within their news and current affairs programmes. Whilst I know it's mainly about politics, I do hope their constant pushing of trans agenda gets looked at too.

Good for Sharon Davies - I thought she sounded really measured, and good for her for pointing out all the untruths that otherwise would have been taken at face value.

RM suggesting that SD and RM both pass the eyeball test! In the same way. Clearly not seeing what we women see.

Puts a whole new slant on Mirror mirror on the wall who’s the FAIRest of them all!

That is fucking offensive towards Sharron D.

I can't listen until later but RM is obviously pleased with the interview, having tweeted a link.

I have a nasty feeling that it won't be quite as peaking as so many of you hope.

If RM has their way (nobly aided and abetted by the BBC), it will be portrayed as women being against women, yadda yadda, feminazis anti-women, man-hating, deserve everything they get.

Don't forget, to most of the outside world, "trans" = their local perfectly reasonable, friendly full sex change transsexual, no harm to anyone, . Not this type of individual.

(My prev post on the basis of not having refreshed the thread for some time, obviously...

Will Listen Again as soon as I can)

They'll be discussing the science behind this tomorrow apparently. I wonder who they'll have on

buzzbobbly

McKinnon has an assertive way of speaking which lends the nonsense they say a bit of authority. However, Sharron's response is so, out of the ballpark, credible that most people will be agreeing with her.

Also, you have to remember, that we and the feminists on Twitter have been doing this for years. The general public is coming at this fresh.

Fortunately, McKinnon is so wild that they will fast forward the public to where we are fairly swiftly I believe.

It won't take long. The fact that McKinnon won't debate live. The fact they actually want to remove all criteria and let men compete as women after saying some magic words. The fact that they are busy trying to rubbish Kelly Holmes to her sponsors, etc.

We know transactivists have no real argument and have to fight dirty.

It just needs to play out.

Listening now, RMK is a liar plain and simple.

Also how the BBC can not challenge someone saying “we have data” but then not providing even a reference to it, is incredibly poor journalism.

Datun

I think RM came across as pretty reasonable and very well-informed actually - bearing in mind the uninformed audience.

HOWEVER: Sharron Davies then came along and spoke like a human, and one we all know and love as one of our sporting champions. I think she had a far greater impact with clear words and concepts, than the science RM banged on about (when they weren't expecting a personal phone call from the Olympic President!).

I am glad they mentioned the whole ‘you won’t debate’ thing. Says a lot.

buzzbobbly

I agree. If one is not aware of the background, and all the other nonsense that McKinnon spouts, and one doesn't know the science, one might believe that some new discovery has been made.

Anyone who understands marketing or public speaking or indeed, all manner of different ways of persuading people, knows that conviction counts for a lot. At least as much as the actual words you're saying.

And you can't fault McKinnon's conviction.

Fortunately they have conviction over things that no one on the planet will accept.

The wait, what? moment will come.

And yes, Sharron's clear and articulate commonsense is a relief after that word salad you're not sure you've properly understood.

There is absolutely no doubt that very many people think it might be possible to change sex. That a sex change operation is exactly that. That there is science to support the born in the wrong body nonsense.

The mundane truth of it sometimes comes as something of a surprise. But always a bit of a relief, in my opinion.

Don't forget, to most of the outside world, "trans" = their local perfectly reasonable, friendly full sex change transsexual, no harm to anyone

I don't know if that's true. I think some may think surgery, but how many think transvestite?

I would imagine the majority, if not the vast majority, of the uninformed public think "trans" means post-operative transsexual or committed to that as a goal.

If they're aware of "gender fluid" teens they probably somehow keep these as separate concepts.

I would imagine the majority, if not the vast majority, of the uninformed public think "trans" means post-operative transsexual or committed to that as a goal.

This is exactly the problem I have found when raising it with friends. They all immediately refer straight back to the "well I know one/some/lots of trans people and they are all perfectly lovely" anecdata problem.

Which leads me back into my (previously made here) complaint that I have to preface every statement with reams of caveats and explanations, by which point they've already written off the discussion, thinking I'm being horrible about their nice friend.

That matches my experience buzzbobbly. Have you ever tried to point out to a trans ally that many trans people don't have gender dysphoria?* Saying this tends to go down very badly indeed.

• Prevalence of gender dysphoria - around 0.01%, prevalence of trans - around 0.5%. Other figures are available but the discrepancy is clear.

That interview reminded me of the title of dear Rachel's PhD thesis:

"Reasonable Assertions: On Norms of Assertion and Why You Don't Need to Know What You're Talking About."

In this philosophical masterpiece Rachel wrote that "Stating falsehoods is generally viewed as bad, but instead we should view it as a bet. If you can get away with lying, then you aren't really doing anything unethical, you're just increasing your odds of winning."

Talk about putting theory into practice...

Oops, sorry, I should have made clear that this is a precis, not an exact quote.

Well I know a lot of perfectly lovely teachers but we still ensure all teachers are CRB checked! We don't let just anyone, who says they are lovely, into a school with vulnerable children as we think about safeguarding. We can't just accept every person at face value as we know full well some people aren't lovely, unfortunately.

Likewise with women only spaces like hospital wards, changing rooms and toilets, they are there for a reason. Access is restricted as it is in schools. To protect vulnerable people.

I realise this is more about women only spaces than sports, but I find it a useful response to the "but all the trans people I know are lovely".

I also realise someone will be able to explain what I'm saying, a lot more articulately!

They'll be discussing the science behind this tomorrow apparently. I wonder who they'll have on

Let's hope it's someone who actually understands biology, someone who is qualified to discuss it.

ie not the sociology professor "sport needs to move with the times, binary is so last century" whose name I have forgotten. And who has no qualifications to justify his opinion being sought.

The cyclist is tweeting/trolling dame kelly homes’ sponsors now telling them how dreadful she is. She isn’t taking it lying down and Sharron has come out swinging.

You really don’t want to take on a world class athlete do you?

ie not the sociology professor "sport needs to move with the times, binary is so last century" Was that the lovely Beth who said that women would be able to compete over time, because they would be trying harder Still with that pre-Darwin chap who thought that giraffes had longer necks because they stretched up further to reach the leaves, then passed this on to their progeny. (Lamarck)

I am glad they mentioned the whole ‘you won’t debate’ thing. Says a lot.

They've mentioned this a few times now.

They also did a piece on the university guidelines around no platforming and a student whole heartedly agreed then gave a little rant about 'but not someone denying twaw.' Which was hilarious given the discussion around free speech and no platforming. I could hear the presenter's expression in that one!