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. 🤷🏻‍♀️

I'll see if I can post without getting myself deleted again.

This whole affair of Ofcom investigating TT is a good example of the mob mentality that seems to be the way this cult work's. Another version of shouting loudest and drowning out everyone else.

The bully boy tactic's seem to work very well for them in the short term, but ultimately their cause is empty, as are their threats, the official organisations in this country need to start recognising that and tell the mob to take a long walk off a short pier.

take a long walk off a short pier.

I hate to tell you this Theywont, but back in the mists of censored time, a post was deleted for saying exactly that. Encouragement to commit suicide apparently.

Different posting styles, I'd say. Puppy's posts (on this thread at least) are fairly brief, while Howse goes on, and on, and on.

And that's exactly it. The only reason you think this logic makes any sense is because it refers to a form of ID that only trans people get.

If the same logic were applied to any other ID document, available to non trans persons, it would become immediately clear that it's a totally nonsensical and circular chain of reasoning.

This is not a logical statement, it is simply a rhetorical sound bite aimed at mocking and invalidating trans people.

Oh, perhaps I should change it to, tell them to fuck off then, I've already been deleted once, I don't want to be deleted a second time, it stings. 😂

Ah yes validating one must validate men who say they are women. Like the man referred to by Datun in the female toilets with his erection on display, he was of course there to be validated as a woman and under no circumstances must anyone refuse to supply that validation because that's scornful and mocking.

NO. Not on this earth to be used as a validation prop.

If the government allowed 16 year olds to get IDs that said they were 18, would you believe they were actually 18 and therefore legally allowed to buy liquor?

I've tried this several times and it still makes no sense at all.

Oh and only trans people get this ID because they are the only ones lying about their sex. If they weren't they wouldn't need a certificate.

It always has been. To put it another way, transness is truthphobic.

Yeah, what is it with the validation?

I'm not under any obligation to validate anybody.

Are these people not embarrassed by the completely infantilising language they use about grown adults? Adults who take photos of their erections?

yes, the logic that puppy isn't appreciating is that people think they shouldn't be having this certificate. That it's fake, wrong, untrue, homophobic, and sexist.

I reserve the right to be scornful of anything I choose. And today I'm mostly choosing our furry pal.

Don't you just wish that ploppers would arrive with decent debate rather than nonsense they've pulled out of their arse and 'logic' that would make a 10 year old blush?

They range from sounding like robots to the snake in Jungle Book to outright pervs.

I'm only responding for the lurkers. Hi lurkers! 👋

There is a very poor quality of plopper these days. They make Bee look almost as if he has an average IQ.

By definition, if you’ve had to get a piece of paper to say that you are a married, you must accept then that you are not married.

By definition, if you’ve had to get a piece of paper to say that you are a UK citizen, you must accept then that you are not a UK citizen .

By definition, if you’ve had to get a piece of paper to say that you are dead, you must accept then that you are not dead .

The logic is perfectly stupid.

The reason you think the statement in the OP is meaningful is simply because it's about an identity document only acquired by trans people, and you've already decided being trans is fake.

It's a circular, meaningless chain of logic that simply seeks confirmation from those who already agree with its in built premise that trans identity is stupid and invalid. = transphobic statement.

Each of your examples reflect a personal situation that is based on material reality.

This is not the case for a male person getting a certificate to say he is now a female person. There is no materially real basis for that claim. It is only based on philosophical belief about their personal identity.

Yes exactly .

you can immediately see that the chain of reasoning would make no sense / be meaningless if applied to any other administrative ID document.

But when it applies to a GRC it appears really clever and logical to you, only because you have already established your premise that (in your words) being trans "does not reflect material reality":

No, that's not the logic. The logic is the piece of paper cannot change reality in this particular case.

You can't just repeat the words in another context and say there you are, that's not logic.

Otherwise you could say men who really, really want to be women never can be.

And likewise, men who really, really want to barbers never can be.

It's not about using the same words, is it?

It's about claiming something that can never be possible.

Barber, yes. Woman, no.

The logic/ claim in the statement is that:

by definition

if you need a piece of paper to say you are X

you must accept then that you are not X

Yes, that's right. If you need a piece of paper to say you're a woman, you're not a woman.

Because women don't require pieces of paper to affirm their sex.

This is beginning to remind me of Nobby Nobbs having to carry a paper certifying him as ‘probably human’. Less enjoyably, obvs.

It’s fact though.

There is no comparison between marriage and citizen certificates and the death certificate.

The first two represent a legal arrangement and the third represents a state of being that can never be changed.

A certificate to say you are female when you are male is a legal fiction and is not comparable to the other three. The EA addressed it in saying that even with that certificate the holder will be excluded under some exceptions because the legal fiction will be revoked for those.

No female person will have her sex classification revoked for any purpose.

Your comparison was badly flawed from the get go.

How on earth does it express scorn? There is no scorn at all in that statement. It’s entirely factual. I haven’t had to get a bit of paper to say I’m a woman…because I’m an actual woman. Anyone who needs to take that step isn’t a biological woman, they are a man with a piece of paper.

The definition of scorn is an expression of disdain or contempt. I don’t see any disdain or contempt in expressing a fact.