The idea that I would defend Jenni Murray

In normal times I’d not do so, she being the embodiment of all that I dislike about our current establishment and their views. However:

Jenni Murray has pulled out of a talk at Oxford University after LGBTQ+ students claimed that she is “transphobic” and attempted to “no platform” her.

As I understand it she says that tans women aren’t women in an important sense. They’ve not grown up with the experience of being female and thus are, whatever they are, female in a different manner from those who have.

Which seems an entirely reasonable position to take. Lived and learned experience is an important part of the shaping of a person, no?

48 comments on “The idea that I would defend Jenni Murray

  1. “As I understand it she says that tans (sic) women aren’t women in an important sense. They’ve not grown up with the experience of being female and thus are, whatever they are, female in a different manner from those who have.”

    In another important sense they aren’t women at all, they are mentally ill people who if they’d demanded their legs were cut off would have been sectioned but because they’ve asked to have their cock cut off are pandered to.

  2. Andrew C: if they all demanded to be castrated at least they’d be bona fide eunuchs but the current tranny activists like to keep their cocks and use the female amenities just because they say they’re women. It’s entryism.

  3. A mentally ill, surgically contrived, simulacrum of a woman is not a woman. Nor is a mentally ill transvestite who imagines he’s got a female brain a woman. End of.

  4. It’s funny that so-called many left-wing activists insist that men who claim to be women are real women, yet when a white woman claimed to be a black woman they were adamant that she wasn’t and never could be:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal

    There are far fewer physiological and psychological differences between black people and white people than there are between men and women.

    It’s almost as if the lefts self declared love of science is entirely situational.

  5. @BiND

    I expect NiV is too busy hanging around taxi ranks wondering why his mates won’t let him join in.

  6. “Jeni”–is that on her birth certificate or is she full of pretentious crap right from word one–is full of it anyway.

    If you have a working, non-vestigial dick you are male regardless of your mental troubles and/or God-knows-what experiences. Even if it is a severed dried-up husk you keep in a drawer.

    Anyone wanting to listen to her leftist nonsense should be able to do so unmolested by even more leftist vile young snot .

    What kind of weak wankers run these Unis? Anyone with any sort of fighting spirit would tell these junior offal that they better have their suitcases already packed and waiting when they go out on violent assaults. Not “demos” cos you don’t need masks for a peaceful demo which complains but does not halt. They need to be mewed in by hired muscle–using whatever violence needed: the marx-snot will determine that–de-masked and expelled and on a train out before the end of the day. Hence the suitcases. Instant expulsion, blackballed from ALL other places of (so-called) higher education in the UK and deported if foreign. Plus no remission of student debt and an aggressive program of such debt collection. Up to and including taking Mummi and Daddi’s stuff if junior has nowt either by choice or because they are useless.

    That last one might be tempered by some mercy.I If the parents are long-suffering decent folk cursed by red spawn they would be passed over. If however they are woke WOMI trash they would be left with nothing but their tye-dye toilet paper to call their own.

    A few such examples should do the trick.

    Of course a Uni purged of all redscum would be unlikely to want any more Jeni Murrays to speak anyway. She would be expelling her bad breath in empty rooms. As is her right of course,

  7. How fashions change!

    When I was a lad, Mary Whitehouse and her enthusiasm for censorship was deeply unfashionable. Freedom was all the rage!

    Nowadays, if you haven’t censored anyone, you’re a bit of a wanker and your organisation is totally unhip.

    What amazes me is that VIPs think LGBTSXCF (I’ve no idea) is an important topic, when it concerns a miniscule number of mentally ill people. But then I never understood flares either.

  8. Here’s a related idea:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46133262

    Dutch man wants to change his age from 69 (I bet he’s really 70) to 49. He says he’s as fit as a 49 yo and having an official age of 69 is resulting in him being discriminated against for jobs, romantic liaisons etc. So he wants to lop 20 years off, as he identifies as being younger.

    Which seems fine to me, he thinks he’s 49 why shouldn’t the state agree that he is, and force everyone else to accept it too. Its what they do for the trans nutters after all……..

    Incidentally, is it possible to identify as rich? Ie through no fault of your own you have ended up poor, but have very expensive tastes, and identify as rich. Surely its your human right for the State to declare that you are rich, and everyone must act as if you are, including letting you have rich people’s things?

  9. @Jim

    Have they done a neural review of his brain? If it bears a vague resemblance in some places to that of a 49 year old’s brain then that proves he’s 49. Or something.

  10. @Jim – biggest question is who knew the Dutch have a sense of humour. It’s surely got to be a clever, funny, major-league piss-take of identity victimhood. He should never have to buy his own beer again as long as he lives.

  11. Whenever this issue comes up i think of Christopher Hitchins who was a Trotskyist no-platformer at Oxford. There can be redemption.

  12. ‘Lived and learned experience is an important part of the shaping of a person, no?’

    True. As is their personal condition during the experience. I have known several people who went to college and earned degrees later in life. They were not the same as people who had earned degrees while young, who experienced life with that education. Their first ~20 years of adulthood was experienced with a different intellect than the people who earned degrees later. The late degree earners have lower intellect. The early degree earners’ intellect was compounded by their experiences, due to their better understanding of what was going on around them.

  13. The whole Trans debate is simple to me..

    When Anorexics say “I’m Fat” we don’t indulge them. Doctors try to treat them via therapy.

    Trans issues are no different.

  14. @moqifen – good linkage, Rod on good form in that one.

    I think I might identify as a sex god in future. Any dissatisfaction from lurve partners will be reported as a hate crime.

  15. “In normal times I’d not do so”: this is the new normal. Just you carry on not defending her. The revolution devours its own children, and with Jenni they’ll get a nice bit of crackling.

  16. If a 30 something man ‘self-identifies’ as a 7 year old, insists he is a child trapped in an adult’s body (a transager), wouid him having sex with 7 year old girls be paedophilia?

    Would condemning him be transageophobia?

  17. “Which seems an entirely reasonable position to take. Lived and learned experience is an important part of the shaping of a person, no?”

    Women in the UK have not grown up with the same experiences of being female as women in Saudi Arabia. Therefore they are not ‘women’ in the same sense?

  18. NiV: there are essential female experiences entirely foreign to you.
    Being physically weaker and slower than men and therefore more physically vulnerable
    Menstruation and the fear of soiling one’s clothing and being shamed publically
    Falling pregnant or the risk thereof
    Or are these minor matters?

  19. Don’t worry about “experiences” Nulli–if a dick originally attached = male. That’s all the criteria you need.

  20. “So he wants to lop 20 years off, as he identifies as being younger. ”
    He wants to identify as soneone who has to wait another 20 years for a pension. And gets hammered by actuarial factors when he does get it? But his health and car insurance might be cheaper.
    Swings and roundabouts.

  21. “NiV: there are essential female experiences entirely foreign to you.”

    There are ‘essential female experiences’ of a woman in Saudi Arabia entirely foreign to a woman from the UK. There are ‘essential female experiences’ of a woman raised in the 1950s entirely foreign to a woman raised in the 1990s.

    If your definition of ‘essential female experiences’ is experiences experienced by all females, then it obviously depends on your definition of ‘female’. It’s begging the question.

    “Being physically weaker and slower than men and therefore more physically vulnerable”

    Don’t be daft! TGs get bullied and assaulted by men to the point of suicide far more often than women do!

    MtF TGs at school have to deal with older boys, large gangs of boys, and TGs of all ages have to deal with groups of men who are often bigger, stronger, better trained, and far more experienced at fighting than they are. They’ve got no natural allies, they’ve got no sympathy, and they’ve got no chivalrous protections. They’re breaking traditional social and religious norms, which many see as justifying/excusing violent enforcement. They’re a target for every emotionally-inadequate bully in range looking for someone more vulnerable to pick on.

    TGs know depths to the word ‘vulnerable’ that most women never will. It’s like 1990s UK women thinking they suffer from sexism and the patriarchy…

    What’s really got the feminists annoyed is that someone’s just stole and trumped their ‘victimhood’ card.

  22. So NiV it’s mere biological vulnerability versus delusional thinking that makes you the bigger victim? Most people accept that life doesn’t give them what they’d like and then get on with it. They also find fantasists who demand society share their delusions mighty annoying.

  23. “So NiV it’s mere biological vulnerability versus delusional thinking that makes you the bigger victim?”

    For most TGs, it’s got nothing to do with vulnerability – although they are. That’s only the feminists who see femininity as inextricably tied to victimhood.

    And they’re not deluded. One of the primary reasons for ‘Freedom of Belief’ as a bedrock principle of a liberal society is that we have many groups in society each of them utterly convinced that the other is deluded – atheists and Catholics and Protestants and Muslims and polytheists, for example – and this idea that their persecution is justified by your belief that they are ‘deluded’ is the source of most of history’s greatest atrocities. That you think them deluded is no more apposite than that they think you are.

    They’re not deluded, and even if they were, that wouldn’t justify your intolerance.

  24. They’re not deluded, and even if they were, that wouldn’t justify your intolerance.

    I didn’t notice Laura being intolerant.

  25. NiV: you’re free to believe whatever you want but why on earth should I or society at large be hectored, coerced, namecalled into sharing your delusions ?

  26. “NiV: you’re free to believe whatever you want but why on earth should I or society at large be hectored, coerced, namecalled into sharing your delusions ?”

    Why on Earth should MtF TGs be hectored, coerced, namecalled into sharing *you’re* delusion that they’re not women? Which they *have* been for the last couple of thousand years, with no protest from people like you!

    You believe it’s a delusion. You’re wrong. But the same rules apply. Either you outlaw people being hectored, coerced, and namecalled, or you allow the use of those methods to enforce whatever society’s current ‘delusion’ might be. You can’t have it both ways! You can’t at the same time call TGs names (like ‘deluded’) and then reasonably expect not to get called names back! You can’t coerce them into conforming with your rules on how the sexes are allowed to dress and behave and act towards one another for several thousand years, and then complain when they do exactly the same to you! You can’t sit there moaning about your vulnerability and victimhood at the hands of sexist men, doing so using your gift of freedoms won through several hundred years of struggle overturning the traditional norms and rules society used to enforce on women, and that still apply in all too many other places, and not expect TGs to want to do the same!

    If you met a male employee who thought that women were deluded if they thought they could be managers, and complained that he was being hectored, coerced, namecalled into sharing your delusion that you actually *was* a manager with authority over him, what would you think? Because men used to think like that. Some, I’m sure, still do.

    Authoritarians never seem to learn. If you can enforce your norms on them when *you* control society, then they can enforce their norms on *you* when *they* do. The only way to avoid the latter is to abandon your adherence to the former.

  27. The Court of Appeal heard how Ms Konczak suffered a mental breakdown after being told in 2007 that “women take things more emotionally than men, whilst men tend to forget things and move on.”

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/woman-wins-360k-payout-after-managers-sexist-comment-in-the-office-a3600811.html

    The tribunal found that Lynford’s ordeal of sexual harassment included being exposed to “semi-pornographic” magazines, remarks being made about her chest, and enduring a “working environment … characterised by an attitude to women which was disrespectful”. The tribunal accepted her claim that she was told by PC Colin Joy to “fuck off” during training, with the tribunal disbelieving his claim he never made the remark.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jun/18/barbara-lynford-tribunal-sexism-award

  28. @NiV “If you met a male employee who thought that women were deluded if they thought they could be managers…”

    I met a rugby coach who thinks that women are delusional if they think they could ever play for the men’s senior England rugby XV.

    Should I call him out for his patriarchal views?

  29. If your definition of ‘essential female experiences’ is experiences experienced by all females, then it obviously depends on your definition of ‘female’. It’s begging the question.

    No, you are the one who is begging the question – that is, assuming what you want to prove – by re-defining ‘female’ to serve your own ideological purposes.

    The scientific and value-neutral definition of ‘female human’ involves XX chromosomes, genital configuration, menstruation for several decades, potential for pregnancy, etc. Basing a definition on such empirical facts is not ‘begging the question’. You are begging the question by altering the definition of ‘female’ to justify your deviant lifestyle.

  30. Why on Earth should MtF TGs be hectored, coerced, namecalled into sharing *you’re* delusion that they’re not women? Which they *have* been for the last couple of thousand years, with no protest from people like you!

    1. Because the delusions are yours, not ours.

    2. Because an administratively complex society requires standard definitions, and fluid definitions cause chaos and confusion.

    3. Because the demands made by MtF TGs go beyond requiring tolerance for their delusions to requiring belief in – and acceptance of – their delusions.

    Does that make me a bigot?

  31. Purely as an aside, Mr Roderick Liddle has come to the realisation that he is in fact black; he is now Mr Roderick Mbunga Liddle.

    https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/11/why-ive-changed-my-name/

    The arguments from the liberals against Anthony (and thus, by extension, me) being black are hilarious. They claim, for instance, that he is not black at all, factually. Ah, but surely what matters is what he feels himself to be, no? Isn’t that the criteria we apply in other cases? Likewise, the assertion that he is diverting funds away from people who are truly deserving because they actually are black and that further to this he cannot be objectively black because however black he might think himself to be, he has not suffered as a black person has suffered: he does not have slavery and colonialism hanging around his neck, no matter how much he (and I, obvs) might identify with people who do.

    Does this argument from the left ring a bell with you?

    Imagine if Anthony did not identify as being black, but identified as being a woman and decided to call himself Antonia (which I suppose he may well do next week if he feels like it). Then, all of those objections would be rendered null and void by the liberals. He is not actually a woman? Doesn’t matter one bit. Indeed, his identification as a woman when he is palpably not a woman places him in an even more protected category than if he really were a woman. He hasn’t suffered sexual oppression as real women have? Nah, he has suffered more. He would get more grants flowing his way than a gay disabled Bengali dwarf.

    And this is despite the fact that Anthony’s maleness is far more easily provable and objective (it’s in the chromosomes, stupid) than his racial background. Anthony would be on a Labour all-women shortlist before you could say Valerie Solanas. He would have the support of the BBC and most of the mainstream media. Those who railed against him would be eviscerated as bigots and terfs.

  32. “The scientific and value-neutral definition of ‘female human’ involves XX chromosomes, genital configuration, …”

    Scientists say otherwise.

    There are males with XX chromosomes, and people whose genital configuration that changes over time. (As you very well know, since I’ve told you about it repeatedly.) No genuine scientist would be so fucking stupid as to ignore such easily demonstrable counterexamples, or to opine on the subject without researching it sufficiently to know about them. They’d have to be doubly fucking stupid to ignore it after it had been repeatedly drawn to their attention. But you would.

    “You are begging the question by altering the definition of ‘female’ to justify your deviant lifestyle.”

    First, it’s transphobia that is ‘deviant’ nowadays, that you’re trying to justify with this shite.

    And second, you idiots seem to keep on assuming that I’m TG. What is it with that? Do you think I’d find it insulting? Do you imagine that, like you, nobody could conceivably defend anyone else’s position but their own? Or is English not your native language? Does the dribble pooling in your lap, perhaps, short out your keyboard? What is it?

    Niemoller wasn’t right about everyone, you know.

    “Does that make me a bigot?”

    Yes.

    “Isn’t that the criteria we apply in other cases?”

    No.

    Because one assertion is about skin colour and the other is about brain structure (not genital structure). Both are objective facts, neither can be changed by simple assertion.

    If someone claimed to have female genitals when they actually didn’t, you might actually have a point. But they don’t, and neither do you.

  33. “And second, you idiots seem to keep on assuming that I’m TG. ”

    That is because you keep peddling a load of cockrot–admittedly within the vast expanse of your total cockrot preaching–about non-existent daily shit-bashings undergone by your trannie chums. Since no such daily beatings exist outside of your imagination and your claims of mass violence against oddballs are on a par with your non-existent jihadi conversions, most folk assume that YOU must have had some unfortunate outlier -or outliar–experience. Possibly at some crappy public school or something. Who knows or cares for that matter.

    I think you are merely another species of mental case with an SJW complex as big as the all outdoors uneasily crammed in with supposed concern for liberty. The two of which in combination would create a fermentation equal to the mental equivalent of 10 bad pints on top of a very large, very bad vindaloo.

    Which it has. While the rest of us struggle to clean the toilet before your next wave of double-ended mental muck arrives.

  34. ”…brain structure… …objective fact…”

    Any suggestions as to Pippa / Philip’s brain structure, NiV; objectively speaking?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.