Ofcom will now investigate Talk Tv re transphobia.

[Imnobody4]

Here we go again.

From Good Law Project:

We said we’d sue over Ofcom’s decision to dismiss 22,000 complaints about transphobia on TalkTV – now the regulator has caved.

But we had monitored its output for July 2025, a month in which it carried 11 discussions on trans people. And in every discussion, its hosts and guests consistently spouted transphobic views. TalkTV’s stance mirrors the broader editorial position of its sister newspaper The Times, whose toxic and intellectually dishonest campaign against trans people we believe to be a contributor to the rise in hate crime against them.

x.com/JuliaHB1/status/1996576537894703427?t=VgmnlP9LETiwrihlgEkCqA&s=09

Among my misdeeds, apparently, is that I said this on air: "By definition, if you’ve had to get a piece of paper to say that you are a woman, you must accept then that you are man."

I'm happy to be found guilty of defending women's rights and safety, knowing the actual law, understanding basic biology and knowing what a woman is. 🤷🏻‍♀️

I agree with your post up until here:

allowing them to run roughshod over the laws of the land and the rights of others.

Trans people are not "running roughshod over the laws of the land and the rights of others". This is transphobia. Moral panic. That's all.

I've got another one from genealogy. A widow who deposited her illegitimate child in an orphanage along with an unrelated child's birth certificate. It took a DNA test to work that one out. Unlike humans, DNA doesn't fib.

Trans identifying men have been illegitimately invading female single sex spaces for the last fifteen years. The Supreme Court has ruled that they didn't have the rights they thought they did. Some TIMs like Robin Moira White loudly declare that they will ignore the law & continue to invade female single sex spaces but we shall see.

I'd be interested in listening to Seethlaw describe their personal experience of sex/ gender, absolutely.

Then here goes:

My sex is female. I'm a woman.

But there's something wrong with either my brain and/or my psyche, which makes me see my mental image of myself as male.

Nothing anyone has ever said or done has ever altered this mental image in the least, so I chose to modify my external appearance to bring it closer to my mental one, in order to reduce the psychological dissonance between the two. I'm glad I live in a time and place where such procedures are available.

I also chose to modify how I present to the world, and again I'm glad I live in a time and place where people are knowledgeable enough about such things to accommodate me whenever possible.

None of this makes me a man, though. I didn't grow up in a male body. I wasn't socialised as a male child. I cannot partake in purely male activities. I am not a man, and I never will be. That's literally what it means to me to be a trans man: that I'm not a man, I'm just presenting as one.

Well, you’re a breath of fresh air, I have to say.

But there's something...with either my brain and/or my psyche, which makes me see my mental image of myself as male...Nothing anyone has ever said or done has ever altered this mental image in the least

Thank you for describing your experience. This very much resonates with my understanding that I was trying to share upthread.

x

You were the one who called them ‘men’ when we were clearly referring to male people with transgender identities.

What you say is rarely clear to me:

Either way, there is no need to conflate abuse and being a trans woman,

You're welcome.

I notice you removed "wrong" in the part you quoted, but it very much belongs there as far as I'm concerned. Something which causes psychological distress, leads to drastic physical changes including heavy surgery and messing around with the endocrine system, causes social confusion everywhere I go, and will never be fully resolved as long as I live, while at the same time granting me no inherent upside or positive effects at all, can only be described as "wrong" in my book.

Put another way: if someone found a way to remove my "transness" tomorrow, I'd jump on it, because my transness is not just a difference, it's a burden. I gain nothing from it.

Seems rather transphobic of puppy to misquote your experience Seethlaw

I understand , and your perspective is totally valid.

I personally wouldn't call it "wrong", in the same way that I wouldn't call , for example, having autism being something "wrong" with the brain.

I think it's helpful to reduce stigma by trying to get people to think outside of these kinds of value judgements, as objectively speaking there is no "right" and "wrong" way of being, only different types of bodies/ brains. Some of these undoubtedly cause more challenges than others.
But maybe I think that way because I'm not religious.

Im so sorry for your struggles x

You say you're not religious but you follow a belief system that acts like one.

I really don't.
Annyway.

I personally wouldn't call it "wrong", in the same way that I wouldn't call , for example, having autism being something "wrong" with the brain.

But if a person with autism described their own experience using the word "wrong", would you remove it when quoting them?

I think it's helpful to reduce stigma by trying to get people to think outside of these kinds of value judgements, as objectively speaking there is no "right" and "wrong" way of being, only different types of bodies/ brains.

To use an example other posters used before: would you argue that there's nothing wrong with the brain of anorexic people? That they are just different and we should accept their difference as it is?

But maybe I think that way because I'm not religious.

Not sure what this is has to do with anything?

Im so sorry for your struggles x

Thank you. Now, can you extend that sympathy to those times when I, a trans man with a past experience of being abused, grow afraid when around angry people? And from there, can you extend it to the innumerable times when so many women, with a past experience of being abused by men, grow afraid when around a male person in a place where they are vulnerable?

Except for the part where Seethlaw acknowledges that Seethlaw is a woman does not fit at all with your arguments on this thread where you are telling us that it is transphobic to refer the legal process of getting a certificate that says someone is female, the opposite sex to their body, means they are ‘men’.

Except for that part.

But if a person with autism described their own experience using the word "wrong", would you remove it when quoting them?

I was highlighting the part of your post with resonated with how I was trying to explain what being trans is upthread.

The word "wrong" does not change that explanation one way or another - it just introduces judgement that there is something "wrong" about being trans.

I understand why you feel there is something "wrong" with your brain and I'm sure there are many other trans people who feel the same.

To use an example other posters used before: would you argue that there's nothing wrong with the brain of anorexic people? That they are just different and we should accept their difference as it is?

I think that I have addressed this. If we accept anorexia, people die. So there is a strong moral case for trying to cure the disease, although it often can't be cured.

Not sure what this is has to do with anything?

because if you believe in god then you believe in the idea of intentional design of bodies I suppose. Within this framework it makes sense that some bodies are "correct" and others are "wrong". If all you believe in is evolution the idea of bodies being right or wrong makes no sense. Theres just variation. Some of these are more adaptive/ cause fewer challenges than others.

Now, can you extend that sympathy to those times when I, a trans man with a past experience of being abused, grow afraid when around angry people? And from there, can you extend it to the innumerable times when so many women, with a past experience of being abused by men, grow afraid when around a male person in a place where they are vulnerable?

im not going to get into this

Hi @puppymaddness

I really reject the idea that accepting trans people is an attack on women, or diminishes or erases their rights. I'm really sorry that you have swallowed this narrative; it's deeply problematic.

I'm sorry but you are simply wrong here.

The thread that I previously pointed you towards goes into the reasons why in great detail. It addresses many of the exact arguments you have been making and explains why, far from the PP's views being problematic, it is in truth the narrative that "trans", whatever it is, is something that can override the reality of sex, something that means women do not even need sex-specifc language or supports as long as the male person in question has the quality of "trans", that is the deeply problematic one.

I really do strongly recommend you read it - I think it will show you that many of the points you are making here have been deeply considered in the past. It would genuinely be wonderful, so apprecaited, to have someone actually build on this rather than just repeating yet again the same old assertions that have been refuted so many times before.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5422838-what-is-trans-and-why-does-it-justify-undoing-sex-in-law-society-culture-and-history?page=1

I didn't understand this sorry. I don't find your posts very easy to follow .

I'm sorry I don't agree with your politics x

I will add though a lot of your assumptions are wrong.

Being "trans" does not override the reality of sex, it underscores it:

women "do need sex-specifc language or supports" and this is not in any sense incompatible with recognising and supporting trans people.

That reply makes no sense. I'm not asking you to agree with my "politics", whatever you meant by that, I'm simply asking you to read a thread that already dealt with the exact points you have been making in this one in some depth, so that you can advance the topic rather than simply replaying a well-refuted set of tropes.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5422838-what-is-trans-and-why-does-it-justify-undoing-sex-in-law-society-culture-and-history?page=1

Ah well, perhaps it will be illuminating for others on the thread anyway.

Since I reject the very premise of the title of the thread I can't see how reading it will be illuminating

That statement was made by the TRA poster on the earlier thread as well, yet they were unable to explain what they meant in practice. They were simply throwing words around.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5422838-what-is-trans-and-why-does-it-justify-undoing-sex-in-law-society-culture-and-history?page=1

Can you do better? Can you explain exactly how women (female people) can have sex-specifc language and supports without acknowledging that trans women are not women, that the word woman does not include trans women, and that women-only services and supports are not woman (female) -only if they include male trans women?

I cannot see the challenge there at all?

The overwhelming majority of women have xx chromosomes, a vagina, a womb, have periods, give birth, etc. so let's talk about all of those things. These things are important and really affect women and shape their life experiences .

A very small number of women are trans. This means that although they were identified male at birth and their bodies have typically male characteristics like a penis/ xy chromosomes etc, they see themselves as female (we have discussed how that works upthread, one pp very helpfully described their personal experience although as a trans man).

Let's have services that cater to all these women, based on the needs of the users of that service. Some might be just for women, female at birth, others might be for trans women, lots of services can accommodate both.

im not going to get into this

This is the crux of the issue, though. No one here has ever suggested that trans people don't exist, in some fashion or another. The women and men here generally support gender non-comformity and reject regressive social gender stereotyping.

However, when men (and let's be honest, it is normally men) enter female single-sex spaces (changing rooms, toilets, hospital wards, prisons, DV shelters, rape crises shelters, etc, etc) then they are not only breaking the law, but are also imposing themselves on vulnerable women who do not consent to their presence. You cannot simply not address it!