Calls for Graham Linehan to be removed from Prime Debate on transgender issues!

kowloon

Sittingpretty wrote: »

A transsexual woman is not a biological woman. She was born male and every chromosome in her body is still male.

One of them could be.

Dante7

After another quick look at the profiles of the radical trans activists, they all had pronouns listed in their profile and then you could toss a coin to see if they also identified as socialist or Marxist.

seamus

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Being trans is not the same as being "cis", though. And a lot of straight, non-trans peoples' sexual orientation is specifically only open to sexual activity with non-trans members of the opposite sex. Call it transphobic if you like, but it's a simple fact - a lot of straight people of either gender would be weirded out and feel violated after discovering that a person they just engaged in sexual activity with (or were just about to when this was discovered) was not a "natural born" member of the opposite sex.

In my view, people have a right to have their sexual orientation respected, just as many believe that people have a right to have their gender identity respected. Why should one trump the other? Does a straight person not have the right to be attracted exclusively to members of the opposite sex who were never members of the same sex - and therefore feel sexually violated if they were led to believe this was the case when it wasn't?

Rather odd to assert that there should be a "right" to be attracted to a choice. You either are attracted or you aren't, it's not something you can really choose.

If you're talking about the right to have a preference without fear of being labelled, then absolutely. Like I say, attraction kind of is or isn't, you don't really get to decide, "Today I will not find Chinese people attractive".

But ultimately just because a person has a preference, that doesn't obligate a potential partner to reveal everything to make sure they're compatible.

If I had brought a woman home and the next morning found out that she hunts animals for sport and pickets abortion clinics I'd not only be unattracted to her, I'd also feel dirty and "violated".

Is that her fault for not telling me, or is it my stupid fault for letting my dick make all my decisions?

Trans is no different. Having sex with a transwoman does not make you gay. It does not "violate" your sexuality. While it's certainly a good idea on her part to be upfront for her own safety, if some guy jumps into bed without getting to know the other person better, then he can't whinge the next day when he finds out she has attributes that turn him off.

B0jangles

The donkey kong thing is because Graham's recent efforts to stop the charity 'Mermaids' from receiving funding led to someone playing the game 'Donkey Kong' while livesteaming in order to raise funds for them - I think the final amount raised was £265,000.

Graham's anti-trans efforts directly led to the charity getting a huge financial boost. That is why they are sending him pictures of Donkey Kong. It is because they are laughing at him.

One eyed Jack

seamus wrote: »

if some guy jumps into bed without getting to know the other person better, then he can't whinge the next day when he finds out she has attributes that turn him off.

He can though, and he’s likely to have his complaint taken seriously too, and the other person could find themselves facing charges of aggravated sexual assault or rape.

Will I Am Not

seamus wrote: »

Rather odd to assert that there should be a "right" to be attracted to a choice. You either are attracted or you aren't, it's not something you can really choose.

If you're talking about the right to have a preference without fear of being labelled, then absolutely. Like I say, attraction kind of is or isn't, you don't really get to decide, "Today I will not find Chinese people attractive".

But ultimately just because a person has a preference, that doesn't obligate a potential partner to reveal everything to make sure they're compatible.

If I had brought a woman home and the next morning found out that she hunts animals for sport and pickets abortion clinics I'd not only be unattracted to her, I'd also feel dirty and "violated".

Is that her fault for not telling me, or is it my stupid fault for letting my dick make all my decisions?

Trans is no different. Having sex with a transwoman does not make you gay. It does not "violate" your sexuality. While it's certainly a good idea on her part to be upfront for her own safety, if some guy jumps into bed without getting to know the other person better, then he can't whinge the next day when he finds out she has attributes that turn him off.

See this is just your opinion, an opinion that I doubt would be shared by most heterosexual men. A tiny fraction maybe.
It’s fairly moot anyway, I can’t imagine many men would get to the point of the next morning after sex without realising the other person is trans.

seamus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

He can though, and he’s likely to have his complaint taken seriously too, and the other person could find themselves facing charges of aggravated sexual assault or rape.

I don't believe that's the case. Not just legally, but if a guy arrived in a station complaining that the woman he had sex with last night turned out to be trans, he'd be laughed out of the station.

Will I Am Not wrote: »

See this is just your opinion, an opinion that I doubt would be shared by most heterosexual men. A tiny fraction maybe.

Perhaps. But opinion is irrelevant anyway. We don't legislate for opinion. Unless it could be proven that the tran person set out to deceive the other, and especially given that we have legal recognition of gender, the individual wouldn't really have a leg to stand on. Their opinion on whether a trans person is their chosen gender, is irrelevant. It's a legal fact.

It’s fairly moot anyway, I can’t imagine many men would get to the point of the next morning after sex without realising the other person is trans.

Agreed. No trans person would let it get that far anyway. So like you say, the entire discussion is moot. It's a solution in search of a problem.

One eyed Jack

seamus wrote: »

I don't believe that's the case. Not just legally, but if a guy arrived in a station complaining that the woman he had sex with last night turned out to be trans, he'd be laughed out of the station.

Ok I can see where you’re coming from as though the Southpark meme is a thing, but the reality as I’ve often tried to convince victims of rape and sexual assault is quite different, regardless of their gender. Nobody walks into a station complaining that they had sex with someone, they walk into a station to make a complaint that they have either been raped or sexually assaulted. According to the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017, the following criteria are used to determine whether or not consent was present (and it’s not an exhaustive list either) -

The Act of 1990 is amended by the substitution of the following section for section 9:

“9. (1) A person consents to a sexual act if he or she freely and voluntarily agrees to engage in that act.

(2) A person does not consent to a sexual act if—

(a) he or she permits the act to take place or submits to it because of the application of force to him or her or to some other person, or because of the threat of the application of force to him or her or to some other person, or because of a well-founded fear that force may be applied to him or her or to some other person,

(b) he or she is asleep or unconscious,

(c) he or she is incapable of consenting because of the effect of alcohol or some other drug,

(d) he or she is suffering from a physical disability which prevents him or her from communicating whether he or she agrees to the act,

(e) he or she is mistaken as to the nature and purpose of the act,

(f) he or she is mistaken as to the identity of any other person involved in the act,

(g) he or she is being unlawfully detained at the time at which the act takes place,

(h) the only expression or indication of consent or agreement to the act comes from somebody other than the person himself or herself.

(3) This section does not limit the circumstances in which it may be established that a person did not consent to a sexual act.

(4) Consent to a sexual act may be withdrawn at any time before the act begins, or in the case of a continuing act, while the act is taking place.

(5) Any failure or omission on the part of a person to offer resistance to an act does not of itself constitute consent to that act.

(6) In this section—

‘sexual act’ means—

(a) an act consisting of—

(i) sexual intercourse, or

(ii) buggery,

(b) an act described in section 3(1) or 4(1) of this Act, or

(c) an act which if done without consent would constitute a sexual assault;

‘sexual intercourse’ shall be construed in accordance with section 1(2) of the Principal Act.”.

Bold emphasis my own. A victim of rape or sexual assault would certainly not be laughed at if they were to come forward and make a complaint.

Perhaps. But opinion is irrelevant anyway. We don't legislate for opinion. Unless it could be proven that the tran person set out to deceive the other, and especially given that we have legal recognition of gender, the individual wouldn't really have a leg to stand on. Their opinion on whether a trans person is their chosen gender, is irrelevant. It's a legal fact.

Actually that’s exactly what we do, and that’s how the Gender Recognition Act 2015 was proposed and passed into law in the first place, and that’s how the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 amends previous legislation, because more people were of the opinion that it needed to change. The victims opinion as to whether or not they would have had sex with another person had they known that person was transgender is entirely relevant to the question of whether or not consent was present, or whether or not the victim was in a position to give consent. It’s the accused in that case wouldn’t have a leg to stand on as their gender would be irrelevant as to what charges they could potentially face.

Agreed. No trans person would let it get that far anyway. So like you say, the entire discussion is moot. It's a solution in search of a problem.

It’s not true to say no trans person would let it get that far when we’re aware of trans advocates who are attempting to gaslight women into having sex with them and having those women labelled transphobic when those women refuse to have sex with them. In terms of people who are transgender who would wish to have sex with men, the reason they avoid it is because they are more concerned for their own safety as the risk of them being assaulted or murdered by another man is much greater than it would be if they were to try and have sex with a woman. In no way do I condone men committing assault on another person, and I would hope that they face the full rigours of the law too, but that doesn’t mean giving people who are transgender a free pass when they are fully aware that they have not attempted to ensure that consent is present. They may be legally recognised as their preferred gender, but they are still held to the same standards as everyone else in society, regardless of their gender.

AndrewJRenko

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Well he's not agreeing with them, so obviously he should be censored. You're either 100% behind the idea that you can choose your own gender at random or you need to be silenced.

Welcome to 2019 folks.

Not inviting a comedy writer to go on Prime Time to speak about something that he no experience or expertise in doesn't quite qualify as 'censorship'. It's not about silencing him, regardless of how many people are keen to play the victim.

AndrewJRenko

Billy86 wrote: »

Gravelly wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

What does Graham Linehan actually know about the subject though?

He's not trans. He has no experience of being trans and he hasn't anything in the way of research or study into trans issues.

He literally just rants because he doesn't like it. What on Earth does that do for anyone only piss off and add to the stigma that trans people have to endure?

If he studied trans issues academically or experienced what trans people go through, and he had something to back up his rants with, then we'd be having a different conversation.

Having him on wasn't about providing 'balance', it was about getting a contrarian view in a bid to cause a bit of controversy even though he literally has nothing in the way of experience in the issues they face.

I don't have any experience with trans people. I don't know any personally, I don't work with any and I've never studied it. Should I be allowed to be given a platform to rant about why people who rant about it are wrong?

As far as I'm aware, Linehan's only knowledge of the subject is that he has been the victim of a campaign of harassment by "trans activists" - but he is as entitled as anyone else to give his opinion on a subject that is a cause of concern to many. I wasn't the one trying to shut down Linehans, the bould Andrew was - with the claim that he shouldn't be allowed to speak on it because he has no experience (a view you seem to share) - that's just a teeny bit hypocritical when the same Andrew was holding forth on what 4 or 5 year olds know or don't know, when it appears he knows as much about them as I do about Northern Hairy-nosed wombats.

By that logic, shouldn't RTE should have 4.8mn people on the panel so we can get all of the views on it?

Otherwise, whether he were pro or anti trans, Linehane being on the panel makes about as much sense as having Jamie Redknapp on news shows discussing the impact of Brexit in the financial sector.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Billy86 wrote: »

By that logic, shouldn't RTE should have 4.8mn people on the panel so we can get all of the views on it?

Otherwise, whether he were pro or anti trans, Linehane being on the panel makes about as much sense as having Jamie Redknapp on news shows discussing the impact of Brexit in the financial sector.

Liam cunningham has appeared on the late late show several times discussing refugees.

Is cunningham an expert on international migration?

Is the Late Late Show -= Prime Time?

SoupMonster

HandsomeBob wrote: »

Have you ever heard of what you described actually happening? Can't say that I have other than in the world of very cheap fiction.

Most people are decent when in comes down to it and that would include people who happen to be transgender.

This is not cheap fiction.
It's very clear from this case that the guy lost it when he discovered Laude was not really female.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jennifer_Laude

AndrewJRenko

SoupMonster wrote: »

HandsomeBob wrote: »

Have you ever heard of what you described actually happening? Can't say that I have other than in the world of very cheap fiction.

Most people are decent when in comes down to it and that would include people who happen to be transgender.

This is not cheap fiction.
It's very clear from this case that the guy lost it when he discovered Laude was not really female.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jennifer_Laude

It's also not Ireland. It is a very long way from Ireland, physically and culturally.

It's just amazing how people can pull up rare events from far away countries as something we really need to be worrying about here.

And simultaneously, they cheerfully and willfully ignore the very real and current dangers to women from other sources.

It's the bogeyman again, people.

SoupMonster

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Not inviting a comedy writer to go on Prime Time to speak about something that he no experience or expertise in doesn't quite qualify as 'censorship'. It's not about silencing him, regardless of how many people are keen to play the victim.

Who do you think should have appeared on PrimeTime in place of Graham?

Annasopra

Calhoun wrote: »

I am not sure how we would tackle that one, where do 16 year olds get the money to go abroad.

I am sure it will get through without any issues though and next they will lower it to 12 like other jurisdictions.

What are you on about. This nothing to do with going abroad.

Annasopra

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Actually he wasn’t. He was reported by the trans activist and the police showed up but nothing happened. The police basically act as a private police force for some groups.

No. That isnt true. He was given a verbal warning by the police.

Billy86

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Billy86 wrote: »

By that logic, shouldn't RTE should have 4.8mn people on the panel so we can get all of the views on it?

Otherwise, whether he were pro or anti trans, Linehane being on the panel makes about as much sense as having Jamie Redknapp on news shows discussing the impact of Brexit in the financial sector.

Liam cunningham has appeared on the late late show several times discussing refugees.

Is cunningham an expert on international migration?

No, and I have absolutely no idea what the clowns in charge of that show want him in it for. Do you?

Also since I don't watch the LLS, was he on to promote a show etc and wound up talking about refugees at some point, or was he specifically on for no other reason than a long and detailed discussion over refugees?

Sir Oxman

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not true to say no trans person would let it get that far when we’re aware of trans advocates who are attempting to gaslight women into having sex with them and having those women labelled transphobic when those women refuse to have sex with them. In terms of people who are transgender who would wish to have sex with men, the reason they avoid it is because they are more concerned for their own safety as the risk of them being assaulted or murdered by another man is much greater than it would be if they were to try and have sex with a woman. In no way do I condone men committing assault on another person, and I would hope that they face the full rigours of the law too, but that doesn’t mean giving people who are transgender a free pass when they are fully aware that they have not attempted to ensure that consent is present. They may be legally recognised as their preferred gender, but they are still held to the same standards as everyone else in society, regardless of their gender.

Not even refuse to have sex with them.
Expressing that they have no interest in them is enough for the gaslightee to be slandered, doxxed and hounded out of any org they belong to.


THIS is the problem, legitimising the twaw/tmam diatribe.

Billy86

The Squad wrote: »

Why do transsexuals get so irrationally angry when people critise their lifestyle choice?

Probably has something to do with them being treated so badly for so long that something like 40% self harm and 20% attempt suicide... before they turn 18.

mcmoustache

The Squad wrote: »

Why do transsexuals get so irrationally angry when people critise their lifestyle choice?

How many accounts have you gone through now?

Sir Oxman

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No. That isnt true. He was given a verbal warning by the police.

For what?
Do you realise he has a case pending vs the police and the utter arsehole who wasted police time?

SoupMonster

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No. That isnt true. He was given a verbal warning by the police.

He was reported to police by (Stephanie) Hayden because he called Hayden "he" and he used Hayden's former name. I also believe he posted a photograph of Hayden.

These are "hate incidents" in the UK. As one police force helpfully clarified, these are classified as "non-crime crimes" and the police are expected to record them for analysis.

Some mean women playfully refer to Hayden as "the trans solicitor" or similar because Hayden claims to be a lawyer but has no qualifications. Hayden is quite litigious.

Hayden is handy with a golf club and has a string of convictions for "dishonesty".
Caution: The link below contains Hayden's former name and a photograph.
https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/exclusive-transgender-lawyer-suing-graham-linehan-was-convicted-threatening-man-golf

Another interesting police investigation into thought crime (liking a poem).
Is it now a crime to like a poem about transgenderism?

SoupMonster

The Squad wrote: »

Knife crime, acid attacks and rape are out of control in the UK but good to see the police are taking on the thought criminals.

@TitaniaMcGrath says it best
Harry The Owl is a cis male complaining because the police investigated him for a “non-criminal hate incident”.
This kind of police action is long overdue. For too long, people have been not breaking the law and getting away with it.

AndrewJRenko

SoupMonster wrote: »

Who do you think should have appeared on PrimeTime in place of Graham?

Pretty much anybody with expertise or experience. The other participants on the show all had either professional expertise or personal experience. Glinner had neither, though his typing speed appeared to hit record levels.

SoundsRight

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Pretty much anybody with expertise or experience. The other participants on the show all had either professional expertise or personal experience. Glinner had neither, though his typing speed appeared to hit record levels.

I think every living person has experience of gender. You don't need to have a PhD to know there's something not quite right about the direction this trans thing is heading.

SoupMonster

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Pretty much anybody with expertise or experience. The other participants on the show all had either professional expertise or personal experience. Glinner had neither, though his typing speed appeared to hit record levels.

"This house believes trans rights are in direct conflict with women's rights'.

Can you suggest someone more qualified than Glinner who not only believes the statement to be true but is also clear, articulate and persuasive?

Franz Von Peppercorn

Billy86 wrote: »

Probably has something to do with them being treated so badly for so long that something like 40% self harm and 20% attempt suicide... before they turn 18.

Sucidal tendencies could just be a co morbidity of the syndrome.

AndrewJRenko

SoundsRight wrote: »

I think every living person has experience of gender. You don't need to have a PhD to know there's something not quite right about the direction this trans thing is heading.

Gender is not transgender. You don't need to have a PhD to have an opinion. We all have opinions, me included. But the flagship current affairs show on a public broadcaster really should require something more than opinion.

SoupMonster wrote: »

"This house believes trans rights are in direct conflict with women's rights'.

Can you suggest someone more qualified than Glinner who not only believes the statement to be true but is also clear, articulate and persuasive?

This isn't a college debating club. This is the flagship current affairs show on a public broadcaster. It really doesn't matter what he believes or how articulate and persuasive he is. He has no expertise or experience.

SoupMonster

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Gender is not transgender. You don't need to have a PhD to have an opinion. We all have opinions, me included. But the flagship current affairs show on a public broadcaster really should require something more than opinion.



This isn't a college debating club. This is the flagship current affairs show on a public broadcaster. It really doesn't matter what he believes or how articulate and persuasive he is. He has no expertise or experience.

That question SHOULD be debated on the flagship current affairs show.
Since you object to Glinner as just a comedy writer, who would you propose to support the motion?

ceadaoin.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Gender is not transgender. You don't need to have a PhD to have an opinion. We all have opinions, me included. But the flagship current affairs show on a public broadcaster really should require something more than opinion.



This isn't a college debating club. This is the flagship current affairs show on a public broadcaster. It really doesn't matter what he believes or how articulate and persuasive he is. He has no expertise or experience.

Well the latest thing being thrown at him by activists is that he is a clear case of a self hating trans woman in denial. So maybe he does have experience lol

Anyway, it's over and done with now. He was on the show, the world didn't end, he didn't come across as a raging transphobe, lots of people agree with him. What do you want? An official apology from rte? It's time to move on.

AndrewJRenko

SoupMonster wrote: »

That question SHOULD be debated on the flagship current affairs show.
Since you object to Glinner as just a comedy writer, who would you propose to support the motion?

'The motion'? Really, 'the motion'? As I said above, this isn't a chance for immature lads to have a night out shouting at each other and then go for a few points. This is a life-or-death issue for many people, an issue with a track record of high rates of suicide and self-harm. And you think we need a 'debate'?


I suppose the first question is why focus on this topic at all? And no, this isn't censorship. I'm not saying that the issue shouldn't be discussed, but why did Prime Time try to discuss this. Have any issues arisen in two years of self-identification? No. Is there any serious risks to anyone arising from the proposed changes in the new bill? Not really - one of the doctors mentioned that young people 'could' use their gender cert to go for operations abroad, but didn't give any details to back this up, or to show that it actually has been happening. And if there are clinics abroad that will do these operations on 16 year olds, do you really think that an Irish cert is going to be the major issue for them?


So what's really going on here? Prime Time have tried to import a bit of a 'scandal' from the UK to try to get viewers. They have taken a very sensitive issue, and treated it (in part at least) as an imminent danger, without any real explanation of how the danger might arise.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Anyway, it's over and done with now. He was on the show, the world didn't end, he didn't come across as a raging transphobe, lots of people agree with him. What do you want? An official apology from rte? It's time to move on.

Not so sure that he didn't come across as 'raging' - he must go through a keyboard every couple of weeks if he types as furiously as he appeared on camera.


So what do I want? I want future current affairs shows to rely on experience or expertise, not sh1t-stirring ability.