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. 🤷🏻‍♀️

This is false.

Not false, where do you think self ID came from.

No, what you’ve posted is incoherent. Abd you still haven’t given your definitions of male, female and sex. You told us ours were wrong but you can’t seem to explain why? Is that because we’re right?

Of course the only way to determine whether someone is trans is to ask them. (Like depression, ADhD etc, it relies on self report) that doesn't mean that being trans isn't a real thing or doesn't have a stable, consistent definition. It is and it does, the one I have shared.

No. Stonewall said it themselves. “Believe people when they tell you who they are” “Acceptance without exception”. And you seemed so clear to think stonewall are the experts on all things trans so you must accept what they say.

It's perfectly coherent.

Of course the only way to determine whether someone is trans is to ask them. (Like depression, ADhD etc, it relies on self report) that doesn't mean that being trans isn't a real thing or doesn't have a stable, consistent definition. It is and it does, the one I have shared, which is consistent with stonewall's

Right, well I have decided I am trans. Am I?

So a young girl saying she’s trans because she hates being female is the same as a middle aged man who states he has become a woman because of AGP? Really? You’re going with that?

You know perfectly well that you aren't.

@puppymaddness If you want to argue that there is a (tiny?) subset of the trans community who experience their bodies in a similar way to Seethlaw, then you should do that instead of trying to extrapolate that definition to everyone who says they are under the trans umbrella.

That is why Seethlaw gets our time and attention. She doesn't extrapolate to justify an incoherent ideology.

But I don't want to adhere to the gender stereotype that society expects me to. So I must be. And if I say so, I am.

Can you point to the part of the definition that contradicts this?

How are we supposed to tell the difference between a male person with a deep philosophical belief that they were meant to be female, and a male person who just fancies a cheeky wank in the women's toilets?

Ok. I’m trans and as a member of the trans community I say you’re wrong. Now what? You have to believe me when I say I'm trans, and you telling me im wrong on the definition of “trans” is you denying my lived experience and knowledge of myself as trans.

Can you give us definitions of the words you claim we don’t understand?

Errr…. She is if she says she is. Stonewall says so. Are you denying her knowledge of herself and her identity? Bit transphobic no?

And my lived experience, of course....

Anyway, regardless of who is included under the trans umbrella, women (including those who identify as trans) still need sex based rights and nobody can change sex, so the lack of clarity around what 'trans' means is in many ways more of a problem for the trans community than gender critical feminists.

Totally agree, and sex based healthcare.

Excellent point

You aren't "just explaining" at all.

You are applying the ideological slant that a trans person's perception that they are the opposite sex means they are the opposite sex. That not only do our cultural concepts of "woman" and "man", rightly or wrongly, include elements that are not facts of biology, but that sex can for some, and therefore must for all, stand outside facts of biology.

Please do not insult our intelligence by pretending that "all" you are doing is observing that some people perceive themselves to be the opposite sex.

Because if that were "all" you were doing, you would not feel the need to state, so confidently but so without basis, that trans women "are" women and not men.

That to observe and care about the acrual, biological sex of trans women more than their self perception is "transphobic".

That women who disagree with you "do not understand", when the reality is that we understand so much more clearly than you [will admit] that between your "explanation" of what trans is, and the concessions you demand of female people in its name, is a gap as empty, vaccuous and unbridged as the gaps between the galaxies.

Interesting.

I noticed that this afternoon we have had that sex categories can be theorised but apparently there is nothing philosophical behind someone describing themselves as something they conceptualise a term meaning, when it cannot possibly mean what they conceptualised it meaning.

Sounds rather inconsistent.

I would however like to thank @puppymaddness for the contribution to the FWR Christmas Panto this year...

Next time I just want to hear someone yelling "On no it isn't" over and over again I will know who to call!

In a very crowded field that incudes Howie and Bee, Puppy is in the running for the 'has no credible argument' of the year award.