Stephen Fry

Ok so, I'll be honest and say that while he phrased it very carelessly, I think I see where he's coming from and agree with what I think he may have meant. My ex-husband claims* to have been abused as a child. And it became his go to excuse for every awful thing he did, including physically attacking me repeatedly in increasingly brutal attacks, multiple fake suicide attempts and endangering our baby. Any time where he knew he had gone too far and it was possible that I wouldn't forgive him, he brought up being abused as a child.

When I did eventually separate from him and lay down the conditions he'd have to meet for us to have any hope of reconciliation, he used being abused as a child as a constant weapon against me, against my parents and against his own parents. I was honestly only able to leave him because of the danger he was posing to our baby. I gave him sooooooo much leeway because of being abused I'm not sure if I would ever have left him for my own sake. I was convinced he needed support and acceptance and his behaviour wasn't his fault. It wasn't until he went back off the deep-end towards the end of my pregnancy and in the first months of DS's life that I realised that he was using that abuse as an excuse. That he was unlikely to ever, ever stop his bad behaviour as long as he had this tool to absolve himself of all blame. So if it's that, which Fry was talking about, then. he needed to explain that better, but he's not wrong.

*I say claims, as while I believed him without question during our marriage and for years after, I'm less certain now for a number of reasons.

You can read about that regret in the link upthread which seems pretty clear he's not going down that path.

Is he being nice and soothing because apparently I read somewhere his one regret in life is that he didn’t have children, and if he wants to have children then , surprise surprise, he will need a genuine, biologically complete woman to do the heavy lifting?

If Stephen believes males can be women, as as his husband is still of an age to have children, according to Stephen’s beliefs, why doesn’t the husband just identify as a woman and have a baby. I find it odd that all these men crawling out if the woodwork to try to silence women somehow seem to know exactly what biological sex is when it comes to their romantic partners or desire for a child. Bloody hypocrites.

Once again, a pompous man comes in to tell women they should just calm down when an ideology tries to change the fundamental definition of woman and girl.

And once again, someone with no skin in the game can't see the distinction: that resisting and challenging an ideology which seeks to take away women's rights (which are sex-based) is NOT the same as resisting or challenging individuals who take on a trans identity.

@Datun , thanks for this- you always put things so well. i angrily bluster around and never articulate myself properly! i get so pissed off with the whole "two sides, let's compromise" parts of this ideology vs reality issue- and you've nailed what's been roaming around my woolly head: there is no symmetry- any suggestion that there is leads to manipulation and gaslighting.

If he ever does make that decision, the poor child will need a therapist pretty much from conception.

You do yourself a disservice really. You have a point to make, clearly about S.Fry, who you mustn't like very much. Who says in this article that
'Elliot and I, we talked about it a bit, but we never talked about it to the extent of ''Right, so, we're going to a clinic tomorrow to talk this through to some expert''.
So he regrets not having kids, had a few chats about children with his husband, but never went as far as actually talking together about doing anything about it. I'm really anti surrogacy, but I can't see how you can take somebody to task for not having done something. Or apparently not really talking about it.

So I’ll assume he’s be asking one of his many transwomen friends to have a baby for him? What with them being women according to him. Or do you things like Owen jones and Adrian Harrop he knows exactly what a woman is when it suits him?

we never talked about it to the extent of ''Right, so, we're going to a clinic tomorrow to talk this through to some expert''.

Who knows why they didn't discuss it but omitting the 'never' changes the meaning of what he said.

Does he have a PO box? I'd happily purchase a couple of copies to send to him.

Right. So talking to a clinic about it, maybe it will be a joint family arrangement with a woman who will be a part of the family…

I expect not, but still I would hope.

And now he's planning on renting a womb to start a family.

He knows what a woman is alright and he may not want to go eat one for sex but he's happy to use them to breed.

Stephen Fry, 65, reveals his biggest regret is not having children
mol.im/a/11525215

Yes, a very powerful piece. (My favourite bits have been quoted already, so I'll leave it at that, but bravo Brendan)

What, exactly, are Ms Rowling and other gender-critical women meant to ‘retreat’ from? From science? From biological reality? From their belief that men are not women? From their own spaces?

Yes, that bit especially.

Quite.

I suspect Mr Fry would never ‘retreat’ from his humanism and embrace the superstitious claims of religion, so it is strange that he is essentially advising women to do precisely that.

It's because Mr Fry is a man, and absolutely sees transwomen as men.

Does anyone really think he would be denying science, kowtowing to a deluded minority and claiming that akcherly some superficial offence is absolutely beyond the pale, if it was on behalf of women??

You know what? There's no part of me that doesn't accept that the patriarchy is made up of patriarchal men.

But when they fucking go out of their way to set themselves up as a supporter of science, and reality, and tell everyone who'll listen that being offended is in the realms of 'so fucking what', I honestly cannot see them as anything other than teeny, tiny people, and my contempt is genuine.

That's bang on Brendan. Absolute clarity in exposing the contradiction in Fry's position. How can you possibly be claim to be pro-science and pro-rationality while simultaneously pretending that people can change sex?

As Brendan says:

"One side promotes cuckoo post-science theories that upend women’s rights and cause grave harm to the young. The other side does not. What, exactly, are Ms Rowling and other gender-critical women meant to ‘retreat’ from? From science? From biological reality? From their belief that men are not women? From their own spaces?"

Spot on Mr O'Neill.

That is one cracking article. Absolutely nails it.

There's a good article in the Spectator by Brendan O'Neill on Stephen Fry's comments:

www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-happened-to-stephen-frys-belief-in-scientific-reason/

Statistically speaking , given that true "intersex" conditions represent approximately 0.018% of live births, Stephen must know literally THOUSANDS of people and class them as "friends" to have any possibility of having "many intersex friends".

Bullshit.

Also having a husband 30 years his junior is pretty sleazy.

On paper I'm all for Humanists. But ...

WomaninBoots, you have it exactly, 'wanky around the edges' was my understanding!

I find secular humanism such an odd thing, it almost seems like an aesthetic value for people like Fry.

Quite.

The male head of a rape refuge is denied their 'right' to force rape survivors to pretend they're not a man.

Perhaps Stephen Fry could discover some perspective.

And, of course, it will be six of one because TRAs disagree with him too.