Moral Maze - Radio 4 8pm 19 Feb - Transcript

[pombear]

I'm looking at Pencils but she shouldn't have to take the transcription-duty always so thought I'd kick it off. For those who would like a transcript - here's the first part.

Thank you Pombar! There's only so much I can read in one go without wanting to go and rant at someone, so I've not read it all yet!

I don’t think I would have understood Kiri at all without some background knowledge.

I think that ‘oppression’ and ‘protected characteristics’ and ‘safe spaces’ are not always familiar terminology.

Start lower! ‘Women and men have very obviously different bodies. Women are physically less strong than a man of similar age and fitness. That’s relevant in sport, obviously, and also in simple fear of a stranger on a dark night. Women go through female puberty and have periods, so they need more and different toilet facilities than men. Women are the only sex that can get pregnant, so they lose out financially unless the country has good maternity laws. Women and men need different medical care, and often the research has only been done on males.’

That sort of thing needs to be said, rather than the words that code for it amongst people who already know the situation.

Thank you pombear. Such confused nonsense. It’s great to have it recorded.

Fantastic stuff pombear. You're a lifesaver. I decided not to listen, in case I broke the radio. So this is brilliant.

I'm sure we are all itching to interject, because we are so well versed in the arguments and understand all the points. But this kind of scrutiny was unheard of a few short months ago.

Actually, over the next while, all the points will come up and all will be comprehensively refuted.

They are already floundering over simple definitions 🙄

That sort of thing needs to be said, rather than the words that code for it amongst people who already know the situation.

Completely agree. Talking about patriarchy or oppression can induce eye rolling. Unfortunately.

You Pom

Talking about patriarchy or oppression can induce eye rolling. Unfortunately.

Oh, absolutely. I also think it's alienating to most women, who don't see themselves as 'oppressed'. Many are likely to bridle at the suggestion of it. And mention of 'patriarchy', as well as inducing eye rolls, just invites TAs to claim that 'Trans people are victims of patriarchy too!' It's basically a useless vast rubbish-bin of a term, since everybody can be a victim of 'the patriarchy' if you argue about it for long enough.

But every woman knows what it's like to feel fear around male strangers. The vast majority of women don't want to share public toilets and change rooms with men. Most people with a degree of empathy understand that female victims of male violence need spaces away from men in which to recover. Most parents want their daughters to have the opportunity to take part in and excel in sport. These are the talking points that will cut through to the public, and alert them to what is being pushed through under the guise of 'trans rights'.

It's also crucial when talking about this to use 'male' and 'men' rather than 'transwomen'. This reminds everyone that you are talking about people with (usually unaltered) male bodies. Gender Identity Newspeak is deliberately designed to erase the reality of sexed bodies, and hence the power relations between men and women. It's vital that feminists don't participate in this by echoing these language manipulations in an effort to seem 'polite'.

Forgot to say thanks so much to pombear for transcribing. That must have taken a huge amount of work

Pombear, you are an absolute legend.

And I'm now happy to watch Railway Journeys with a new found respect for Portillo.

It's also crucial when talking about this to use 'male' and 'men' rather than 'transwomen'.

I agree because most people don't know what this debate is all about and it's extremely confusing. I genuinely want trans people to lead fulfilling lives in safety but not at the expense of women. I don't know what the answers are but I know what they aren't.

DonkeySkin

I completely agree with your whole post. And this is one of the reasons why Posie Parker is so successful. She doesn't get involved in the feminist arguments involving patriarchy, oppression, emotional labour, etc. She just talks about men, particularly in the context of her 13-year-old daughter. Something that any person can grasp instantly.

It's odd how words can be so effective. I have substituted male chauvinism for patriarchy and sexism for oppression and people nod along just fine. They absolutely understand that we live in a chauvinistic society and that women are often disadvantaged as a result of the sexism.

Just don't call it patriarchal oppression.

I have substituted male chauvinism for patriarchy and sexism for oppression and people nod along just fine.

Sexism is an excellent word. I don't quite understand why it has fallen out of favour with feminists, many of whom now seem to prefer 'oppression' or 'misogyny'. Perhaps because they think they are stronger, more serious words. But they are mistaken. In most cases, sexism is the stronger word. Oppression is too broad and can encompass just about anyone and anything (hence the Oppression Olympics), and misogyny is more about personal attitudes, rather than systems or structures. But sexism is specific about who is being discriminated against (women and girls) and why (our sex).

And as for male chauvinism, why did we ever let this fine 1970s epithet fall into disuse?

I don't actually precede it with the word male. I just say chauvinism. Even though it's not specific. But people do get it. I'm sure everyone can remember their mum or grandma spitting mad about 'male chauvinist pigs' 😄

Thank you for the transcription, Pom. Very useful to have it written down.

I agree that sexism is a very good word. Because that's what this is.

Are we allowed to revive MCP (male chauvinist pig)?

TR: No, not at all. I think it’s frankly quite an absurd proposition that the state should decide what gender you are. Gender is a relatively personal relationship and it has a social dimension to it erm, but it’s, it’s a personal thing. I think it’s absurd to say the state should be investigating people, people’s bodies and minds and behaviours for this.

I completely agree with Torr on this one, there is absolutely no need for a GRA AT ALL and it should be abolished. No need for it. Sex, obvously, isn't going anywhere. Its how babies are made Torr. Icky we know.

Yes I agree with Torr, repeal the GRA.

Sex will still exist as it always has and the apx 8 billion gender identities can go back to being personalities.

Thanks for transcribing pombear this is the part I didnt catch. I listened to the rest, really quite bizarre that MP was such a voice of sanity in a mad world.

I completely agree with Torr on this one, there is absolutely no need for a GRA AT ALL and it should be abolished. No need for it. Sex, obvously, isn't going anywhere. Its how babies are made Torr. Icky we know.

Yes, this is EXACTLY the sort of thing feminists should seize on in order to shift the public debate. Take the opportunity to expose the contradictions at the heart of the trans activist position, and point out that the current mess has been caused by the GRA itself, rather than pretending the only problem is 'self ID'.

Grabbed a few minutes during lunch to tidy up the next part. You'll be pleased to know I've managed to edit out my own commentary in the background for this one - otherwise it would be full of bold text, and would look a bit like a Dr Jane Clare-Jones-enhanced document, but less articulate and more sweary!

And thanks for the thanks, it really isn't that much effort. Glad it helps. Writing it out and reading it back certainly focuses on what is actually being said. Here you go:

MB: Kiri Tunks, thanks very much indeed. Our next witness is Jane Fae who’s secretary of Trans Media Watch, a campaigner for trans rights. Describes herself as a, er hims, as a writer, occasional comic, and professional nuisance. (JF laughs). You’re on the right programme. Erm,

JF: Thank you.

MB: You’re, erm, a transwoman.

JF: Yes.

MB: What do you say to those who, er, may sympathise totally with your feelings, celebrate your bravery in dealing with them, but think biology’s not a matter of opinion, and you can never be a real woman?

JF: Erm, they’re welcome to those views. Er, that’s not an issue for me.

MB: And what do you say to them?

JF:Well It depends what they’re saying to me. You know, erm, I mean, if they’re in my face screaming at me about it. Erm, I’ve had one of those in the last year. You, who, who proclaimed on social media that they would turn up on my doorstep and rip my junk off. I’m sorry if I’m a bit rude there and I thought, oh dear, you’re a bit late for that. Erm, and er, were I to meet that person I probably wouldn’t say much to them, I’d just call the police. But if it was..

MB: OK, we got the message

JF: Sorry…

MB: But

JF: Yes, indeed.

MB: Anne McElvoy?

AM: Yes, when we, when we now talk about gender dysphoria I think thee, the point that worries a lot of people is how do you then assess self-identification when it comes to young people and children who are below the age at which a lot of moral and legal arguments are sort of left to us to decide as adults. Your, er, solution, I put it that way, is affirmative care.

JF: Yes

AM: Could you just explain what that is?

JF: Affirmative care is to support the young person in what they’re trying to do at the time that they’re trying to do it. And that does not mean just going ‘OK, you want this, we’re going to give it to you’. It means giving them a sense that they are supported. And certainly the feedback I’ve had from parents of trans children is that, where there is affirmative care it actually reduces the pressure on the child to push ahead with some sort of transition, but the idea that affirmative care means we’re going to go straight into some sort of transition, no. What trans..

AM: I’m so sorry, if you don’t mind, I’ll just ask you…

JF: Yeah, no, no, no.

AM: It does, I think it’s going to…

JF: Absolutely.

AM: …to where you’re going. So the large number, the much larger number of young people beginning treatment or transition also through clinical intervention, clinical intervention. Do you think that is simply due to the fact that they didn’t know about it before…

JF: Yes.

Oh I really liked your comments, they made me laugh

Interviewee 3: part 2

AM: It wasn’t available before. That’s, it’s a simple correlation. Am I right, sorry?

JF: I’m, I’m going to go there. And I’m going to give you some other the figures as well, because it goes to something that came up in the earlier segment. Erm, I transitioned late. I wish I had known. And I really, really didn’t know. When I was young, and I shan’t, take a stab at the ages of people on this table, but, when I was young, trans was something that vicars did, erm, with someone else’s vest in their pantry, or pants in someone else’s vestry or whatever. It was a Sunday tabloid freak show sort of thing. What we’re seeing right now, and the ONS has helpfully reported on this, is that LGB has spiked over the last. So, not trans, but that has spiked over the last five years. The biggest growth area is lesbian women, and it’s the young lesbian women, and all that you’re seeing right now is a catch up in the trans area.

AM: But the, these. That bit may be true in terms of taking the ONS statistics as reasonably reliable, although people often…

JF: Yes

AM: …argue about bad statistics. But any kind in this area, as you know. The difficulty would be, surely, because you need to make early interventions, often delaying puberty, in order for the person. If this person is so sure at an early age that they really want to go along this route, so you’d support them? Do you see any danger there that you have a bit of a suppressed premise, because you’ve had your own experience, you have, you know, you have had the life that you have had. To what extent do we have to be cautious, however strongly we may feel about our own identity when it’s something that has direct consequences for very young people?

JF: What, what happens with puberty blockers is that life, erm, puberty is put on pause. The best available evidence suggests that, after that pause, people can resume if that is not for them. Now…

AM: There are those in the medical community who think that you need a lot more data over a long time?

JF: Well, that is true and I know that Professor Winston, whatever, has said that but, you know, he doesn’t say that of other drugs, he only says with this. And, like ibuprofen. What I would say back to you is, if you’re going to say ‘oh no, have your puberty’ then I’d like you to be there when that trans youngster has to go through extensive and massive facial surgeries and other surgeries because you didn’t give them a chance to be trans earlier.

MB: Michael Portillo?

MP: Is there, paradoxically, a danger here that you are going to reinforce stereotypes. Er, er, I mean, there’s nothing wrong with being an effeminate boy, a masculine woman….

JF: Absolutely not

MP: A gay boy or a lesbian girl. But is there not a tendency that you’re going to push those people towards gender reassignment?

JF: No, I mean (long sigh) people get things wrong in every single walk of life. Erm, and er, we have this debate right now about trans regret or people making mistakes and so on. But we allow people to make mistakes in things like termination of life, er that, that sort of thing, is allowed, Erm, certainly the idea, and if you meet trans children you will not see tomboys, you will not see boys wearing dresses, all you will see is people with an absolute determination as to their gender. And that comes from a very early age. Now, I’m not saying that it’s certain and that’s why you go affirmative. Affirmative is not saying ‘we accept that you are this’ , it is saying ‘we support you in what you maintain you are, and we give you the space and the time in order to decide who you are’

Interviewee 3: part 3

MP: One of the things that’s worrying a lot of people is the way some. It appears to close down the debate. So, for instance, if I question whether people should be allowed by law to self-identify, does that make me transphobic?

JF: Nope. No, not at all. I mean…

MP: Ever, have you ever come across anyone who might think that it did?

JF: Yes, I have. And

MP: Right. But that’s not your opinion?

JF: It’s, erm. Part of the problem and, and, er, I don’t know if you got my, erm, your producer said it was an excellent piece in the Independent today, so I should go with that. Erm, the problem…

MB: Self-promotion’s a wonderful thing…

JF: Absolutely, absolutely (laughter in background) Absolutely, absolutely. Ah, I’ve got a book next year, I’ll be back for that. Erm, the, the…

MB: I’ll make a note.

JF: The, I’ve lost the point I was going to...

MP: Can I ask you another question.

JF: Oh, alright.

MP: The same thing, same theme.

JF: Derailed by the railway person.

MP: If, if I say that both man and woman are definable terms…

JF: Yes.

MP: Does that make me transphobic?

JF: (Sighs) I’d say it makes you not very relevant. Because I’m interesting, that is the point you started off on, with the first guest. Women’s spaces are social spaces. Therefore, they are spaces defined by society and by politics. You, as a former politician, will know the Interpretation Act which starts out by saying that in this Act erm, is it the singular implies plural and vice versa, and the masculine implies the feminine, and vice versa. Erm, what I’m interested in is rights for trans people and protections and safety for non-trans people. In my case, it’s women, but that may also apply to men. So, I’m interested in the pragmatics and frankly, getting bogged down in definitions doesn’t help us one way or the other. The point is, there are trans people around, there are trans women, there're not very many of us. And we have, as a society, to make space for us.

MB: Jane Fae, thanks very much indeed.

I think what is frustrating about Kiri's dialogue is that she is unable to get the key points across clearly because she is avoiding saying things we all know to be true (but are considered transphobic) such as most people who identify as TW are heterosexual men.

Then to drive the point home further it needs to be explicit that many self identifiers who feel they are owed access to women's spaces are in fact indistinguishable from any other man in a physical sense.

I understand why because we know women face much more backlash than men for stating the obvious and I imagine she will have felt a responsibility to the WPUK org who have already been accused of all sorts.

This is why the men, especially Portillo were able to be much more direct. He's an ex Tory MP who wasn't well liked in office and probably won't lose any sleep over transphobia accusations.

But most people listening wouldn't think her transphobic for saying most TW are heterosexual - especially if she could back it up wih stats. Of course the TRAs are going to jump on her whatever she says so she may as well cut to the chase. I hope this isn't the beginning of WP starting to dance to the TRA tune.

Affirmative is not saying ‘we accept that you are this’ , it is saying ‘we support you in what you maintain you are, and we give you the space and the time in order to decide who you are’

Breathtakingly blatant lie there.

Good lord, Jane fae comes across as utterly incoherent. Even to the extent where they confess they've lost track of their own point!