Janice Turner puts the boot into @glinner

I'm really unsure how the more radical feminists will position themselves, the ones who are properly left wing, socialist. Are Bindel, Moore, Bartosch, JC Jones etc going to "settle" for a "least worse case"?

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).

I think we're going to see a lot of this in the next 12 months leading up to the general election.

No, I didn't imply that whatsoever. You inferred it. That's not what I was saying at all.

Positioning themselves for a seat at the table.....
I think that nails it.
I was grateful that Janice was prepared to write for the Times on what concerns us here....but now she can go on the Who has most disappointed you? thread.

And if it's true that she didn't bother to read the book, but just took the lazy shortcut to personal bitch fest, whilst being paid for a book review....
If it is true....then unprofessional springs to mind....

I wonder if she's ever written a book herself.
Probably not a funny one.

Nothing is wrong with it but I don't see that those who like the limelight should be lauded more than those who don't

It's not my perception that Maya, Helen, Sonia, Keira, Rosario, Sinead, or so many other women like or seek the limelight. They've mostly been put into the limelight because when the call came to stand up for themselves and by extension others, they had the courage and stamina to accept the fight and the consequences for themselves and their families.

I provide money. I answer calls for evidence. I write letters. A handful of people know my views. I would definitely lose my job and not obtain another in this field if it were known that I'm GC. I'm increasingly flirting with catastrophe with my non-declaration of pronouns.

We've all made our choices as to what we can do and our bright lines. My family couldn't manage without my income. There are no services to pick up from me for my caring responsibilities and I'm only managing those because of the amount of money that I spend.

This is plausibly true of Maya and so many others. Yes, if they would accept the plaudits, that's fine by me. They've done a lot to merit them.

You implied they were cowardly when you wrote "they're scared of losing their career, family, friends and reputation!"

Nothing is wrong with it but I don't see that those who like the limelight should be lauded more than those who don't.

I didn't call anyone a coward! But most people involved in this fight do speak up through whichever channels they can, whether that's on social media, a campaigning group, or just with their immediate circle.

Not sure why it's a problem that some people with big platforms use that platform to campaign and share information? What's wrong with that?

Well mainly because they're scared of losing their career, family, friends and reputation!

No. That is simply untrue, and disrespectful. I'm talking about ordinary people who don't live their lives online. I'm not talking about the media people. It's extraordinarily dismissive to assume women who, for example, have done their GC bit for years now but who also hold down careers to support their families are cowards for choosing not to take to social media to broadcast it.

Well mainly because they're scared of losing their career, family, friends and reputation!

So you people should shut up and not campaign or talk about the issues?

Well, it depends on the platform they have and how they go about broadcasting their 'dedication'? Most people in this godforsaken fight don't take to twitter or a podcast to let everyone know.

Of course you can judge people on their dedication! What they do, their actions, the sacrifices they've made, and what it's cost them.

What else are you going to judge them on? Their sex, skin colour, nationality?

I’m glad of all the voices speaking up on this issue.

The mind-changing goes only one way, once you’ve seen the damage being done in the name of “trans rights” you can’t unsee it. People don’t start off being all “experimental treatments on people too young to give informed consent are baaaad” then swivel to “meh, whatever they want, none of my business”.

Bit by bit, voice by voice. Whatever it takes. There’ll be a voice to suit everyone.

That too , @UtopiaPlanitia . I was too cowardly to bring that up. Didn't want to be accused of special pleading!

I think it's ridiculous to start judging people according to how dedicated they appear. Linehan might have messed up his life because he was obsessed, but that was his choice, and it doesn't make him morally better than all the women quietly and doggedly fighting this in their own lives and careers.

KJK is really hated, isn't she? suspect it's the non feminist label she wears with pride, her "family values" identity that isn't where so much Second Wavers want to go, her absolute talent for getting her name and brand on the map, and her populist like appeal. She doesn't give a shit if the theoretical feminists want to support her or not. Isn't there a big fall out with WPUK, Jane Clare Jones etc?

Chris Rufo in US who has led the charge against CRT and CGT has criticised who he calls the theoretical allies against woke progressivism, but who fail to really knock the wall over.

The Quillette and UnHerd crew, Wesley Yang, Bari Weiss, Andrew Sullivan etc. From his view, it's not enough to talk. Talking won't knock the ramparts over.
What's needed is action, in his case absolutely getting DeSantis on board with the fight, and if he doesn't become president, he'll transfer his energies to Trump.

I suspect of all the voices over here, Rufo would only feel KJK and Linehan have made any difference. I'm not sure if he feels even Jordan Peterson has done enough.

It's very 'head girls' spiteful. Very much echoes the nasty 'pound store' crack by Ditum against KJK.
Both Linehan and Kellie-Jae are true heroes, giving everything they have to stop children from ruining their bodies, their health , their lives permanently.
And that's the difference...

I think the fact that he’s Irish has to be considered here too. For some English people, we Irish aren’t genteel enough because we are very blunt when we’re arguing our case, we tend to swear in our every day speech and we’re extremely sarcastic (when being both friendly and unfriendly 🤷‍♀️). There’s no back doors in Graham Linehan, what you see is what you get, and this seems to make a lot of English, middle-class people wince - he’s not ‘naice’ enough for their tastes.

I think it's unfair to say he is the only man.
James Dreyfus and Dennis Kavanagh have been very vocal
.

Also, it's in the Acknowledgements granted rather than in the main body of the book but -

I feel this is taking on all the signs of a resolving civil war. Until now, a decade plus of amoral attacks and land grabs from marauding TRAs, doughty resistance and surprising wins and messaging victories by the GC incumbent citizens (we have Winston Churchill, they have India Willoughby).

And make no mistake, it's the TRAs that are the aggressors here.

But of course total victory for either side impossible to achieve, especially when the new voice of the outside world which will broker the peace, ie the UN/Americans/Europeans is declaring a settlement on their terms. This is the equivalent of the incoming Labour govt.

Right now the likes of Janice Turner, Hadley Freeman, Helen Lewis are talking up Labour, and ostensibly talking down the firebrands (Linehan)...indeed Graham has been scathing of Freeman and Lewis, soon I'm sure Turner.

I see this contingent as the "this best we're gonna get, influence Labour further as friends inside the tent, try to prevent trans conversion ban and more transparency on gender teaching in schools, ensure its not so easy for men to get GRCs".

Right now, Zelensky also has words in his ear saying deal with Putin.

I'm really unsure how the more radical feminists will position themselves, the ones who are properly left wing, socialist. Are Bindel, Moore, Bartosch, JC Jones etc going to "settle" for a "least worse case"? Or split from the accomodating group, and keep running exposes on teen medicalisation, gender secrecy in schools etc?

Of course, KJK and Linehan will give no quarter, they're not political or journalists. Nor do I suspect Gervais will let up on the disinfectant of piss taking.

From my POV as a full on GC, but also aware of the compromises of politics, I fully get why the accomodating group will do this. They're GC women but also Labour supporters, with connections and friends in the party. And they want a Labour govt instead of a Tory one for lots of reasons. And for them, the basics of Starmer's offer is just enough, and they can wheedle more change if they're close to the party after the GE.

Others are more distant, and will view this a sellout.

Me? If the result of political musical chairs, a Labour govt is facilitated by GCs in positions of influence and the result is no Self ID but a steep uptake on easier to acquire GRCs, trans conversion ban and stringent online anti hate laws come in chilling the discourse, and gender teaching in schools remains clouded in secrecy, it'll be a capitulation by Turner et al that should haunt them.

But that's a civil war for you. You as citizens can be in the "right", and still shafted by the powers that be. And their enablers.

Course they are, head girls are gonna head girl.

I agree Ova, Reality and I very much hope investigative journalism does not end up a casualty.

I thought this was odd a year ago:

Trans charity’s chatroom for children condemned as irresponsible free-for-all

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bb4574c0-40e5-11ed-a7af-c587dcb7526e?shareToken=4268aec29e22f42a18c43d2e130ebc73

Ostensibly decent job on Mermaids but with a free ad for Childline sandwiched in the middle? They didn't even seem to look at their "strict controls". You only needed to have gone on there to know what's in that article doesn't stack up.

I've no idea why WPUK was singled out by JT in the "review" in question. They could be just as puzzled for all I know. But overall, things feel off

You're very right to point this out. Agree with your take on Turner, she's saying Labour has done enough with turn from Self ID, it's come in from the cold, Phillips has hosted well attended meets with Rosie Duffield, and the worst of the battle is over.

Even the toilets get a bye from Turner.

Labours tanks are on the lawn. Turner isn't going to stand in front of them, she's going to put garlands around the necks of those driving them, the ones she approves of...Starmer, Streeting etc.

To now associate with the jihadi types like KJK and Linehan, not only would it serve no purpose, it would be counter productive.

Expect more and more distance from the likes of Turner, Hadley Freeman, and the mudslingers.

Not quite sure where Bindel, Moore, Bartosch and JC Jones will fit along this spectrum?

I commented on this elsewhere. I've noticed recently they've not reported on some things The Telegraph have picked up and the coverage has notably shifted to leaning pro Labour.

I'm assuming that when an election is announced the Murdoch papers are going to throw in with Starmer as they did with Blair. Good investigative reporting on these issues may well end up a casualty of that choice.

Quite possibly. See this glossy piece for instance. The Times in general has gone cold on shining the light it once did on these issues. It feels like - as a paper - we're being warmed up to Labour. That's their prerogative as a paper, some might argue. But as the "paper of record", it's worth mentioning.

At last, an outbreak of peace in the gender wars

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9c1d5572-686c-11ee-a4e7-0fb10af55688?shareToken=8a4157ac11fa59eb4c39e3096aeddc46