Fr Ted creator/writer Graham Linehan Arrested over posts on Transgender issues

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124020375#Comment_124020375

I think Father Ted was created and aired before the scale of abuse became widely known. Maybe Linehan and Matthews were aware that there was something going on because there are the two jokes you mentioned but that's about it.

Cyrus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124020463#Comment_124020463

sometimes common sense can come into it. is there lots of peer reviewed research that shows that blocking puberty is sensible medical intervention?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124020432#Comment_124020432

Unfortunately for you, there's decades of evidence showing that your personal discomfort with a straightforward medical treatment has no basis.

https://transequality.org/news/lifeline-trans-youth-puberty-blockers-explained

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124020463#Comment_124020463

Umm, you realise that six of the seven adult gender clinics asked by Cass refused to provide the follow-up evidence of outcomes for the now adults previously treated by GIDS? Why would that be?

Anyway, it's the same problem as other interventions on healthy but "unfavourable" traits like surgery to lengthen legs. I'm sure it's lovely for your little boy to be 6 foot tall instead of 5ft 6, but there is a price to pay, and it's not going to be the surgeon who ends up with permanent nerve damage or premature arthritis. If you really need MORE studies to tell you this, I think that's a you problem.

Medical treatment to cure a disease is one thing. Gender dysphoria is not a disease, or not a physical one anyway. And surgery to cure mental illness has been tried (lobotomies for example) and has invariably been a disaster.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124020467#Comment_124020467

Your claim that children are getting drugs and surgery because they played dress up or played with a particular toy is a gross exaggeration.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124020232#Comment_124020232

I just don't get this utter selfishness of "Why should I care?" If anything ever happens to you, you'd better hope that everybody else doesn't take that same approach, or you're done for.

There's a kind of "stay in your lane" admonition to it. If it doesn't affect you directly then mind your own business. That attitude has always been an excuse for covering things up in this country.

There's a piece by Kathy Sheridan in the IT today that makes the a similar point. Though she does illustrate it with a poignant anecdote where she met a trans child and their family. What can you say to that only how badly that family has been treated by "the system"? Kindness is such a trite and inappropriate response to an issue like that.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2025/11/26/kathy-sheridan-where-is-the-kindness-when-we-talk-about-trans-people/

She also refers to another article in the Indo about that incident in a GAA game where a tomboy girl who happened to be good at football was mistakenly "accused" of being trans. Whatever about the unacceptable behaviour of individual parents on the sidelines, whose fault is it that this is happening? Because it never used to happen when boys weren't allowed to play on girls' football teams. Incidentally, it feels like that article in the Indo (along with another one) is a quid-pro-quo for the really hard-hitting piece written by Tommy Conlon the week before. You get the impression that there's a real battle going on behind the scenes relating to how this issue is covered.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124020495#Comment_124020495

It's literally what Susie Green, of Mermaids, has said about her own child.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124020492#Comment_124020492

.I realise that Cass is at best a pile of utter horseshit and at worst an idealogical hit piece. It's as far from independent research as I an from the south pole.

And no, it's absolutely nothing near comparable to leg lengthening.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124020505#Comment_124020505

.It doesn't matter if the pope said it, it's still a gross exaggeration of reality

I'd be interested in the exact quote from the parent in question that you're referring to though

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124020509#Comment_124020509

For someone who asked for evidence above, this is amusing.

aero2k

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124020495#Comment_124020495

Your claim that I said that is a gross exaggeration. I merely asked a question. The question was based on the reading I've done, and the impression I have is that in the old unenlightened days people might have looked at a little boy walking around in his mother's high heels and said "oh, he likes to wear high heels, he'll grow out of it", whereas nowadays they'd be more likely to say "oh like at my lovely brave trans child, I'll have to organise a gender reveal party". It might be a social media thing, but I have read stuff on trans sites to the effect of non gender stereotypical behaviour being evidence of being born in the wrong body. As to drugging and surgery there's a fairly big industry in the US doing exactly that, and lobbying politicians to remove age limits. Thankfully the ongoing lawsuit against Joanna Olsen Kennedy might put a spanner in the works.

crusd

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124020375#Comment_124020375

Having the "right" or "wrong" gender is not measurable and ultimately not knowable with a sufficient degree of certainty at that age to permenantly alter someones biology. As its a subjective call the decision should ultimately be made by the individual when old enough to do so for themselves unless the child is in immediate danger.

We all know feminine presenting males and masculine presenting females who do not see themselves as anything other than the gender of their birth. To say a 10 year old knows enough about thier identity to allow a decision to be made to permenantly alter thier biology is not a tenable position. And in reality in most treatment centres medical intervention is only performed in later adolescnece, when the onset of puberty is already in progress. Puberty itself being a biological process through which gender expression is physically manifested and could in turn make what a child though was a "wrong" gender the "right" gender. They sohuld be allow ed express their gender identity though.

Also, Puberty blockers in themselves are not permenent, but when extended to hormone treatment and physical intervention it is.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124020516#Comment_124020516

Cass report wasn't peer reviewed.

Until after publication

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/yale-report-slams-cass-review-misrepresents-data-on-transgender-youth

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124020538#Comment_124020538

JFC, the 'just asking questions' defence.

Maybe put the impressions you've got from Daily Mail articles aside for a minute.
Is it actually happening that " nowadays they'd be more likely to say "oh like at my lovely brave trans child, I'll have to organise a gender reveal party"?

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124020557#Comment_124020557

That's because it was a review, not a study. You don't usually review reviews. The clue is in the name. 😏

You need to stop parrotting trans talking points.

greyday

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124020557#Comment_124020557

Blog - The Cass Review: Distinguishing Fact from Fiction - Bioethics Today

Yale are totally unbiased if we are to believe you and its not just that they seem to agree with your stance on this issue, definitely not.

AllForIt

Linehan was in the wrong place at exactly the wrong time. It was the MO of activists of the time to target people voicing 'gender critical' views to make them out to be 'hateful' and only motivated by a desire to target transgender people. They did also to give the impression that they were outliers, that somehow a majority of the public are in full support of Gender Ideology laws save for a few 'gender critics', including Rowling. What has transpired in sport has shown more than anything that there is no such thing as a majority in favour of gender ideological laws and far far from it.

It's a bit early to be writing Linehans obituary as his issue is far from over yet. People go through tough periods in their life and perhaps wish they acted differently in heighseight, but he'll get over it. I'm quite sure no matter what people say about him he's quite content being on the side he's on.

Btw, there is no point in arguing with people who are clueless on this topic. I'm talking about the bystander know-it-all allies. I always wonder why people call it a 'culture' war, and I think it's because what they are doing is mischievously giving the gender ideology crowd support without actually agreeing with it. It's to say yeah yeah you're totally right about the gender nonsense, shur what you're saying is obvious, but some people see it another way so stop being such a smart arse and let them be. It's like because they are so clueless themselves they go after people who they know are right - for the fun of it. I see this all the time these days in relation to other social issues. Those people are a bit rich talking about the toxicity of Twitter etc when they are in the same game themselves. The I'm so superior above-it-all act is so obvious. If Glinner could do with a digital detox - he ain't the only one.

aero2k

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124020565#Comment_124020565

JFC, the hostility. We're on a discussion forum. Asking questions is fundamental to discussion.

It's not to hard to find video clips online of moms celebrating their 5 yr old trans kids braveness. I'll let you do it for yourself.

Your "Daily Mail" attempted guilt by association slur is hilarious coming from someone who's first port of call to debunk a study debunking the serotonin theory (and also attempt character assassination of a psychiatrist who is respected even by colleagues who disagree with her) was an article in Rolling Stone magazine which was the very epitome of "hatchet job". That was only one of many articles trying to undermine Joanna Moncrief and her colleagues - they were all ad hominem attacks though, nobody managed to contradict the conclusions of the journal article or the subsequent book. This approach is in keeping with your post regarding the Cass review. None of the critics have been able to provide any convincing evidence to either contradict what Cass said regarding evidence she'd found, or fill the gaps where she said there was little or no evidence.

FWIW I read lots of articles in lots of newspapers, with many conflicting views. I've found a few few well written ones in the Daily Mail, along with a fair amount of shoite. None of my posts in this thread were informed by the Daily Mail.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124020557#Comment_124020557

Oh and "Teen Vogue"? Seriously?

Try this instead:

https://segm.org/Cass_Integrity_Project_Yale

The ADC analysis

notes that McNamara et al. either misunderstood or misrepresented the process, goals, and findings of the Cass Review. The central premise of McNamara et al.'s paper is based on a fundamental confusion: they read the Review as if it is a clinical practice guideline, which it is not. The Cass Review is an "independent review," a regulatory process specific to the U.K.; clinical practice guidelines are developed using a distinctly different process. The analysis also highlights several factual errors and misrepresentations found in the paper being examined, including its portrayal of the research conducted by the University of York. The authors conclude that it is time to move forward and focus on the implementation of the Cass Review's recommendations, in line with the NHS and the U.K.’s main medical societies.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124020575#Comment_124020575

Except - of course - that it wasn't actually Yale at all. And the review of the review was not itself peer-reviewed:

The claims in this online-only, non-peer-reviewed paper by McNamara et al. attracted significant international attention, in no small measure due to the imprimatur of Yale University, which hosts the so-called "Integrity Project " under whose auspices the paper was posted. Although a disclaimer was eventually added that the work did not represent Yale's views, the narrative that "Yale debunked the Cass Review" took root in some circles

aero2k

@AndrewJRenko

I'm laughing again at your "Daily Mail" slur. I've pointed out the problems with that Yale report on other threads, but here we go again:

Olsen Kennedy and Turban (and possibly others among the authorship) make their living from affirmative care. This is not disclosed in the White paper, a huge red flag from an integrity point of view.

The authors are not based at Yale - publishing the paper on a Yale hosted site is a real appeal to authority IOW an attempt to polish a turd.

Jesse Singal has written a very even handed assessment of the Yale report critique, it's easy to find with a quick google.

greyday

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124020597#Comment_124020597

Easy thing to happen I suppose, I accepted his bonafides to be posting truthfully and posted a response from another source that seemed to strongly contradict the so called Yale review, lesson learned about this posters style.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124020639#Comment_124020639

TBF linking to an article in Teen Vogue about the review is far from the worst of it. It's the so-called "Yale" review itself that is a lot more concerning. But we've been over that.

But I can't helped laughing at the poster sneering at others linking to the Daily Mail and other "wrongthink" publications posting a Teen Vogue article to promote a discredited article.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124020514#Comment_124020514

Watch the Ted Talk where she said it. The problem was not just that he liked My Little Pony and sparkly things, it's that her husband, the child's father, could not bear her letting him play with "girly" things, to such an extent that the two parents ended up in counselling over their disagreement about how to parent this "effeminate" (Susie Green's word) little boy.

So in one way, you are almost correct: Jack/Jackie was not transed by his mother because he liked girly toys. It's more tragic than that. He was most likely responding (consciously or not) to his father's vehement disapproval of an "effeminate" son, and was trying to become the child his father could love, ie a girl. Parental abuse all the same.

plodder

Some people are going to be very disappointed if the criminal damage charge is thrown out on appeal (as it should be)

https://twitter.com/mushycrouton/status/1993570533712224597

😀

aero2k

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124020597#Comment_124020597

You beat me to it. The Yale thing was really disingenuous. It fools a lot of people it seems, probably mostly those who want to be fooled. Apart from that, any such review that doesn't explicitly state conflicts of interest, or the fact that there are none if that is the case, is only fit for toilet paper.

Teen Vogue, that bastion of scientific rigour?😀 Not sure where it sits on a scale of 1-10, below Rolling Stone surely, due to their musical credentials, but possibly above the Daily Mail, depending on the article.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124020708#Comment_124020708

It deliberately misstated its true origin because otherwise it couldn't claim to be a PEER review, since the real source wasn't of comparable scientific/legal value as the Cass Review itself. Bit odd of course to have a Law School reviewing a medical review, mind, but they needed a Big Name and Yale certainly is that.

Given the above pretence, it's hard to see how failing to declare the conflicts of interest can have been anything other than deliberate.

Anyone who was more than briefly fooled by that just wants be fooled, as you say.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124019443#Comment_124019443

Actually given that the judge said that the plaintiff was not truthful, if anything it's more likely that Linehan will have that conviction overturned too. He was provoked into throwing Brookes' phone out of the way, that's all. At least he was truthful in court. I think he admitted to having shoved away the phone, hence the guilty verdict - Linehan's claim was that it wasn't a criminal act. The judge actually admonished Brookes for being obstructive and misleading in his answers so it will be interesting to see what happens in an appeal.

AMKC

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124020989#Comment_124020989

The judge actually admonished Brookes for being obstructive and misleading in her answers so it will be interesting to see what happens in an appeal.

Its not hard to put the right pronouns in. I fixed your post for you.

aero2k

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124020824#Comment_124020824

Say what you like about the Daily Mail, at least they don't pretend to be the Guardian 😀!

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124020179#Comment_124020179

That's just not true though, there were constant complaints in the newspaper letter pages etc. about how it was "blasphemous". Doesn't take many of that sort of idiot to make a racket, but they were there and RTE was terrified of them. (Life of Brian was banned here until the 90s but I still think RTE have never to this day shown it)

Channel 4 offered RTE the rights to transmit Ted but RTE refused and screened the awful "The Thin Blue Line" instead. Only after a full year had passed and it had been such an overwhelming success on Ch4 that RTE could not ignore the clamour for it to be screened any more, did they do so. Ch4 had taken a lot of the sting out of it for RTE by then (at least for the urban multichannel audience) just by being first.

So it's true that it was controversial at the time, and many in society had not moved on from kowtowing to the church, certainly not RTE until the pressure on them to screen Ted (and the lost ad income) became irresistable.