Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

jam_mac_jam · 27-06-2020 9:30pm

Danzy wrote: »

At this stage I fear it is only a matter of time before these whack jobs start killing people who dare to disagree.

And it will be justified as got to stop the "hate speech"

27-06-2020 9:32pm

i think that there has to be a middle ground found where not agreeing that someone was the wrong gender before, or has fully changed gender now, is framed as "abuse".

i dont think that is helpful at all as an approach.

its asking a lot from people in a very very complex area

i acknowledge that this is also asking a lot of ppl who have transitioned.

thats why i think quick progress is fundamentally not to be trusted here.

TuringBot47 · 27-06-2020 9:33pm

Danzy wrote: »

At this stage I fear it is only a matter of time before these whack jobs start killing people who dare to disagree.

No their weapon of choice is political and corporate blackmail. Try to publicly destroy a person or damage a companies reputation.

joeguevara · 27-06-2020 9:34pm

Danzy wrote: »

At this stage I fear it is only a matter of time before these whack jobs start killing people who dare to disagree.

I wonder did they call homosexuals who stood up to homophobic behaviour or Irish catholic’s in Northern Ireland who stood up to gerrymandering were considered whack jobs.

BarnardsLoop · 27-06-2020 9:35pm

Danzy wrote: »

It's like he valued something more than money, ie like the welfare of kids.

Another reason the modern left/Church had long standing problems with him.

Look at that! More homophobic arguments (the gays are after your kids!) being repackaged to use against trans people.

Imagine my absolute and complete lack of surprise that bigots always recycle their material.

Danzy · 27-06-2020 9:35pm

These activists would be closer to Free Presbyterians.

TuringBot47 · 27-06-2020 9:36pm

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Imagine my absolute and complete lack of surprise that bigots always recycle their material.

So you're saying everyone in the green party is a bigot?

27-06-2020 9:37pm

Danzy wrote: »

At this stage I fear it is only a matter of time before these whack jobs start killing people who dare to disagree.

i think

and look im open to accusations of not being always great or patient when discussing topics like these and mea culpa

but comments like this have to take into account just how marginalised and vulnerable trans ppl are as a group and to be very wary about how we might frame comments that have the potential to further undermine their position

am i madly in love with how social justice twitter yellowpack warriors go after people that dont 100% follow their orthodoxy? absolutely not.

but its worth trying to remember that under that crew, who would always find another cause to be outraged over and persecute others on behalf of, there is a set of ppl with whom i should try harder to sympathise with even as i struggle with sharing their beliefs in a way that they might feel i should

Danzy · 27-06-2020 9:37pm

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Look at that! More homophobic arguments (the gays are after your kids!) being repackaged to use against trans people.

Imagine my absolute and complete lack of surprise that bigots always recycle their material.

Lol.

This is the sort of lunacy that is all too common.

Poster makes up something and imagines it is what was said because it suits a psychological need of theirs.

Quantum Erasure · 27-06-2020 9:39pm

Danzy wrote: »

These activists would be closer to Free Presbyterians.

up to no good, as usual

BarnardsLoop · 27-06-2020 9:39pm

TuringBot47 wrote: »

So you're saying everyone in the green party is a bigot?

Slow down there, Cathy Newman! Here's a little linky to the Green Party's view on trans people: https://www.greenparty.ie/policies/justice-reproductive-rights-gender-recognition/

Introduce a requirement for provision of gender-neutral public toilet facilities.

Add protection for transgender and intersex people by introducing hate crime legislation.

The Green Party supports the amendment of the Gender Recognition Act 2015 to include recognition of non-binary and non-gendered individuals, and to facilitate gender recognition for people under the age of 18. We believe that further policies need to be implemented to support transgender and intersex people in Ireland, including better education to reduce transphobic bullying in schools.

Now maybe you can point out to me there what the relation is between what I said and what you think I said.

BarnardsLoop · 27-06-2020 9:40pm

Danzy wrote: »

Lol.

This is the sort of lunacy that is all too common.

Poster makes up something and imagines it is what was said because it suits a psychological need of theirs.

Poster points out something then bigot goes and denies it because they can't argue against it.

Danzy · 27-06-2020 9:41pm

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Poster points out something then bigot goes and denies it because they can't argue against it.

Bless me father, for I have sinned.

BarnardsLoop · 27-06-2020 9:43pm

Danzy wrote: »

Bless me father, for I have sinned.

Danzy wrote: »

It's like he valued something more than money, ie like the welfare of kids.

Another reason the modern left/Church had long standing problems with him.

Look, maybe you think everyone is as slow as yourself but most of us here are capable of reading between the (rather obvious) lines.

TuringBot47 · 27-06-2020 9:44pm

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Here's a little linky to the Green Party's view on trans people: https://www.greenparty.ie/policies/justice-reproductive-rights-gender-recognition/

Every party is going to make some statement like that, it's good politics. It wins more votes than it loses.

Sweetemotion · 27-06-2020 9:45pm

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Look, maybe you think everyone is as slow as yourself but most of us here are capable of reading between the (rather obvious) lines.

You're just making stuff up.

Danzy · 27-06-2020 9:45pm

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Look, maybe you think everyone is as slow as yourself but most of us here are capable of reading between the (rather obvious) lines.

You read a lot in to things, that's your own mind. Don't conflate it with others.

You seem to have a lot of anger.

Danzy · 27-06-2020 9:47pm

Sweetemotion wrote: »

You're just making stuff up.

Tone down the not so subtle antisemitism.

ILoveYourVibes · 27-06-2020 9:49pm

Danzy wrote: »

It's like he valued something more than money, ie like the welfare of kids.

Another reason the modern left/Church had long standing problems with him.

He isn't qualified in any way to talk about such a topic. He isn't a doctor he isn't trans or related to a trans person.

He doesn't KNOW any thing. Why is he given this platform?

If you are worried about the side effects of puberty blockers at least learn what they are called.

Similarly if he WAS a doctor he would know synthetic hormone therapy is not typically used in children under 16.

If he were a doctor he would know the difference between puberty blockers and synthetic hormone treatment.

As it goes he is not a doctor. In fact i would wager when he is on TV any doctor that has treated a trans person sighs and goes 'Oh no this idiot again'.

EVERY SINGLE TRANS GROUP I KNOW ..EVERY SINGLE WEBSITE

Has been totally HONEST and upfront about the side effects of puberty blockers for some people.

Here you co check it out ..transcare website

http://www.phsa.ca/transcarebc/child-youth/affirmation-transition/medical-affirmation-transition/puberty-blockers-for-youth

Knock yourself out. Yes puberty blockers are some serious ****!

I wouldn't recommend them. Unless you are going through gender dysphoria ...and even then ..i mean if you can make to 18 without them ..probably better ..if you can't you can't and then you NEED them.

To him this is a topic unrelated to him. He is just looking for a fight.

He doesn't care about trans children OBVIOUSLY or he wouldn't be picking on them.

I laugh when i hear people say ..i care about gay children that is why i am against gay rights! ha!

The funny thing is ...its people like HIM who will look at a transperson ..who has NOT taken puberty blockers or hormones because of PRECISELY the reasons he talks about and mis gender them....'look they haven't even tried!'.

joeguevara · 27-06-2020 9:53pm

TheCitizen wrote: »

Haven't a clue about most of this or why Graham Lenihan cares so much about it. Why does he care about it so much?

Graham Linehan was always seen as quite a progressive voice and was lauded as advocating for causes such as feminism. He also was a trailblazer when he poked fun at the Catholic Church when it was revered by the majority. In the IT crowd, which with Father Ted is considered his biggest commercial success, was quite publicly called (Incorrectly imo) out for alleged Transphobia. Since then it looks like he has become obsessed with it and putting right being shamed.

BarnardsLoop · 27-06-2020 9:53pm

Danzy wrote: »

You read a lot in to things, that's your own mind. Don't conflate it with others.

You seem to have a lot of anger.

Yeah, I'm sure you just brought up the welfare of children for... absolutely no reason at all!

Really this never ceases to amuse me - that people like you think everyone else is stupid enough to think you bring up these things in these discussions for no reason. To... not make any point. Just randomly saying words.

That context has absolutely no bearing on the things people say?

Pull the other one. No seriously, you and all your little friends can all thank each other's posts as much as you want but it won't change what you've said.

TuringBot47 wrote: »

Every party is going to make some statement like that, it's good politics. It wins more votes than it loses.

And?

I'm sorry, is that it? Do you regularly respond to people with random collections of words that have nothing to do with what they said? Should I bother my arse to continue waiting in expectation of an explanation of what the hell the Green Party has to do with anything I've said?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 27-06-2020 9:56pm

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

EVERY SINGLE TRANS GROUP I KNOW ..EVERY SINGLE WEBSITE

Has been totally HONEST and upfront about the side effects of puberty blockers for some people.

Here you co check it out ..transcare website

http://www.phsa.ca/transcarebc/child-youth/affirmation-transition/medical-affirmation-transition/puberty-blockers-for-youth

Knock yourself out. Yes puberty blockers are some serious ****!

To him this is a topic unrelated to him. He is just looking for a fight.

He doesn't care about trans children OBVIOUSLY or he wouldn't be picking on them.

I laugh when i hear people say ..i care about gay children that is why i am against gay rights! ha!

Hahahahahahahaha. No. “Fully reversible” has been trotted out so much. I’ve seen it stated in mainstream articles. On Twitter. It’s all gone a bit quiet on that front lately but it is an outright lie to say that all transgender groups were honest about the lack of evidence re: the reversibility of puberty blockers. Even the NHS claimed that they were reversible until VERY recently. The Mayo Clinic still claims that there are no permanent changes in the child’s body. Look it up. As of this evening, they still claim that, despite the NHS admitting that there is no evidence to say that they don’t cause long-term damage.

Danzy · 27-06-2020 9:57pm

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

He isn't qualified in any way to talk about such a topic. He isn't a doctor he isn't trans or related to a trans person.

He doesn't KNOW any thing. Why is he given this platform?

If you are worried about the side effects of puberty blockers at least learn what they are called.

Similarly if he WAS a doctor he would know synthetic hormone therapy is not typically used in children under 16.

If he were a doctor he would know the difference between puberty blockers and synthetic hormone treatment.

As it goes he is not a doctor. In fact i would wager when he is on TV any doctor that has treated a trans person sighs and goes 'Oh no this idiot again'.

EVERY SINGLE TRANS GROUP I KNOW ..EVERY SINGLE WEBSITE

Has been totally HONEST and upfront about the side effects of puberty blockers for some people.

Here you co check it out ..transcare website

http://www.phsa.ca/transcarebc/child-youth/affirmation-transition/medical-affirmation-transition/puberty-blockers-for-youth

Knock yourself out. Yes puberty blockers are some serious ****!

I wouldn't recommend them. Unless you are going through gender dysphoria ...and even then ..i mean if you can make to 18 without them ..probably better ..if you can't you can't and then you NEED them.

To him this is a topic unrelated to him. He is just looking for a fight.

He doesn't care about trans children OBVIOUSLY or he wouldn't be picking on them.

I laugh when i hear people say ..i care about gay children that is why i am against gay rights! ha!

The funny thing is ...its people like HIM who will look at a transperson ..who has NOT taken puberty blockers or hormones because of PRECISELY the reasons he talks about and mis gender them....'look they haven't even tried!'.

A good post and one I'll take on board.

Rev. Paisley though isn't interested in that, it's about hunting heretics.

Demonique · 27-06-2020 10:03pm

ricero wrote: »

I worry for the world when freedom of speech can be so easily censored.

I dont agree with Lineham on most of his views but we are heading down a dangerous road when we can easily mute differing opinions that go against the woke culture.

Muh free peach!

Airyfairy12 · 27-06-2020 10:06pm

I think people forget that the internet is a public platform and what you share online is not the same as having a chat about your opinions with your few close friends that think the same way. You cant just say whatever you like.
You wouldnt walk up to a random trans person on the street and start spewing hate and abuse at them so why would it be ok to do it on the internet where thousands of trans people can view it? Seems cowardly that people feel social media gives them a safe space to bully other people.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 27-06-2020 10:16pm

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

I think people forget that the internet is a public platform and what you share online is not the same as having a chat about your opinions with your few close friends that think the same way. You cant just say whatever you like.
You wouldnt walk up to a random trans person on the street and start spewing hate and abuse at them so why would it be ok to do it on the internet where thousands of trans people can view it? Seems cowardly that people feel social media gives them a safe space to bully other people.

Well, people certainly felt free to spew vitriol at JK Rowling for her crime of stating that biological sex is real and comes with attendant rights (sex-based rights, not gender-based). No concern about that? That’s all fine?

joeguevara · 27-06-2020 10:19pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, people certainly felt free to spew vitriol at JK Rowling for her crime of stating that biological sex is real and comes with attendant rights (sex-based rights, not gender-based). No concern about that? That’s all fine?

No one ever said it’s acceptable to abuse someone. However, to use that as an argument in defence of Rowlings comments. Being abused doesn’t vindicate the initial behaviour.

BarnardsLoop · 27-06-2020 10:20pm

Well, JK Rowling felt free to spew abuse at anyone she didn't like and you lot are more than happy to defend her so... I suppose directing abuse at people is okay. As long as they're the right people, right?

Danzy · 27-06-2020 10:22pm

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Well, JK Rowling felt free to spew abuse at anyone she didn't like and you lot are more than happy to defend her so... I suppose directing abuse at people is okay. As long as they're the right people, right?

Are you JK Rowling?

BarnardsLoop · 27-06-2020 10:23pm

No, I don't feel the need or desire to hurl abuse at trans people. Maybe you're her?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 27-06-2020 10:24pm

joeguevara wrote: »

No one ever said it’s acceptable to abuse someone. However, to use that as an argument in defence of Rowlings comments. Being abused doesn’t vindicate the initial behaviour.

She states that biological sex is real and that the rights attached to biological sex (as opposed to gender) must be protected. Don’t know about you but I’m fully behind her there. What was controversial about what she said?

sweet_trip · 27-06-2020 10:25pm

I'm sure it's been mentioned but if you think this is surpression of free speech then you need a reality check.
He's a bully, regularly attacks people and sets his little crony henchmen on teenagers to abuse them for daring to stand up to him. He's regularly harrassed people on twitter.

That aside, another reality check for you is he's spent several years sending THOUSANDS of tweets, on average one every 12 minutes on one single topic which is his hatred for trans people.

He's obsessed. He's regularly admitted he has mental health issues and has broken down multiple times. He's lost his career, his friends, his family and his wife and now the last outlet for his manic preaching has been taken away from him because of his continued bullying.

Danzy · 27-06-2020 10:26pm

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

No, I don't feel the need or desire to hurl abuse at trans people. Maybe you're her?

Did you just assume my gender?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 27-06-2020 10:26pm

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Well, JK Rowling felt free to spew abuse at anyone she didn't like and you lot are more than happy to defend her so... I suppose directing abuse at people is okay. As long as they're the right people, right?

JK Rowling was very measured. Find me even one statement of hers that was abusive. You’ll flail, you’ll deflect but you won’t be able to produce one.

Which is fine by me, I’m happy for that to be exposed for all to see.

sweet_trip · 27-06-2020 10:27pm

Danzy wrote: »

Did you just assume my gender?

You're not funny. Reddit from 10 years ago wants their ****e jokes back.

Quantum Erasure · 27-06-2020 10:27pm

sweet_trip wrote: »

He's obsessed. He's regularly admitted he has mental health issues and has broken down multiple times. He's lost his career, his friends, his family and his wife and now the last outlet for his manic preaching has been taken away from him because of his continued bullying.

I heard he has a Boards account...

Danzy · 27-06-2020 10:29pm

sweet_trip wrote: »

You're not funny. Reddit from 10 years ago wants their ****e jokes back.

No one else is taking the thread seriously.

sweet_trip · 27-06-2020 10:29pm

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

I heard he has a Boards account...

He most likely does.

Considering he's an internet addict.

Sure the first thing he did when he got banned was go to mumsnet (LOL) to look for sympathy and was promptly told to go away.

Sad sad man.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 27-06-2020 10:29pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

She states that biological sex is real and that the rights attached to biological sex (as opposed to gender) must be protected. Don’t know about you but I’m fully behind her there. What was controversial about what she said?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

JK Rowling was very measured. Find me even one statement of hers that was abusive. You’ll flail, you’ll deflect but you won’t be able to produce one. Which is fine by me, I’m happy for that to be exposed for all to see.

Both of these will go unanswered.

joeguevara · 27-06-2020 10:31pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

She states that biological sex is real and that the rights attached to biological sex (as opposed to gender) must be protected. Don’t know about you but I’m fully behind her there. What was controversial about what she said?

Because firstly it’s inherently incorrect and basically back of a cigarette packet science. If you are going to get fully behind someone on a topic that is so complicated at least make the person a recognised medic or scientist rather than a kids author. Secondly, by her post she was denying transgender. It is a protected gender. Civil rights trump the ramblings of someone who hasn’t a clue what she is saying.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 27-06-2020 10:34pm

joeguevara wrote: »

Because firstly it’s inherently incorrect and basically back of a cigarette packet science. If you are going to get fully behind someone on a topic that is so complicated at least make the person a recognised medic or scientist rather than a kids author. Secondly, by her post she was denying transgender. It is a protected gender. Civil rights trump the ramblings of someone who hasn’t a clue what she is saying.

Excuse me? Stating that biological sex is real is “inherently incorrect”? Joe, seriously. And are you really, really saying here that you need to be a doctor or biologist to know that? I’m embarrassed for you. That’s mortifying.

If biological sex wasn’t real, there’d be no need for the transgender prefix.

super_furry · 27-06-2020 10:36pm

Cry-arsing onto Mumsnet at 3am in the morning is a sure sign you need help. It's basically a step away from telling McDonald's cashiers about your ex-wife and how she's turning the kids against you.

BarnardsLoop · 27-06-2020 10:38pm

Danzy wrote: »

Did you just assume my gender?

Wow what a le epic meme XD

Seriously, get some better material.

joeguevara · 27-06-2020 10:41pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Excuse me? Stating that biological sex is real is “inherently incorrect”? Joe, seriously. And are you really, really saying here that you need to be a doctor or biologist to know that? I’m embarrassed for you.

I never said that. I said that it’s incorrect to simplify biological sex to simply XY and XX. No need to be embarrassed for me, I would have assumed the same thing but then actually did a bit of research. I found this article fascinating. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

But I’m sure writing 6 or 7 books that’s basicallyabout a guy who cockbl0cked his two best friends makes her more of an expert on biological and neuro science.

Just to say I am know way saying that there’s countless genders and crazy stuff that’s spouted.

27-06-2020 10:42pm

joseywhales wrote: »

I don't understand the heat that twitter sometimes gets. If I launch a website and allow people to post on it, I can delete what I like, I leave up what I like, I am not responsible for the content, nor am I forced to leave everything up. I am not producing a publication. If you don't like my website, don't use it. Those who publish material on my website are responsible for what they publish.

That was exactly Twitter's argument for years. "Hey, we're just the middleman."

Facebook still defend that ground more resolutely.

It's why a lot of people want the likes of Twitter and Facebook nationalised, because it's the modern public square. If it was nationalised it would fall directly under the First Amendment.

Tony EH · 27-06-2020 10:46pm

Nationalise a private enterprise???

That's lefty Socialism talk that is!!!

Ya feckin Commie.

super_furry · 27-06-2020 10:52pm

Deleted User wrote: »

That was exactly Twitter's argument for years. "Hey, we're just the middleman."

Facebook still defend that ground more resolutely.

It's why a lot of people want the likes of Twitter and Facebook nationalised, because it's the modern public square. If it was nationalised it would fall directly under the First Amendment.

Ah yes, just like Karl Marx said, as working people must seize the means of production to be free, so should sh1t-posters seize the means of their internet rants.

Not sure how the American First Amendment helps Linehan mind you, but I'm sure a dedicated Marxist like yourself can work it out.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 27-06-2020 10:54pm

joeguevara wrote: »

I never said that. I said that it’s incorrect to simplify biological sex to simply XY and XX. No need to be embarrassed for me, I would have assumed the same thing but then actually did a bit of research. I found this article fascinating. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

That’s an opinion piece by a partial author, not a peer-reviewed article. And it’s been widely criticised. Beloved of bovine ‘sex is a spectrum’ mouth-breathers though.

If there’s more than two sexes, can you named the third gamete? The fourth? The fifth?

Also, define ‘woman’ and ‘man’ without referring to either biological sex or gender stereotypes.

joeguevara · 27-06-2020 11:01pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That’s an opinion piece, not a peer-reviewed article. And it’s been widely criticised. Beloved of bovine ‘sex is a spectrum’ mouth-breathers though.

If there’s more than two sexes, can you named the third gamete? The fourth? The fifth?

Also, define ‘woman’ and ‘man’ without referring to either biological sex or gender stereotypes.

See the thing is I am not a scientist and have no qualifications to begin to answer what you have asked. The beauty of it is though because I’m not qualified I don’t go posting social media denying the existence of protected genders.

As for peer reviewed articles try this one https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001899

Smegging hell · 27-06-2020 11:02pm

super_furry wrote: »

Cry-arsing onto Mumsnet at 3am in the morning is a sure sign you need help. It's basically a step away from telling McDonald's cashiers about your ex-wife and how she's turning the kids against you.

Linehan tweeted a link to a thread on boards a few weeks ago so maybe he'll pop up here too.

Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

Comments