Why are some gender critical feminists praising Rod Liddle?

Yes, if you think his article promoted paedophilia.

Rod understood that the mob was a danger, not something to kowtow to. We both shared an aversion to cancel culture, organised and performative outrage. He knew that the moment a writer begins tailoring his thoughts to please online critics, the critics have won.

Rod’s response to the online mob is one which, even in death, we must remember. The usual ghouls, the types who celebrated the deaths of Margaret Thatcher and Ann Widdecombe, have come out again to tell us what a terrible person Rod was. And, of course, he was a deeply flawed man. But he mattered. He mattered because he made people think, laugh, get angry and argue. The minnows attacking him after his death merely demonstrate his significance. They must be ignored as we focus on the passing of one of the greats.

Kemi in the Spectator

No - should I?

Scoldemort, King of the Scolders, has the ability to post more than once in the thread.

Have you taken this up with the Guardian?

People will persist in posting absolute bollocks.

He openly admitted his sexual attraction to children, and passionately believed that child sexual abuse material should be legalised. i.e. he was a paedophile, although of course there is no evidence that he acted on his impulses.

But apparently he was a jolly good chap that believed in womens' rights.

I get the impression that the genderists are not at one over this.

There are the sort who want to blur all distinctions and have an apparently sexless, gender-fluid kind of world.

And there are the other sort who are all for sex segregated places and activities and exaggeratedly gendered appearances - so long as a privileged minority (including themself, of course) gets to transgress the boundaries.

Its honest at least. Genderism proposes all sex segregation be abolished.

We all know which sex would be harmed by this.

With so much nonsense there, it’s hard to know where to start. We were talking, in case you forgot, about a handful of women paying their respects following the death of a man they knew. That’s it.

However this puzzles me.

It promotes the idea that male violence is inevitable and can only be ameliorated by avoiding men. It enforces segregation of the sexes, trivialises CSA and says men will always be superior to women. Even at chess and quiz shows.

Are you suggesting that TRAs are fighting for the end of any ‘segregation’ (your word) of the sexes? That would certainly be news to those who want transwomen included in women’s categories. Or was it more an acknowledgment that transwomen are indeed men?

It encourages regressive 'feminine' stereotypes by policing our appearance

It's been used very successfully to stop all kinds of independence and rights campaigns
Edited to say this was meant to quote transphobia is a tool used by the right to divide the left instead of the above sentence about independence and rights campaigns

And does nothing whatsoever to help cis women. Just damages us

I think they're fair points actually.
although awaits people completely ignoring everything that's said just because they don't like the word cis

Absolute twaddle and bullshit from top to bottom.

The article that was quoted upthread said (regardless of your stance on whether you think it was a joke or not) said
"I don't think I'd have dabbled much below year 10"
That's not 17 - 18 year olds.
That's 14 - 15 year olds.

Your bingo card is almost full there and it's not even 8.30am.

Because they always do. See also comments on Russell Brand, Woody Allen, Johnny Depp etc.

They're part of the establishment, and the establishment will always protect men who say outrageously racist, transphobic and misogynistic stuff for cash. No matter how they treat the women in their life.

Jeremy Clarkson's comments about Meghan. James Cleverly's Rohypnol 'jokes'. Graham Linehan being...Graham Linehan. All and many more defended by 'gender critical' women because they're all part of the same club. They're either well-paid by wealthy right-wing media tycoons or close to them - it's fairly obvious.

Transphobia is a tool used by the right to divide the left.

It's been used very successfully to stop all kinds of independence and rights campaigns.

It promotes the idea that male violence is inevitable and can only be ameliorated by avoiding men. It enforces segregation of the sexes, trivialises CSA and says men will always be superior to women. Even at chess and quiz shows.

It encourages regressive 'feminine' stereotypes by policing our appearance.

And does nothing whatsoever to help cis women. Just damages us.

And even if you are asked, surely the obvious response is not to comment, rather than to offer praise.

What do you think porn means? It means sexual images used for sexual purposes.

It's often abusive, it can be rape, it can be murder, but it's still pornography if it sexual images for the viewer to use sexually.

I don't know if you are trying to virtue signal, find spurious reasons to dismiss others, or what, but it's a complaint that bears no relation to the e actual meaning of words.

Because they're grown ups.unlike you.

Yes. Exactly Jenni Murray’s argument at the time. Such a brilliant, consistent feminist, wasn’t she? Sadly missed.

www.theguardian.com/society/2003/jan/15/childprotection

Yes. Legally, it doesn't matter if you took the picture yourself, rendering on a screen is considered to be making the image.

And even if that weren't the legal position, just from basic economics, if you view something you increase the demand for it and in this case that means more kids getting abused on camera.

I don't think anyone doing or advocating for that to continue deserves plaudits, in life or death, especially not by those who supposedly want to protect children and women.

I don't particularly mind him attacking a religion like Islam. It's a huge organisation backed by Qatari and Saudi money. It was his decision to attack people with mental health problems, "mental elf" as he called it and claim that people with food allergies are making it up that was despicable. They have enough problems without him piling on. Nobody has their back at all.

It's very wrong. And if Liddle were alive today, I expect he would agree.

I’ve already made my position clear. I’m not sure what you don’t understand. I’m pretty hardline when it comes to CSA images. I’m also pretty hardline when it comes to pornography. How about you?

Are you aware that in satirical pieces, writers often say things they don't literally mean, and exaggerate for humourous effect?

Please read the opening paragraph of that article again and consider, for example, whether "I was doing it on your behalf" and "perhaps the policemen should turn up at your house instead" were intended as literal statements of what the author truly believes, or is a comic reversal acting as the punchline to the absurd scenario he had set up.