Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

randomchild wrote: »

Statement from Graham Linehan (don't know if this was shared yet, but maybe should be pinned to the first post if not?) : https://glinner.co.uk/statement-from-graham-linehan/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

I don’t even like GL but I can’t disagree with any of that Statement.

Sittingpretty wrote: »

I don’t even like GL but I can’t disagree with any of that Statement.

I think I saw a similar generic template statement available for download on www. Not taking any responsibility for my actions .com.

TheCitizen

randomchild wrote: »

Statement from Graham Linehan (don't know if this was shared yet, but maybe should be pinned to the first post if not?) : https://glinner.co.uk/statement-from-graham-linehan/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Nothing wrong with anything he said there, i agree with hi concerns re children. Why was he banned though, it wasn't for the views he outlined there I take it?

joeguevara wrote: »

I think I saw a similar generic template statement available for download on www. Not taking any responsibility for my actions .com.

To be honest I’m not on twitter so I’m not aware of his actions that warranted being expelled from the cesspool that it is.

I do agree with his statement though.

Men are men.
Women are women.
Trans men are trans men.
Trans women are trans women.

Gruffalux

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yes, when it comes to children and their rapidly developing bodies, erring on the side of caution is the ethical thing to do. I can think of situations where trying an untested drug on children is just about okay - for example, if a child is close to death from a disease. The benefits certainly outweighs the cost there. But with something like confusion over gender, it’s much less clear cut. But of course then you get the tacky weaponisation of suicide by activists.

https://twitter.com/Transgendertrd/status/1277232577313755136?s=19

Thought to share this which summarises research on the so called Dutch model. Outcomes are worse for girls post pubertal blockers. Note most going to GID clinics are now girls. 96% continue to cross sex hormones. Body issues and all problems continue. Dutch model was based on tiny numbers and scarcity of follow up studies anywhere.
Considering that the cross sex hormones gives girls irreversible body and facial hair, male pattern baldness and deepened voices that do not revert, and that is without considering all the other side deeper effects like shriveled wombs and menopausal symptoms, I just do not know how affirmation ever could have possibly been considered sane.

KiKi III

TheCitizen wrote: »

Nothing wrong with anything he said there, i agree with hi concerns re children. Why was he banned though, it wasn't for the views he outlined there I take it?

No, if he had put his views forward like that I doubt he would have been banned.

He was being much more of a cock about it.

KiKi III wrote: »

No, if he had put his views forward like that I doubt he would have been banned.

He was being much more of a cock about it.

His own worst enemy so. His statement seems reasonable enough so I’d have been surprised if he had gotten a perma ban for something so innocuous.

briany

Is it true that Graham Linehan's wife, Helen, left him earlier this year?

randomchild

I agree his statement is much more lucid and we'll reasoned than anything he wrote on twitter. I think the platform and it's format brings out the worst in people. For his own long term benefit I think he's better off without it.

briany wrote: »

Is it true that Graham Linehan's wife, Helen, left him earlier this year?

I’ve seen people making digs at him about that on Twitter but there seems to be no evidence that he is separated. To be honest, it wouldn’t be surprising if it was true but there seems to little substance to the claims.

Gruffalux

briany wrote: »

Is it true that Graham Linehan's wife, Helen, left him earlier this year?

is it true Graham Linehan has black hair?
What would it have to do with anything whether or not (I have no idea) his wife left him?

randomchild wrote: »

I agree his statement is much more lucid and we'll reasoned than anything he wrote on twitter. I think the platform and it's format brings out the worst in people. For his own long term benefit I think he's better off without it.

For sure. And the people left on the platform who talk about the same things he did are generally much more measured so it’ll be much harder to attack them. Or ban them.

[Deleted User]

Gruffalox wrote: »

is it true Graham Linehan has black hair?
What would it have to do with anything whether or not (I have no idea) his wife left him?

Tbf id have no interest in being with someone who spends all day and night spouting.conspiracies or rabbiting on about same subject

Like he got banned/suspended at 3am and was straight onto another forum seeking help/support.......with best will in the world,deosnt seem healthy behaviour to participate in long term

Sittingpretty wrote: »

To be honest I’m not on twitter so I’m not aware of his actions that warranted being expelled from the cesspool that it is.

I do agree with his statement though.

Men are men.
Women are women.
Trans men are trans men.
Trans women are trans women.

The fact that he does not acknowledge to any extent any wrong actions on his part which were all on public view is probably more of a kick in the teeth for the victims of his harasssment. If he simply stuck to what his statement said, he would be seen as reasoned and expressing the views of most reasonable members of society. But he didn’t.

suicide_circus

KiKi III wrote: »

No, if he had put his views forward like that I doubt he would have been banned.

He was being much more of a cock about it.

ah yeah, people never get away with being arseholes on twitter.

Gruffalux

Deleted User wrote: »

Tbf id have no interest in being with someone who spends all day and night spouting.conspiracies or rabbiting on about same subject

Like he got banned/suspended at 3am and was straight onto another forum seeking help/support.......with best will in the world,deosnt seem healthy behaviour to participate in long term

Sounds like most writers, actors, artists, creative types I know. They are kind of wired differently. I have said before he would not be my cup of tea, I did not read his tweets, I liked the Father Stone episodes of Ted but don't remember much else, I had heard Linehan was depressed, but i am not going to judge people for their nocturnal habits, marital issues or bouts of depression because if I did boards would make me look like this all day....

briany

Gruffalox wrote: »

What would it have to do with anything whether or not (I have no idea) his wife left him?

I saw it mentioned on a couple of discussions about his ban. Because of his apparent obsession with tweeting (someone worked it out as an average of 10 minutes if you account for 8 hours sleeping), the inference was that his wife might have left him over that. Or it could be that his going mad on Twitter is a manifestation of a personal life that has gotten bumpy.

But then again, I can't see much actual evidence that his wife did leave him or they're separated or whatever, so it may not have anything to do with it.

suicide_circus wrote: »

ah yeah, people never get away with being arseholes on twitter.

I genuinely lolled.

One I honestly do believe is that the actions of an individual do not permanently define an individual. In the case being discussed, there must have been abuse and harassment of him that exacerbated and possibly fuelled his actions. Nobody deserves any abuse.

I think it would be a major step forward for him if he analysed his own behaviour and accepted that fault existed in the way he focussed his beliefs. Separately, it is also appropriate for any individual or group who engaged in personal abuse or targeting of him should consider the ramifications of their actions.

If he then atoned for what he did, sought any relevant assistance to understand any underlying issues that may (or may not exist) and moved on. Sometimes a person with well founded meaning and intentions do not assist the people they profess to protect. A vicious circle can spiral out of control and nobody deserves that.

Addiction to social media is also an important factor that needs to be visited. Obsessive compulsion to continue a behaviour that is detrimental to your physical and /or emotional health is an illness. I hope there is a positive outcome for all involved.

Tony EH

randomchild wrote: »

Statement from Graham Linehan (don't know if this was shared yet, but maybe should be pinned to the first post if not?) : https://glinner.co.uk/statement-from-graham-linehan/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Right off the bat...

"Many feminist friends have suffered the same fate, after they highlighted how women’s rights and children’s rights are being undermined by gender ideology and trans rights activism. Women like Meghan Murphy presented their arguments in a calm, reasonable manner, a million miles away from my bull-in-a-china shop approach, but I lasted a lot longer than many of them. That alone tells you a lot about Twitter's institutional misogyny."

No, it doesn't. It says nothing about "Twitter's misogyny", supposed or otherwise. That's just a silly attempt at trying to frame the argument.

"Twitter hasn’t told me why my account was suspended. It is a private company that sets its own rules without transparency or accountability. Giant social media corporations are allowed to behave like this, despite controlling what is really a public service."

Again, the parting shot in this paragraph is nonsense. Twitter is NOT a "public service". The public don't pay for it. Private advertising pays for Twitter. That's their revenue stream. Twitter is a private, for profit, enterprise that makes its money from adverts and their revenue providers will often call the shots.

"For many people social media is their only way of getting their message to the public. Twitter should make clear to its users how it applies its rules. Because certain rights do not go away simply because Twitter refuses to respect them."

Twitter's rules may seem a little vague to some. But one should be abundantly clear. Don't be an arsehole Graham. That's pretty simple to understand and should be even simpler after a few warnings.

"I have the right to say that a biological man is not a woman. I have the right to express views on this subject that I share with JK Rowling and 95% of the world's population. We can and should respect people with body dysphoria, and support their rights as equal members of society, while opposing the harmful reality-denying ideology and actions of many trans rights activists."

This is true. People should have the right to say that the think a "a biological man is not a woman". This is a fair enough opinion. What you cannot do on Twitter or anywhere else is post pre-op photos of people to have a go at them or claim that lecturers in universities are "grooming kids". That's the type of shitposting that gets people fucked off of Twitter. Not their belief that "a biological man is not a woman", which can be argued without being a complete cunt about it.

Linehan seems to have a quite unreasonable bugbear about this topic, and has carried on like an absolute twat judging from the Tweets I've read from him. This is (as I mentioned before) despite the fact that he has worked as a writer for a living, and is well able to make use of elaborate wording in an effort to form a more complete and cogent argument.

Tony EH wrote: »

Twitter's rules may seem a little vague to some. But one should be abundantly clear. Don't be an arsehole Graham. That's pretty simple to understand and should be even simpler after a few warnings.

That would be fine except that Twitter is nakedly inconsistent about what constitutes being an arsehole. Some of the stuff that is allowed to stay on the platform is staggering.

Anyway, more moderate voices that advocate for the same things Linehan does remain on the platform. That’s good. Let’s see people come at them.

Tony EH

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That would be fine except that Twitter is nakedly inconsistent about what constitutes being an arsehole. Some of the stuff that is allowed to stay on the platform is staggering.

Sure. It can be.

But after a few warnings, I would think one would get the message, wouldn't you?

Linehan had his chances. He could have, had he wished, engaged in the debate in a much better manner. He's able to do it as evidenced by much of his statement. But he chose the "bull-in-a-china shop" approach instead...repeatedly.

Honestly, I think there is something more going on on a deeper psychological level here and it doesn't bode well.

If ever there was an example of life imitating art it’s Tony Lynch telling Father Noel Furlong to Shut Up.

I wonder would it help if the actor did a reprisal. Wonder does a naughty list exist? One of the funniest scenes in Father Ted.

https://youtu.be/wb4a_CLHtBs

joeguevara wrote: »

If ever there was an example of life imitating art it’s Tony Lynch telling Father Noel Furlong to Shut Up.

I wonder would it help if the actor did a reprisal. Wonder does a naughty list exist? One of the funniest scenes in Father Ted.

https://youtu.be/wb4a_CLHtBs

I think over the course of my lifetime I must have rewound and rewatched that clip about a zillion times

[Deleted User]

Gatling wrote: »

Should vulnerable children be protected or is it ok for them to be used in science / medical experiments under the guise of trans rights.

I know id rather children be protected and kept away from heavily biased quack's who seem to be hell bent on grooming them into believing that they are something which they are not

Should medical treatment be withheld from vulnerable children because you have some personal discomfort about transgender people?

I'd rather children get the treatment they need, regardless of whether you and Glinner personally approve of it or not.

Grooming is a strong allegation. If you have information on grooming, please ensure that you pass it to the police.

randomchild wrote: »

A public institution that is accountable to a government and a judicial system to ensure transparency. The right to express yourself is a constitutional right so the guardians of the constitution must be the ones to protect and control it, not Zuckerberg and his ilk.

No one is surprising Glinner's right to express himself, as you can see by the statement above. No-one has an absolute right to free speech. And certainly no-one has any absolute right to access any particular platform in any particular way.

[Deleted User]

FVP3 wrote: »

The global tide is turning against self identification. Heres a article on the UK where the tories ( under pressure from feminist groups) have abandoned reform to the Gender Recognition Act that would have removed the need for psychiatric evaluation, living as the preferred gender etc. In short - self id.

Who knows if the Labour party will campaign on this, I doubt it. So it is probably dead.

I'm not sure that an article from Tory Wives Weekly constitutes a 'global tide'. Certainly, there doesn't seem to be any momentum here in Ireland against Self Id, which seems to have worked fairly flawlessly in the four or five years since it was introduced here.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You don’t need to be a medical expert. In fact, certain other professions would have better knowledge of clinical trials and drug-testing. An understanding of those principles - not that rare or niche. Long before the NHS admitted that they could not say whether puberty blockers were causing damage, people with relevant qualifications in drug-testing, clinical trials and relevant branches of biology were highlighting the lack of ethics involved in prescribing these drugs to children.

And now the NHS is no longer claiming that they are reversible. Why did they claim that before when they now admit that they did not have the evidence to do so? This is the health service of the United Kingdom. How many families took assurance from that incorrect information?

You really do need to be a medical expert to speak definitively about hormone treatments. And yes, multi-disciplinary teams do have an important role, but I'm not sure that boards poster or Twitter fan is one of the necessary disciplines.

And yes, with emerging technologies and treatments, medics are going to disagree, different countries have different rules, medics will change their minds as new evidence emerges - all perfectly normal and not a red flag at all.

Gatling

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Should medical treatment be withheld from vulnerable children because you have some personal discomfort about transgender people?

What personal discomfort .

You do know the word grooming isn't a sexual term many people including young people can ge groomed for religious beliefs , gangs and criminals , drugs .

But yes let's get back to giving vulnerable children being medicated because some qusudo quack has told them it's the right thing to do because they are trapped in the
Wrong body ,or someone groomed them online into believing that they don't fit in because they are trans ,

Children should be protected from all forms of grooming especially where they are being used as guinea pigs to push trans rights ,

Children need protection not unnecessary medication