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. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Puppy's logic is based on different definitions of man and woman. When you've corrupted concepts of shared reality so deeply, logic can be anything you want and if other peoples logic, based in reality, upsets you it's phobic.

It's batshit crazy absurdity dressed up with a bit of post modern sophistry.

My sprogs didn't get their birth certificates until a few days (weeks in one case) after they were born. Presumably they were sexless until then. There have been registrars who have made mistakes when recording a child's sex. I assume that makes those baby girls actual baby boys. I've known of people who've lost everything they own, including all the paperwork; birth certificates, passports, driving licences, everything, in fires, floods, civil wars. I don't know how they get on at all. Just figuring out what loo to use. Nightmare!

With my genealogist's hat on, I'll admit that administrative documents aren't infallible. They can be corrupted, because human beings are human.

I've seen a bunch of examples:

• The marriage certificate where the bigamist claims to be a widower though some detective work would prove that his legal wife is alive and well
• The marriage certificate where the bride will knock five or six years off her age so as not to be older than the groom; or alternatively, where the young bride will revise her age upwards so as not to need parental consent
• The birth certificate where the unmarried mother can't or won't give details of the man who impregnated her, so outright invents an identity for the father

But these are all imperfections in a system that basically works and as a general rule is reliable.

And a legal fiction might be a perfectly good way of a court assuring justice where a strict interpretation of the law would lead to an injustice. Again, those are fringe cases.

Setting up a system of administrative ID documents based on a legal fiction, with a further element of being allowed to falsify your birth certificate, is a very different thing.

There you go, we already have "experiences" so we don't need "lived realities"

Lived realities is in the same vein as using "hacks" rather than "tips". It just isn't necessary

What lived realities or experiences do transwomen have that makes them not men?
Apart from the usual nonsense of using the ladies loo, which they were perfectly well aware they shouldn’t have been doing in the first place?

Lacking one is proof you are not female

no I don’t agree with that at all. You could for example have some lentil weaving off grid parents who don’t register their baby. But a female baby would still be female, a male baby would still be male.

However I will say if you have a birth certificate issued at birth that says female then you will always be female. And vice versa. People can not change sex. A male person will never be a woman. A woman is a biological female. That’s a scientific fact and it’s not scornful to say so.

I can say this and still be perfectly polite to anyone I meet who is trans. There is someone who is trans at work, I’m perfectly polite to him, I call him by the name he goes by. I am not transphobic towards him. We’re actually friends on Facebook. But I don’t believe he’s a woman.

But in the case of a trans person, their projection of how something is in theory from a outside perspective (i.e their projection of what it's like to be in a woman's body in theory, from the outside perspective of being in a man's body) is somehow also their 'lived reality'. How does that work?

You could for example have some lentil weaving off grid parents who don’t register their baby. But a female baby would still be female, a male baby would still be male.

I agree. Neither the presence nor the absence of an administrative ID document proves who a person factually is, which is why the statement in the OP is nonsense.

I can say this and still be perfectly polite to anyone I meet who is trans. There is someone who is trans at work, I’m perfectly polite to him, I call him by the name he goes by. I am not transphobic towards him. We’re actually friends on Facebook.

I'm really glad to hear that .

But I don't believe he is a woman.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions of course. But it's a general principle of decency not to go around expressing your personal observations / judgements about another individual's person. I'm glad to hear that you observe this is your real life.

their projection of what it's like to be in a woman's body in theory, from the outside perspective of being in a man's body

This is not what being trans is. This is a very common misconception /
projection of what it is to be trans.
People say things like this on these boards constantly.

And twist.

Please define what a gender identity is, if it is not this.

It's been explained to you, you just will not accept it.

I don't know why.

Same with most of the regular posters on this board.

Maybe people wilfully refuse to understand because of their politics ; or maybe they are not able to understand because
they lack capacity to reason beyond their own, direct experience.

Maybe the two are so fundamentally intertwined that the distinction between them is pointless.

When has it been explained to me?

If you don't have a definition, just say so and we will just assume you have little knowledge about the topic.

When has it been explained to me?

🙄

So you haven’t given your definition to me?

If you have, by all means link up the page where you have and it will great to read it to know where you are coming from.

Otherwise, are you making this ‘it has been explained to you’ statement because others have defined it to me previously and not you?

None of the TRAs can ever explain.

Otherwise, are you making this ‘it has been explained to you’ statement because others have defined it to me previously and not you?

Yes. There have been various attempts by the odd punter on mumsnet who isn't part of the gender critical majority.

"I have never understood / agreed with/ been able to make sense of any of the explanations provided by the TRAs" would be a more honest / objective way of framing that statement.

So you, personally, cannot define what the fuck you are talking about.

Great.

Discussion finished. If you can’t define what you are talking about you are just throwing out words for the sake of it really. Because that is what happens if you cannot define the very terms you use.

I feel the need to share this.
HE TELLS HER

He tells her that the earth is flat—
He knows the facts, and that is that.
In altercations fierce and long
She tries her best to prove him wrong.
But he has learned to argue well.
He calls her arguments unsound
And often asks her not to yell.
She cannot win. He stands his ground.

The planet goes on being round.

Wendy Cope

Ah, so you are a TRA.

And no, it would not be more honest. You all say it's been explained by someone else. And explaining requires the other person to understand, otherwise it's just telling, you have not explained.

So you, personally, cannot define what the fuck you are talking about

Not sure why you inserted fuck into that statement 💁🏼‍♀️

The whole of this post is just goading to make me bite.

Gender identity is nothing mysterious . It is very easy to define and nothing unique to trans people either. Gender identity is a normal (almost universal) part of cognitive development.

I know you will all start declaring now how you don't have a "gender identity" , you just know you are a woman because of x, y, z .

Those cognitions/ understandings are your gender identity.

The fact you can tell me you are a woman, an adult human female, is your gender identity. Most children develop this cognitive understanding / capacity around the age of 3.

Ah, so you are a TRA

I don't apply that label to myself or identify with it at all. No.

That is your language: not mine.

So, what is the definition?

C'mon everyone. We have been given the definition. It is a "constellation of data points that show me that I am a woman".

ETA perfectly clear and understandable isn't it?