TWAW on R4 In Touch - usual sob story

[1stWorldProblems]

Peter White is sounding quite sceptical by BBC standards and asked Natalie if he had ever had a negative experience in male spaces but didn't get an answer.

Otherwise same old same old - assigned at birth, can't use mens spaces as will be questioned as to why he's in there (as they'd be seen as a woman) and how rights have been taken from them by the Supreme Court 🥱

DH & I shouting at the radi. 2x DD shouting at us to keep it down as they can't hear the TV / know it all inside it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002grs9?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

All the arguments about men not being safe in the men's apply exactly the same to women not being safe in the women's if you let the men in.

They never seem to understand that. Or, more likely, they don't care about that.

No they aren’t. And that’s a statistical FACT. Not that it should be a race to the bottom anyway.

There's a wilful blindness.
In the interview he said near the end "we" (meaning trans people) "are all decent people". Which as a generalisation is about as useful saying "all Catholics are decent people" or "all politicians are decent people".

Edited to add: that was not meant as a joke at the expense of his disability, just a turn of phrase.

I’m sure I’ve seen someone work out / show the stats on MN before but the chances of me finding it again are slim to nil.

But, focusing on murders alone, if you exclude the single Brianna Ghey case in 2023, which was an outlier in so many respects, there were zero TW murdered in the UK for at least the last two decades (but it’ll be much longer than that).

I’m not pretending I’m a statistician, and I know that someone who is wouldn’t say the likelihood of being murdered, as a TiM, is zero. But I’ve got to say I’d fancy my chances as one versus being part of the group that averages 124-168 victims per annum, most frequently murdered by close male family members.

I think a “that’s utter bull dust” reaction is what I need. 🤯

Not the same person. Not even the same name. This one doesn't look at all like the one in the original post. Much younger for one thing and the life story is different.

😂😂

It’s the one WeeBison referred to at 7.30am and in the discussion after.

Agree. I thought it was ridiculous to make a blanket statement like that. There is no such thing as a ‘sacred caste’ and when someone tries to claim that a group they are part of is incapable of harm, I become immediately suspicious of them because it’s just such a ludicrous thing to say.

Something else that I found confusing was Natalie saying that medical professionals just ‘take a quick look’ at birth in order to ascertain the sex of an infant.

Quite apart from the fact that we know sex is determined way before birth and many parents know this information about their child during pregnancy, and that midwives and Drs are perfectly capable of telling the difference between male and female babies, I had to wonder why Natalie said it at all.

Suppose the midwife did get it wrong…she thought she saw a penis and testicles but it was actually a vulva…what then? Well presumably the parents will at some point spot that the child’s genitals don’t look as they would expect, and will get the child checked again. Or in the unlikely event that no one notices the child was mis-sexed, it will begin to become obvious at puberty what sex the person really is.

None of which has any relevance to trans people. It’s almost as if Natalie wanted listeners to believe that he might have been mis-sexed at birth. Perhaps his female junk was somehow seen as a cock and balls when he was born. Except then presumably his willy got bigger in the following years leaving him in no doubt about his sex.

I did have some sympathy for Natalie initially because he sounded like a classic HSTS to me. I lost sympathy as the interview progressed.

As LadyBracknellsHandbag would say

"To lose one parent, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness."

Ffs. I’ve managed to damage the same eye twice, a matter of luck rather than judgement that it wasn’t as serious as all that in either case - nearly recovered after a month but it was no joking matter.

Oh bore off!
What does this tell us that is new or different?
Why is the “assigned at birth” tosh left unchallenged?
Why has this story been commissioned?

Ah, thanks. My mistake.

Assigned at birth is nonsense. Having had a female and male baby I cannot understand how there is any decision-making or confusion. Even if the area was swollen/unusual at first unless a development issue (rare) it's very obvious.
Not only do they look different but baby boys have a tendency to wee like a fountain during nappy changes because they react to the temperature difference and can wee straight up into the air. It's easier to clean up after messy nappies though.
Midwives would see the obvious differences every day throughout the day.

Sex isn't assigned at birth. The birth must be registered within six weeks of birth by the parents. This gives plenty of time for genetic studies in the unlikely event that there is any ambiguity about the sex of the baby.

The whole 'sex assigned at birth' thing is so obviously complete and utter bobbins given that women and medical professionals have been correctly sexing newborns for time immemorial, and what's more, all the world knows it. It’s only since TIMs have battened onto the subject that suddenly it’s too impossibly complex for anyone to know without Big Important chromosomal investigations by specialists, and now even hospital doctors bleat pathetically that they don’t know their own sex and have to guess. People have genuinely lost their minds over this.

And the ultimate craziness is that even 'assigned female' or 'assigned male' means there's a binary - which I though we were always being told doesn't exist? 🤨 🤡🤡

Mostly I manage to block out the idiocy but sometimes it all rushes in on me afresh and I just want to scream.

Unless he actually is using logic; women are at more risk of violence than men. I am now a woman* therefore I am at more risk now. [therefore I must perceive all situations as being risky and all interactions as hostile]

..or something.

Maybe he doesn't actually feel more at risk but feels he has to say he is because he is a woman* and that's what women do? The same as women wear lipstick, high heels and spinny skirts.

*in his own head

You are making the perfectly rational mistake of thinking that genitalia have anything to do with sex. Not according to the genderists. According to the genderists, only the individual can know what sex s/he is. Hence 'girl dick' and 'mangina'.

If a child appears to have a penis, everyone will expect the child to pee through it. If that doesn't happen, surely the parents will raise this with a doctor or home visitor? Abnormal genital presentations are quite likely to be noticed when changing nappies. The risk of a fountain was far higher when changing our son's nappy than when changing our daughter's!

But they also say that chromosomes don't mean anything, don't they, so you don't know what sex anyone is without chromosome testing but you also can't base sex on chromosomes because DSD's.

Willfully ignoring, of course, that the body itself confirms the genes and chromosomes.

Interesting. I wonder if Natalie ever accidentally misgenders other trans people based on voice cues, and if so how the ensuing conversation goes.

I thought it was interesting how PW shut down the conversation once Natalie started opining about the wider issue. I wonder how many trans people who do interviews have very strict instructions for what the interviewer may and may not say (PW said Natalie had said the intention was not to rehash the wider debate). It must put the interviewer in a bit of a bind if their interviewee starts talking about something and there are obvious pushbacks and questions you would expect the interviewer to voice but, usually, they don't. They just ask another question about the trans persons lived experience. But this time PW said "you said you didn't want to talk about that" before moving on to talk more about Natalie.

Oedipus?