Fantastic article by Graham Linehan

Absolutely agree about your Savile comment, Inion. Can't you see this BBC?

I'm wondering why it's so vitally necessary to always amplify the voices of trans 'feminine' people when the women involved are concerned with the erosion of women's rights by a group of people who are not women?
Yep. I also think that people who are not engaged with the issue get the impression that it's a row within the trans community and nothing to do with non-trans people.

But I understand why Glinner chose KH's words for his piece. It's aimed at his peers who don't give a shit about ordinary women's concerns but who'll read anything written by a trans person just to be woke.

This is perfectly put: the only people who benefit from the current state of affairs are predators, con artists, misogynists and fetishists. Exactly.

This.

And the comments are a treat as usual. 'No loss, transphobe! Crawl back under your rock!!! TWAW!!!' etc etc. Yawn. They have no arguments to counter what he says, except denial. They simply deny what he says about the medicalisation of children and how appealing transgender ideology is for homophobic parents. 'Because that never happens'. Deny, deny, deny is the only TRA approach.

I hope some day he - and all of us - are proven right. I have a feeling there will be a child safeguarding scandal of Jimmy Savile proportions in the future but for now no-one wants to listen.

This is perfectly put: the only people who benefit from the current state of affairs are predators, con artists, misogynists and fetishists. Exactly.

My favourite unintentionally humourous quote:

'However, I thought that by being consistent in my message and explaining it repeatedly, people would eventually see the nuances of the debate, and furthermore, the need for debate.'

Hahahhahhahahahahahahhhahahahahahahahahahaha

Oh my sides. Very funny man, that Graham Linehan.

I'm now.

Don't blame him one bit though. Thanks for all you did Glinner. You're a ⭐️.

A good male ally in the fight for the liberation of women will boost women's voices. It's a good barometer, I find

This

I'm grateful to anyone and everyone who puts their head over the parapet.
Glinner was onto this and speaking out while I was still thinking, 'Where's the harm?' He's been dealing with abuse on a daily basis and he's had the court case and poor health to deal with. If he feels - and maybe his family do too - that he needs to take a break then I wish him all the best.

The complaint is not about having lots of voices. The complaint is that the damaging ideology is already damaging the rights and protections of women and girls, which did not fall from the sky, nor were gifted by unexpected benevolence, and it's not ok to be putting the voices of the people being used as a wedge to demolish those rights as the centrepiece of every argument on the topic.

That's the issue here. Glinner is a nice man, and speaking up was the right thing to do. But putting anyone who is not female's voice front and centre is not on. Glinner gets most of this, but his need to show that he's pro trans is the Achilles heel here. The women who have been at this for some time have long ago realized that you don't need to quantify every fair defense of your own rights by adding "I'm pro trans" disclaimers constantly.

We don't need to show that the rights we have already fought for are justified by being mindful of how everyone else is getting along. This is related to 'No is a complete sentence'

'Women must have their rights protected.'

It isn't necessary to add 'people other than women agree this is a good thing.'

I do think it is vital that men and the trans community also speak up about their concerns and safeguarding women's safe spaces - especially because my friends who are trans absolutely dont want to be spoken for by what IME is a very vocal minority of the trans community.

The danger of this vocal minority is that their platform creates an assumption that they speak for the whole trans community when in fact (IME experience at least) many many people within that community are more than understanding about women's concerns, partly because they also know what it feels like to be marginalised and threatened.

This doesn't mean they should speak over or for women and their lived experiences but it's absolutely crucial for voices from all sides speak up for women's rights.

In fairness to the poster she said it was better if trans people of both sexes spoke out on this.

On what, women's rights & Safeguarding?

And given trans are currently a very small community, but apparently have the ears of many trans "sympathisers" (the woke I guess), it is arguably those people who are the more significant audience, in numbers and because of their positions.

Indeed.

Absolutely agree. I'm not even sure if committed TRAs are for turning regardless of who speaks to them.

I should have added I think the more people who speak out on this the better. Women are the most adversely affected for sure. But denial of science and biology is bad news for everyone.

I don't think it's just trans people who need to hear this message.

You're actually saying it's better if male people speak for women

@LangCleg, In fairness to the poster she said it was better if trans people of both sexes spoke out on this. Whether you agree that trans people will accept the message more easily from other trans people is another question.

My workplace lets male-bodied colleagues use our unadapted regular old style non-floor-ceiling-type women’s toilets. The powerlessness I feel about that makes me really appreciate everyone who wades into this shitshow voluntarily.

It is to be expected that any one individual will need to take a break from their (self-generated) position of (welcome) public advocacy. That is different from the fact that women and children can’t take a break from this attack on us.
Not being able to take a break is obviously why all the advocacy is needed... but the baton of those doing that advocacy can still be passed between different individuals.

Self care is necessary for all of us and an in purely campaigning terms a variety of advocates are needed (and preferable in the long run).

It would be massively fucking disappointing if other high profile men don’t step up to support women in the way Glinner has done, but... let’s see.

Thanks for good work graham, but lucky you can take a break, unfortunately for us it's our life. Battle not over yet so hurry back when you can. Perhaps we should rely on ourselves, allies can only go so far.
There are different kinds of trans, some benign, some toxic. Need to be sure which is which

Thank you @Glinner.

I know he has been unwell and under a lot of pressure. Why make it so official though?

I read it as a public challenge for someone else male to step up and puuuuuulll.

I totally agree with Graham that the message is strongest coming from trans people (of either sex - Rhys McKavanagh is an example of a transman who get it) as it shows that this isn't a matter of trans against non-trans, it is a matter of one ideology against another.

Christ on a fucking bike. Way to make my - uncharacteristically kindly spoken - point for me. You're actually saying it's better if male people speak for women. Unfuckingbelievable.

Graham: I hope you are reading. This is exactly why I felt the need to say what I did above. Using male people as appeals to authority in order to tamp down accusations of transphobia leads to exactly this. You see the effect?

My Inner Beryl is rapidly disappearing back to the deep, dark hole in which she is usually kept.

The most important thing for me is getting the information out there. Who does it is a relatively minor issue - certainly given the gravity & urgency of the situation. A wide audience needs to be reached, and if that audience can be reached through certain types of channel - then so be it.

Yeah, I hear that a lot. I'm wondering why it's so vitally necessary to always amplify the voices of trans 'feminine' people when the women involved are concerned with the erosion of women's rights by a group of people who are not women?

Would it be vital to include the voices of white people who really identify with black culture in discussion about whether or not to erode the rights of black people, so long as those white people mostly thought eroding black people's right was a bad thing?

Or would it just be fucking cheeky and quite insultingly missing the point?