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 the thread where Taz was treated deplorably by that poster?

I guess that poster name changed after that.

Right you mentally understand your physical body to be female, and yet, somehow despite this, you perceive yourself as male.

Precisely! I have a mental understanding of my body which is at odds with my perception of myself. That's what makes me trans.

Now, what @FlirtsWithRhinos is saying is that she only has a mental understanding of her body. She doesn't have a perception of herself. So by definition, she's not "c-sgender". It's really not that complicated.

You didn't need the word trivial - it was conveyed in your dismissal of the issue as "might be unfortunate".

Ah the automatic, cognitive sex thingy. I remember it well from posts from the olden times

I haven't changed this. There is no edit history on that post. Where have I changed this?

Now, what is saying is that she only has a mental understanding of her body. She doesn't have a perception of herself. So by definition, she's not "c-sgender". It's really not that complicated.

This is not possible, we all have both going on at once all the time in our perception/ sensing/ experience of things. That's how brains work. The part that is immediate, automatic, non-conceptual, non-inferential sensing and interpretation of sensory data (like seeing colors/shapes), is, by definition not something that someone is consciously aware of, it's just happening in the background all the time. You are consciously aware of only because there is a direct contradiction/ clash there that is causing dissonance.

I'm enjoying your attempts to insist that your mental processes are entirely different to flirts though. Weren't you insisting earlier that there's no evidence that there's no evidence of a difference in how your brain works?

It doesn't seem to be unfortunate for every trans person. Some of them positively revel in it online. Are you doing that thing where you talk for the whole trans community again?

This is not possible, we all have both going on at once all the time in our perception/ sensing/ experience of things.

So you're saying agender people don't exist?

"In other words, is the perception a truth that exists outside the thing perceived (which is what you claim with your concept of Gender Identity) or is the perception simply recognising the external thing perceived and applying tge known label for it?"

Yep.

And around and around and around we go on this very thing.

If a person is applying any label they thinks fits to a 'thing' (even themselves) and this doesn't reflect material reality, why the fuck does society have to act like it believes that the thing being labelled by one person's perception is that 'thing'.

This is the 'philosophical' part of the belief.

I don't know a huge amount about agender people, as it's not something that I have studied in depth.
However, agender people will also have automatic/ sensory processing happening,
Like yours, that automatic/ sensory processing will also be clashing with their higher level mental processes.
While your automatic processing is seeing 'male', an agender person will be not be perceiving either male or female or even a blend. Like being colour blind.

My opinion only…

Seethlaw knows himself to be female but wants/needs, to live as a man to satisfy the distress he feels being female. He knows he’s not a man. He doesn’t expect the rest of the world to ‘see’ him as a man, he’s happy in that he thinks of himself as a man.

puppymaddness is telling Seethlaw how he’s feeling

[I respect Seethlaw and therefore will use the masculine reference…]

Bonkers thread

🤪

Interesting how Puppy can define concepts and words like 'trans' and 'automatic cognitive sex thingy' when it suits, but somehow the words we wish to define, 'male and female' 'man and woman', are too complex and nuanced with multiple meanings.

As I said, if that's what you think.you need to re-read the thread.

And consider that, as you yourself have noted, within our society there are many concepts associated with "woman" and "man" that are not simply body sex, and therefore there are also many ways to understand oneself as "trans".

So when I say "perceive", I simply refer to a person who experiences an honest belief of themself as being the opposite sex. I am not assuming all instances of this have the same root cause.

A man with sexist projections onto women may truly "perceive" himself as a women exactly because he perceives himself in that way. He is just as "trans" as someone with your suggested (though not as yet actually proved to exist) innate DSD of the mind's perception of gender.

I have not once told Seethlaw how he is feeling.

I have disagreed with Seethlaw on definitions/ interpretations of sex, gender and female/ male and with his understanding of the science of how brains work.

I am not required to agree with Seethlaw's interpretation of theories and science because I am cis and he is trans; nor am I required to agree with yours because we are both female.

There is a difference between contradicting someone's direct lived experience and having a debate with them about political ideology and neuroscience.

We're now approaching the end of a thread that started with a fairly simple news story, but which has stretched out to 40 pages on the basis of a single poster acting as if they are the Dungeon Master who gets to control the story, and finger wagging about why the rest of us are wrong while refusing to define their own terms.

I guess for many of us, it isn't our first time at this particular rodeo.

an agender person will be not be perceiving either male or female or even a blend. Like being colour blind.

Precisely what so many on this thread have expressed: they observe their body to be female, but they don't perceive themselves as either male or female or a blend.

Yeah. Same rubbish, different name.

I'm only responding because posters keep arguing with me. I'd really rather be doing more productive things with my time.

I did not want/ intend this thread to get into a conversation about what gender identity is, but @Helleofabore insisted on goading me into it and I was silly enough to bite.

I feel compelled to correct wrong and deeply prejudiced information about trans people that is spread all over mumsnet, because it is causing harm. And it is wrong. Simple as that.

Agree. Having slept on yesterday's offerings I am even less certain that any weight at all should be given to someone telling us that they are trans and demanding special treatment and the things that belong to the opposite sex.

Except they clearly do, otherwise they would be experiencing a clash in the two processing systems, which would make them aware of gender identity/ transness. The fact that they have no awareness of it to the point that they believe it doesn't exist, proves precisely that they are not trans.

It is really bizarre that you are trying to argue that posters on this thread are trans? Is that really what you want to do? Why?

Stop using cis. It is offensive and demeaning. You’re sounding more have been told this. Why do you continue to use offensive terms?

I have not once told Seethlaw how he is feeling.

cough

"also seem to be quite self deprecating of yourself."

I think it's ridiculous to say that cis is an offensive term.

Cis is simply given a label to the default norm, so that we are able to speak about and describe the minority.

You are right that is against Mumsnet guidelines to direct it at a person, so I have edited my post to reflect this - that was an error. However, we are still allowed to refer to cis people, or being cisgender, in general.

Thread is full @Seethlaw----

"self deprecating" was an observation about your behaviour, not a comment about how you feel.

@Helleofabore as you know perfectly well, I replied several times to you that I did not wish to get into that discussion, and you responded with goady posts like "clearly you can't define it then. Got it". You left me the option - don't reply and concede you don't know what your talking about, or reply. You knew EXACTLY what you were doing.

Word salad, with dressing.

Gosh. Blame me for asking you to define the terms that we were involved in a discussion with, which is a reasonable expectation.

But also, blame me for your own lack of impulse control.

You feel compelled to keep repeating your own version of misinformation across MN as has been done for a long time. And yes, this statement, almost word for word keeps popping up as justification:

"I feel compelled to correct wrong and deeply prejudiced information about trans people"

Pretty much word for word.

When threads keeps cycling around one poster's say so that all people with transgender identities fit into this one definition, despite there being people with transgender identities saying that they don't fit that definition. It keeps cycling around to one poster arbitrating who is and isn't transgender, while not being transgender themselves.

Plus ca change. However, it is not me that is to blame that people disagree with you when you start to drill down into your discussion points.