Radio 4 just now (8.47) bonkers conflation of intersex and trans

[oldwomanwhoruns]

Was anyone else just listening to R4? Discussion of the history of 'trans' and the case of Ewan Forbes, an aristocrat born Elizabeth, who was challenged in court over the inheritance of a baronetcy.

About 8.45 am, on the today program (I think)

Complete conflation of intersex and 'trans', woo-woo stance of 'oh we've got it right now'.

Claiming that up to the 1960s trans had all normal rights, and that this court case took all their lovely rights away.

The worst bit (for me) was when they talked about all the poor trans people who used to get raped in prison, not like now, of course.

Contributor and presenter both clearly had no understanding of the difference between intersex (DSD) and trans.

Contributor and presenter both clearly had no understanding of the difference between intersex (DSD) and trans.

And that would be because:
–they've been actively misinformed and in a purposeful way;
–they've not had the courtesy to read into the issue despite all of the resources available from reputable VSD organisations.

And if Ewan was trans (rather than having a DSD; I agree the interviewee conflated the two so I’m not sure which applies) he would be labelled “truscum” today by the TRAs.

The book by Zoe Playdon was reviewed in The Sunday Times:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-hidden-case-of-ewan-forbes-by-zoe-playdon-review-the-remarkable-story-of-the-lord-and-a-secret-transgender-test-case-2c9kcrsbl

You can find it as an archived link. But if I post the link here the post won't appear.

The reviewer, Christina Patterson, was unimpressed:

Playdon is a fan of Judith Butler, the American philosopher whose ideas about gender identity have transformed the academic landscape in recent years. She thinks that those who don’t buy into it, the so-called terfs, are malicious, transphobic and spreading a moral panic that’s “uncomfortably reminiscent of the Systema Naturae that had fuelled the slave trade” and “ultimately driven the Holocaust”. It’s certainly a point of view. And one of a number of deeply jarring notes in what could have been a terrific book.

And I wonder just who might have so misinformed them, I can't think of an organisation who might have done that...

They didn't even bother looking Ewan Forbes up on Wikipedia. Even a cursory search says that he was intersex.

NOTHING to do with trans.

So annoying. I’ve emailed them with some links to put them right.

The interviewee has 5 degrees, 2 doctorates and is an Emeritus Professor of Medical Humanities!

How can someone so educated be so dumb?

OP, you might want to edit your title. Nobody is “intersex” and the term is not used in medicine. People with DSD (disorders of sexual development) are all very definitely either male or female.

If Ewan were a transman rather than intersex the Gender Recognition Act wouldn't allow Ewan to inherit the title:

16
^Peerages etc.
The fact that a person’s gender has become the acquired gender under this Act—
(a) does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour, and
(b) does not affect the devolution of any property limited (expressly or not) by a will or other instrument to devolve (as nearly as the law permits) along with any peerage or dignity or title of honour unless an intention that it should do so is expressed in the will or other instrument.^

Oops sorry DSD not intersex

I'm glad I'm not the only one who heard this, thinking 'Eh??'

How can someone so educated be so dumb?

Well, given that she decided to go into a "meta" subject like "medical humanities" rather than something actually technical like medicine itself, it's fair to assume that she wasn't that bright to start with.

And if you're not terribly bright, or good at logic or critical thinking, so unable to distinguish sense from nonsense, then further education in a squishy subject could just end up exposing you to more nonsense, rather than overcoming your critical thinking problems.

Especially if it's in an institution which has decided ideology ("Social Justice") trumps Truth.

I heard it too. The contributor was the author.

It seems to be deliberate appropriation of DSD as being trans. This from the publisher's website:

"This hugely important case would have changed the lives of trans people across the world—if it hadn’t been hidden. .... The Hidden Case of Ewan Forbes is a singular contribution to trans history and the ongoing struggle for trans rights."

www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Hidden-Case-of-Ewan-Forbes/Zoe-Playdon/9781982139469

From the radio interview it sounds as if the book covers trans history, not just the Ewan Forbes case, so it might be an interesting read.

@babdoc, yes I know that the term 'intersex' went out with the ark, but I used the term that the BBC used, to keep things simple! They were using the word 'intersex' in the interview, and implying that it was the same thing as trans. They didn't use DSD.

And thx @nauticant for the review link.

BBC complaints page, here I come.

What a fascinating case. I wonder what the medical diagnosis was, and what it would be these days. The Wikipedia article refers to Ewan being described by one expert as a 'hermaphrodite', which I doubt very much is a term that would be used now.

Apologies, OP! And I suppose I should have guessed that the BBC just didn’t do its homework before using the wrong term.
They shouldn’t be conflating DSD with trans anyway - they are utterly unrelated, and patients with DSD have repeatedly asked not to be involved in trans wars.

If I'm reading Zoe Playdon's LinkedIn page rightly, she has no medical or scientific qualifications whatsoever.

BA Hons English, History, Archaeology
PGCE
MA Modern Literature
PhD Contemporary Irish Literature
MEd Management and Communication
DBA, Health Service Management

Professor of Medical Education
Now Emeritus Professor in Medical Humanities, which is a facet of medical education trying to ensure that medical students do something interesting outside their core studies but complementary to them, e.g. film studies, photography, creative writing. Very worthwhile but not requiring any scientific or medical knowledge to organise and teach.

@NecessaryScene

How can someone so educated be so dumb?

Well, given that she decided to go into a "meta" subject like "medical humanities" rather than something actually technical like medicine itself, it's fair to assume that she wasn't that bright to start with.

And if you're not terribly bright, or good at logic or critical thinking, so unable to distinguish sense from nonsense, then further education in a squishy subject could just end up exposing you to more nonsense, rather than overcoming your critical thinking problems.

Especially if it's in an institution which has decided ideology ("Social Justice") trumps Truth.

Given she started her undergraduate degree in 1968, she must be in her early 70s now, so would have avoided all the Queer Theory stuff, I'd have thought. Or did it get going as early as that?

I would surmise that Professor Playdon is actually pretty bright, or she wouldn't have the academic CV she has, given her age. However, it's entirely possible she has developed tunnel vision on this issue and her medical colleagues have not felt able to be brutally direct with her about the problems of conflating gender identity and physical medical conditions, for all the obvious reasons, which sadly are even affecting medical schools.

Who was the interviewer? Usually both Justin and Nick are on top of this.

The Christina Patterson review doesn't say anything about intersex or DSD, which suggests to me it's not mentioned in the book either. So who brought up intersex/DSD in the interview? Was it Playdon or the interviewer?

We have George Orwell's oeuvre ever before us to confirm that extended marination in lies, half truths, propaganda and gobbledegook can bamboozle even good minds. Once we lose precision of language, we endanger precision of thought. We are well on the way to losing precise definitions of a whole raft of really important words.

We all use words for logical thinking, analytical thinking, and if words go fuzzy we think fuzzily. We think with our feelings instead of our brains, just like small children.

Interviewer was Amal Rajan, @RoyalCorgi.
I've probably misspelt his name, I can't find it written down.

@RoyalCorgi

Who was the interviewer? Usually both Justin and Nick are on top of this.

The Christina Patterson review doesn't say anything about intersex or DSD, which suggests to me it's not mentioned in the book either. So who brought up intersex/DSD in the interview? Was it Playdon or the interviewer?

The bit I heard was Paydon, and it was something along the lines of:

'back then, what we now think of as trans people were viewed as intersex. Now we see/treat those things as the same'

I could be remembering this wrongly as I's just put the radio on so got it with no context whatsoever, causing me to nearly drive into a hedge.

The interviewer was Amol Rajan.

Just re-listening to some of it -

Interviewee:
"During that period, what we now call being trans was understood medically as an intersex condition, a natural variation of sex, which is where medicine's come back to now ..."

Listening now. Astonishing this got through her publisher's review process. She has totally conflated transgender identity with having a DSD. How can she be unaware that the vast majority of people now identifying as trans are unequivocally male or female?

I see from her Twitter feed it's going to be turned into a TV miniseries. Oh dear.

@oldwomanwhoruns

Just re-listening to some of it -

Interviewee:
"During that period, what we now call being trans was understood medically as an intersex condition, a natural variation of sex, which is where medicine's come back to now ..."

Yes! That's where I nearly hit the hedge.