Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

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.

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?

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.

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.

BarnardsLoop

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.

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

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.

I suppose that’s the crux of the whole issue. Denying a persons gender, whether they like it or not is not a difference of opinion. It’s the same as saying homosexuality doesn’t exist. It’s not a matter of opinion.

Interestingly if this was the US the above would be incorrect. Transgender are not afforded the same protections as male or female gender. In fact 2 weeks ago, they further reduced the civil rights of transgenders in healthcare. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/us/politics/trump-transgender-rights.html

TheCitizen

ricero wrote: »

I worry for the world when freedom of speech can be so easily censored.

I dont agree with Lineham on most of his views but we are heading down a dangerous road when we can easily mute differing opinions that go against the woke culture.

I agree and on here at times I feel like someone accused of the "woke culture" that you refer to it just cos I'm a bit "lefty". People should be allowed to express opinion within reason and this place has become just as circumspect as Twitter or other forums perhaps in an unconscious reaction with the exception that boards forums generally appear to be very Right wing dominated imo.

joeguevara wrote: »

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.

joe id typed out a typically long and rambling reply on the phone and the site ate it but it boils down to a general belief of mine that the world has never guaranteed that a person was never going to be distressed, and a belief especially that societies that move towards codification of such a guarantee by *controlling the belief or expression of belief of others* is on a completely incorrect path.

where there are successful existing exceptions generally accepted to the above, they are on the basis of long/widely accepted and very well tested and tried characteristics.

"i was born the wrong gender" has not imo been subjected to anything like the level of test that would be necessary to justify moving it to the level of protection as race, gender, etc

discussion, disagreement, at times heated and at times painful and most of the time frustrating and patient and incremental progress must be made before it gets there, and honest discussion and disagreement does at times appear to be anathema to the more extreme end of the debate

im not at all convinced that agreeing to be polite and kind and considerate of transppl (we should all be, as we should all be to everyone, but the world is not one of us always meeting those standards) or meeting our legislative requirement under the various acts in any way translates to anyone having to either profess a belief they do not share, or to suppress expression of a belief contrary to the prevailing ideology.

the other strand of accusation that tends to be made is that a personal disbelief in trans ideology is to deny the humanity or rights of trans ppl, which imo is an extremist position that refuses to countenance that you cant doubt that a person can be born the wrong gender without somehow denying that person their essential humanity- this is the type of demand for utter agreement or utter rejection that almost always fails to translate to wide acceptance in a wider populace

progress to whatever end in fundamental human matters rarely happens all at once and quickly, press-ganging anyone not wholly on board or decrying them as uncaring or worse is not a fair approach

jam_mac_jam

joeguevara wrote: »

I suppose that’s the crux of the whole issue. Denying a persons gender, whether they like it or not is not a difference of opinion. It’s the same as saying homosexuality doesn’t exist. It’s not a matter of opinion.

Interestingly if this was the US the above would be incorrect. Transgender are not afforded the same protections as male or female gender. In fact 2 weeks ago, they further reduced the civil rights of transgenders in healthcare. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/us/politics/trump-transgender-rights.html

I think you can disagree with someone else without calling them scum. It is a matter of opinion and people have a right to discuss their differences in a civil manner. You don't have the right to tell people they are not entitled to an opinion.

Twitter need to apply the rules to everyone.

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

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.

I’m sure that a transgender person reading her post saying that their gender which is protected by equality law and case law doesn’t exist would be distressing and shameful. Similarly if a gay person read that their sexual orientation is a lie would be distressing and shameful. He called her scum because she stated it. It’s not like she posted that the Lough Ness monster doesn’t exist.

joeguevara wrote: »

I suppose that’s the crux of the whole issue. Denying a persons gender, whether they like it or not is not a difference of opinion. It’s the same as saying homosexuality doesn’t exist. It’s not a matter of opinion.

Interestingly if this was the US the above would be incorrect. Transgender are not afforded the same protections as male or female gender. In fact 2 weeks ago, they further reduced the civil rights of transgenders in healthcare. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/us/politics/trump-transgender-rights.html

She didn’t deny gender, she said biological sex was real and comes with its own specific rights. Are you conflating sex and gender?

jam_mac_jam

joeguevara wrote: »

I’m sure that a transgender person reading her post saying that their gender which is protected by equality law and case law doesn’t exist would be distressing and shameful. Similarly if a gay person read that their sexual orientation is a lie would be distressing and shameful. He called her scum because she stated it. It’s not like she posted that the Lough Ness monster doesn’t exist.

I think if you are an adult you should be able to read things that you don't agree with without getting distressed.

I read opinions all the time that I don't agree with, doesn't distress me. I don't call people scum.

TheCitizen

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Deadnaming is a pretty sh1tty thing to do.
He's a bully.

What's deadnaming?

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I think you can disagree with someone else without calling them scum. It is a matter of opinion and people have a right to discuss their differences in a civil manner. You don't have the right to tell people they are not entitled to an opinion.

Twitter need to apply the rules to everyone.

An opinion and the right to express it when it invites hatred are too different things. People misunderstand the difference between opinion, freedom of expression and hate speech.

I don’t agree with calling someone scum. My point was that calling someone scum cannot be equated to denying a protected gender. Anyway, Rowling is a kids author. Why does she want to post about transgender, by using emotions. She bases her opinion on her mindset. She doesn’t know if thats true for a transgender person. It’s like a straight person saying sex should only be between a man and a woman because that is all they know.

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.

It's like he valued something more than money, ie like the welfare of kids.

Another reason the modern left/Church had long standing problems with him.

TheCitizen wrote: »

What's deadnaming?

Using a transgender persons previous name before transition. Think Bruce Jenner as opposed to Caitlyn Jenner. On the face of it seems harmless enough but is essentially saying that their gender now is a lie. I’m learning a lot today.

TheCitizen

joeguevara wrote: »

Using a transgender persons previous name before transition. Think Bruce Jenner as opposed to Caitlyn Jenner. On the face of it seems harmless enough but is essentially saying that their gender now is a lie. I’m learning a lot today.

Haven't a clue about most of this or why Graham Lenihan cares so much about it. Why does he care about it so much?

joeguevara wrote: »

Using a transgender persons previous name before transition. Think Bruce Jenner as opposed to Caitlyn Jenner. On the face of it seems harmless enough but is essentially saying that their gender now is a lie. I’m learning a lot today.

i think "saying their gender is now a lie" is an oversimplification by a long way

ive already said that i accept that these questions are very very personal to ppl struggling with them, but that in itself cannot just end the question joe

should anyone that knew bruce jenner be told that they have no right to pretend that their knowledge of, relationship with, experience of bruce jenner is in fact an assault on caitlyn jenner and that they have no right to it?

you are saying, for instance, that the child or spouse or parent of a person that transitions has a very very strong moral imperative upon them to never behave as if they had any connection with that person as they knew them once

that has the potential to be a monstrous dictat, im sure you could see why

thats an extreme example but it might serve as a demonstration as to why one person's internal belief cannot dictate another person's lived reality, and in this type of realm (where there are valid claims both ways!) its not sufficient to call the question closed by declaring that one reality is in fact the only acceptable outcome and in fact always was

that is extreme ideology in my book, and we have to do a lot more work to find a better path and not attempt to slam the discussion shut with accusations of cruelty or bigotry or any such- as long as people remain fair and in good faith

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

At this stage I fear it is only a matter of time before these whack jobs start killing people who dare to disagree.

Deleted User wrote: »

i think "saying their gender is now a lie" is an oversimplification by a long way

ive already said that i accept that these questions are very very personal to ppl struggling with them, but that in itself cannot just end the question joe

should anyone that knew bruce jenner be told that they have no right to pretend that their knowledge of, relationship with, experience of bruce jenner is in fact an assault on caitlyn jenner and that they have no right to it?

you are saying, for instance, that the child or spouse or parent of a person that transitions has a very very strong moral imperative upon them to never behave as if they had any connection with that person as they knew them once

that has the potential to be a monstrous dictat, im sure you could see why

thats an extreme example but it might serve as a demonstration as to why one person's internal belief cannot dictate another person's lived reality, and in this type of realm (where there are valid claims both ways!) its not sufficient to call the question closed by declaring that one reality is in fact the only acceptable outcome and in fact always was

that is extreme ideology in my book, and we have to do a lot more work to find a better path and not attempt to slam the discussion shut with accusations of cruelty or bigotry or any such- as long as people remain fair and in good faith

I agree with everything you said there. And I did say that I know very little about transgender or any cause really, and I’m coming at this from a freedom of expression standpoint and limits to it.

Firstly, the gender is a lie is exactly what Rowling posted. In essence a man can never change into a woman or vice versa.

No one is saying that a partner or child of a person shouldn’t remember before someone who transitions, but to deny them as a person post transition is not the same. No one is saying you have to like post transition but can’t abuse or cause them distress.

jam_mac_jam

Danzy wrote: »

At this stage I fear it is only a matter of time before these whack jobs start killing people who dare to disagree.

And it will be justified as got to stop the "hate speech"

i think that there has to be a middle ground found where not agreeing that someone was the wrong gender before, or has fully changed gender now, is framed as "abuse".

i dont think that is helpful at all as an approach.

its asking a lot from people in a very very complex area

i acknowledge that this is also asking a lot of ppl who have transitioned.

thats why i think quick progress is fundamentally not to be trusted here.

TuringBot47

Danzy wrote: »

At this stage I fear it is only a matter of time before these whack jobs start killing people who dare to disagree.

No their weapon of choice is political and corporate blackmail. Try to publicly destroy a person or damage a companies reputation.

Danzy wrote: »

At this stage I fear it is only a matter of time before these whack jobs start killing people who dare to disagree.

I wonder did they call homosexuals who stood up to homophobic behaviour or Irish catholic’s in Northern Ireland who stood up to gerrymandering were considered whack jobs.

BarnardsLoop

Danzy wrote: »

It's like he valued something more than money, ie like the welfare of kids.

Another reason the modern left/Church had long standing problems with him.

Look at that! More homophobic arguments (the gays are after your kids!) being repackaged to use against trans people.

Imagine my absolute and complete lack of surprise that bigots always recycle their material.

These activists would be closer to Free Presbyterians.

TuringBot47

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Imagine my absolute and complete lack of surprise that bigots always recycle their material.

So you're saying everyone in the green party is a bigot?

Danzy wrote: »

At this stage I fear it is only a matter of time before these whack jobs start killing people who dare to disagree.

i think

and look im open to accusations of not being always great or patient when discussing topics like these and mea culpa

but comments like this have to take into account just how marginalised and vulnerable trans ppl are as a group and to be very wary about how we might frame comments that have the potential to further undermine their position

am i madly in love with how social justice twitter yellowpack warriors go after people that dont 100% follow their orthodoxy? absolutely not.

but its worth trying to remember that under that crew, who would always find another cause to be outraged over and persecute others on behalf of, there is a set of ppl with whom i should try harder to sympathise with even as i struggle with sharing their beliefs in a way that they might feel i should