Fr Ted creator/writer Graham Linehan Arrested over posts on Transgender issues

When you resort to there is XXY XYX you have essentially lost the argument.

Gender disphoria exists outside of chromosonal differences and to conflate them is incorrect. As is it to say "they were born with the wrong bits"

For the vast majority of people who are transgender, their gender identity is not related to a chromosonal difference. They are XY or XX and their "bits" were not "wrong" at birth. The genes expressed themselves perfectly correctly. As they developed as a person their gender identity diverged from their genetic identity. And I am perfectly happy to facilitiate anyone who wishes to be called she instead of he or they insted of she. But its not becasue they were "made wrong". Its becasue as they developed their personal identity conflicted with societal expectations associated with their genetic identity.

The main problem as I see it is societies expectations based on sex at birth conflict with individual identitities in some cases. So much could be solved by moving away from the expectation that you are male therefroe you must behave in a certian way or you are female therefore you must behave in a different way. And it also comes into it from a sexuality point of view as well. Now that homosexuality is an accepted part of life, it has led to a set of "expectations" that a gay man for example expresses his sexual identity in a specific way. In some cases some you have young men or women growing up and coming to terms with their sexual identity, they do not see there personality align with the social "norm" associated with being gay, therefore they start to question thier gender identity, when in fact the issue is societal expectations associated with the sexual preference.

So much would be solved by moving away from a world where everything is based on "your identity as A therefore you must conform to set of socieltal norms B,C and D"

The fact that some people have an extra chromosome, as in Down syndrome, does not mean that the number of chromosomes is on a spectrum: the normal body has 23 pairs, and anything more or less is a genetic anomaly. Same with legs: we're bipedal, and the fact that someone can be born with a leg missing doesn't change that.

And it certainly doesn't mean that someone who identifies as an amputee is anything other than mentally ill.

Similarly, the fact that XXY etc exists does not mean that perfectly healthy male bodies are actually female in some ineffable manner.

Linehan is an ideal case study for the toxicity of social media, the damage it can do and why it’s a terrible place for any rational debate.

For someone as clearly obsessive as him it highlights how unhealthy it is. Constantly waiting for replies so he can go back at someone to the point where he’s spending a good chunk of Christmas at it should be putting the phone down.

It also can skew the person’s worldview to believe that the issue is much larger than it actually is. Trans people are around 1% of the population. The vast majority of people have never and will never have a meaningful interaction with one. But the issue is massively overinflated online where you would think there’s a trans person hiding in every public bathroom. Likes and retweets give no indicator as to how many people actually agree with you either considering all platforms are awash with bots.

There is no reason why you cannot hold gender ideology critical views while holding your life together, but Graham made it is whole identity.

And at the end of the day, what has he achieved? Has he really managed to change many opinions on the subject? Seems he’s destroyed his life for really nothing more than winning a few arguments online.

There is no reason why you cannot hold gender ideology critical views while holding your life together

Can you name any who have done with no ill-effects? Other than JK Rowling who is so wealthy that even death threats aren't the same risk to her as they are to people who can't afford personal protection.

Did you for instance ask Rosie Kay her view on the matter? She lost her dance company for daring to say - at a dinner she hosted in her own home for members of her troupe to boost morale after covid - that Virginia Woolf's Orlando was a fiction and not genuinely transgender.

Or Rachel Rooney, who lost publishing contracts? Or Sonia Appleby who, as the actual child safeguarding lead at the Tavistock was forced out of her job for expressing concerns about, ehh, child safeguarding?

Maya Forstater. Rachel Meade. Jo Phoenix. And there are dozens of others.
The law is now clear: you can’t be punished for having gender-critical views. So why does it keep happening?

But none of these people actually matter because they're not you, right?

I just don't get this utter selfishness of "Why should I care?" If anything ever happens to you, you'd better hope that everybody else doesn't take that same approach, or you're done for.

I think similar to Life of Brian, it was more perceived as blasphemous by a conservative older crowd - attacking or lampooning the church in any way was off limits to this demographic.

-in my view it highlighted some of the key issues for priests at that time (just before the abuse stories emerged en masse) - such as marriage ban, the concepts of loneliness and alcohol which were all significant challenges for priests and essentially still are- no less the concept of money and how some priests were essentially out for what they could get, along with the nativity of young priests entering the priesthood without any life experience

It was harmless in the sense that young people had already drifted away from the Catholic Church - so it wasn’t that this programme “caused” anything , it didn’t -but the older generation in the main , detested it, most likely because it was they who had most to lose by watching it- they had toed the line all those years and now here was a programme highlighting the absurdity of many of the practices that governed their lives - probably made them feel foolish

I take your point about 5% joke, which may have passed me by. I don't really remember it.

Fr Jack visiting the girls school - TBF, I remember actual mainstream newspapers at the time had semi nude photos of schoolgirls, or at least women dressed as schoolgirls, for men to lust over. I don't think that was even considered to be paedophilia. More of a hot-blooded male fantasy. John Peel married a 15 year old didn't he?

Allowing puberty to proceed with the wrong gender is absolutely an irrerversible decision

What do you mean by the wrong gender? The only "right" puberty is the one your own physiological processes create naturally. Anything else is frankenstein medicine.

Never heard that about John Peel. Perhaps you could eleborate.

Have you tried talking to actual trans people? They'll generally tell you that they knew from age 5 or 7 or similar. Withholding medical treatment because you're a bit icky on the whole trans thing is barbaric.

It's not medical treatment for an illness, it's trying to hold back time. Bound to lead to catastrophe. Because stopping puberty and then giving cross sex hormones doesn't make the person undergo the puberty of the opposite sex, it just simulates some of the visible traits of the opposite sex, but at a massive cost to physical and probably mental health.