Janice Turner puts the boot into @glinner

Because it is what she thinks. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's not allowing people to say what they believe that is the problem.

Going against the grain, I thought it was a good review and the way it was written was generally in line with most Times book reviews, especially as it was an autobiography making Linehan himself the subject. Sometimes authors are praised, sometimes they are panned and Linehan (fairly imo) came in for a panning this time like many before him.

I also don't see any reason to believe Janice Turner didn't read the book because a brief mention in the acknowledgements but no mention in the main text does mean the person or group is left out - again probably fairly imo because it's Linehan's autobiography, but it's still true.

It’s weird that both she and Hadley Freeman have written about this without reading the actual book? It seems a bit of an odd thing to do.

I have felt a bit uncomfortable at some of Glinner’s “excesses” but at the end of the day I find it hard to criticise someone for being so upset, angry and emotional about the impact of trans rights on women.

That’s an interesting piece of information borntobequiet, I don’t know if it’s significant with regards to the tone of Turner’s article about Glinner (given that she managed to overlook him thanking WPUK, so she doesn’t seem to have been reading the book very closely), but it’s definitely interesting to know 🤔

I finished the book last night and re-read the “review” this morning. It’s not a book review.
I did notice Ms Turner isn’t namechecked in the Acknowledgments alongside other prominent GC female journalists.

English is what the Anglo Normans called themselves @RebelliousCow . They weren't particularly bothered about their Norse dna or the fact their elite groups spoke French. Neither do we and we don't care who is or isn't a Celt. Beyond the interest some of us take in our language.

I've long since stopped worrying about other people's perceptions anyway. That's one thing I've learnt from this ID politics garbage : a preference isn't necessarily a prejudice.

I still don't think you can make such sweeeping generalisations about whole groups of people ( Northern English, Southern English, Older English, Middle Class English...) - neither Irish, nor English. Although I appreciate people form their identities around the 'othering' of people perceived to be not like them.

I live in Liverpool, and there is the whole mythology here too of what 'Scousers' are supposed to be like. It is actually quite oppressive, and tends to solidify stereotypes - with people becoming professional Scousers. And then they complain when people make comments and negative/unflattering generalised judgements about "people from Liverpool".

From your perspective it’s a generalisation, from my perspective (and the perspective of other Irish people, cos we talk to each other about it) it’s a consistent experience.

In my own experience, it’s happened when I’ve been in England (or dealing with English people for social or work situations). It’s happened more with people from Southern England, not as often with Northern English people. It’s happened most with middle-class people. It also tends to happen more with older English people who remember The Troubles. It also happens with English people who are visiting Ireland on holiday. Often, there are also comments along the lines of ‘Oh, you Irish are so [insert stereotype]’ that seem to be made with no understanding that the recipient would be upset or find it inconsiderate.

To be fair, I’ve experienced this a lot when interacting with Americans too 🤷‍♀️

Often, Glinner’s manner is just very Irish and I’ve found it interesting to see that some English people dislike it and see it as rude, whereas the behaviour is acceptable for Irish social norms. Ireland and England have different communication styles and, based on my experience, it would seem that this is a factor when it comes to opinions on Glinner. I’m not saying it covers (or excuses) all his interactions, it’s just something to bear in mind.

CLEARS THROAT SORRY ALL OF THAT IN CAPS

I think all of that might be worth its own thread? The future of making arguments for women's rights, likely under a Labour govt. Short term and longer term.

All nations consist of histories of successive invasions and conquests, and in that Ireland, and England, are no different. I've been watching Fergal Keane's History of Ireland this week, and it is revelaed that the Irish are no more a pure bred Celtic race than the British.

When talking about the Norman Conquest and invasion of Ireland - they talked about the Normans as if they were English. But of course, the Normans were a Norse tribe that invaded and settled in many places, including what is now known as England. I would hardly call the normans 'English". What is English? English is a hotch-potch of peoples that have desceneded from successive waves, invasions, inter-marriages, migrations and so on.

I live in Liverpool, and people here like to construct some kind of unique 'scouse' identity too. But it is nothing more than a series of sterotypes which have been nurtured in order to provide some kind of special sense of self. This sense of self, though is often that of perpetual victim of someone's else's oppression - and because of that can be very spiky and insular too.

@RebelliousCow Yes all nations construct mythologies. Our problem was that , for several centuries , another nation was constructing ours for us. Even people favourably disposed often see us through an English lens.

Alas we Irish are susceptible to the same flaws. What most of us know about Scotland is what we glean from the London media , for example.

My feeling is that (stil!) nothing is going to change legally by via parliament in the next few years. Forget it from Sunak Tory gov. Any new gov will find any GC or TRA-led action a lot harder to justify than in the past 10 years of solid Tory majorities. Future governments will feel its a thankless toxic fight and can be brushed aside as a women’s issue.

We have the ongoing horror in Ukraine, Israel and Palestine and greater economic and humanitarian and climate crises coming towards us very fast. So I predict on GC issues changes to legally protect women and children will have to be brought by women via crowdfunders through the courts. (Exactly as it is now).

This recent series of Tory government have frankly squandered any epiphany they say they might have had about ‘knowing what a woman is’.

GC people will need to keep visibility via clearly communicated goals, talked about in our communities IRL and online. GC people also need to document and report everything that happens against women and children to provide evidence of harms, including via our many captured institutions in the UK.

I hope we can assume that future governments will quietly have less tolerance for spending public resources on TRA-led projects because of the economic squeeze (and not wanting to touch the hornet’s nest).

Its going to be a very long game but we do have an unmissable chance running up to the GE to set out our stall while no major party has a track record on this. We need to ask them all why they deserve our votes and go big or go home because asks will either be ignored, watered down or become part of an unnecessary quid pro quo. Like with no self ID but £5 GRCs from this last government.

I would say that GRA needs repealing, EQA needs clarification around biological sex vs gender (as set out by Sex Matters) and a public inquiry needs to be held into the medical scandal of children being medically ‘transitioned’. That would generate recommendations the NHS has to follow and publicly mark out that what’s happened has been unacceptable, which Cass isn’t in the business of.

I think everyone can agree in principle that the NHS just can’t provide ‘treatment’ with no evidence of benefit, no proper follow up and no proper evidence gathered of what has happened to patients afterwards. The NHS should not be providing unevidenced treatments because lobby groups would call them names if they didn’t. These are reasonable asks.

Those asks seem like too short a list though. What else needs to be on the table?

Moore seems to be sort of ...unmoored lately. But then she has been treated very shabbily. I've been reading her for decades and can't see her signing up to some Starmer glee club any time soon.

What, every single one of them?

All nations construct fables about their supposed character - which when you scratch the shiny surface just a little bit are often found to be nothing but mythologies.

Some rather big generalisations going on there.

Regardless of the book review, i've been sensing a bit of distancing and shift from Janice Turner in recent weeks/months. I suspect what she really wants to be able to do is vote Labour - and has altered her perspective on account of that

I absolutely agree with Ovahere insights about there being a split happening due to individual and organisational positioning for future influential roles or audiences with a new government. Makes perfect sense.

I’ll bang the same drum to say that there is no GC party to vote for based on their actions in government or on any party’s manifesto commitments. Meaning that, we’ll all still be here doing GC campaigning with whichever new government gets in. And as Ovahere wisely predicts we will also lose some key current GC people to political positioning that suits that new government.

So as those GC thinkers become part of a political in-crowd they will cease being so publicly loud or they will soften their asks (and tell us normies to soften ours!) to be more acceptable to any new government.

That then throws more of a ‘public face’ spotlight on the social media campaigners we already have like Posie and Glinner etc who have gone too far to want, or to be able to, be a part of any incoming political in-crowd behind the seness.

HOWEVER this isn’t all bad news- whatever major party wins, we can feel confident that it will be a new government with a few influential female insiders engaged with it who are known to be GC. 10-15 years ago this issue was just people on MN and Twitter screaming into the void. Literally. This would be HUGE progress to have a tentative seat around the table. A minimum level of trusted high level awareness of GC issues by those at the highest levels of government is great. However the cast iron rule of politics is that it has to be traded off against endless political compromises.

So I am daring to hope those GC voices of reason will be heard to prevent the very worst TRA-led policy excesses happening. They may also hopefully call for some limited positive GC actions to be made eg government guidance to be issued for schools etc.
And crucially they may help to set the Overton window of the GC policy agenda. So we the grassroots GC people will need to make absolutely as much noise as possible now about what women urgently need, before the general election to shift that window more in our direction. We only have a few months left to do this.

And if we ‘lose’ a few GC voices to that process hopefully more will come forward to prominence, which we will need anyway for a sustainable GC movement. This is a moment of maturation which we need to make the best of by IRL and online talking and writing, right now.

Agree with everyone else. It's not a review of his book.it's more about what she thinks of his behaviour. Frustrating.

Sigh, simplistically I wish they could just all get along. I just don't understand why GC journalists are laying into Glinner, perhaps it is as other posters write to do with distancing from what an outsider would say as 'extreme' views. (Although we know Glinner is just a conspicuously heavy handed version of what other GCers are doing)

Funny thing is, before I engaged with the trans debate, I thought Janice Turner was myopic and obsessive in her Times column regarding trans issues. I just think there's this idea of being 'classy', but in reality, it's all potentially uncomfortable no matter what.

Anyway, I admire both of them. I also really hope the GC side don't 'settle'. Maybe there's a long game strategy a-play.

yes it's a terrible review... she doesn't actually review his writing, the content or anything. But then if she hasn't read the book, how could she.

Yes, does feel like the Jane Clare Jones 'purity' stuff. I'm not into it. I can appreciate someone's care for women, and I can especially appreciate it when they have risked and lost everythingm It doesn't matter how they choose to express themselves. We're all different in how we do things, but it's the what and the why that counts.

Shame there are now two threads about the book.

The problem with the article mentioned in the OP is that it isn't a review.

It is an ego trip by someone who rightly or wrongly has formed an opinion of Glinner and so picks out and emphasises the bits that validates herself.

So it is real cheap of the Times to have posted this as a review because it isn't one.

But typical of the middle class media where being someone's wife allows you to sound off, and ironically to criticise someone who sounds off but from a platform they built themself.

If she had any self awareness she would be embarrased.

And apart from the tedium of having to repeat what what has already appeared on the original thread, I think it a shame that anyone thought it worthwhile creating a thread for it.

It may be the Times, but it is gutter press.

James Dreyfus? Mr Menno?

I'd add Sex Matters to this list too, not because they're necessarily left wing but their position has softened in the last couple of months and I feel this is so they can retain some influence within a Labour government (likely through Rosie Duffield).

Do you think? I thought with Harriet Harman at the utterly treacherous Fawcett Society, they'd be the go-to charity and that Sex Matters would very sadly be roundly ignored under Labour. Apart from in the media that is.