Women's hour right now - on transitioning husband?

[fastwigglylines]

I just caught a snippet of Women's Hour but won't be able to listen properly till later - getting the DC set up with homeschooling now.

Please don't tell me it's a segment on how to be a doting wife to a transwoman with no balance? That's what it sounded like from the bit I caught. I hope I'm wrong!

No they are no longer together. Its interesting but there's a lot of 'we were scared because of the toxic anti trans environment in the UK today'

I only heard a bit, it sounded like the main reason for them not being together is because she's not gay.

If they want balance, and knowledge about this subject, they'd best get Tinsel on

Fairly maddening interview. Interviewee was very giggly and nervous, left a lot of threads hanging without expanding e.g. feeling that ex husband was 'trying to be her' after their baby was born, but didnt / couldn't give any other details. I cannot imagine how traumatic the whole experience was for her. EB didnt do much fawning, to her credit, but I found the whole interview very odd

I didn't catch who it was - seems like it's the case in this ongoing discussion:

From now on, I was in an LGBTQ+ family’: my husband came out as trans while I was on maternity leave www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4123411-From-now-on-I-was-in-an-LGBTQ-family-my-husband-came-out-as-trans-while-I-was-on-maternity-leave

Is she saying that being in a relationship with the father of her child would mean she was in a gay relationship? Interesting.

New definition of gay.

Gay how? Did someone change the detention when I wasn’t looking?

Yes it was Alexandra heminsley, flogging her new book.

I assume that he changed into she? Which means they are now supposed to be in a lesbian relationship?

Interesting that EB avoided using female pronouns.

It's internally consistent, as most neo-religions often are.

By affirming that her husband is truly a woman, she will now being in a same sex relationship. She is honest enough, unlike others, to acknowledge that she is not a lesbian, and this becomes the reason to divorce, so she retains all her credentials and hasn't committed heresy.

Of course, by doing so, she throws actual lesbians under the bus by the logical conclusion that had she been a lesbian, she would have stayed in the marriage, thus redefining lesbian, which is pretty fucking high handed of her, tbh.

I think she may be on Times Radio with Mariella Frostrup today as well - I think I heard them mention it on the morning show earlier.

Of course, by doing so, she throws actual lesbians under the bus by the logical conclusion that had she been a lesbian, she would have stayed in the marriage, thus redefining lesbian, which is pretty fucking high handed of her, tbh

Excellent point. Straight women can choose not to have sex with transwomen with but lesbians who do the same are hateful bigots.

To recap:

Woman has book to sell and can't afford to be cancelled so pretends that she is fine with what the father of her child has done even tho (mysteriously) they are no longer together.

As the Guardian and now the beeb have covered this story we must assume that this narrative is an acceptable one?

If the BBC are so concerned with "balance" (ha!) then I agree with pp who said:

"Get Tinsel on..."

Woman leaves marriage because the husband is a lesbian but she isn't.

The logic of 'gender' in a nutshell.

But she's been sleeping with her partner for years, and a) we're told they were always what they now identify as, and b) transubstantiation has not taken place.

So either she always was a lesbian because her partner always has been a woman regardless of outer body, or else she has a right not granted to homosexual women to have a sexual orientation specific to a biological sex regardless of presentation and choices of that person.

I think the reason she left the marriage is pretty obvious. But I assume they’re didn’t address the elephant in the room?

"I'm not gay" is the the only way to leave a marriage where your spouse is trans without being accused of bigotry. It buys into the idea that the person is literally the opposite sex and doesn't require you to engage with any of the other reasons for divorce (manipulation, dishonesty etc).

They're interviewing her because she has a book out. So what you'll get in all these media interviews and articles is an endless rehash of her view of her own experience.

There's nothing for it, Tinsel: if you want to get the alternative view of trans widowhood in the BBC/Guardian, you're going to have to write a book.

And Tinsel I would buy that book. It would be very well worth reading with all your insight and knowledge.

She can say what she likes. Facts are facts and more publicity can only be be a good thing.

I can imagine my mum and grandma listening to that and turning the air blue!

Wow I’m sorry this woman had to go through all this but whether she realises is or not, that line of ‘defence’ to leaving this guy is just putting lesbians even further up shit creek isn’t it. It’s not actually relevant if she personally is a lesbian or not. The actual point is her husband isn’t a woman, he never was, he never will be, he hasn’t changed sex, no human being can do that.

Like any woman she is perfectly entitled to leave her marriage for whatever reason she wants- if it’s how he dresses, how he talks about himself or talks about her, or that he thinks he can change sex, fly, breastfeed a baby or whatever it is she disagrees with. It’s up to her. She shouldn’t have to put up with her personal boundaries being broken.

She shouldn’t have to dress his behaviour up as being perfectly fine except for it happens to be against her heterosexuality. She doesn’t like his behaviour. That’s enough, that’s perfectly fine reason to end it.

Women don’t owe men marriage, sex, children, political or sexual personal validation... the list grows continually longer of the blatantly obvious things that women seem to have to exhaustively justify if they don’t want to give them up to men..

Perhaps in the new belief system, it is similar to in Doctor Who, by transitioning the whole timeline is altered so that by changing the present you change the future and the past too meaning that certain things (in this case a heterosexual relationship) actually never happened at all. I am not quite sure how that explains the child but then again when you attend a Catholic mass you may think that the blood of Christ tastes rather like red wine but transubstantiation means that it definitely really is the blood of Christ and not wine. It is a wonderful mystery.

Yes ChattyLion, everything you said, particularly the last paragraph.

“Women don’t owe men marriage, sex, children, political or sexual personal validation...”

And “Like any woman she is perfectly entitled to leave her marriage for any reason she wants...”

She could have just said that things were no longer working between them and cite irreconcilable differences rather than play the I am not a lesbian card which as others have stated has consequences for lesbians.

Announcing you’re actually a woman when your wife is in the throes of new motherhood is a bit like doing the same on the eve of your daughter’s A Levels.

Dick move.