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. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Please don’t put kisses at the end of any sentence that you post to me. I find it really inappropriate.

Ok.

Again,

I see you want to pick a personal fight rather than have a meaningful conversation.

Im not interested. Better things to do with my time and all that .

Actually you are describing one aspect of what being transgender is. Hasn’t this been pointed out before? I am sure it has.

I think that actually shows a great deal about your treatment of others.

Edit: this poster posted “lol” to a request for an observance of boundaries. Imagine thinking it was an appropriate thing to do.

Again. Not interested in a personal mud slinging match.

Thanks in advance for respecting that.

Puppy thinks the meaning of "woman" is contested and seems to accommodate anyone who wants to use it, whereas the meaning of "trans" is not? That makes no sense. What is a woman? What makes someone a woman and how do I know if I'm a woman? Surely I need to know that before I can tell if I'm trans?

However, that aside, Puppy does not want to engage with the wider implications of what allowing anyone to call themselves a "woman" actually means. Not only in terms of single-sex spaces, but also law, language, healthcare provision, sports, etc, etc.

I'm also still waiting on examples to be provided of regular posters on this board being supportive of regressive gender stereotypes.

its circular because its definitional

But not all definitions are circular. Meaningful definitions define terms using independent concepts.

To define "female experience" as being female; and "being female" as having "female experience" is entirely circular in both directions and therefore devoid of any meaning.

This post was edited while I was responding so I will respond to this edited part.

It is not ‘me’ who insists ‘anything goes’ though. It seems to be only you treating the trans experience as being a monolith with only one version of being ‘trans’.

It is also gaslighting to say that I don’t believe that there are people in the world who believe they have feel that they don’t fit their personal conceptualisation of the sex their body is categorised as belonging to. Of course, they exist.

However, when a male person demands to be treated as if they are female and to use the words that describe female people for himself, that is all based on a perception that is logically not materially real. Because it cannot be real no matter how much he wants it to be. Just because a male person has labelled his personal belief about how he perceives himself as being that of ‘female’ doesn’t mean that he is a ‘female’ person. That is where the philosophical theory comes into the issue.

Is anyone denying that he is a male person who holds that belief? I don’t believe feminists are denying he has that belief. Feminists are denying that just because that male person believes he is female doesn’t follow that he is materially female for access to single sex provisions.

People can label themselves however they wish, but they cannot control and force others to agree to treat them as if they are materially that thing they have labelled themselves as when they are materially not that thing.

I didn't say 'redefining women'. I said 'redefining "woman"'. It is a linguistic redefinition that has been attempted by queer theory, with some success. Women, the real physical beings, remain as before, but the language descriptor has been changed to suit a narrative. Suddenly some men are 'women' which allows them the few privileges or rights accorded to women, and in that, women's rights are compromised or even removed.

It is a linguistic conjuring trick, as is the not very subtle misquoting that puppymaddness indulged in. There is no 'magic' going on here, just sleight of hand to leave everyone gasping at the amazing reasoning powers of the elite people who understand Judith Butler. But it's easier to spot than well-practiced palming of a card.

Puppy thinks the meaning of "woman" is contested

it is. Factually.

seems to accommodate anyone who wants to use it

er no.

The point is- how we define the word "woman" is just that- how we define the word "woman". If definitionally we insist that woman means having xx chromosomes , born with a vagina etc, then definitionally trans women are not women. However, there would still exist people born with a penis who perceive themselves to be female in their brain. Some of us believe the word "woman" can and should accommodate this minority.

Similarly "trans" is just a word . We could define trans as meaning any sexually perverted person with a penis. Someone who thinks the world is flat. The world is our oyster. Especially on the gender critical board!

The point is there exist in the world people who have a cognitive difference whereby they perceive their sex to be other than their birth sex. This is not an ideology or contrived projection- is a fundamental psychic experience based on a developmental difference in the brain. These are the people that we need to find ways of accommodating in society: whatever word we use to label them specifically.

Yes could there be the odd individual posing as one of these people , who isn't? Sure. It would be very rare because it confers few advantages (despite what gender critical people believe), but it's theoretically possible - there will be isolated cases. Just as there are some people who pretend to be disabled. It doesn't change the fact that being disabled is a real thing that deserves a consistent definition and label.

Please define the word "woman".

The female experience is intricately connected to having a female sexed body. I do not have a male body, nor have I experienced male socialisation or experienced the world as a male, and therefore I have no understanding of what that experience is. I can think of what it might be, but I can never experience it.

You are redefining women.

Denying this does not make it not true.

You are changing "womanhood" from a simple fact of the body to something that can be purely mental.

From something that has a clear line connecting the historic and sadly also comtempory disempowment, marginalisation and abuse of the female body with the existence and purpose of female-only protections and provisions, to something immaterial, hazy and self defined that cannot justify the existence of "woman-only" language and provisions but nevertheless not only demands access to them (thereby making them into mixed biological sex provisions and utterly undermining their entire raison d'etre) but also insists that female people who want to maintain female-only provisions, language, provisions or political voice may not do so, as evidenced by the TRA demands that OFCOM must find voicing the simple fact that trans women are male "transphobic".

Make no mistake, they want to make women simply saying why our sex matters impossible.

This is not the behaviour of an honest movement. This is the behaviour of a movement that, deep down, knows it is built on lies and the subjugation of female voices by male.

Of course, this was covered in great detail on the thread that you consider yourself above reading.

That poster was unable, or possibly just unwilling, to join the dots and accept that acting on his/her new, expanded definition of "woman" absolutely and undeniably changes the rights, protections, self knowledge, political voice and even historical story of female people. Like you, whenever they were confronted with the implications for female people of society accepting that there is a valid form of "womanhood" that can be nothing more than a mental difference between male people, he/she resorted to flat denial without any reasoning or substance to back it up.

I really recommend anyone who is reading your posts and thinking "hmmm, that sounds reasonable" reads the earlier thread where the flaws in that reasoning lie.

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

Because the fact remains, 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 is simply not relevant to who women in the original female sense are and what women in the original female sense need at all.

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 are* redefining women.
Denying this does not make it not true.

You are changing "womanhood" from a simple fact of the body to something that can be purely mental.*

I disagree with you vehemently.

"Womanhood" has never been defined as "a simple fact of the body".

I refer you to many of the foundational texts of feminism. They will be much more useful to you than that thread you keep promoting.

I refer you to many of the foundational texts of feminism. They will be much more useful to you than that thread you keep promoting.

Are you treating the "foundational texts of feminism" as "scripture"? And then treating any other interpretation of them than your own as heresy?

"One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman."

I am treating them as profoundly insightful academic works that explain how and why "womanhood" has never been defined as "a simple fact about the body".

Are you inferring that there are some people who are truly trans by virtue of their 'psychic experience' and others who just want to take advantage? Shock, you have outed yourself as a transphobic truscummer! You will need to go have a stern word with yourself.

I suggest you re-read those texts. (And also the thread where everything you have been saying on this one has already been covered - I have to admit I find it very odd that someone who is so invested in this topic would not consider it important to read what has already been said.)

Feminists absolutely recognise the existence of socially constructed beliefs about "womanhood" laid on top of the fact of the female body. But we understand them as part of the Patriarchal system of control and division of women, not a stand alone definition of us.

To recognise these social constructs that are assigned by patriarcy to women only also exist in men should be a Feminist advance. To claim this thereby makes those men women is anything but.

To say that these things rather than our bodies is what makes us "women" is as offensive as saying what makes a slave a slave is the chains they wear not the reasons they wear them.

(Although you have got yourself in a muddle now, because so far on this thread at least you've been trying to defend your patched-together incoherent beliefs against the claim that this is all just sexist stereotypes by insisting that what trans "women" feel is simply a sense of self that has nothing to do with the social construction of "womanhood", which I'm afraid means you cannot now appeal to the Feminist insight that much of what society associates with "woman" is socially constructed.)

So you wish to maintain that:

1. you definitely , absolutely have always accepted and understood that being trans is real thing. You've never suggested it was a pretence or nothingness. No one on this board has ever done that.

1. how dare I define and explain the real thing that is being trans! Any attempt to describe, define and explain it , is definitionally transphobic!

I cannot see how you seriously think that makes any sense at all.

Of course Simone de Beauvoir assumed a female sexed body as the primary prerequisite before one could "become a woman".

She did. But she also recognised that "a woman" is something that one js "made" , not "born", (which of course creates the logical possibility that there are others ways to "make" a woman) and that "womanhood" has never been understood as "a simple fact about the body".

I don't understand how you have come to point one. Are there people who have body dysmorphia and wish they had a differently sexed body and/or feel that they more comfortably fit in with stereotypes that don't align with their sex? Of course. There are also plenty of people (normally men) who have seen an opportunity to claim a trans identity in order to access female single sex spaces. There are women who are trans out of being female, possibly as a reaction against being sexualised or abused. There are some who are trying to trans away the gay. That doesn't change their sex.

For your second point, that is considered to be transphobia, yes. Sorry to break it to you, but you are transphobic if you attempt to gatekeep who is or isn't trans. Anyone who claims a trans identity is trans and must be accepted, affirmed and validated. Any deviation from that approach is transphobic.

No. She would have known that the only way to become a woman was to be born a girl in a female sexed body & that a man suffering from a delusion that he is female can never become a woman.

Oh Puppy. Everyone accepts you're trans. Everyone knows that means you're male. Go out for a walk and get some fresh air?

Are there people who have body dysmorphia and wish they had a differently sexed body and/or feel that they more comfortably fit in with stereotypes that don't align with their sex? Of course. There are also plenty of people (normally men) who have seen an opportunity to claim a trans identity in order to access female single sex spaces. There are women who are trans out of being female, possibly as a reaction against being sexualised or abused. There are some who are trying to trans away the gay. That doesn't change their sex.

ah ok.

you misunderstand what being trans is and continue to insist your prejudices about trans people reflect actual trans experience .

I've tried to explain what trans experience actually is. I've tried to describe it. Which is not "gate keeping trans", it is simply describing a thing, an actual thing in the world. You are not interested. There's no much more to be said .

This is nasty: I will try to take a deep breath and not react.

To be clear I am not trans. I was identified female at birth. I perceive myself to be female. I have a uterus, ovaries and a vagina, and I have multiple children. I have never had my chromosomes tested but I have ever reason to assume they are xx.

Hope that clarifies.

Please do not continue to intentionally misgender me or accuse me of being trans as I consider that to be abusive behaviour. Thank you .