Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Rowling’s tweet where she stated that biological sex was material and real? Does that strike you as a reasoned response to what she tweeted?

It really is easy to claim innocence when you don't acknowledge the parts of someone's behaviour that contradict your narrative, I suppose.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It really is weird how much attention the whole trans thing gets; what ever happened to not being bothered by things that don't have any impact on your life?

I think perhaps the trans thing has become a lightning-rod for the energy of assorted assholes.

Well, we’d be fecked if everyone was so navel-gazing. Guess people didn’t need to vote in the marriage equality or abortion referenda if it didn’t directly affect them. Some transgender rights conflict with some sex-based rights. A lot of people are concerned about that. Gender non-conforming children are being medicalised. A lot of people are concerned about that.

donspeekinglesh

martingriff wrote: »

Actually yes you are. If you allow people to show opinions on your site and then decide to moderate your sie you can be held responsible. The 1 I remember is 2 companies were allowing people to right about stuff. Both had stuff about Stratton Oakmount (wolf on wall street).

The 1 site that moderated got used and lost.

Boards have been brought to court

US law and Irish law is very different. Under US law it is 100% allowed. It is protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Which was passed after the Stratton Oakmont (v Prodigy Services) case.

joeguevara wrote: »

Two wrongs don’t make a right. It’s not an argument to show other people engaging in behaviour as a reason to do it.

Also the tweet you posted can not be considered as the same behaviour. This person used profanity to show disgust at Rowlings tweet. Profanity is not the same as shaming a person because of their gender or sexual orientation. That’s akin to X calling y a racist fcuck after Y posted a racist tweet.

Rowling’s tweet where she stated that biological sex was material and real? Does that strike you as a reasoned response to what she tweeted?

Better Than Christ wrote: »

In Linehan's case, 'platform manipulation' probably refers not to sockpuppet accounts, but to his tendency to encourage his followers to 'pile on' anyone who disagrees with him. Classic bullying behaviour. He did it to an actress from Derry Girls this week.

Ah now, this is a tad economical with the truth. She posted a tweet urging people to report his account. He responded to that. She posted it publicly, she can hardly complain about him responding.

mohawk

joeguevara wrote: »

But what if something is a recognised medical condition ‘gender dysmorphia’ and protected by Equality Law. Saying people have to learn to live with others not sharing their beliefs, is ok when those beliefs are not protected. It’s not 1950s Mississippi.

Gender Dysmorphia is a recognised medical condition and those people should be allowed live their lives in peace with their rights protected under law.

Problem that many now have is you don’t need to have gender dysmorphia to be considered trans. Many women especially are not comfortable with things like periods and pregnancy being spoken about in gender neutral Language when from a biology perspective they are by definition women’s issues.

I personally don’t believe that gender dysmorphia itself should really be up for debate there is plenty of evidence that it is real and there is evidence that transitioning helps them live happier lives. However, if you want to redefine gender then all of society should get a say not just those who identify as trans. The discussion can’t be one side trying to shut down the other side. I think Graham Linehan did cross the line at times and at times appeared to be happy for people he disagreed with to be ‘cancelled’.

Rodin

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It started out with people having a go at him about a trans character in the IT Crowd.

It ties into Point 2 above that his reaction to relatively mild criticism was to dig deep on the topic, and he's been digging ever since. It is a very big hole he has dug now.

True enough, but at least he's off twitter now so his opportunities for poisoning are much reduced.

Im talking about the trying to convince children they're a different gender and advocating puberty blockers.

Prescribing puberty blockers for transgenderism should be illegal worldwide in my opinion.

jam_mac_jam

joeguevara wrote: »

Two wrongs don’t make a right. It’s not an argument to show other people engaging in behaviour as a reason to do it.

Also the tweet you posted can not be considered as the same behaviour. This person used profanity to show disgust at Rowlings tweet. Profanity is not the same as shaming a person because of their gender or sexual orientation. That’s akin to X calling y a racist fcuck after Y posted a racist tweet.

Well no, he called her scum because she had a different opninion then him. She didn't shame anyone.

He said this woman is complete scum.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Meanwhile, according to Twitter, a blue tick who worked for Elizabeth Warren aiming this at JK Rowling is a-ok. This tweet is going nowhere apparently. And it’s one of many disgusting tweets that she received. Twitter has no consistency at all when it comes to bannings. I don’t think anyone should be banned, not even Katie Hopkins. It’s the inconsistency and double standards that are egregious and blatant.

https://twitter.com/benjaminokeefe/status/1269407681611280386?s=21

Two wrongs don’t make a right. It’s not an argument to show other people engaging in behaviour as a reason to do it.

Also the tweet you posted can not be considered as the same behaviour. This person used profanity to show disgust at Rowlings tweet. Profanity is not the same as shaming a person because of their gender or sexual orientation. That’s akin to X calling y a racist fcuck after Y posted a racist tweet.

"A blue tick"? When your dog-whistle is more a fog horn, you know you're in for a good time!

joeguevara wrote: »

Bit of a ninja edit there. Hahaha. Apologies. I misunderstood when you asked what is the problem with Highlighting this. As it is a thread about him being banned from Twitter I incorrectly thought Your point was him highlighting it was attributable to his ban.

No bother

KiKi III wrote: »

If you stood up in a pub and started giving out about trans people every day, you’d probably get a few warnings from bar staff but soon enough you’d get barred.

This is the same principle.

Depends on what you were saying really. If a pub banned somebody for, say, questioning where transgender rights and sex-based rights abut, they are honestly better off without that pub in their lives. And I wouldn’t be so sure the pub would be doing any banning if the person was being more moderate than Linehan might be.

There are a lot of people who keep their thoughts on this topic to themselves because they fear for their jobs and even their safety if their identity is uncovered. I’ve received a good fews PMs from people telling me they are afraid to say anything about it. And this is totally mad but I’ve had people express admiration for me for being fairly outspoken on this topic here on boards.ie. I just think I’m talking sense but I’m partial, I guess. And I have no job to lose, so come at me, bitches.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I didn’t say that was what caused his ban. Thelonius referred to him being on a TV show. I’m talking about what he said on the TV show. Can people please read posts and quotes fully before replying?

Bit of a ninja edit there. Hahaha. Apologies. I misunderstood when you asked what is the problem with Highlighting this. As it is a thread about him being banned from Twitter I incorrectly thought Your point was him highlighting it was attributable to his ban.

joeguevara wrote: »

That was not what caused his ban. People speaking out against perceived medical malpractice is something that should be admired and applauded. I think his comments about dangers were correct. But you have left out the abuse and shaming of people as the reason to why he received his ban. Also it was repeated instances. As far as I know when a suspension is removed you explicitly agree to terms and conditions (similar to coming out on prison on boards). Why agree to them if he was going to breach them.

I didn’t say that was what caused his ban. Thelonius referred to him being on a TV show. I’m talking about what he said on the TV show. Can people please read posts and quotes fully before replying?

Zaph wrote: »

No, he's been a dick for so long now that it was inevitable. You can't consistently target and abuse one particular part of the community and expect to get away with it indefinitely.

Meanwhile, according to Twitter, a blue tick who worked for Elizabeth Warren aiming this at JK Rowling is a-ok. This tweet is going nowhere apparently. And it’s one of many disgusting tweets that she received. Twitter has no consistency at all when it comes to bannings. I don’t think anyone should be banned, not even Katie Hopkins. It’s the inconsistency and double standards that are egregious and blatant.

https://twitter.com/benjaminokeefe/status/1269407681611280386?s=21

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

He was making the point that children were being given powerful drugs that there were no long-term studies done on and that there is no ethical way to do that testing. Also that the effects of blocking puberty at such a critical time is unknown. I can’t see the problem with him highlighting this. I’m blue in the face saying this but the NHS has changed their guidance on puberty blockers recently. They once said they were reversible. They now say they do not have the evidence to back that up. How many children and parents took assurance from the claim that they were (supposedly) reversible?

That was not what caused his ban. People speaking out against perceived medical malpractice is something that should be admired and applauded. I think his comments about dangers were correct. But you have left out the abuse and shaming of people as the reason to why he received his ban. Also it was repeated instances. As far as I know when a suspension is removed you explicitly agree to terms and conditions (similar to coming out on prison on boards). Why agree to them if he was going to breach them.

Much like the homophobes before, no, I doubt Linehan will be vindicated. After all, many transphobes are just homophobes who shifted onto trans people once the tide of social acceptability turned against them, as regards LGB people.

Didn't even bother to change their arguments, too.

Tony EH wrote: »

[...]

There's absolutely no way to gauge this however, other than adhering to a set of beliefs in your head.

There are plenty of people both on the right and left that would lend an ear to transexuals. There are also plenty that wouldn't and plenty that just don't care either way.

It's a mistake to think in terms of groups and box people off into them. The real world doesn't work like that.

By "us" I just mean myself and people who agree with me when it comes to matters like trans people. Really, that's all.

And yes, I know, a paradigm that emerged out of revolutionary France is hardly one that's going to be as applicable to the world today. But humans are given to categorisation (because it allows us to analyse these things heuristically) and so we continue to do it anyway.

And yes, again, I admit I can be impetuous and don't always think things through when I'm annoyed. I don't mean to (and do try to avoid) carelessly group people together into big, all-encompassing supergroups like "the left" and "the right".

[Deleted User]

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I don't get the guy. I saw him on Newsnight on BBC a while back, banging on about drugs being given to trans kids or some sh*t. Why is he bothering sticking his nose in such a controversial topic when it was never going to end well?
Who even cares what people do with their bodies? He's an idiot, ruined his own career by getting involved in all this.

Every subject esp one giving drugs to kids,should be looked into

But the man,had no medical/scientific training either and developed near obsession with this subject by all accounts

There is undoubtfully a debate needed surronding this issue,but i feel people who critise trans on scientific grounds (seems valid enough reason??),but cite someone with no medical/science training as an expert to be hypocritical to me

Clarence Boddiker

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Exactly, its fine to attack certain groups and not others.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I don't get the guy. I saw him on Newsnight on BBC a while back, banging on about drugs being given to trans kids or some sh*t. Why is he bothering sticking his nose in such a controversial topic when it was never going to end well?
Who even cares what people do with their bodies? He's an idiot, ruined his own career by getting involved in all this.

He was making the point that children were being given powerful drugs that there were no long-term studies done on and that there is no ethical way to do that testing. Also that the effects of blocking puberty at such a critical time is unknown. I can’t see the problem with him highlighting this. I’m blue in the face saying this but the NHS has changed their guidance on puberty blockers recently. They once said they were reversible. They now say they do not have the evidence to back that up. How many children and parents took assurance from the claim that they were (supposedly) reversible?

Gruffalux

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I don't get the guy. I saw him on Newsnight on BBC a while back, banging on about drugs being given to trans kids or some sh*t. Why is he bothering sticking his nose in such a controversial topic when it was never going to end well?
Who even cares what people do with their bodies? He's an idiot, ruined his own career by getting involved in all this.

People? You mean children? Well, there is morally relativistic, and then there is this...

Thelonious Monk

I don't get the guy. I saw him on Newsnight on BBC a while back, banging on about drugs being given to trans kids or some sh*t. Why is he bothering sticking his nose in such a controversial topic when it was never going to end well?
Who even cares what people do with their bodies? He's an idiot, ruined his own career by getting involved in all this.

Even though I think he will be vindicated for a lot of what he has said, he WAS inflammatory so this is no harm. There are way more sensible, moderate voices on this topic on Twitter and I’d like to hear more from them now that he is gone. Twitter will struggle to ban them and anyone who goes after them hard will look a bit crazy, like the pond life that went for JK Rowling. His banning will leave a bit of a void. It will be interesting to see who the new focus of hate will be.

I think it’s better for him personally too to be off the platform. I do think it was affecting him mentally.

Tony EH

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Myself and other left-wingers like me. We're as much "the left" as anyone else on that end of the spectrum.

Unfortunately though, you don't get to speak for "the left". It's a very broad church, just like "the right".

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

And they're as much "the right" as anyone else on that end of the spectrum.

That doesn't mean they are "the right". There would be plenty of people on various parts of the right that would be appalled by minority groups like neo-nazis.

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

I appreciate that you're saying neither group represents the entirety of their respective end but... I have to admit it gets a little insulting to have people brush us off like we're not representative.

Who's "us"?

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Because honestly, I'd say people on the left that support trans people (and other matters like that) are far more representative than not.

There's absolutely no way to gauge this however, other than adhering to a set of beliefs in your head.

There are plenty of people both on the right and left that would lend an ear to transexuals. There are also plenty that wouldn't and plenty that just don't care either way.

It's a mistake to think in terms of groups and box people off into them. The real world doesn't work like that.

Deleted User wrote: »

i believe that gender dysmorphia is itself defined as the condition caused by the belief of the individual inhabiting the body that they are not of the gender that they present as.

its not imo splitting hairs to say theres a difference between this condition existing (and people suffering from it) and demanding that other people have to also pretend to believe it

im not saying theres any honour in being unpleasant or insensitive about it, but we are in the realm of arguing for control over what people believe and are allowed to express in an emerging, controversial and poorly defined topic that involves the overturning not only of what a lot of our societal structures have historically been based on (not in itself a defence, tbh) but is at major odds with what the vast majority of people will feel is their own lived experience and what their own beliefs are.

equality law covers certain avenues of behaviour in interactions in a number of different spheres when the various groups noted under those laws are involved

i dont think that any equality law sets out to nor demands that an individual has to agree with any aspect of trans ideology.

i also dont think that the area of gender theory that has somewhat exploded with the advent of social media discourse coming so much to the fore in the very recent past is in any way sufficiently established nor agreed upon to enable even an agreed status in law in ireland- im not sure of other jurisdictions- other than a person may identify as a gender and have that established in various circumstances if they so wish. certainly i havent seen an irish officialdom position that sets out in any formal basis that there is no distinction between men and transmen, or that acknowledging gender dysmorphia equates to a recognition that all trans ideology is accepted in a legislative or scientific basis.

and these distinctions matter.

i dont think myself that sloganeering such as "trans rights are human rights" etc are far enough developed nor understood by all who retweet them such that you could claim that there is any type of consensus to even drive towards the steps above.

at present its a melting pot between two very vocal extremes, i highly doubt that either extreme will be satisfied by anything emerging from officialdom for many many years yet and each side will have to learn to listen to the other and the many people in between without demonising before progress is to be made.

twas ever thus i guess

Maybe that’s the issue. People think they have a basic right to tweet things that they know nothing about and don’t care about the harm or distress it can cause.

martingriff

joseywhales wrote: »

I don't understand the heat that twitter sometimes gets. If I launch a website and allow people to post on it, I can delete what I like, I leave up what I like, I am not responsible for the content, nor am I forced to leave everything up. I am not producing a publication. If you don't like my website, don't use it. Those who publish material on my website are responsible for what they publish.

Actually yes you are. If you allow people to show opinions on your site and then decide to moderate your sie you can be held responsible. The 1 I remember is 2 companies were allowing people to right about stuff. Both had stuff about Stratton Oakmount (wolf on wall street).

The 1 site that moderated got used and lost.

Boards have been brought to court

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I agree with you Twitter is not anti white etc.

But it really doesn't deal with things very well.

It might ban people for dumb reasons but you can spout hate speech for years!

Also in russia it bans people for satirizing politics.

Yeah, it's been said already that it was never really designed for this kind of thing and honestly, it's outlived its lifespan. Its original owners were, eventually, desperate to get rid of it because they couldn't figure out a way to monetise the whole thing.

As far as Russia goes, they're not the only culprits when it comes to this, unfortunately. As much as we may not want to confront it, the reality is that for all its nature as a failed, kleptocratic state, Russia still wields considerable power, especially as a large market.

What's going to happen? It certainly feels like things are coming to a head. Sites like Gab or Voat (the Reddit alternative) were set up by people banned from communities like Twitter and have turned into far-right cesspits, because - most people don't want to be around people like that, which means more far-righters come in but there's no counter to them.

There's already been one case of a man that used Gab going on a shooting spree in the US, it really feels like it's only a matter of time before there's something worse.

[Deleted User]

joeguevara wrote: »

But what if something is a recognised medical condition ‘gender dysmorphia’ and protected by Equality Law. Saying people have to learn to live with others not sharing their beliefs, is ok when those beliefs are not protected. It’s not 1950s Mississippi.

i believe that gender dysmorphia is itself defined as the condition caused by the belief of the individual inhabiting the body that they are not of the gender that they present as.

its not imo splitting hairs to say theres a difference between this condition existing (and people suffering from it) and demanding that other people have to also pretend to believe it

im not saying theres any honour in being unpleasant or insensitive about it, but we are in the realm of arguing for control over what people believe and are allowed to express in an emerging, controversial and poorly defined topic that involves the overturning not only of what a lot of our societal structures have historically been based on (not in itself a defence, tbh) but is at major odds with what the vast majority of people will feel is their own lived experience and what their own beliefs are.

equality law covers certain avenues of behaviour in interactions in a number of different spheres when the various groups noted under those laws are involved

i dont think that any equality law sets out to nor demands that an individual has to agree with any aspect of trans ideology.

i also dont think that the area of gender theory that has somewhat exploded with the advent of social media discourse coming so much to the fore in the very recent past is in any way sufficiently established nor agreed upon to enable even an agreed status in law in ireland- im not sure of other jurisdictions- other than a person may identify as a gender and have that established in various circumstances if they so wish. certainly i havent seen an irish officialdom position that sets out in any formal basis that there is no distinction between men and transmen, or that acknowledging gender dysmorphia equates to a recognition that all trans ideology is accepted in a legislative or scientific basis.

and these distinctions matter.

i dont think myself that sloganeering such as "trans rights are human rights" etc are far enough developed nor understood by all who retweet them such that you could claim that there is any type of consensus to even drive towards the steps above.

at present its a melting pot between two very vocal extremes, i highly doubt that either extreme will be satisfied by anything emerging from officialdom for many many years yet and each side will have to learn to listen to the other and the many people in between without demonising before progress is to be made.

twas ever thus i guess