BBC R4 A Ghastly Mistake

[Davros]

I haven't listened but saw this in the Radio Times where it is described as a Trabsgender story although, from what I can gather, it's about someone with a DSD. Anyone brave enough to listen and tell me? I might kick the radio

I heard some of it when I was driving on Saturday afternoon and wondered if anyone else had listened. I was hoping there would be a thread as I hadn't been able to hear all of it, and (as so often with R4 these days) what I did hear seemed so batshit bonkers that I thought I must have missed something. (Sadly, experience shows this isn't usually the case.)

It seemed to be the story of someone with a DSD, who had been brought up as female but identified as male, and went through a court case to claim they were entitled to inherit a title and estate on the grounds of having undescended testes. The really ridiculous and offensive thing was that this historical story was interwoven with contemporary sound bites from trans people talking about their experiences of coming out, realising they were trans etc etc. Which had precisely the square root of fuck all to do with having a DSD, but was a neat bit of trojan horsery.

It was also, as radio dramas go, pretty rubbish. And the actor that played the lead - an outwardly female person who wished to be considered male - was played by a male. (I didn't hear the ending as I arrived at where I was going so I don't know if they won the case or not, but was done with the whole thing long before that point.)

This case was discussed at length on here a couple of years ago when it was in the news - it’s well worth reading the thread and especially the linked Twitter threads, if they’re still working. They're illuminating, to put it mildly.

I just read a BBC article which says Frances Barbour was in it. She’s openly gender critical. I wonder if she knew about the interwoven testimonies.

Sorry, OP, I haven’t listened. The case sounds interesting in itself. It’s a pity it’s now all about trans and not just being dramatized or reported on in a neutral way.

I llistened to this by mistake. ie I left the radio on.

And would have found the (true) story really interesting (in a BBC luvvie sort of way) if they hadn't ruined it by interspersing it with comments from today some of which were cut in a way that is misleading. ie having a man talking about how in the past if he had been seen wearing a dress he would be arrested. That wasn't anything to do with being trans but the presumption he was a homosexual which was illegal at the time.

Moreover (if no one minds spoilers) the case wasn't anything to do with trans, but about a person who are the time was referred to as being an hermaphrodite. I suspect today they would have got a better diagnosis.

However whatever their biological reality the point of the story was as much about the main character not wanting the family home to go a distant male (considered not quite the thing) and that they were in love with a woman.

And by the end virtually admitted to lying so as to be able to inherit the estate and get married to a woman.

If was if anything much more about sexism ie that a woman couldn't inherit, and that the main character registered as a girl at birth actually preferred more "male" pastimes and clothes.

In other words the trans narrative that is now imposed on everything confined what the play could have covered into the straight jacket of trans.

I was so irritated that i nearly created a thread, and then thought its the BBC what else can you expect!

(Will have a look at the other thread)

By the way I used "they" for the main character because from the court transcripts there was quite a lot of detail from various medical professionals, and I didn't catch everything that was said but in fact someone with more medical knowledge than I might be able to get a better idea of what the diagnosis would have been today.

But going back to the storyline, it ends up with the main character feeling guilt because one of the reasons the court case was won was the wife was persuaded to lie.

So how anyone can have that as an element of the story and say its a positive story about trans is baffling.

They main problem with this play was that it was supposed to be a true story but its content and presentation had been ideologically enhanced. So at the end of it you were left with the impression you'd most likely been misled but without being able to sort out fact from fiction. For those in the audience aware of this, this makes for a very unsatisfactory listening experience.

It wasn't helped by modern day testimonies from trans people, some of whom are somewhat dodgy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001ng3x

Also, what was the "Ghastly Mistake" of the title? Was it (unlikely) that the good people, ie the "transman" and trans ally, had been forced to lie because otherwise the baronetcy would have gone to the "bad man" relative or was it (likely) that the "transman" had been "born in the wrong body"?

what was the "Ghastly Mistake"

The main character said that about being born female / registered as female.

The play totally missed the opportunity to look at being of either sex and gender non conforming.

And men having the right to inherit.

I looked at the wikipedia entry and I would say it has been recently changed to suit the trans narrative.

I dont know if there is an earlier book or documentary which records the facts without the spin.

I didn’t hear the play, but I followed all the controversy about this case when it blew up a couple of years ago because it was so weirdly fascinating, so I can imagine what it’s alleging.

If you scroll down the thread I linked to earlier, there’s a very thorough and interesting article by someone called Dave Hewitt which fills in the details of what’s going on here.

He also comments that the relevant Wiki page was altered to present one version of events and then repeatedly re-altered every time anyone tried to edit it. Someone who represented themselves as a member of Ewan Forbes’ family subsequently left a note pleading for people not to ‘disseminate political & ideological ideas’. But the altered version stands and insists that Forbes was a transman who, thanks to a ‘secret’ case, was sensationally allowed to inherit the title and estates which would otherwise have gone to his (male) cousin. If you read the Dave Hewitt article it’s pretty clear that this just isn’t true. Forbes was born with a DSD and incorrectly registered as female at birth. He was always male. The case wasn’t ‘secret’, it was reported at the time.

(Actually I’ve just looked at that Wiki page myself and it’s worth reading the ‘talk’ section, where someone points all this out - despite someone else trying to dispute it)

Thanks I didn't have time to go through the old thread but have found the article by Dave Hewitt. Very interesting.
https://www.voidifremoved.co.uk/p/the-curious-case-of-ewan-forbes

. . . If activists can demonstrate that Ewan Forbes was a transsexual and that Lord Hunter knew, but considered “psychological sex” to be a determinant factor in permitting a change of birth certificate, then they hope to build a case that anyone who can claim a “mismatch” between the “sex-of-the-mind” and “sex-of-the-body”, can claim to be a “kind of intersex”, just like Ewan Forbes, and have their birth certificate “corrected”.

This is the key argument Playdon puts forward in The Hidden Case of Ewan Forbes

All of which is in contrast not only to the established law on permitting a change in birth certificate but also to Lord Hunter’s stated opinion in the transcript: "I am far from saying, to take an example, that a finding that the psychological sex of an individual was male would ever justify a conclusion that a person was legally a male"

This whole line of argument is not only a gross misappropriation of people who are actually intersex, it is also wrong in law, and as biologically essentialist as it gets. . . .

Worth reading the whole arguement as it also illustrates the (hidden) networks that have allowed trans activists to capture policy makers.

Richelieu · Yesterday 22:42
This case was discussed at length on here a couple of years ago when it was in the news - it’s well worth reading the thread and especially the linked Twitter threads, if they’re still working. They're illuminating, to put it mildly.
Page 6 | Radio 4 just now (8.47) bonkers conflation of intersex and trans | Mumsnet
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 challeng...
https

This thread is worth reading. There were lots of details.

As I remember the DSD was probably a sleight of hand and really Ewan was born a female.

Apparently Ewan Forbes was very much respected and liked as a doctor and neighbour (one poster may have been a neighbour).

I listened to most of this whilst driving (so not paying full attention). The version that was being presented was that Forbes was claiming to have internal testes, but that a physical examination did not suggest this to be the case. I think the court document said something like "no testicles were found, but a cavity much like a vagina was observed" or something a bit like that.

It also said that Forbes was 5'2", which looks very likely from photos with their mother, and which would be very unlikely (though obviously still possible) for a male.

Scrolling As far as I understand from the various links on that thread, from the very well-researched Dave Hewitt article, and from a similarly good Twitter thread by the excellent Barbara Rich at the time, the claims that Forbes was female don't really add up. What is undeniable is that the court case ruled that Forbes had a DSD but that he was ultimately male.

@Richelieu Today 20:43

Scrolling As far as I understand from the various links on that thread, from the very well-researched Dave Hewitt article, and from a similarly good Twitter thread by the excellent Barbara Rich at the time, the claims that Forbes was female don't really add up. What is undeniable is that the court case ruled that Forbes had a DSD but that he was ultimately male.

From the old thread, & if you can read the Times Review screen shot. That’s where I saw about the faked undescended testicle biopsy.

ScrollingLeaves · 12/11/2021 09:57
“TeamRex
That article seems to have taken the line that in the past, pre 1970, people could simply "correct" their birth certificate. That was apparently fine until their sex was questioned in law. “

I have not read the book but heard the programme and read a good review.

It seems that in order for the court to decide in his favour, so he could change his birth certificate and inherit the title, Forbes faked a biopsy of a supposedly undescended testicle, to prove that his sex had been mistaken at birth and he was really a man. That is to say, he proved to the court that he had a DSD. (He could not have simply identified as a man.)

So I don’t think that prior to 1970 a person could self identify and then change their birth certificate.

Anyone listening to the radio though would have had the idea that someone with a genuine DSD, and someone who identifies with the opposite gender, are the same.

Also from the old thread and related :

ScrollingLeaves · 12/11/2021 10:26
It looks from another case, Michael Dillon b.1915, that if a doctor signed a note saying the person had a DSD (also called ‘intersex’) meaning the person’s real sex had been mistaken at birth, they could change the birth certificate.

From looking at this Wikipedia article quoted
below, Michael Dillon did not actually have a DSD ( he was trans gender) but a doctor helped him by writing a letter for him so he could change his birth certificate.

His Oxford University college St Anne’s, which he had attended as a woman, was also changed to Brasenose College later when he was living as a man, at the behest of his old tutor.

From Wikipedia
“While in the Royal Infirmary recovering from the second of these attacks [hypoglaecemia] he happened to come to the attention of one of the world's few practitioners of plastic surgery. The surgeon performed a double mastectomy, provided Dillon with a doctor's note that enabled him to change his birth certificate, and put him in contact with the pioneering plastic surgeon Harold Gillies.[3]

Gillies had previously reconstructed penises for injured soldiers and performed surgery on intersex people with ambiguous genitalia. He was willing to perform a phalloplasty, “

Its highly likely that Forbes was as much female as male.

And even in the play it was made clear the motivation to get a male birth certificate was to be able to marry a woman AND inherit.

That's why the play could have been much more interesting in investigating attitudes. As so many of us on FWR have said of ourselves as youngsters we were more interested in what were said to be male persuits. And train to be a doctor.

Added to which was the internalised homophobia. This thread hasn't mentioned the sister who was really clear Forbes was female, and it turns out happily lesbian. But Forbes seemed to have had this "inverse" notion of homosexuality a bit like Radclyffe Hall and Daphne du Maurier that it was the maleness in them that made them attracted to other women, rather than being able to just be lesbian / bisexual.

And of course an even greater influence was the snobbery of not wanting a person the immidiate family thought totally unsuitable to inherit.

And even the play said that the court case was won partly on the basis of lies told by Forbes wife re having sex.

As far as I can see this story isn't about trans at all, but about existing prejudices of the time re babies that were then defined as hermaphradite, females supposedly only liking feminine things, being same sex attracted.

I cant be bothered to listen to it again, but there was quite a lot of medical detail in the court hearing from transcipts of the actual hearing, but as David Hewitt said no one thought to question whether the doctors providing the results of tests were not themselves conspiring.

Forbes had already changed his birth certificate when he got married in 1952. The court case wasn’t till the 1960s, and only happened because he inherited the title and his cousin challenged it. @IwantToRetire where did you get the info about Forbes's views on maleness? I haven’t seen that before, I’d be interested to read it.

It's interesting how we all remember this differently, though - I’ve gone back now and re-read the Sarah Ditum review. I'm pretty sure she picked up immediately what Zoe Playdon was trying to do in her book: pushing the narrative that 'transsexuals' had always had the right to quietly 'correct' their birth certificates - basically self ID - and that it was hushed up, meaning that 'right' was then 'lost'.

But it wasn’t - the various Twitter threads at the time went into this really thoroughly. The case wasn’t shrouded in unusual secrecy and the narrative that Forbes faked the medical samples he was required to give is just speculation. The letter from his sister that Ditum mentions is cited in the book but there’s nothing to prove that what she said was actually true. Dave Hewitt says: Playdon’s theory that Forbes was transsexual, not intersex, is unverifiable. The suggestion that examiners were fooled by exogenous hormone treatment starting in adolescence along with testicular material that was falsely obtained is pure conjecture.

I will listen to the play, though, because I’m very curious as to what spin they put on it!

IwantToRetire · Today 00:24
Your post has very interesting points.

Re:
This thread hasn't mentioned the sister who was really clear Forbes was female, and it turns out happily lesbian

It says this in the 2021 article I posted which is a screen shot of the photo of the article. I now see that unfortunately the screen shot version seems illegible.

These are blown up sections of the relevant paragraphs about what Forbes’s sister said, and about the false undescended testicle result:

I think at one time doctors assumed feelings of being the other sex must be endocrinological in origin and valid on that basis.

Re Those screen shots I posted. They are excerpts from,

“The hidden trial of the trans aristo” Sarah Ditum
The Times December 2021
About the book by Zoe Playdon

It also taxed Ewans other family relationships. His sister Margaret (herself a lesbian) wrote a letter in support of John's [cousin with male claim to the title] , testifying that Ewan had been a girl, albeit one who went through the phase (as I did myself, and so many girls do) of their wanting to be a boy"

But Ewan fought back hard. In what can only be called a ballsy ploy, he faked a biopsy on himself and claimed to have extracted tissue from an I descended testicle. This was as Playdon says, “a Scientific impossibility”. None the less the court ruled in Ewan's favour.

I don’t think the college stuff can be true . St Anne’s was a home study institute way after the time when he/she would have been a student. It wasn’t granting degrees at that time, so completely different from Brasenose , which has been a full college since 1509. I don’t think you can retrospectively change colleges, anyway, at that time you matriculated in your college. You would not be in the College rolls, ‘Tutor’ or no.

Demonstrated by the St Anne’s Website, ‘Since 1952 it has been a full College of the University of Oxford’.

This is just another example of the Procrustes Bed attitude to history, chopping bits off and stretching out others to fit a different narrative.

This discussion illustrates why the play is such an unsatisfactory listen. There are competing and conflicting versions of what happened and the play picks and mixes the bits the playwright found (seemingly ideologically) attractive and adds fiction to turn it into something rounded (but not true).

A documentary about the conflicting narratives would have been a far better thing to put before the audience.

My comments are about the Radio 4 play.

ie even limiting itself to the issues raised in the dialogue, if it hadn't been skewed by trans bias, it could have looked at very different "explanations" for what had happened.

So I am saying quite bluntly that the play was totally dubious, and shocking that the BBC decided to use it.

For those not so familiar with the tricks and sleight of hand of the trans narrative would have assumed intersex and being trans are the same thing. A man with underdeveloped male organs was treated badly.

Whereas it could have been about a Scottish Anne Lister, who used their status as part of the landed gentry to allow them to take on male behaviour to allow the primary need for a male birth certificate to marry another woman, and later (when Forbes feared being exposed which is why the wife lied) to retain the family estate.

The fact that the family have had to ask people on wikipedia to stop speculately and attempting to politicise a family story is bad enough, but worse that the BBC have joined in and spread the false narrative further.

Allthegoodnamesarechosen · Today 13:52

Re:
b.Laura Maud 1915 d. Michael Dillon 1962

I don’t think the college stuff can be true . St Anne’s was a home study institute way after the time when he/she would have been a student. It wasn’t granting degrees at that time, so completely different from Brasenose , which has been a full college since 1509. I don’t think you can retrospectively change colleges, anyway, at that time you matriculated in your college. You would not be in the College rolls, ‘Tutor’ or no.

Demonstrated by the St Anne’s Website, ‘Since 1952 it has been a full College of the University of Oxford’.

This is just another example of the Procrustes Bed attitude to history, chopping bits off and stretching out others to fit a different narrative.

It is true apparently if you read this is from St Anne’s College Oxford itself, in connection to an exhibition there about Dillon.

He did study at St Anne’s when it was a home study institute then you see it was also true that :

Following the intervention of a supportive tutor at Oxford he was able to have his name entered on the books of Brasenose College, an all-male college, rather than at the women-only Society of Oxford Home-Students. This allowed him to apply to medical schools and he was accepted into Trinity College, Dublin to begin his studies.

.Michael Dillon: A Biographical Exhibition - St Anne's College, Oxford

https://www.st-annes.ox.ac.uk/life-here/library/blog/michael-dillon/