Do you EVER?
Ok by popular demand of at least one person I’ll go on with the “what even are women??” segment of today’s Woman’s Hour.
I paused at the cliffhanger moment when Nuala McGovern asked Kate Barker
and some of course that are listening may find what you’re saying very offensive – do you ever use the term “trans woman”?
Do you ever stop beating your children? Do you ever stop kicking dirt in the faces of the poor? Do you ever stop throwing men off high bridges?
Kate Barker, much too pleasantly in my opinion, says “Yes I would do” but then adds that she prefers to say “trans-identified male, and that’s not to insult or upset anyone but we’ve seen polls that show that 30 percent of people, the British population, don’t know what a trans woman is, they think that’s maybe a woman that’s transitioning to a man” – at which point McGovern cuts in to say “but within – with the people that this will affect they know what that word would mean, the people that disagree with your point of view for example.”
It’s not a point of view, it’s reality. And her point is just a snotty little gotcha: KB is saying that talking about “trans women” will confuse 30 percent of the population, and McGovern rudely brushes that off because apparently the only population that counts is the trans one.
McGovern goes on:
So you’re arguing that a biological male can never be a lesbian – eh there are some trans women as you know that say they are lesbians what would you say to them?
Will these buffoons never grow up? Gosh, I don’t know, what would I say? What would I say if someone told me he’s the reincarnation of Tsar Nicholas II? What would I say if Nuala McGovern said she can turn her own piss into Châteauneuf-du-Pape? What would I say if you said there’s a ghost in the cookie jar?
Barker, I’m pleased to say, answers with “‘Stop it.'” Then a laugh. Then “It’s just ridiculous.” Then a half-formed thought then a swerve to the fully formed “One of the things after the Supreme Court ruling, we were all happy and celebrating – [but] we were exchanging glances, and saying to each other: Can you believe, we’re at the Supreme Court, to find out whether a man is a lesbian or not.”
McGovern clarifies that the LGB Alliance and other lesbian groups were intervenors, and then somewhat belligerently says “But obviously your group, those groups, don’t represent all views of all lesbians, there will be lesbians listening to this program right now saying you do not speak for them, and that they don’t need the protection that you believe is necessary, or want to have a space defined in the way that you want it defined.”
In other words “some people don’t agree with you.” You don’t say!
There’s more but the energy had gone out of it by then so I can’t be bothered to type it up.
Conclusion: I’m really not a fan of Nuala McGovern.
There are people who disagree with me that we developed through evolution, and weren’t designed by a creator god. What would I say to them?
By the way…ghost in cookie jar. That sounds like a great concept for a play (I’m surprised Shakespeare never used it).
We’re being told that we’re supposed to find Barker’s use of “men”, and her reluctance to use the dishonest “transwoman” very offensive. Please, tell us why that is the case. Show your work. They are men, they aren’t women, and they can’t be lesbians. Anyone who thinks they are is just wrong, and, going against the Supreme Court Ruling. Maybe Barker isn’t speaking for everybody, but the law is on her side, and anyone acting in a legal capacity is now bound to interpret their regulations and provisions in light of this decision, whatever McGovern’s precious, delicate, snowflake listeners think. She should be more interested in aligning herself with reality than in coddling her listeners’ delusions, though, having obviously promoted and fostered these delusions, that might feel a little awkward for her. Too bad. I have no sympathy for her. Women’s Hour has been warned for some time that they were insulting women by peddling trans bullshit. Now they’re hearing it again, but they’re on the defensive, and it’s showing. Lay down with trans, get up with glitter. How long before BBC wakes up and trims its sails to the new winds’ direction, before they return to a reality-friendly neutrality that knows extremism and delusion when it sees it?
Perhaps the idea of baking so many ‘cookies’ that there would be enough of a surplus to require a jar to store them was as alien to Shakespeare as it would be to me. Perhaps, though, he could have anticipated the time, centuries in the extravagant future, where such tidbits were available en masse even to those without a large household of servants to polish them off immediately; but in that case, I believe that, seeing that he was English, he would have used the device of a biscuit tin. He could even have had the ‘haunted biscuit tin’ stolen by exorcists, who discover only later that they have stolen the household sewing kit by mistake.
Please write the play! (✷‿✷)
Dammit, borked the html.
In my defence, it is the middle of the night; I was woken by a cat smashing a lamp, and can’t seem to get back to sleep.
I laughed ALL DAY at (paraphrasing) “What would you say to trans women who identify as lesbians?” ” Oh it’s uh, stop it! ”
Trouble is, the BBC is so captured, and so riddled with with young people of gender, that it would be extremely difficult (in the current / recent climate) for a presenter to even vaguely look sympathetic to the pro women side on this. Every time a presenter – on Woman’s Hour, no less – asks these bizarrely detailed questions about what someone means by “men” or whatever, it really makes it clear to the the casual observer how unreasonable it all is. And after the “no debate!” era, there are still vast numbers of people who need to hear it.
Hmm. It’s rather annoying that such an acknowledgement is readily made here, while it often remains unsaid when other views are being discussed.
Of course lesbians don’t all have the same views as Kate Barker, because being a lesbian does not imply having any particular sociopolitical stance. Likewise, it would be wrong to suggest that all lesbians, or even just lesbians in general, disagree with Kate Barker. It would be wrong to claim that there’s one big lesbian community with clearly-defined views, which some groups can properly know and represent. It would be wrong to claim that there’s one big “LGBTQIA+ community,” to conflate this so-called community with “LGBTQIA+ people” in general, and to attribute a common culture (which comes bundled with loads of very specific beliefs and views) to these people. It would be wrong to use all of this to back up positions which are, frankly, stupid.
But how often is that acknowledged?