Jo Maugham

Do you think he consults anyone else before making proclamations on behalf of good law project? Is it basically his own organisation? I always got the impression there were a few people behind it, but could be wrong. If I was in some way involved I would think it really petulant, unprofessional & foolish from a communications pov to say 'we are never ever speaking to the Times again, so there!'

Really? We're all wealthy, white and middle class?

Well if Jo says so it must be true

Also, true intersectionalism would recognise that female rights fall through the gap when we pretend there is no such thing as sex or sex based oppression

YY. Why is he not harassing Black Lives Matter saying there’s no such thing as race / ethnicity and aren’t we all black anyway, it’s about thr feelz so let’s be inclusive?

I’m not a scientist but I’m pretty sure that race is a hell of a lot less binary and a whole lot more culturally defined than sex.

See the funny thing is with people at great pains to point out their class roots, is that it doesn't stop them now being Upper Middle Class now, and that in itself can be blinding to current class issues.

He's a wealthy, middle-class (if not higher) middle-aged white "cis" man. Where's his privilege check?

Also, true intersectionalism would recognise that female rights fall through the gap when we pretend there is no such thing as sex or sex based oppression.

I think he’s hamming it up because he doesn’t actually believe in this shit at all. That’s why he’s being so OTT. He was against males on AWS two years ago and at his age, your views don’t instantly change because you read a Pink News article. He thinks this is his route to being a public hero and that’s why he is laying it on so thick. It’s pretty embarrassing to watch though.

I agree. I think he's having some sort of attention seeking mid life crisis.

Today he's complaining that a "small but influential part of feminism has basically forgotten intersectionalism." I would so love to hear his explanation of what inter sectionalism means. He's also endorsing the view that the most influential 'anti trans' group is a "phalanx of wealthy, white, middle class cis women." Really? We're all wealthy, white and middle class?

His arguments are quite out of date I think and even I could debate his points back to him and point out the problems with his position quite easily and I am no great debater or particularly knowledgeable.

You are implying that there are some 'in date' arguments that are better.

I still think he must be close to somebody who is personally affected by this.

He does strike me as someone fairly new to the “debate” as he has not thought that deeply about it really unlike so many of the women here that have been thinking and talking and reading about this for a decade or longer. His arguments are quite out of date I think and even I could debate his points back to him and point out the problems with his position quite easily and I am no great debater or particularly knowledgeable.
I wouldn’t dream of doing this with tax as I am sure he has expertise in that.

He has the zeal of a convert. Overly conscious of his previous transgressions and making up for them.

I think he’s hamming it up because he doesn’t actually believe in this shit at all. That’s why he’s being so OTT. He was against males on AWS two years ago and at his age, your views don’t instantly change because you read a Pink News article. He thinks this is his route to being a public hero and that’s why he is laying it on so thick. It’s pretty embarrassing to watch though.

Performing our values is very revealing. 'Living', or 'practising' our values would sound authentic. 'Performing' tells it like it is.

He's quite cross with the BBC too

He also surely has an issue with the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Mail and pretty much all newspapers because all of them have at one point or another written something that he deems hateful and transphobic (and which normal people deem logical and rational).

Anyone else wondering if the Times has something on him?

That does seem like a pretty mad reaction for a fairly neutral article. But then he does get himself in a flap over not much. Emotional man, is Jo.

I'm sure the Times is happy to report on Maugham's activities whether he takes the offered opportunity to respond for comment or not.

He's really only given them free rein to report on them as they see fit.

Cutting off nose to spite face.

This man is very tedious.

Discussing biological reality and reporting important court cases = hate apparently.

Screen shots for those not on twitter or blocked.

"Performing our values", I wonder if they were asked to comment on Gender GP

Oh no, how will the Times ever figure out what JM thinks about things now?