Sascha Bailey Interview

[lcakethereforeIam]

Dabbled with transitioning, now speaks out against it

https://archive.ph/ujfh8

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/15/david-baileys-son-sascha-interview/

His change of heart seems sincere although he indulges in a bit of bothsidesism. He criticises GC people for reposting the pictures, tiktoks, whatever that tp post of themselves.

Previous thread from Jan. 2024

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4990515-sascha-bailey-son-of-iconic-photographer-david-describes-how-close-he-came-to-becoming-a-woman-and-fears-for-other-young-people-like-him-society-has-a-gun-to-its-head-youre-either-for-children-changing-their-gender-or-you-are-transphobic?page=1

If the gender religion dies down we'll still live in a patriarchy and everything will still be mum's fault.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/gender-a-wider-lens/id1542655295?i=1000650823736

Sorry podcast interview with him which was very interesting

I just read that article. I thought it was an interesting public exploration of quite a thoughtful journey. He reads as very measured and that should be helpful. Yes I didn't agree with some of it, but then I sit firmly on one side of the discussion. I do wonder how edited it was.

I read that earlier and found it very interesting. He comes across as very articulate and thoughtful.

Also noted this near the beginning: anti-trans activists or “Terfs”

I haven't read these articles, but saw an interview with him and a TRA man yesterday. (May have been on Sky News? It was on in the background in a house I was visiting.) What struck me was that both men talked purely about what the confused young person wanted. Neither gave any thought whatsoever to the fact that a person's transition affects everybody they encounter. It’s not healthy for anybody’s mental health to build it upon a foundation of lies and dishonesty.

He has as many reservations about vocal trans activists as about the “gender critical” faction, unofficially headed by author JK Rowling. “Instead of explaining how the issue affects them, they can be so aggressive, posting pictures of trans people who look ‘bad’. It doesn’t contribute to the conversation in a meaningful way.”

Is it possible that he is ignorant of the many tribunals to defend freedom of belief, though, speech and single-sex provision.?

That photographs tend to illustrate the rapists placed in women’s prisons? Or athletes who are said to retain no male advantage from their transition?

In the same way as he describes the anger by proxy of people he thought had no trans friends. Is it possible he had no sex realist ones?

You'd think that with his famous father's photography and his own brief fashion career he'd understand the adage 'a picture speaks a thousand words'. Isla Bryson didn't even need to open his gob. What would've happened if the pictures of him, originally in the newspapers, hadn't been posted?

Perhaps he has not seen or has ignored the ‘reasonable’ articles and essays that many of the feminists he seems to have reservations about that were attacked. Maybe before speaking about the aggression, he needs to do some further digging into the past from these brave women’s contributions.

With those sentences he really does show that he doesn’t see the full picture, but is willing to throw women under the bus of shame.

mean women write such difficult words that gender people can't understand them

I don’t think that we should be hyper-critical of those trying to challenge the gender activist position. It’s not unreasonable that he’s looking at this from a different perspective than many of us here.

Indeed, but that does not mean he should make things up or parrot clichés and untruths.

Yet isn’t he being hypocritical of women who he considers are aggressive? Why shouldn’t it be pointed out where he might not have considered something that might make a difference to what is saying, when what is saying is still harming women?