The persistent framing
Ugh I’m probably going to have to transcribe every word of this disgusting conversation on Woman’s Hour – because the very first thing Nuala McGovern the woman host of WOMAN’S HOUR does is confuse the issue by referring to the man in the women’s changing room as “a trans woman” instead of a man or a male. Ok Nuala McGovern so why talk about women on Woman’s Hour at all? Why not just make it all about trans women instead? Why not replace you with a trans woman? Eh?
Off we go.
The presenter Nuala McGovern:
Want to turn to Bethany Hutchinson, she is one of eight women, all nurses, who are taking their NHS Trust to an employment tribunal for allowing a trans woman to use their changing facilities at work. Bethany works in Darlington Memorial Hospital in County Durham, and when I spoke to her I asked her when she first became aware that a colleague who is trans was using the women’s changing room.
Bethany Hutchinson: Yes so this kind of kicked off in July 2023, so without any sort of warning or consultation from senior management, we became aware of a male changing in the female changing room, and this has led to nurses having panic attacks before their shifts, it’s led to international nurses wearing clothing underneath their uniform because obviously culturally they can’t be exposed in a state of undress in front of any other male other than their husband – and generally just a feeling of anxiety amongst many female members of staff, you know, looking over their shoulder worried that this person’s going to walk in and see them in a state of undress.
McGovern: Emmm you talk – use the word male, but what you mean is a trans woman colleague.
Hutchinson: This person self-identifies as female, this person has had no surgery, does not take hormones, is having sexual intercourse with a female as far as I’m aware, so I would say a male.
McGovern: And the person you are referring to would use she/her pronouns –
Hutchinson: Yes
McGovern: – but you don’t agree to using that?
Hutchinson [firmly]: I don’t agree to using that, no.
McGovern: And why?
Hutchinson: Because they’re a male, they have all their parts in place, and I believe that this is a biological fact, it’s not interchangeable.
End of part one.
It’s interesting that Hutchinson is a nurse, and it’s her job to be familiar with these “parts” and to know who has which kind, while McGovern is a BBC talking head, so it’s her job to be familiar with words. The two have different vocational habits of thinking. McGovern can mostly forget about the parts while she’s working, while Hutchinson cannot.
As much as I sympathize with Hutchinson, I wish everybody on the gc “side” would stop bringing up whether or not TIM have had surgeries, taken hormones etc. as if it made a difference. Even if he had, it still wouldn’t make him a woman, nor make it any more acceptable for him to enter women’s changing rooms.
She says that later on in the interview. McGovern prods her with “Well what if” questions in the most infuriating way.
Bjarte, I disagree. I think this is a very important distinction.
Males who have had various surgeries on their “parts”, who take hormones, and who do their very best imitation of being a woman are obviously males with deep seated mental health issues. However, if their penis is gone, they are far less likely to be a threat to women. Rape is impossible (at least as English law defines it) when you don’t have a penis. They are, however, still males, and have no right to occupy female only spaces.
Males, such as the one in this case, who have had no surgery or take any hormones, but who simply wear “women’s clothing” while also being mentally ill, are very much a clear and present danger to the safety of women. They may start out, as this one appears to be, as simple voyeurs, but we all know where this often concludes – with rape and possibly murder.
This is a man who has demonstrated by his behavior that he has nothing but contempt and ill intent towards his female co workers. Forget whether or not he belongs in the female changing rooms, what he is doing proves that he is unsuitable to work in this environment. He should be on the sexual offenders list and barred from any employment where women and girls may be at his mercy.
Rape is far from the only threat to women though. Removing a penis does nothing to remove just plain old violence. Rape is not the only form of male violence against women.
I agree, but sometimes I think it’s important to spell out for the naive and clueless (like me from a few years ago) that things are worse than they seem. How many are aware of the fact that most TiMs have not undergone surgical “transition”? I wasn’t. Under self-ID there’s absolutely nothing, not even the threadbare legal fiction (i.e.lie) of a GRC to keep any and all men from identifying into women’s facilities. They’ve completely gutted the perfectly reasonable and prudent safeguarding concept of “Schrodinger’s rapist.” Make them explain how this works, and how they can tell the “safe” males from the “unsafe” with such precision and relability that the former can be let in while still keeping the latter out. They can’t of course, yet they believe they have some power to do so, and that identifying “as a woman” somehow, magically renders men who do so completely harmless. It’s all bullshit, and they know it. They don’t care about women’s safety. Women don’t matter. Women have already paid too high a price for this wilfull malevolence disguised as a “human rights” campaign. Women have been pushing back for years, but are still portrayed as hateful bigots for doing so. How dare McGovern push and prod and browbeat women to force them to accept men into women’s spaces? How dare she try to force Hutchinson to submit to and use the Newspeak redefinition of “woman” against her own interests? How dare she feign any kind of pontificating, judgemental superiority, and claim to hold the moral high ground when she’s the one who is essentially defending and promoting the “right” of sexual predators to enter women’s spaces? She should be sacked.
Hutchinson could have put it differently, or better, but I think that using surgically “transitioned” males as a rhetorical, “best case,” “steel man” scenario is useful. The fact that they’re willing to accept the carte blanche to predators that is self-ID, shows just how shitty the genderists’ position is. Taking this approach spells out what transactivists are willing to defend, and shows what they’ve already been able to force upon women. The fact that this open invitation for predators under self-ID stands even if TiMs are as completely harmless as they are claimed to be (which of course they are not), demonstrates how extreme the genderists’ position is. It shows their continuing, unrepentant, bloody-minded commitment to keep on sacrificing women’s safety in its pursuit and defence. Exposing that is worth something.
Hear hear!
[…] a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on The persistent […]
True, but none of that would have changed if he had medically transitioned.
And, of course, it’s not just a matter of physical “safety”. Women also have a legitimate interest in privacy, dignity, comfort etc.