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.

extract of exchange between Jane Fae & Michael Portillo:

MB: ...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."

Effective isnt it?

This is the Independent article referred to: www.independent.co.uk/voices/trans-rights-free-speech-language-labour-legal-system-a9344196.html

This is the Independent bio:
Jane Fae

"Jane Fae is a writer and feminist with a particular interest in the rights of individuals to express their own sexuality without censure by the state. She is an active supporter of Consenting Adult Action Network, as well as regular contributor to national and LGBT press."
www.independent.co.uk/author/jane-fae

CAAN (Consenting Adult Action Network)
twitter.com/CAAN_UK
Wiki

"The Consenting Adult Action Network (CAAN) is a grassroots network of individuals in the United Kingdom that was formed in 2008 to protest and oppose laws restricting activities between consenting adults, most notably the criminalisation of possession of "extreme pornography"
"On 14 June and 22 August [2008?], they attempted to seek advice on what material might be caught by the law. They took a dossier of images to three major police forces, although none of them could yet say which pictures would be deemed illegal.

On 21 October 2008, they organised a protest with Ben Westwood against the law on "extreme pornography".

They were awarded "Specialists Website of the Year" by the London Gay Sex and Fetish Awards 2008.

On 25 January 2009, the day before the law on "extreme pornography" came into effect, CAAN protested in London. They were supported by Backlash and The Spanner Trust. The protest was attended by Peter Tatchell and Ben Westwood.

March 2010, CAAN announce they are publishing a book "Beyond the Circle: Sexuality & discrimination in heteronormative Britain" written by John Ozimek."

CAAN is concerned about several issues regarding consenting adults:

The law on "extreme pornography", since it criminalises possession of images involving consenting adults, including staged acts, and screenshots from legal films.

Clauses in the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 that ban people from working in jobs involving children or "vulnerable adults" if they possess "sexually explicit images depicting violence against human beings". The government state that 11.3 million will have to register with the scheme, although the number has been estimated by others at over 14 million.

As of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, sexual images of 16- and 17-year-olds are treated as child pornography, even though the age of consent remains at 16 (CAAN states it has no interest in tinkering with the age of consent, however they believe this change in the law to be "misguided and disproportionate").[This quote needs a citation]

Government plans to criminalise prostitution.

Plans to recategorise lapdancing clubs as "sex encounter" establishments."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consenting_Adult_Action_Network

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3374614-John-Ozimek-now-Jane-Fae-on-women-feminists-and-victims-of-pornographers

I only wish Torr Robinson had been aksed to define what they mean by "live as a woman". I'm interested in how they'd skirt around that one, trying to avoid reducing it to dresses and make-up.

It's very interesting that the rebuttals refutations here, are finding their way into mainstream. They aren't all there yet, but it's happening.

And yes, it will only take a few people to realise what living as a woman actually means in terms of a man doing it, for it to be the question of the day.

Amazing work OP!

I recently heard a fantastic statement about the percentages of trans people vs other types of people in need. It was along the lines of 'there are more people with a particular cancer, or have homes flooded, or have blah blah and so on', it really hit home how fucking MUCH SPACE trans people are hogging, as there is no outcry for these people, only the tiny, tiny number of trans people.

Can't find it though......wanted to copy paste it all over the internet.

Thanks from me too pombear. I have such a physical reaction to watching or listening to pieces like this, squirming with discomfort and proxy cognitive dissonance :) So appreciate your work here!

She is an active supporter of Consenting Adult Action Network

Thanks Ro, for further details regarding Fae's interests.

TheLesserOfTwoWeevils (great name) my understanding of 'living as a woman's is partly that they believe themselves as perceived as a woman by others. So not just how one perceives the self but how others react to you. My question would be, do others perceive all trans people as the sex their are presenting as.

Thank you Pombear fantastically helpful. And yes the coquettish charm offensive tactic is all too obvious.

I have thought for a while that feminists arguments would be strengthened by including more stories about individuals as these resonate with the public. The detransistioners regretting their permanently lowered voices and cut off breasts, the athletic girls seeing medals going to male bodied competitors. The problems are immediately identifiable and normal people will easily see that an 11 year old cannot possibly comprehend what they are ‘consenting’ to. Lisa Nandy seems to have based her entire view on talking to one constituent and whilst I think this shows a chronic inability to think things through it does show the power of human stories.

RM: But don’t you think you have a rather reductionist idea of what a woman is? Biological? I mean, looking at you now, and I’m not judging you by genetic criteria, I’m actually just encountering you as a woman, as I hope you’re encountering me as a woman

This is so incredibly manipulative. Rachel Mann is basically asking Kiri Tunks 'Are you calling ME a man?'

This type of shit is exactly why we need judicial review to remove 'case-by-case' from the Equality Act statutory code.

Women should never be put in the position of having to assess whether any individual male person's performance of femininity is enough for us to no longer have our sex based rights.

Kiri was spot on with her response:

the question is how women, whether women can organise for their own rights and so on, OK, and that’s that is upheld in law. We have the single-sex exemptions that allow us to do that.

We are allowed to exclude every single male person from women's spaces and services, regardless of whether the person has a GRC, regardless of what medical and surgical treatment the person has had and regardless of how well the person performs femininity.

Anne McEvoy to Jane Fae: I’m so sorry, if you don’t mind, I’ll just ask you…

The level of obsequiousness here is actually painful.

JF: 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.

Would older heterosexual males who have transitioned & identify as lesbians be included in ONS as lesbians?

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.

How is any of this 'like ibuprofen' Jane? Please show your working.

Thank you PomBear. I will get time to listen to this over the weekend but it's really useful to have a transcript to refer to.

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.

This is one of the major red flags for me in all this, amongst many, many red flags - JF waves away the 'whatever' Professor Winston's concerns (hey, whataboutery comes to ibuprofen!) to imply that puberty blockers with the concomitant risks of bone density reduction, IQ reduction, lack of growth of genitals, increased likelihood of going on to double mastectomy surgery, orchidectomy, penile inversion surgery, etc - but, hey, they need this, otherwise they might need massive facial surgery? Excuse me?

Huh? Why would you need facial surgery? If you're a transwoman, you're a transwoman. No one needs to 'conform' to a stereotype of what a woman looks like.

Or do they?

Change the words: because you didn’t give them a chance to be trans earlier

Ask yourselves. Who is this for? The child they're talking about? Or someone else?

Jane Fae said:

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.

I wasn't familiar with the Interpretation Act so I looked it up. Here is what JF is talking about:

6 Gender and number.

In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears,—

(a)words importing the masculine gender include the feminine;

(b)words importing the feminine gender include the masculine;

(c)words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/section/6

Very obviously this 1978 Act is intended to clarify the wording of old laws where the word 'he' is intended to include 'she'.

It means that, for example, if the law says 'if a person kills another person with intent then he is guilty of murder', you can't turn round and say, 'Ahah! but I am a she not a he, therefore this law does not apply to me.'

I haven't the faintest idea why Jane Fae thinks the Interpretation Act 1978 is at all relevant to the workings of the Equality Act single sex exceptions. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act applies to every Act unless the contrary intention appears.

The 'contrary intention' absolutely fucking appears every single time sex is mentioned in the Equality Act.

Sex is a protected characteristic, Jane. Get over it.

Smoke, mirrors, fog!

RM: OK. You’ve talked about how proper transsexuals, you use the that phrase, need love and compassion. Now let’s suppose for a moment I, I…

GL: I’m not sure, did I use the word proper?

RM: Yes, I think you did in your, in your briefing. Now, let’s suppose I am one of those proper ones, how, how should I feel about that statement?

Here again, Rachel Mann says 'what about me?'

There is no requirement in the EA to make women's rights to single sex spaces and services contingent on the individual male trans person who presents themself, and how well that person performs femininity. Single sex spaces and services are only lawful on the grounds of sex. Obviously.

'Case by case' is nowhere in the EA. It was put into EHRC's statutory code following consultation with TRA groups in 2011.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/equality-act-codes-practice-post-consultation-report

I listened late last night and was raging at this from Fae.

... 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...

I heard two things. Fae has not had the same experiences as women. A woman, especially one who describes themself as a feminist, would know the consequences of pregnancy, childbirth and child raising and understand the woman’s choice.

I also heard good old-fashioned misogyny, Silly women and their silly mistakes.

I only wish Torr Robinson had been aksed to define what they mean by "live as a woman". I'm interested in how they'd skirt around that one, trying to avoid reducing it to dresses and make-up.

I'm pretty sure I've posted this elsewhere, (as have others no doubt, I think there was a thread on this video) but here's a couple of trans rights activists appearing in a Scottish parliamentary hearing (about the census). From 1:41 there's about four minutes in which Joan McAlpine tries to get them to explain what living at the opposite sex means. (abbreviated version) Being a parliamentary hearing, they couldn't answer "shut the fuck up, terf," so one started by assuring her that of course it doesn't have anything to do with stereotypes, it's about wanting people to perceive you as the gender you want them to perceive you as. Joan asked again, and the other one talked about how one presents oneself, which seems to have to do with pronouns according to him. When Joan asked about clothes, he said it doesn't have to be, because people wear all sorts of clothes, and women can wear trousers and still be women (sagaciously avoiding whether men can still be men in dresses). Joan has another go, getting the answer that it's about self-identity, and the way you express that identity, and another reference to pronouns. Taking a last swipe at this, Joan asks if it has something to do with male and female brains, and the first activist comes back with another reassurance that it's nothing to do with stereotypes, interests, or personality(?!). And feelings and just knowing, which lead trans people to "do things, make changes, and ask people to try and work with us to see us differently."

I asked about the 'briefing document' and got this explanation, which I'm entirely satisfied with.

1. The ‘proper’ transsexuals question was a paraphrase by Rachel Mann (which was admittedly too short-hand) referring to this section from your research chat:

“It puts too many women under the bus, especially lesbians, because if you look at any lesbian dating app, half of it is men in wigs. And I guarantee you that most of them will not be transsexuals, they will be just people who identify as trans. Once these tourists have gone, then the people who'll be left behind are the transsexuals, the people who really could not operate unless they transitioned in a very meaningful way. Everyone else gets to wipe off the eye-shadow and walk away, but they don't.”

1. The “nonsense” and “silly phase” comment was a paraphrase from your Daily Mail article.

“Most of all, I believe that gender ideology, in its currently fashionable form, is dangerous, incoherent nonsense.”

I enjoyed Moral Maze and I didn't feel manipulated or misinformed at any point. Many producers seem to think they'll get more out of me if they ambush me. It's really lazy and insulting. But Moral Maze weren't like that and I wouldn't like people to think otherwise. Some of their jury this week had a creative approach to the quotes but even that I didn't mind as long as I'm given a chance to explain my position.

Overall, four stars out of five!

Once these tourists have gone, then the people who'll be left behind are the transsexuals, the people who really could not operate unless they transitioned in a very meaningful way.

@Glinner have you ever read this important thread?

AngryAttackKittens wrote, Thu 03-Jan-19
I'm going to point every "but the nice, harmless old school transsexuals whose movement has been unfairly appropriated by the nasty transgender people" person to this thread from now on.

All the same elements we're seeing now were there in that old BBC roundtable from the 70s with the 4 transwomen, the politician, and the doctor. None of this is new."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

or watched:

November 2018
'The invention of gender dysphoria' - Sheila Jeffreys hosted by We Need To Talk

Sheila Jeffries described being worried by the growing tendency amongst women/some feminists to split into the 'good, nice, trans, old fashioned, friend of feminist' male transpeople and 'the imposters, the ones who threaten women, bad ones' :

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FQtyGU766I

Some of their jury this week had a creative approach to the quotes but even that I didn't mind as long as I'm given a chance to explain my position.

the transcript is revealing!

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3827771-Moral-Maze-Radio-4-8pm-19-Feb-Transcript