Wings of Scotland court case

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

Brief context:

Ex Scottish labour Kezia Dugdale said (in print) that Wings was a homophobe because of a tweet he made.

The reason I think this case may be of interest is because so far:

Chelsea Manning is mentioned. @WingsScotland says Manning is ‘brave’ & a ‘hero’ but has repeatedly been accused of transphobia for his language towards the whistleblower. ‘An empirical biological fact that he is still a man,’ Campbell tells the court.

.@WingsScotland adds that he doesn’t know Manning’s sexuality & says it has no bearing on accusations of homophobia. Various comments by Wings referring to Manning as ‘he’. Being a transphobe does not make you a homophobe, Wings adds.

Hmm interesting set of tweets.

It would be unusual to go to court without evidence of attempting to settle the matter first, otherwise you just get sent away to settle the matter.

Heavens, they'd never get away with making Little Britain these days.
#onlygayinthevillage. #imalaydee

The gaming ability of girls is clearly not likely to be the same as gay men, but it's a shorthand way of saying this is not tough enough for real men.

Why is the ability of girls to play a computer game not likely to be the same as the ability of gay males? That sounds a bit sexist. I don't think video games have much of a physical strength requirement?

I'm surprised that people interpret that comment to mean other than girls and homosexuals having in common that they're both in a "lesser" category. Even if it's something as minor as the ability to play video games.

twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1110866392184774656

Mr Sandison says Kezia Dugdale is trying to argue - like Humpty Dumpty - that words should mean just what she chooses them to mean. He says she can’t control how her article was interpreted by the ordinary reader.

I wonder where Dugdale could have picked up that approach from?

I'm surprised that people interpret that comment to mean other than girls and homosexuals having in common that they're both in a "lesser" category. Even if it's something as minor as the ability to play video games

I'm utterly baffled at anyone interpreting in any other way - neither of them are any good with difficult games.

Campbell argued that it was taken out of context. It is the sort of comment Steve Coogan whilst in character as Alan Partridge would say and no-one would think it was Steve Coogan's opinion. Without the context one can't say whether Campbell was being himself or a character.

That kind of surprising interpretation happens when you have a highly polarising character like Campbell.

For the record, the comment can be found below this article:

www.eurogamer.net/articles/metal-slug-7-review

Beginner is for girls and homosexuals, but forgiveable for a reviewer with limited time who needs to see as much of the game as possible.

Why is the ability of girls to play a computer game not likely to be the same as the ability of gay males? That sounds a bit sexist. I don't think video games have much of a physical strength requirement?

Are you serious? Really? You cannot see that the comment is derogatory to both girls and gay men?

Setting aside any saving "Alan Partridge" context it clearly means some games are too difficult for girls( by which I assume he meant females under 16 , but who knows) and gay men of all ages.

Clearly some games will be too difficult for boys and girls due to age and it would be fine so say "skill level age 12 and above"

Yes Lass, I am serious. Gabrielle said:

The gaming ability of girls is clearly not likely to be the same as gay men

Why?

I don't doubt it was a derogatory comment to BOTH groups (gay men and girls), but I don't see why Gabrielle is suggesting that it is wrong for homosexual men to be lumped in with girls and their "lower ability". I don't believe that girls' ability is lower than homosexual males. I don't believe the ability of either girls or homosexual males is lower than straight males. It's equally insulting to both gay men and girls, not one group over the other.

This is clearly not a game aimed at young children, so it's not that age is what is supposedly restricting ability. "girl" means female under 18, not 16.

Mr Sandison says the defence seem to give homophobia a definition “far removed from its ordinary and natural meaning”; it would have to include anything about a gay person which they or another homosexual did not want to hear.

I thought this was an interesting comment from the tweet thread too.

That's why I think this case is worth paying attention to ItsAllGoingToBeFine. Should we detach meanings from words and let things drift off into the realm of feelings? And to what degree will a court go along with that?

That's why I think this case is worth paying attention to

Yy. That's why I picked up on it in the first place. It's not interesting because of Wings or Kezia, it's interesting because of the way it is considering the use and definition of words in law.

It's not interesting because of Wings or Kezia, it's interesting because of the way it is considering the use and definition of words in law.

Agreed. Also interesting to see KD argue that transphobia = homophobia, when actually transgenderism = homophobia (in my view).

Yes. Although that's a common feature of many legal cases, this was one discussing "homophobia" in particular and, unsurprising for us, that somehow became combined with accusations of "transphobia".

Apparently though we won't be seeing a decision for quite some time.

Damn these slow fingers

Mr Dunlop says if Mr Campbell has shown himself to be transphobic, “no substantial award would be appropriate” for calling him a homophobe. Sheriff Ross asks if SC can’t choose to be rude to some people but not others.

Mr Dunlop says if someone is claimed to be a “thief and a paedophile”, and only the latter was true, they wouldn’t be able to sue for defamation about the “thief” part because their reputation would already be so low.

There's also another twitter thread. It's rather sinister to see identity politics argued over in a court because the side pushing for "obey the identity" does their advocate job and pushes the argument as far as it goes. And it then looks very authoritarian.

Poorly worded on my part. What I was trying to say was that there was no reason to think that girls and gay men would be similarly challenged by playing video games, while 'real men' would of course be brilliant at them.

And that’s that - Sheriff Ross sends the case to “avizandum” (meaning he’s going to go away and think about it) - he says he’d normally try to be back within four weeks, and will “do my best”

I really hope Wings wins this case - not for his sake, but because if he loses it would appear to have all sorts of unpleasant ramifications.

I really hope Wings wins this case - not for his sake, but because if he loses it would appear to have all sorts of unpleasant ramifications.

Yes, for the sake of sanity and free speech he has to win. Words mean things and we all need to agree on those meanings.

If the account given on twitter is accurate then losing would mean that saying Chelsea Manning is a man means that Campbell is a "transphobe", as a transphobe he is likely to be a homophobe "because the T must always be with the L, G, and B", and as a transphobe he has very little reputation that he can seek to protect.

It's ironic that much of the case was about Dugdale's freedom of speech.

Yep, if the court rules that ‘transphobia’ = homophobia I think the end result would be homophobia also losing all meaning with the general public and gay rights being rolled back

I suppose the goal for some would be for there to be an umbrella "phobia" under which all the other phobias can sit, homophobia, transphobia, kink-shaming, etc. Maybe something like queerphobia.

There's a bit of a wait then.

I suppose a considered judgement requires a lot of consideration.

You can't have too many umbrellas. They cover a multitude...…...