Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Graham Linehan on the chapter about him in Jon Ronson's new book

511 replies

impossibletoday · 29/08/2026 21:50

Graham Linehan on Jon Ronson's new book

My ex-friend Jon Ronson may be a case study in the corrupting toxicity of trans ideology. An interesting read.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/29278d258cf0921b

My ex-friend Jon Ronson may be a case study in the corrupting toxicity of trans ideology

His book chapter about me stands as an indictment of him and the cowardly social class of people who refuse to confront uncomfortable truths

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/29278d258cf0921b

OP posts:
Thread gallery
11
JennyShaw · 10/10/2026 11:27

Ereshkigalangcleg · 10/10/2026 11:12

It’s internet terminology, not just FWR, mate.

Yeah well the internet has become idiotic hasn't it. That's why I would recommend reading a book occasionally. I've just finished reading 'The Castle' by Jon Ronson. It's really informative.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 10/10/2026 11:26

JennyShaw · 10/10/2026 11:21

You've missed to point entirely of what I am saying. I'm not saying that 15 year olds are children. I'm saying they are NOT children because in our society we have moved away from strictly biological categories of people.

In our society we used to believe that 12 year olds should get married and have children. We don't believe that any more. In some parts of the world they still believe that.

When GC people say that a transwoman is a man, they are wrong in two different ways. Firstly by saying that categories of people have to be biological and secondly by going against the precedents in the English language that distinguish biologically altered animals. A bullock is not a bull, a gelding is not a stallion and a capon is not a cock.

Holy non sequitur, Batman!

Ereshkigalangcleg · 10/10/2026 11:25

Shedmistress · 10/10/2026 11:14

'I thought she was an adult as she had been through puberty your honour' is kinda, well, not the sort of thing a feminist would say that's for sure.

Well no.

JennyShaw · 10/10/2026 11:21

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 10/10/2026 10:49

Everything in this post is wrong, wrong, wrong.
The age of consent is 16, the age of adulthood is 18, so a 15 year old girl, is both legally and morally still only a child, and the same goes for a boy. Adult's have sex with children is wrong, wrong, wrong, in case you think you unhinged bollocks make's it right.

You've missed to point entirely of what I am saying. I'm not saying that 15 year olds are children. I'm saying they are NOT children because in our society we have moved away from strictly biological categories of people.

In our society we used to believe that 12 year olds should get married and have children. We don't believe that any more. In some parts of the world they still believe that.

When GC people say that a transwoman is a man, they are wrong in two different ways. Firstly by saying that categories of people have to be biological and secondly by going against the precedents in the English language that distinguish biologically altered animals. A bullock is not a bull, a gelding is not a stallion and a capon is not a cock.

Shedmistress · 10/10/2026 11:14

JennyShaw · 10/10/2026 11:08

According to the law, yes. The law doesn't have to be strictly biological. A 15 year old girl is biologically an adult human female if she has been through puberty. It is easy to tell the biological differences between a girl who hasn't been through puberty and a girl who has. Breasts, pubic hair etc. It is not easy to tell the biological differences between a 15 year old and a 17 year old.

Earlier this week on Woman's Hour there were schoolgirls who wanted to change the law. They said that the law that makes it illegal to show a pornographic movie with an actress who was pretending to be a pre-16 year old is good. It should though be extended to 17 year olds because 17 year olds are children too.

There was nothing wrong with what she said. If society decides that 17 year olds are children that's fine. It's very curious though that the boundaries of who is a woman is changing in different directions. In one case people insist on biological realities, in another case they insist on ignoring it. And they are usually the same people.

GC people are so used to using the word 'biological' incorrectly that they resist the scientific definition that everybody else uses.

'I thought she was an adult as she had been through puberty your honour' is kinda, well, not the sort of thing a feminist would say that's for sure.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 10/10/2026 11:12

JennyShaw · 10/10/2026 11:11

I've been accused of being obsessed with Graham Linehan. I'm also being criticised for wanting to do other things apart from spending my life online. You people you have your own little terminology that makes sense to you in your own little world. I don't know what you mean by "bump" and I don't care.

It’s internet terminology, not just FWR, mate.

JennyShaw · 10/10/2026 11:11

Theeyeballsinthesky · 10/10/2026 11:01

Awww I see @JennyShaw is doing her regularly weekly bump for this thread

it's almost as if it's deliberate....

I've been accused of being obsessed with Graham Linehan. I'm also being criticised for wanting to do other things apart from spending my life online. You people you have your own little terminology that makes sense to you in your own little world. I don't know what you mean by "bump" and I don't care.

JennyShaw · 10/10/2026 11:08

Shedmistress · 10/10/2026 10:46

Still a child according to law, not sure this will stand up in court Jenny.

According to the law, yes. The law doesn't have to be strictly biological. A 15 year old girl is biologically an adult human female if she has been through puberty. It is easy to tell the biological differences between a girl who hasn't been through puberty and a girl who has. Breasts, pubic hair etc. It is not easy to tell the biological differences between a 15 year old and a 17 year old.

Earlier this week on Woman's Hour there were schoolgirls who wanted to change the law. They said that the law that makes it illegal to show a pornographic movie with an actress who was pretending to be a pre-16 year old is good. It should though be extended to 17 year olds because 17 year olds are children too.

There was nothing wrong with what she said. If society decides that 17 year olds are children that's fine. It's very curious though that the boundaries of who is a woman is changing in different directions. In one case people insist on biological realities, in another case they insist on ignoring it. And they are usually the same people.

GC people are so used to using the word 'biological' incorrectly that they resist the scientific definition that everybody else uses.

Theeyeballsinthesky · 10/10/2026 11:01

Awww I see @JennyShaw is doing her regularly weekly bump for this thread

it's almost as if it's deliberate....

Helleofabore · 10/10/2026 10:55

The difference between castrated male cattle and sexually mature male cattle is driven by hormones. Just the same as in humans. And of course, having no testes.

To declare that they are ‘biologically different’ to a bull is misleading. They are still male cattle.

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 10/10/2026 10:49

JennyShaw · 10/10/2026 10:27

A bullock is obviously biologically different from a bull. It is genetically the same but biologically different. GC people have got their terminology wrong.

Biologically a 15 year old girl isn't a child. If she has gone through puberty she is an adult human female. But we don't categorise people biologically now, which is a good thing.

Everything in this post is wrong, wrong, wrong.
The age of consent is 16, the age of adulthood is 18, so a 15 year old girl, is both legally and morally still only a child, and the same goes for a boy. Adult's have sex with children is wrong, wrong, wrong, in case you think you unhinged bollocks make's it right.

Shedmistress · 10/10/2026 10:46

JennyShaw · 10/10/2026 10:27

A bullock is obviously biologically different from a bull. It is genetically the same but biologically different. GC people have got their terminology wrong.

Biologically a 15 year old girl isn't a child. If she has gone through puberty she is an adult human female. But we don't categorise people biologically now, which is a good thing.

Still a child according to law, not sure this will stand up in court Jenny.

borntobequiet · 10/10/2026 10:44

Some people seem to think that putting words in sentences that are syntactically correct results in them having actual meaning. I think that’s a lot of the problem here.
No wonder there are problems with AI - it has learned from people.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 10/10/2026 10:44

JennyShaw · 10/10/2026 10:27

A bullock is obviously biologically different from a bull. It is genetically the same but biologically different. GC people have got their terminology wrong.

Biologically a 15 year old girl isn't a child. If she has gone through puberty she is an adult human female. But we don't categorise people biologically now, which is a good thing.

I’m sure you imagine this is a killer post 😂

TheKeatingFive · 10/10/2026 10:39

stickygotstuck · 10/10/2026 10:34

I'm beginning to think that when some people say 'biology" these days they actually mean 'physical appearance'.

Could it possibly be as simple as that, I wonder?

Well that would explain some of it.

But honestly, the state of the education system. It would make you despair

stickygotstuck · 10/10/2026 10:34

TheKeatingFive · 10/10/2026 10:28

This is so stupid my brain actually broke 🤯

I'm beginning to think that when some people say 'biology" these days they actually mean 'physical appearance'.

Could it possibly be as simple as that, I wonder?

TheKeatingFive · 10/10/2026 10:28

JennyShaw · 10/10/2026 10:27

A bullock is obviously biologically different from a bull. It is genetically the same but biologically different. GC people have got their terminology wrong.

Biologically a 15 year old girl isn't a child. If she has gone through puberty she is an adult human female. But we don't categorise people biologically now, which is a good thing.

This is so stupid my brain actually broke 🤯

JennyShaw · 10/10/2026 10:27

Cailin66 · 04/10/2026 06:44

I’d like to hear more of your science, it’s fascinating. In what way are bullocks biologically differently to bulls? A bullock is a castrated bull, how does this change them biologically from a bull? Do you think it makes a bullock some kind of cow?

A bullock is obviously biologically different from a bull. It is genetically the same but biologically different. GC people have got their terminology wrong.

Biologically a 15 year old girl isn't a child. If she has gone through puberty she is an adult human female. But we don't categorise people biologically now, which is a good thing.

AstonCanKissMyArse · 08/10/2026 08:27

Bloody hell, is it half term or something?

ETA: Im put in mind of Helen Joyce 'sometimes things are different to other things'.

I might get that on a t shirt.

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 06/10/2026 11:07

Mikatdo · 06/10/2026 08:07

Sorry, are you saying that the use of the word “frothing” towards me (when I was doing no such thing) is perfectly fine because you take offence at the use of the same word and similar language by TRAs?

I’ve been here for some years. I have to say I’ve rarely seen such language from those you always call ‘TRAs’. I see it often from the rest of the board though.

I’m not even sure you read the post properly. I said that if I used the word “frothing” against board users the reaction would be spectacularly different, wouldn’t you agree?

Again try it, and prove it, you keep casting aspersions, but have nothing to back it up, just childish name calling and empty rhetoric to bore us with.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 06/10/2026 10:55

Shedmistress · 06/10/2026 05:52

FYI...the word 'frothing' is used ironically because it is used so regularly by TRAs on here towards women who know that males as a class are a threat to females as a class.

To pretend this is the first time this word has been used on here where the women who have been banned for very mild pushback, and who deliberately have to use terms such as 'flippin daft' to avoid being banned, in response to some of the vile invective from TRAs is spectacular.

The performative outrage is amusing.

Shedmistress · 06/10/2026 08:17

Mikatdo · 06/10/2026 08:07

Sorry, are you saying that the use of the word “frothing” towards me (when I was doing no such thing) is perfectly fine because you take offence at the use of the same word and similar language by TRAs?

I’ve been here for some years. I have to say I’ve rarely seen such language from those you always call ‘TRAs’. I see it often from the rest of the board though.

I’m not even sure you read the post properly. I said that if I used the word “frothing” against board users the reaction would be spectacularly different, wouldn’t you agree?

Ok I see that understanding things is hard here.

No, nothing spectacular happened on every single occasion that I've seen the word used against women on here. Nobody was banned, probably not even deleted. No reprimand, nothing.

I hope that explains the situation. Please let me know if any more of those words are difficult to parse for you and I'll do my best to explain them.

Mikatdo · 06/10/2026 08:07

Shedmistress · 06/10/2026 05:52

FYI...the word 'frothing' is used ironically because it is used so regularly by TRAs on here towards women who know that males as a class are a threat to females as a class.

To pretend this is the first time this word has been used on here where the women who have been banned for very mild pushback, and who deliberately have to use terms such as 'flippin daft' to avoid being banned, in response to some of the vile invective from TRAs is spectacular.

Sorry, are you saying that the use of the word “frothing” towards me (when I was doing no such thing) is perfectly fine because you take offence at the use of the same word and similar language by TRAs?

I’ve been here for some years. I have to say I’ve rarely seen such language from those you always call ‘TRAs’. I see it often from the rest of the board though.

I’m not even sure you read the post properly. I said that if I used the word “frothing” against board users the reaction would be spectacularly different, wouldn’t you agree?

Shedmistress · 06/10/2026 05:52

Mikatdo · 06/10/2026 01:11

Ooh, I’m “flipping daft” now. If I’d said “frothing” and “flipping daft” to one of you, the outrage would be unbelievable.

It is okay for someone else to have an opinion without you calling them “flipping daft”, okay? It’s a discussion board.

FYI...the word 'frothing' is used ironically because it is used so regularly by TRAs on here towards women who know that males as a class are a threat to females as a class.

To pretend this is the first time this word has been used on here where the women who have been banned for very mild pushback, and who deliberately have to use terms such as 'flippin daft' to avoid being banned, in response to some of the vile invective from TRAs is spectacular.

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 06/10/2026 05:50

Mikatdo · 06/10/2026 01:11

Ooh, I’m “flipping daft” now. If I’d said “frothing” and “flipping daft” to one of you, the outrage would be unbelievable.

It is okay for someone else to have an opinion without you calling them “flipping daft”, okay? It’s a discussion board.

Why don't you try it and prove it, the only one saying daft things though, is you.