AntiSocial on Radio 4 started right now (Friday lunchtime) on misgendering

[nauticant]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001xfw6

The programme consistently fails to meaningfully engage with trans.

Am to be fair to him, the presenter picked up on what she was saying and summarised it concisely, asking the other guest if they accepted her point.

But the other guests were so bad. I felt for Susan.

It was like a jelly wrestling exercise.

So if a man exposes his penis to a women and the women reports it and the man tells the police he’s a woman, does that mean they are both as bad in terms of the law?

"If a man exposes her penis... "
Jeepers!

It was very telling that an actual crime was what Jane thought of to compare against the non crime of acknowledging sex rather than gender.

Literal Orchid crushing 👇

I thought Susan gave really good insightful answers - whereas Jane didn’t seem to have moved past the notion that women should just #bekind and those who hadn’t were big meanies. He seemed very unprepared for the level of questioning or Susan’s responses.

I did have a smile at his account of the waiter who called him sir - ‘an easy mistake’. No kidding Jane.

I think this is a good point. How about if the penis owner who is waving their cock around identifies as being in the bath? in this post truth, my reality world what kind of hate crime do women commit when they insist he/she/ they/fae/ it was in a public place? Very upsetting for women to refuse to pretend things are exactly as men say they are. Women, know your place.

1. Woman to police officer, ‘the man exposed his penis to me ’ = hate crime/incident for woman?
2. Woman to police officer, ‘the man exposed her penis to me’ = hate crime/incident for woman as still calling perpetrator a man?
3. Woman to police officer, ‘the person exposed their (singular) penis to me’. Officer ‘What did he look like?’ = hate crime/incident for officer calling perpetrator a man?

We all know the actual reality whatever pomo burble, will be that a person born with a penis will have and use power over a person born with ovaries and a vulva, and he'll make her pay for displeasing him.

We haven't moved on much from the medieval crime of ridiculing a man's cock. It's basically what this is about.

@Froodwithatowel - was it really once a crime to ridicule a penis?

You are all made of much sterner stuff than me, for I couldn't listen to this crock of shite (as it seems to be). I'm banging my head on the table just reading your comments.

@Rightsraptor Susan really held her own , so whilst it was frustrating listening to the TW it was also quite satisfying to hear that he really didn’t have much of value to say. Someone upthread said he sounded like he’d been interviewed outside the co-op and they were right - he wasn’t the most erudite.

Jeremy Vine had Jane Fae on his radio show the other week and Fae didn't even know what they were talking about, not with any accuracy anyway. I despair at the standard of speaker the other side puts up when they can actually find anyone willing to speak in the first place.

As in a gateway offence that may lead on to rape, stalking, kidnap or murder?

I believe it was one of the given accepted reasons for a man to beat his wife.

I suppose it's a gateway to saying 'no' to a man.

Which is literal violence.

(See: 'mocking penis').

Having now listened to the whole thing one of the two main guests sounded as thick as mince.

( It wasn't the wonderful Susan Smith)

Following

This is something that's always bemused me. Men having a GRC that says they are female is evidence they are female when no women have or have need of a GRC to say we are female.

In fact the only way to have a GRC stating you are female is to be male in the first place.

The whole 'India has a GRC, so there' shtick is ridiculous. It makes no difference. Possession of a GRC was supposed to be to enable a tiny number of people to live their lives with dignity. We can see how that's turned out by looking at the antics of such luminaries as IW.

No, IW, I do not have to agree that you are a woman or call you one - your little piece of paper is meaningless to me. I certainly don't have to say you are female. Nor will I.

This.

Pronoun usage is the choice of the user, not the object. For me, my use of pronouns is sex based and will remain so despite the upcoming so called " hate crime" bill

Pronoun usage is the choice of the user, not the object. For me, my use of pronouns is sex based and will remain so despite the upcoming so called " hate crime" bill

Quite. As per Butler et al, how can any individual let the corrupt normative laws of racist, patriarchal, cisheteronormative state dictate their own personal truth?

(Am I doing it right?)

Just the ones pretending to be men.

I’m impressed and plan to borrow this.