Billy Bragg getting challenged in the Observer

Indeed. This whole paragraph says a lot about his inability to think outside what he sees as rigid tribal positions:

"..And that’s what I see with Rowling and the others: they are on the wrong side of the table.”
His argument is that some of his opponents on the issue appear to be giving strength to anti-trans campaigns on the fundamentalist religious right in the US and elsewhere – that if any ground is given “the next thing will be an assault on equal marriage and abortion”. But of course there is no suggestion at all that Rowling or Bindel have any sympathy with those groups so, again, isn’t that a problem of social media platforms themselves, which are engineered to promote simple binaries over nuanced argument, and which reinforce “which side are you on” tribalism.

This paragraph highlights that he really doesn't have a clue about how to navigate the topic of gender identity. He clearly saw himself as a people's hero, on the "right side of the table" and hasn't noticed that people like JKR and Julie Bindel are sitting on a completely different table entirely. It reminds me of big family Christmases years ago, where my cousins and I would all be sitting on a table together, leaving the grown ups to their own "boring", nuanced conversations, where they listened to each other and debated topics etc, while all the "best" and "most important" conversations took place on the kids' table.

Sheepy Bragg baa's at the moon.

I have always perceived that for most people - say 70% of the population - the most important thing is group conformity. People fall in with whoever is in their environment - rather than consciously seeking out like minds. People form friendships on the basis of occupational similarity, or enjoyment of activities such as clubbing, dancing, jogging, mountain walking and so on.

In this respect most people are not naturally 'political' creatures; they are social creatures. For many people, and especially now in the era of social media - political activism is the social setting for their friendships; their environment. Yet few of them have the motivation or natural interest to actually explore the issues they march/campaign for in full. All of their views are formed via social assimilation and integration.

He doesn’t really believe what he says about sitting on the wrong side of the table. If he did, it would be impossible to take a stance on anything.

It's really about conforming and group think. He's outsourced his thinking to his tribe, and thats why hes arguments about this are lacking, he hasnt reach his conclusion through his own thinking. He probably barely understands the issue and i doubt he could steelman the feminist point.

Similarly his arguments for termination of pregnancy will be weak. I wouldn't want him to represent me in a debate because it will not be from a women perspective. What would he have - termination are good because Jacob reesmogg disapproves?

You’ve nailed it. Also from the article:

’“Because when I get depressed or cynical, I have the privilege of being able to go out in the dark and sing my songs, and when everyone claps, I don’t feel so bad. What I hope to do in my gigs is for the audience to feel like that too. That at least there’s this roomful of people in their town who do give a shit. Music can’t change the world, but it can do that.”’

Some of us think it’s important to engage our brains when doing politics and not just wallow in feelings of righteousness or rebelliousness while actually embracing the side that does harm, but not Billy. And he is dim enough to be completely transparent.

Smug?

Smug and self satisfied, having been rewarded for being that way that for so long.

Yes! A lot of people get embroiled in political activity on the basis of how good it makes them feel to belong to a certain group - with all of the emotional bonds; feeling of solidarity and so on.When you break away from group conformity and this feeling that needing to belong is the most important thing - you are able to see it more clearly

I’d originally asked if we might meet at his home, but he declined because he didn’t want it identified (I suspect he also may be wary of the seafront villa backdrop complicating his image).

The journalist certainly seems to have his number.

It's incredible how 'the right people' managed to come up with the wrong argument, so he turns around and says that JKR and co sat with the 'wrong people' rather than addressing the issue that those he assumes always have the right intentions fucked up because they had their heads up their own arses and didn't think because they were more concerned about sitting with the cool kids than critically thinking.

Never has image and style over substance been presented as shallow and dumb as well as Silly Billy does here.

Get off the back seat of the bus Billy and stop bullying to keep in with the cool kids at the expense of the smart kids. You're 66 not 14.

Ha!

Personally I have always found it strange how happy the TRAs are to be on the same side as the Iranian mullahs on this one.

I would genuinely like to see any transactactivist that Bragg truly believes is on the right side of the table.

Just one.

Yes, this is a classic combination which is often to be observed: people who have a lot to say about something, but don't understand or grasp the essential nature of the issues on which they proclaim. This what happens when people simply adopt positions purely on the baisis of ideological or tribal loyalty.

For someone who prides himself on a bit of political analysis, it's clearly a stupid reason to disagree with JKR and Julie Bindel. That other people who he despises agree with them over some parts of this issue.

It's hardly something that we don't all know.

When the movement has gone out of its way to jump on the coattails of gay rights, it's not going to be very surprising that homophobes will treat it the same.

It takes about half a thread on here to realise that's incorrect.

That it's got nothing to do with gay rights. That that was a deliberate attempt at legitimisation. And that it actually undermines homosexuality, even as a concept.

Billy Bragg has been taken in, right bloody royally.

He should read the Denton report. His reaction is the exact one TRAs were engineering.

He's been had.

But I don't think he could've been had if his underlying sexism hadn't precluded him from listening to women.

Haven't read it, just flicked down to see the length of the article (and guess at how much time it would take me to read it). So my screen came to rest at the bottom of the article, and this, second last paragraph, was there.

"He regrets not standing up a bit more to bullies as a kid, but he’d like to think he’s made up for that since."

Becoming a bully yourself does not 'make up' for not standing up to bullies in your youth.

If I were Billy I'd maybe look at some of the people I was sitting with. He's on the same side of the table as Isla Bryson, Barbie Kardashian, Dana Rivers and Sandi Toksvig

Hahaha

Why does that never occur to them? Genuine question.

It is embarrassing how much he has made this his issue, whilst understanding so little of it - beyond the most rudimentary "supporting the marginalised"

Funny how politely Billy argues with a male journalist, eh?

If I were Billy I'd maybe look at some of the people I was sitting with. He's on the same side of the table as Isla Bryson, Barbie Kardashian, Dana Rivers and Sandi Toksvig - surely that's enough to make anyone question themselves.

Yeah, we've been reassigned as 'right, but in the wrong way/standing next to the wrong people/at the wrong time'.

I need a new word that encompasses the full extent of the hard-of-thinking, sexist, self-satisfied dickheadry of Bragg, Campbell, Hislop etc al. None of the ones I already know are coming close to cutting it.

I assume that is because he really wanted to say wrong side of history but as they are proving to be on the right side of history he can’t 😂

Oh is Silly Billy starting to realise the wind has changed and trying to backtrack?

"Rowling and the others: they are on the wrong side of the table.”

Nope. I don't agree.

Argument at the 'they've got the cooties so you do too' level of debate.

What a prize cockwomble.

Is he now going to catch a load of flak for being a transphobe from his following? I do hope so.

"Wrong side of the table"? What a silly thing to say.

It reminds me of a TV debate I did back with Red Wedge; on one side of the table was me, Jerry Dammers and Clare Short, and on the other Stewart Copeland, a Tory MP called Greg Knight and Chris Dean from the Redskins. Now, me and Chris had toured during the miners’ strike, but I looked at Chris, and pointed to who he was sitting with, and told him he was on the wrong side of the table. And that’s what I see with Rowling and the others: they are on the wrong side of the table.”

Great anecdote billy, classic debate.

All thats proved is that he's always followed a crowd and not the argument.