Duffield under investigation

@PlanetJanette

Please engage with the content in the links above rather than retro-fitting your 21st century mentality onto the real events.

Being trans is not ‘choosing a certain type of clothing’.

The Nazis, as is explained in several links now, were not targetting trans people as you understand it, in terms of inner self and gender identity. They were targeting transvestite people, which literally is people 'choosing a certain type of clothing’

How gay people were treated is not relevant to how Izzard, who would have been considered an aryan transvestite, would have been treated.

That said, I'm sure some gay men did go into the closet to escape persecution, and indeed that does not make the persecution of gay men somehow ok. And if Izzard had said "transvestite people" or even "people like me" were murdered that would have been true. But Izzard said "I would have been murdered" which is in fact very unlikely and crass given how many people without Izzard's privilege were murdered.

It is abhorrent to appropriate the suffering of gay people, Jewish people and others to advance the political aims of TRAs. That really is holocaust revisionism.

(As an aside, I find it interesting that you seemingly think a trans woman is no longer a woman if she is currently dressing like a man, since so-called "Cis" women certainly don't think they stop being women if they wear mens clothes!)

Here's a question for you to ask yourself: when judging Duffield, why do you place more weight on one willfully misinterpreted tweet than on the documented times she has stood up against anti Semitism?

Well datun, we all know that poster’s posting patterns show time and time again…. That is why I can’t be bothered name changing myself.

This type of tactic also fits with the tactic of hyperbolic exaggeration to polarise the discussion. Similar to abusively telling a poster that they are a child abuser for asking a child if they were in the right toilet, if a child of the opposite sex of the single sex space entered.

The extreme activists have used hyperbole to make a tweet about Izzard’s specific life based on Izzard’s own actions and words to then be about denying the oppression of a group of people by the Nazi regime, which is being repeated here.

Distraction, hyperbole, weaponising a horrific era of history for a current political agenda. This is a great demonstration of the tactics used.

However, it is a very concerning topic because it does seem that Rosie has been targeted by a group using these tactics.

Whilst simultaneously identifying as a superhero.

I might be wrong, but I can't help thinking that Nazis wouldn't have given that much house room either.

Poor Eddie. He would've had to have hidden his cloak in the closet too.

Has anyone got a copy of that pic of Eddie violating women's boundaries in the ladies loos at a train station? I find a visual aid clarifies these things so nicely. Will go and see if I can find it...

Ultimately, Labour have been itching to apply Salem style denunciation of Rosie, the flimsiest context will do. It's very much cut your nose off to spite your face territory, especially given the context a PP has provided about Rosie's seat. They must feel really smug and confident about a win if they're willing to do that.

But how can we know whether he'd have been a persecuted transvestite or a cross-dressing Nazi? We can't, because he wasn't there, and he's just appropriating the suffering of others for his own ends.

And here it is again.

As Helle just said 😁

"This is a tactic like many other tactics used by a few posters, sometimes name changers. Others include accusing posters of racism for not discussing the systemic failings of women of colour in the United States in a thread about the violence experienced by women protesting about women’s sex based rights."

But you go ahead and defend Eddie "girlmode/boy mode, depending on the cheque" Izzard.

People are sick of these wankers gleefully'victimising' themselves. It's tedious, it's relentless, and everyone is over it.

Although, I have to say, I haven't seen someone do it in the same breath as claiming to be a superhero 🤣🤣

Not to derail but this nonsense has clarified something for me. Conservatives may be corrupt and incompetent but they are so much more nimble at adapting to changing circumstances than Labour. Their sheer will to win overrides everything else.

So , for example , Labour has expelled or deselected members , councillors and MPs for various transgressions of the Party line. Mostly on the left but now with Rosie Duffield, on the right of the party.

Now consider the case of David Cameron. The new Foreign Secretary says Israel will never have real security until the killings of Palestinians on the West Bank stop. To widespread indifference in the Tory Party generally. Such talk would get you booted from Starmers cabinet.

Then , if you please , he announces ' we must have closer ties with the EU' . Sacré bleu! Again I doubt a Labour leader or front bencher would dare to say this - think of the Red Wall blah blah.

God knows I'm no fan of Cameron but he is better at this lark. As long as it doesn't affect their class privilege Tories are happy to go along with public opinion on most issues. And public opinion is firmly on the side of Rosie.

Yes. It is a logic fail. All Izzard is doing is presenting as having a masculine appearance. Something they switch on or off when it suits them.

It is a false equivalence to declare that Izzard is anything like a homosexual actor in a straight role. But making that false equivalence does attempt to portray oppression and gain victimhood for Izzard which seems counter to what Izzard themself has declared to the world numerous times.

It is making all trans people into one homogeneous group. That would be transphobic wouldn’t it?

@PlanetJanette can you say what the difference is when Izzard switches between what he calls ‘modes’?

ie you say ‘it’s not just clothes’, what else is it?

Like the other trans people persecuted in nazi Germany then?

Eddie is a straight white male non Jewish male.

In order to shift him from a group that the Nazis would have promoted to a group they would have targeted, someone needs to explain what 'trans' actually is.

So Planet Janet, here's your big chance to make it all make sense.

No, what Izzard is doing is appropriating the persecution of others to try to deflect from the obvious reality that he is a privileged person who can wear what he likes, and nobody cares how he presents.

Speculating on how he may or may not have been treated by a despotic regime if he had lived in another place and time is appropriation of the very real suffering of those who did live there, and Linehan was right to call him out on this.

This is a tactic like many other tactics used by a few posters, sometimes name changers. Others include accusing posters of racism for not discussing the systemic failings of women of colour in the United States in a thread about the violence experienced by women protesting about women’s sex based rights. There it was applied to silence the discussion and attempt portray posters as being hateful and bigoted because they weren’t discussing the wider issue but just one event.

This, of course, is a similar tactic though of trying to force the discussion onto generalised oppressed of a group rather than specific individuals.

So, here we are supposed to not focus on Izzard’s own life and instead focus on the trans people who were persecuted. While ignoring that the way Izzard posted was Izzard’s own utilisation of that oppression for political gain. That tweet of Izzard’s was centring Izzard not those who were persecuted if the same framing as being used to condemn Lineham is to be used on that tweet from Izzard.

Distraction, distraction, distraction.

PlanetJanette · Today 07:39

You simply cannot keep repeating this ‘Izzard acts male for the purposes of acting’ nonsense without also grappling with the fact that gay actors also act straight for the purposes of acting.

Lol. Izzard isn't acting male, Izzard is male.

Again, I know you'd prefer that to be the case.

But that is simply not what the tweet does. What the tweet does is claim - falsely - that someone like Izzard would not have faced persecution under the nazis. It's really that simple.

So it then becomes a question - would someone like Izzard have faced persecution or not. If they would, then Linehan and Duffield are denying aspects of nazi atrocities.

And as set out, Izzard certainly would have been at high risk of persecution.

The fact that Izzard is wealthy, moves in elite circles etc doesn't change that - a great many of the Nazi's victims were in elite or privileged positions prior to Hitler's rise to power (much nazi rhetoric was actually focused on breaking apart elites etc).

The fact that Izzard could have pretended to be a gender conforming cisgender man also doesn't change that. As noted, gay people had the option to stay in the closet. Many of them did so. Many did not. Many tried but were outed. The potential to evade persecution doesn't negate the existence of the persecution in the first place.

For me it's a bit like people assuming that their Australian ancestors would have been prisoners rather than prison guards. In Eddie's scenario there is just as much chance that Eddie would have ended up as a cross-dressing Nazi soldier (they did exist) than a victim of Naziism. Unless we are Jewish or another of the ethnicities targeted by the Nazis or obviously disabled, the idea that any of us can look back at the situation of Nazi Germany and state that we would have been a victim or part of the resistance rather than having been complicit or an active participant in that regime is a very arrogant position to take. Eddie is using the holocaust to position Eddie as a victim when he is about as far from being victim as you can get.

Graham Lineham, a writer who uses sarcasm as a linguistic device, used a linguistic device in a tweet to point out that Izzard was appropriating persecution for Izzard’s own political agenda.

Do you believe that Izzard should have posted in a way that appropriated the persecution of others the way that Izzard did?

Anyone would think that some activists pick and choose their rhetoric and simply identify as consistent and not at all hypocritical.

No. Lineman used humour to demonstrate the ridiculousness of a privileged, white male in the 21st century UK claiming victimhood on the basis of speculation about Nazi Germany.

All duffield did was click like. And you’ve projected your own agenda all over that.

We can actually see what you’re doing here with this rhetoric.

How strange that the trans umbrella extending to people who choose their mode of dress depending on their activity is now being denied! The hypocrisy on this thread is starting to show quite clearly, and it isn’t crone that is doing this.

I know you'd like that to be true but it's not.

Linehan did not say 'yes, there's a good chance you would have been persecuted in 1940s Germany but you live in 2023 UK and so not apt'. Linehan did not say that Izzard should not appropriate the persecution of others under the Nazi regime - whether Jewish, gay, trans, disabled, roma etc.

Instead Linehan used sarcasm to deny that trans people were persecuted under the nazis. And Duffield liked that.

Graham and Rosie did not deny that trans people were subject to persecution. This tactic is just another version of the absolutist approach we so often see.

Yes.

Frankly the rhetorical appropriation of nazi concentration camps to claim your own victimhood in 2023 is utterly abhorrent and should be robustly challenged.

Anyone defending Izzard and making out that people challenging him for doing exactly this should take a good, long hard look at their arguments.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the experience of people living in nazi occupied territories during the war.