Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I linked to an accusation, Obvious Desperate Breakfasts.
I did not make the accusation.

Awaiting link to denial of accusation.
If someone accused any LBGTQ+ organisation I am involved with of being supported by neo-Nazis you would be damned sure we would come out all guns blazing to utterly distance ourselves and block any such people as their views are abhorrent. Furthermore we would be demanding a written retraction by the publishers.
Surly some has found a link to where LG Alliance has done this?

Why? Any sensible peros would assume you are not neo-nazi's or support neo-nazis. Do you think the LGB Aliinace supports Nazism?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Am still awaiting the statement where LG Alliance distanced themselves from any hint of support by neo-Nazis. Surely someone has found something of that kind of google by now?

For the love of sufferin’ jaysus.

“That of kind of google”? Breathe, Bannasidhe, breathe.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

This is nothing more than guilt by association and typical of the anti-intellectualism that predominates this whole discussion. Some supposed Neo-nazi (which can be anyone these days who doesn't follow a particular narrative) supports the organisation. So now ofcourse not only do they have to fend of accusation of being transphobes, but also accusations that they are Neo-nazi's themselves.

Pathetic.

Yup. It’s so transparent.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

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.

I linked to an accusation, Obvious Desperate Breakfasts.
I did not make the accusation.

Awaiting link to denial of accusation.
If someone accused any LBGTQ+ organisation I am involved with of being supported by neo-Nazis you would be damned sure we would come out all guns blazing to utterly distance ourselves and block any such people as their views are abhorrent. Furthermore we would be demanding a written retraction by the publishers.
Surly some has found a link to where LG Alliance has done this?

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?

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.

This is nothing more than guilt by association and typical of the anti-intellectualism that predominates this whole discussion. Some supposed Neo-nazi (which can be anyone these days who doesn't follow a particular narrative) supports the organisation. So now ofcourse not only do they have to fend of accusation of being transphobes, but also accusations that they are Neo-nazi's themselves.

Pathetic.

Gruffalux

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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.

I will give it a shot, haven't listened to Joe in a while. He is my birthday brother

When my kids think I am un-groovy I say lookit me and Joe Rogan came to this planet at the same time so shag off.

Gruffalox wrote: »

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.

They can take all the stances they want. They do not speak for me, or judging by their comments, any of the LG people on this thread.
Funny that.

I have been on Pride Parades. I brought my son to them when he was small. I have brought my grandchildren to them. And will continue to do so. I might even suggest that I know far more about what happens at Pride Parades than someone who checks out a few photos that other people decided to post.

Not sure what that has to do with owt tbh - do you wish to discuss photo of cis straight people and what they get up to on Parades where children are present? My Mam once encountered what appeared to be a cis straight couple having full on penetrative sex in Merchants Quay shopping centre as the Paddy Day parade was happening right outside. And that is about as relevant as your reference to Pride parades which is to say not at all.

Am still awaiting the statement where LG Alliance distanced themselves from any hint of support by neo-Nazis. Surely someone has found something of that kind of google by now?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

[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.

LLMMLL

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

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.

[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.

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.

One eyed Jack

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.

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.

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''.

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!

One eyed Jack

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.

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.

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.

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.