nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

Kermit.de.frog

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/twitter-closes-graham-linehan-account-after-trans-comment-1.4290547?mode=amp

Isn't this just censorship rather than protecting anyone?

That's what it looks like to me.

It's perfectly fine for someone like Trump to spew his hatred on the platform every day of the week but when it comes to debate on social issues action is taken.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

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.

That was exactly Twitter's argument for years. "Hey, we're just the middleman."

Facebook still defend that ground more resolutely.

It's why a lot of people want the likes of Twitter and Facebook nationalised, because it's the modern public square. If it was nationalised it would fall directly under the First Amendment.

joeguevara

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Excuse me? Stating that biological sex is real is “inherently incorrect”? Joe, seriously. And are you really, really saying here that you need to be a doctor or biologist to know that? I’m embarrassed for you.

I never said that. I said that it’s incorrect to simplify biological sex to simply XY and XX. No need to be embarrassed for me, I would have assumed the same thing but then actually did a bit of research. I found this article fascinating. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

But I’m sure writing 6 or 7 books that’s basicallyabout a guy who cockbl0cked his two best friends makes her more of an expert on biological and neuro science.

Just to say I am know way saying that there’s countless genders and crazy stuff that’s spouted.

BarnardsLoop

Danzy wrote: »

Did you just assume my gender?

Wow what a le epic meme XD

Seriously, get some better material.

super_furry

Cry-arsing onto Mumsnet at 3am in the morning is a sure sign you need help. It's basically a step away from telling McDonald's cashiers about your ex-wife and how she's turning the kids against you.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

joeguevara wrote: »

Because firstly it’s inherently incorrect and basically back of a cigarette packet science. If you are going to get fully behind someone on a topic that is so complicated at least make the person a recognised medic or scientist rather than a kids author. Secondly, by her post she was denying transgender. It is a protected gender. Civil rights trump the ramblings of someone who hasn’t a clue what she is saying.

Excuse me? Stating that biological sex is real is “inherently incorrect”? Joe, seriously. And are you really, really saying here that you need to be a doctor or biologist to know that? I’m embarrassed for you. That’s mortifying.

If biological sex wasn’t real, there’d be no need for the transgender prefix.

joeguevara

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

She states that biological sex is real and that the rights attached to biological sex (as opposed to gender) must be protected. Don’t know about you but I’m fully behind her there. What was controversial about what she said?

Because firstly it’s inherently incorrect and basically back of a cigarette packet science. If you are going to get fully behind someone on a topic that is so complicated at least make the person a recognised medic or scientist rather than a kids author. Secondly, by her post she was denying transgender. It is a protected gender. Civil rights trump the ramblings of someone who hasn’t a clue what she is saying.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

She states that biological sex is real and that the rights attached to biological sex (as opposed to gender) must be protected. Don’t know about you but I’m fully behind her there. What was controversial about what she said?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

JK Rowling was very measured. Find me even one statement of hers that was abusive. You’ll flail, you’ll deflect but you won’t be able to produce one. Which is fine by me, I’m happy for that to be exposed for all to see.

Both of these will go unanswered.

sweet_trip

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

I heard he has a Boards account...

He most likely does.

Considering he's an internet addict.

Sure the first thing he did when he got banned was go to mumsnet (LOL) to look for sympathy and was promptly told to go away.

Sad sad man.

Danzy

sweet_trip wrote: »

You're not funny. Reddit from 10 years ago wants their ****e jokes back.

No one else is taking the thread seriously.

Quantum Erasure

sweet_trip wrote: »

He's obsessed. He's regularly admitted he has mental health issues and has broken down multiple times. He's lost his career, his friends, his family and his wife and now the last outlet for his manic preaching has been taken away from him because of his continued bullying.

I heard he has a Boards account...

sweet_trip

Danzy wrote: »

Did you just assume my gender?

You're not funny. Reddit from 10 years ago wants their ****e jokes back.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Well, JK Rowling felt free to spew abuse at anyone she didn't like and you lot are more than happy to defend her so... I suppose directing abuse at people is okay. As long as they're the right people, right?

JK Rowling was very measured. Find me even one statement of hers that was abusive. You’ll flail, you’ll deflect but you won’t be able to produce one.

Which is fine by me, I’m happy for that to be exposed for all to see.

Danzy

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

No, I don't feel the need or desire to hurl abuse at trans people. Maybe you're her?

Did you just assume my gender?

sweet_trip

I'm sure it's been mentioned but if you think this is surpression of free speech then you need a reality check.
He's a bully, regularly attacks people and sets his little crony henchmen on teenagers to abuse them for daring to stand up to him. He's regularly harrassed people on twitter.

That aside, another reality check for you is he's spent several years sending THOUSANDS of tweets, on average one every 12 minutes on one single topic which is his hatred for trans people.

He's obsessed. He's regularly admitted he has mental health issues and has broken down multiple times. He's lost his career, his friends, his family and his wife and now the last outlet for his manic preaching has been taken away from him because of his continued bullying.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

joeguevara wrote: »

No one ever said it’s acceptable to abuse someone. However, to use that as an argument in defence of Rowlings comments. Being abused doesn’t vindicate the initial behaviour.

She states that biological sex is real and that the rights attached to biological sex (as opposed to gender) must be protected. Don’t know about you but I’m fully behind her there. What was controversial about what she said?

BarnardsLoop

No, I don't feel the need or desire to hurl abuse at trans people. Maybe you're her?

Danzy

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Well, JK Rowling felt free to spew abuse at anyone she didn't like and you lot are more than happy to defend her so... I suppose directing abuse at people is okay. As long as they're the right people, right?

Are you JK Rowling?

BarnardsLoop

Well, JK Rowling felt free to spew abuse at anyone she didn't like and you lot are more than happy to defend her so... I suppose directing abuse at people is okay. As long as they're the right people, right?

joeguevara

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, people certainly felt free to spew vitriol at JK Rowling for her crime of stating that biological sex is real and comes with attendant rights (sex-based rights, not gender-based). No concern about that? That’s all fine?

No one ever said it’s acceptable to abuse someone. However, to use that as an argument in defence of Rowlings comments. Being abused doesn’t vindicate the initial behaviour.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

I think people forget that the internet is a public platform and what you share online is not the same as having a chat about your opinions with your few close friends that think the same way. You cant just say whatever you like.
You wouldnt walk up to a random trans person on the street and start spewing hate and abuse at them so why would it be ok to do it on the internet where thousands of trans people can view it? Seems cowardly that people feel social media gives them a safe space to bully other people.

Well, people certainly felt free to spew vitriol at JK Rowling for her crime of stating that biological sex is real and comes with attendant rights (sex-based rights, not gender-based). No concern about that? That’s all fine?

Airyfairy12

I think people forget that the internet is a public platform and what you share online is not the same as having a chat about your opinions with your few close friends that think the same way. You cant just say whatever you like.
You wouldnt walk up to a random trans person on the street and start spewing hate and abuse at them so why would it be ok to do it on the internet where thousands of trans people can view it? Seems cowardly that people feel social media gives them a safe space to bully other people.

Demonique

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.

Muh free peach!

Danzy

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

He isn't qualified in any way to talk about such a topic. He isn't a doctor he isn't trans or related to a trans person.

He doesn't KNOW any thing. Why is he given this platform?

If you are worried about the side effects of puberty blockers at least learn what they are called.

Similarly if he WAS a doctor he would know synthetic hormone therapy is not typically used in children under 16.

If he were a doctor he would know the difference between puberty blockers and synthetic hormone treatment.

As it goes he is not a doctor. In fact i would wager when he is on TV any doctor that has treated a trans person sighs and goes 'Oh no this idiot again'.

EVERY SINGLE TRANS GROUP I KNOW ..EVERY SINGLE WEBSITE

Has been totally HONEST and upfront about the side effects of puberty blockers for some people.

Here you co check it out ..transcare website

http://www.phsa.ca/transcarebc/child-youth/affirmation-transition/medical-affirmation-transition/puberty-blockers-for-youth

Knock yourself out. Yes puberty blockers are some serious ****!

I wouldn't recommend them. Unless you are going through gender dysphoria ...and even then ..i mean if you can make to 18 without them ..probably better ..if you can't you can't and then you NEED them.

To him this is a topic unrelated to him. He is just looking for a fight.

He doesn't care about trans children OBVIOUSLY or he wouldn't be picking on them.

I laugh when i hear people say ..i care about gay children that is why i am against gay rights! ha!

The funny thing is ...its people like HIM who will look at a transperson ..who has NOT taken puberty blockers or hormones because of PRECISELY the reasons he talks about and mis gender them....'look they haven't even tried!'.

A good post and one I'll take on board.

Rev. Paisley though isn't interested in that, it's about hunting heretics.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

EVERY SINGLE TRANS GROUP I KNOW ..EVERY SINGLE WEBSITE

Has been totally HONEST and upfront about the side effects of puberty blockers for some people.

Here you co check it out ..transcare website

http://www.phsa.ca/transcarebc/child-youth/affirmation-transition/medical-affirmation-transition/puberty-blockers-for-youth

Knock yourself out. Yes puberty blockers are some serious ****!

To him this is a topic unrelated to him. He is just looking for a fight.

He doesn't care about trans children OBVIOUSLY or he wouldn't be picking on them.

I laugh when i hear people say ..i care about gay children that is why i am against gay rights! ha!

Hahahahahahahaha. No. “Fully reversible” has been trotted out so much. I’ve seen it stated in mainstream articles. On Twitter. It’s all gone a bit quiet on that front lately but it is an outright lie to say that all transgender groups were honest about the lack of evidence re: the reversibility of puberty blockers. Even the NHS claimed that they were reversible until VERY recently. The Mayo Clinic still claims that there are no permanent changes in the child’s body. Look it up. As of this evening, they still claim that, despite the NHS admitting that there is no evidence to say that they don’t cause long-term damage.

BarnardsLoop

Danzy wrote: »

You read a lot in to things, that's your own mind. Don't conflate it with others.

You seem to have a lot of anger.

Yeah, I'm sure you just brought up the welfare of children for... absolutely no reason at all!

Really this never ceases to amuse me - that people like you think everyone else is stupid enough to think you bring up these things in these discussions for no reason. To... not make any point. Just randomly saying words.

That context has absolutely no bearing on the things people say?

Pull the other one. No seriously, you and all your little friends can all thank each other's posts as much as you want but it won't change what you've said.

TuringBot47 wrote: »

Every party is going to make some statement like that, it's good politics. It wins more votes than it loses.

And?

I'm sorry, is that it? Do you regularly respond to people with random collections of words that have nothing to do with what they said? Should I bother my arse to continue waiting in expectation of an explanation of what the hell the Green Party has to do with anything I've said?

joeguevara

TheCitizen wrote: »

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?

Graham Linehan was always seen as quite a progressive voice and was lauded as advocating for causes such as feminism. He also was a trailblazer when he poked fun at the Catholic Church when it was revered by the majority. In the IT crowd, which with Father Ted is considered his biggest commercial success, was quite publicly called (Incorrectly imo) out for alleged Transphobia. Since then it looks like he has become obsessed with it and putting right being shamed.

ILoveYourVibes

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.

He isn't qualified in any way to talk about such a topic. He isn't a doctor he isn't trans or related to a trans person.

He doesn't KNOW any thing. Why is he given this platform?

If you are worried about the side effects of puberty blockers at least learn what they are called.

Similarly if he WAS a doctor he would know synthetic hormone therapy is not typically used in children under 16.

If he were a doctor he would know the difference between puberty blockers and synthetic hormone treatment.

As it goes he is not a doctor. In fact i would wager when he is on TV any doctor that has treated a trans person sighs and goes 'Oh no this idiot again'.

EVERY SINGLE TRANS GROUP I KNOW ..EVERY SINGLE WEBSITE

Has been totally HONEST and upfront about the side effects of puberty blockers for some people.

Here you co check it out ..transcare website

http://www.phsa.ca/transcarebc/child-youth/affirmation-transition/medical-affirmation-transition/puberty-blockers-for-youth

Knock yourself out. Yes puberty blockers are some serious ****!

I wouldn't recommend them. Unless you are going through gender dysphoria ...and even then ..i mean if you can make to 18 without them ..probably better ..if you can't you can't and then you NEED them.

To him this is a topic unrelated to him. He is just looking for a fight.

He doesn't care about trans children OBVIOUSLY or he wouldn't be picking on them.

I laugh when i hear people say ..i care about gay children that is why i am against gay rights! ha!

The funny thing is ...its people like HIM who will look at a transperson ..who has NOT taken puberty blockers or hormones because of PRECISELY the reasons he talks about and mis gender them....'look they haven't even tried!'.

Danzy

Sweetemotion wrote: »

You're just making stuff up.

Tone down the not so subtle antisemitism.

Danzy

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Look, maybe you think everyone is as slow as yourself but most of us here are capable of reading between the (rather obvious) lines.

You read a lot in to things, that's your own mind. Don't conflate it with others.

You seem to have a lot of anger.

Sweetemotion

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Look, maybe you think everyone is as slow as yourself but most of us here are capable of reading between the (rather obvious) lines.

You're just making stuff up.