Andrew Doyle

Peter Boghossian discusses this well here. It's about the skill of critical thinking and discovering and being able to defend your ideas.

PS: I'm still going to the dots to 'quote' - I'll get used to this new-fangled and better method soon.

Honestly its only by seeing the disagreements/disagreeing with people myself that I've been able to clarify my own thoughts on lots of issues (not just this topic). Its completely counterproductive when people either shut down agreement in the name of kindness/politeness or go the opposite way and get abusive.

I find you inordinately persuasive and sound in your recommendations in the general course of events.

But, no.

I decline.

Hope that's OK.

I mean, ten seconds would do.

they're telling themselves that that he's got this terrible burden that he's trying to manage, and not upset women whilst he's doing it.

When the reality is that 'upsetting women', is the entire basis for his fetish.

Can we get this printed onto fliers and distributed please

AGP depends quite literally and bluntly on women's subjugation, that is the premise the fetish is built on.

Just consider the phrase 'sissy porn' for five minutes.

Well it's respect for DH's fantasy but that involves disrespecting and acting against the safeguarding of children.

I don't think that's what they're telling themselves, though.

I think they're telling themselves that that he's got this terrible burden that he's trying to manage, and not upset women whilst he's doing it.

When the reality is that 'upsetting women', is the entire basis for his fetish.

This is why I genuinely don't think that either Janice or Andrew believe they were participating in it.Both of them talked about respect. Respect for what??

Well it's respect for DH's fantasy but that involves disrespecting and acting against the safeguarding of children.

Telling children - even just by modelling it - that they have no choice about wrong sex pronouns is a slippery and abusive slope. It's very anti safeguarding. Let's not forget DH wrote guidelines for schools which embedded coercive control of pupils. So many red flags it's bunting.

Let's also not forget Andrew / Amy Miller. Indoctrinating children into the belief that they're bigots if they recognise men who want them to believe they're women as men is really a very dangerous thing.

Any chance of a couple of screenshots genderwoo?

Never issued so many 'thanks' in a thread before. Duncan, of renown in these parts, has been good on X on this. Unlike Doyle etc al.

I agree.

One of the characteristics of this issue is how you think the scales have fallen. And then you realise they'd only just nudged down a bit.

As soon as I read the opinions of safeguarding experts, an awful a lot more became very, very clear.

So yes, if you have national newspapers, and influential interviewers participating in a man's fetish, out of 'respect', how the fuck do you expect children to stand up for reality, or themselves?

Or wives, or transwidows.

This is why I genuinely don't think that either Janice or Andrew believe they were participating in it.

Both of them talked about respect. Respect for what??

I wish they would just ask themselves that question.

What do they think is happening when a man says he's got AGP?

AD does have a choice but others don't and by modelling the reality denial for the demands of one person, you're potentially creating an environment where those who are powerless have no choice and will be in a coercive control dynamic.

That captures my position well. It normalises it, shifts towards preference falsification, and doesn't recognise power dynamics of those who are most likely to be affected by it in a striking way (e.g., luxury beliefs, Exiting the Vampires' Castle).

It's disappointing to see journalists miss the opportunity to demonstrate the courteous use of correct-sex pronouns for somebody who has actually given permission for them to do so.

It's annoying to see them fall for the harmless sounding 'attraction to self' language that Hayton is trying to plant in everyone's minds.

It's pretty normal to see people being unpleasant anonymously online, but why assume this is representative of GC feminism?

I realise this is a bit 'no true Scotsman', but I would apply the same reasoning to anyone. The reason I dislike TRAs isn't because of anonymous nasty tweets or even because someone got punched in the face. It's because it's a dangerous philosophy being pursued relentlessly by variously self-interested parties at the expense of the vulnerable.

Doyle is being unhelpful with the whole 'everyone's as bad as each other' thing. We're really not.

I liked that Barry Wall video. I agree with pretty much everything he says, but especially that disagreement is fine. This is a living issue and a developing one so I really do believe that it's perfectly natural that there are many different approaches. The abuse AD got is wrong and I think we do have to find a way to disagree robustly but respectfully.

I've just had a bit of a realisation about this. The thing is - asking someone to use wrong sex against the rules of English pronouns CAN be part of coercive control.

To a woman who is being coercively controlled by a man demanding she bend her perception of reality to his demands, another person going along with his demands is participating in the coercive control.

Any time you do something that denies reality then you risk being an enabler of abuse in this way. If DH says 'down now means up' and AD goes along with that out of courtesy it's the same thing. Why would you? It's fine if he wants to participate in DH's AGP but I don't really understand why and I think it's useful to explore the coercive control dynamic at play. AD obviously isn't being coercively controlled but that's not really true of DH's pupils in school (does he still teach?) who don't have a lot of choice about how they address their teacher and where the power balance is all one way.

AD does have a choice but others don't and by modelling the reality denial for the demands of one person, you're potentially creating an environment where those who are powerless have no choice and will be in a coercive control dynamic.

I do think part of the issue is that GB news and the Times are both news organisations. What pronouns to use/how to address people we know is a completely personal decision and should be a free decision for everyone. But when its The News there is (ideally if not in reality) an expectation of truthfulness/trying to find the truth. I think the question is whether using she/her for a man is "lying" or just a gesture of politeness when its obvious they aren't women.

I also think it distracts from Barry Walls (and many others) very serious points about the issues of connecting AGP to children's dysphoria/the use of preferred pronouns (including for AGPs) in schools.

edited to add I don't mean that the issues around pronouns is a distraction.

To me, Andrew Doyle is coming across as fairly typical of a lot of people.

Anyone who thinks that Hayton is critical of gender and respectful of women really isn't listening.

Crikey, it's terfism 101. The trans ideology couldn't function without the constant reinforcement of gender stereotypes. It's the whole point.

Without the hair, the frocks, the pronouns, the sissy porn and the big tits are best, 'Debbie' wouldn't exist.

Barry makes the key point that DH got into that article the idea that children have agp.

And all this has definitely been an almighty distraction from that horrific nugget. DH probably knew that would happen with female pronouns. Trojan horse with bells on.

I'm reminded of the fact that JKR has probably had the most abuse of all those in the spotlight.

I can fully understand why AD came off Twitter. It's probably also healthy and I often consider deactivating.

I also feel women are more used to dealing with abuse.

This is what men, who have no need to sanitise AGP, say about it.

There is nasty abuse on twitter all the time. Some of it is humans, some of it is bots, we can't tell and we can't tell the sex of who's posting unless it's a verified account.

When it's against women it's a shrug shoulders from the police 'not a lot we can do' even when it's explicit death threats.

When it's a man suddenly it's a terrible problem caused by some kind of organised group, and not just individual random nasty people. Rules of misogyny.

I'm sad as I didn't have AD down as a misogynist but that article makes it clear he is. Claiming it's 'GC activists' spouting abuse with no evidence it is some kind of group activity. Conflating actual abuse with women saying 'no'.

Fuck that.

Some women say nasty things, yes, we're not a fucking borg mind. The point of women having human rights is that we're not all treated as the same service being. And yet....

It's fine if AD wants to be a willing participant in DH's fetish, that's his choice, but it's also fine if women say they disagree with the expectation they should also do so. And speak up strongly against doing so. Women have LOST THEIR JOBS for not participating in this. AD hasn't.

'A small faction of activists won't tolerate dissent' - who's stopping you Andrew? No-one's stopping you participating in DH's fetish / AGP (MN - he has admitted this at length, in DH's case it's clear on his say so). You haven't lost your job, been made bankrupt, had people turn up at your door? You can just come off twitter?

It's YOU who is not tolerating dissent, we're not allowed, apparently, to call out the fact that by participating in DH's self confessed fetish with female pronouns that you're making it more difficult for women to say 'no'.

We live in a world where women have been abused, lost money, lost jobs and been physically attacked for failing to do whatever men who think they're women tell us to do. We're allowed to say it as we see it.

Barry Wall's take though not a comment on Andrew's treatment.

He makes good points about respectful debate and influence but I would personally debate in opposition to two points he makes.

One that DH shouldn't have been in the times.

Authoritarianism and no platforming is how we got into this scrape and it won't get us out.

But Andrew Doyle shouldn't be the focus of that.

Oh certainly not. I was just making a general comment on whether it's a very extreme thing for a woman to feel. On the face of it, it is, but in reality, a lot of women have very good reason if they hate men.

Yes, when women have good reason to hate men. Something that many men don't always get. And Germaine Greer said women have no idea how much men hate them. This movement has certainly brought that home.

But Andrew Doyle shouldn't be the focus of that.

I agree, but it's always been part of the feminist movement. It's not new and exclusive to gender critical feminists.

Gingrich isn't one to dismiss. She been all over this debate for years and has done stirling investigative work following the money in the US trans movement to show where funding originates and how it got so influential so quickly. (Billionaire trans-bros in big pharma in case you're interested). You are right in that she is very US centric, and that debate has a different tone to the uk one, but she's worth reading simply for the insight on how these ideas seem to suddenly become accepted dogma in some circles. Not one to block imo.

I think the poster meant the revfmstrtbeat poster Jennifer Gingrich was talking about.

Yes, when women have good reason to hate men. Something that many men don't always get. And Germaine Greer said women have no idea how much men hate them. This movement has certainly brought that home.

But Andrew Doyle shouldn't be the focus of that.