Hollyoaks - well this is creepy!

[Imnobody4]

This is an important conversation to have #Hollyoaks

https://twitter.com/Flashmaggie/status/1765511265076613611?t=DMjXSrOUX7zq5tzRgsRGEA&s=19

Spot on. This is an example of a (self identified) member of a group of people whose behaviour cannot be criticised.

FFS!

My EYEBALLS!!!!!

😧😧😬

I already said I experienced (mild) sexual abuse as a teenager.

Then we have something in common, though in my case it was an older woman. It started no worse than what’s shown in the video clip. Fortunately for us both, it didn’t progress anywhere near as far as it might have done. It was still disturbing, affected me for years, and probably had something to do with relational problems during those years.

That clip reminded me of the power relationship while the abuse was going on, and how I was trapped for a while unable to escape, liking the attention but knowing it was being expressed in a dangerous and deeply uncomfortable way. Both of us at times were pushing our own boundaries, I believe, but in the end the boundaries held before the much worse damage that could have occurred. This is why I have huge problems with Queer Theory, which blurs and weakens boundaries. Sometimes boundaries are arguably a bit too restrictive, but on the whole I think that’s better than boundaries which are too loose.

Had this scene been a woman's male boss stood behind a woman for 28 seconds in the staff tea room running his hands up and down her shoulders and arms telling her if she had any problems at work then he was there to help most people would see that for what it was.

Precisely.

Struck me that they weren't having the conversation that was important to have. They were having a dangerous, one-sided conversation.

They conversation the child should have been having, with their parents, would have involved a lot more discussion of what exactly was upsetting the child, what being a girl or a boy meant to her, what she wanted to change in her life. And a lot more questioning and listening both.

and if they were going to have a conversion it would have been slightly less alarming if they had been filmed sat across from each other at a table having a cup of tea, whilst the grown man said tho the little girl "it's not appropriate to have this conversation with me, you need to talk to your parents. Don't worry it will be fine" then that would have been OK. But the way it was done is all kinds of wrong.

@ForCoralFox

Do you genuinely, honestly believe that the significant difference between men and women is that they think differently? Then men and women actually have different types of minds? That the long history of men abusing, marginalising and disempowering women was nothing to do with the bodies all the people on the receiving end happened to have but a reaction to their womanly minds?

Because I cannot imagine anything more breathtakingly sexist and dismissive of women's experiences as human beings than to reduce us to just a set of mental traits wrongly associated in the past with our sex.

I have been pondering this. This latest swivel on this thread shows just how safeguarding fails happen.

Someone analysing a person’s action by breaking down the components to show the reality vs a dishonest misrepresention is portrayed as a negative act worthy of disparagement. Meaning a person should be deterred from trying to assess a situation by stating the facts (the actions, removing the emotional cladding) and cutting through the emotionally charged potential motivations attributed to the actions (just giving comfort… nothing to see).

’Comfort’ could have been given many other ways in this instance. The actions were led by the adult. They weren’t a reaction to spontaneous actions from the child. The child was passive at the time. By that I mean, it wasn’t like the child spontaneously acted causing the adult to touch that child. If you see what I mean. ‘Comfort’ is the ascribed motivation that when used hinders the clarity that merely stating the actions give.

This was not a passing squeeze on the shoulder lasting a second but keeping bodies distant. This was an adult male standing close behind a child running both hands from shoulder to mid upper arm on that child for 28 seconds while speaking softly in their ear. 28 seconds is nearly half a minute.

The belief that this analysis is obsessive behaviour, and negative to some, is what leads some people to avoid that very basic analysis that seeks to remove obfuscating emotional aspects.

Because some people value being seen as ‘kind’ and seek to avoid being seen as ‘obsessive’ leads to safeguarding failures.

A real feminist sees women as whole people, equal in every way to men, and doesn't define us by what body parts we have, or as different in some way because of them.

That's a version of 'womanhood' only a transwoman would invent.

Minimising physical differences between men and women is rule number one. (Hence chest feeding and birthing parent.)

A woman's sex can't be based on female biological characteristics because how can a man be one in that case?

Also, you'd have to ask the 'real feminist' in this scenario that if women are physically identical to men, why are they oppressed? And, btw, how do you feel about erasing decades of feminist analysis ? 😁

I genuinely believe a lot of male people claim they are 'feminist' on the basis that they fancy women.

A real feminist sees women as whole people, equal in every way to men, and doesn't define us by what body parts we have, or as different in some way because of them.

Thing is, even if this new definition of womanhood is "true", whatever "truth" means in the context of arbitrarily redefining words, female people still exist. Whether you believe "woman" is the right word for the people with our bodies or not, we still suffered historic marginalisation and disempowerment because of our bodies. We are still subject to bias, discrimation and abuse because of how society reacts to our bodies, the cultural myths it still promotes about people with our bodies.

In my mind there are two groups: the people with female bodies historically called women, and the people of both sexes with self-identified female feelings that TRAs believe should be called women instead.

To kerp this neutral I'll call the first group B (for body) and the second F (for feeling).

Both groups exist. I have nothing against the Fs existing, being visible and finding bonds of support and meaning in their shared identity.

And they are not mutually exclusive. Plenty, maybe most Fs are also Bs. Not everyone the TRAs would label "cis women" in reality identify as Fs but plenty do and that is OK.

So, two overlapping groups of people.

But Bs are the people who were traditionally called women. All the things that happened to women in history, and the protections , spport and mitigations that women campaigned for because of them, happened to them because they were Bs not Fs.

So while Fs have every right to exist and self define as a meaningful social group, when TRAs appropriate the name Woman for Fs they are committing an injustice on Bs, not because the syllables "woman" are somehow intrinsically linked to any particular meaning but because the real world history of Bs was lived under the that name.

Whether by malice or narrow mindedness, trans activism is campaigning to unname Bs as a social, legal and political group.

The history of what happened to Bs, who it happened to and why it happened, and what that means for Bs ability to recognise and resist what it still happening to them today, is unwritten. The history and current reality of Bs is not the history and current reality of Fs. The rights that were created to support and empower Bs were not created to support and empower Fs.

So when TRAs campaign to take the word Woman from Bs and give it to Fs, they are campainging for a group who undeniably has suffered and continues to suffer marginalisation and abuse simply because of their bodies to lose their language, their history and the special rights ad protections they have because of their historic marginalisation.

Do you understand this @ForCoralFox ? This fight for the word woman is not about denying how trans women feel aboit themselves or "defining" us by our body parts. It is about keeping the rights of the roughly half of humanity who are female bodied to their own history, their own stories, their own self knowledge and the rights they contine to need because of the ways their bodies and their lived experiences because of their bodies are different to male.

Trans women exist but they are not Bs. They are not women. Fs exist. Now they meed to find their own name and start to write their own history.

Separating womanhood from body is purely and solely to enable men to perform it.

Thank you for this eloquent description 🙏

This.

Yes.

And as Flirts has also described.

And as was described on another thread in answer to foxs’ question about why letting male people access female single sex spaces is misogynistic. Plus past clarifications about discrimination.

One thing is for sure. When Fox comes along readers get to see the effort some of us take to reply or to correct misrepresentations or falsehoods. Which are sadly simply dismissed with no engagement by fox. Who will then use many tactics such as deflection, distraction, whatabouerty, and emotional manipulation to prop up their position.

The end result though is that it all comes down to leveraging male people into the terms ‘girl’ or ‘woman’ is a misogynistic act because the outcome is harmful to female people.

I found a site for seeing the follow up Hollyoaks episodes to this one.

It turns out the transwoman character is shown to be like a benign loving fairy godmother/older cousin in little Rose’s life. He seems to be staying with her family. He and Rose give each other lots of hugs. He has nothing but her best interests at heart, and he is the only person she can talk to.

After Rose tells her parents she is a boy, and the transwoman speaks to her parents to back Rose up, the dad reacts with fury saying Rose was all right before the transwoman started on about gender stuff.

At this the transwoman replies that Rose has known she was a boy “for years” and if the parents want to go on seeing Rose, they had better accept “him” as “he” is. Young people now are much more “open”. The dad is a “dinosaur”.

The dad tells the transwoman to leave their house. But Mum tells Dad they must get the him back in order to help Rose.

He comes back and Rose is happy. The parents are happy too now and going to manage somehow.

The message to the audience ( teen) is that it is normal to be transgender, if you are a young girl it is normal to be coached in your transgender journey as a boy by an older man identifying as a woman.

Only nasty parents who are dinosaurs would refuse to affirm you or love your real self.

I have read that Channel 4/Hollyoaks prides itself on tackling important social issues of the day. Its target audience is teen.

The Oracle has spoken on a young girl identifying as a boy in today’s society.

Christ.

That's pretty fucking terrifying.

Yes definitely Jeffrey Marsh - if parents didn't succumb he'd be recommending 'no contact'

WTF would a middle aged male understand about a teenage female's experience? The storyline is really creepy.

After Rose tells her parents she is a boy, and the transwoman speaks to her parents to back Rose up, the dad reacts with fury saying Rose was all right before the transwoman started on about gender stuff.

He's probably right (or would have been if this was real life).

I'm pleased that I don't watch this soap - it sounds grim.

Edit - missed a bracket off

Good grief @ScrollingLeaves So the Dad accurately identified what this adult was doing to the child but was persuaded to overcome his concerns and "be kind" because "trans"?

When you work in safeguarding you learn that it's a thing for men to target children via their families. Single mothers are often targeted with men making themselves "useful" to them and offering different types of help. They then become a "trusted adult" and gain access to children where it becomes easy to abuse them. I was involved in some terrible cases involving teenage boys and a paedophile ring where men targeted lone mothers in this way and then "produced" the boys for abuse by wealthy paedophiles at parties in large houses in the countryside.

There was also "Sally" a huge MTF trans character played by TRA Annie Wallace (responsible for coaching Julie Hesmondhalgh to play the trans character Hayley in Coronation Street), who was implausibly beaten up by suspiciously terfy sounding female prisoners in a women's prison. Quite possibly now Sally would be in the men's estate following the rule change, so that's maybe a relief not to have to be with awful unwelcoming women.

www.insidesoap.co.uk/soaps/sally-plots-a-prison-break-in-hollyoaks/

It can't be said too often - this character is self invested in transitioning children. We see time and time again men like this getting access to children in schools, via therapy and "counselling" or "mentoring", often online but shamefully often via schools and even parents. All the time looking to influence confused and mentally vulnerable children caught up in the devastating belief that their growing bodies are flawed so they must really be the opposite sex.

This is not OK.

I still can't believe that this has to be said and that our safeguarding organisations are so bloody captured that they remain silent about it.

About "Sally" and the trans org involved in this storyline:

"She was cast after the show held casting workshops to discover acting talent in the transgender community. Sally is characterised as a strict, "no-nonsense" headteacher who moves to Hollyoaks village to work at the local school. Hollyoaks' writers explored the character's transgender status and worked alongside equal rights group All About Transs^, who consulted and advised to make the story realistic."

Probably similar going on with this "Rose" storyline.