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.

Didn't Gandhi manage to simultaneously sleep with young girls whilst not sleeping with them? Complex!

Classifying people as:

1. Goodies we are aligned with and believe in and support everything g they exever said ever and we are chums
2. Baddies who said a bad thing and are awful people and everything they ever say ever is a lie

Is a bad idea. Some fairly repellent people are right about some stuff and some brilliant people are wrong about other stuff.

In the real world, people take an argument as it is and tend to realise that agreeing with one thing someone says doesn’t make you a staunch ally and believer in everything they say.

I loathe Rod Liddle and I loathe Tatchell. Liddle’s opinion on this is right though. He’s still an odious man.

As always, when these ‘shut up women’ threads arise I will say that a key characteristic of cluster B disorders is this kind of thinking.

Helen Staniland is also contributing useful commentary; in response to Matt Lodder's uninformed interventions and self-assured virtue-broadcast and faux concern for others whom Lodder deems less aware of their status as useful idiots:

Matt Lodder wrote: You'd think sharing gender politics with Rod Liddle and Jordan Peterson would give people pause, but here we are.

Helen S responded: You'd think sharing them with David Challenor would give people pause before tweeting something so ridiculous as damning by association.

twitter.com/helenstaniland/status/1061666161325170688

Like the Guardian journalists, Lodder genuinely had no understanding of the swamp into which he waded.

The child abuse images opinion this cretin holds means I cannot click on any article of his, he is odious, whether he may be right or not is irrelevant to me. The feminist forum is no place to crow over his words to be honest.

Hmmm.

Let's imagine we look back on the article the OP shared in 15 years time.

Either Rod Liddle will be seen as trailblazer for women's right in his vitriolic missive against transgender individuals.

Or he will be seen as an outrageous transphobe whose antiquated views do not keep up with the times.

Given his form for not keeping up with the times on equality, sexism and child abuse I suspect the latter.

Prepared to come back and eat my hat if not.

Or, he will be recognized as a mostly nasty gobshite who very, very occasionally said some things which were right.

God, how do some people cope in a world that isn't entirely made up of Lego people?

The feminist forum is no place to crow over his words to be honest.

So now it's "crow" about his words. What does that mean?

If I found myself in agreement with an odious, nasty gobshite I wouldn't automatically assume the gobshite was right.

I would start to question whether I could be wrong.

I don’t think RL is standing up for women’s rights is he? I think he’s highlighting absurdity

Einstein was an odious twat, treated his wives terrible, claimed their work and took credit for it. Do we all think the theory of relativity is wrong now as a result of hearing more about this Jez? I expect you do.....

No doubt. The investigation of the behaviour and views of anyone can be the start of much self examination if they come to the same conclusion as you do about a topic.

The thought process that ends at "This person is nasty, so I cannot agree with them, even if they are correct" is not going move beyond a very narrow view of anything at all.

You know when your teenagers won't let it drop? When they're that age where subtlety and nuance can''t be seen through their rage and the hormonal soup? When everyone know's they're wrong but no matter how reasonable you are and however much you explain that life's complicated / shades of grey / we need to compromise, they can't hear it. You're wrong and horrid and bigoted and I hate you

This thread's a bit like that.

I forgot the bit about them flouncing out, slamming the door.......... and then coming back 5 minutes later to shout at you again

life's complicated / shades of grey / we need to compromise

Now this I agree with!

Or he will be seen as an outrageous transphobe whose antiquated views do not keep up with the times.

Doesn't that apply to us all, Jez?

I would start to question whether I could be wrong.

Have you ever questioned whether you could be wrong? Because there are some fairly vile people on your side of the argument.

I wasn't impressed by the article. Or the whole discussion about the guy identifying as 49. It comes too close to making fun of trans people as a group and dismissing them as ridiculous. We may disagree with what is happening in terms of access to women's spaces but I don't think it is fair or helpful to characterise them in this way.

Hahaha, Jez is urging us to consider compromise. Lolol. Jez seems to struggle with the distinction between agreeing on a specific point with someone who is naturally your opponent, and reliquinshing your boundaries and those of every other woman because of the sad faces of some males.

Oh, these complicated waters of human interaction! Why can't we just all be compliant?! Well, just us, obvs.

I would start to question whether I could be wrong?

Because you base your sense of right and wrong/your personal views on who they align with? And change them accordingly so abandoning your sense of right and wrong and replanning if you suddenly find a view of yours is held by someone you're not wholly sure is popular?

That's a bit weird beyond the age of about 15 tbh. Most adults just figure out it out for themselves and have the confidence to stand by what they believe regardless of who thinks what of them. Maybe you could use a bit of self esteem boosting.

OldCrone I don't think it's a black and white argument. Every woman's views will be on a scale. As sceptical pointed out it's a grey area (much like gender!)

Personally I feel uncomfortable with the ridicule in RL's article, but that doesn't mean I think it's fair for a trans woman to compete in female sport.

life's complicated / shades of grey / we need to compromise

But 95% of us will have had no problem compromising in the days when we were talking about a small number of males with diagnosed gender dysphoria who were highly likely to have had surgery.

It's nowadays, when we're talking about any male who wants to squeeze under the trans umbrella occasionally being able to have full access to women's spaces / award schemes etc that we have a problem. Even if we said that only post-surgery transsexuals with a GRC would now be allowed into women's communal changing rooms / shelters / YMCA dormitories etc, how would we even begin to police that? The trust has gone.

We’re in a world where a person who is evidently male believes that having a gold purse makes cashiers believe they are a woman

A little ridicule is in order

Then ridicule that person Bernard, not all trans.

Rod Liddle's job is Chief Ridiculer for the Times. If we are going to read his pieces, we know it's going to be ridicule.