Good interview with James Kirkup

[Destinysdaughter]

Couldn’t see a thread about it so thought I’d post this here. He talks about how he first got interested in the transgender debate, what the reactions to it have been and how women have been silenced.

Worth a read!

www.conservativehome.com/highlights/2018/10/interview-james-kirkup-on-trans-and-how-campaigners-have-exploited-the-fear-of-mps-terrified-of-accusations-of-transphobia.html?fbclid=IwAR20I-GemcoCQn7-dtfcb2BXiR41ZslC1ELA9dL23xaqsQWXFdOWLbz93sM

www.conservativehome.com/highlights/2018/10/interview-james-kirkup-on-trans-and-how-campaigners-have-exploited-the-fear-of-mps-terrified-of-accusations-of-transphobia.html?fbclid=IwAR20I-GemcoCQn7-dtfcb2BXiR41ZslC1ELA9dL23xaqsQWXFdOWLbz93sM

Yes, I read that earlier. I did find his comments about getting someone to do an opposing piece in the Spectator interesting - sounds like he'd like to but whether he'll find anyone who can explain how TWAW without calling everyone transphobes is another matter.

That's really interesting thanks. I particularly like that he is trying to find somebody to write disagreeing with him.

Oh and that the Spectator has gotten left wing subscribers over this.

Essentially the arguments just boil down to ‘you’re just being intolerant, you people are being really horrible’.”

Yup. Thousands of women have asked for the rational argument. There isn't one.

Great article. Thank you, James. So glad to see that Whittle's influence is being highlighted at last.

I find it interesting that he also fought the junior doctors: surely H*rrop could be prevailed upon to show how wrong wrong wrong he is (because he always goes for the personal attack...)?

That’s two good articles I’ve read in Conservative Home in the past week - I’m starting to get used to the taste of humble pie.

I think partly what makes Kirkup such a useful ally is that he doesn’t have skin in the game (and he’s the first to admit it). He’s viewing it objectively and he still comes to the conclusion that the only argument on the TRA side is ‘don’t be horrible’.

really interesting article on the subject. Thank you

It's very interesting. Particularly interesting to see that Stephen Whittle was an adviser to the equalities committee when they compiled their report - I didn't know that. (Shame he didn't get a chance to mention Jess Bradley's involvement as a witness!)

He is absolutely on the nail with this: “Either you have self-identification, in which case anybody who says they’re a trans woman is a trans woman, or you have a set of objective criteria which you have to meet before you are considered to be a trans woman, and that’s what this is all about. This is about trying to remove objective criteria and move to subjective ones."

Also this is completely true: "I try and read a lot of the contra arguments, and I have yet to read someone who actually engages on the substance. Essentially the arguments just boil down to ‘you’re just being intolerant, you people are being really horrible’.”

Nobody on the TRA side is writing intelligent, thoughtful arguments.

I wonder what James makes of Toby Young's spectator piece!

Thanks for sharing.

There is a stark contrast between the quality of writing offered by James and by Toby Young.
James sometimes reads these threads so once again, thank you

Essentially the arguments just boil down to ‘you’re just being intolerant, you people are being really horrible’.”

Yes, its so bizarre ( well we know why) that all of this stuff is not being properly debated.

“Either you have self-identification, in which case anybody who says they’re a trans woman is a trans woman, or you have a set of objective criteria which you have to meet before you are considered to be a trans woman, and that’s what this is all about. This is about trying to remove objective criteria and move to subjective ones.

“And if you remove the objective criteria of entry, to join the category that is women – sorry, I’m going back to my undergraduate philosophy here, it’s all about categories – then ultimately you end up rendering that category meaningless. This is about rendering that word ‘woman’ meaningless.”

This!!

Good article. I don't think I appreciated before the extent to which Whittle shaped that report and appeared to excluded evidence that didn't support an agenda they publicly campaigned for. Evidence from experts appeared to be downplayed or excluded. Evidence from lobby groups given more weight. Kathleen Stock raises similar points in the speech she gave a few weeks ago. This is very poor practice and should mean a) the report should be discounted and perhaps recalled and b) there should be a review of procedure to prevent this sort of thing happening again.

This is buried in James' piece:

“Maria Miller’s committee is soon to start an inquiry into the Equality Act 2010.”

Why on God's green earth is that woman being allowed to continue with her biased work? I want someone else to chair that committee, I have no faith whatsoever in her abilities.

I also agree with him saying he can't find someone espousing a rational counter argument. I have been trying to find trans activists to follow and find the arguments of, as I believe it is really important to understand all sides of an argument. But all I seem to find is loads of accusations of hatred. I've never known a situation like this.

Blimey, even Conservative Home "gets it"!

Why wouldn't they. Only just under 20% of people are fully signed up to the cult.

Just bumping for the evening crowd, please have a read!

There have been at least five themes from JC's writings:

1. The analysis of the consequences of enshrining 'gender' in law, particularly on the sex-class of women
2. The phenomenon of women being silenced, sidelined and attacked when trying to meet or discuss (1 above)
3. The failure of craven politicians to scrutinise proposed laws
4. A government in thrall to lobbyists who not only steer the Parliamentary group recommendations, but also become service providers and beneficiaries of government policy.
5. The power of Brand LBGT, its allies, champions and networks.

I have always been interested in the parliamentary/govt/civil service/lobby aspect. It reveals so much.

I liked the way that the interviewer knew their stuff. I liked JC's story. I can't wait to read the next instalment of his fascinating trip through the corridors of power, in the Spectator or wherever.

Great piece. Very reasonable. I too can't find a counter argument that makes sense. I've been looking.

Loved the way he named several great journalists (JT et al) and how they’d been attacked and he hadn’t. And how they all just happen to be womenso maybe they are being attacked because they are seen as weaker or maybe the attackers are just misogynists?

Such a powerful interview especially when he’s trying to remain neutral.