Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Linehan tweeting misogyny and racism now

531 replies

GiddyGiddyGiddy · 17/07/2026 21:32

Seems to have completed his lurch to the far-right - in addition to his vocal support of Trump, I suppose his 'defender of women and girls' schtick doesn't really wash any more...

Linehan tweeting misogyny and racism now
Linehan tweeting misogyny and racism now
Linehan tweeting misogyny and racism now
OP posts:
Thread gallery
15
Datun · 19/07/2026 09:24

Whisperingwaters · 19/07/2026 09:22

It's about balancing rights though so the harms cut both ways. And let's not forget the very same females that GC's are attempting to protect are subjected to more scrutiny they may not be comfortable with.

You could argue the potential harms of abuse of male teachers & carers of very young children given their track record outweighing their right to that kind of employment…but we wouldn’t dream of it. Consistentcy?

God, the desperation. Stay out of women's toilets.

Whisperingwaters · 19/07/2026 09:22

TheKeatingFive · 19/07/2026 09:13

You don't seem to agree that women deserve single sex toilets though. Presumably that is something you don't deem 'proportionate'.

However single sex toilet provisions is fundamental for many vulnerable women - who have been abused for example, who are orthodox religious, who have to deal with female bodily functions when breastfeeding, having their period, menopause flooding. I could go on and on.

Why don't you think these women deserve toilet provision away from men?

It's about balancing rights though so the harms cut both ways. And let's not forget the very same females that GC's are attempting to protect are subjected to more scrutiny they may not be comfortable with.

You could argue the potential harms of abuse of male teachers & carers of very young children given their track record outweighing their right to that kind of employment…but we wouldn’t dream of it. Consistentcy?

Datun · 19/07/2026 09:22

Whisperingwaters · 19/07/2026 09:08

I never said it should in all single sex spaces. I disagree where I don't perceive proportionality.

Don't tell me, it's toilets isn't it?

It's only disproportionate when it just happens to be the one space you reeelly want to use. Daily. Maybe even hourly.

AccidentallyWesAnderson · 19/07/2026 09:19

NotBadConsidering · 19/07/2026 09:18

Personally, I think Gravity has really struggled with its branding in the post-Einstein era. It enjoyed steady growth in the market share as a result of Newton, but doesn’t have the same foothold anymore since 1905.

🤣

NotBadConsidering · 19/07/2026 09:18

Personally, I think Gravity has really struggled with its branding in the post-Einstein era. It enjoyed steady growth in the market share as a result of Newton, but doesn’t have the same foothold anymore since 1905.

TheKeatingFive · 19/07/2026 09:17

Whisperingwaters · 19/07/2026 09:13

Branding is simply a short cut for a belief system these days. Either you're ignorant of how modern advertising uses psychology to connect with consumers or are bad faith nit picking.

Only an extremely vacuous mind would conclude that.

This issue is about (genuine) human rights, morality, safeguarding.

Not 'branding' 🙄

AccidentallyWesAnderson · 19/07/2026 09:17

Whisperingwaters · 19/07/2026 09:15

Strawman. Its trans women not men. And the younger generation beg to differ.

Trans women are men. Being a man is literally the only prerequisite to being one.

TheKeatingFive · 19/07/2026 09:16

Whisperingwaters · 19/07/2026 09:15

Strawman. Its trans women not men. And the younger generation beg to differ.

Transwomen are men. You know that as well as anyone else. Why lie about it?

Whisperingwaters · 19/07/2026 09:15

Helleofabore · 19/07/2026 09:11

I don’t believe that there is any contention around the statement that female people are harmed by male people accessing female single sex provisions.

Strawman. Its trans women not men. And the younger generation beg to differ.

sickofsixseven · 19/07/2026 09:15

Whisperingwaters · 19/07/2026 08:51

You are getting in the way of the long term survival of your brand by a far right alignment.

Sure you might get some legal wins…now but its a long way from over. Law just like the culture that underpins it isn't unchanging. The arc of history bends towards liberty not slavery & with the obvious generational schism I wouldn't be so confident of lasting victory.

Its reality, not a "brand". You fail to realise that the vast majority of people agree with the GC point of view. It literally has nothing to do with being far right at all. Yes I am confident of "victory", as you put it, because you people are coming across as absolute unhinged loons. Even young people are over your shit. Keep going, please 👍

Helleofabore · 19/07/2026 09:15

Whisperingwaters · 19/07/2026 09:08

I never said it should in all single sex spaces. I disagree where I don't perceive proportionality.

And which instances is it not ‘proportional’ and why ?

Whisperingwaters · 19/07/2026 09:13

TheKeatingFive · 19/07/2026 08:59

This kind of language is so telling isn't it?

There's no genuine engagement with the complexities of rights, morality, the rule of law.

Its all about branding, social media engagement, aligning with the 'right' people, following what's fashionable.

Branding is simply a short cut for a belief system these days. Either you're ignorant of how modern advertising uses psychology to connect with consumers or are bad faith nit picking.

TheKeatingFive · 19/07/2026 09:13

Whisperingwaters · 19/07/2026 09:08

I never said it should in all single sex spaces. I disagree where I don't perceive proportionality.

You don't seem to agree that women deserve single sex toilets though. Presumably that is something you don't deem 'proportionate'.

However single sex toilet provisions is fundamental for many vulnerable women - who have been abused for example, who are orthodox religious, who have to deal with female bodily functions when breastfeeding, having their period, menopause flooding. I could go on and on.

Why don't you think these women deserve toilet provision away from men?

Helleofabore · 19/07/2026 09:11

Whisperingwaters · 19/07/2026 09:05

Yes proportionality in legal frameworks is necessary for practical exemptions and limitations to balance competing rights and maintain societal order. But we haven't quite got to the case law yet that satisfies proportionality for some single spaces. And in case you haven't noticed this is heavily contested.

Edited

I don’t believe that there is any contention around the statement that female people are harmed by male people accessing female single sex provisions.

Whisperingwaters · 19/07/2026 09:08

TheKeatingFive · 19/07/2026 08:53

We're all here fighting for rights and liberty for women.

Why do you think women's rights to single sex spaces and services should be taken away from them?

I never said it should in all single sex spaces. I disagree where I don't perceive proportionality.

Whisperingwaters · 19/07/2026 09:05

Helleofabore · 19/07/2026 08:44

Anyone posting about Article 8 should be posting about the restrictions to that right as well.

It is very often ignored.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-8-respect-your-private-and-family-life

Article 8 protects your right to respect for your private and family life.

The EHRC link covers what this means. Including these restrictions:

Restrictions to the right to respect for your private and family life
There are situations when public authorities can interfere with your right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. This is only allowed where the authority can show that its action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to:
protect national security
protect public safety
protect the economy
protect health or morals
prevent disorder or crime, or
protect the rights and freedoms of other people.

Action is ‘proportionate’ when it is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the problem concerned.

These restrictions keep getting missed out and directly contradict your claim of having a ‘right’ to not be ‘othered’ if someone’s definition of ‘othered’ is that a male person should not be accessing female single sex provisions.

Which is also contradictory when you consider that if a male person is not a ‘female’ for sport, prisons and whatever else you personally support them not accessing, how do they then access other provisions that are single sex without othering themselves.

This partial access is ‘othering’ as many male people with transgender identities have pointed out themselves. If they have to say, I can do this but not this because I am not considered a female for those purposes, it means I am not what I say I am in material reality.

Yes proportionality in legal frameworks is necessary for practical exemptions and limitations to balance competing rights and maintain societal order. But we haven't quite got to the case law yet that satisfies proportionality for some single spaces. And in case you haven't noticed this is heavily contested.

Helleofabore · 19/07/2026 09:02

TheKeatingFive · 19/07/2026 08:59

This kind of language is so telling isn't it?

There's no genuine engagement with the complexities of rights, morality, the rule of law.

Its all about branding, social media engagement, aligning with the 'right' people, following what's fashionable.

The points really do speak for themselves.

Helleofabore · 19/07/2026 09:01

Whisperingwaters · 19/07/2026 08:51

You are getting in the way of the long term survival of your brand by a far right alignment.

Sure you might get some legal wins…now but its a long way from over. Law just like the culture that underpins it isn't unchanging. The arc of history bends towards liberty not slavery & with the obvious generational schism I wouldn't be so confident of lasting victory.

Brand? You are now attempting to frame the universal support that female people should have single sex provisions as a brand?

Howse that going for you?

PollyNomial · 19/07/2026 08:59

UtopiaPlanitia · 19/07/2026 00:59

I seem to remember, after that retweet, someone pointed out the bit about the 19th amendment and told him what the 19th amendment actually was. It's my recollection that GL said he'd retweeted it without reading it completely or knowing what the 19th was. Which, given how much he retweets, I wouldn't disbelieve.

I seem to remember Corbyn, rightly, getting a huge amount of stick for doing the same about "mistakenly" retweeting/liking anti-Semitic imagery.

No-one forced GL to retweet that post without bothering to check its content.

TheKeatingFive · 19/07/2026 08:59

NotBadConsidering · 19/07/2026 08:56

You are getting in the way of the long term survival of your brand by a far right alignment

Our “brand”?! 😂

Is this like when Pepsi did that ad with Kendall Jenner?

Edited

This kind of language is so telling isn't it?

There's no genuine engagement with the complexities of rights, morality, the rule of law.

Its all about branding, social media engagement, aligning with the 'right' people, following what's fashionable.

BlessingYou · 19/07/2026 08:59

Igneococcus · 19/07/2026 06:57

In a week when "Heather" and his polycule are all over the media for their blatantly violent threats against women it seems weird to focus on GL. I'm sure they are all in support of women as long as women do exactly as they are told and shut up. I mean they are quite obviously not just "careless", they think they are in the right and have been indulged by a gormless society to believe they are untouchable.
Why this focus on GL, why now? Or does the regular "look what an evil bastard he is and you silly biddies just all fell for the rightwing dollars" thread just have happened to coincide with the polycule story this time?

I suppose multiple things can happen at the same time and (most) people can also hold more than one thought or idea in their minds at any one moment.

Personally, I don’t believe the two are related at all, and it is possible to be disturbed by both at the same time, as I am.

Shedmistress · 19/07/2026 08:58

NotBadConsidering · 19/07/2026 08:56

You are getting in the way of the long term survival of your brand by a far right alignment

Our “brand”?! 😂

Is this like when Pepsi did that ad with Kendall Jenner?

Edited

Or when Bud Light sent some personalised cans to that actor grifter bloke and tanked themselves?

Helleofabore · 19/07/2026 08:58

I can’t see this new demonising label of ‘anti-rights’ lasting very long. It might work for people who quickly grasp onto any label that is getting airtime, but it always was an absurd label to be trying to silence feminists and women’s and girl’s rights campaigners with.

Considering the areas of restriction to article 8 rights, it is very clear that the over reach of ignoring those restrictions and attempting to claim absolute right of privacy over riding the restrictions could be said to make those ‘rights’ more accurately labelled as ‘privileges’.

This then makes that label of ‘anti-rights’ not only just false but gaslightingly hypocritical.

NotBadConsidering · 19/07/2026 08:56

You are getting in the way of the long term survival of your brand by a far right alignment

Our “brand”?! 😂

Is this like when Pepsi did that ad with Kendall Jenner?

TheKeatingFive · 19/07/2026 08:53

Whisperingwaters · 19/07/2026 08:51

You are getting in the way of the long term survival of your brand by a far right alignment.

Sure you might get some legal wins…now but its a long way from over. Law just like the culture that underpins it isn't unchanging. The arc of history bends towards liberty not slavery & with the obvious generational schism I wouldn't be so confident of lasting victory.

We're all here fighting for rights and liberty for women.

Why do you think women's rights to single sex spaces and services should be taken away from them?