Linehan tweeting misogyny and racism now

He's been absolutely disgraceful on this topic. He was also publically supporting men in women's rugby. And in that case it was about trans participation, so unambiguous men playing with women in a highly dangerous contact sport.

The man clearly despises women. He's actively gunning for them to get injured.

There was definitely that quarterwit Zarah Sultana, who posted “when you come for the queen you better not miss” about IK, to which JKR replied “I didn’t”

I think he ostensibly said it was directed at Imane Khelif’s legal ‘fight’ against people who pointed out he was male. Which would happily keep IK beating women up in women’s boxing without fair criticism of this outrage.

He apparently posted this on instagram. ‘‘Fair play to Imane Khelif. I hope she has financial support for her law suit. I’d be happy to make a donation.’

Now as an Irish female athlete, how would you feel if you know your political class think so little of the rights of women and girls.

And supposedly normal people cheering it on. Leo Varadkar (former Irish Taoiseach (PM), went on social media to say ‘Get ‘em, girl’, supporting Imane Khelif. Or something similar, as paraphrased. I presume that was for Imane Khelif to ‘get’ women in the ring. With his multiple punching power touching base with women’s skulls, and skeletons, organs. Etc.

Yeah, you know who the creeps who despise women are. For all their grandstanding of moral righteousness. Same as it ever was for the ‘boyos’ came to my mind. The same sh&t facilitating abuse of women, just under a different ideology.

I'm saying this genuinely, and I really don't want it to be taken in bad faith, but... The majority of TRAs do speak against this, and aren't this extreme. But, since GC people aren't likely to visit TRA spaces, when are they going to see that?

Really? Pull the other one. Where were the majority of TRAs condemning the attack on the small Rabbit Rescue Charity? Oh yes, I remember - nowhere to be seen or heard, not a single lone voice of condemnation or support for the Rabbit Rescue.

And the 'crime' of the Rabbit Rescue? Liking and following a GC person who tweeted support for the work they do on a shoestring budget and for that TRAs wanted to totally destroy them and their endeavours and sod the fate of the rabbits.

And not just cheating but punching women in the head whilst doing it.

I'm saying this genuinely, and I really don't want it to be taken in bad faith, but... The majority of TRAs do speak against this, and aren't this extreme. But, since GC people aren't likely to visit TRA spaces, when are they going to see that?

Can you provide any actual examples of these TRAs speaking out against death threats and threats of violence to women?

All we’ve seen are TRAs cancelling or witch hunting people for the tiniest perceived infraction of the ideology - a ‘like’ in the wrong place or a calling out extremist views meets with howls of rage.

As a real life example can you go onto one of these forums and say that in your opinion JKR does not deserve death threats and report back to us with the list of moderate voices supporting you please?

Exactly. So tedious and predictable.

So no examples of that then. Cool.

Why are you so laser focused on Graham Linehan? You are the only one that is claiming he ‘represents’ all of us as a ‘movement’. You are entitled to not read his posts, disagree with his posts, anything you like. You are not entitled to demand that everyone follows suit.

You can know that men can’t be women AND that Glinner - the subject of this post - is a bit troubling at times. And an odd partner for feminists.

I think that this tweet goes a long way to explaining the issue with that inherent misinformation that the repetition of 'Khelif is female' in regards to the discussion on sport.

Particularly this part: The fourth and perhaps the most important is about what's known to propagandists, advertisers and psychologists as the "repetition effect." People will believe almost any lie, however obviously untrue, if you repeat it often enough.

https://x.com/LoudBonnet/status/2079302831215902930?s=20

" Because I am a dissenter from gender ideology, the pronouns I use are almost invariably determined by the sex, not the gender identity, of the person I am referring to.

I understand that some people think my choice in this is unkind, or rude. I might have thought that myself a few years ago.

I no longer think that, for a number of reasons.

The first is that courtesy is freely given. A "courtesy" demanded with menaces loses its quality as such, and becomes a gesture of submission to bullies.

The second is about truth. If I say "she" of a man, I am implying that he is female. Men aren't female, so I am saying something untrue.

We all tell polite lies sometimes when it doesn't matter much. I think back when I was willing to tell this one, I thought it didn't matter much.

I know better now. What I know now is that many of the men who want to be referred to by feminine pronouns also want everyone to be forced to treat them for all purposes as if they were women, to the detriment of actual women's privacy, dignity and safety.

I think it matters a lot that we should be able to say "no" to those men, and to explain in plain words why we say no (because they are men).

The third is about clarity. Even if everyone knows in theory that the man we're all referring to as "she" is a man really, referring to him as "she" is confusing.

Clarity is fundamental to my job as an advocate: I need to be able to put my arguments as clearly and vividly as possible.

The fourth and perhaps the most important is about what's known to propagandists, advertisers and psychologists as the "repetition effect." People will believe almost any lie, however obviously untrue, if you repeat it often enough.

Lies don't get much more obviously untrue than "trans women are women."

It is repeated like a mantra by trans activists and those who see themselves (or want to be seen) as "allies."

But this lie has a superpower. The superpower is pronouns.

The near-universal compliance with "preferred pronouns," even by many of those who dissent in other ways from gender ideology, means that the lie is repeated with almost every utterance about a man who says he is a woman (or a woman who says she is a man).

And it's repeated not as an assertion, but insidiously, subliminally, by the use of little grammar-words that are normally handled on autopilot and barely registered by either speaker or listener.

It's brilliant propaganda. It's especially brilliant that so many dissenters have been induced to reinforce the lie in this way.

I'm not prepared to.

end/ "

If you, personally, are willing to believe the impossibility that a male person can be female in any way (that is not a legal fiction), that is something you need to work out about your own need to believe such a thing. Don't be surprised when others point out the inherent misinformation that supports what you believe is somehow accurate though.

You’re the misogynist not Glinner. Proof right there in that post. Khelif is a man, was born male and will always be male. He’s a cheat. Whom you’re defending. You’re defending a man who cheats by pretending to be a woman, and attacking a man, Linehan for pointing out Khelif is male.

This post was really pretty indicative that the OP really is almost wilfully remaining uninformed on the issues feminists are campaigning for.

This post falls into some of the really common fallacy holes we so often see. The OP has regurgitated soundbites that activists who support male people in female single sex provisions use while declaring to fully support single sex provisions.

However, the OP is inconsistent in that support of single sex provisions and their position comes across as incoherent and quite likely it is being dishonestly described by the OP

The post tries to use the very lazy ‘Phelps’ fallacy. Not only does the post show that the OP obviously has not read any of the threads detailing the issues about Khelif. This posts and the other posts making ridiculous claims about ‘prove Khelif is male’ make me think they haven’t even bothered to read anything about it. Just read some superficial soundbite that someone they believed was suitably correct-thinking expert said.

For this mess of a post to be convincing relies on people not understanding that Khelif is male and has gone through a male androgenised puberty. For the purpose of sport, it is actually irrelevant to performance whether Khelif was categorised as female at the time of his birth. That categorisation was incorrect because of the DSD diagnosis.

So, he is not female. It is a completely false equivalence to compare his participation in female events to a tall female basket baller.

When you look at the mess of posts about Khelif and then the fuckwittery questions about ‘what about if a male person has surgery, can they use female provisions’, this OP is focused on male inclusion not on single sex provisions. For this OP, single sex is a very loose description that includes a group of male people who they, personally, accept to be ‘female’ people.

It is one of the typical ‘moderate’ positions. It can be said to be the ‘kind’ position, but it is usually also typically found along side the ‘both sides’ accusations. It most certainly is also found along side the ‘I am nothing like those mean people over there’ and ‘it is not what you say, it is how you say it’ rejection.

The position will always be incoherent. It also relies on ignoring or never getting informed on the topic, as can usually be evidenced in accusing people who have become informed on the topic as being ‘obsessed’ in some way. It also usually is found alongside shaming statements about ‘there are so many bigger issues’.

It is the pattern that keeps appearing.

I think someone said it but they didn’t post the meme.

I can't believe this thread got to twenty pages and no one posted...

NONE of the management types (like Jen) in the company know how computers work and still they all look down on the IT department that keeps the entire place running - that's the joke!

I plead being autistic and hence taking people at face value by default.

I can program in four languages, and programming isn't even my current day job. I'm also female and autistic.

Comedy, like all storytelling, relies on stereotypes and caricatures. It has to because the characters are constructed. You could argue that Moss's character was perjorative about autistic people, because his behaviour is clearly autism-coded. Jen is a clueless manager. If Jen had been male, he'd have been the pointy-haired boss.

I own all the episodes on DVD and I still give them a watch every now and then. The "life in an IT department" is absolutely nailed.

Pistonheads?

I haven't quoted something without knowing what it means which would be the equivalent of what people say he did.

Have a read I was actually asking for informationn.

Yep.

An actual equivalent scenario would be helping an old person who felt their current home wasn't nice enough so broke into your house to live there instead to find a new home.

Or helping a person who changed their surname to the same as your family's then tried to sue you for their share of your granny's estate to find some replacement money from someone else.

Just read this. Yes. It is another example of sexism

And all that ‘I am saying this gently’ is just fucking infantilising. It says so much about the OP than others.

Again this is more manipulation.

“Yeah, no shit. It's not your 'responsibility' to let old people cross the road. It's not your 'responsibility' to recycle. It's not your 'responsibility' to consider people's feelings when you talk to them.”

I think it IS community responsibility to let old people cross the road safely, and to offer them help if needed. It IS people’s individual responsibility to recycle.

It is not the responsibility of someone to act in support of another person’s subjective belief about themselves if it is not reflective of material reality.

Just as it is not feminist’s or women’s / girl’s rights campaigners responsibility to campaign for male people’s safety if they are not children.

Mixing non comparative examples together like this is manipulative.

Well this is the extraordinary sleight of hand that so many fell for.

Given that no one is seriously arguing that these men change sex, why was there ever any question of them accessing women's single sex spaces/services?

The whole trans debate should have focused on driving acceptance of trans people within their own sex class,

If, decades ago when visibly trans people became a thing, the men had called themselves something like ladyboys or fa'afafine or hijra, instead of appropriating the word 'woman' outright, I wonder whether the question of using the Ladies' ( and other facilities for women) would even have arisen.