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. 🤷🏻‍♀️

If we accept anorexia, people die.

Heh. If we accept transidentity, people die too, even if not in the same numbers:

• from the surgeries. All surgeries carry a risk of death, the more intricate, long or massive, the higher the risk.
• from messing around with the endocrine system. No, I'm not aware of any study on that specific topic yet, but it's simply a matter of logic.
• from suicide, due to the various psychological effects of not being able to actually change sex, or the inability to deal with the physical changes of transition, or any other situation attached to transitioning.

More generally, the quality of life of trans people is most often affected to some degree by the transition. It's not all roses of affirmation and rainbows of self-congruence, being trans.

No one here has ever suggested that trans people don't exist, in some fashion or another.

"in some fashion or another" is doing a lot of work there. What do you mean exactly?

The women and men here generally support gender non-comformity and reject regressive social gender stereotyping.

I would disagree with that claim.

then they are not only breaking the law

Nobody breaks the law by simply entering a toilet. Regardless of their sex, or the designation of said toilet.

I'm confused that you are making the case that trans medicine is so dangerous when up/thread you said you were really grateful that you lived in a time where you were able to have these interventions?

Ah no, this doesn't work. Once you accept that a valid definition of womanhood is a matter of personality rather than a fact of the body, you are changing the meaning of womanhood for all women. All your argument boils down to is "let's use the same word to mean two totally different things, but let's not admit it. Women must just pretend they don't notice."

This was, of course, discussed at length on the previous thread.

I will be frank - it was fair enough that you didn't realise all your points had been made before and discussed in depth already, but now you do know I consider it extremely entitled of you to expect posters to indulge your desire to raise them all again simply because you cannot be bothered to read the thread I have been kind enough to point you towards several times now.

Yeh, no, sorry 😂

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.

That's what we've got at the moment - some single sex services and some mixed sex services.

This is literally what we are trying to defend and what your arguments have been used in a attempt to dismantle - the societal structures that provide single sex spaces for those born female. 🤷

Please, don't apologise. Your replies have been perfect xxx

That's what we've got at the moment - some single sex services and some mixed sex services.

🙄🙄

this is exactly why I'm not engaging with this nonsense.

The thread was about the statement in the OP.
It veered into goading me into explaining gender ID. So I did,

thanks.

Up thread you posted :

“Gender identity = the cognitive understanding that "I am a woman/ girl" or "I am a man/ boy ". Almost all people acquire this understanding: usually around the age of three years old.”

now you have posted about Seethlaw’s experience :

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

Seethlaw’s experience where it is acknowledged that Seethlaw is a woman, doesn’t really resonate with your post, and it rather contradicts your premise of why people agreeing with the statement below is transphobic:

"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."

Because, some people with transgender identities, not just Seethlaw, accept that they remain either a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’ despite their transgender identity.

Are you transgender, puppy? Are you speaking on behalf of people with transgender identities?

"in some fashion or another" is doing a lot of work there. What do you mean exactly?

I can only speak for myself. I think feeling trans is a mental illness that needs to address the underlying reasons, not affirm a harmful delusion. The reasons someone may come out as trans are many, it may be a coping mechanism following abuse, it may be some sort of attention seeking, it may be a sexual fetish, etc. Are there people who wish they were the opposite sex or no sex, of course. There are people who think they are cats, there are people who think they are babies, there are people who think a lot of things. However, I don't need to give up my sex-based rights to appease those other people.

I would disagree with that claim.

How so? Provide something to back up your claim.

Nobody breaks the law by simply entering a toilet. Regardless of their sex, or the designation of said toilet.

Good men stay out, so bad men stand out. Following the SC ruling a number of high-profile TRAs have made it their mission to deliberately attempt to access female facilities.

Seethlaw

I am interested in your perspective here.

"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."

Do you think this is transphobic?

I'm quite alarmed that you should be confused. You do acknowledge all these risk factors, right? I mean, understanding and acknowledging them is in my opinion absolutely essential to forming a properly informed opinion on the whole matter of transidentity and especially transition.

"A very small number of women are trans"

Those women identify as being male people when they are still female people. You have it the other way around.

The way I understand it, all it's saying is that if you need a piece of paper beyond what's available to everyone (the birth certificate), then obviously it's to legally contradict the biological reality stated on said birth certificate - otherwise you wouldn't need it. So yeah, if you need a piece of paper to say that you are legally a woman, that's because you are biologically a man, otherwise your birth certificate would be enough. Nothing transphobic in this, unless you believe that people can actually biologically change sex, which is absurd but apparently some people believe it.

Indeed. "Women who are trans" are trans men, not trans women.

Thank you. I thought I was missing something because that is how it read to me. I appreciate you answering because, even though I probably don't always agree with you, you give considered and thoughtful answers from a considered position.

I didn't see the 'scorning' that has been accused, I just saw this as a matter of fact comment about the process and about the reality of the GRC.

Edit to add:
And I would rather have a discussion about it with you if you thought it was transphobic than what has been happening on this thread with puppymadness.

ok I understand the confusion.

I'll try again.

Being trans is the cognitive experience (that pp described it as something "wrong in their brain/ psyche") that causes a person to see / perceive/ recognise themselves other than the sex they were identified at birth.
That pp explained that although they were born female , their brain caused them to see male. And nothing anybody did/ said would change that.

This is how gender identity works in an trans person . This is trans experience.

Meanwhile, almost all people have gender identity- usually first developing around the age of 3.

Only for most people- there is no disconnect between the "brain's" understanding/ recognition/ perception of self (eg female) and birth sex (eg female).

That pp still described themselves as a woman (even though in their brain they see themself as male). That is because they are logically applying a (learned) definition of "woman" that is defined by birth sex. (this is of course out of step with the views of most of the trans community, but that is neither here nor there).

As I said upthread, of course if you define a woman as someone identified female at birth , with xx chromosomes and a vagina, then by definition trans women are not women. (This is entirely circular) . And by definition that pp is a woman, despite their brain seeing male:.

None of this changes the reality of trans experience or the fact that gender identity exists. in fact that pp's case is a really good illustration of this , because it shows how the cognitive experience of being trans (something "wrong in the brain") holds / remains / exists , even when someone adheres to a gender critical belief system. This demonstrates how being trans is not an ideology or a philosophy, it's a type of psychic experience that operates at a more fundamental level.

The statement in the OP is transphobic because it is making a mockery of trans people. It is disguised as a statement of logic, but - as demonstrated earlier in the thread - there is no logic in its reasoning at all; rather it is a rhetorical statement designed to persuade people that being trans is silly.

That was in response to this

Of course there are risk factors, same with all sorts of areas of medicine: but the point is for many trans people the risks are outweighed by the benefits, which is apparently the case for you.

which is obviously completely different to anorexia.

“This demonstrates how being trans is not an ideology or a philosophy, it's a type of psychic experience that operates at a more fundamental level.”

And yet, the male people who have this ‘psychic experience’ are not women.

Plus, they have labelled their experience as ‘women’ without having any understanding of what that word means. They are describing a version of being a male human though.

That pp still described themselves as a woman (even though in their brain they see themself as male). That is because they are logically applying a (learned) definition of "woman" that is defined by birth sex

Not at all. It's nothing to do with "a learned definition of woman" and everything to do with the reality of my life.

I was born female.
I was raised/socialised female.
I was impregnated.
I gave birth.
I still have my uterus, vagina, ovaries and so on.

I don't have a penis, testicles, a prostate.
I cannot have any idea of what it is like to have a penis, testicles or a prostate.
I wasn't raised/socialised male.
I cannot ever hope to impregnate anyone.

Literally ALL of my lived experiences are those of a woman - including those of a woman who presents as a man. Even when men treat me better because they see me as a man, it's because I present as a man, not because I am a man. I am not a man, and never will be, because of all the above. It's nothing to do with a learned definition, and everything to do with my lived experiences and the reality of my body.

Gosh this is super interesting.

In the thread that you refuse to read...

adding a link here in case anyone else wants to: 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

... my opening question was literally about exactly this, and it lead to some really great discussion. It's a shame you feel you are too - actually I'm not sure what exactly, but too something anyway - to read it.

But since you refuse to read the thread where another TRA is literally making the same points you have been, I'll re-ask it here.

Is it being "trans" being one sex but with a deep and aching wish you were the other sex, maybe like a blind person has a deep and aching wish to see, or a lonely little girl has a deep and aching wish that she had been born as one of the popular kids instead?

Or is it actually being, in an innate mental way, in ways we don't yet understand, the other sex, implying that sex is not in fact a descriptor of the body but of the mind?

Because take away the emotional manipulation, and neither definition actually justifies the demands being made of women in its name.

Neither definition changes the fact that people with female bodies do exist and do face social and physical consequences because of those bodies, and neither a man's deep feeling that he should have had a female body, nor a man's deep feeling that women don't need to have a female body, changes the embodied experiences and needs and self knowledge of the people who actually have a female body one iota.

Because these are things that are entirely to do with the experiences of women, and so no experience or feeling, no matter how genuine, of a man is relevant to them.

And regardless of which definition you go for, in fact regardless of any definition you go for that places more weight on a man's idea of himself as a woman than the embodied fact of female existence, outside his own mind he is simply not relevant to who women in the original female sense are and what women in the original female sense need at all.

The simple truth is this: no definition of woman that is stretched to include male people is more relevant to the needs and experiences and reality of female people than the simple old fashioned sex based definition, and there is sinply no way round that.

You misunderstand me.

To you all these experiences :

I was born female.
I was raised/socialised female.
I was impregnated.
I gave birth.
I still have my uterus, vagina, ovaries and so on.
I don't have a penis, testicles, a prostate.
I cannot have any idea of what it is like to have a penis, testicles or a prostate.
I wasn't raised/socialised male.
I cannot ever hope to impregnate anyone.*

Definitionally make you female, (even though in your brain you perceive yourself to be male). That is how you define the words "female" and "male". You adhere to gender critical definitions/ theorisations of the meaning of the words "female", "sex", and "male";

And yet your psychic experience of seeing yourself as male remains.

It is a new experience arguing with a gender critical trans person .., thank you @Seethlaw for the challenge .