Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

Sir Oxman wrote: »

It was an informative view about a small active org in Ireland alas until the slur on an LGB organisation with the source as 'Pink News'
That well known bastion of truthful journalism - it really is not.
It has one agenda (critical gender-->queer theory) and that includes promoting the inclusion of same sex attraction as being 'transphobic'.

They’re not an LGB organisation though, they’re an organisation for anyone who is opposed to people who are transgender being treated equally in a a democratic society. That appears to be their main agenda, and their members have their own agendas, which is why it will likely implode on itself fairly shortly. For now though they’re making money for themselves and trying to gain charitable status which is unlikely to be forthcoming seeing as their agenda is quite transparent.

Sorry about that

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You do -

Taboo to name it? You’re so brave though to do it anonymously.

Nice off topic digging. Please show me to where I insulted someone.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yes, I’m amused at anyone posting a link from Pink News as a credible source. It’s a laughing stock of a publication.

Pick any organisation. I bet you’ll find someone with extreme views amongst the supporters.

Once again - provide evidence their claims are without foundation.

Personally I think calling neo-nazis 'someone with extreme views' is to ignore how homosexuals were among those targeted by fascists. So I stand by my comment that those who are involved with LGB Alliance would do well to have a good look at who else supports them and consider if they are happy to have links with them.

And I will continue to do so until someone can demonstrate the claims are without foundation.

Also it's a bit rich quibbling about Pink News given some of the sites that have been used here to support anti-trans rhetoric.

Stark wrote: »

How so? By "laughing stock of a publication", I presume you mean one that doesn't align with your conservative worldview.

Hi Stark. I’m left-leaning, as I’ve said a few times. What are you having difficulty with here? You’re sorely mistaken if you think only right wing people are criticising any of this. And it is this kind of thinking that saw Labour suffer such a defeat in the UK. Many left wing people are becoming increasingly alienated by identity politics.

Pink News published something like 40 articles about JK Rowling in the space of about three weeks. Which is just ridiculous. Even if you disagree with somebody, that is obsessive and deeply unprofessional. It’s a witch-hunt basically. And their misleading, red top-style headlines are impossible to take seriously.

Sorry about that wrote: »

Nice off topic digging. Please show me to where I insulted someone.

It wasn’t off-topic. It directly contradicts your claim that you don’t use your anonymity to (bravely) insult people.

You opened the door when you made that claim, I just waddled through.

suicide_circus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Once again - provide evidence their claims are without foundation.

provide evidence? careful now.

Stark

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And I’d again like to highlight that Joey made a distinction between TERFs and people on this very thread. He can’t ever claim now that it isn’t a dehumanising term.

I mean, it’s obvious to many of us that TERF is a dehumanising term but for somebody who condones its use to slip up like that is funny. To me at least.

FART (Feminism Appropriating Reactionary Transphobe) is a more fitting term in many cases anyway.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Hi Stark. I’m left-leaning, as I’ve said a few times.

Being left-leaning and conservative aren’t mutually exclusive political or sociological positions -

Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, organic society, hierarchy, authority, and property rights.

Conservatism

Some people who hold these positions refer to themselves as “Classic Liberals”.

Classic alright :rolleyes:

suicide_circus wrote: »

provide evidence? careful now.

Absolutely.
Pink News provided evidence to support their article.
Critics here scoffed at Pink News - but failed to provide counter evidence.
So it's really an empty scoff until proven otherwise.
Smacks of "I don't like what they said so I am going to shoot the messenger"

Sorry about that

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It wasn’t off-topic. It directly contradicts your claim that you don’t use your anonymity to (bravely) insult people.

You opened the door when you made that claim, I just waddled through.

I didn't insult anyone. Obesity has become acceptable. And as I work in health care, I regularly promote healthy weight in the climate of big is beautiful. Under my own name. You're making stuff up here.

suicide_circus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Absolutely.
Pink News provided evidence to support their article.
Critics here scoffed at Pink News - but failed to provide counter evidence.
So it's really an empty scoff until proven otherwise.
Smacks of "I don't like what they said so I am going to shoot the messenger"

i was suggesting that people who chant the mantra "transwomen are women" should think twice before asking others to provide evidence of things.

suicide_circus wrote: »

i was suggesting that people who chant the mantra "transwomen are women" should think twice before asking others to provide evidence of things.

Ha ha, yes. Look at the dodging of the question “What is a woman?” on this very thread.

I. Am. Shocked. That. They. Cannot. Answer. Without. Woolly. Logic.

Sorry about that wrote: »

I didn't insult anyone. Obesity has become acceptable. And as I work in health care, I regularly promote healthy weight in the climate of big is beautiful. Under my own name. You're making stuff up here.

Oh give over, honestly. I’m not dragging this on for another three pages. I explained why I used the example of Arlene Foster when I thought you had taken me up wrong and been offended as a result. It became clear in your subsequent posts that you weren’t the least bit offended, I don’t know what you were at to be perfectly honest.

Then you made the claim that it’s something you don’t do. I provided contrary evidence to your claim. Your explanation doesn’t justify your making the claim, even the claim I used as evidence is dodgy af but I’m not concerned by that in the least, nor am I concerned about what you do for a living or any of the rest of it. Good for you.

I’m gonna drop it now because I have no interest in keeping this diversion going.

Stark wrote: »

FART (Feminism Appropriating Reactionary Transphobe) is a more fitting term in many cases anyway.

Who cares, both dehumanising terms. Joey scored an own goal upthread by neatly demonstrating that TERF is a dehumanising term. Thanks, Joey!

Gruffalux

Stark wrote: »

FART (Feminism Appropriating Reactionary Transphobe) is a more fitting term in many cases anyway.

It was the fragrant Rachel Mc Kinnon aka Veronica Ivy who tried to popularise the insult FART. The same delicate flower who wanted TERFS to 'die in a grease fire'. And children to send personal messages to them online and join their ''glitter family''.

Larbre34

There are two genders.

If you want to identify as the gender you are biologically not, don't be surprised if that gender have a problem with the infringement of their own convention and the freedoms and protections thereof.

There is no such thing as 'non-binary' gender or a person being gender-fluid. Those descriptions are a convenience word construct to assuage mental illness and to excuse civil disobedience.

This crazy time too, shall pass. I stand with Graham Linehan.

Gruffalox wrote: »

It was the fragrant Rachel Mc Kinnon aka Veronica Ivy who tried to popularise the insult FART. The same delicate flower who wanted TERFS to 'die in a grease fire'. And children to send personal messages to them online and join their ''glitter family''.

I’m no fan of theirs but FART rolls easier off the tongue than that TERF stuff, they’re both nonsense of course, but I’d own FART if I could, rather than try and distance myself from it. It might even attract people who prefer to distance themselves from a form of feminism which seeks to exclude others when feminists movements are becoming more inclusive in order to boost their popularity among people who aren’t interested because they find it all too stodgy and humourless. Like a cult.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Once again - provide evidence their claims are without foundation.

The onus is on the person who makes the claim to provide robust evidence. In that article we have a gender critical figure being interviewed by a white nationalist and a photograph from an obscure forum site. Compelling stuff.

[Deleted User]

I think I liked it best when Men were men and women were women, none of this non-binary or gender flag waffle.

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And I’d again like to highlight that Joey made a distinction between TERFs and people on this very thread. He can’t ever claim now that it isn’t a dehumanising term.

I mean, it’s obvious to many of us that TERF is a dehumanising term but for somebody who condones its use to slip up like that is funny. To me at least.

Lol he is clearly not saying "terfs/people" but "TERFs/people who consider themselves gender critical"

I think he was actually trying to be polite by recognising you do not consider yourself a TERF.

How.you managed to twist that into him saying you're not a.person is something to behold.

LLMMLL

Anyway in recognition that being called a TERF is upsetting to anti-trans activists I will now be referring to them as FARTs.

[Deleted User]

LLMMLL wrote: »

Anyway in recognition that being called a TERF is upsetting to anti-trans activists I will now be referring to them as FARTs.

You're some woman for definitions and descriptions when it suits you. I'll give you that.

Sir Oxman

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Then provide a counter- argument to what Pink New reported.
Demonstrate that the information they provided is without foundation.

The launch of LGB Alliance was not universally welcomed https://gcn.ie/lgb-alliance-slammed-anti-trans/

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/lgb-alliance-group-transphobic-alison-bailey-lesbian-gay-bisexual-a9169091.html

Well Bannasidhe, it starts with screenshots/quotes from Spinster without context, tweet's without context, some anonymous tit wearing a tshirt with their logo on it without context, ties that in with a young lesbian being turfed out of a nightclub for wearing a tshirt with the logo on the say so of obviously hostile stonewalluk adherents.

The GCN link is another 'report' quoting tweets against that org after setting out that it is 'anti-trans'.

I mean...

The independent UK link is another tweet quoting report but at least that one included a few actual quotes from two of the organisers although it also mysteriously leaves out supportive tweets.

LGB people are not the borg and manage to have various views on most issues and topics.

The people who founded it along with quite a lot of others signed and sent a request to their supposed representative org to debate and discuss the consequences and due diligence of the position that org had taken.
They, of course, were refused consistently and #nodebate was employed which led to the formation of LGB Alliance which has led to a sustained campaign against the founders and anyone who wears a tshirt apparently.

I have seen and read extremely spurious opinions on LGB Alliance, mostly unsubstantiated slurs
Most definitely received opinions repeated ad nauseum.

suicide_circus wrote: »

i was suggesting that people who chant the mantra "transwomen are women" should think twice before asking others to provide evidence of things.

You mean the people who voicing in their opinion ...?
And they are arguing with people of a different opinion.
Neither side has provided absolute proof positive their opinion is supported by overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence.

So we are left with whether or not opinion voicers believe treatment for gender dysphoria (which is a medically recognised diagnosis) results in a), b) or c) and whether self diagnosis - and accompanying statutory declarations - is valid or a very bad thing.

Meanwhile in the opinion of the scoffers Pink News is not a reliable source.

Although, Pink News provided evidence that has yet to be refuted showing LGB Alliance are supported by neo-Nazis.

Glad we cleared that up.

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Well Bannasidhe, it starts with screenshots/quotes from Spinster without context, tweet's without context, some anonymous tit wearing a tshirt with their logo on it without context, ties that in with a young lesbian being turfed out of a nightclub for wearing a tshirt with the logo on the say so of obviously hostile stonewalluk adherents.

The GCN link is another 'report' quoting tweets against that org after setting out that it is 'anti-trans'.

I mean...

The independent UK link is another tweet quoting report but at least that one included a few actual quotes from two of the organisers although it also mysteriously leaves out supportive tweets.

LGB people are not the borg and manage to have various views on most issues and topics.

The people who founded it along with quite a lot of others signed and sent a request to their supposed representative org to debate and discuss the consequences and due diligence of the position that org had taken.
They, of course, were refused consistently and #nodebate was employed which led to the formation of LGB Alliance which has led to a sustained campaign against the founders and anyone who wears a tshirt apparently.

I have seen and read extremely spurious opinions on LGB Alliance, mostly unsubstantiated slurs
Mmost definitely received opinions repeated ad nauseum.

Not exactly what I would call providing proof they are not supported by Neo-Nazis. Surely knowing the accusation LG Alliance have issued a statement to say they have no interest in support from Neo-Nazis? Or sought to distance themselves?

As for me, what I said was those who ally themselves should examine who also supports them and then decide for themselves.
I, personally, have always said I will stand on the side of inclusion so their possible links with anyone are immaterial to me. I do not support them.

And it is beyond dispute that LGB Alliance had taken an anti-trans stance. It is the very reason for their existence so yes, they will be criticised for that just as they, in turn, criticise those who are inclusive. Hardly a lightbulb moment to realise that.

Gruffalux

LGB Alliance have taken the stance that homosexuality is fundamentally same sex attraction and not same gender attraction.
They are also very concerned about the imposition upon children of an ideological position that they may have been ''born in the wrong body'' which they refute as a dangerous mistruth. They believe the medicalisation of these children is terrible. I agree with both these positions.

I have seen images from Pride parades where people in muzzles are led about on leashes as some kind of dog attraction thing or half naked people inappropriately walking through towns in day time front of children, but I do not associate these images as damaging the homosexual rights organisations in the parade or the ordinary gay people out enjoying themselves. If there are images of LGB Alliance with weirdos I will accord them the same presumption of innocence.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not exactly what I would call providing proof they are not supported by Neo-Nazis. Surely knowing the accusation LG Alliance have issued a statement to say they have no interest in support from Neo-Nazis? Or sought to distance themselves?

Once again, Bannasidhe, the onus is on the people making the claims to back them up. So far they have produced tenuous links. Of course people are going to question that and there is no obligation on anyone to disprove somebody else’s claims.

CtevenSrowder

Gruffalox wrote: »

In case anyone wonders where this tedious ahistorical amoral word play comes from where everything in the world apparently has a liminal half existence that eludes concrete definition, because there is no truth, no truth but that truth, then here...

"Deconstructionism
A term tied very closely to postmodernism, deconstructionism is a challenge to the attempt to establish any ultimate or secure meaning in a text. Basing itself in language analysis, it seeks to "deconstruct" the ideological biases (gender, racial, economic, political, cultural) and traditional assumptions that infect all histories, as well as philosophical and religious "truths." Deconstructionism is based on the premise that much of human history, in trying to understand, and then define, reality has led to various forms of domination - of nature, of people of color, of the poor, of homosexuals, etc. Like postmodernism, deconstructionism finds concrete experience more valid than abstract ideas and, therefore, refutes any attempts to produce a history, or a truth. In other words, the multiplicities and contingencies of human experience necessarily bring knowledge down to the local and specific level, and challenge the tendency to centralize power through the claims of an ultimate truth which must be accepted or obeyed by all."

And if anyone ever wants to hear someone dish the dirt on deconstructionism them Camille Paglia, famous scholar, lesbian and upholder of biological truth and reason against radical trans ideology, is available to watch on videos. She is as difficult to listen to as the snuffling Slavoj Zizek (who I dislike) because of her verbal tics and intellectual impatience, but the brilliant contempt she heaps about the sh1theap that is deconstructionism is worth it for as long as you can take her. Especially her contempt for Foucault, the disturbed, death obsessed man for whom the Marquis de Sade was a hero who did not go far enough.

James Lindsay nicely goes through this deconstructionist stuff here with Joe. Only listened to the first hour so not sure how on it stays on this topic. The story around the ~45 mins about his fake research paper that won an award is quite funny.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Anyway in recognition that being called a TERF is upsetting to anti-trans activists I will now be referring to them as FARTs.

What's your conceptualisation of a FART.