BBC responds to backlash to article about lesbians being pressured into sex by some trans women

[FindTheTruth]

BBC spokesperson said: “The article looks at a complex subject from different perspectives and acknowledges it is difficult to assess the extent of the issue.

“It includes testimony from a range of different sources and provides appropriate context. It went through our rigorous editorial processes.

“It is important that journalism looks at issues - even where there are strongly held positions. The BBC is here to ensure debate and to make sure a wide a range of voices are heard.”

attitude.co.uk/article/bbc-responds-to-backlash-to-article-about-lesbians-being-pressured-into-sex-by-some-trans-women-1/26090/

I am a lesbian. I don't like Star Trek. If a lesbian is fit as fuck, and a genuinely lovely person, and we got on well, it's entirely likely that if she was a Trekkie to the point of conventions and cosplay and droning on tediously about canon compliance, that I would reject her as a partner.

Am I Trek-phobic? No one gives a shit, because Trekkies aren't claiming to be some special group that need to be able to override boundaries.

Or say a woman was gorgeous, and our chemistry was good, but she was a very committed Christian and would require me to be silent about our relationship because she was closeted, so I said, nope, not interested in hiding who I am because your religion, no dice.

Would I be Christianophobic? What's the difference here? If a woman is a Genderist, I don't share her religion. It's entirely likely she would require me to call myself something other than a lesbian, and would likely require specific language from me too. Rejecting that might be 'transphobic', but all you're doing there is admitting transphobic means 'unbeliever'. And I don't give a shit.

I'm not a believer in Genderism. I'm not a believer in Christianity. I'm not a Trekkie. My sexual and bodily boundaries are absolute and I need to give no further justification than that. It's not me that needs to mind my language. It's the rapey fuckers who think no is the start of a negotiation.

With orientation the door is firmly shit.

With preference the door is open a fraction.

Thats a very odd way to look at it. As though one is unequivocal and the other isn't. That's not the case. A preference can be just as unequivocal as a sexual orientation.

Rejecting that might be 'transphobic', but all you're doing there is admitting transphobic means 'unbeliever'. And I don't give a shit.

👏

@ErrolTheDragon

And again, to be petty, I might argue that it is transphobic to assume that just because someone identifies as trans that they also believe in a dangerous, insane, homophobic, misogynistic TRA-approved agenda - maybe they are trans and GC?

It certainly would be, but I don't think I've come across anyone on this board doing that. And easily refutable - the trans people who would talk to the BBC reporter were clearly none of the things you've just described. So I'm not sure what your point is in the context of this thread?

My point is that, in order to minimise the ability of TRAs and "ordinary people" to perceive GC people as bigoted, it is important to recognise that trans people are rejected for their views, their biological sex, their insanely narcissistic demands to be validated... solid justifiable reasons, not because they are trans.

To be clear solid justifiable reasons are NOT needed before anyone rejects someone else. But if you have extremists throwing around baseless allegations, being whiter than white and having solid justifiable reasons is maybe prudent.

it is important to recognise that trans people are rejected for their views, their biological sex, their insanely narcissistic demands to be validated... solid justifiable reasons, not because they are trans.

'Being trans' relies on gender stereotypes. Which is sexist. Transgenderism isn't some floating thing that has no meaning.

Genderism is a religion. I don't believe it.

Job done.

@Datun

With orientation the door is firmly shit.

With preference the door is open a fraction.

Thats a very odd way to look at it. As though one is unequivocal and the other isn't. That's not the case. A preference can be just as unequivocal as a sexual orientation.

I am sure that a preference can, occasionally, be just as unequivocal. But on average, surely, a preference is simply a preference. My preference for clean shaven men does not rule out the possibility of me ending up with man with a beard, but my orientation towards men 100% rules out the possibility of ending up with a woman.

Surely people constantly say things like "my preference is for sporty men. Jack's not at all sporty but he makes me laugh and he's got a twinkle in his eye that I can't resist"? People never say "I am a straight woman, but Sophie is just perfect - I can't keep my hands off her!"

@Datun

it is important to recognise that trans people are rejected for their views, their biological sex, their insanely narcissistic demands to be validated... solid justifiable reasons, not because they are trans.

'Being trans' relies on gender stereotypes. Which is sexist. Transgenderism isn't some floating thing that has no meaning.

I agree to a large extent, but then again we do have women with beards now.

And I think "Transgenderism IS some floating thing that has no meaning."

*I am sure that a preference can, occasionally, be just as unequivocal. But on average, surely, a preference is simply a preference. My preference for clean shaven men does not rule out the possibility of me ending up with man with a beard, but my orientation towards men 100% rules out the possibility of ending up with a woman.

Surely people constantly say things like "my preference is for sporty men. Jack's not at all sporty but he makes me laugh and he's got a twinkle in his eye that I can't resist"? People never say "I am a straight woman, but Sophie is just perfect - I can't keep my hands off her!"*

Apples and pears though. You might have a preference for sporty people but fall in love with someone else. A preference for a socially moral person is not the sort of 'preference' you compromise on. People never say "I'm a hard-core labour voter, but this Tory MP who voted against everything I believe in is just perfect - I can't keep my hands off her". You should not see all preferences as so easily changed.

@Datun

There's no such thing as someone who is trans, or trans supportive and also gender critical. They are mutually exclusive. One directly undermines the other.

Transgender ideology relies on stereotypes, being gender critical wants to abolish them.

Well there are certainly trans women (post op males) who are firmly of the belief that they are men. They claim to support trans people (including educating them that they can never change sex). Some of those people are probably gender critical, albeit they accept that they are men who like adopting stereotypes.

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

*I am sure that a preference can, occasionally, be just as unequivocal. But on average, surely, a preference is simply a preference. My preference for clean shaven men does not rule out the possibility of me ending up with man with a beard, but my orientation towards men 100% rules out the possibility of ending up with a woman.

Surely people constantly say things like "my preference is for sporty men. Jack's not at all sporty but he makes me laugh and he's got a twinkle in his eye that I can't resist"? People never say "I am a straight woman, but Sophie is just perfect - I can't keep my hands off her!"*

Apples and pears though. You might have a preference for sporty people but fall in love with someone else. A preference for a socially moral person is not the sort of 'preference' you compromise on. People never say "I'm a hard-core labour voter, but this Tory MP who voted against everything I believe in is just perfect - I can't keep my hands off her". You should not see all preferences as so easily changed.

Point taken

There is a massive irony here - I could very well go into the next election saying "I'm a hard-core labour voter, but this Tory MP who voted against everything I believe in is just perfect on this occasion - I am going to vote for her because she knows what a woman is".

My point is that, in order to minimise the ability of TRAs and "ordinary people" to perceive GC people as bigoted, it is important to recognise that trans people are rejected for their views, their biological sex, their insanely narcissistic demands to be validated... solid justifiable reasons, not because they are trans.

Why indulge it? In the unlikely event that someone asked me for a date and I said no, I don't care if they want to label me a bigot any more than if they want to label me stuck up or frigid. As the often repeated saying goes, that says more about them than it does me. They can just fuck off with their demands for validation.

Some of those people are probably gender critical, albeit they accept that they are men who like adopting stereotypes.

In which case they're not trans!

@PickAChew

My point is that, in order to minimise the ability of TRAs and "ordinary people" to perceive GC people as bigoted, it is important to recognise that trans people are rejected for their views, their biological sex, their insanely narcissistic demands to be validated... solid justifiable reasons, not because they are trans.

Why indulge it? In the unlikely event that someone asked me for a date and I said no, I don't care if they want to label me a bigot any more than if they want to label me stuck up or frigid. As the often repeated saying goes, that says more about them than it does me. They can just fuck off with their demands for validation.

I think my words are more designed for the purposes of internet chat and debate. In practice any rejection is going to be done as quickly and quietly as possible giving as few opportunities for debate or anger in return.

@SpindleWorl

'Hate campaign on Sundays'?

Songs of Praise? The Strictly results show??

Countryfile I suspect. Possibly a spelling error involved.........

@Datun

Some of those people are probably gender critical, albeit they accept that they are men who like adopting stereotypes.

In which case they're not trans!

Here's where we differ. Based on my understanding of this meaningless ideology I was trans for about 10 seconds of the 120 I spent writing this post, before instantaneously detransitioning again. The only criteria for being trans is to identify as trans.

In case you're interested I was a non-binary deus-gendered person whose gender expression matched the sex I was assigned at birth. My SAAB was assigned by a midwife I can only assume was psychic as she read my chromosomes without a microwave or microscope or whatever you call those things.

Some of those people are probably gender critical, albeit they accept that they are men who like adopting stereotypes.

In which case they're not trans!

Hmm, wasn't there a (FTM, in their own terms) poster here called something -Hobbit, who described it along the lines of 'I recognise that I have a woman's body but have a need to present as male because it very much helps with the dysphoria'?

And I think Pidge (transwoman) described it in similar terms in reverse.

Though having pondered that one, I see that 'presenting' does depend on accepting that certain stereotypes are male-gendered and others female-gendered, so I shall go and drink more coffee.

In case you're interested I was a non-binary deus-gendered person whose gender expression matched the sex I was assigned at birth. My SAAB was assigned by a midwife I can only assume was psychic as she read my chromosomes without a microwave or microscope or whatever you call those things.

I find your gender fascinating and would like to subscribe to your TikTok.

I think a lot of the anger stems from what essentially is the state broadcaster shining a negatively damaging light on a minoritised group who already face multiple challenges.

I think a lot of the anger stems from what essentially is the state broadcaster shining a negatively damaging light on a minoritised group who already face multiple challenges.

Maybe, but that's not a reason to not expose information on a problem being faced by another minoritised group who already face multiple challenges.

This is a clear clash between two such groups. One of which apparently needs to get its house in order.

To not shine a light would be to be complicit with what's happening. And would be an echo of the mindset that permitted Rotherham. Being a "minoritised group facing multiple challenges" is not a free pass for bad behaviour.

@DodoPatrol

Though having pondered that one, I see that 'presenting' does depend on accepting that certain stereotypes are male-gendered and others female-gendered, so I shall go and drink more coffee.

Exactly. If a man is 'presenting as the opposite sex', they are inhabiting the stereotypes which are detrimental to women. If a man is presenting as a man and wearing a frock, he isn't.

There are certain transwomen who say I'm not literally a woman, obviously, I'm a biological male, but present as a women. The sexism is still a characteristic.

@334bu

www.bbc.co.uk/contact/comments-feedback/#/Your%20comment

In case anybody wants to thank BBC for their commitment to investigative journalism

Thanks 334bu. I have sent feedback. Very straightforward and no personal details required. It’s very important, given the number signing the letter, that they know that many of us are very pleased to see this point of view being spoken.

@VladmirsPoutine

I think a lot of the anger stems from what essentially is the state broadcaster shining a negatively damaging light on a minoritised group who already face multiple challenges.

Do you mean women?

@LaetitiaASD ironic indeed! And sadly I find myself in this position. Wouldn't sleep without though!