nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

Kermit.de.frog

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/twitter-closes-graham-linehan-account-after-trans-comment-1.4290547?mode=amp

Isn't this just censorship rather than protecting anyone?

That's what it looks like to me.

It's perfectly fine for someone like Trump to spew his hatred on the platform every day of the week but when it comes to debate on social issues action is taken.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Gruffalux

On this platform a few weeks ago an Irish male politician was vividly described in a way that was 100% recognisable as being the man accused in a tweet of having sexually assaulted a woman at a dinner party by putting his hand up her leg.

The next day it was a completely different man who was alleged to be the sex pest.

imagine if the first man had been called upon to go into the public square and say I am not the sex pest alleged in the tweet. Immediately alarm bells would ring. The no smoke without a fire line. He would be forever associated with having to disassociate himself from being a sex pest.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Wow, that is something else.

I'm not going to read it all though (I'm spent) but does it happen to mention tables at all? I'd like to out that one to bed (but what is a bed?????)

Not to give you a scare before bedtime but this is hilarious. One incredibly brave snake

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nROAjbteW8M

Stark

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/LGB_Alliance

Seem like a lovely sort.

Bannasidhe

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

It will remain alive regardless. That's why it was made in the first place. People such as yourself lap it up, and it is used as another stick to beat the organisation with. And I never said gay people couldn't be neo-nazis. I'm aware ones sexuality is in no way tied to their politics (though there are plenty who believe it is).

Does anyone believe they are Neo-nazi's? I don't. You don't. I don't think anyone does. So why would they come out and say they aren't when everyone knows they aren't already.

Ah give over with the "people such as yourself" crap.

I was asked about LG Alliance.
I gave my opinion.
I said there were questions to be answered as alligation were made.
end of.

I was content to leave it at that until the High Horse Posse came galloping in with their "oooo - Pink News...not a proper paper", "people in muzzles at Pride Parades won't somebody think of the children","Tatchell defends pedos", "someone said they were naaaazies","bannasidhe make a typo snurk snurk" and all the other utter tripe I have been foolish enough to respond to.

Join LG Alliance if you want to.
I am exactly in the demographic they want to attract.
I won't be joining.

CtevenSrowder

Stark wrote: »

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/LGB_Alliance

Seem like a lovely sort.

Yes that isn't biased at all.

CtevenSrowder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ah give over with the "people such as yourself" crap.

I was asked about LG Alliance.
I gave my opinion.
I said there were questions to be answered as alligation were made.
end of.

I was content to leave it at that until the High Horse Posse came galloping in with their "oooo - Pink News...not a proper paper", "people in muzzles at Pride Parades won't somebody think of the children","Tatchell defends pedos", "someone said they were naaaazies","bannasidhe make a typo snurk snurk" and all the other utter tripe I have been foolish enough to respond to.

Join LG Alliance if you want to.
I am exactly in the demographic they want to attract.
I won't be joining.

I won't be joining either.

Pink news is about as reputable as the Daily Caller.

Stark

More shoot the messenger.

Your attempt to bring in a bunch of transphobic whackjobs who happen to be gay to support your viewpoint is as transparent as the ****show that was dragging in Keith Mills and Paddy Manning as examples of "look we found gay people who are homophobic, therefore that validates our position" during MarRef

CtevenSrowder

Stark wrote: »

More shoot the messenger.

Your attempt to bring in a bunch of transphobic whackjobs who happen to be gay to support your viewpoint is as transparent as the ****show that was dragging in Keith Mills and Paddy Manning as examples of "look we found gay people who are homophobic, therefore that validates our position" during MarRef

You are a transphobe aswell don't forget. You think it's acceptable for someone to choose to not date a trans-person. That is transphobic.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Stark wrote: »

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/LGB_Alliance

Seem like a lovely sort.

Rational Wiki.

Are you actually serious with this shit?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And absolutely nobody here did that so your point is invalid.

Then what has the following got to do with anything?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sure.
If we can call dismissing concerns given what Nazis did to homosexuals as of little importance to score a point as crass.

The brass neck on you trying to loftily decry other people as using “tactics”.

Gruffalox wrote: »

^^ You are the one who started talking about what Nazis did to homosexuals in concentration camps.

Indeed.

Rodin

Larbre34 wrote: »

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.

What's the yellow card for?

EmmetSpiceland

Rodin wrote: »

What's the yellow card for?

Click on it to find out.

suicide_circus

Is it possible for an LGB organisation to exist without it being fundamentally anti-trans?

Danzy

Rodin wrote: »

What's the yellow card for?

Don't click on it.

Rodin

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Click on it to find out.

Nothing happened.
Wasn't me who got it.

But I could see nothing wrong with the post.

[Deleted User]

Rodin wrote: »

Nothing happened.
Wasn't me who got it.

But I could see nothing wrong with the post.

It's against the rules to conflate transgenderism to mental illness

EmmetSpiceland

Rodin wrote: »

Nothing happened.
Wasn't me who got it.

But I could see nothing wrong with the post.

You on the touch or “full site”? If you go full you can just click on the card and it says what it’s for.

One eyed Jack

suicide_circus wrote: »

Is it possible for an LGB organisation to exist without it being fundamentally anti-trans?

It is, but if an organisation is established with the specific intent of trying to undermine equality in law for people who are transgender, then good luck to them trying to argue that they are the real victims of indirect discrimination against them for being women.

That’s the position Allison Bailey is trying to argue in her claim against Stonewall and Garden Chambers that they are discriminating against women -

The criminal defence barrister says that Stonewall had made the complaint about her, alleging that it “included a threat that Stonewall’s relationship with chambers would be damaged unless chambers took action against me”.

The complaint, she says, was upheld. That led to Bailey’s proposed employment tribunal action:

“It alleges that I have been indirectly discriminated against because both my chambers and Stonewall treat people such as me who hold gender critical beliefs as being bigoted and unworthy of respect. Those people are overwhelmingly women. This treatment is therefore indirectly discriminatory against women.”

Although barristers are not employed by their chambers, section 47 of the Equality Act 2010 says that barristers must not victimise or discriminate against their tenants. There is also a section allowing third parties to be sued.

Barrister embroiled in trans rights row raises £60,000 to sue Stonewall despite CrowdJustice briefly taking her page down

This is a good explainer of the preceding history and why it is unlikely that the ET will find in her favour -

And this brings us to Alison Bailey.

The Garden Court Chambers openly declare that they have certain values, including political values of treating everyone with the progressive understanding of equality. Any clients of Garden Court Chambers come in expecting to deal with people ready to apply these values.

How can Alison Bailey be expected to provide application of these values when she is involved in active political campaigning against them? We’re not talking of a stray “like”, tweet, or Facebook post. We’re talking a key role in organizing a political lobbying group, “LGB Alliance”.

As a matter of principle, prioritizing Alison’s free speech in this instance means that a chambers simply can not have political values. And that Garden Court would arguably have to accept a Christian or Islamic fundamentalist barrister if he chose to ask for a tenancy there! And this would increase the probability of their name attached to lawsuits against gay rights or against abortion rights, for example. (Maya Forstater correctly pointed out that the cab rank rule means it can happen anyway, as anyone could instruct any barrister; however, factually people do select who to instruct).

…but I wrote “arguably” because this would happen if, indeed, free speech rights were applied, the matter of principle important to Jodie.

The matter of law is somewhat different. Alison is claiming discrimination. And to avoid the Grainger test, which anti-trans views already failed in two cases, she claims instead that discrimination against gender-critical views is discrimination against women – because gender-critical views are overwhelmingly held by women.

If this logic were to prevail, however, then arguably fundamentalists would still get protected. One has to be a Christian or Muslim to be a fundamentalist of that religion. And therefore, if discrimination by views predominantly held by people with a characteristic is discrimination by that characteristic, then fundamentalists can not be discriminated against.

Even if we stay only with the protected characteristic of sex, radical MRAs/MGTOWs would get protection, as they are overwhelmingly men.

Thankfully, the logic is, in my amateur opinion, very unlikely to prevail because of the Ashers decision of the Supreme Court. This decision is surprising here, it was an LGBT activist loss, a conservative win (for the record I saw the case as LGBT activist overreach at all times, in line with the view that Peter Tatchell arrived to).

And yet that judgment contains a key statement. Part of the claim against Ashers was that the customer who ordered a cake was discriminated for his sexual orientation. This was, however, not a gay wedding cake (and the bakery apparently would have no problem making such a wedding cake). It was a cake calling for introduction of same-sex marriage. This was a political view, which was a live debate in Northern Ireland at the time (and a referendum campaign down the road in the Republic).

The actual discrimination happened for the political view that supports same-sex marriage. It is true that gay people overwhelmingly hold this view. And yet the Supreme Court held in paragraphs 24 to 46.

In the same way, Alison’s political position described as “gender critical” is not a proxy for being a woman. Discrimination for activism for that position is not discrimination for being a woman.

An open letter to Jodie Ginsberg regarding the Allison Bailey case

On discrimination of “gender criticals” – part 2 of open letter to Jodie Ginsberg

hetuzozaho

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Click on it to find out.

I didn't know you could do that with cards! Mind. Blown.

CtevenSrowder

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The brass neck on you trying to loftily decry other people as using “tactics”.

The NNNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeckk

EmmetSpiceland

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I didn't know you could do that with cards! Mind. Blown.

I only discovered it, myself, by accident there recently.

Larbre34

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's against the rules to conflate transgenderism to mental illness

I got carded earlier for calling gender-fluidity / non-binary status mental illness.

I'm not going to debate that infraction here because I'll be taking it up in detail in Disputes Resolution, but suffice to say...

The American Psychiatric Association, the main professional organization of psychiatrists and trainee psychiatrists in the United States and the largest psychiatric organization in the world discusses best practice treatment of gender dysphoria in its 'bible', 'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders' (aka DSM-5)

With regard to your post specifically, just be aware of the difference between being transgender and either / or gender-fluid / non-binary. Its a subtle but important distinction in the debate, particularly as regards mental situation for the subject.

Anyway, my point is, there remains extensive division in the medical sector (psychiatric, surgical, endocrinogical) about the status of these, shall we say, experiences or life journeys as being mental disorders or not. My own point of view, from what I have read and listened to, is that they are, in the same way as eating disorders or self-harming manifest underlying fundamental problems. So for my part, I don't conflate gender fluidity with mental illness, I accept it simply AS mental illness.

Now what I have said there apparently warrants a ban on this forum, based on whatever bias exists in the moderation, which is fine, this isn't speakers corner, its a private company, just like twitter and facebook. I'm just saying don't accept an infraction against you for similar views as a factual indication that you are wrong and that you should resile from your informed opinion, but deal with that infraction as I will be and assert the right to side with informed medical opinion on a topic that is far from a settled subject.

[Deleted User]

Larbre34 wrote: »

I got carded earlier for calling gender-fluidity / non-binary status mental illness.

I'm not going to debate that infraction here because I'll be taking it up in detail in Disputes Resolution, but suffice to say...

The American Psychiatric Association, the main professional organization of psychiatrists and trainee psychiatrists in the United States and the largest psychiatric organization in the world discusses best practice treatment of gender dysphoria in its 'bible', 'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders' (aka DSM-5)

With regard to your post specifically, just be aware of the difference between being transgender and either / or gender-fluid / non-binary. Its a subtle but important distinction in the debate, particularly as regards mental situation for the subject.

Anyway, my point is, there remains extensive division in the medical sector (psychiatric, surgical, endocrinogical) about the status of these, shall we say, experiences or life journeys as being mental disorders or not. My own point of view, from what I have read and listened to, is that they are, in the same way as eating disorders or self-harming manifest underlying fundamental problems. So for my part, I don't conflate gender fluidity with mental illness, I accept it simply AS mental illness.

Now what I have said there apparently warrants a ban on this forum, based on whatever bias exists in the moderation, which is fine, this isn't speakers corner, its a private company, just like twitter and facebook. I'm just saying don't accept an infraction against you for similar views as a factual indication that you are wrong and that you should resile from your informed opinion, but deal with that infraction as I will be and assert the right to side with informed medical opinion on a topic that is far from a settled subject.

As per the rules, I'm not going to give my opinion on this but suffice to say, I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anything you are saying, I'm just stating why boards.ie carded the lad.

Baggly

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

You are a transphobe aswell don't forget. You think it's acceptable for someone to choose to not date a trans-person. That is transphobic.

Larbre34 wrote: »

I got carded earlier for calling gender-fluidity / non-binary status mental illness.

I'm not going to debate that infraction here because I'll be taking it up in detail in Disputes Resolution, but suffice to say...

The American Psychiatric Association, the main professional organization of psychiatrists and trainee psychiatrists in the United States and the largest psychiatric organization in the world discusses best practice treatment of gender dysphoria in its 'bible', 'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders' (aka DSM-5)

With regard to your post specifically, just be aware of the difference between being transgender and either / or gender-fluid / non-binary. Its a subtle but important distinction in the debate, particularly as regards mental situation for the subject.

Anyway, my point is, there remains extensive division in the medical sector (psychiatric, surgical, endocrinogical) about the status of these, shall we say, experiences or life journeys as being mental disorders or not. My own point of view, from what I have read and listened to, is that they are, in the same way as eating disorders or self-harming manifest underlying fundamental problems. So for my part, I don't conflate gender fluidity with mental illness, I accept it simply AS mental illness.

Now what I have said there apparently warrants a ban on this forum, based on whatever bias exists in the moderation, which is fine, this isn't speakers corner, its a private company, just like twitter and facebook. I'm just saying don't accept an infraction against you for similar views as a factual indication that you are wrong and that you should resile from your informed opinion, but deal with that infraction as I will be and assert the right to side with informed medical opinion on a topic that is far from a settled subject.

Mod

Neither of you post in this thread again.

Rest of you get back on topic and stop discussing mod actions. Take it to help desk if you feel the need to do so somewhere.

[Deleted User]

An interesting perspective;

https://twitter.com/GavinGrimmVA/status/1279891686894612480

ELM327

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

An interesting perspective;

https://twitter.com/GavinGrimmVA/status/1279891686894612480

We don't allow 14 year olds to smoke, drink, sign contracts or consent to sex. Yet they should be allowed make a medical decision which impacts the rest of their life?

It should absolutely be time limited to 18 years old.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ELM327 wrote: »

We don't allow 14 year olds to smoke, drink, sign contracts or consent to sex. Yet they should be allowed make a medical decision which impacts the rest of their life?

It should absolutely be time limited to 18 years old.

The weaponisation of suicide such as in that tweet is sickening to me. It really does make me sick to my stomach.

suicide_circus

ELM327 wrote: »

We don't allow 14 year olds to smoke, drink, sign contracts or consent to sex. Yet they should be allowed make a medical decision which impacts the rest of their life?

It should absolutely be time limited to 18 years old.

Yeah but you force (let?) kids go through full puberty they might;

a. not "pass" as well

and

b. change their mind about transitioning

and we wouldn't want that

Stark

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The weaponisation of suicide such as in that tweet is sickening to me. It really does make me sick to my stomach.

You don't think it's a serious issue?

Transgendered people are way more likely to attempt suicide than the general population.

https://www.hrc.org/blog/new-study-reveals-shocking-rates-of-attempted-suicide-among-trans-adolescen
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6798808/
https://www.suicideinfo.ca/resource/transgender-people-suicide/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth

But sure, just dismiss them as being "hysterical".

ELM327

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The weaponisation of suicide such as in that tweet is sickening to me. It really does make me sick to my stomach.

I find that once you're on the left, you can use whatever despicable tactics as necessary.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Yeah but you force (let?) kids go through full puberty they might;

a. not "pass" as well

and

b. change their mind about transitioning

and we wouldn't want that

The left certainly wouldnt want the latter, it doesnt suit their agenda.