Radio 4. Right now. Is freaking me out.

[OnePotPolly]

Transmen who want us all to accept that they are actual men. But they are a subset of men who can give birth to babies..
Which only women can do, in fact.

And still claim that they are men. After giving birth to babies. From their wombs.

And the presenter on R4 is actually going with it. And sympathising with the person that obviously men can give birth. Or is he just presenting it so that the audience can draw their own conclusions?

Whatever it is, it is winding me up no end. I have listened to R4 for the past 50 years - 50 YEARS!! every night without fail, while I potter about in the kitchen, tidying up and popping a bit of baking in the oven. I love radio 4, it has seen me through many traumas. Divorce, death of parents, death of sibling, permanently life altering illness of my child. Radio 4 has always been there as a stalwart support. A reality check. Reassurance that the rest of the world continues as normal - ordinary, normal even if it's bad news or a war between foreign nations. Right up to 1am and "Sailing By"

I love Sailing By. I find it, at the same time, both soothing and sad (because it's a reminder of times past)

But the shite that I've just listened to has totally wrecked it for me.
What a load of utter bollocks they have just allowed on air.

Unless they're just airing it to show how ludicrous and self absorbed some people can be. . . . .

Really hope that's what it turns out to be.

It’s an echo chamber. If you walked up to 95% of the British public right now, in a town centre they would tell you men can’t give birth.

”even link to evidence counter to the accepted wisdom that all trans = anti-women”

Isn’t this just the same old NAMALT / NAPALT type intervention though?

Not all transwomen are “anti-women,” just as not all men are abusers, not all Policemen are Wayne Couzens wannabes etc etc etc.

But a significant number demonstrate, time after time, that they are, or are very happy to stand next to those that are, whilst holding signs which advocate violence against women.

I work with 10 year olds with a greater level of maturity. And as a 50-something woman of colour, I’ve put up with more hate and hate speech than you will ever know, so your little strop is fairly meaningless. I fully understand what is hate, thanks. Concern for the welfare, health and legal rights of children and women is not it.

I love Mumsnet. One minute raging that men and women are exactly the same and any difference is just the patriarchy at work damn that evil patriarchy. The next minute raging that biology matters and why won't people see that.
Schrodinger's cat has nothing on this.

This is it. You couch it in ‘oh but we’re just debating’ but what happens is that anyone who disagrees is targeted.

I did not target you. I pointed out that you only had ad hominem attacks, which you have repeated here. You tried to discredit through fallacious argument. Are you able to respond in a way that adds to the discussion?

...just spreading hate - both about trans people and against anyone who dares to question your stance.

I don't see a lot of posters on here refusing to have their "stance" questioned. Well, maybe a few.

Who says exactly the same?

As in same biology?

I don’t think they do. Eg A female can play a sport and be excellent at football, it doesn’t mean they have to play with men.

Yes isn't it somewhere like Tehran that does the most sex change operations because the are so homophobic?

Yes. Check out the Iranian “women’s” football team. In some countries, transing, rather than being openly gay, is the only way to survive.

This is it. You couch it in ‘oh but we’re just debating’ but what happens is that anyone who disagrees is targeted. I’ve been likened to the twat who bludgeoned a fox to death because I defended the BBC on here.

No, you weren't. I jokingly posted 'Is that you, Jolyon?' because you sounded just like him. Talking down (to one particular poster consistently), ignoring what others were saying and boasting about your superior intellect.

Picking you up on it in an ironic way isn't targeting you. I was a comment based on what you'd written here and the way you'd said it. Which you went on to apologise for, recognising how arrogant you'd been.

Perhaps you didn’t, but there are at least 2 posts on this thread likening me to a fox killing bloke because I defended the BBC and Guardian. I haven’t put forward my views on trans because last time I tried to engage in any sort of debate, I was, again, attacked for no reason - even though, actually, I’m not a believer in gender stereotypes, so probably have quite a lot of common ground here. You do your cause no good at all because instead of engaging with facts, studies, evidence, you present half-truths. Like the women above who talks about the liberal states in the US and their dangerous pro-trans agenda, yet makes no mention of the 13+ who have banned any kind of trans health care for minors, leaving, according to one article I read (Telegraph, I think), tens of thousands without appropriate support - a move condemned by the medical institutes of the USA.

That’s why people accuse you of spreading hate - you won’t ever discuss or try to understand the other side.

Which ad hominem arguments have I put forward? I have only (until this point) responded to posters with links, facts and some questions pertaining to the readership of the Guardian.

Do I think people can change biological sex? No, as a scientist, I do not. But does that mean I don’t believe people are born transgender? No, it doesn’t. I fully believe there are people whose sense of self doesn’t align with their biological entity. Whether that sense of self is socially constructed or not doesn’t make a difference - these people need help now, not millennia from now when we’ve overthrown the patriarchy and done away with gender stereotyping. They need appropriate healthcare now. For some it will be physical interventions, for others it will be psychological.

Sure, it’s irony when you do it and arrogance and ‘picking on’ when I do it. I was debating with one poster because they were the ones I disagreed with. It was a back & forth. I did take the piss, which wasn’t fair, and I apologised. Then you jump in and are much nastier, and even now you double down.

They need appropriate healthcare now. For some it will be physical interventions, for others it will be psychological.
I agree they need help. But no children need surgical "help" especially as studies show that most children with dysphoria grow out of it. The problem is when hormonal and surgical therapies and unquestioning gender affirmation are the only routes allowed.

Honestly, that is not for me to decide - I am not a doctor. And unless you are an appropriately licensed medical professional with enough experience in the field, it’s not your call, either.

The problem with turning this into a culture war is that politicians will make rules according to votes, not professional expertise. See also the war on drugs.

I don't think you need to be a doctor to conclude that cutting up children for a "problem" which didn't exist ten years ago is fundamentally wrong. You just need to be a decent human being with a moral compass.

Are you actually saying that gender dysphoria didn't exist 10 years ago?

The banned trans healthcare you speak of is irreversible surgery and hormone therapy. And those legislators have listened to the many medical practitioners and detransitioners who have warned of the irreversible damage being done to children who are affirmed without question and set on a lifelong medical pathway - when the statistics for post puberty desisting, if a wait and see and talking therapy approach is used, is huge.

I disagree. I listen to experts and believe entirely that they are doing their best for the good of their patients. I don’t necessarily think they always get it right, and mistakes are made, but I don’t believe it’s some sort of massive conspiracy to erase women or gay people. And it’s ok for me to believe that.

except on Mumsnet where it’s the GC way or no way.

Bless your heart

On the contrary, I think it's very common and always has been. We didn't use to treat it through expensive surgeries or creating lifelong dependency on expensive drugs, though. I wonder why?

Which ad hominem arguments have I put forward? I have only (until this point) responded to posters with links, facts and some questions pertaining to the readership of the Guardian.

"Ad hominem is an argument strategy that focus on the person making an argument. This involves an attack on any aspect of the opponent’s personality, like their intelligence, reputation, or group affiliations. The attack can be subtle, such as casting doubt on a person’s character, or overt, like insulting someone."

You wrote: You guys are so far off the mark, it would be laughable, were you not such nasty vipers... you nasty hornets come stinging...I don’t want to be associated with the likes of the GC on MN. It’s rancid.

That is attacking the people, not the argument. I see the thread has moved on though.

I disagree with the shutting down debate comments. I posted upthread that I liked the Rylan series and thought it had successfully covered a range of different types of men, including Freddie. Nobody was rude or insulted me.

On another thread I posted that I thought it was OK to serialise Paris Lees' autobiography on TV given that it will appeal to some licence fee payers. One person said that they thought the BBC should be impartial. That was it. All very polite.

I listen to R4 a lot. I think there are some posters who don't - in my opinion - recognise that things have changed from the days when Radio 5 Live refused to have someone from Fair Play for Women on the Stephen Nolan show while interviewing a trans cyclist who had made threats to those who opposed to trans women competing in women's cycling. Other people will think that the changes are insufficient and I am fine with that. What I do know is that Radio 4 has lost a lot of listeners for various reasons, including its coverage of equality and representation in the media. They need to be open to discussions about why some existing people are switching off and why they can't attract a new generation of listeners.

Well the AMA & AAP have come out to say the bans will have damaging effects on mental health, depression and suicide. So how about we listen to them?

No, bless my scientific education and years of field experience. This is my head talking, not my heart.

Only after I was attacked.

except it wasn’t an attack when it was at me, it was irony.

Just so I’m clear, it’s ok to liken someone you (wrongly, as it happens) assume to be anti-GC to someone capable of bashing an animal’s head in but not ok to call the people who make that attack a viper. Got it.

Classic MN