Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Baroness Nicholson in Sunday Times

63 replies

BovaryX · 28/06/2020 06:58

I haven't seen this article posted, apologise if it has been. Baroness Nicholson describes her hurt and bewilderment at being accused, denounced, judged and cancelled. If the reports of the source of these accusations are true, have their previous tweets and comments been subjected to the same critical examination? If not, why not?

‘Are activists targeting me?’ Tory peer Baroness Nicholson’s despair over Booker prize trans
Baroness Nicholson said yesterday that she was sad and surprised to be dropped as an honorary vice-president of the Booker Prize Foundation, the literary accolade founded by her husband, after being accused of offending a transgender model, Munroe Bergdorf. The Tory peer, who is deaf, had held the role since 2009. Her late husband, the businessman Sir Michael Caine, established the prize.Asked how she felt, she said: “Sad. Very sad. Somewhat surprised to be labelled by the Booker board members as homophobic, transphobic and racist'^

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
NearlyGranny · 28/06/2020 21:09

Sabbatical, there's no reference to transphobia on her Wikipedia page now, though I suppose it could have been edited back and forth all day!

SerenityNowwwww · 28/06/2020 17:51

Yes. But it’s ok to call women anything you like.

RoyalCorgi · 28/06/2020 17:48

Creature is a word that was used a lot back in the 40s and 50s. It could be prefaced by any number of words such as odd, terrifying, divine, beautiful, enchanting etc. Very Agatha Christie. Very much of my mum's generation.

Exactly. It doesn't necessarily carry any pejorative weight at all. It's not as if she described Bergdorf as a cockroach or something.

Remind me how Bergdorf described a woman on Twitter? "Hairy barren lesbian", wasn't it? I guess that's OK, though.

Lamahaha · 28/06/2020 17:40

Does anyone have the Baronesses email address? I know she posted in several times on her Twitter a few weeks back, inviting people who wanted to PM her to use that instead. I'd be grateful if you could share it, possibly through a PM.

SerenityNowwwww · 28/06/2020 16:01

My younger colleagues use the term c*. Yes. Much better than creature.

endofthelinefinally · 28/06/2020 16:00

Critter is used all the time in Ireland. Often when sympathising with someone.

FantaOra · 28/06/2020 15:53

Yes, I recognised that the word creature was fairly normal in Christianity, as in "all things bright and beautiful, all creatures great and small." Clearly a racist, homophobic and transphobic hymn.

Creatures and creation. We need to delete these from the language.

What about critters? Is that OK? I will ask a young person, one that regularly uses the word hos for women, I am sure they know best.

SerenityNowwwww · 28/06/2020 15:21

My BIL calls people ‘ye wee creature ye’ also a midden. He’s in his 60s. No one has died of shock/affrontary a result.

endofthelinefinally · 28/06/2020 15:19

Creature is a word that was used a lot back in the 40s and 50s. It could be prefaced by any number of words such as odd, terrifying, divine, beautiful, enchanting etc. Very Agatha Christie. Very much of my mum's generation.

jhuizinga · 28/06/2020 14:06

As a Christian, I'm sure the Baroness regards us all as creatures of God, which is a very different interpretation of the word to that of those who want to take offence.

CuriousaboutSamphire · 28/06/2020 13:59

Oh come on. Referring to a black person as a ‘creature’ is unforgivable and claiming it’s a literary reference doesn’t mitigate it. And the story is inaccurate. They didn’t drop her, actually-they got rid of all honorary positions, which included hers.

A black person???? Oh? So, you're not nailing your flag to the mast on sex or gender for BM then. Sensible choice!

Creature... but you don't mind weird... or know the literary reference to which "weird creature" refers anymore than MB does - it wasn't an insult! You wouldn't dismiss it if you understood it! MB wouldn't have created a fuss had MB had any idea what was meant by it - it would have been an ego stroke!

And the story doeisn't lie. It just doesn't toe the TRA line, it demurs from the land of unicorn dust and linguistic marmalisation!

And yes, they did drop all honorary positions - because they were shit scred to offend eithe the Baroness individually or the TRAs who had piled on once MB had had MBs little moan!

The two faced, blind to nuance, hypocritical stance taken by so many baffles me. Dumbing down so that so many can feel triumphant in their ignorance will have long tem consequences I hope to be too old to see.

I'm now off gongoozling... save my blood pressure!

PenguindreamsofDraco · 28/06/2020 13:45

I use creature regularly - I called my son an odd little creature yesterday.

I think, as so often the way these days, that was the easiest route by which offence could be taken.

aliasundercover · 28/06/2020 13:12

Referring to a black person as a ‘creature’ is unforgivable

I've heard the phrase 'beautiful creature' many times. Would that be ok?

the story is inaccurate. They didn’t drop her, actually-they got rid of all honorary positions

You are being disingenuous - you know precisely why they 'got rid of all honorary positions' - it was so they could drop her.

SpringSpringTime · 28/06/2020 12:00

Oh come on. Referring to a black person as a ‘creature’ is unforgivable and claiming it’s a literary reference doesn’t mitigate it. And the story is inaccurate. They didn’t drop her, actually-they got rid of all honorary positions, which included hers.

BovaryX · 28/06/2020 11:55

In 2020, feminism can't centre women, and gay liberation can't centre gay people, without being deemed hateful. We're going backwards

I think this is a really interesting point. It's because this SJ ideology has emerged from post modernism and deconstruction. One of the things that is being deconstructed is language. Instead of being a means of communication, language has been turned into a tripwire to blow people up. The meaning of words is being dismantled and those who object are denounced as 'bigots.' This is Newspeak dictionary territory and the redefinition of words is at its core.

OP posts:
RoyalCorgi · 28/06/2020 11:50

I think the detail about her being deaf is important. Bullying an elderly, disabled woman really isn't a good look, is it?

And the fact that she's achieved so much despite her disability is worth noting. Admittedly she has benefited from other advantages in life, but how many disabled people do you know of in public life? How many disabled politicians? David Blunkett is one of the most notable in my lifetime but I'd be hard pushed to think of many others.

wellbehavedwomen · 28/06/2020 11:14

In 1998, as MP for Havant, David Willetts voted against lowering the homosexual age of consent. In 2002 he voted several times against allowing gay couples to adopt. In 2003 he voted to delay the repeal of Clause 28, which prohibited the teaching of homosexuality in schools. And at significant votes to establish civil partnerships and later same-sex marriage, the now Lord Willetts was strangely absent.

This voting record puzzles me. As a trustee of the Booker Prize Foundation, Lord Willetts this week signed a statement stripping Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne, 78, of her honorary vice-presidency of the prize she founded with her late husband, the businessman Sir Michael Caine. Her principal crime was to have opposed equal marriage seven years ago. The gay author Damian Barr, who led the pitchfork pile-on against her, tweeted his fear that she’d “take the wedding ring off my finger”.

The hypocrisy and gall of Lord Willetts in signing that letter, when his voting record suggests he must share her views, is staggering.

Says it all, doesn't it.

This lobby don't care about gay people, or their rights. Just look at what they've done to Allison Bailey, for daring to suggest that gay people should have an advocacy group of their own. Especially pertinent given the whistleblowing from the Tavistock around homophobia, and the rising insistence that lesbians who won't consider dating 'a woman with a penis' are bigots - see the Guardian sending a lesbian on a date with a trans woman without asking her, or even telling her, first.

The trans community have their own advocacy groups, and indeed have multiple. Yet that lobby simultaneously howls that gay and lesbian people, having a group that represents their own interests, is hateful and unacceptable.

Of course trans people should have orgs that represent their interests. But they're declaring that women's groups, and LGB groups, are hateful. It's not hate to advocate for your own interests - if it were, the trans lobby would be in serious fucking trouble. Come to think of it, why is erasing women's sex-based oppression, and the right of gay people to be same-sex attracted only, not regarded as hateful? I'm yet to see any women's group or LGB group argue that trans people don't have an absolute right to live as they please and present as feels most authentic. The sole demand is that the Equality Act protected rights - to same-sex orientation, and to single-sex provision where justified, is important and must remain, and that the creeping and unlawful erosion of those people's rights be rolled back. Where's the respect from the trans lobby for other people's rights and needs? You do not have, as a male person, the 'right' to access unclothed or otherwise vulnerable women without their consent. You do not have the 'right' to insist that same-sex attracted people consider gender instead of sex when considering their dating pool. Those are incursions on the rights of others, and not rights in themselves! yet anyone who points that out is cancelled.

In 2020, feminism can't centre women, and gay liberation can't centre gay people, without being deemed hateful. We're going backwards.

ScrimpshawTheSecond · 28/06/2020 11:00

@endofthelinefinally

It would be wonderful if people read history books.
I think that's generally considered a micro-aggression these days. Far too much bigotry in history books.
VickyEadieofThigh · 28/06/2020 10:58

Can anyone furnish me (PM if you like) with the montage of Bergdorf "quotations" that I've seen posted a few times?

I friend sent me the Times article today and I wanted to illustrate some of the things Bergdorf has said in (and got clean away with) in the past.

BovaryX · 28/06/2020 09:29

None of this makes her look bad

I agree Datun. It makes her denouncers look terrible. Sadly, I don't think that matters because this ideology, which is an American export, has colonised so many institutions. I think the Telegraph article nails it. What happened to the left wing critique of American culture imperialism? The Doublethink is layers deep.

OP posts:
Datun · 28/06/2020 09:17

@BovaryX

Datun

I take your point and I don't doubt that many of The Times' readers think she has been unfairly treated. But she has been removed from her role in the Booker prize. That is a goal achieved. The laughable statement from Booker about literature being open and questioning is yet more evidence of the Doublethink which dominates SJ. But its pernicious ideology is everywhere. Particularly as Douglas Murray says, in journalism and publishing. And its proponents wield real power.

It was an honorary title not a role as such. Which doesn't make it any better obviously.

But it's the optics which I think are counter productive to transactivism.
None of this makes her look bad.

The comments should be interesting.

SerenityNowwwww · 28/06/2020 09:12

@onalongsabbatical

She's 78, and when I googled to find out this came up - although it doesn't say it on her Wikipedia page - Emma Harriet Nicholson, Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (born 16 October 1941) is a transphobic British politician... How the fuck have they done that? Another day, more rage.
That’s been changed now. Remember - people are always messing with wiki.
Clymene · 28/06/2020 09:10

David Willetts has a deeply homophobic voting record. And he is still a Booker Trustee. I would posit this has nothing to do with homophobia ...

StandUpStraight · 28/06/2020 09:10

I am absolutely certain that this must have been posted already, but I can’t see it. Anyway, doesn’t hurt to share it twice, as it is so bloody good. Janice Turner at her best in The Times yesterday on the real reason they went after the baroness, and the hypocrisy of doing so. The comments are brilliantly heartening.

“The righteous anger train is out of control“

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2245cbd4-b7e0-11ea-82eb-1588bf47a52f?shareToken=661a8ed9af95fdfb1fd194adf2e28082

dementedma · 28/06/2020 09:07

This is appalling. So many women being attacked for being pro-women. I wrote to our Scottish MSPs recently about the women on public bodies act( women here defined as including men) and have yet to receive a single response

Swipe left for the next trending thread