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

We often get the ‘no one cares’ posters

And yet politicians are starting to cover their arses on this

Not all of course, Butler and co are still full gender borg but some absolutely reverse ferreting

Good. Although they tend to be gaslighting fuckers at the same time. Other than that reverse… beep beep beep (politicians that is)

Yeah no-one cares, no-one is talking about it, then all of a sudden reverse gear selected, disassociation,, distancing and claims of we were misled/didn't understand from politicians, et al and the spectacular implosion of the SNP/Green coalition in Scotland, but no, no-one cares or is talking about it, it doesn't matter. Pull the other one it's got bells on it.

Why are you using a breakfast item if you aren't food?

Going back to the OP, there are two other dimensions to Miriam's story.
First, Miriam was from South America, whereas the lads were from UK. Miriam came from a community where men are often smaller, slender and so physically more like white British women than like like white British men. That seems to me to be an important aspect of trans identity- the child who does not look like their peers.

Second, Miriam's brother says Miriam had been providing for the family. How? Her modelling and it says here ballroom dancing? Was there a premium for being trans? Certainly TSAM was based on the premise of Miriam's transness. That looks to me like a financial incentive for adults to encourage effeminate boys to transition in order to exploit their earnings in sex work or adjacent industries.

I am obviously not food.

And I am obviously not a man, as even a cursory search would show 😂
For some reason in the last year posters seem to have lost the ability to deal with male usernames

This is a discussion about a man pretending to be a woman. The sex-coding of your username is relevant.

Thank you for bringing the conversation back to the OP 🙂

Miriam was actually North American as Mexico is part of North America. But I saw someone else say that Miriam was South American either in news articles or on the show itself, too. And yes, there are a lot of slim small young men in Mexico.

I went down a little rabbit hole on this and started watching the first episode of the show as I was curious what the gentleman pictured in the Grauniad article looked like 20 years ago, so in case anyone else was curious here it is

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8kscmq

It’s my opinion it’s the voices that usually seal the deal to give the game away if all the other things didn’t before that.

i find it terribly uplifting that even though we don't agree on everything, the one thing we do agree on here is that trans rights are men's rights, and we continue to fight for all women's rights. We are extremely consistent on that despite some pretty sickening slanderous accusations from the TRA lobby (that we hate trans people, that we wish them out of existance and that we don't want them to have rights)

@Vegandiva I only watched 5 minutes but there is no clue for me that Miriam is not a woman.
The optics of 6 chunky white men competing for one small brown woman are shocking, even without the twist.

That's quite a sad thought, that Miriam was possibly coerced (maybe unwittingly) into making money from the trans persona because that was the best chance to support Miriam's family.

Like the Thai "ladyboys", but probably/possiblly/hopefully not going quite as far.

How is that different to Jazz Jennings?

Or even Jackie Green tbh?

It hadn't occurred to me that Jazz was 'monetized' from a young age by his family. Absolutely abhorrent.

well, we were talking about Miriam, but is Jazz Jennings monetized? that is awful on top of all the awfulness of that whole thing.

Not sure who Jackie Green is. I wanted to stay on topic. But yes, it is all awful.

It doesn’t shake the foundations of me, but it sure as hell shakes the foundations of our family relationships. And a big part of that is when someone who disagreed with me respectfully (respect on both sides) in the past starts to demand compelled speech, as taught by the self righteous RSOH group, whose views butterfly has represented so effectively. I apparently need therapy to come to terms with the oh so reasonable claim that my son is my daughter and I must call him she and never use his name again. So I am not supposed to use his name when reminiscing about his childhood achievements, and if I do I must immediately apologise for my error, my wrongthink, my utter impertinence to use a name which expresses my love for him and references the good loving relationship that he now rejects, because he says he’s not the son I know him to be. And his mother, who if anything worked even harder to protect and support him is also dismissed as a bigot because he claims to be in some sense a woman like her, though he can never know what it is to bear and give birth to a child and to sacrifice years of her own needs to the child who cannot fend for himself.

This cu … movement is not quite as kind as it tries to make out, is it?

Thank you. That’s a more measured post than my rant a few minutes ago. It says calmly what I was trying to express anything but calmly.

I get it. Ranting is ok.

I'm just a few more years down the line of it all.

Learning that it's ok to do so and to tell people that kind of stuff is really important for ending the madness and for you in yourself.

The narcissism of trans is it's biggest downfall imho.

Can we please not move onto making baseless insinuations that Miriam, Jazz Jennings and Jackie Green were all coerced into transitioning in order to monetise them?

I hope that posters on this thread are above that level of sweaty conspiracy theorist nonsense.

I do agree with this. The fact that vast sums of money were made off the back of Jazz and Jackie being transitioned as young children doesn't mean that the motive for transition was the money.

But once the money started rolling in it must've put an awful lot of pressure on those children to continue down the path of transition and surgery etc. If Jazz or Jackie had had a change of heart it would have destroyed a very lucrative business: in Jackie's case Mermaids and in Jazz's case a whole ongoing TV series. Honestly I feel so sorry for those children having had to live their whole lives in the spotlight. What must that do to you?

Once you celebrify your child's identity for the benefit of TV or your career which you are paid for then sorry we do get to ask questions.

This is called safeguarding and accountability in the public interest.

The privacy of these children was sold by their parents.

So no, it's fine to ask difficult and perhaps uncomfortable questions because they are important and relevant.

We should talk about the ethics of this too. And whether the children were really free to consent to that level of intrusion.

I don't think anyone suggested anyone was coerced into transitioning for money. However, in the case of Jazz and Jackie, their transition has been a source of income and/or status for their parents.

Ones self image is so influenced by ones family. I can imagine for a child in that position it is very hard to know when something is your own self image when it's a reflection of your family's image of you.

Baseless? Jazz Jennings was put on puberty blockers at the age of 11: TV series and parents making money from running pro-trans organisations from that time. Jackie Green castrated at 16 and promoted as a teen trans model by his mother. They were too young to make informed decisions. They were both used by their parents in their business ventures. Thgis is a safeguarding issue. It's astonishing that Social Services weren't called in.

It is shocking, but not surprising, that women are, yet again, being told what we should believe, feel and talk about.

It rather informative but tedious.

Women can't talk about anything that might be slightly difficult or controversial can they?

It's a deliberate thing to avoid elephants entering the room.

Safeguarding? Na.
Exploitation of minors? Na.
Criminals exploiting the law? Na.
AGP? Na.
Heterogeneity? Na.
How pronouns aren't neutral? Na.
Violent TRAs? Na.
Transcel / Incel cross over? Na.
How can you tell between a voyeur and a 'woman' just accidentally slipping their penis out in the women's changing room? Na.
Fear, obligation and Guilt? Na
Gender neutrality defaulting to 'male' to the erasure of females? Na.

Be nice and be polite cos it's unkind to talk about these things. There's a good girl. Run along nothing to see here.

I think the correct response to this involves the word 'off'.

Miriam's brother literally said (as quoted in this thread) that the family were supported by Miriam's money.

And given the circs and background, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Miriam may have felt beholden to them or something and was sad not to be able to continue.

Nobody is making insinuations. We are hypothesising on something. Many people are more or less coerced into things like that.