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

gmisk

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Ah yes, FGM. Another bastion of 'Diversity' and 'multiculturalism' that we all have to pretend is so fantastic, cheered on by the likes of you know doubt. So FGM and male rapists in women's prisons. What else have you got up your sleeve to **** women over with?

What are you on about? What a load of BS.
I haven't seen anyone here support FGM?!?
Have you? It's horrendous and thankfully illegal at least in Ireland.

carolmon

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

On my phone, Reddit's turned their logo black presumably as an empty gesture of support for BLM while profiting handsomely from hosting all sorts of hateful and bigoted nonsense for years.

I've no idea what those two groups are either.

Twitter provides a prolific platform for MAPS and NOMAPS (Minor Attracted People and Non Offending Minor Attracted People) and doesn't see any need to censor this discourse.

Gruffalux

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You're still focusing on that very, very narrow niche.

What proportion of violent crimes against women are carried out by trans women?

Try not to be foolish. The study in a journal shows transwomen offend similarly to males. Thats all.

[Deleted User]

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Those men aren't put into prison with women. The 'niche' scenario you talk of was played out in Britain, with disastrous consequences. So it is not theoretical.

Right, so rather than do anything about the very real and very prevalent issues of violence against women and girls, you're jumping up and down about a theoretical scenario that hasn't caused any problems here.

Can we stop pretending that this is about protecting women?

[Deleted User]

Gruffalox wrote: »

Try not to be foolish. The study in a journal shows transwomen offend similarly to males. Thats all.

That's not the question I asked though, is it?

[Deleted User]

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Oh you had a point did you? Bringing up FGM in a debate such as this; one may call that deflection.

I didn't bring up FGM. Go back and read the thread please.

hetuzozaho

Sudden Valley wrote: »

Where exactly do all these commentators go when they kickedoff twitter(e.g. Katei Hopkins, Milo etc.) and do you make any money being on Twitter?

Gab and Parler are two options they sometimes use. Glinner set up his own micro blogging site using an open source platform I think. I can't remember the name. Not sure if used anymore.

He's also been Youtubing lately. I've watched a couple. And listened to some podcasts he's been on this year. For a guy who IMO must be a very talented writer he's tiresome to listen to in an interview these days. I'd say he'd be banned from the local at this stage!

I signed up to Gab, grim

I'll be sticking to Twitter.

CtevenSrowder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Right, so rather than do anything about the very real and very prevalent issues of violence against women and girls, you're jumping up and down about a theoretical scenario that hasn't caused any problems here.

Can we stop pretending that this is about protecting women?

No we can't, because is not pretending. Putting males in prison with women is bad enough, nevermind ones convicted of sex crimes. Just because it hasn't happened here doesn't mean it will not. It has happened in Britain, our closest neighbours. This issue is very real, you seem to just want to pretend it isn't.

CtevenSrowder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I didn't bring up FGM. Go back and read the thread please.

My apologies. You indeed did not.

Gruffalux

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's not the question I asked though, is it?

Thats not the point though is it? The thing is you wish to avoid the statistically proven criminological truth because, gawd, its so awkward. So you will flail and stretch and divert and dance. Go ahead. It will keep you fit at least.

[Deleted User]

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

And? There were no issues arising from the 8th amendment until there was. It took 30 plus years and the death of a women to undue that complete monstrosity of a law. I merely suggest we don't go down the same path again.

Eh no, wrong again. There were lots of issues arising under the 8th amendment with 10 women travelling for abortion each day.

But under self id in Ireland, no significant issues have arisen.

[Deleted User]

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No we can't, because is not pretending. Putting males in prison with women is bad enough, nevermind ones convicted of sex crimes. Just because it hasn't happened here doesn't mean it will not. It has happened in Britain, our closest neighbours. This issue is very real, you seem to just want to pretend it isn't.

The real issue that you're ignoring is the violence against women and girls by men every day.

Violence by transgender women is a tiny, tiny issue.

More light, less heat.

CtevenSrowder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Eh no, wrong again. There were lots of issues arising under the 8th amendment with 10 women travelling for abortion each day.

But under self id in Ireland, no significant issues have arisen.

These issues were not immediately well known at the time, and only came to light years after the legislation was passed.

CtevenSrowder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The real issue that you're ignoring is the violence against women and girls by men every day.

Violence by transgender women is a tiny, tiny issue.

More light, less heat.

How am I ignoring it? This thread is about trans-ideology.

[Deleted User]

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

These issues were not immediately well known at the time, and only came to light years after the legislation was passed.

They were well known to the campaigners involved at the time. They may have only come to light for you later, but anyone involved in that issue knew exactly what was going on.

[Deleted User]

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

How am I ignoring it? This thread is about trans-ideology.

I thought the thread was about Glinner?

CtevenSrowder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I thought the thread was about Glinner?

Well ye, but it's entitled 'GL banned from twitter for questioning 'trans-ideology'. Though that doesn't quite explain how I'm ignoring those other issues like you stated.

suicide_circus

Glinner was both obsessive on this subject and also hoisted by his own petard to some extent as he rejoiced in trying to get others cancelled so i dont have much sympathy.

None of that changes what is and isnt true, what is and isnt real.

Gruffalux

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Eh no, wrong again. There were lots of issues arising under the 8th amendment with 10 women travelling for abortion each day.

But under self id in Ireland, no significant issues have arisen.

100 children at least have been shipped to Tavistock Gender Clinic UK from Ireland for treatment. Treatment which is now seriously being evaluated. I think you will find trans ideology has had significant effect in this jurisdiction.
Also this argument about hasn't happened here is watery oul p1ss. Because we are a small country we have often in the past relied on bigger common law jurusdictions for guiding legal precedence for example. We consider example or so called best practice from other bigger nations on climate matters, on policing, on anything really. What are all them lovely junkets for? It's what smaller countries without large populations do.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

And? There were no issues arising from the 8th amendment until there was. It took 30 plus years and the death of a women to undue that complete monstrosity of a law. I merely suggest we don't go down the same path again.

In order not to “go down that same path again” then, there is plenty of scientific and medical evidence to support the idea of recognising people as their preferred gender in Irish law, as it has a whole boatload of benefits for people who are transgender, when compared to the tiny number of people who are not transgender who are responsible for committing violence against women.

Now, I understand that credentials mean things to some people and all the rest of it, and biology and all that Bill Nye standard sciencey stuff, so here’s someone who claims to be a transgender molecular biologist with what a lot of this stuff means explained in layman’s terms using simple and easy to understand language that even I can understand :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz7ldxH0Hys

I don’t agree with everything they’ve said in the video, I’m even less interested in what they are saying because as far as I’m concerned rights and recognition in law are a matter of law, not science.

Gruffalux

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

How am I ignoring it? This thread is about trans-ideology.

You're supposed to care about all the things all together all the time

or else Monsieur Renko will not consider an opinion.

Gruffalux

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I thought the thread was about Glinner?

The fecken words trans ideology are in the title

Gruffalux

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You're still focusing on that very, very narrow niche.

What proportion of violent crimes against women are carried out by trans women?

You have an allowable amount of collateral damage? That is the usual actually, so don't beat yourself up about that. If the victims are not the PC ones the progressives don't care. Women in Iranian jails because of veils do not exercise the progressive mind.

Considering how very very few of them transwomen get around when it comes to sex crime. Almost as if they offend as per the earlier study at the same rate as males.

Having said this I do not have a tolerance level for collateral damage and I believe that trans prisoners should be housed in safe accommodation, with transwomen away from the male wings. But NOT in the female wings as that is a safeguarding issue for the women there. Transmen don't seem to hanker to get into male prison but I think a safe secure third space can be provided for them should they not wish to be in female wings.

Transgender prisoners are five times more likely to carry out sex attacks on inmates at women’s jails than other prisoners are, official figures show.
Male prisoners who were transferred to women’s jails during gender reassignment and women inmates who are transitioning committed seven of the 124 sex attacks recorded between 2010 and 2018. They occurred at HMP Low Newton in Co Durham, Foston Hall in Derbyshire, Peterborough, Bronzefield in Middlesex and New Hall, West Yorkshire.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seven-sex-attacks-in-womens-jails-by-transgender-convicts-cx9m8zqpg

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

Having said this I do not have a tolerance level for collateral damage and I believe that trans prisoners should be housed in safe accommodation, with transwomen away from the male wings. But NOT in the female wings as that is a safeguarding issue for the women there. Transmen don't seem to hanker to get into male prison but I think a safe secure third space can be provided for them should they not wish to be in female wings.

You’re short a safe space there?

Anyway, the statistic presented in that article is fairly misleading without context.

It means that although trans women make up about one per cent of the 3,600 female jail population, they are to blame for 5.6 per cent of sexual assaults there. The attacks took place at HMP Low Newton, HMP Foston Hall, HMP Peterborough (Female) and HMP Bronzefield as well as HMP New Hall.

I wonder who’s committing the other 93.4% of sexual assaults on women?

Kinda reminds me of the NWCI statistic that 1 in 4 homeless people are women

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re short a safe space there?

Anyway, the statistic presented in that article is fairly misleading without context.

It means that although trans women make up about one per cent of the 3,600 female jail population, they are to blame for 5.6 per cent of sexual assaults there. The attacks took place at HMP Low Newton, HMP Foston Hall, HMP Peterborough (Female) and HMP Bronzefield as well as HMP New Hall.

I wonder who’s committing the other 93.4% of sexual assaults on women?

Kinda reminds me of the NWCI statistic that 1 in 4 homeless people are women

You have an acceptable level of collateral damage also. It is fine, don't worry. It is common..

Sittingpretty

So I’ve been warned for being uncivil. I think I’ve been a member on Boards.ie for 10 years and it’s taken that long to receive a warning.

It would appear that the inability to answer a straightforward question doesn’t dampen the ability to use the report button when you’re backed into a corner and you can’t make sense or clarify the stance you have taken.

The football has been taken home.

Again.

Define table :rolleyes:

I’m done. May the force be with those of you who remain patient enough to stay in the never ending loop.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

You have an acceptable level of collateral damage also. It is fine, don't worry. It is common..

No I do not. However I’ve already pointed out that not only do the public not have a say in how prison services formulate their policies, but that acceptable level of collateral damage you speak of goes both ways if that’s how you wish to look at it.

It’s daft, as it assumes the worst in anyone who doesn’t share your opinions, as opposed to engaging your critical faculties and realising that there is no such thing as an acceptable level of collateral damage when it comes to perpetrators of violence, regardless of their sex.

seamus

Gruffalox wrote: »

your line that Twitter, like some poor addled benign grandpa seeking out all the rudeness within its remit, has just not yet gotten round to banning those arseholes is frankly bullsh1t.

Well, that's not my line, but the fact remains that Twitter does ban these people, a lot. But they're not high-profile accounts with newspaper columns and hysterical fanbases, so they go unnoticed. They create a new account and get on with things.
McKinnion did indeed get banned for her comment (which was about Terfs, not about cis people), and oddly enough it was Linehan who announced that to the world.
Twitter bans are usually only permanent-permanent when someone has been banned a number of times and/or refuses to remove comments that have been highlighted as problematic. That's Linehan.

Linehan has no doubt already created a new account, but it's not going to have a blue tick or hundreds of thousands of followers. And if it gets banned again, it'll go quietly into the night.

Your assertion that Twitter only bans certain types of speech, is bull****. Twitter doesn't even really have the capacity to pick and choose like that.

I'm guessing here, but I imagine there is an algorithm that's used to prioritise which tweets are and aren't actioned. Tweets that have a lot of reports and a lot of activity will appear higher in the queue. Tweets that have one or two reports and have been seen by five people, not so much. These algorithms may even rate the importance of the action that needs to be taken. Thus a really hateful tweet seen by 3 people gets a slap on the wrist. A vaguely Nazi tweet seen by 100,000 gets the account suspended for a day.

It just so happens that the most high-profile bans are individuals who spout a lot of hate speech. High-profile individuals who don't use the platform to push hate speech, don't get banned. Funny that.

You are right, this creates a selection bias. If the users of the platform tend to lean in one direction, or if a group conspires to attack another individual (which happens a lot), then you will see the overall bias of the platform lean in that direction. The same happens on other platforms; boards has leaned decidely more conservative than the general public over the last decade as conservative users have bullied dissenting viewpoints off the site.

But that doesn't mean the controlling company itself has a bias or actively acts to keep its PC credentials intact. Like you say, it's merely an amoral reed that leans whatever way the wind is blowing.

bloodless_coup

Why is the "trans movement" so powerful, and in control of the narrative? Where does this power and control come from, from such a tiny minority of people?

You can't say simple logical things or you'll be banned from here or any other platform.

seamus

bloodless_coup wrote: »

You can't say simple logical things or you'll be banned from here or any other platform.

The fact that anti-trans discussions online outnumber pro-trans ones 100:1, proves that this is just a false oppression narrative.