Grace Lavery on Woman’s Hour Today (7 April)

[CaveMum]

Why on earth I do not know, but the “delightful” Grace Lavery is on Woman’s Hour today.

This Grace Lavery

What a piece of luck that GL's moment of true gender revelation and spiritual journey began in a hot tub. Uncannily like a baptism. All those cleansing, birthing and religious associations. Such a great visual picture to be able to paint. So lucky the moment didn't occur when GL was putting the bins out or renewing the car insurance.

[quote CrossPurposes]@LittleSnakes Daniel used to be Mallory Ortberg. There is a Wikipedia page.[/quote]
Oh I remember reading Mallory Ortberg when she used to do the problem page on Slate.com.
Decent writer, but then went a little bit odd on trans issues in the problem page for about a year before officially becoming Danny. I remember one person worrying about getting 'Terf Bangs' cut into her hair being a particular low point. Apparently Terf Bangs are a fringe, rather than me clicking my tongue and doing a finger bang at you.

Bat shit crazy

Grace Lavery is trending on Twitter now.

Even in the misogyny cesspit the tide has turned.

Apparently Terf Bangs are a fringe

There always, always has to be a label
and a costume
and a badge
and a flag
and rules
and stereotypes
Little boxes made out of tickytacky and they all look just the same.

@CriticalCondition

What a piece of luck that GL's moment of true gender revelation and spiritual journey began in a hot tub. Uncannily like a baptism. All those cleansing, birthing and religious associations. Such a great visual picture to be able to paint. So lucky the moment didn't occur when GL was putting the bins out or renewing the car insurance.

Or on the toilet, or queuing at the Post Office.

I'm imagining that at the very moment of troo realisation the sun came out from behind a cloud and a chorus of birds began to sing.

So insensed I have written to complain.

Possibly all a bit Naked Venus Rising From the Water?

I said Venus.

I really, really don't like what I see of GL's treatment of their spouse, it's horrible. And also banging on about being a pervert. It's this weird paradigm where it would be so bigoted and transphobic to find anything about a trans person peverted or morally doubtful, that whatever they do it must not be questioned or seen as bad, because that would be transphobia.

So when se see GL boasting about forcing DL to do bodily things against DL's will and openly claiming to be a pervert and clearly being penis-obsessed, we're all supposed to go "oh what admirable queerness" and pretend we understand. Thus GL can just carry on in plain sight plus have a top job and be a pillar of the community.

If it was a bogstandard bloke wanging on endlessly about his penis and openly admitting to being a pervert, then posting about abusing his female partner, people would just call the police.

Venus envy?

@Deliriumoftheendless

Possibly all a bit Naked Venus Rising From the Water?

I said Venus.

Yes, I also had that picture in mind. All flowing hair and a carefully placed hand.

@MoonOnASpoon

I really, really don't like what I see of GL's treatment of their spouse, it's horrible. And also banging on about being a pervert. It's this weird paradigm where it would be so bigoted and transphobic to find anything about a trans person peverted or morally doubtful, that whatever they do it must not be questioned or seen as bad, because that would be transphobia.

So when se see GL boasting about forcing DL to do bodily things against DL's will and openly claiming to be a pervert and clearly being penis-obsessed, we're all supposed to go "oh what admirable queerness" and pretend we understand. Thus GL can just carry on in plain sight plus have a top job and be a pillar of the community.

If it was a bogstandard bloke wanging on endlessly about his penis and openly admitting to being a pervert, then posting about abusing his female partner, people would just call the police.

Yes.

It's also nothing new for (some!) academics to talk deliberately opaque waffle studded with vague snatches of references. The point of it is being incomprehensible. So you will fool some people who will suspect the failure is with their comprehension, rather than with the person doing the queerwaffle gishgallop.

I think this is what Nussbaum's essay on Butler pretty much said, wasn't it?

@Deliriumoftheendless

Possibly all a bit Naked Venus Rising From the Water?

I said Venus.

As an aside, I wonder if FWR's contrary regulars listened and found wisdom and insight in Grace's monologue? They must be thrilled to have so much prime airtime given to a representative of their cause, and for that person to be allowed to speak with such little interruption.

Couldn't resist asking my 'drunk on the trans kool aid' family member who I know listens to woman's hour what they thought.

Apparently there was a trans woman on who talked a lot of sense.

There's no hope for them...

Yes, and is there anyone previously on the fence, wondering what it's all about who listened to that and is now thinking, oh yes Grace, you've nailed it for me, I see now, TWAW totally.
Don't all rush at once.

I think he should consider himself lucky that academia exists at all because he'd find it damn hard to get a such a prominent gig anywhere outside the closed, fawning environment he's cosseted and protected within now

Oh absolutely this.

Lavery dare not step outside the bubble, which is he ran with such speed from the debate with Helen Joyce.

Gender critical people want the government to license womanhood

Erm...isn't that what trans activists already lobbied for and got in the form of the GRA?

I really don't think that was us.

Who thinks it's inappropriate to give a platform to a person who has told us, without a specific statement but with photos and a book, that performing femininity is arousing?

I feel that interview was conducted with one of them getting rather more out of it than the other.

I feel sullied by the BBC making me listen to GL wang on about GL's wang. I turned the radio off once I clocked that, but, it's still a bit, just ugh.

Thanks to those academics who've posted on this thread. Interesting but depressing insights.

I want to pick up on this from a few pages back.

I mean, how could you debate someone like this? There's just nothing to get hold of. It's all meaningless and so far removed from any kind of reality (the stuff about feminists not caring about sex-based rights until Caitlyn Jenner appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair??) that there's really not much to say but 'bollocks', repeatedly.

You're right. Much of what gl said just isn't true. That's the problem with it. You can't really pick up a point and discuss, or come from a different angle, becsuse the basic thing she's saying is not true. So the only answer would be to say no that's bollocks and then state something that we do believe. But that's not really a discussion. T would be interesting to find out if there is common ground but it sounds like there's hardly any common ground.

I expect its true that the phrase 'sex based rights' didn't occur before 2015. There wasn't much need for it. The phrase/slogan is a response to the type of thing that lavery is saying now - that woman as a category based on sex is a histrical novelty, a new invention. That's why we are having to talk more about sex. Women's rights were understood to be the rights belonging to the female sex but ppl didn't feel the need to spell it out, because that's what was understood by the word woman. It's so dishonest and a catch 22 at the same time.

I loved Grace telling us how to be feminists or as one pp put it 'telling us we're womenning wrong'. Hilarious

Oh, and if you do want to spend more time transcribing, please do! Its interesting to see these things written down. And in 12 months it will disappear from iplayer (I think,).