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

AlphabetCards wrote: »

I get the impression they are. Ask how many are comfortable sharing a dressing room with a pre-op trans woman.

Dial Hard wrote: »

I can only speak for myself, but it wouldn't bother me in the least. Same as I have no issue sharing unisex bathrooms with men.

Dial, my elderly mother would get a start and would probably apologise, imagining that she had wandered into the wrong changing room. It would bother her. She wouldn't be able to wander around the dressing room.

There are lots of women who are from non-Christian religious backgrounds who would have a problem with using a changing room or bathroom with men.

I'd have a problem with my teenager sharing with a teenage male-bodied person, in a dressing room, or a Scout tent, or a bathroom etc etc etc.

It may not bother some women, but let's not throw the rest under the bus.

Dyr

There's a kind of rich irony in seeing Linehans own side turn on him like a pack of wild dogs for wrong think

Solidarity comrades lol

beans

Will I Am Not wrote: »

I used to like Irish Simpsons Fans Facebook group until they deleted this...

Hard to not read that in his voice

Will I Am Not

I used to like Irish Simpsons Fans Facebook group until they deleted this, because it was offensive and they hate Linehan anyway.

Dial Hard

AlphabetCards wrote: »

I get the impression they are. Ask how many are comfortable sharing a dressing room with a pre-op trans woman.

I can only speak for myself, but it wouldn't bother me in the least. Same as I have no issue sharing unisex bathrooms with men.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seamus You think most women are anti-trans?

AlphabeCards I get the impression they are. Ask how many are comfortable sharing a dressing room with a pre-op trans woman.

How has it got to the point that being concerned with woman's right is now equivalent to being "anti-trans".

It isn't.
Women can be concerned with more than one thing at a time. We can be concerned about our sons who want to transition to being trans women, while at the same time, wanting to retain rights and privacy for our daughters.

seamus

AlphabetCards wrote: »

I get the impression they are. Ask how many are comfortable sharing a dressing room with a pre-op trans woman.

Funnily enough, I get the exact opposite impression. I find the majority of people positing the "pervert in the changing room" boogeyman are men.

My impression is that women are in general quite uncomfortable and self-conscious in shared dressing rooms, regardless of who else is in there.

Richard Hillman

Bruce Jenner was the worst thing to happen for Trans people. There was growing acceptance of "it's your business, it doesn't affect me, good luck". Then when Bruce Jenner killed somebody, had a meltdown and decided that he wasn't a man any more, the media class and Aggressive LBGTXYZ activist's pushed it so hard that their Ying turned into Yang.

The hole thing has turned into a monster, to a state of where "it's your business, it doesn't affect me" is gone. Special toilets, aggressive stand offs, the rewriting of science, the indoctrination of children to believe that there are more than 2 sexes, get your house in order or there will be a lot more Yang to your Ying.

Dial Hard wrote: »

Trans rights have absolutely nothing to do with opportunistic male perverts/predators and it's complete and utter nonsense to try and conflate them.

Trans rights are a separate issue, one that I support.
However, it is naive to imagine that "opportunistic male perverts/predators" will not exploit the loophole offered when women's spaces are expanded to encompass trans women.

It is not nonsense.
It's the epitome of common sense to see potential problems and address them as they arise.

That is why we must hold the rights of women in one hand while we discuss trans rights in the other.

JohnnyFlash

Most of the old school feminists like Greer etc would agree with Lenihan as well. This is the topic on which the good ship Liberalism will flounder.

AlphabetCards

seamus wrote: »

You think most women are anti-trans?

I get the impression they are. Ask how many are comfortable sharing a dressing room with a pre-op trans woman.

Gravelly

Linehan is as unpleasant a character as you are likely to meet, and has a ridiculously high opinion of himself, but like a stopped clock, he happens to be right on this issue. It is hilarious that he, a man who is obsessed with no-platforming people he disagrees with, is the object of no-platforming attempts by the very people who used to support him.

Dial Hard

ironwalk wrote: »

You are completely correct....so , I imagine, you support women's concerns that their rights to privacy are not reduced to accommodate trans rights.

Trans rights have absolutely nothing to do with opportunistic male perverts/predators and it's complete and utter nonsense to try and conflate them.

freshpopcorn

From the ad for this program he does seem over the top. I'm not into conspiracy theories but I wonder will RTE have a well spoken speaking in favor of this and him to come across bad!

paw patrol

seamus wrote: »

You mean when it was all behind closed doors and priests fiddled with kids, women got battered, gay people feared for their lives and anyone who displayed any kind of "non-Christian" sentiment was ostracised by the media?

.

complaining about the state of modern Ireland or a section of it can't be countered by a catholic church argument.
such an idiotic argument.

one does not corelate to the other.

seamus

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I would say he probably represents the majority female position, but maybe not the position of all woke males.

You think most women are anti-trans?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

their rights to privacy are not being reduced.

Yes, they are.

ironwalk wrote: »

You are completely correct....so , I imagine, you support women's concerns that their rights to privacy are not reduced to accommodate trans rights.

their rights to privacy are not being reduced.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

There will always be perverts who exploit any situation.

You are completely correct....so , I imagine, you support women's concerns that their rights to privacy are not reduced to accommodate trans rights.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

You might want to read what plenty of women think about self identification, for example in mumsnet. There are plenty of issues where biological women feel threatened.

As for the children, we should most definitely protect children from life changing surgery or hormones that could affect their later development.

If mumsnet is your standard for how we should think about anything then you're ****ed.

ironwalk wrote: »

It's relevant because when we discuss trans rights, most of us think in terms of kindness.
How awful it must be to feel that you were born in the wrong body; how difficult it must be to hide that part of yourself every day, to never feel that you fit in.
Our compassion is activated.
When our compassion is activated, we have to be very careful that manipulative people don't use it to meet their ends.

That why you see the bully who is called out, dissolve into tears and attempt to divert from their behaviour by playing the victim card.

In this instance, trans rights activate our compassion. Fair enough, as it should be.

But there is a small subset of men, who will manipulate the situation to predate on women.
E.G. peeping tom cameras under changing room curtains.

That's why my example is relevant.

There are peeping toms, "women of the year" who work in finance and wear a suit-and-tie for half the week, and fishnets the other half. There are "women" who want beauticians to wax their ballsacks and take legal action when beauticians refuse on the grounds that they're not qualified, closing the beautician's business. There are men who hate women, pure and simple.

That's why it's relevant.
As far as I can see, that's what Linehan is on about.

There will always be perverts who exploit any situation.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

What are the substantive points? they seem to boil down to "wont somebody please think of the children". You seem to think he is brave but in reality he has just decided to be a **** to a small group of people and you think that is wonderful.

You might want to read what plenty of women think about self identification, for example in mumsnet. There are plenty of issues where biological women feel threatened.

As for the children, we should most definitely protect children from life changing surgery or hormones that could affect their later development.

Discussion on Mumsnet

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3484315-Glinner-invited-on-Primetime-Irish-Newspanel-show

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Yes his beliefs match mine on this particular topic ( in as much as I know his beliefs) but so what? Why don't you argue on the substantive points rather than your typical playing the man.

What are the substantive points? they seem to boil down to "wont somebody please think of the children". You seem to think he is brave but in reality he has just decided to be a **** to a small group of people and you think that is wonderful.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that was a man in unisex changing rooms. How is that relevant?

It's relevant because when we discuss trans rights, most of us think in terms of kindness.
How awful it must be to feel that you were born in the wrong body; how difficult it must be to hide that part of yourself every day, to never feel that you fit in.
Our compassion is activated.
When our compassion is activated, we have to be very careful that manipulative people don't use it to meet their ends.

That why you see the bully who is called out, dissolve into tears and attempt to divert from their behaviour by playing the victim card.

In this instance, trans rights activate our compassion. Fair enough, as it should be.

But there is a small subset of men, who will manipulate the situation to predate on women.
E.G. peeping tom cameras under changing room curtains.

That's why my example is relevant.

There are peeping toms, "women of the year" who work in finance and wear a suit-and-tie for half the week, and fishnets the other half. There are "women" who want beauticians to wax their ballsacks and take legal action when beauticians refuse on the grounds that they're not qualified, closing the beautician's business. There are men who hate women, pure and simple.

That's why it's relevant.
As far as I can see, that's what Linehan is on about.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

So his beliefs DO match yours then.

Yes his beliefs match mine on this particular topic ( in as much as I know his beliefs) but so what? Why don't you argue on the substantive points rather than your typical playing the man.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

No. I applaud him for dissenting from group think. Here is how I would phrase what you think I said.

"I applaud him for having thoughts that match my own".

But I didn't say that, did I?

Enough straw man tactics.

As for my beliefs, they are strongly economically leftist but this nonsense is just the epitome of capitalist ideology, the belief that people can be what they want to be by just saying they are.

So his beliefs DO match yours then.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

So you applaud him for having thoughts that match your own? and you complain about group think.

No. I applaud him for dissenting from group think. Here is how I would phrase what you think I said.

"I applaud him for having thoughts that match my own".

But I didn't say that, did I?

Enough straw man tactics.

As for my beliefs, they are strongly economically leftist but this nonsense is just the epitome of capitalist ideology, the belief that people can be what they want to be by just saying they are.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I would say he probably represents the majority female position, but maybe not the position of all woke males.

In any case he, as far as I remember, got into this when some transwoman in Canada started to demand that asian beauty parlours wax her balls. Graham thought that that was a bit much.

I agree that he's a bit aggressive on twitter, its surprising to see someone so doctrinaire left take this stance, he is to be applauded for actually having some thoughts outside his group think.

So you applaud him for having thoughts that match your own? and you complain about group think.