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; } } }

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

Bannasidhe

Stark wrote: »

And there are people who get married purely to get round immigration and tax laws. What is "love" anyway? Can anyone define it for me? Is there a hormone level requirement we can check? Maybe we should just scrap the whole thing as a minority of people might abuse it.

Which actually was one of the 'arguments' against marriage equality.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

"Appealing to people who think like you do" is a thinly veiled ad hominem phrase which is the equivalent of using the word dog whistling. Usually it is used to imply people signal to some kind of far right wing positions.
It is not argument. It is empty insult.

It’s not a thinly veiled anything, it’s a direct statement of opinion. A dog whistle is something you couldn’t hear, whereas I’m making a direct statement, and I don’t care what you imagine it is usually used to imply about anything. If I had wanted to accuse you of being “far right” I would. I don’t, because that’s just stupid.

The argument is making the point that your methods are an appeal to people who think like you do. I based this upon an assessment of your opinions so far that honestly don’t amount to much of an argument. Empty and insulting are exactly how I would describe your opinions - insulting to other people’s intelligence.

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not a thinly veiled anything, it’s a direct statement of opinion. A dog whistle is something you couldn’t hear, whereas I’m making a direct statement, and I don’t care what you imagine it is usually used to imply about anything. If I had wanted to accuse you of being “far right” I would. I don’t, because that’s just stupid.

The argument is making the point that your methods are an appeal to people who think like you do. I based this upon an assessment of your opinions so far that honestly don’t amount to much of an argument. Empty and insulting are exactly how I would describe your opinions - insulting to other people’s intelligence.

You are implying I am dog whistling.
But alright Jack. Your opinions appeal to people who think like you do.
Where does that get us? Nowhere. It is just an empty jibe.

Readers can decide for themselved whether or not my opinions amount to much of an argument. Some will agree some will not. I do not mind, I feel commited to my arguments either way.
You do not get to decide and declare for anyone if they are empty and insulting, except for yourself.

Sittingpretty

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Which actually was one of the 'arguments' against marriage equality.

We’re not all the phobics we’re being painted as here. It’s easier to shout “TERF!” and “transphobe” from the rooftops than it is to address (without obfuscation, clearly and succinctly )any of the questions in this thread that have been put to those who support the trans women are the same as women agenda.

I voted yes for marriage equality and I fully support it. As I do transgender rights.

But don’t try to whitewash me with trans women are the same as women nonsense being peddled in this thread.

hetuzozaho

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, I again see the conflation of rare events from other countries to stir up the FUD factor here in Ireland, despite that fact that no difficulties have arisen here in the five years of self-ID.

It does seem to be mainly that from what I read.

[Deleted User]

Gruffalox wrote: »

I am not a silenced victim - much to your discomfort

And yet again we see a poster who has taken their user name from a US cop show and probably discusses BLM and endemic racism and has uttered the word Trump more times in the past few years than is reasonable and listens to International music and watches shows from abroad and still repeatedly tells us on this single issue we may not look outside our own picket fence. LOL, as the youth say these days. I won't be stopping using international precedence on this issue.

You really do like playing that victim card, don't you? No-one has tried to stop your deep search all round the world to drag up extreme cases to support your point.

Some people have simply questioned to relevance of this approach, and pointed out the lack of consistency inherent in this approach.

Gruffalux

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Which actually was one of the 'arguments' against marriage equality.

You as an elder lesbian must have an opinion on the alleged transphobia of younger lesbians who will not accept male lesbians and girldick in their dating pool.
What do you say to these young lesbians who have broken away from Stonewall UK and gone to LGB Alliance in great numbers to argue - completely correctly in my opinion - that homosexuality is based on same SEX attraction?

Gruffalux

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You really do like playing that victim card, don't you? No-one has tried to stop your deep search all round the world to drag up extreme cases to support your point.

Some people have simply questioned to relevance of this approach, and pointed out the lack of consistency inherent in this approach.

Gosh better tell all very many in politics, business, the sciences, research etc etc who consult internationally on everything from climate change to regulation of corporations etc etc ad infinitum that this referencing outside the jurisdiction is irrelevant and lacks consistency.

[Deleted User]

Gruffalox wrote: »

You as an elder lesbian must have an opinion on the alleged transphobia of younger lesbians who will not accept male lesbians and girldick in their dating pool.
What do you say to these young lesbians who have broken away from Stonewall UK and gone to LGB Alliance in great numbers to argue - completely correctly in my opinion - that homosexuality is based on same SEX attraction?

How great are those great numbers, exactly?

Gruffalox wrote: »

Gosh better tell all very many in politics, business, the sciences, research etc etc who consult internationally on everything from climate change to regulation of corporations etc etc ad infinitum that this referencing outside the jurisdiction is irrelevant and lacks consistency.

Generally, professional researchers who do such international comparisons would also include clarifications of context, of different prevalence levels, of different legislative environments, of different measurement and statistical counting approaches. Try adding some of these to your international comparisons if you want to take a professional approach.

They certainly won't go grabbing a tiny number of extreme edge cases from different regimes and use these out of context to stir up matters in Ireland.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

You are implying I am dog whistling.
But alright Jack. Your opinions appeal to people who think like you do.
Where does that get us? Nowhere. It is just an empty jibe.

Readers can decide for themselved whether or not my opinions amount to much of an argument. Some will agree some will not. I do not mind, I feel commited to my arguments either way.
You do not get to decide and declare for anyone if they are empty and insulting, except for yourself.

I didn’t declare anything for anyone else? I said your opinions are insulting to other people’s intelligence, that’s people, other than yourself. I have no doubt there are many people who agree with you, but that simply demonstrates their own lack of knowledge of Law.

That’s not saying you’re ignorant of the law, you’re obviously not, and you aren’t unaware either that your arguments would have no effect in law, so other than appealing to people who think like you do, I can’t imagine any other reason for why you perpetuate the same stuff over and over again that’s already been debunked now numerous times already. It’s perpetuation simply relies on other people’s ignorance.

In reality the vast majority of people who are transgender have no interest in women’s spaces or getting into women’s prisons or any of the rest of that nonsense, they’re just normal people trying to go about their daily lives like anyone else, and that’s what people see, as opposed to the caricature that you’re attempting to perpetuate.

Bannasidhe

Sittingpretty wrote: »

We’re not all the phobics we’re being painted as here. It’s easier to shout “TERF!” and “transphobe” from the rooftops than it is to address (without obfuscation, clearly and succinctly )any of the questions in this thread that have been put to those who support the trans women are the same as women agenda.

I voted yes for marriage equality and I fully support it. As I do transgender rights.

But don’t try to whitewash me with trans women are the same as women nonsense being peddled in this thread.

Do you deny it was one of the 'arguments' used against Marriage Equality?

Because that is the sum total of what my post said.

You are accusing me of things I did not say or imply so perhaps you might consider having that little rant at someone who did.

Gruffalux

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How great are those exactly

LGB started a twitter account in 2019. It has 26000 followers.
Stonewall UK the biggest LGBT org in Eurooe started an account in 2009. It has 200,000 followers.

One eight of the number of followers in much less time is quite a lot. These are also real people with valid opinions, the main one being in this case that homosexuality is SAME SEX atttaction and that one cannot identify as a lesbian as a male or as a gay man as a female.

[Deleted User]

Gruffalox wrote: »

LGB started a twitter account in 2019. It has 26000 followers.
Stonewall UK the biggest LGBT org in Eurooe started an account in 2009. It has 200,000 followers.

One eight of the number of followers in much less time is quite a lot. These are also real people with valid opinions, the main one being in this case that homosexuality is SAME SEX atttaction and that one cannot identify as a lesbian as a male or as a gay man as a female.

Are you equating Twitter followers with supporters?

Stark

Gruffalox wrote: »

You as an elder lesbian must have an opinion on the alleged transphobia of younger lesbians who will not accept male lesbians and girldick in their dating pool.
What do you say to these young lesbians who have broken away from Stonewall UK and gone to LGB Alliance in great numbers to argue - completely correctly in my opinion - that homosexuality is based on same SEX attraction?

This **** again. Everyone is entitled to their dating preferences, only a small minority of people argue otherwise, yet they seem to be dragged into arguments just as "I saw a black man assault a white man once" seems to be repeatedly dragged into racial arguments. It's not even something that's specific to gay/transgender. You'll find people arguing that to not date Asians or blacks is racist if you search the bowels of the Internet for someone to support your position. I wouldn't use it to defend a racist position in general. "Oh you think black people are so great do you? Well look what one of them said!".

Gruffalox wrote:

One eight of the number of followers in much less time is quite a lot. These are also real people with valid opinions, the main one being in this case that homosexuality is SAME SEX atttaction and that one cannot identify as a lesbian as a male or as a gay man as a female.

So we're policing who can identify as gay or lesbian now?

Sittingpretty

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you deny it was one of the 'arguments' used against Marriage Equality?

Because that is the sum total of what my post said.

You are accusing me of things I did not say or imply so perhaps you might consider having that little rant at someone who did.

I didn’t say you said them, now did I. I said on this thread. That’s not exclusively you.

And no, I don’t deny that. I’m sure it was one of the many weak and ultimately failed arguments used against marriage equality.

Hardly a rant now in fairness.

Gruffalux

Stark wrote: »

This **** again. Everyone is entitled to their dating preferences, only a small minority of people argue otherwise, yet they seem to be dragged into arguments just as "I saw a black man assault a white man once" seems to be repeatedly dragged into racial arguments. It's not even something that's specific to gay/transgender. You'll find people arguing that to not date Asians or blacks is racist if you search the bowels of the Internet for someone to support your position. I wouldn't use it to defend a racist position in general. "Oh you think black people are so great do you? Well look what one of them said!".

So we're policing who can identify as gay or lesbian now?

Oh look this sh1t again. Dragging in some completely irrelevant racism comparison.

By dating preference in this case I am going to presume you mean choosing male bodied or female bodied because that is what you prefer. Which is transphobic.

Sittingpretty

Stark wrote: »

This **** again. Everyone is entitled to their dating preferences, only a small minority of people argue otherwise, yet they seem to be dragged into arguments just as "I saw a black man assault a white man once" seems to be repeatedly dragged into racial arguments. It's not even something that's specific to gay/transgender. You'll find people arguing that to not date Asians or blacks is racist if you search the bowels of the Internet for someone to support your position. I wouldn't use it to defend a racist position in general. "Oh you think black people are so great do you? Well look what one of them said!".

So we're policing who can identify as gay or lesbian now?

So if a man identifies as a lesbian should other lesbians be attracted to him?

Is it transphobic for them not to want to see his penis as a vagina or if he is transitioned completely should they be attracted to what is a surgeon’s impression of a vagina?

Should they find it feels, smells, tastes the same? Is it transphobic not to? She is a woman after all.

Or is it their lesbian minds and not their bodies that are making love when they get it on?

Stark

If you bothered to read my post, I said everyone is entitled to their dating preferences.

Gruffalox wrote:

Oh look this sh1t again. Dragging in some completely irrelevant racism comparison.

Not irrelevant because the topic of whether dating preferences conflate with racism or transpobia originated as a discussion over "is it racist to not want to date blacks or Asians?" and carried over from there into transgender debates. It's no more appropriate to bash transgender people on account of a handful of people who share traits with them arguing over it as it is appropriate to bash black and Asian people because a handful of people sharing traits with those people are arguing an extreme viewpoint.

FVP3

Anyway I've worked out the literary theory logic about tables here, and for that I am grateful.

A table cant be defined exactly as a table, so therefore a transwoman is a woman.

Makes perfect sense to me.

One eyed Jack

Seems the people who are so concerned about not being regarded as transphobic themselves are well able to bandy the term about when it suits them.

Sittingpretty

Stark wrote: »

If you bothered to read my post, I said everyone is entitled to their dating preferences.

I did read your post. Did you read mine?

I had some questions.

I’ll assume like all the others they’ll go unanswered because to answer them would be to concede a difference between trans women and women.

Stark

Ooh loaded questions, I love answering loaded questions. Lead me to the trapdoor please :rolleyes:

You have the choice to date who you find attractive and not date who you don't find attractive, that's all that needs to be said on the matter.

CtevenSrowder

Stark wrote: »

If you bothered to read my post, I said everyone is entitled to their dating preferences.

Such a view point will have you levelled a transphobe and 'anti-trans'. Insults that are thrown around here with regularity. Welcome to the club.

Sittingpretty

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Seems the people who are so concerned about not being regarded as transphobic themselves are well able to bandy the term about when it suits them.

What people?

Gruffalux

Stark wrote: »

If you bothered to read my post, I said everyone is entitled to their dating preferences.

Not irrelevant because the topic of whether dating preferences conflate with racism or transpobia originated as a discussion over "is it racist to not want to date blacks or Asians?" and carried over from there into transgender debates. It's not more appropriate to bash transgender people on account of a handful of people who share traits with them arguing over it as it is appropriate to bash black and Asian people because a handful of people sharing traits with those people are arguing an extreme viewpoint.

I do not conflate racism with same sex preference. To me that is bizarre. Saying I will not date x race is racist. Saying as a gay man I want a man with a penis is completely normal. But transphobic.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Such a view point will have you levelled a transphobe and 'anti-trans'. Insults that are thrown around here with regularity. Welcome to the club.

Be honest now Cteven, genuinely - do you honestly give a sugar when someone whom you disagree with calls you names? You’re hardly that soft surely?

FVP3

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you deny it was one of the 'arguments' used against Marriage Equality?

Because that is the sum total of what my post said.

You are accusing me of things I did not say or imply so perhaps you might consider having that little rant at someone who did.

Why bring it up except to muddy the waters.

An argument* could be wrong in one situation and right in another.

So this is wrong:

"Gay marriage is an attack on hetrosexual marriage"

And this is not wrong

"Trans ideology, particularly self identification, can affect same sex spaces, sports etc."

In fact many of the defenders here accept the reality of some of this; OEJ in particular is asking "cis" women to train harder to compete in sports.

* ( Or rather similar sounding argument).

Sittingpretty

Stark wrote: »

Ooh loaded questions, I love answering loaded questions. Lead me to the trapdoor please :rolleyes:

You have the choice to date who you find attractive and not date who you don't find attractive, that's all that needs to be said on the matter.

Well that wasn’t predictable at all at all

Well done on the sidestep. It’s yours and other’s signature move.

Stark

Gruffalox wrote: »

I do not conflate racism with same sex preference. To me that is bizarre. Saying I will not date x race is racist. Saying as a gay man I want a man with a penis is completely normal. But transphobic.

You don't speak for all gay men. Plenty of gay men date transmen are are perfectly entitled to continue to identify as gay men.

Gruffalox wrote:

Saying I will not date x race is racist.

Doing some mental gymnastics now to justify your point. A few pages ago, the prerogative to discriminate when choosing who to have sex with was sacrosanct. (As it should be, no-one here has argued otherwise).

FVP3

And yet, and yet.

https://twitter.com/MAM1SHAMPOO/status/1278406432854073346?s=20

i don't know who destiny is, she has 2000 followers so not really that famous herself. But she racked up 116.5K likes. It went viral. Theres clearly a considerable body of opinion that dating preferences can be transphobic.