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. 🤷🏻‍♀️

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

I don't, and in the absence of a definition of "gender identity", I refute the assertion that most people have one.

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

My brain doesn't have an understanding of myself as male or female, other than through my experience of having a female body. I think I was six when I asked my mother whether cutting my
hair short would make me a boy, which would indicate that I didn't have a sense of "feeling female" at that age. I am unpleasantly reminded that I am female when I get my cramptastic periods, or my tits get in the way, or I can't get a rucksack without paying absurd sums for a sex-specific model from Osprey or similar. And if I read gay written porn slash fiction on Archive Of Our Own, I start getting phantom penis, but the simple fact that swerving the male-on-male smut makes the phantom penis go away tells you straight up that it is not innate but is a conditioned feeling that increases when I reinforce it and diminishes when I leave it alone. It's certainly not a basis for opposite-sex hormones and surgery, nor for admitting me into men's spaces, nor for giving me a falsified birth certificate.

All of my lived experiences, coupled with the massive overrepresentation of autism amongst girls referred to Tavi, makes me wonder how much of "gender identity" is conditioned rather than innate, the internalisation of societal gendered stereotypes. I theorise that these vulnerable autistic girls were overrepresented in Tavi referrals because their autistic differences in how they think means that they don't, or even can't, internalise the gendered stereotypes.

The birth certificate (the one issued at birth) states your sex observed at birth and is all you need to show if you are a man or a woman. Any other certificate just shows you have participated in a legal fiction.

Ummm excuse me! I am also trans.

Can you explain why "a pervasive, consistent, persistent difference in the brain/ psyche whereby you perceive /
recognise yourself to be other than your birth sex." justifies the TRA demand that trans people should bs treated as if they actually are the opposite physical sex?

Yes, this rational seems to fall short of 'trans women are women'.

I think the rational behind 'trans women are women' and Stonewall's definition of trans is that everyone has a gender identity, and that 'trans women are women' because a gender identity is equally valid regardless of sex. Sex can be ignored because to refer to Isla Bumba, nobody really knows their sex, and we are all just one chromosome test away from finding out that we are neither male nor female.

Doctors are just making a random guess when they assign a sex. Nobody really knows why they bother to do this at all, or why they don't branch out beyond male and female. A trans person is somebody who was unfortunately assigned the wrong sex, a bit like when your supermarket delivery order goes wrong. The only person with a problem of perception is the doctor.

It is only acceptable to claim an 'agender' identity if one agrees that this is highly abnormal, and that everyone else has a gender identity.

I don't even think your second paragraph is necessary, if you accept the postulate that gender is what matters and sex is irrelevant. We shouldn't be categorised at birth according to our sex at all in the first place, but according to our genders. For most people (who are of course cisgender), going by their sex is a good enough approximation, but for the Special Few, an unfortunate mistake is accidentally made at birth that must obviously be rectified as soon as the child says or does anything even remotely indicative of the possibility that they might not be cisgender.

So of course, when the law goes, "People should be categorised by sex, not gender", TRAs' heads explode, since to them sex is utterly irrelevant.

It is only acceptable to claim an 'agender' identity if one agrees that this is highly abnormal, and that everyone else has a gender identity.

Not abnormal, how dare you! ~Rare~

I do agree but please do not use cis. It is offensive and demeaning.

Ah, apologies! I meant it as in ~"cisgender"~ rolls eyes, but I can see how that wouldn't come through. Sorry for the offense!

if you accept the postulate that gender is what matters and sex is irrelevant. We shouldn't be categorised at birth according to our sex at all in the first place

This is the logical conclusion.

My brain doesn't have an understanding of myself as male or female, other than through my experience of having a female body.

Sure, you can reason/ explain it that way, and I have every reason to believe that is correct.

But whatever the reason- you have a gender identity - because you recognise / see yourself as female (your brain perceives this) .

You understand yourself to be female because you have a female body. that was your development trajectory and it is the overwhelming norm. However, there are a small minority of people who don't have this developmental trajectory, because people are different and diverse.

Oh no. It’s fine. I should have realised. I’m sorry for jumping on you.

Should our birth certificates record our body parts we were born with, a code for lifetime tracking use , our genetic parents, place and date of birth?

Like an inventory document listing our production?

That way no sex is ‘assigned’ and it frees us up to self produce ourselves until we reach the finished product.

Or maybe, we, as humans can simply understand that the sex class of our bodies cannot be changed, just like the date of our birth and place. Nor can our birth mother. And sex matters for many instances in life and not what sex anyone believes they are when they are not. This means when sex based provisions are limited to sex class it relates to our bodies and that is it.

In saying this, it is like many of us have typed this same thing over and over and over again for years. And yet we are still being told that female people have to prioritise some male people and to not do so is bigotry and hate and unkind.

Not only that, but the same poster will never acknowledge the harms that their advocacy creates for female people. I believe they simply cannot accept that their advocacy causes harm to people so they will shut down discussions about the outcomes of that advocacy.

But female isn’t a gender. It’s a sex. So no, still no gender sorry. I mean, unless you’re using gender to mean outdated, sexist stereotypes?

This answer as to whether or not TIMs should be allowed in women's spaces appears to be the bog standard TRA cookie cutter response.

There's always 'nuance' to whether or not men should be allowed women's spaces. Because there's always an attempt to customise the answer to fit the needs of the specific person concerned.

So you'll have yes if they've got a GRA (but no to all other TIMs), or yes if they transitioned years ago , (but no...etc) or yes if they've had surgery, or yes if they pass, etc

But mostly yes if it's just toilets. Because all those other TIMs can swing for it, since the person isn't in the least sporty, in prison, in need of a rape refuge, and couldn't care less about Jam and Jerusalem.

it's never 'black-and-white', because men who really, really want to use women's toilets will get absolutely no one on board, if they also say that incarcerated women have to be locked up with male rapists.

So nuanced it is.

I'm not sure how you are still confused since you've been on this thread a while.

It doesn't matter whether we use the words gender or sex, what I am talking about is an actual , psychological experience.

The direct recognition/ perception / understanding of self (in the brain) as femalw. That is what people call "gender identity". It doesn't have to be called this, it could be called any name we choose. The point is- do you have the psychological recognition/ perception that you are a female person? Yes? Great. Were you born female? Yes? Great. Then you are part of the overwhelming majority of people who happen not to be trans.

No no, don't apologise! I wasn't clear while using a hurtful term, so it's on me. I'll know to be more careful in the future.💜💚

Can you explain this means we should

A) treat them as if they actually have the body of the opposte sex;

And/or

B) Conclude from this that sex is actually a mental attribute?

Because these are the actual demands that are being made in the name of "trans"

And these demands clearly ignore the reality that whatever one may "perceive" ones sex to be, the physical capabilities one has, the opportunities one gets and the risks one faces, and the way society reacts to one for good or for bad, are very influenced by the sex of ones body and little if at all by ones "Gender Identity", (should such a thing actually truly exist in the way you assume it must to balance your belief system.)

Nope, that logic has too many unevidenced jumps.

An equally valid reading of the evidence is:

I perceive myself as female because that's the word for this type of body. There's nothing additional in the words beyond a label for body sex. If the word for this type of body was "hat" I'd perceive myself as a hat.

And if someone believes they have a "hat" body when they actually have a "shoe" body, this is not proof that "hatness" is a self - recognised quality that exists as a fact outside the body. It is just a failure of the mind to recognise that the actual sex is "shoe". The mind in this case is, as we know minds can be, wrong.

But how do I know I was born female? If males can also “feel female” than what are they referencing to know this? What do I have in common with these males that I don’t have in common with males without a trans identity? I know I'm female because I habe a female body, but you e said that people with a male body can also feel female so how? How does they know? They are not female so how do they know what a female feels like?

It doesn't matter why you perceive yourself as female. The point is that you do. You were born female and you perceive yourself as female. You are not trans.

Some people born female, perceive themselves to be male. We can argue about why this is, but regardless of any argument about that, it simply, factually is. And we don't know how to "cure" it.

I'm using "born female" to appease you all.

What I mean is that you were recognised to be female at birth. This is a factual event that happened and was recorded. You were recognised as female, presumably because you have a vagina. It's may also be the case that pre-natal testing showed you to have xx chromosomes.

It's really not that hard people, honestly it isn't.

But how do we know we’re female according to you? We’re using our definition of female but you said that was wrong so how can we tell we’re female? For all I know, I’m a giraffe?

It doesn't matter why you perceive yourself as female.

It does, actually, because in order to be trans, you have to have both perceptions: one of the body, and the other of the mind, and the two don't coincide.

So if @FlirtsWithRhinos only perceives her body, but doesn't perceive her mind, then we cannot know whether she's trans or not.

I found this incoherent, sorry.

You don't have to have to be able to observe your own 'mind' in order to have direct perception of things. What would this even mean?

The fact that some people "perceive" themselves for whatever reason to be the opposite sex I can asolutely agree with.

And if that is all you were saying I'd happily agree with you.

But you are going far beyond that. You are making the unevidenced jump to claiming this means they are the opposite sex in a meaningful way. You get very exercised when someone suggests this "trans" perception of sex is a delusion.

You believe it is a truth that men who perceive themselves as women actually are women.

You believe they truly do have more in common with the physically female than other men. You believe they deserve the name of women and the rights of women.

This is what people disagree with. Not the observed facts but the ideological leaps you make from them.

If ypu were to say "cis people are people who not suffer from the deluson that they are the opposite sex. A trans woman is a female person with the delusion she is a man" that would be a truthful statement I can agree with.

But saying "A trans women is a male bodied person who is actually and truthfully a woman because that is how (s)he perceives (her)himself"? No. There is nothing to support that leap. It is purely ideology.