Is Jenni Murray right about transgender?

Luckygirl, I have a similar friend. Really quite a wonderful human being. He's gone through the process but still looks like a man. He had hoped that the hormone therapy would grow his hair but he's gone bald and he has to check his breasts every week because of the high doses of hormones he's taking. He sounds like a man and he still refers to himself as 'he'. Prior to the transformation he had to have a lot of psychiatric treatment so it's not a simple process of deciding your chosen gender and then whoopee, off you go. It's a long procedure to check that you really do want to change.
The strange thing is he/she has decided he's attracted to women. So he/she has gone from being a married man with children to a woman who is now attracted to other women.
Is he happy?
No, sadly not. His contentment levels are far less than they once were. In his own words he says he's climbed the mountain, got to the top and the view isn't what he thought it would be.
We do try and support him and include him in various things. Because he is really totally inoffensive, it's hard to find anything not to like. He spends a lot of time being emotional and crying and tends to isolate himself.
But he does not call himself a woman and would not dream of trying to force the masses to accept him as such. He refers to himself as just a transgender person which seems to fit who he is. There's very much a sense of realism with him and myself too. We accept him as he is and treat him as a human being. He is actually very funny when he's not depressed. I think sometimes we just have to care about the person inside the person and just see them as this when nothing else makes sense to them or the rest of the world.

I have a friend who had surgery to change his gender. She does not look like a woman - she is 6 foot 4 for a start! - her feet are huge, her hands are huge, her facial features are masculine. TBH she looks like a man in drag. She seems happy with the result though - so that's fine. But she is not trying to impose rules on others. She has done what she wanted to do and is enjoying life.

How come Clarkson could write for years in the Sunday Times and say the most outrageous things without being warned? - he had to sock someone on the nose before they said anything!

I've never met a man-to-woman trans. but have friends whose daughter is changing to a man. It seems to be slow gradual process.I think she has always had a male mentality (whatever that is.
I can't help still thinking of her as "she" - I've known her all her life. She/he was always lacking in confidence, and still is.

It isn't 'clouding the issue' or 'nitpicking"to point out that the matter is far more complicated and involved than the simple definition you have given nina. If you can't accept that that is fine but perhaps some of us would prefer to try and understand these.

There is only one aspect of this where I consider that discrimination might possibly be justified and that is competitive sport.

For a trans woman who was born and grew up with a male body, there may be an unfair advantage in strength and physique. However I believe trans people have to continue hormone treatment for life and so drugs tests may rule them out anyway.

I must admit I find it difficult to comprehend transgender because I have no experience of feeling I need to change to a different sex so I can't really empathise, sympathise or judge people who decide on their future.

I remember two men in my workplace many years ago who decided to become women - they were subjected to all kinds of ridicule and there was uproar (by female staff) when a loo was made especially for one of them during and after his transition.

What I saw was a man transformed from a very quiet, unassuming character into a confident happy human being. This, for me, was the crux of the matter. Even a 'coming out' party was held - it was brilliant with other transgender and transvestite people attending, and was such an experience to meet them. The best party ever!

Perhaps the emphasis needs to be about the person, not whether they are internally male or female.

Stop clouding the issue and taking my comments out of context Janeainsworth. Those girls or young women can have a medical diagnosis and treatment to correct those problems. Plus they're not opting for a gender change. Jenni Murray was talking about a completely different matter.

Many women cannot or will not give birth but remain women, many are born without any reproductive organs or even with sets of both . It isn't as simple as you seem to believe nina1959. I imagine 100years ago no one would have thought of in vitro fertilisation or of the measures now possible to help people have children. It isn't a far stretch of the imagination to forsee a time when trans gender women will be able to have children if they want. Presumably you would then accept them as women, but still not anyone without a complete reproductive system.

Janeainsworth. I agree with Jenni Murray. I didn't respond to Trisher because I clearly stated in my post 'born with a female reproductive system'. Trisher mentioned hysterectomy which obviously is given to women who were 'born with a female reproductive system' in which case, I don't want to end up in a circular conversation.

Neither do I think I was making a generalisation. Our biologiocal systems define us. How are you going to get sperm from a transgender man? How is a transgender woman going to give birth? What's going to happen to the human race if we now start defining woman as men and men as women? Where does that leave our children? It's complete and utter madness.

I wasn't nitpicking nina and nor I think was trisher. What a dismissive comment.
I was just trying to demonstrate that it's a very complicated issue and it doesn't help to make generalisations.

Janeainsworth, I imagined some nitpicking might occur after I posted so I'll just reply to you rather than get into an ongoing debate. In reply to your comment, functioning or not, they are born with ovaries, which are part of the female reproductive system.

I totally agree that it is entirely wrong for the BBC to try and censor the views that their employees might express in a medium other than the BBC.

I have been having a think about that.

I think that in her case it is because ^ presenters should remain impartial on controversial topics covered by their BBC programmes."^

As regards the likes of Jeremy Clarkson who wrote many books on his views and I dont think was censored, he does not fall into the above category? Or maybe he did?

I totally agree that it is entirely wrong for the BBC to try and censor the views that their employees might express in a medium other than the BBC. I am slightly worried that they feel it is OK to censor the views they express on the BBC TBH - free speech means that some people might be offended; so be it.

I am deeply offended by much of what Donald Trump says - but he has the right to say it.

As to the transgender issue - we are what we are and we cannot choose to be other. A woman who has changed herself from a man to a woman is just that. It is a hard road for those who feel they are in the wrong body - but that is entirely their affair and should not influence how others are treated or labelled.

But there are a number of women who are born either without a uterus or whose reproductive organs don't work properly, are you then saying they are not women? What about someone who has a hysterectomy do they cease to be a woman?

life

nina unless you are born with a female reproductive system, you are not a woman
So, are you including women born with congenital abnormalities in that?
Girls with Turner's Syndrome are born with non-functioning ovaries, among other things which makes like difficult for them. Does that mean in your view they will never be women?

however we have reminded her that presenters should remain impartial on controversial topics covered by their BBC programmes."

BBC rules I presume. For freelancers or otherwise I presume.
Jenni can choose not to work for them if she is too bothered by that.

Well Jenni has said it now. It's out there, the horse has bolted. Bit late for the BBC to gag her now and I suspect they're only doing it out of being PC.

My thoughts are that we are all human first. How we live, what we think we might or might not be, is then how we present ourselves out there in the world. I wouldn't want to hurt another person by denying or rejecting how they see themselves but unless you are born with a female reproductive system, you are not a woman. I don't mind if you want to call yourself one and I don't mind if you dress like one. I DO mind if I am told I MUST accept you as a woman because your 'rights' and ego are allowed to override my right to think as I do.
And I completely agree with Rigby46.

I don't think I agree with Jenni Murray I think the issue is far too complex and involved to dismiss trans-gender women as not having had the "experiences of being women". Such a description would also rule out children who were brought up as members of the opposite sex (rare but it has happened). There is also a fashion for bringing children up in environments without gender, are we than to conclude that girls raised like this will not be women?
However I do think she has a perfect right to express her opinion and the BBC should stay out of things unless she has used her position there as a vehicle for promoting these.

I doubt it ankers.
I can accept that the BBC might take a dim view of its employees/contractors beating people up, though it was slow to condemn Jeremy Clarkson, and it might well be within the law to prevent its employees/contractors working for other people, if they are under contract with the BBC.
But the issue was not that she had written for the Sunday Times - the issue was what she had written, and the BBC has no right to dictate editorial policy to the Sunday Times, quite apart from have no right to curb Jenni Murray's opinions.
The other point is impartiality.
I do not see that impartiality comes into it.
Impartiality at the BBC refers to impartiality between political parties, not warring factions in the LBGT community.

Which seems fair enough

"Commenting on the issue, a BBC spokesman said: "Jenni Murray is a freelance journalist and these were her own views, however we have reminded her that presenters should remain impartial on controversial topics covered by their BBC programmes."
...

I THINK this means that she must remain impartial when pesenting (ie, adopting an 'in the chair' role) on BBC programmes. Not with regard to her outside journalism.

Plus which people have all sorts of things in their contracts nowadays.
I suspect that she did indeed break her contract.

But being a broadcaster, I would suspect and expect that she does have certain rules for her employment, even if outside work.

So the general principle would still apply.

That's not a valid comparison Ankers.
Jenni Murray wasn't disclosing confidential information, she was expressing a personal opinion.
As I said upthread, she wasn't even working for the BBC when she said it.