Rod Liddle: I’m identifying as a young, black, trans chihuahua, and the truth can go whistle

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/i-m-identifying-as-a-young-black-trans-chihuahua-and-the-truth-can-go-whistle-tq550nx5f

This piece seems to have sent our favourite Doctor into an apoplectic rage yet again so I assume it is worth reading.

Fawned over is an interesting choice of phrase, isn't it. I can't recall the last time I saw it used for a group of men who agreed with something a man said. Do trump supporting men "fawn over" him?

I would love to see “excellent and valid opinions” of people who are not gender critical. Believe me, I looked for them for a long time before I arrived at my gender critical position. However, I have only seen posts that attempt to emotionally manipulate, derail, or defame (calling us racists, etc). I have yet to see anything from any trans activist that actually stands up to critical scrutiny. The failure by two posters on this thread to engage with the substance of the argument made by Liddel is very evident. The issue here is that the two sides of the GC vs trans argument are separated by their respective attachments to observable reality or subjective feeling. By thought vs emotion. Not by politics.

Jez, what specifically in the article do you disagree with?

This is a good starting point. I would be very happy to engage with a discussion of RL's argument rather than RL himself.

Nope, I simply cannot get past it.

Why should women forgive and forget? Why should an article enabling child abusers be excused?

That's female socialisation talking, let's all overlook the indiscretions of a child abuse apologist who beats up his pregnant girlfriend because he may be able to help us. Fuck that.

The outrage I felt 15 years ago when I read it still stands I'm afraid.

There is no causal link between viewing child porn and abusing children. And even if there were, it would not be sufficient, within the philosophy of our judicial system, to simply assume that an unpleasant penchant for the former presupposes guilt of the latter.
No matter how vile we may consider the sexual predilections of paedophiles, we should not be in the business of putting people in prison for simply looking at things.

Well OK. But then you must acknowledge that the reason we are failing to play the ball rather than the man is because the man has picked up the ball and flounced off the pitch with it.

Jez, I'm not excusing, forgiving or forgetting. I'm appreciating a well written, well placed and timely article. I don't give a toss who wrote it. For the purpose of this forum, it could've been quoted without the author even being referenced.

It wouldn't be though, we do love citations here in fwr!!

Yes, how would we know who to fawn over otherwise

The truth is still the truth even if written by a nasty person.
I will take any allies I can get in this fight for truth and women’s rights.
Love him or hate him, Rod has a wide readership and can get the message out there.

Babdoc that is where I believe priorities are getting skewed.

I am sure that nobody would really prioritise ridiculing trans ideology over the safety of women and children, but by taking Rod Liddle as an ally that is exactly what you are doing.

No, it really isn't.

FWR never ceases to amaze me but never thought I would see women willing to die on the hill defending the likes of Rod Liddle.

Funny place this.

So no examples of fawning and praising, its now changed to "prioritising ridiculing trans ideology".

What RL and many other news reports and commentators are doing is asking the pertinent question about how far the principle of self ID is going.

Some will ridicule trans ideology while doing it. It's not hard. There's plenty to ridicule, and ridiculing the ridiculous has it's purpose in exposing the weaknesses of the proposition. The serious aspects get debated seriously at length too.

We are discussing the Sunday papers, it's ok to do that, we don't all have to line up as fawners or non fawners to do that.

Jez, what are the priorities exactly?

And who gets to define them?

FWR never ceases to amaze me but never thought I would see women willing to die on the hill defending the likes of Rod Liddle.

Have you seen that? Again, please show me where?

@Electron1

I will take any allies I can get in this fight for truth and women’s rights.
Love him or hate him, Rod has a wide readership and can get the message out there.

This is defending his right to be platformed, to have his views published in the national press. He should have lost that right after the child abuse article imo.

I don't like him much, can you tell?

Jez

We always seem to be disappointing you
But not sure why as your post read like lectures and I don’t actually get the point you are making

I was deeply unimpressed by self-confessed rapist Cherno Biko being an official at one of the Women's Marches.

And if you look at several prominent TRAs, their links to extreme porn, flashing, domestic violence etc aren't exactly reassuring.

But if one of them then turned round & spoke in favour of women's sex-based rights I'd be surprised, suspicious but ready to listen.

Sorry littlbrowndog I'll try and explain it more clearly.

Rod Liddle is a disgusting, woman-hating, child abuse apologist. Yes he takes the piss out of trans people in a way some may find amusing but he is no feminist ally. Something to bear in mind before sharing his work.

You should take it up with the Times, we are acknowledging his comment on the current wave of extensions to the IDing out of material reality via the legal system we are potentially setting up for this very purpose. You seem to be very keen to use this as a place to demand no platforming and to berate women for acknowledging his comment.

The comments here on the whole say RL is a twat but we agree on this point. So I think you are not only demanding RL be no platformed by everyone here but are also insisting we should be censured for not applying universal censorship despite people being open about both sides of their opinion.

EmpressAdultHumanFemale that is genuinely interesting.

Would you, for example, like and re-tweet this from Danielle Muscato? Bearing in mind 'that' offensive Tweet Danielle Muscato wrote.

Something to bear in mind before sharing his work.

I think it is up to individuals on here to read and share whatever they choose, within the terms of this forum. I won’t be bearing in mind the lectures on ideological purity from people who seem to have an interest in closing down debate and derailing discussion. I’m sick of no-platforming and see every day in my job the damage and divisions it causes when we dismiss arguments wholesale without even attempting to engage. Play the ball, not the man.

Would you, for example, like and re-tweet this from Danielle Muscato? Bearing in mind 'that' offensive Tweet Danielle Muscato wrote.

Muscato's written a lot of offensive tweets and even more offensively IMO, spent all that time living in a women's shelter while very obviously presenting as male.

What were you thinking of, Jez?

No-one is liking and retweeting here Jezebels. They are twitter actions, not mumsnet, and are not equivalences. The dialogue here works in a very different way to twitter. We post things and discuss the merits of what is said, and the person's behaviour if it influences our opinions, exactly as happened here.

Rod Liddle is an utter tosspot and I wouldn't spit on him if he was on fire.

The article shared above is excellent.