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

If surgeons could work magic...transwomen would be women? I suppose but they can only, with varying degrees of skill, cut people up and stitch them back together again.

BTW those women, the ones with fish tails, will drown. There's more to being a fish than the tail.

(Obviously Graham's recent behaviour and especially 'retard' is far from ok. Most have already argued this on this very thread so hardly a gotcha).

That's not true. These are the responses
Why is it ok to mock Ed Sheeran?
He mocked someone who mocked someone, shocker, without any details to go, so what?
It’s a horrible word. I hate it used as an insult. What relevance is that to Jon Ronson’s book?
'Miss, Miss, he used a bad word, Miss!'
And still, men cannot become women.
You seem ever so slightly obsessed with him.

All of them attempting to dismiss Linehan's abuse of a disabled woman.

He cheers on the cancellation of someone for GC views

Jon Ronson invited Graham Linehan to participate in his radio show, the episode on trans issues "I think it would be a great opportunity for people to hear you tell your story with plenty of space to tell it". Linehan turned him down because there can be no debate about whether men can become women.

How exactly does JR 'see both sides of an argument' rather than fuel polarisation here.

There are different categories that people put themselves in, or put other people in. Male/female, adult/child, black/white. All of these categories were originally purely biological but now they're not.

We used to think that when a child had puberty then they became adult. People in some parts of the world still believe that. We believe that about animals.

GC people are keen on saying we don't accept a white person pretending to be black so why do we accept a man pretending to be a woman. This is widely used as a gotcha however there are millions of people who call themselves black or Black or Afro-Caribbean or African-American who don't have much connection biologically to the continent of Africa. Black people can have black, brown or pale skin.

You could say that transwomen are the odd ones out here because they are biologically male. A transwoman who has been surgically altered and is taking female hormones isn't biologically the same as a man. That would be like saying that a bullock is biologically the same as a bull. Both bulls and bullocks have XY chromosomes but they are not biologically the same.

So if people want to accept transwomen as women they should be able to do that without being accused of ignoring reality or being delusional. You of course have a right to say that a transwoman is a man, just as you have the right to insist that a 13 year old is a woman.

Could you expand on how "It’s a horrible word. I hate it used as an insult. What relevance is that to Jon Ronson’s book?" is an attempt to dismiss Linehan's abuse of a disabled woman?

A 'disabled' woman who called Ed Sheeran disabled for not having a backbone?

If you can't take it she should maybe not have given it.

(Obviously Graham's recent behaviour and especially 'retard' is far from ok. Most have already argued this on this very thread so hardly a gotcha).

That's not true. These are the responses
Why is it ok to mock Ed Sheeran?
He mocked someone who mocked someone, shocker, without any details to go, so what?
It’s a horrible word. I hate it used as an insult. What relevance is that to Jon Ronson’s book?
'Miss, Miss, he used a bad word, Miss!'
And still, men cannot become women.
You seem ever so slightly obsessed with him.

All of them attempting to dismiss Linehan's abuse of a disabled woman.

He cheers on the cancellation of someone for GC views

Jon Ronson invited Graham Linehan to participate in his radio show, the episode on trans issues "I think it would be a great opportunity for people to hear you tell your story with plenty of space to tell it". Linehan turned him down because there can be no debate about whether men can become women.

How exactly does JR 'see both sides of an argument' rather than fuel polarisation here.

There are different categories that people put themselves in, or put other people in. Male/female, adult/child, black/white. All of these categories were originally purely biological but now they're not.

We used to think that when a child had puberty then they became adult. People in some parts of the world still believe that. We believe that about animals.

GC people are keen on saying we don't accept a white person pretending to be black so why do we accept a man pretending to be a woman. This is widely used as a gotcha however there are millions of people who call themselves black or Black or Afro-Caribbean or African-American who don't have much connection biologically to the continent of Africa. Black people can have black, brown or pale skin.

You could say that transwomen are the odd ones out here because they are biologically male. A transwoman who has been surgically altered and is taking female hormones isn't biologically the same as a man. That would be like saying that a bullock is biologically the same as a bull. Both bulls and bullocks have XY chromosomes but they are not biologically the same.

So if people want to accept transwomen as women they should be able to do that without being accused of ignoring reality or being delusional. You of course have a right to say that a transwoman is a man, just as you have the right to insist that a 13 year old is a woman.

If surgeons could work magic...transwomen would be women? I suppose but they can only, with varying degrees of skill, cut people up and stitch them back together again.

BTW those women, the ones with fish tails, will drown. There's more to being a fish than the tail.

The idea that there is any debate on the subject of whether humans can change sex

deary, deary me.