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.

Yes I heard it.
By the way there was also a review of the book last weekend somewhere if any one else saw that?

I was shocked by the conflation going unchallenged. In the original case Ewan Forbes was granted the status of a man on the basis that that was what he really was but for the fact that DSD had caused him to be mistaken for a girl at birth.

On the today programme it was presented as though all trans gender people are in the same position.

There was a review in The Sunday Times ScrollingLeaves:

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

I've always respected Amol, but today, even the introduction had me yelling at the car radio.

Here's a fascinating bit of social history. Ewan Forbes was born Elizabeth Forbes to a wealthy land owning family in 1912. It quickly became clear that the gender applied to him at birth was not correct, and from the age of six he began to see specialists in Europe for help thanks to his family's financial means, Ewan was able to procure synthetic hormones. and live as a man he was even able to correct the gender on his birth certificate and marry.

Why does the Beeb pussyfoot over using the word Sex?

@nauticant
Thank you for finding the review.

Might it be worth writing to the Tiday programme? If so how would put it so as come across in such a way as they would listen.

I had the impression the presenter was fully taken in somehow.

Conflation is absolutely deliberate
There is nothing stupid about Professor Playdon. All of her words were very carefully chosen and here arguments were very carefully constructed to highlight trans issues and call for changes to the GRA whilst ignoring any possible affects on women. What I found particularly galling was the example Prof Palydon gave of unfair treatment received by some trans people convicted of trivial crimes like non-payment of parking fines being sent to wrong sex prisons where trans women were raped. This is exactly the kind of thing that self-id is facilitating now in women's prisons: unscrupulous male-bodied prisoners some of whom have been convicted of sexual assault and other violent crimes against women are claiming to be trans women in order to serve their sentences in women's prisons. This is putting women in those prisons at grave risk and could be very traumatising for those who have been victims of such crimes.

I write by email to the today prog all the time - why wouldn't you if you have an opinion to voice.
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qj9z/contact

Why does the Beeb pussyfoot over using the word Sex?
because they've been overly influenced by Stonewall. Listen to Nolan Investigates Stonewall and you'll find out exactly why the BBC and many public bodies pussyfoot over using the word 'sex' .

unfair treatment received by some trans people convicted of trivial crimes like non-payment of parking fines

My understanding from the recent WPUK event was that men in general are less likely to be imprisoned for non-payment of fines.

Some recent judgments indicate that some transitioning people are not receiving custodial sentences or being shown considerable leniency relative to other people who are convicted of such similar, serious offences.

There was also a less sympathetic review by Sarah Ditum in the Times:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-hidden-case-of-ewan-forbes-by-zoe-playdon-review-3w2s7zlnn

The article says he was a debutante was a debutante in 1930 “ sprouting chin and chest hair from hormone treatments”.
As other posters have said hormones were only just being synthesised. I read testosterone was not isolated till 1935. I wonder what hormones he was taking then?

It says “he faked a biopsy on himself and claimed to have extracted tissue from an undescended testicle and the court ruled in his favour. This was as Playdon said a scientific impossibility”

The court ruled on the basis of DSD.

Do you suppose he may have been just trans gender?

That was Sarah Ditum’s review I was referencing as I happened to have the actual Times Saturday Review it was in.

I have not been able to read the Sunday Times one posted by Nauticant.

From the Times Saturday Review, by Sarah Ditum

Last part of the review by Sarah Ditum in the Times Saturday Review

I heard this and it was utterly ENRAGING! The author is trans btw. I am not allowed to say their sex, but you can guess. They are very involved in GIRES, the trans lobby group. This book is a prime example of trans activists transing the dead, and this time transing an intersex person. It was especially enraging as there was no opposing view (biased BBC), and the author was allowed to get away with pretending Forbes was 'trans' when he was actually someone with a DSD (commonly known as intersex), completely unchallenged. The whole interview was a propaganda piece, and was full of easily disproved lies. Shame on the BBC. I will be complaining (again)

Sun kisses
Will you be writing to the BBC about the misleading information sensationally conveyed?

I am not very good at writing succinct, calm, effective criticisms and would welcome some pointers.

Is there any real evidence that Forbes had a DSD condition? The evidence for this mentioned in the reviews of the book sounds rather dodgy.

committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/16594/pdf/

“nauticant
Is there any real evidence that Forbes had a DSD condition? The evidence for this mentioned in the reviews of the book sounds rather dodgy.“

The evidence does sound dodgy.

I do think though that it would seem that the court’s decision was based on the premise of Forbes having a DSD condition, and that it had been a mistake to think he was a female.

Therefore, the idea that this story should represent the legitimacy of all trans people to be treated exactly as though they are the other sex, is a misleading conflation.

Yes, and Either way it's misleading.

If Ewan was trans, it's a conflation of the two subjects and twisting of history to describe him as having a dsd.

If he had a dsd it's conflation.

Therefore, the idea that this story should represent the legitimacy of all trans people to be treated exactly as though they are the other sex, is a misleading conflation.

An example of hard cases make bad law. Especially if the case in question was based on fraudulent evidence.

www.thebookseller.com/profile/zo-playdon-i-think-i-m-probably-hopeless-optimist-i-believe-ultimately-goodness-people

Although Professor Playdon’s field of expertise is medecine in the humanities, if you read this in the Book Seller, she makes reference to that false scientific idea that we are all female at gestation.

Medicine

I read a book called 'The First Manmade Man' about Michael Dillon, who was 'the first woman on record to take testosterone with the intention of changing sex'. Dillon was born in 1915 and transitioned in 1938. Dillon also came from a aristocratic family and managed to change his name in Burke's Peerage and subsequently inherit a baronetcy.

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”.

WTF? She think Carl Linnaeus caused the slave trade and the holocaust by systemising taxonomy?

Interesting from Amol, who nominated JK Rowling’s essay for his Russel award so is presumably aware of this stuff.