Not a single female person
Oh for godsake.
“Let’s get four male people to discuss the rights and wrongs of letting male people intrude on women’s sports. Obviously let’s not get any women to do that because who cares what they think?”
Women, eh? Always wanting to be consulted when their rights are being given away. So self-centered.
Incandescent rage.
Inclusion of trans women in women’s sports has nothing to do with women.
And even if it does they’re not clever enough or informed enough to talk about it on the BBC. Obviously.
That’s disgusting, but I am sure at least that Debbie will do his best to make women’s case. He’s been very clear that being transexual does not make him a woman. That being said, the Beeb has pretty much decided how they want this conversation to turn, haven’t they?
Four people, all born male. Well, BBC Radio 4 obviously want not to get too deep into the moral maze, and to make sure they have a ready way out of it in the event they find themselves getting lost. Perhaps the programme would be better called ‘Moral Tiddlywinks’, a nice family game in which sex is unimportant and which everyone (except for women, who are excluded) can enjoy as they tiddle away and discuss the Olympic Tiddles and nursery rhymes about Old Mother Hubbard.
Well, that’s balance enough isn’t it? Moderatiion in all things, I say. ;-)
The word “panel” usually means those who put the questions and debate to the guests, not the guests themselves. On this edition, two of the panel are “cis” women, one of whom is firmly, snidely, Camp Trans (Ash Sarkar). The other two people on the panel are “cis” men. So, at the most, there will be one woman possibly challenging the “inclusion” narrative.
I would not take this personally; the Moral Maze has a long tradition of deeply unsuitable panellists for a programme dealing with morality, on a wide range of subjects. Check out the recently-ennobled Baroness Semtex of Omagh (aka Claire Fox), for example.
On a slightly more positive note, Jess De Wahls was on Radio 4’s Today this morning (about 10 to 9). She was very impressive, and highlighted the role of institutional capture in this nonsense, and was asked if the RA fiasco might be a bit of a turning point. It seems even the RA realised that they shouldn’t have just rolled over for the transactivists straight away.
s.
From today’s local newspaper:
Not all trans people are our enemies, just as not all straight, male, biologists are our friends.
Cate was born Malcolm Gerard McGregor. Excerpt from her Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cate_McGregor
Re “not all trans people are our enemies”: certainly, and, as been pointed out, Debbie Hayton, one of the guests on the show, is firmly in the gender-critical camp. However, it says something when they invite guests on a show to talk about an issue that is first and foremost about women’s rights, and they can’t manage to have a woman guest. It shows at the very least that they only view the issue as “trans rights, pro or con”, and don’t see the women’s rights angle.
It’s similar to panels about abortion that are all male. There are many men who can argue the case very well, but whoever put together the discussion didn’t even see the issue as pertaining to women’s rights.
How can a “trans person” be gender critical, given that gender critical ideology (i.e. very basic science) says that it’s impossible to “transition”? Sure, you can be gender nonconforming, and you can fuck up your body with chemicals and surgeries, but you wouldn’t call yourself “trans”.
I once saw it argued (probably on Ovarit, not sure) that people that claim to be both “trans” and “gender critical” are really just trying to score points for themselves, basically saying “Look at me, I’m ‘not like other trans people’, so even if you don’t respect them, you should still respect me.” Cf. “not like other girls”.
GW:
There are lots of ways of being trans. Debbie Hayton, for example, who was on the show and mentioned above by Sackbut, calls himself transexual and is gender critical. His surgery was to help his sex dysphoria, which it did. He doesn’t entertain any belief that the surgery made him a woman. He has no truck with gender nonsense.
Don’t confuse trans people with trans activists, they’re not always the same thing. And remember that ‘trans’ is so poorly-defined that it’s not possible to say that one can’t be both trans and GC.
Debbie is well worth watching/listening to/reading, by the way.
I know that Miranda Yardley prefers the word “transsexual”, and I think Hayton uses that term as well. Both are men who have modified their bodies to live in a manner resembling women, to deal with gender dysphoria. They are not “women in men’s bodies”, and they don’t claim to be. They both oppose trans ideology, the idea that feelings trump biology and sex doesn’t matter.
The term “trans” is poorly defined, and I think that’s deliberate. Counting “non-binary” or “gender fluid” as “trans”? Counting drag queens as “trans”? It’s almost as bad as “queer”. Find a picture of the “trans umbrella”; it covers everybody except boring typical people.
And once again I’m slow on the typing. What latsot said.
I think McGregor is absolutely correct to be concerned about the effect that Hubbard is having, as the reductio ad absurdum case brought to life in front of a global audience.
And also counting dead females who did work under male names as trans. Sounds rather…Mormon.