Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

joeguevara

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

It was brought up as fact. Here you go (emphasis mine):

fair enough. Despicable and irrelevant.

Sir Oxman

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Honestly, if people are willing to let Graham continue to be the poster child of the anti transgender rights crowd they had better be careful. He's a petulant bully who has some serious problems.

I can tell you - he never was. And it's not about being 'anti-transgender rights':rolleyes:

The good his account did because of the amount of followers was linking/amplifying women writing, women debating, injustices, 'cancellations', job losses, detransitioners (who are always overlooked), hourly denunciations of women by finger pointing and the very important work of highlighting the absolutely anti-demoicratic, authoritarian capture of almost all UK institutions by stonewalluk and it's accessory organisations who have consistently misrepresented actual *UK law (the 'get ahead of the law' strategy) to companies, schools, unis, police (!), govt, councils and loads more while being the (sometimes sole) authors and arbiters of 'guidance' and 'the new safeguarding' based on bat**** political theory.

*Search engines are available

2u2me

joeguevara wrote: »

fair enough. Despicable and irrelevant.

You missed 'standard' Joe.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Sir Oxman wrote: »

I can tell you - he never was. And it's not about being 'anti-transgender rights':rolleyes:

The good his account did because of the amount of followers was linking/amplifying women writing, women debating, injustices, 'cancellations', job losses, detransitioners (who are always overlooked), hourly denunciations of women by finger pointing and the very important work of highlighting the absolutely anti-demoicratic, authoritarian capture of almost all UK institutions by stonewalluk and it's accessory organisations who have consistently misrepresented actual *UK law (the 'get ahead of the law' strategy) to companies, schools, unis, police (!), govt, councils and loads more while being the (sometimes sole) authors and arbiters of 'guidance' and 'the new safeguarding' based on bat**** political theory.

*Search engines are available

Well said. And yes, :rolleyes: at “anti-transgender rights”. Pointing out that some transgender rights conflict with women’s rights isn’t being against rights for transgender people. But portraying it that way is a standard tactic. If people need to employ such dishonest tactics, they should question why that is.

Gruffalux

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well said. And yes, :rolleyes: at “anti-transgender rights”. Pointing out that some transgender rights conflict with women’s rights isn’t being against rights for transgender people. But portraying it that way is a standard tactic. If people need to employ such dishonest tactics, they should question why that is.

Apparently we are "going out of our way to humiliate people and still feeling as if we are decent people".
Such manipulative tripe. All the main protagonists in this thread on the side of protecting the reality of sex based spaces, needs, truths, etc have always said transgender people need respect and protection too. Not at others expense though.
I see there is a transwoman fighting in France through the courts to have themselves registered on their daughters birth cert as mother. This transwoman inseminated the girls mother 4 years ago to create this child - why be so disrespectful of the child that for the rest of her life the girl must hold an important document that records an ideological impossible mistruth. The transwoman plaintiff fathered the child. Mother - an ancient sound - Middle English moder, from Old English mōdor; akin to Old High German muoter mother, Latin mater, Greek mētēr, Sanskrit mātṛ.
Anyway. We must shut up or be considered "indecent". Where did I hear that before? Long time ago round these parts of the planet. Though the mullahs still say it to the women in Iran.

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well said. And yes, :rolleyes: at “anti-transgender rights”. Pointing out that some transgender rights conflict with women’s rights isn’t being against rights for transgender people. But portraying it that way is a standard tactic. If people need to employ such dishonest tactics, they should question why that is.

I think it's more dishonest to portray a position as simply pointing out something. Anti-trans activists don't just have an opinion that there is a conflict (even though there is no conflict). They state how they believe that conflict should be resolved. And that is why they are anti-trans rights.

And I agree. People who need to use dishonest tactics should ask themselves why that is.

Gentlemanne

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well said. And yes, :rolleyes: at “anti-transgender rights”. Pointing out that some transgender rights conflict with women’s rights isn’t being against rights for transgender people. But portraying it that way is a standard tactic. If people need to employ such dishonest tactics, they should question why that is.

I'm not stupid, when I see organisations try to cut the T out of LGBT and I see people constantly refer to people on the other side as "Trans Rights Activists", I don't think its controversial to say they are anti transgender rights.

Even the idea of trans rights vs. women's rights is a dishonest framing. Some transgender people are women too. Unless you mean trans women's rights conflicting with cis women's rights? But I'm guessing you purposefully don't use these terms because you don't think trans women are really women.

Its actually pointless arguing with some people who are anti trans because fundamentally they do not even understand nor respect transgender people's identity in the first place.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m sure you can understand then when someone goes out of their way to humiliate another person and still sees themselves as a decent person speaking truth to power, they too may well be deluding themselves.

Wow. That high horse you were on in the post above, did you slip off it here, or was it all just faux outrage and indeed faux decency?

Because this post below is really very very sh1tty indeed. You don't know Linehan or Rowling - how the hell can you say what sort of people they are? Especially Rowling. That's such offensive stuff, and based on nothing. But I suspect you still think you're "a decent person" as you said. Going by that level of unfounded vitriol against someone you have never spoken to and who has never done anyone any harm as far as we know, that's unsure.

(And there's a big difference in what she said and what people have claimed she said.)

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m saying anyone who does it. Linehan and JK are just examples of it.

I don’t think Linehan has had any sort of a breakdown, I think he was always an arsehole. He knocked it out of the park with Father Ted and then when he was criticised for using a trope that was often applied to people who are transgender, he lost his shìt and went after them as a group. That’s when he showed his true colours, and he’s been at it ever since. Five minutes after he was banned off Twitter he logged on to mumsnet looking for support, and wasn’t long being told where to go. He was only brave while he was being egged on by the support he got from his half a million followers on social media.

I think the same of JK - she was always an arsehole, dunno what set her off, but she took it upon herself to humiliate and provoke as large a group as she could, and has been playing the victim since. When she tried shmoozing up to Stephen King to elevate herself to his level, he wasn’t long indicating where she could go either. That’s why she deleted her tweet - utterly humiliating for her that Stephen King whom she heaped praise on when she thought he supported her ideas, didn’t support her ideas after all. She still has the support of 14.5 million followers on social media.

The people they provoked are complete nobodies, who have the same attitudes towards other people that they do, except that Linehan and JK have all the power in that scenario. The expression “shìt finds it’s own level” comes to mind tbh.

Sir Oxman

LLMMLL wrote: »

I think it's more dishonest to portray a position as simply pointing out something. Anti-trans activists don't just have an opinion that there is a conflict (even though there is no conflict). They state how they believe that conflict should be resolved. And that is why they are anti-trans rights.

And I agree. People who need to use dishonest tactics should ask themselves why that is.

Women's groups (the ones that weren't captured therefore defunded) and LGB & T people ('the wrong kind' according to tractivists) requested continuously over the past 3-4 years to have a respective, open debate and discussion as they could see conflicts arising from the GRA proposals & um, consultation.
They were ignored.
That's where indisputably dishonest tactic of #nodebate came about which is anathema to any democratic society.
Due diligence is somewhat important even with one argument proclaiming there are 'no conflicts'
So, whisht with your dishonest tactic/anti-trans rights reversal, I've seen and heard the gaslighting crap from locked-in ideologists too many times.
A bit of introspection on those points wouldn't do you any harm.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

Apparently we are "going out of our way to humiliate people and still feeling as if we are decent people".
Such manipulative tripe. All the main protagonists in this thread on the side of protecting the reality of sex based spaces, needs, truths, etc have always said transgender people need respect and protection too. Not at others expense though.

What manipulative tripe indeed. I didn’t say or suggest that anyone here was going out of their way to to humiliate anyone. I know they wouldn’t. I was referring to anyone who does.

“The reality of sex based spaces”, would those be the artificially constructed spaces which were created as a consequence of women being regarded as equal in law and entitled to protection from discrimination and abuse? People who are transgender don’t have equal rights as a result of your deigning them worthy of respect and protection. They have equal rights, at nobody else’s expense. If you’re going to accuse other people of posting manipulative tripe, then surely the onus is on you to have your own facts straight about reality before you declare yours is the only reality that everyone else must comply with as though you’re at the head of the table and you’ll decide who gets invited to the party - only those people who are prepared to agree with you it seems. That’s not how democratic society functions in reality.

Gruffalox wrote: »

Anyway. We must shut up or be considered "indecent". Where did I hear that before? Long time ago round these parts of the planet. Though the mullahs still say it to the women in Iran.

Oh please, like you have anything in common with women in Iran of all places! The only thing you have in common with a woman in Iran is that you both live in countries where people are recognised in law as their preferred gender. The difference is that in Iran, how this manifests itself is that people who are gay and lesbian don’t exist in law, they’re either heterosexual man or woman in law. People who don’t conform to that paradigm are seen as unwell and in need of treatment, and what’s a treatment for that? Well, sex reassignment of course. Your idea of respect and protection wouldn’t be out of place over there either where people say that people who are transgender have rights -


Supporters of the government's policy argue that transgender Iranians are given help to lead fulfilling lives, and have more freedom than in many other countries. But the concern is that gender reassignment surgery is being offered to people who are not transgender, but homosexual, and may lack the information to know the difference.


The gay people pushed to change their gender


Honestly I don’t think you could have picked a worse country to compare Ireland to so you could play the victim. In reality you aren’t a victim, and acting as though you represent anyone but yourself is your own perception of reality. JK it appears suffers from the same affliction though, imagining she represents or speaks on behalf of all women. She doesn’t, not by a long shot, but here’s a civil rebuttal of her nonsense -


As a ‘terrified lesbian’, I find JK Rowling’s tweets a lot more worrying than trans rights


Her disagreement could only be the result of all that internalised misogyny as a consequence of patriarchal oppression, right? And not the fact that JK sometimes likes to channel her “inner bloke“. Tis an awful pity JK’s “inner bloke” is such an asshole. Not JK though, when she’s back to being herself again and playing the victim.

Annasopra

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Women's groups (the ones that weren't captured therefore defunded) and LGB & T people ('the wrong kind' according to tractivists) requested continuously over the past 3-4 years to have a respective, open debate and discussion as they could see conflicts arising from the GRA proposals & um, consultation.
They were ignored.
That's where indisputably dishonest tactic of #nodebate came about which is anathema to any democratic society.
Due diligence is somewhat important even with one argument proclaiming there are 'no conflicts'
So, whisht with your dishonest tactic/anti-trans rights reversal, I've seen and heard the gaslighting crap from locked-in ideologists too many times.
A bit of introspection on those points wouldn't do you any harm.

Its interesting though isnt it. No womens groups here have ever done that. Our National Womens Council is trans inclusive. There hasnt been a major anti trans backlash here to any extent at all even though we introduced Self ID laws.

Sir Oxman

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its interesting though isnt it. No womens groups here have ever done that. Our National Womens Council is trans inclusive. There hasnt been a major anti trans backlash here to any extent at all even though we introduced Self ID laws.

Critical gender/queer intersectionalism.
Every womens NGO in the UK and here - funding is very important as well.
In Scotland at least, no non-Critical gender/queer intersectionalism group will ever get govt funding.
Not healthy.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Wow. That high horse you were on in the post above, did you slip off it here, or was it all just faux outrage and indeed faux decency?

Because this post below is really very very sh1tty indeed. You don't know Linehan or Rowling - how the hell can you say what sort of people they are? Especially Rowling. That's such offensive stuff, and based on nothing. But I suspect you still think you're "a decent person" as you said. Going by that level of unfounded vitriol against someone you have never spoken to and who has never done anyone any harm as far as we know, that's unsure.

(And there's a big difference in what she said and what people have claimed she said.)

It’s not unfounded? The evidence is all there? Except for the tweet praising Stephen King that she deleted of course. Her twitter is a mix of praising children’s artwork which has been submitted to her, along with her opinions of people who are transgender smattered in between for those same children to read.

I don’t think of myself as anything, whether I’m a decent person or not is up to other people to make that determination, not one I ever cared for either way to be honest, I don’t need the validation that JK or Linehan does, from the same people who once held them in high regard, until they showed their true colours and came a cropper off their own high horses - people stopped listening to them. Same thing as happens in any movement when the people beneath revolt against their leaders.

Terry Crews is the latest celebrity figure to be hoisted by his own petard -


Terry Crews widely criticized (again) for #blacklivesbetter tweet

suicide_circus

When people say "Trans Rights", what exactly are they referring to?

Because everyone has "Human Rights".

Sir Oxman

Gentlemanne wrote: »

I'm not stupid, when I see organisations try to cut the T out of LGBT and I see people constantly refer to people on the other side as "Trans Rights Activists", I don't think its controversial to say they are anti transgender rights.

Even the idea of trans rights vs. women's rights is a dishonest framing. Some transgender people are women too. Unless you mean trans women's rights conflicting with cis women's rights? But I'm guessing you purposefully don't use these terms because you don't think trans women are really women.

Its actually pointless arguing with some people who are anti trans because fundamentally they do not even understand nor respect transgender people's identity in the first place.

That's what they are activists - how is that 'anti-trans rights'
Stonewalluk have left a vast swathe of the LGB out of what is an organistaion taken over by critical queer theory which is TQA+, everyone has the damn right to go their own way when they see conflicts/a widening insane ideology - how is that 'anti-trans rights'

Last two paragraphs are ideological points - anyone who does not agree 100% with your theories and terms must be 'anti-trans rights'
It's getting as old as 'you transphobe!!!' at this stage.

One eyed Jack

suicide_circus wrote: »

When people say "Trans Rights", what exactly are they referring to?

Because everyone has "Human Rights".

I don’t use the term myself, I’ve always referred to human rights, and you’re right, in Ireland at least everyone has the same rights in law as everyone else with regard to protection from discrimination and recognition in law. People who argue against self-ID if they were successful would mean that people who are transgender would not have equal recognition and protection from discrimination in law as people who are not transgender.

The same sort of “everyone has the right to enter into marriage” was used before marriage equality legislation was enacted. It’s a disingenuous attempt that overlooks the purpose of why some groups in society need equal recognition in law. Same reason why travellers are now recognised as an ethnic minority in Ireland - because they need recognition and protection in law that they didn’t have before and can no longer be discriminated against on the basis of their identity as a member of the traveller community.

The Traveller AMA thread was a good example of the kind of Identity Politics that I referred to earlier. The poster was involved in a thread about travellers, and a handful of posters encouraged her to do an AMA. She did, and as soon as they realised her opinions on abortion that they hadn’t accounted for, well, things went downhill fast from there as people who were all supportive of traveller women suddenly withdrew their “support”. Same as happened in the numerous threads on Margaret Cash - didn’t fit the profile, she’s on her own.

LLMMLL

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Women's groups (the ones that weren't captured therefore defunded) and LGB & T people ('the wrong kind' according to tractivists) requested continuously over the past 3-4 years to have a respective, open debate and discussion as they could see conflicts arising from the GRA proposals & um, consultation.
They were ignored.
That's where indisputably dishonest tactic of #nodebate came about which is anathema to any democratic society.
Due diligence is somewhat important even with one argument proclaiming there are 'no conflicts'
So, whisht with your dishonest tactic/anti-trans rights reversal, I've seen and heard the gaslighting crap from locked-in ideologists too many times.
A bit of introspection on those points wouldn't do you any harm.

If you need to frame public consultation as somewhat anti-democratic by putting "um" in front of it then I don't think I'm the one that needs introspection.

The truth is there was public consultation. Did you make a submission? Because if you didn't then it's not really anyone's responsibility but your own.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gentlemanne wrote: »

I'm not stupid, when I see organisations try to cut the T out of LGBT and I see people constantly refer to people on the other side as "Trans Rights Activists", I don't think its controversial to say they are anti transgender rights.

Even the idea of trans rights vs. women's rights is a dishonest framing. Some transgender people are women too. Unless you mean trans women's rights conflicting with cis women's rights? But I'm guessing you purposefully don't use these terms because you don't think trans women are really women.

Its actually pointless arguing with some people who are anti trans because fundamentally they do not even understand nor respect transgender people's identity in the first place.

Transgender men are indeed female and fall under women’s rights. Naturally. You’re very welcome to direct me to any of my posts where I said otherwise. I’ll wait.

And I have been very clear that I don’t believe transgender women are exactly the same as women. Because they’re not. It’s impossible for them to be. I’m amused that you think this is some kind of “gotcha”. Bless. To believe that transgender women are literally the same as women is magical thinking. If that’s what you subscribe to, knock yourself out. But I don’t. And thankfully, the thought police don’t exist so there’s not much that can be done about that. I believe that transgender women have a whole set of issues that are distinct from those of women. Those issues should be taken seriously. As should women’s concerns.

suicide_circus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t use the term myself, I’ve always referred to human rights, and you’re right, in Ireland at least everyone has the same rights in law as everyone else with regard to protection from discrimination and recognition in law. People who argue against self-ID if they were successful would mean that people who are transgender would not have equal recognition and protection from discrimination in law as people who are not transgender.

The same sort of “everyone has the right to enter into marriage” was used before marriage equality legislation was enacted. It’s a disingenuous attempt that overlooks the purpose of why some groups in society need equal recognition in law. Same reason why travellers are now recognised as an ethnic minority in Ireland - because they need recognition and protection in law that they didn’t have before and can no longer be discriminated against on the basis of their identity as a member of the traveller community.

But travellers ARE travellers.

And transgender people ARE transgender people.

But they are not women/men (delete as appropriate).

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Transgender men are indeed female and fall under women’s rights. Naturally. You’re very welcome to direct me to any of my posts where I said otherwise. I’ll wait.

And I have been very clear that I don’t believe transgender women are exactly the same as women. Because they’re not. It’s impossible for them to be. I’m amused that you think this is some kind of “gotcha”. Bless. To believe that transgender women are literally the same as women is magical thinking. If that’s what you subscribe to, knock yourself out. But I don’t. And thankfully, the thought police don’t exist so there’s not much that can be done about that. I believe that transgender women have a whole set of issues that are distinct from those of women. Those issues should be taken seriously. As should women’s concerns.

Of course transwomen are not exactly the same as women. Nor are white women, tall women, blonde women, etc. They are all women though. It's not magical thinking at all.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its interesting though isnt it. No womens groups here have ever done that. Our National Womens Council is trans inclusive. There hasnt been a major anti trans backlash here to any extent at all even though we introduced Self ID laws.

Well, I know Irish feminists who have the same concerns that I do. But they fear for their livelihoods and even their safety. One did voice her concerns under her real name on Twitter and was piled on. It was horrible to witness actually because she’s a very kind person and was very measured. But okay, let’s pretend that everything is okay and everyone is happy with the situation. There are Irish women on this thread raising concerns too. We don’t count apparently.

Sir Oxman

LLMMLL wrote: »

If you need to frame public consultation as somewhat anti-democratic by putting "um" in front of it then I don't think I'm the one that needs introspection.

The truth is there was public consultation. Did you make a submission? Because if you didn't then it's not really anyone's responsibility but your own.

Here you go again.
(UK)
You cannot see the tactic of #nodebate (promoted by orgs, NGOs, media you name it) and ignore my juxtaposition that there was um, a consultation which you know, sort of um, promotes the idea of discussion.

Ireland's consultation passed me by, but then as I linked earlier, 'under the radar' was the successful lauded tactic.

At this stage, the Law Society appear to be flagging due diligence/concerns after the event and the top endocrinologist I believe.
An ideological theory which is just history repeating itself in it's tactics - every single NGO follows the same path.
The uni students of yesterday are in some grand positions now.

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, I know Irish feminists who have the same concerns that I do. But they fear for their livelihoods and even their safety. One did voice her concerns under her real name on Twitter and was pounced on. It was horrible to witness actually. But okay, let’s pretend that everything is okay and everyone is happy with the situation. There are Irish women on this thread raising concerns too. We don’t count apparently.

Anyone whose concerns aren't enshrined in law can claim they don't count then.

If the law reflected your concerns would you then say that trans people don't count? Or would you just be satisfied that the law reflects how you and your friends see the world?

Sir Oxman

LLMMLL wrote: »

Of course transwomen are not exactly the same as women. Nor are white women, tall women, blonde women, etc. They are all women though. It's not magical thinking at all.

Anything to fit an outcome.
:D

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Here you go again.
(UK)
You cannot see the tactic of #nodebate (promoted by orgs, NGOs, media you name it) and ignore my juxtaposition that there was um, a consultation which you know, sort of um, promotes the idea of discussion.

Ireland's consultation passed me by, but then as I linked earlier, 'under the radar' was the successful lauded tactic.

At this stage, the Law Society appear to be flagging due diligence/concerns after the event and the top endocrinologist I believe.
An ideological theory which is just history repeating itself in it's tactics - every single NGO follows the same path.
The uni students of yesterday are in some grand positions now.

Yes, people are foolish to bring up the consultation because that will highlight the, as you say, lauded underhand tactics that were used there.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Anything to fit an outcome.
:D

Ha ha, yeah. I love that all the other examples he gives fit neatly under ‘female’ - those people for whom sex-based rights were created.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

Of course transwomen are not exactly the same as women. Nor are white women, tall women, blonde women, etc. They are all women though. It's not magical thinking at all.

Except for the very many transwomen who SAY openly that they are not women. Tough one that. Whatcha gonna call them blighters?

One eyed Jack

suicide_circus wrote: »

But travellers ARE travellers.

And transgender people ARE transgender people.

But they are not women/men (delete as appropriate).

Travellers and people who are transgender aren’t men or women? Even if I deleted as appropriate, that still doesn’t negate anything? Children are children and they are neither men nor women but they are recognised in law and protected by law, people with disabilities are men, women and children, and they too are recognised in law and entitled to the protection of law.

Interestingly enough, the children of unmarried couples still do not have the same protections in law as the children of married couples as they are not considered a Family as defined in Irish law through the institution of Marriage. That was another important aspect of marriage equality, so that their children would have equal recognition and protection in law as the children of married couples.

suicide_circus

Gruffalox wrote: »

Except for the very many transwomen who SAY openly that they are not women. Tough one that. Whatcha gonna call them blighters?

delusional?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalox wrote: »

Except for the very many transwomen who SAY openly that they are not women. Tough one that. Whatcha gonna call them blighters?

I know, those transgender women are so inconvenient. Almost as inconvenient as detransitioners.