Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Quote the post where I was judging what people wear since you are claiming I made such a post.

In fact my point about gender stereotypes was that people shouldn't be boxed into behaving a certain way because of their biological sex, but should be free to express themselves as they wish.

I said you appeared to be more concerned about people who are transgender appropriating gender stereotypes, and I understood your point, and I responded to your point earlier in the thread when you brought it up -

OscarMIlde wrote: »

When called on the regressive nature of the stereotypes transwomen adopt when claiming to 'know' they are really a woman you claim to disagree with such stereotypical views.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My own views would be much broader than personality traits or interests tbh which I would associate more strongly with expression and manifestation as opposed to internal physiology. For example there’s no way to determine a persons sex at birth from fMRI scans, but we are aware that sex hormones have an influence on brain development.

Me personally I can’t be arsed “breaking down gender stereotypes”, but if other people choose to take that responsibility on themselves, more power to them. Apart from the fact that I’m notoriously sexist and far too conservative for that sort of new fangled nonsense, I simply have no interest in it.

You don’t accept that people are expressing themselves as they wish, you refer their expressions as “regressive”. My understanding of regressive is that it is used as a pejorative, and in order to refer to anything as regressive, you would have to have formed a judgement on it, so basically - people are free to express themselves as they wish, but if they don’t conform to your standards, they’re choosing to conform to what you consider to be regressive gender stereotypes instead.

In order for me to disagree with someone’s views, I’d have to care what their views are in the first place. I don’t really get het up about how they’re dressed or how they behave or their mannerisms or any of the rest of it once they’re not doing any harm to anyone else. Other people feeling uncomfortable with how a person looks or their mannerisms or behaviour does not constitute harm (unless a flying vulva smacks them in the face, the owner is responsible in those circumstances for not having it anchored to their body).

When you’re trying to argue at the molecular level as well as the macro level of society, and everything in between, it just looks like you’re clutching at straws for anything to justify your prejudices. You sure as hell aren’t making anything close to a scientific argument, so correcting me on your proper title is mere pedantry to disguise your lack of any rational argument. That’s why I suggested way back that some people were bastardising science to sound clever, and that is what I said. I didn’t say as you suggested earlier that people were using scientific arguments to sound clever.

If they were capable of forming a rational argument based upon scientific evidence, they wouldn’t have to be waving their credentials about, I would know from their opinions.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I said you appeared to be more concerned about people who are transgender appropriating gender stereotypes, and I understood your point, and I responded to your point earlier in the thread when you brought it up -

You don’t accept that people are expressing themselves as they wish, you refer their expressions as “regressive”. My understanding of regressive is that it is used as a pejorative, and in order to refer to anything as regressive, you would have to have formed a judgement on it, so basically - people are free to express themselves as they wish, but if they don’t conform to your standards, they’re choosing to conform to what you consider to be regressive gender stereotypes instead.

In order for me to disagree with someone’s views, I’d have to care what their views are in the first place. I don’t really get het up about how they’re dressed or how they behave or their mannerisms or any of the rest of it once they’re not doing any harm to anyone else. Other people feeling uncomfortable with how a person looks or their mannerisms or behaviour does not constitute harm (unless a flying vulva smacks them in the face, the owner is responsible in those circumstances for not having it anchored to their body).

When you’re trying to argue at the molecular level as well as the macro level of society, and everything in between, it just looks like you’re clutching at straws for anything to justify your prejudices. You sure as hell aren’t making anything close to a scientific argument, so correcting me on your proper title is mere pedantry to disguise your lack of any rational argument. That’s why I suggested way back that some people were bastardising science to sound clever, and that is what I said. I didn’t say as you suggested earlier that people were using scientific arguments to sound clever.

If they were capable of forming a rational argument based upon scientific evidence, they wouldn’t have to be waving their credentials about, I would know from their opinions.

My argument is that for some transgender people, and in some cases allies of theirs such as LLMMLL, the basis of their belief that they are/wish to be women relies on superficial behavioural traits and wanting to express themselves in what society deems a feminine manner. I have no problem with anyone of any sex expressing themselves as they want. What I do have an issue with is the fact that such expression needs to be validated by deeming themselves to be the same sex as the gender stereotype they are adopting. I think that is regressive and backwards.

A woman is a woman based on her biology. Her likes/dislikes, personalty quirks, mannerisms, mode of dress are irrelevant to her biological status as a woman.

I have consistently argued at a logical, rational level, one that is supported by scientific facts. It is impossible to argue these facts without resorting to discussion of biology at the molecular level, as the evolution of two sexes is driven by molecular events. You have chosen to disregard my arguments, and imply I don't understand the biological mileu I am discussing. This is why I furnished my credentials, which wasn't actually necessary as my arguments and facts stood on their own.

I'm not surprised you have difficulty with the molecular underpinnings of the biological sexes, this is to be expected of someone who thinks a molecular biologist is the same as a microbiologist (ironically a discipline which studies organisms which undergo asexual reproduction).

My arguments are not prejudicial. I have not implied any malicious intent towards transgender people nor have I speculated on their motivations for wanting/believeing themselves to be the opposite biological sex than they are. I suspect the motivations are individual and unique to each transgender person. What I have argued consistently is that transwomen are not biologically women, and it is not phobic to hold such beliefs. It is in fact a rational position based on logic and science.

ReefBreak

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, people are absolutely allowed to hold whatever opinions they wish.

The poster seemed to be on a quest for understanding, so I just made a helpful suggestion.

If the poster doesn't actually want to understand how trans people feel about this, maybe they should stop pretending.

I can totally understand why trans people change their name, and why they refer to their old name as a dead name. But the stuff that occurs when they're referred to as their dead name has always seemed to me to be a huge over-reaction. Some people might not like getting called a shortened version of their first name or surname, or even a nickname based on their name, but it's hardly a hate crime.

OscarMIlde wrote: »

My argument is that for some transgender people, and in some cases allies of theirs such as LLMMLL, the basis of their belief that they are/wish to be women relies on superficial behavioural traits and wanting to express themselves in what society deems a feminine manner. I have no problem with anyone of any sex expressing themselves as they want. What I do have an issue with is the fact that such expression needs to be validated by deeming themselves to be the same sex as the gender stereotype they are adopting. I think that is regressive and backwards.

That’s an opinion that relates to sociology then, not biology.

OscarMIlde wrote: »

A woman is a woman based on her biology. Her likes/dislikes, personalty quirks, mannerisms, mode of dress are irrelevant to her biological status as a woman.

I disagree that a woman is identified so based upon biology. Woman relates to sociology, female relates to biology. It’s because biology is not sociology that a female who gives birth is regarded in law as a man, as regards the gender recognition act, but is not regarded as a father in spite of giving birth. Biology is not a sentient concept that it has any capacity to make decisions, biology as I said just does it’s thing.

People come up with the names for how they identify things based upon observation of phenomena, and determine what rights are conferred on that basis. Some people have tried to argue that rights should be based upon sentience... vegans *shudder*. Thankfully “sentient rights” are not recognised in law.

OscarMIlde wrote: »

I have consistently argued at a logical, rational level, one that is supported by scientific facts. It is impossible to argue these facts without resorting to discussion of biology at the molecular level, as the evolution of two sexes is driven by molecular events. You have chosen to disregard my arguments, and imply I don't understand the biological mileu I am discussing. This is why I furnished my credentials, which wasn't actually necessary as my arguments and facts stood on their own.

Ahh now, I never disregarded your arguments on the basis that I think you don’t understand the biological milieu. That you do or you don’t is beside the point. I dismissed your arguments on the basis that as I suggested already - in matters of law your credentials as a molecular biologist are about as useful as tits on a bull.

OscarMIlde wrote: »

I'm not surprised you have difficulty with the molecular underpinnings of the biological sexes, this is to be expected of someone who thinks a molecular biologist is the same as a microbiologist (ironically a discipline which studies organisms which undergo asexual reproduction).

I don’t think they’re the same? Any of my friends who are molecular biologists, microbiologists and medical scientists will tell you they constantly have to correct me on their occupational and academic titles too. It’s as though they’re looking for me to validate their title by repeating it back to them to get it into my brain. Sadly their efforts are wasted as I have notoriously poor memory and recall skills and I’ll have forgotten about it seconds later. It’s never bothered me, it bothers other people greatly :pac:

OscarMIlde wrote: »

My arguments are not prejudicial. I have not implied any malicious intent towards transgender people nor have I speculated on their motivations for wanting/believeing themselves to be the opposite biological sex than they are. I suspect the motivations are individual and unique to each transgender person. What I have argued consistently is that transwomen are not biologically women, and it is not phobic to hold such beliefs. It is in fact a rational position based on logic and science.

And what of your arguments referring to the use of hormones as part of any treatment? I object to them simply on the basis that I regard them as unnecessary, you appear to object to them on the basis of some future event that the patient may regret the decision, that their effects are unknown and all the rest of it. That’s nothing more than scaremongering. There’s nothing scientific about it, and that’s why I was surprised I was hearing it from a molecular biologist. I don’t doubt that you absolutely are a molecular biologist, but your arguments are not based upon scientific evidence, they’re based upon prejudice and stereotypes of people who are transgender.

Otherwise I would have agreed with you if you’d said that males are not females, and vice versa, because each sex has biologically distinct traits and characteristics which can be observed which indicate the sex dichotomy in the human species at least. Under normal circumstances it’s not an issue. However in the case of people who are transgender, a definitive biological basis for their mindset may never be forthcoming.

That’s not to suggest that scientists haven’t endeavoured to find one, it’s simply stating a fact that a definitive one hasn’t gained consensus yet, although there are a number of theories -

Causes of transsexuality

ReefBreak wrote: »

I can totally understand why trans people change their name, and why they refer to their old name as a dead name. But the stuff that occurs when they're referred to as their dead name has always seemed to me to be a huge over-reaction. Some people might not like getting called a shortened version of their first name or surname, or even a nickname based on their name, but it's hardly a hate crime.

Have you spoken to any trans people about this? Why would you call someone by their dead name, other than to cause hurt?

Gruffalox wrote: »

Because it is a clear example of how self ID can be abused. From a common law jurisdiction even You can read all about it in major international newspapers (and in a Canadian accent if you prefer. )

It's not a problem with self id. It appears to be a problem with their equality law or consumer law or similar. The ID isn't the problem.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I know what should annoy me the most about that case is the targeting of vulnerable women (women who operated out of their homes etc.) but being a science head, what I can’t get my head around is Yaniv not understanding that many aestheticians are not qualified to wax scrotal skin. Like, they could do serious damage to the area if they tried to do so unqualified. Not every aesthetician offers every service, just like not every hairdresser does hair dying (a salon will often have a specialist for that or a particular salon will be known for it). Some aestheticians do hair removal of male body parts but I understand that it takes special training.

I'll defer to your obviously superior knowledge of waxing scrotums.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s an opinion that relates to sociology then, not biology.

I disagree that a woman is identified so based upon biology. Woman relates to sociology, female relates to biology. It’s because biology is not sociology that a female who gives birth is regarded in law as a man, as regards the gender recognition act, but is not regarded as a father in spite of giving birth. Biology is not a sentient concept that it has any capacity to make decisions, biology as I said just does it’s thing.

People come up with the names for how they identify things based upon observation of phenomena, and determine what rights are conferred on that basis. Some people have tried to argue that rights should be based upon sentience... vegans *shudder*. Thankfully “sentient rights” are not recognised in law.

Ahh now, I never disregarded your arguments on the basis that I think you don’t understand the biological milieu. That you do or you don’t is beside the point. I dismissed your arguments on the basis that as I suggested already - in matters of law your credentials as a molecular biologist are about as useful as tits on a bull.

I don’t think they’re the same? Any of my friends who are molecular biologists, microbiologists and medical scientists will tell you they constantly have to correct me on their occupational and academic titles too. It’s as though they’re looking for me to validate their title by repeating it back to them to get it into my brain. Sadly their efforts are wasted as I have notoriously poor memory and recall skills and I’ll have forgotten about it seconds later. It’s never bothered me, it bothers other people greatly :pac:

And what of your arguments referring to the use of hormones as part of any treatment? I object to them simply on the basis that I regard them as unnecessary, you appear to object to them on the basis of some future event that the patient may regret the decision, that their effects are unknown and all the rest of it. That’s nothing more than scaremongering. There’s nothing scientific about it, and that’s why I was surprised I was hearing it from a molecular biologist. I don’t doubt that you absolutely are a molecular biologist, but your arguments are not based upon scientific evidence, they’re based upon prejudice and stereotypes of people who are transgender.

Otherwise I would have agreed with you if you’d said that males are not females, and vice versa, because each sex has biologically distinct traits and characteristics which can be observed which indicate the sex dichotomy in the human species at least. Under normal circumstances it’s not an issue. However in the case of people who are transgender, a definitive biological basis for their mindset may never be forthcoming.

That’s not to suggest that scientists haven’t endeavoured to find one, it’s simply stating a fact that a definitive one hasn’t gained consensus yet, although there are a number of theories -

Causes of transsexuality

You appear to believe that legal stances taken because of political lobbying are a greater truth than actual biological reality. Would you have supported the Jim Crow laws which were enacted following Plessy vs Ferguson, and argued against a molecular biologist who argued that genetically humans are more similar than different, and that there is no biological basis for such discrimation?

The law can take whatever stance it wants regarding who is a woman or not. What is won't do is change the reality that a woman is an adult biological female. That is a human who has eggs (a non motile gamete) as opposed to sperm (motile gametes), is vivaparous and carries the burden of the developing offspring in her womb, as opposed to the man who cannot do so, and can nourish the infant with milk from her breasts once born.

It is the woman who passes mitochondria to the next generation (the reason she has non-motile gametes, and the reason biological sex developed in the first place) through her eggs. These are biological facts essential for the evolution of our species and denying them based on legal, political and sociological grounds is nonsense.

OscarMIlde wrote: »

You appear to believe that legal stances taken because of political lobbying are a greater truth than actual biological reality. Would you have supported the Jim Crow laws which were enacted following Plessy vs Ferguson, and argued against a molecular biologist who argued that genetically humans are more similar than different, and that there is no biological basis for such discrimation?

No I don’t believe they are a greater truth, they are more relevant than biology when it comes to human rights though. As to whether or not I’d have supported Jim Crow laws, it’s impossible for me to say as I don’t know what environmental influences would have influenced my opinions one way or the other. I just don’t have enough information to be able to give you any sort of a definitive answer to that question. Would you as a molecular biologist have argued that discrimination against certain groups in society is justifiable on the basis that they’re different from you?

OscarMIlde wrote: »

These are biological facts essential for the evolution of our species and denying them based on legal, political and sociological grounds is nonsense.

They’re really not, we’ve evolved to this point without the benefit of such recent discoveries in science. We wouldn’t have evolved to this point had there been no legal framework which forms the basis of any civilised society. I don’t deny biological facts either btw, I’m saying they’re just not as fundamental to social progress as you appear to think they are.

I would suggest your thinking is regressive and I wouldn’t be speaking pejoratively. It appears as though you want to maintain the gender stereotypes that suit you, while at the same time you have an issue with people appropriating gender stereotypes which are incongruous with their sex.

Thankfully for people who are not you, people who do not think like you do, legal, political and social grounds will trump biology every day of the week. It’s how human societies have evolved throughout human history. Unfortunately for scientists, science has never mattered a whole pile to the vast majority of people.

Perhaps a #scientists_matter movement using social media could address that reality? I dunno, it’s just a thought.

Edit: Fcuk it, I’m just after remembering Greta Thunberg got the jump on that one :pac:

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'll defer to your obviously superior knowledge of waxing scrotums.

It’s pretty clear from the post of mine you quoted that I don’t have experience of it myself but I have friends and acquaintances who are beauticians and they do know something about it. Unless you think they’re stupid?

And seriously, I wouldn’t die on the hill of defending Yaniv if I were you. I mean, knock yourself out but you’ll just look daft for aligning yourself with a blatant creep.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

It’s pretty clear from the post of mine you quoted that I don’t have experience of it myself but I have friends and acquaintances who are beauticians and they do know something about it. Unless you think they’re stupid?

Sorry, waxing of scrotums is not something I know anything about, so I'm not really in a position to judge who is or isn't an expert in it.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And seriously, I wouldn’t die on the hill of defending Yaniv if I were you. I mean, knock yourself out but you’ll just look daft for aligning yourself with a blatant creep.

Once again, it's interesting to see you have to make up stuff that I didn't actually say to have something to complain about.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Once again, it's interesting to see you have to make up stuff that I didn't actually say to have something to complain about.

Cool, if you’re not defending Yaniv, the blatant creep (gender neutral term, no misgendering here) and pest (gender neutral term again) who targeted immigrant women in their homes, that’s super. Yaniv sure is a waste of space.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No I don’t believe they are a greater truth, they are more relevant than biology when it comes to human rights though. As to whether or not I’d have supported Jim Crow laws, it’s impossible for me to say as I don’t know what environmental influences would have influenced my opinions one way or the other. I just don’t have enough information to be able to give you any sort of a definitive answer to that question. Would you as a molecular biologist have argued that discrimination against certain groups in society is justifiable on the basis that they’re different from you?

They’re really not, we’ve evolved to this point without the benefit of such recent discoveries in science. We wouldn’t have evolved to this point had there been no legal framework which forms the basis of any civilised society. I don’t deny biological facts either btw, I’m saying they’re just not as fundamental to social progress as you appear to think they are.

I would suggest your thinking is regressive and I wouldn’t be speaking pejoratively. It appears as though you want to maintain the gender stereotypes that suit you, while at the same time you have an issue with people appropriating gender stereotypes which are incongruous with their sex.

Thankfully for people who are not you, people who do not think like you do, legal, political and social grounds will trump biology every day of the week. It’s how human societies have evolved throughout human history. Unfortunately for scientists, science has never mattered a whole pile to the vast majority of people.

Perhaps a #scientists_matter movement using social media could address that reality? I dunno, it’s just a thought.

Edit: Fcuk it, I’m just after remembering Greta Thunberg got the jump on that one :pac:

I don't have any issue with people appropriating gender stereotypes incongruous to their sex. I have an issue with the notion that gender stereotypes define their sex. A man can wear a dress and makeup. A woman can smoke cigars and bare knuckle box. None of these issues alter their biological sex. They do conflict with the parameters society generally expects men and women to operate in. I say alter those parameters. . I don't say if you choose to operate within parameters generally associated with the opposite sex that means you must choose to declare yourself to be the opposite sex. This is not a regressive strain of thought.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They’re really not, we’ve evolved to this point without the benefit of such recent discoveries in science. We wouldn’t have evolved to this point had there been no legal framework which forms the basis of any civilised society. I don’t deny biological facts either btw, I’m saying they’re just not as fundamental to social progress as you appear to think they are.

:pac:

I'm discussing biological evolution of the sexes, not the evolution of society. You know that. The discovery of these processes is not the important thing but the existence of these processes.

What is your basis for defending transgender idealogy? You don't seem to believe there is any room for biology in this discussion and you decry gender stereotypes as related to sociology. What is the actual argument then for asking people to radically redefine the definition of a woman if biology or gender are not allowed to be discussed?

OscarMIlde wrote: »

I don't have any issue with people appropriating gender stereotypes incongruous to their sex. I have an issue with the notion that gender stereotypes define their sex. A man can wear a dress and makeup. A woman can smoke cigars and bare knuckle box. None of these issues alter their biological sex. They do conflict with the parameters society generally expects men and women to operate in. I say alter those parameters. . I don't say if you choose to operate within parameters generally associated with the opposite sex that means you must choose to declare yourself to be the opposite sex. This is not a regressive strain of thought.

I get where you’re coming from, and that’s a fine strain of thought if ones gender identity is congruous with their sex. But for those people it isn’t, technology has enabled the altering of biology. The way I tend to look at it is if we take for example a person with cystic fibrosis - one of the ways in which we can alter their biology is with a lung transplant. Copious amounts of drugs help, but there are profound psychological effects to doing that sort of thing.

One person who had it done, when I talked to them they said they wanted to come off the drugs because they felt like a woman, they couldn’t stop crying. Honestly it was bizarre, but that’s the only way they could describe what they felt. They were aware of course that they’re not a woman, but in someone who is transgender, they don’t appear to be capable of thinking any other way other than they’re absolutely convinced they’re of the female or male sex, as the case may be. I can’t wrap my head around it tbh. The idea of trying to convince them that they are either male or female causes them intolerable pain. It just seems like a cruel and spiteful thing to do to anyone who is already filled with self-hatred because their mind is telling them one thing, and the social cues they’re picking up are telling them something else entirely. That’s why conversion therapy has been banned, and I’m glad it has, because it simply doesn’t work and it isn’t effective in allieviating their mental distress.

Essentially they do the opposite of what you’re suggesting - they’re already firmly of the belief that they are the opposite sex, and the social cues of that sex are the cues they’re picking up, the age at which they develop these ideas depends upon all sorts of conditions. That’s why puberty and the thoughts of developing as an adult can be such an affront to them. I just don’t know what anyone hopes to achieve by telling anyone “you can’t change your biological sex”, I think they’re acutely aware of that fact, and that’s what causes them distress. It takes a really special sort to add to someone’s distress like that.

I’m not denying of course there are some really special sorts among people who are transgender either, but just like people who are not transgender, that’s just who they are. The law applies to them equally as it does to everyone in society, at least in Ireland it does anyway. People who are transgender, by virtue of the fact that they are transgender, conflict with the parameters that society expects of men and women, and that’s why it is necessary to change laws in order to change the parameters which you refer to.

Social parameters changed when men went to war and women gained a foothold in the workplace. A marriage ban was instituted in many countries across Europe, not just Ireland in order to redress the social imbalance and protect men’s jobs, then it was lifted some time around the 70’s as the nature of the labour market changed. It’s still undergoing change and there are many areas of employment where women are not treated equally to men. There are as many areas of employment where men are not treated equally to women. I’m on the pigs back where I am but it just so happens I’ve always favoured women when making hiring decisions. Sexist? Yeah, but I’m not bothered tbh. I’m the same for people with disabilities, I’ll favour people with disabilities in employment because someone took a chance on me many years ago. It could have gone tits up, but I’ve always appreciated the fact that they took a massive risk when they didn’t have to. That’s why I’ll always be prepared to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. It’s not just because it’s a fundamental principle of law.

That’s why all these statistics and all the rest of it about associating ill behaviour with certain groups in society and discriminating against them on that basis has never sat well with me. I don’t even have to get into the correlation causation fallacy when people are arguing that people who are transgender are more likely to do this and that and the other, ignoring the reality that the vast majority of them do not engage in any sort of ill behaviour. That’s why as a social group I’ve never seen any reason to presume ill intent, where others have argued that men are trying to get into women’s prisons to commit all sorts of abuse against women, and using that as an argument against def-ID. No, that’s a problem with the prison system. I’d say the same when people argue about sports and domestic violence shelters - that’s not an issue with self-ID, it’s an issue with the organisation or governing body. How they resolve that conflict is generally up to them, and in very rare circumstances it will end up in a Court of Law when someone tries to take a case because they feel they have been discriminated against. It’s a Court of Law will decide whether they have a legitimate case in the first place or not. That’s how a society needs to function, as opposed to trial by social media and whatever salacious crap the tabloids have dredged up for the peanut gallery’s pleasure.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Cool, if you’re not defending Yaniv, the blatant creep (gender neutral term, no misgendering here) and pest (gender neutral term again) who targeted immigrant women in their homes, that’s super. Yaniv sure is a waste of space.

A lot worse than that from what I've seen.

OscarMIlde wrote: »

I'm discussing biological evolution of the sexes, not the evolution of society. You know that. The discovery of these processes is not the important thing but the existence of these processes.

Well I thought you were referring to the discovery of these processes when you said these facts are essential to evolution? They’re not, we somehow managed to get this far without knowing what gravity was. Of course we were aware of something which made people fall if they stepped off a cliff. I’d say that discovery alone was fundamental to our understanding of reality and evolution. In the same way- the process of evolution would exist whether we were aware of it or not. It’s not as though people who are transgender are a new thing.

OscarMIlde wrote: »

What is your basis for defending transgender idealogy? You don't seem to believe there is any room for biology in this discussion and you decry gender stereotypes as related to sociology. What is the actual argument then for asking people to radically redefine the definition of a woman if biology or gender are not allowed to be discussed?

I’m not defending transgender ideology, I’m defending the concept of Human Rights. Throughout this thread posters have referred to sex based rights as though they are an absolute. They’re not. They never were. There have been all sorts of changes in the last fifty years alone which have acted as a framework for giving women equal rights to enable them to have the same protections and opportunities as men. I don’t ask people to do anything, people are going to do what they want anyway, and sometimes I’ll support them, and sometimes I won’t. If we didn’t have the concept of human rights, well, what happens in countries which have an abominable human rights record? Who are the subjugated class? I’ll give you a clue - it’s not men. Equal rights are a legal framework for enabling equality and overcoming biological differences in the sexes so that women are regarded in Law as equal to men. Without them, we would revert to a society where women are discriminated against and have to be chaperoned at all times, and they would be regarded as property, things. I’d rather not revert to that kind of a society where biology is all that matters.

I don’t suggest that anyone redefine anything they don’t want to either btw. People are just going to do that naturally themselves and they aren’t going to ask anyone’s permission before doing so. People can hold to the definitions that suit them too, they don’t have to ask anyone’s permission either. But trying to compel other people who don’t share your world view to adhere to it because you say so? I dunno tbh, welcome to take your ball and go home.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

My argument is that for some transgender people, and in some cases allies of theirs such as LLMMLL, the basis of their belief that they are/wish to be women relies on superficial behavioural traits and wanting to express themselves in what society deems a feminine manner. I have no problem with anyone of any sex expressing themselves as they want. What I do have an issue with is the fact that such expression needs to be validated by deeming themselves to be the same sex as the gender stereotype they are adopting. I think that is regressive and backwards.
.

Complete misinterpretation of what I said. That is not what I believe at all.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They were aware of course that they’re not a woman, but in someone who is transgender, they don’t appear to be capable of thinking any other way other than they’re absolutely convinced they’re of the female or male sex, as the case may be. I can’t wrap my head around it tbh. The idea of trying to convince them that they are either male or female causes them intolerable pain. It just seems like a cruel and spiteful thing to do to anyone who is already filled with self-hatred because their mind is telling them one thing, and the social cues they’re picking up are telling them something else entirely. That’s why conversion therapy has been banned, and I’m glad it has, because it simply doesn’t work and it isn’t effective in allieviating their mental distress.

Essentially they do the opposite of what you’re suggesting - they’re already firmly of the belief that they are the opposite sex, and the social cues of that sex are the cues they’re picking up, the age at which they develop these ideas depends upon all sorts of conditions. That’s why puberty and the thoughts of developing as an adult can be such an affront to them. I just don’t know what anyone hopes to achieve by telling anyone “you can’t change your biological sex”, I think they’re acutely aware of that fact, and that’s what causes them distress. It takes a really special sort to add to someone’s distress like that.

Someone who has delusions that they are someone else entirely will always suffer distress when confronted by people who won't go along with their delusion. Someone with anorexia suffers terribly when people refuse to help them diet more effectively. All the same, I don't think that makes those people evil for not going along with mental delusions.

volchitsa wrote: »

Someone who has delusions that they are someone else entirely will always suffer distress when confronted by people who won't go along with their delusion. Someone with anorexia suffers terribly when people refuse to help them diet more effectively. All the same, I don't think that makes those people evil for not going along with mental delusions.

I’m sure you can understand then when someone goes out of their way to humiliate another person and still sees themselves as a decent person speaking truth to power, they too may well be deluding themselves.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m sure you can understand then when someone goes out of their way to humiliate another person and still sees themselves as a decent person speaking truth to power, they too may well be deluding themselves.

Depends on your definition of "out of their way" or "humiliate" but definitions are not exactly going well on this thread.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Depends on your definition of "out of their way" or "humiliate" but definitions are not exactly going well on this thread.

Well take an example like the one I gave earlier -

Tesco launches inquiry into employees posting online photos and videos abusing trans customers

You couldn’t meet a more harmless individual, and sure, you can say to yourself they’re delusional and all the rest of it, but you (not you personally), don’t have to go out of your way to make sure they know that you think they’re delusional. You can keep it to yourself. They’re not doing any harm to anyone, they’re just trying to live their lives as best they can, they’re generally happy out in themselves. Most people won’t interfere with them and will leave them be, but there are those few that will make an example of them for no reason other than they don’t think the same way that person does, or they’re weird, or they’re delusional. No need for it like IMO.

Same with the likes of Linehan and JK, I don’t think for them it was ever about anyone being transgender, it was simply that they’re just bitter and resentful sorts and needed an easy target. That’s why they want free speech, so there aren’t any consequences for them for their behaviour. It’s like that Debbie Hatton one saying when people disagree, they need to have a debate. I don’t think people do. I think they can carry on about their lives and not be seeking out people to humiliate, or to play the victim.

I think most people will offer anyone support (it’s certainly been my experience that they do), as opposed to telling it like it is and thinking of themselves as a decent person for doing so. Some people do that on social media and think of themselves as brave for doing so, like I said speaking truth to power. There’s nothing brave about that iMO. It’s just cowardly virtue signaling.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m sure you can understand then when someone goes out of their way to humiliate another person and still sees themselves as a decent person speaking truth to power, they too may well be deluding themselves.

And who has done that?

(FWIW I think it's quite possible that Graham Linehan is having/has had some sort of breakdown, and it may be for his own good that he be removed from Twitter. If so though, that is largely because of how he has been hounded by trans activists. The nasty behaviour is not all, or even mainly, from Linehan.)

volchitsa wrote: »

And who has done that?

(FWIW I think it's quite possible that Graham Linehan is having/has had some sort of breakdown, and it may be for his own good that he be removed from Twitter. If so though, that is largely because of how he has been hounded by trans activists. The nasty behaviour is not all, or even mainly, from Linehan.)

We even saw some of that repeated in this thread. The most virulent transgender activists that went after him made up stuff about his family. That his wife left amongst others. No proof at all. But yet that was repeated in this thread as fact.

volchitsa wrote: »

And who has done that?

(FWIW I think it's quite possible that Graham Linehan is having/has had some sort of breakdown, and it may be for his own good that he be removed from Twitter. If so though, that is largely because of how he has been hounded by trans activists. The nasty behaviour is not all, or even mainly, from Linehan.)

I’m saying anyone who does it. Linehan and JK are just examples of it.

I don’t think Linehan has had any sort of a breakdown, I think he was always an arsehole. He knocked it out of the park with Father Ted and then when he was criticised for using a trope that was often applied to people who are transgender, he lost his shìt and went after them as a group. That’s when he showed his true colours, and he’s been at it ever since. Five minutes after he was banned off Twitter he logged on to mumsnet looking for support, and wasn’t long being told where to go. He was only brave while he was being egged on by the support he got from his half a million followers on social media.

I think the same of JK - she was always an arsehole, dunno what set her off, but she took it upon herself to humiliate and provoke as large a group as she could, and has been playing the victim since. When she tried shmoozing up to Stephen King to elevate herself to his level, he wasn’t long indicating where she could go either. That’s why she deleted her tweet - utterly humiliating for her that Stephen King whom she heaped praise on when she thought he supported her ideas, didn’t support her ideas after all. She still has the support of 14.5 million followers on social media.

The people they provoked are complete nobodies, who have the same attitudes towards other people that they do, except that Linehan and JK have all the power in that scenario. The expression “shìt finds it’s own level” comes to mind tbh.

Sir Oxman

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

We even saw some of that repeated in this thread. The most virulent transgender activists that went after him made up stuff about his family. That his wife left amongst others. No proof at all. But yet that was repeated in this thread as fact.

I asked the mods why that post with basically mainly unsubstantiated gossip & allegations about an individual was allowed - no reply.
So it must be ok to do that type of thing on here?

Sir Oxman wrote: »

I asked the mods why that post with basically mainly unsubstantiated gossip & allegations about an individual was allowed - no reply.
So it must be ok to do that type of thing on here?

I also reported it, not really because I wanted it deleted but to draw their attention to it because there is a lot of unsubstantiated stuff contained within. Boards.ie is usually pretty skittish when it comes to stuff like that because the threat of legal action being taken but they seem not to care this time. Weird.

joeguevara

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

We even saw some of that repeated in this thread. The most virulent transgender activists that went after him made up stuff about his family. That his wife left amongst others. No proof at all. But yet that was repeated in this thread as fact.

What his wife/partner may or may not have done is completely irrelevant to this discussion and should never be brought up. However, was it brought up as fact or was a question asked about it. Neither are in any way correct or helpful but would be interesting to see as to what exactly was said and how it is being portrayed now.

Gentlemanne

There is a small amount of evidence that Graham Linehan has split with his wife (e.g. social media reverting to maiden name) but I don't think its worthwhile to dig into his family and personal problems.

However, it's undeniable that over the past few years this man has developed an internet addiction, a complete obsession with posting online, laser focused on one particular issue. Even a cursory view of his timeline revealed an unhealthy compulsion.

Honestly, if people are willing to let Graham continue to be the poster child of the anti transgender rights crowd they had better be careful. He's a petulant bully who has some serious problems. The best case scenario would be for him to pull back from this conversation and find something more healthy to preoccupy himself with. But I don't think that will happen because he is psychologically unable to.

joeguevara wrote: »

What his wife/partner may or may not have done is completely irrelevant to this discussion and should never be brought up. However, was it brought up as fact or was a question asked about it. Neither are in any way correct or helpful but would be interesting to see as to what exactly was said and how it is being portrayed now.

It was brought up as fact. Here you go (emphasis mine):

seamus wrote: »

Linehan was at it for months, and was found out a large number of times.

He has also been involved in doxxing plenty of individuals and has had restraining orders taken out against him for harassment.

He'd been outed a number of times trying to chat up trans women on Twitter and other platforms, and getting abusive and degrading when he was shot down.

Whatever your own personal issues with trans gender people, Linehan is definitely the wrong horse to back. Because of his actions, his wife has left him, his entire family have abandoned him, and his best friends and co-writers staged an elaborate intervention to try and pull him away from his obsessiveness.

Remember "Fr. Ted - The Musical"? Yeah, Arthur Mathews and Neil Hannon agreed to do that with Linehan in the hopes that he might be able to focus his mind and get him back to normality. That's why we've heard nothing about it since it was "nearly finished" two years ago; because Linehan doubled-down on his crazy and alienated his friends.

Even the loudest terfs who were initially the ones to push him on, have told him to get to fvck and stop trying to be a spokesman for women's rights. That's how toxic and insane Linehan has become.

Linehan's downfall is not due to "cancel culture", "PC gone mad", or "radical liberal trans activists". It's down to a man clearly falling into a spiral of mental illness and using his position and past works to amplify hateful and violent messages.

Sir Oxman

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I also reported it, not really because I wanted it deleted but to draw their attention to it because there is a lot of unsubstantiated stuff contained within. Boards.ie is usually pretty skittish when it comes to stuff like that because the threat of legal action being taken but they seem not to care this time. Weird.

Same here, just a heads up to them as I thought it was way out of line and not welcomed on here.
Odd