The India Willoughby Interview

India Willoughby is an English newsreader, broadcaster, journalist and reality television personality. She is known for being Britain’s first transgender national television newsreader – reading the news on Channel 5. She now regularly appears on ITV’s Loose Women and on Good Morning Britain, giving SJWs hell, with Piers Morgan as backup. Country Squire’s James Bembridge went to meet her:

James:  Pre-2010 the only word I knew which described people who had changed sex was transsexual, then mid-2010s that changed to transgender and come 2019 there are apparently one hundred genders! For someone like myself who describes themselves as conservative – partly because I’m inherently suspicious of change – all this change in such a short period is not only overwhelming to me but, I’ll be honest, slightly frightening. It would be wonderful if you could help me and our audience try to navigate this new world where one misstep can seemingly lead to accusations of bigotry and even put people out of their livelihoods. So let’s start by how you would define trangenderism? Would you draw any boundaries to what constitutes being trans?

India: That, in essence is the very problem. What is transgender now? I can’t define it and I’m supposedly transgender. The criteria is so loose, I absolutely hate what it has become. I’m embarrassed by it, I just don’t want anything to do with the word and it’s not that I’m embarrassed about being trans or transsexual if you like, I’m actually proud of what I’ve been through because I managed to overcome my problems and sort myself out.

Historically, you had two words. You had transsexual, which was a medical condition and it’s still a medical condition, whether people believe it or not. People being born in the wrong body is a mismatch between what you have in your brain, your identity, who you are and the rest of you. You can’t have a brain transplant so the only way to bring things into alignment, and the medical profession accept this, is to change the body to match the mind. And then you had transvestites, which were people who dressed for various reasons and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with being transvestite – if that’s what you are, great. Actually I would rather have been a transvestite. I mean that hand on heart because there’s no hassle or trauma. If you want to dress up for whatever reason, then great, you can do that, you’re not actually hurting anyone .

James: That’s the insane thing now, people who would have been called transvestite can now call themselves transgender without going through the surgery.

India: This is what happens. In the LGBT world, three years ago – actually it was LBG at the time – they decided to embrace the T into their cause. They’ve decided that instead of having these different words, they will just have one word and they will just parcel everyone up, tie a ribbon on top and call us all transgender. Which is great for transvestites because all of a sudden, they have a credible term to go by. It’s a more accepting term but sadly for people who have a medical condition – and that’s what this is, a medical condition –  I am now grouped with Sam Smith who has no real discomfort or dysphoria; they are just having a great time.

sadddewas

James: I think that many people regard those like Sam Smith, who change their pronouns on a weekly basis, as just being narcissists.

India: A lot of celebs are doing it to gain currency. They’ve been gay and gay has sort of faded because all the battles have been won. Trans has come along and they see it as this hot topic. Sadly, and it is really sad, I know not all gay people are like this and a lot are equally as infuriated by it as I am.

James: I can attest to that.

India: They adopt trans like a new pair of shoes.

James: I did find it quite extraordinary to see, I think it was your latest appearance on Good Morning Britain, where Benjamin Butterworth of Pink News, as a gay man, was… I don’t know what the correct term would be, ‘mansplaining’ or ‘gaysplaining’ but he was trying to explain to you what it means to be trans when you yourself are a legitimate trans woman sat next to him.

India: It’s ludicrous, I’ve gone the whole nine yards, you know what I mean, Benjamin? I’ve been there from start to finish, I don’t need somebody to explain to me what people transitioning need or what they want. People who transition, people like me, we just want to fit into the world. I think this is the key difference. We totally believe there are two genders and there are two sexes, you’re one or the other. We happen to be the wrong one, we feel, so what we want to do is just jump ship and get on the other team and that’s it. We don’t want to change language or change signs above your doors or phrases, nor should everybody wear trousers in school, none of that nonsense!

James: These extreme activists aren’t trying to look for acceptance, they actively court attention and almost always make a circus show of themselves.

India: They are, and I think what’s happened is… well I won’t get in too deep because it’s such a dense and multi-layered topic…. but have you heard of something called queer theory?

James: Yes, I’ve heard several people refer to it, but I don’t fully understand what it means.

India: My whole life, hand on heart, I wasn’t gay. I was never attracted to men or ever had a gay experience or anything like that. When I first decided to become sort of public about transitioning, somebody got in touch with me and said, ‘we’re from Cumbria Pride and we’d like you to be our patron’. So I said that I don’t think I’m the right person because I don’t know anything about LBG and, to be honest, I’m just being upfront with you here, I don’t really think the T should necessarily be aligned with sexuality.

James: I don’t understand how we are connected either. Sexuality and gender are completely different.

India: It’s crazy! You know we can be friends and I have gay friends, they completely get me, and I have no animosity towards them, but the two things are very different. So I explained my view that the T should not be in the LGB and we had this discussion and they ended up saying: ‘well, that’s all irrelevant because we’re all queer together’. LGBT, I’ve come to realise, is very much like the EU.

James: *laughs* do go on, India!

India: Because the EU and LGBT are both effectively super states of identities and the end game for the EU is that while you have Belgium, France, Germany and Britain at the moment, they’re all European. So that’s the word that they want everyone to be: everyone’s European. With LGBT, the endgame is for everyone to be called Queer. You had all these identities which are very, very different, all the old tags have been erased so you can no longer differentiate between somebody who is going to go down the medical route and drag queens. Frankly it’s ludicrous! The only thing you hear about is self-identification and non-binary.

James: They say all this in a way which sounds innocuous enough – ‘gender fluidity’- but soon you find that gender fluidity is actually a euphemism for no gender and that they believe gender is a social construct?

India: Gender fluidity is transvestite, It’s as simple as that. I’m always at pains to point out that I’m not using that as a slur or that they are horrible people, nothing wrong with being transvestite but with being transvestite the urge or mood to dress as the other sex comes and goes. Somebody in my situation, every single day they are aware of how they feel, it doesn’t come and go. Gender fluidity is re-branding of transvestites, that’s what it is. Saying these truths gets me labelled as a baddie.

James: Being characterised as the villain by SJWs is not so bad, because the villains are always more interesting anyway.

India: Definitely. I tried desperately to appease everybody and be polite, but I got so frustrated because I didn’t like them and disagreed with everything they said. Since then I’ve had this sort of coming out experience and nailed my colours to the mast, it was horrible initially in terms of trolling and what have you.

James: Well, I see that you still get a lot of unwarranted hate on Twitter.

India: You know what, I’m used to it now.

James: I think that social media has turned many of us into narcissistic, authoritarian megalomaniacs.

India: I think there’s a lot of truth in that. It’s like arseholes isn’t it, everyone’s got an arsehole, and everyone’s got an opinion. It’s an angry place, Twitter, I’d love to live without it, but I do think it’s quite nice to be able to gob off. But it’s made everything so toxic. I don’t prescribe to any kind of extremism, but I think I’m viewed as an extremist by the blue-haired brigade.

James: There’s none more extreme than them! Today on Twitter I saw some “brave” students who were stripping off for mental health awareness. Sorry but this is just posh porn isn’t it? They want to immortalise their bodies when they are young and hot but with none of the reputational risks that would come with studio porn.

India: Yeah, I’ve seen Piers talking about this and as normal I agree with Piers. It’s just psychobabble. If you want to strip off and show your body – and they’ve got great bodies – just show off, be proud of it and that’s it, just put a full stop at the end of it. You don’t have to tag on some justification because of woke culture. Everything now has to have a prefix – and I’ve done it in this conversation with you today, where “I said bad things about trans people and then I’ve had to justify it by saying but that doesn’t mean I hate blah blah blah”. So there always has to be a prefix disclaimer on conversations now. So dull.

James: Exactly. Let’s say on Twitter you quote tweet someone who is not liked by liberal media orthodoxy and they have said something that is very agreeable, well, then you have to say: ‘whilst I loathe this person, on this occasion they have a point’, you can’t just say that you partially agree with them; you have to caveat it by saying how much you hate them first.

India: It’s nuts. Oops I should have prefixed those nuts!

James: Let’s go onto Meghan Markle, there are some commentators who are saying that any criticism of her should be inferred as racism but what I think is happening is that we Brits are far more cynical than the Americans, I think we just see through the BS quicker than they do. I agree with Piers Morgan that Meghan Markle is manipulative and fake and, therefore, the criticism is justified. I don’t think it’s fair to accuse her critics of being motivated by racism.

India: No, I don’t think Meghan Markle is being judged on racist terms whatsoever. It’s more to do with a gut instinct that people have, and I don’t think that Meghan is necessarily the victim.

James: That was the straw that broke the camel’s back, when she came out and claimed that she is victimised by the media and all the exposure she gets by being married to Prince Harry. I think that’s just when everyone said: ‘NO’.

India: She’s a Hollywood actress and she’s ambitious – lots of people from her life have talked about her ambition to get on. She’s now married into the most famous family in the world – still the most famous – despite the Kardashians being around. So inevitably there is going to be non-stop interest in her life. All Royals have that focus and scrutiny. You can be two types of royal: you can be an anonymous type of royal like Princess Anne who is rarely seen and keeps herself to herself, or you can be the more celebrity type like Meghan. I mean she’s hanging around with Serena Williams, George Clooney etc. If you’re going to Wimbledon and your flunkies are telling punters who are paying for your 2.5-million-pound revamp of your cottage: ‘No photos please, this is a private visit’, then you are going to get scrutinised! We used to live in Great Britain but now we live in Guilt Britain.

James: India, thanks so much for chatting with me for Country Squire Magazine.

India: My pleasure, James.