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. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Ummm…. Are we going to get sex is not dimorphic now?? So if our definitions of male female and sex are so wrong, I’m sure you can provide the right definitions. Go on. I’m rooting for you. You can do it.

I'm speechless.

Why? Psychological processes also relate to the brain.

I already answered that question

only with general assertions. I was interested in examples of the type of evidence you think exists in autism research that doesn't exist in gender identity research.

Was it Tandora who had the definitive research results but couldn't show us because it would be 'outing'?🤔

Fucking hell 😂😂😂 "Nor does she appear to have a lot of understanding of the science of brains"
I'm sorry, I know you've said you're not a man, so if you are a woman, maybe you'd consider transitioning yourself. Your communication style and overt arrogance (that you seem completely unaware of) is so startling, I think you'd find some kinship on the 'other side.'

Hiya.

Im not interesting in engaging with personal arguments, comments and insults.

Thanks in advance for respecting that boundary.

And when an actual trans person joins the debate who has actual trans experience, they still know better.

I don't fit the one and only approved trans narrative, so I have to be done away with.

Mind you, Puppy doesn't either, with her insistence on the existence of a trans brain. I wonder if she realises that she's already amply betrayed the cause she purports to be defending?

I have no idea of your sporting prowess but I'm guessing you're not about to be entering male competitions and smashing their world records any time soon.

Ha ha, no :D I

her insistence on the existence of a trans brain

would you please reference this? I have been clear that I don't believe there is such a thing as "the trans brain". As I also stated quite clearly upthread.

All right, I'll amend my statement:

with her insistence on the existence of differences in the brains of trans people.

Better?

Differences with/ within the brain I would say.

Why are your boundaries worthy of respect (even when the "boundary" is smply drawing attention to the lack of evidence in what you claim, something you know to be true even if your preferred strategy is to make a flat denial and simply stop the conversation at the point where if you continued you would have to admit you know this) but the boundaries of female people who simply want recognition in law, culture, politics and society that we are the group to whom the word "woman" has always applied and the group for whose needs the rights of "women" exist, and the truth of trans women whatever that may be is something separate and unrelated to our continued existence and needs as female people, are not?

That would be a great question for you to answer to demonstrate, that unlike @Tandora on the thread where literally every point you have made has already been discussed but you inexplicably and frankly entitledly refuse to read, you truly do care about the self knowledge and reality of female people as well as trans women.

For anyone who wants to see how every single "argument" and assertion puppy has made or indeed will make on this thread has already been played out and debunked, and to understand just how Groundhog Day this new thread is, here is that link again:

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

Oh yes. And also quibbled about definitions of words. And was very condescending and rude. Weren’t they the one minimising a rape survivors trauma or am I getting my TRAs mixed up. Either way they were an absolute dickhead.

"I'm perfectly entitled to challenge her on those aspects"

As am I, with you.

Just worth noting that no one here has refused to engage with you, even @Seethlaw themselves, despite having their knowledge patronisingly derided.

It's been only you that have declared you're not engaging with people because you don't like what they're saying.

People with conviction in their thoughts will engage with anyone, regardless of the pushback.

And by the way, an opinion on someone's posting style is not an insult. Your threshold for dealing with other people's opinions and keeping a debate going is remarkably low 😬

Also @Seethlaw i have no interest in "doing away with you". I think it's really helpful to recognise the presence of gender critical trans people.

I really disagree with your gender critical beliefs. But I'm interested in engaging, not silencing.

It's been only you that have declared you're not engaging with people because you don't like what they're saying

the only thing I stated I would not like to engage with are personal arguments and personal insults. I think that's a reasonable boundary.

Im happy to engage with arguments I don't like as long as they are not about how dreadful my person is,

"She" also claimed to have a husband & children. Why have these special female persons been given the arcane knowledge denied to us Muggles?

I didn't say your person was dreadful. I said that you have been patronising. I'm commenting on your behaviour, not your 'person'.

A little bit like when I'm teaching resilience to the children in my class, their behaviour was the issue, it's not a comment on their overall person.

Are you struggling with the idea that there could be people who are both female and also have a different opinion to you?

You know being female , straight, a mother, etc, doesn't dictate one opinions a person has.. ?

Belief: "the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true" - Cambridge dictionary.

Fact: "something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information".

I don't deal in beliefs. I care only about facts. That's the only thing I'm interested in: facts, the truth.

You, on the other hand, have beliefs indeed, such as the belief that there are differences with/within the brain of trans people.

So, you claim to advocate for trans people, but you are offended to be "accused" of being trans. You object to being "misgendered". I'm aware that Seethlaw has expressed acceptance of the pronouns that other people choose to use, but you have referred here to Seethlaw as "she" and "her", which would appear to go right against your principles. Could we have some consistency please? Do you believe in the concept of misgendering or not? Is it offensive to see a transman as female and to use "she" and "her", or isn't it?

You said I was arrogant to an astonishing degree or something to that effect.

Anyways, apologies if my tone has been patronising. I recognise that is not helpful .

would you please reference this? I have been clear that I don't believe there is such a thing as "the trans brain". As I also stated quite clearly upthread.

It was only when I called you out on the lie that there is scientific evidence to support the existence of differences in the brain for "trans people" that you switched to saying I agree, there's no single thing as "the trans brain" any more than this is a single thing such as "the autistic brain". Which is a smaller lie but still a lie as it still asserts that there is such a thing as a "trans brain" but it has several causes.

Tbh I don’t think you’re dreadful. Bonkers and obnoxious yes. Dreadful no. I think the fact that female people have so many different opinions, though, ideas and interests make it very hard to believe any male who claims he “feels female”. Unless he utilises outdated, offensive stereotypes, how can he claim to know what a female “feels like”? And wouldn’t it be great if there was a test that showed whether someone was trans or not? All we’d need to do is give anyone claiming a trans identity that test and we’d soon find out who the fakers were wouldn’t we. I mean, it wouldn’t change anything, they’d still be their birth sex abd have to use the appropriate facilities for that sex, but it’d deter all those claiming a trabs identity for nefarious reasons wouldn’t it?

So, you claim to advocate for trans people, but you are offended to be "accused" of being trans. You object to being "misgendered"

I am offended by being called trans and a man (he) in attempt to humiliate/ dismiss / patronise me (e.g. we all know you are trans take a walk outside). I don't think there's anything wrong with being a man, or trans, I just happen to be neither.

I'm aware that Seethlaw has expressed acceptance of the pronouns that other people choose to use, but you have referred here to Seethlaw as "she" and "her", which would appear to go right against your principles.

My principles are to refer to people using language that is acceptable to the person/ compatible with their dignity. I was using "they" for Seethlaw as I wasn't sure what she preferred. It was getting grammatically clumsy, so I asked her what she found respectful. She said that she is happy with either she or they pronouns, so I switched to she as it is easier linguistically.

Tbh I don’t think you’re dreadful. Bonkers and obnoxious yes. Dreadful no.

thank you. I'll take bonkers and obnoxious 😆.

I disagree with your understanding of the facts.