The Grauniad on a damaging “reality” show

[RapidOnsetGenderCritic]

Another slanted take from The Guardian on a trans story. It seems to me that the main take from this sad tale should be that lying, or concealing the truth, has consequences. But the article doesn’t really mention that angle.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2024/apr/25/she-was-tough-but-it-broke-her-why-theres-something-about-miriam-was-reality-tvs-most-shameful-low

No, Nadia did not come out on the show to the other housemates. The viewers knew she was trans.

That's what I thought.

There are two trans actors I've seen recently who I wouldn't clock as male too - one in a show called "Last King of the Cross" and one in "Baby Reindeer".

I often think about how adamant posters on here are that no TW could be mistaken for women and I just don't believe that's true.

That was the whole premise of Miriams show and why it ended up being such a car crash

Some people are more observant than others, some people need to be.

Im not convinced any man can pass for a woman in every situation. No one may notice someone on a bus, but in women only setting and when talking about women only experiences it will become more obvious.

But who knows, maybe judy dench has been fooling everyone for years?

Sex by deception is a crime isn’t it? I. This case set up by the TV company. What an evil thing they did.

In my opinion the transwoman was not to blame, but manipulated and used. Poor thing, what a tragedy.

I agree the entirety of the show was exploitative and immoral. But on both sides. If people want to be accepted, they have to be truthful. There is no way, even now, that if 6 blokes were told they were competing for a date with a woman, who turned out not to be a woman, it would be the same. Lying is never a good look.

as others have pointed out: it is correctly sexing. And it is not wrong.

Don't be so patronising/disingenuous (delete as necessary)

What, you mean old Rudy Dench? Can't believe he's still getting away with it....

DH and I talked about this when we watched Ripley, in which an ostensibly male character is played by a biological woman (not a spoiler, it's irrelevant to the plot). I instantly clocked the actor as female: there wasn't even a moment of doubt. DH said that he felt there was something odd but wasn't sure. I couldn't believe it - it was so obvious to me.

It's a very clear difference of opinion depending on what position one takes.

If one takes the GC position of "there is no such thing as gender" then you are correct that it's correctly sexing.

If one takes the position there is such a thing as gender, and its an important facet of someone's identity, then Butterfly is correct it is misgendering.

And in fact these aren't statements that are exclusive of each other - one can recognise it is correctly sexing and also misgendering.

Which brings us right back to this whole problem exists because TRAs insist we use the same words (man/woman/he/she etc) to mean two different things.

If sex and gender are different there is no, absolutely no, logical or moral reason to use the same name for both. All it does it generate division, bad feeling and antagonism.

It is the direct and only reason we have so many socially difficult and politically dangerous problems about which "women" are meant in any given context, problems that never needed to happen, the cause of so much anger, fear and distrust that never needed to arise.

Miriam obviously must have "passed" relatively well (to a male eye at least) because the show wouldn't have worked if the contestants had clocked h++ as male. It's weird though because in the picture in the OP Miriam does look quite masculine if you ignore all the paraphernalia intended to signal womanhood. I guess back in 2003 "trans" was not really on the agenda in the UK and for most people the idea of a TW was an obvious man in a dress rather than someone who had been on puberty blocking drugs since childhood. I do think if this program was aired today the audience may have clocked h++ as male.* *

Well yes. But I guess that's because their experience is one of feeling they have a "gender identity" and should be the opposite sex.

I find it really hard to navigate. On one hand I totally support biological fact. But on the other I'm not in the business of imposing my world view on others. For example I have no religion (truly - not even atheist, it's not a thing for me) amd I don't go round insisting anyone who believes in god is wrong and shouldn't be allowed to prioritise their belief as an important part of who they are.

I see the transgender debate the same way. Which is why I'm OK with using pronouns etc.

If only trans ideologues had the foresight to not used preexisting words for their ideas around gender, lots of these problem wouldnt exist.

But, as we all know the sex being different to gender is only a recent idea in this context. Its only a few years ago that the term transsexual fell out of use. The GRA wouldnt make sense - allowing people to aquire a new gender, then a new sex on their birth certificate, if sex and gender were clearly distinct.

If trans ideology was about the difference between sex and gender, no one wouldnt want their sex markers changed on id. It would be priority to introduce gender markers alongside sex markers.

My point is one doesn't have to negate trans people's view of themselves to recognise sex and gender are different things. Indeed, one has to recognise that sex and gender are different things to accept trans people's view of themselves.

So, being different things, it's entirely reasonable and ok to treat them as different things. The only thing that is obscuring this, the only thing that makes it hard for you and other well-meaning people to navigate, is the deliberate decision by trans activists to appropriate the language we use for sex as the language we must use for gender.

You say you don't want to impose on others, but by accepting the definition of sex terminology for gender you are doing exactly that. You are falling into the trap of only thinking about one group and imposing their "solution" onto people who do not want it and find it demeaning and marginalising.

Thought experiment for you.

You are chatting to two people.

One is a TW who believes deeply and genuinely "she" and "woman" are the appropriate terminology for TW because something in their minds makes them women regardless of their bodies.

The other is me, who believes that women through history have been treated shittily because men took power and othered the female body, and that over time this has cumulatively built a society that, while it may pay lip service to female equality, through structural and social norms continues in practice to undervalue and disempower women, and that the idea that women's minds are "just different" is one of the core foundations of this.

This is not just intellectual disagreement - I find the idea that a man can decide for himself he is actually a "woman" because his mind is somehow "womanly" deeply, deeply offensive. It distresses emotionally because facing the degree to which society historically and still is stacked against women triggers feelings of helplessness and disempowerment.

To refer to a TW with female language and thereby put both me and the TW in a group of "the womanly minded" denies my beliefs includng my beliefs about my own self just as much as using male language does for the TW.

We are chatting happily. The topic of Nadia comes up. Which language do you choose, knowing that either way one of us will be hurt?

Yep. They knew exactly what they were doing. It wasn't accidental, it was a deliberate land grab. And it's forcing us to have the debate now on their terms.

That's why, now TRAs are grudgingly admitting that yes, sex exists, but gender is something different, it's important to make this point about language again and again.

TRAs framed the argument as "some men are really women" (and vice versa), so the nice, find-a-middle-ground types are running around trying to find a compromise based on just how much a man can reasonably be a woman. But take a step back and it's ridiculous, a nonsense. It's mixing up two completely different ideas just because they have the same words.

It's like trying to find a middle ground between a gravy boat and a sail boat - sure, intellectually you could do that but you've just ended up with something useless for either purpose.

Trans ideology has evolved over time.

• A man could be a woman if they performed feminity enough.
• TWAW even the ones who are expanding the bandwidth of what a woman is.
• now its heading towards sex and gender are different, and gender is what is in your head. Women are women because they have women gendered minds, regardless if the woman is male or female. And sex is broadly irrelevant "only their doctor needs to know".

In a way, its getting worse for women because it is deliberately confusing. Its no longer a subset of men wanting to fit in with women (whether we want it or not) to an idea that women can be female or, equally, woman can be an undefined gender identity, at the same time.

No one should feel they must use incorrect sex pronouns.

Gender ideology is just that an ideology, and not everyone believes in it.

Deleting for accurate speech is an odd one, the use of the term ‘misgendering’ likewise

As the house of cards falls down perhaps we’ll see a move away from compelled speech attached to falsehood

Trans ideology has evolved over time.

Yes. Very much like religion in fact. It starts from the conclusion ("God exists", "some men must be allowed to become women") and works backwards to find the arguments to justify it.

And when science, logic or social changes mean those arguments no longer work they abandon them and find new ones. The idea that science, logic or society don't support the arguments could mean the conclusion itself is wrong is unthinkable. The conclusion exists as a point of certainty regardless of how it is justified at any particular point in time.

I think the religion analogy works quite well. I am also not religious and am happy for others to hold beliefs so long as I do not feel obligated to engage in religious activity such as praying or signing hymns etc or pretending that I share any part of that faith.

And this is why I am not happy to use pronouns because it feels as if it is prioritising somebody else’s belief over my own. Increasingly pronouns have become an obligation and are symbolic of a person’s willingness to participate in what I view as ideological behaviour. You just have to look at the serious consequences for not “using pronouns” to understand that you are essentially engaging in the rituals of this particular ideology.

But on the other I'm not in the business of imposing my world view on others
The irony of using this to justify using other people's pronouns of choice 😬

I don't cross myself with holy water when entering a church as I am not a christian. I don't use opposite sex pronouns for people as I am not a genderist. All religions are utterly irrelevant including the church of gender and I don't worship when I find myself either in church (hatch, match, dispatch) or around pronoun people.

Some of the videos of TW that have been shared of transwomen are quite startling. They perhaps look like a woman in a still photo. Then you see the video, and they are standing talking and looking pretty much like a woman... and then you turn on the sound, and bam! Male voice.

You think the actor on Baby Reindeer looked like they were female? Bizarre. They are obviously male.

Yes men cannot tell in the same way that women can. I guess it makes sense that we need to be more vigilant as our lives can depend upon it.

I'd use Nadias name every time I referred to them, or gender neutral they/them where I could.

Which is pretty much what I do in real life too.

Also fwiw I share this view:
The other is me, who believes that women through history have been treated shittily because men took power and othered the female body, and that over time this has cumulatively built a society that, while it may pay lip service to female equality, through structural and social norms continues in practice to undervalue and disempower women, and that the idea that women's minds are "just different" is one of the core foundations of this.

But again I see it as akin to religion. I find a lot of religious ideas deeply offensive and have been called "prejudiced against Christians" on here. I wouldn't raise my personal views on why I think what some Christians believe is offensive in general conversation at work, socially etc. I would be courteous because it's largely irrelevant.

I don't have to "justify my choices". I'm explaining my rationale. Don't give a monkeys if you think I'm justified or not to be honest.