Linehan tweeting misogyny and racism now

And you also don’t understand what a brand is. A disparate movement with little cohesion is not a brand. It is a group of disparate people or small groups. It is not a BRAND!

You seem far too interested in belonging to a movement and being seen to be the right kind of person than you are in working towards equitable outcomes for female people.

I actually don’t know if anyone even considers Graham Lineham as any ‘representative’ of the campaigning groups but you. He is a periphery figure like fucking hundreds, probably thousands, of others are.

I was sceptical from the first post <polishes halo>

Just reposting this in case it was missed.

Giddy's link is to a general campaigning site highlighting the existence of hate crime in general. Nothing at all equivalent to the gleeful violent and sexual abuse of TerfIsASlur.

Just in case anyone thought Giddy had found a site with equivalently vile posts aimed at trans people.

I did find this on Giddy's link though:

In 2020/2021, sexual orientation Hate Crimes went from 15,972 to 17,135, while transgender identity Hate Crimes went from 2,542 to 2,630. But we know that LGBTQI+ Hate Crimes are highly under-reported and thousands more who are the victims of attack, abuse and harassment do not come forward

Leaving aside that it's old data, it struck me how small a set we are talking about here. I expect the number of women suffering a misogynist attack every day is an order of magnitude higher than the annual trans hate crime figure, and that's just thinking of physical or sexual abuse. Add in the verbal abuse, slurs and microaggressions that women face all the time but would also be considered hate crime if directed at trans people and - oooph.

Once again, I am GC,

It’s rather odd then that you seem to think that all other GC women are enthusiastic fans of Graham Linehan.

Why wouldn’t you expect that many of us have mixed feelings about him

Or do you require something more? Complete cancelation of Linehan by anyone who is gender critical/sex-realist?

You don’t see a problem with that approach?

For instance, in the example of the medically-transitioned transwoman in the men's toilets; the responses immediately on this very thread have skirted around the central point and haven't offered an actual solution.

But why do we need to offer an actual solution? Why is it our problem to sort out? Why are TW, and their allies who have the ear of every institution in the country, incapable of coming up with said solution?

People on this forum have for years said they would back trans people requesting additional spaces be provided for trans people who don't want to use the facilities provided for their sex and the response from trans people and their allies is abuse and death threats. TRAs and their allies will not accept anything less than TW accessing and using the single sex facilities, services and sports set aside for females and it is not the spaces they actually want it is the validation of using them and the women in there.

So, no, I am not prepared to offer up any solution as far as I am concerned trans people, especially TW, must use the facilities for their sex and if they don't want to do that then campaign for alternative additional provision or go without. Their choice.

“Do you see posts on here about Trump and reply 'Well, what do you want me to do about it?'”

This is disingenuous or it could just be evidence of that polarised thought.

Very few people on MN are from the USA. Of those, it is not likely that many of them are engaged in campaigning for or against the wide spread of political decisions made by the President. So of course your comparison is flawed.

Because many of us here on this board, likely quite a few of us on this thread. DO campaign for female single sex provisions as well as other feminist issues. So… actually demanding discussion about how to make male people feel better in their toilet choices IS relevant to us and even if you didn’t intend to, does feel like you are putting some kind of demand on us to change our campaigning to suit male people.

Why the fuck else do you think you are getting this push back of ‘this is not our issue to solve, thanks!’? Oh. Right. Because we are radicalised and not listening? Yeah. I forgot.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

Pistonheads?

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Exactly. So tedious and predictable.

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?