The iPM New Year's Honour goes to:
Penny.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
If as a result of hearing today's programme you're looking for help or information, the Radio 4 Action Line suggests these:
Stonewall Housing provides housing advice to lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) people of all ages through a weekday telephone helpline and 3 weekly drop-in surgeries in different venues across London. The advice has been awarded the Legal Services Commission's Quality Mark and covers a range of issues such as, homophobic and transphobic harassment, domestic abuse, homelessness, succession, repossession and insecure, substandard or overcrowded accommodation. Stonewall Housing also chairs the Older LGBT Housing Group, made up of organisations and individuals who aim to improve housing, care and support services and scope the development of specific services for older LGBT people. For free, confidential advice please call 020 7359 5767 or email info@stonewallhousing.org or for more information click here.
The Social Care Institute for Excellence have five films pointing social care workers and managers in the direction of good practice when providing social care for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people. For more information, click here. If you run a care home and want advise on this issue, please ring SCIE on 020 7089 6840. How dignity, respect and inclusion are paramount for partners and carers of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people. Watch Roger's story here.
Broken Rainbow UK runs the only National Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans Domestic Violence Helpline providing confidential support to all members of the LGBT communities, their family and friends, and agencies supporting them. Our trained helpline workers help with building a safety plan, discuss housing options, give general information about legal rights, local support services, discuss making a police report and provide confidential listening support. Contact them on 0300 999 5428 on Mondays from 2pm - 8pm, Wednesday from 10am - 1pm and Thursday from 2pm - 8pm, or log on here.
The Samaritans provides confidential non-judgemental emotional support, 24 hours a day for people who are experiencing feelings of distress or despair, including those which could lead to suicide. Contact the Samaritans by phone on 08457 90 90 90, 24 hours a day, or log on here.
If you're a young person and you're considering suicide, or you feel depressed or like you're not coping with life, HOPELineUK, provided by the organisation PAPYRUS, is a confidential helpline service staffed by trained professionals who can give support, practical advice and information. You can call the helpline on 0800 068 41 41. Lines are open Monday to Friday from 10am until 5pm and again from 7pm until 10pm, and between 2pm until 5pm at the weekend. PAPYRUS can also offer help and advice if you're concerned about someone you know. You'll also find them online here.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~23~RS~)
RSS feed
Email us
Our Twitter
Listen to PM
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Listened to the Penny iPM interview and I was in tears. Penny helps so many people to be confident, be content and let their inner selves and beauty out. I'm lucky to have known Penny and she's changed my life. What she does is so important. How much better can it be to save a life and make people happy? Long may she continue, her and others like her.
Gillian.
Complain about this comment
I am listening to iPM and fascinated to hear about Penny's work and her award. But why did Eddie Mair have to use the term "Do you want to kill the person who nominated you?" Penny then used the same word 'kill'?
When are we going to stop using the phrase 'going to kill' rather than 'get cross with' or another phrase? Many children and young people do not understand that kill means death. Also many people with autism take these sort of phrases literally.
Complain about this comment
Anyone interested in finding about more about Trans issues, be they the ones questioning gender, family, or just the curious, will find a wealth of information on the Gender Identity Research and Education Society website.
http://www.gires.org.uk/
"Information for..." and "Help sources" are good places to start..
Complain about this comment
I'm a bisexual married mum of 2. Only my husband and a close friend know of my sexuality. Christina's comment that she thought her wife never knew saddened me greatly. My husband may never understand that it is the person I love, not their physical attributes, but he understands this is who I am. I certainly do not love him any less. I hope Christina will not spend the rest of her life alone but that, with the help of amazing people like Penny, find someone to share her life with.
Complain about this comment
Last bit of info... Anyone in North Wales interested in discussing gender issues might like to talk to someone at Unique (mentioned in the interview)
http://www.uniquetg.org.uk/
They have two related groups in Manchester, TREC (Trans Resource and Empowerment Centre) and Transforum. The latter hosts the very useful Translistings which has a comprehensive list of help groups and events updated monthly.
http://www.transcentre.org.uk/
http://transforum.org.uk/
Complain about this comment
Whay a great choice for IPM's New Year Honour. Penny really deserves the award. The work that she and others do is very important and undoubtedly has saved many people, their family and friends. Christine's story was testimony of the help that Penny gives. Well done
Complain about this comment
This iPM award is so well deserved and even the process of getting the reward and the interview does further things for all who are transgendered. It was a wonderful and very moving interview, bringing out so much of what it is to be trans. I recorded it off-air* and will use it as a resource to help some of my family members who still struggle to accept my transition.
(* hoping the BBC lawyers don't come after me!)
Complain about this comment
I am a trans-woman and understood ALL of the issues that Christina has gone through. It was like hearing someone talking about my own life in many ways. Luckily for me , I am married to a wonderful woman who is very supportive about my gender issues since I first told her 4 years ago although she understandably still finds it very difficult at times. I know of many other trans-women who are not so fortuneate.
It is only people like Penny that help other people to start come to terms with what can be a very difficult subject for others to talk about and gain confidence in themselves and realise that they are not the only one in that situation.
Many congratulations to Penny and thank you to Christina for nominating her. The more we can raise awareness of trans issues and make it more acceptable the better for all of us.
Julia
Complain about this comment
Thank you so much for giving Penny this award. I can think of no one more deserving of it! She is the most fabulous person and has brought so much happiness into my life. She is someone I look forward to, and everyone I know looks forward to, meeting. Well done Penny and well done Radio 4 for recognising Penny's qualities in this way.
Complain about this comment
I only caught part of the interview, but what I heard moved me greatly. The testimonies above underline how much the work Penny does is valued by those who have benefitted from knowing her. iPM's choice does, therefore, seem a very worthy one.
Complain about this comment
Thank You Radio Four for doing such a powerful interview with Penny Brace and Christine to highlight the wonderful support Penny gives to the Transgender community and her work with the Unique Transgender Network in supporting Transgender people, their partners, families, friends and allies in North Wales and West Cheshire and beyond.
And for highlighting the enormous difficulties Transgender people still suffer in coming out to themselves, their families and to the wider community, just to be themselves.
Anyone wanting to contact Penny can do so through her website
www.penny-innerbeauty.co.uk
The Unique TG Support Network can be contacted through our Website www.uniquetg.org.uk or our Helpline (9am to 10pm) on 01745-337144
Well done Penny for winning such a well deserved award from iPM and congratulations to Penny and Chrissie for giving such an excellent interview.
Jenny-Anne Unique TG Network
Complain about this comment
A very moving interview. Congrats Penny, and full marks to those that nominated her.
(2 - Junks - It's called hyperbole. Presumably you also object to metaphor.)
Complain about this comment
I doubt I'll get an IPM award for this comment but here goes..
Whilst I genuinely sympathise for those people who are unfortunate enough to feel they are of one sex and their bodies are of another, for the various reasons that this can come about, be psychological, wrong assignment of sex at birth where both sets of sexual organs present and so on, I must complain that the programme presented us with the option that if we had any ethical issues with the whole area of changing sex we were ignorant or prejudiced. This assertion is in itself ignorant, and whilst I do no wish to undermine the sympathetic work Penny does to support people in a difficult time to give them self confidence etc, changing someone's sex is most certainly not free of ethical questions or moral debate. What about the spouse forced to either be gay or lose their relationship? Future partners who may not be told of the status of the person they believe to be of one sex, but in fact has only recently been made so? Whilst those who have commented above will probably tell me these are not problems, I and many, many others would beg to differ.
So, in short, well done to Penny for her care and support, but let's not pretend this is an area which is free from controversy or debate.. many health organisations around the world consider it to be a mental illness or disorder, some do not.. but to present such a one sided view was, I feel, a mistake.
Complain about this comment
Can I add that I do believe that every human being should be treated with care and dignity whatever sex they were or are. I just think that whilst asking others to be repsectful and caring of those whose lives they perhaps don't understand it's not a good idea to try and shut down a debate and label everyone who feels uncomfortable with these changes as ignorant or prejudiced, as the programme seemed to. I'm sure that not every trans person would think that either, but perhaps it's more the BBC desperate not to offend. There are genuine issues which should not be silenced or labelled.
Complain about this comment
James, I'm a little confused by your posts. In short, it seems as though you accept that there is such a thing as gender dysphoria and feel that sufferers should be treated with respect and understanding, but that you are uncomfortable with those afflicted being able to do anything about it. I take your point entirely about the effect on families.
Personal feelings aside, I agree that the clip suggested that those who have a negative knee jerk reaction to the entire question regardless of circumstances are in some way prejudiced. But is that not what the word means? Pre judged? Sadly there are people out there who are judgemental about their neighbours when their neighbours do not conform to what they see as ‘normal’. In the 1960s they hated homosexuals. In the 1980s it was people with AIDS (the ‘gay plague’, God’s revenge etc). Now their ill informed ire is often directed at people with gender issues. Hopefully, the degree of knee jerking and the extent of the prejudice will, over time, diminish just as it has for those other groups that I mentioned.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for your comment Alan, I think there is a clear distinction between ensuring you treat every person with love and care, and disregarding all moral concerns about sexuality, sexing and sex change. If, as many medical bodies still think, transsexualism is a mental disorder should you indulge that disorder or seek to rectify it? I know that's a controversial statement but it seems that many of the changes that have taken place in some medical bodies re transsexualism are born of political rather than medical changes of opinion.
Just because you can sympathise and seek to understand doesn't necessarily mean that everything that a certain group desires are ethical.. and there is a genuine debate on this subject. My point is that this debate was ignored in the programme as though there is no debate on the matter... There is not a universal acceptance, even amongst the educated.
Complain about this comment
I wasn't aware that there were claims that transsexualism is a mental disorder, but I take your word for it. Can you provide links to supporting evidence? I must confess that it does spark up the warning lights - until not all that long ago there were many 'experts' who believed that homosexuality was a mental disorder which should be treated with ECT. Thankfully such views are all but eradicated now - except perhaps in some of the less enlightened corners of the world.
Either way, I struggle to see the ethical argument. If a genotypically male individual believes that in fact he is (or ought to be) phenotypically female, then is it ethical to stand by and do nothing when it is within our gift/ability to act? Bear in mind that such individuals are subjected to extensive screening before intervention is allowed (at least on the NHS) and reflects the best thinking (in my humble opinion), currently available. Surely the ethical course is to act where we can to assist the individual in achieving the outcome that they feel they need. To seek to ‘cure’ them is perhaps the unethical course. There is probably a religious argument against gender reassignment, but then religion often lags far behind the cutting edge of ethics; witness the churches’ positions on women’s rights, homosexuality, birth control...the list is endless. Well, maybe not endless, but certainly depressingly long.
You are quite right that the argument was not exposed in the programme, but given that it was seeking to celebrate the contribution to her community of the lady concerned, it might have been out of place to air it there.
I have no particular axe to grind here, but each to their own!
Complain about this comment
Alan, I think the issue I would have with your reponse is that it's rather dismissive of views that don't fit your own. Just because you can't see the ethical issues with sex change operations doesn't mean other people can't.. and religious views count just as much as secular ones in this country, CHristians, Muslims and so on vote and have a voice too, they also pay their licence fee. Whilst I appreciate your point that it wasn't supposed to be the Moral Maze, which I'm sure would explore in much more detail the legitimate ethical issues surrounding sex change, nonetheless it is not uncontroversial and nor should it be presented as such. A quick trawl of google will find you various medical bodies who consider transsexualism a mental disorder.. a friend of mine with transsexual tendencies says that his condition was treated as a mental illness only a few years ago.. I don't know how widespread that is but it's a genuine witness.
As for views on homosexuality, again there are many views on that also, and you can't say that everyone supports gay rights. One of the issues with transsexualism, as you've agreed, is how the spouse or partner of the trans person deals with their hubby becoming their wife or female husband or vice versa. Ok it's a complicated issue, but it would be wrong to say that the remaining spouse who refused to engage in a now gay relationship was somehow prejudiced etc. Not everyone in the UK reads the Guardian (does anyone??) and the BBC shouldn't be doing it's proselytising for it. All I'm asking is that something which has ethical issues to many, however much you don't like that, is not presented as a thing beyond discussion or debate.
Complain about this comment
I think that the issue here is who is doing what to whom?
I am a gay man, an atheist and a secularist. I accept that people have views that are not my own and that they are entitled to express them. People have a right to practice their religion and to try to convince others of the correctness of their belief and other systems, I would certainly never seek to oppose that.
What I object to in the position of religious opponents of LGBT rights is that they seek to control lives which are not their own, and this is what the 'conflict' between religious conservatism and the equalities agenda boils down to ... who is trying to do what to whom?
Complain about this comment
(*I meant to type 'belief and value systems')
Complain about this comment
18. James P
"religious views count just as much as secular ones in this country"
Which means that people may choose to have their actions guided by religious principles - or not. What it is often taken to mean is that religious people can tell non-religious people what to do.
Complain about this comment
So in the end we agree that there are different views on this matter. Of course we cannot have total relativism in our ethics, there has to be some standards which apply across the board whether these ethics are born of religious or secular belief. My point was not one about is right or wrong, simply that BBC Eadio 4 is not supposed to be just taking one view point on this, or any other matter. The liberal secular view is by no means the default one, certainly not in the country at large and the BBC must, MUST remember this.
Complain about this comment
22. James P
"The liberal secular view is by no means the default one"
Who decided this?
Complain about this comment
Everyone who doesn't read the Grauniad Sid.. the majority of the country. This is why we have a Tory government for instance.. this is why the Guardian makes a loss year after year.. this is why Top Gear is gets the biggest viewing figures of any show in teh world near enough.. or any workplace canteen or pub or sportsground.. listen to the voices. If you went by the majority they'd bring back capital punishment and the immigration laws would not be half so generous as they are.. like it or not the country is not all that liberal at heart, there are many different voices with different views, yours included, the BBC must reflect them all.
Complain about this comment
Correction.. should read.. listen to the people in any workplace canteen, pub or sportsground.. I should also add that like it or not the Sun and the Daily Mail sell an awful lot more newspapers than the Guardian or the Indie, report after report comes out showing how liberal biased the BBC is.. and it's such a shame. I love the BBC very much, but its privileged position will be lost if it doesn't live up to its role of genuine impartiality in all forms of broadcast media. Sometimes I think the Beeb don't even know they're doing it.. or at least I'd like to give them that benefit of the doubt. Fact is, not everyone agrees with you, or me.. and the BBC shouldn't pretend that transsexualism is a closed debate.. it isn't.
Complain about this comment
24. James P
It looks to me as though you're suggesting that personal ethical matters should be decided (or at least influenced) by majority views of the whole population. But that's such a daft notion that you can't possibly mean that. Can't make out any other meaning, though.
Complain about this comment
25. James P
"report after report comes out showing how liberal biased the BBC is"
Really?
Complain about this comment
Sid.. where do you live? I mean seriously.. do you ever go outside or read a paper? Must I reference everything I say? Even the BBC's own reports, quotes from people like Andrew Marr and Jeff Randall, Mark Thompson himself even.. google and you will discover a whole new world. :)
Complain about this comment
Hello Sid, re your previous post, are you suggesting we get rid of democracy.. the majority having the say seems ever so familiar.. ok so let's say we don't have a referendum on every subject.. what's to say your point of view is any more right that theirs? Debate, discussion.. that kind of thing would be nice. The BBC reckons it's impartial.. well let's see these different views recognised and discussed. At the moment it often seems to bear a striking resemblance to a TVstation run by Polly Toynbee.. I and millions of others dont buy the Guardian and we don't pay our licence fee to have it forced upon us. So, the BBC shouldn't say you're wrong, nor should it say I am.. open.. free.. impartial.. sounds nice doesn't it?
Complain about this comment
James - to quote my favourite TV show, the voice of the people is the voice of a dog!
Personally, I'm relieved that the BBC behaves the way it does rather than following the herd. What a nation we would live in if the editorial attitudes that we see reflected in the tabloids were also presented by the BBC as being rational, desirable or even commendable. It wasn't so long ago that the most popular newspaper in the country was suggesting that anyone infected with HIV should be shipped off to the Isle of Wight, which would be transformed into a huge sanatorium. There they could sin (not the word they used) and die (note the cause and effect there?) to their hearts' content without infecting us ‘normal’ people. Quite what the people of the Isle of Wight thought about this plan is unclear.
Being impartial does not mean following the crowd; sometimes it means leading it. If the views of the establishment or the majority had never been challenged then we would still be burning witches at the stake.
Complain about this comment
These Lib Dems are right that the personal and private, if it is to comprise a realm of right worth having, shouldn't be at the mercy of majority opinion - unless of course it is a matter of personal and private right for a majority.
The Lib Dems ignore majority opinion in matters which are clearly of majority concern - VAT, bonkers bonuses, Fees, etc..
Complain about this comment
28. James P
"Mark Thompson himself even"
Hey ho - it's been a slow afternoon, so I googled 'Mark Thompson liberal bias', and I got this: "One of the BBC's most respected presenters [Roger Bolton] has rebuked director general Mark Thompson for suggesting the corporation had a "massive left-wing bias" 30 years ago."
[I must say I don't attach as much value to Google as you do - e.g. for medical diagnoses among other things.]
Complain about this comment
29. James P
You may have missed my reference to 'personal ethical matters'.
Complain about this comment
31. WeThePeople
Just as a matter of interest, why pick on the Lib Dems rather than the Tories?
Complain about this comment
Ok where do I start.. apologies if it's not in order, I hope everyone can pick out what's a reply to them if I miss out a direct reference.
Firstly, and I think most importantly, a huge point in response to Alan N, who seems to think that the BBC should agree with liberal 'progressive' ideas simply because he thinks they're right. THe point I seem to fail to get through is that the BBC is NOT a paid for newspaper or an independent satellite channel.. if you want a telly you have to pay for it, HAVE TO.. and therefore, with its royal charter etc the BBC has not the right to pursue an agenda of a particular political persuasion however much you or they might like it. Therefore, they should no more reflect the Guardian than the Sun, perhaps Radio 4 might do the Telegraph and the Guardian but in terms of politics no obvious bias or preference should be shown.. it's not Fox News and it's not CHannel Four news. Just because you happen to like a liberal agenda doesn't mean we all have to, and we all have as much say in how the BBC should operate as everyone else. Alan says "Being impartial does not mean following the crowd; sometimes it means leading it".. sorry Alan.. find a different word cos that's not what impartial means.
To clarify a point, I'm not talking about Liberals.. but liberals. ie.. not LIb Dems, but a view which is generally anti Christian, anti authority, anti morality etc.. some may disagree with that definition.. fair enough.. but I think the proper liberals would be turning in the graves at the thought of what's going on in their name now.. I can hear JS Mill and Adam Smith whizzing around as I type.
Now Sid's been sat on his hands all afternoon but managed to back up my previous post about Mark Thompson.. thanks for that. Perhaps you'll quote us the Andrew Marr quote next time.. you know the one about the BBC being urbanite, young, homosexual and of ethnic minority status and not representing the country at all.. I'm more than happy to get you the quote if you don't believe me. Plus, do tell me what your sources are then about transsexualism? Do you think that changes in some medical bodies diagnoses are based on science or political pressure? I don't ask cos I want to cause a rucus, I ask because I have an open mind.. an open mind that wants an open report on an interesting issue.
Sid does make a good point of order in that I did fail to reference in another post his own reference to personal ethical matters. However, I think the distinction is only of minimal importance. Even in private matters the law still has something to say. It is the view of some that what we do with our own bodies is entirely moral so long as it doesn't detrimentally affect someone else.. not a view I hold but I accept it's a view. However, rarely is such a thing possible.. take drug usage for example, illegal, and yet in theory only affects the taker.. in reality, affects everyone around.. the family, the community, healthcare etc.. no man (or woman) is an island. Similarly with sex change issues, as statd previously there are many consequences of transsexualism for the family of the person concerned.. most of all pehraps the spouse of the trans person who is either forced to be gay or to relinquish the sexual aspect of their relationship.. and quite what it does to a marriage vow I've no idea. PLus the pure ethics of changing gender, there are many ethical issues about gene therapy and anything that effects the genetics of a person, or indeed a fruit or a sheep! This is a hot topic. What about a future partner who is not informed of the trans persons previous sex? There are sexuality issues, and of course the deep religious ethics involved in our identity before GOd, marraige, sexuality etc. In the end we all live together and as we have common laws etc we do, in principle accept that we can speak on matters that pertain to personal morality, and certainly outside the law, it would be absurd and obscene to think that people were not allowed to comment on the ethics of an issue and that all morality was entirely relative.. ie.. if i think it's alright then it is.. secondly, individial actions almost always have ramifications for others, so the idea of a purely isolated individual action is not usually possible.
And so.. we come to the crux.. the BBC. Of course those who agree with a biassed report will think it was right.. that doesn't tell us much. the point is I'd rather lose out on biassed reports that suit me and have a fair and impartial state funded BBC, because if we're in a free country it's vital that a media outlet to powerful and privileged as the Beeb is reponsible with that role and doesn't seek to push its own agenda on the paying (without much option) public.
Complain about this comment
The issue and concepts of transsexualism, transgendered and even M2F crossdressing are contentious among many people - but a programme devoted to interviewing someone who provides a service to a specific community by performing M2F makeovers is not the right place to discuss or even mention controversies; in much the same way as a programme focussing on, say, recent successes for the national football team would not mention or discuss their controversially high salaries, or the antics of their significant others.
It in no way marks a media organisation as biased if they have a news story or a programme and do not mention or discuss any potential controversies relating to the subject matter. As for the reports claiming the BBC is biased, it's probably worth looking at the report authors. Many people have claimed the BBC has an anti-government bias; but many have also claimed it has a pro-government bias. Generally speaking, any group of people with a strong viewpoint on a particular matter will take notice of reporting which contradicts their viewpoint while ignoring that which supports it. Have any of these reports taken an objective view of a representative sample of BBC output, or are they just reflecting the personal opinion of the author?
The statement about newspapers is not an appropriate example. The best selling newspapers carry sensationalist, subjective reporting which often takes a highly selective look at quotes / documents, sometimes reporting them out of context, to make the speaker / writer appear to conform to the editor's stereotype of them.
Is that the kind of reporting we expect from broadcast media? A certain Australian businessman would certainly like to see more opinion-led broadcast news in the UK, but the BBC prides itself on being more objective - the broadcast media equivalent of a broadsheet, as opposed to the kind of tabloid shows that are apparently common in the US.
-oOo-
As for the issue itself, a lot of the contention is to do with society's stereotypes. Most people don't bat an eyelid if a female wears a trouser suit, cuts her hair short, or acts like "one of the lads". Masculinity and its associated concepts of strength and achievement are promoted in society. The current government (and pro-government media) heavily promote the idea that everyone of working age who is physically capable of working should be at work (and wants to be at work). Homemakers, parents of young children, those with an intermittent illness, and anyone else who has the audacity to remain at home during the daytime rather than commuting to a workplace and generating money for the economy is seemingly considered a good-for-nothing "scrounger". Meanwhile, males in the media who act or dress less masculine than average often do so for laughs, or are labelled as "camp".
Is it any wonder, therefore, that males who choose to dress or act en-femme for reasons other than entertaining others or for 'bedroom antics' tend to get viewed with suspicion, and maybe even considered slightly weird (at best)?
Bear in mind that many transgendered (I know a few) feel they were born in the wrong body at a very early age - some show signs of opposite gender behaviour and preferences from the age of two or three.
When up to two percent of the population are born with some degree of ambiguous genitalia, surely it's within the realms of possibility that someone may be born genotypically and seemingly phenotypically one gender, but have less easily analysed elements of the other, e.g. certain aspects of brain chemistry?
The transition process itself is very long-winded, requiring a lot of inner strength and patience. Individuals have to go through several sessions with a psychologist before they're allowed to be prescribed hormones or start the Real Life Test, then it can take up to two years before they're given the go-ahead for surgery, and up to another two years after surgery before they get their Gender Recognition Certificate.
If they have a partner, life can be almost as challenging for them during the process - not only through watching the changes in their loved one and in the label used to describe their relationship (androphilia/androsexual and gynephilia/gynesexual are more accurate than homo/heterosexual as they don't take account of the person's own gender, but are rarely used), but also the changes in how both are regarded in society as a whole, in social circles and the workplace. There will be some who support / encourage, some who aren't sure but will do their best to accept, some who don't like the concept but remain civil, and unfortunately some less enlightened members of society who not only don't like the concept, but don't have the tact to keep their mouth shut - especially in the presence of the couple.
In amongst the numerous memorials in November is an International Transgender Day of Rememberance - many of the victims were those who were regularly subjected to corporal punishment by people that believed their femininity could, quite literally, be beaten out of them. Many survivors keep their femininity repressed - some can't cope and take their own lives, others maintain hope and either let it out purely online (even then, often encrypted and only when no-one else is around) or transition later in life (which can make it more difficult for them to 'pass' as their intended gender).
For the record, I'm cis-gendered (i.e. not trans) but know several TGs.
Complain about this comment
35. James P
Oh dear. It looks as if my reading of your intent was right - i.e. that you do think that how we live our private lives should be dictated by public opinion.
The BBC has a remit to entertain, educate and inform. You seem to think that we should have a bit of chav telly for the chavs, a bit of dilettante telly for the dilettantes, etc. To my mind the BBC has gone too far down the road to 'balance' - 'That was someone who thinks education is a good thing, now let's hear from someone who thinks it's a waste of time.'
Your definition of liberal as 'generally anti Christian, anti authority, anti morality etc' is quite bizarre.
Your suggestion that I have been sitting on my hands all afternoon is also bizarre. All very peculiar.
Complain about this comment
James,
I must confess to being pretty comfortable with a BBC that promotes tolerance and understanding even when it's not the popular opinion. That’s what I mean by leading opinion, rather than following it. However, I don't think it's fair to characterise the BBC's coverage of issues as being biased. The BBC seems to be accused of bias in just about every direction, which is quite a trick.
Perhaps highlighting an extreme would better illustrate my point of view - are you content when Nick Griffin is ridiculed by one of the presenters on the Today programme or on QT? Certainly I am pretty comfortable with it. You may not be, but I think that makes you a member of a minority, certainly if the QT audience was anything to go by! There are places where the whole question is explored in detail – the (too brief) Moral Maze, as you point out.
My un-PC personal opinion is that, while I accept that there are a number of people whose views are represented by Mr Griffin (to continue with that example), their opinion is of little value and unworthy of equal representation on the Beeb. Similarly, I am comfortable when a liberal (small L!) agenda is pushed however gently on the BBC, because such views will dilute extremist opinion and if that leads to an outbreak of understanding and tolerance then the price is worth it.
Complain about this comment
Thanks to those who've replied.. we still come back to this point of the purpose of the BBC.. (leaving aside the woeful Question Time in which a hand picked audience were set up with questions designed to rather ambush Nick Griffin, and he's not a man I like at all, but I'm not the electorate and as he's an elected representative, who are we to say he can't have his say?.. the idea that that show's audience was somehow a cross section of the public is silly and I dare say you know it! lol). The BBC is not there to push a liberal agenda.. not at all. If it is, can those who dont want a liberal agenda stop paying their licence fee?? No. So it should represent at least most, if not all the views of the nation fairly. Certainly, the liberal secularists are not in the majority, not sure that any group is, so of course if the bias suits you you'll like it, but what if it didn't suit you? I'm sure you'd be the first to complain. It's swings and roundabouts, if you support the bias in your favour now, you can't complain when the bias is against you.
As for the BBC bias well let's be honest, other than a few spurious comments to try and throw people off the scent there's only really one serious bias accusation in town.. the BBC's own report says so.. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece
The BBC is supposed to be apolitical.. but it isn't.
I agree with the poster who said that the piece was primarily about a caring lady who helped people feel good about themselves and offered support and counselling to folk who were struggling at difficult times in their life.. for that I applaud her good work. However, statements made by this lady during the show about opposition being based on prejudice and ignorance were not in that vein, and whilst I am sure some negative comments are based on precisely that, it dint help me to empathise that having some questions on the issue myself I was being accused of prejudice and ignorance.. cheers.
Would ITN, SKY, C4 News, Euronews, Al JAzeera, Newsround, all report the same story in teh same way? No.. it's almost impossibel to have no bias.. but the BBC above all others must try. I don't have much option but to pay for it, and indeed I love it very much, but it's nation speaks peace unto nation.. not part of the nation calls the bits that dont like it prejudiced and ignorant. I won't even get into their reporting of American politics.. when Obama won the reporters couldnt stop smiling.. you'd never guess who they wanted to win lol.
Complain about this comment
ALso ALan, I agree with you about the Moral MAze, we may not be cheering on the same contributors but it's definitely too short.. some of them get off the hook too easily!
As for bias, you seem to start off by saying that there is bias and that it's ok and then say that there isn't a bias probably.. I'm confused. You even end your post by saying you're comfortable with the BBC's pushing of a liberal agenda.. seems like maybe we agree after all? As for Nick Griffin, he should be scrutinised like everyone else. I htink trying to silence people like that or mock them just serves into their hands as people feel the political mainstream won't listen to what is in many cases a protest vote.. there is some polling to back this up if you're interested.
Sid, not sure what you do with your hands of an afternoon, won't ask. As for the definition of liberal, please see the report linked in my previous post, a BBC report no less which lists those exact problems. I agree they are not a definition of real liberalism but are often the hallmarks of those that call themselves liberal at the momet.. as I said.. JS Mill revolves in his coffin at the thought of it.
As for the BBC and balance, well I'd like to see Richard Dawkins belittled for the petty fool that he is, no more balance, he's an idiot. But then a militant atheist might say, no, no more religious poeple on tv or radio, they should all be ignored etc.. balance is about standing above and argument, letting all sides have their say and allowng the listener to make up their own mind, without being lead or pushed in one directon or another. If the arguments are as clear cut as you say then you've nothing to fear. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Beatrice Hall (prob not Voltaire but much quoted).. It's about freedom.. freedom to speak.. freedom to offend even, if it is not your primary intention. This spirit of free speech and openness is a fine one, and one which has underpinned our democracy for many years.. let's not stifle debate by a national media giant trying to gently push us by social pressure and brain washing.. let's have an open and free BBC :)
Complain about this comment
Forgive me.. so many posts to reply to I keep leaving bits out.. ok.. in reply to I think it was Sid's point about his concerns that I might think a nation might want to have a say in the ethics of laws etc well we all do. That's why there are all kinds of laws about what is and what is not acceptable in society, some of which pertain to things which relate to the individual.. drug use was one example, there are many others. In today's local paper a lady wanted to donate some of her eggs (ova) so that her infertile daughter could have kids.. now some, many in fact would regard that as a form of incest and this is illegal in Britain. So if a consenting brother and sister want to have sex.. they can't.. even if there were no chance of offspring.. it's illegal.
So whilst you may be shocked to believe that I think as a society we have a right to say what we feel should and should not be allowed in our society well, it's really not all that controversial at all. THis is why we have two houses of parliament.. scrutiny from committees, representatives from medicine, law, the church, business, academia etc.. and the Commons supposedly gives the more populist view. It's nothing new.. I'm shocked to think that you seriously think there is no morality as long as what you do you do just to yourself.. dangerous idea that.. firstly cos it has consequences for everyone else, and its a very relativist view of morality that there's no such thing as right and wrong at all, just what you want and what you don't want.. that way lies a very dangerous place indeed.
Complain about this comment
Surely the majority of opposition (in the sense of vitriol and hatred) to almost any unorthodox activity is based on prejudice and ignorance?
While you may have plenty of unanswered questions about crossdressing and the transgendered, I'd hope that if you met one on the street you'd treat them with civility. Therefore, although you may be uncomfortable with the idea, that would not necessarily put you into the ranks of the 'opposition'.
The programme was largely a 'chatty' interview, as opposed to the 'dissection' of a political interview. In chatty interviews, the interviewee is usually allowed to express their opinions without them being questioned or excised from the broadcast.
As I said in an earlier post, a large part of people's problems with the practice is cultural - many societies in the world are masculine-oriented; so hardly anyone bats an eyelid if a female wears masculine clothes or performs a masculine role in society, but the opposite is regarded as strange / unnatural. When there's an increasing respect and tolerance of LGB in society, why not the TIQ (Transgender / Intersexed / Questioning)?
Complain about this comment
Hello Mittfh, I do take your point about the nature of the interview, it wasn't the moral maze, I just thought that the ladies assertion that any opposition was based on ignorance or prejudice should have been challenged.. even Parky would have done that.
I also take your point about cultural norms.. not sure that a lady in men's clothing wouldn't ba any eyelids, and if so that would be a very modern development, though certainly many women wear trousers etc and in ancient Rome all the chaps wore skirts.. there's nothing fundamentally masculine or feminine about the trouser or the skirt, just cultural norm. HOwever, this can't really be said about having your sexual organs and identity changed, and as far as I know the ethical questions here relate to women becoming men as much as men becoming women.
I'l be honest, I do feel a natural sense of discomfort if I see a man dressed as a woman, there's something unnerving about it, but I@m never nasty to anyone cos of it, not at all, and I agree that this is not the same as a moral or ethical argument. Those who are abusive are simply that.. abusive and I totally condemn that.
I wonder then who you would describe as opposition? A friend I had who was considering transgender surgery discussed it with me at great length a few years ago now and I was frank and honest with him that I thought it wouldbe better if he could find a way of coming to terms with his physical gender and that I wasn't one who jsut thought it was a cause of celebration to change your sex.. but he knew, and knows, that our friendship was not at risk whatever he chose to do, and whilst we might need to choose our pubs carefully in future i can have anethical position on something without judging the person.
Re attitudes to homosexuality, I think had the programme been about a campaigner at Outrage or Stonewall it would have been much more controversial and political. Whilst people are less hostile to homosexuals and homosexuality these days there's no lack of controversy about gay rights campaigns, gay marriage, adoption to gay couples etc. As far as I know the BBC doesn't take a position on this.. officially anyway.
Complain about this comment
(43) - "...but he knew, and knows, that our friendship was not at risk whatever he chose to do, and whilst we might need to choose our pubs carefully in future i can have anethical position on something without judging the person..."
I'm just off to try and work out how many contradictions I think there are in that sentence.
Complain about this comment
Hello Horse.. well I'm sure you'll find none. It's quite possible to disagree with someone and still be a mate.. as for the pubs it's a good idea to know where a bloke with a beard in a dress and lipstick will be made to feel welcome, not much of a pleasant drink otherwise. I look forward to your findings! :)
Complain about this comment
Look on the bright side James. I don't object to Thought for the Day* - a blatantly pro-religious piece of religious propaganda funded by my licence fee and where those whose views do not conform with a certain pattern* are excluded as a matter of policy. It seems that, in order to have a thought worthy of sharing, one must subscribe to a particular view of the world. Odd that.
What makes you say that Dawkins is a ‘petty fool’, by the way. He’s a bit Mr Shouty but he’s a pretty good geneticist and while he makes the religious feel uncomfortable by belittling their point of view (which is rude and unnecessary) he’s hardly a fool. Boorish perhaps. In his defence, he seems generally to let his opponents hang themselves after he hands them the rope.
*Well, I don’t object much anyway!
** "Existence of supernatural deity is to be presented as a matter of fact and under no circumstances challenged."
Complain about this comment
I really should have read that through before posting it!
Complain about this comment
HOw I wish that thought for the day was as dogmatic as you suggest.. most of the folk on their are so wet you could wring them out! I think Dawkins loses my respect as he seems to leave behind all the scrutiny and rigour of his scientific discipline as soon as he sees a red rag with 'Christianity' written on it, and I've seen some excellent responses to his questions and rarely seen him beguile anyone.. he wouldn't even win a sixth form debating contest, bless him. I'm sure he's a good biologist, and he gets lots of people talking about God, I wonder if more people become Christians cos of him than leave the Church, who knows.. but we digress..
Back to Thought 4T Day.. it's usually offensive cos it's so assinine and weak.. like watered down beer or cold weak tea.. Dawkins and co want the assertion of religion banned in all forms of public policy etc, it's hardly the Christians who don't like him challenging faith, it's him that gets so upset about the faith existing in the first place. T4TD exists as a weakly religious thought piece, it is what it says, it doesn't pupport to be unbiassed or impartial or even journalism.. it's rarely all that controversial either.. I'm not sure it's a fair comparison with the PM Honour piece.. the BBC does lots of things which are very much in te anti religion camp, I doubt it would do much that showed up ethical issues with transsexualism.
PS.. whats' all this about Eddie and The Pesto?
Complain about this comment
Could i first of all say how extremely proud I am that Radio 4 have recognised the achievements of Penny within the Trans Community. Her sole aim has always been to help anyone that needs it. This includes the family members of those who are Trans and people who just wish to have an understanding of the issues. Penny spends countless hours supporting Trans & their family members who all have to come to terms with Trans issues. Having been around the Trans Community for around the last 7 years I am pretty certain that if asked, Trans people would chose to be born in the "correct" body and not be put through the mental and physical torment that they have to go through. Then again, I am not in possession of all the facts and cannot speak for the whole Community. This then by defintion makes me ignorant. Do I have pre conconceived ideas about the Trans Community? Yes. The same as I have about journalists, religious groups, politicians and football supporters. These are based purely on my dealings with individuals from these groups. do i therefore have prejudice? Yes.
Penny has unfortunately witnessed a great deal of prejudice and ignorance towards her friends within the Trans Community but my no means thinks that anyone who hasn't met someone from the Community is anti Trans. She just wears her heart on her sleeve and any comments made were just generalising.
The whole purpose of this interview was to acknowledge that Penny gives her skills and time to supporting fellow human beings. She is extremley passionate about helping people and any comments to the contrary are based purley on lack of knowledge or perhaps on pre conceived ideas.
Thanks to Chrissie for being brave enough to publicly share her story and acknowledge the help that Penny has given and thanks to Eddie Mair & team, for in my humble opinion a great "feel good" piece of humanity.
Complain about this comment
if the winner of the iPM award had been a medic in a war zone would the ethics of the war have been discussed?????
Could Penny just be congratulated on her acheivement in helping??? rather than the politcical point scoring that this forum seems to have descended into
Well done to Penny and I sincerely hope that it has given knowledge and understanding to those who are open minded enough to listen.
I am sure Penny is thrilled that this interview has helped at least one person, judging by some of the posts, it seems to be more than one person!!! Surely that was worth MY licence fee
Complain about this comment
48 - James, T4TD (thank you for that abbreviation!) is not offensive at all, but if it were it wouldn't be because it is weak, it would be because it is a collection of the religious telling me how I should live my life and how Jesus (or insert name of alternative deity) wants me for a sunbeam. I don't mind at all if people want to believe that sort of thing, but it would be jolly nice if, like the bible bashers who knock on my door every sixth Sunday, would keep their naive opinions to themselves.
On Dawkins, I think we may have to disagree. Far from ‘leaving behind all the scrutiny and rigour’ as you suggest, he applies that very scrutiny and rigour to those to whom he speaks. I have yet to hear a convincing response to any of his questions but then that’s because I am not blessed with the gift of faith and thus no response which relies on faith can ever satisfy me. He does go too far sometimes – he doesn’t just want to win the argument, he wants to destroy his opponent. Not necessary.
Complain about this comment
Alan.. you seriosuly think Dawkins wins an argument ever? He's clever in his own way but I can see why many atheists disown him. He is better in live debates than he is in his books.. so full of contradictory arguemtns.. but anyway.. why should the religious keep their opnions to themselves? If those supporting the ethics of transsexualism don't have to I really don't see why the religous should.. esp not in Britain with our strong Christian history. I think you'd find T4TD (I like it too, if the BBC nicks it I'll be cross!! :P) more interesting if it actually expressed an opinion. You might be forgiven for thinking Jesus didn't want you as a sunbeam but more as a damp teabag or a wet lettuce.. Jesus revolutionsed the world and if you read the gospels you can see why.. I think T4TD does Him an injustice.
Anyway.. thanks for the chats people.. just wanted to make the point that whilst many woudl applaud Penny's work, as is clear from the comments, other woud want to suggest that the issue is not a clear cut one and there are ethics around changing sex that are real and aren't going anywhere and it's not as simple as a wonderful thing where folk find their true gender at all, there are real moral and ethical issues.. they shouldn't be forgotten.
Bye for now :)
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS