Can we take a moment to appreciate Piers Morgan

[mooncuplanding]

If anyone watches GMB, you will see that Piers Morgan is trying to advocate for women by challenging trans issues - in sport and awards ceremonies etc.

There is a petition to have him fired for being 'transphobic' yet he is quite courageous is saying he is not in agreement about the rights of transitioners to go into sport, to cancel the female category at awards ceremonies.

Although he seems a bit conflicting about how he actually deals with trans people in general, I for one, appreciate his courage to continue to talk about these issues. Especially on such a big platform.

Since when do prisons base their policies on what the prisoners want?

Funny how it's only the supposed least privileged group in the world where what they want matters.

His whole "and then she spurned me!" thing about Markle is so weird.

I'm strongly inclined to be gender critical, but I'm also inclined to think "hmm" at the regular promotion on this board of people like:

• Piers Morgan (vocal anti-feminist, bullies women, e.g. his creepy hate thing against MM)
• Phillip Davies MP (vocal anti-feminist and MRA, notorious for trying to block legislation protecting women)
• Rod Liddle (vocal anti-feminist, assaulted a pregnant woman).

That's not tribalism. I'm all in favour of left-right engagement on feminist issues. But you can't realistically achieve feminist ends by sucking up to men who hate feminism and think it should go away because it "oppresses" men. Any more than you can promote racial equality by making common cause with David Duke because he's with you on one issue for his own self-interested ends. At best, it's naive to think you can "use" MRAs and discard them (they seem pretty damn sure they're using the "Feminazis" and enjoying watching feminism tear itself apart). At worst, I think you have some people on this board who are promoting anti-feminism under a thin disguise of being gender critical feminists.

I've never seen Phillip Davies even mentioned on this board. Are you sure you've got the right Davies???

I've seen Phillip Davies mentioned, but usually in the context of "Isn't Phillip Davies dreadful?"

There have been occasional links to stuff Rod Liddle has written about TRAs. But not many in the scheme of things.

*29Timeforbedithink123

With you. GC but I have no interest nor gratitude to Morgan or Hopkins.

But you can't realistically achieve feminist ends by sucking up to men who hate feminism and think it should go away because it "oppresses" men.

Hmm, I don't know. What about women who aren't crazy about feminism, or elements of it, are we allowed to be respectful of them? I would say that realistically, we can't achieve any ends unless you get some kind of buy-in from the public at large, and in any case that's a fairly important element of living in a democratic society. I'm not sure how important it is finally whether anyone calls it feminist.

What makes you think the Karen White assaults and rapes were ''very rare'', or that supposed rarity makes self ID safe for women?

I'm not sure where you get your ''facts'' from, but men frequently self ID as women to get into women's spaces such as prisons.
You don't want to hear anything about the consequences though.

The reason this is discussed on FWR is because its a feminist chat board. Its not an obsession, its a concern; not least because many of us use those spaces and services ourselves.

Are there figures available on how often it has been demonstrated that a man has self identified as a woman to get into women's spaces?

Yep he gets the thumbs up from me.

Here Beveren

www.facebook.com/groups/1722756661380462/?ref=share

I can't see any statistics there, Datun?

Timeforbedithink123 I think you probably mean David TC Davies who has been the only MP vocal in raising awareness of the gender critical point of view in the Houses of Parliament and has received very little support from MPs. He also arranged the meeting at the House of Lords I think when the meeting has been cancelled by some other Venue because of pressure from trans activists

Thread has got a little derailed here, just popping by to say I am no great Piers Morgan fan, found this thread because my husband made me watch the clip from the other day and I agree with the view that's it's great that he is brave enough to run these issues in the mainstream. He referred to getting abuse, there is a petition out to sack him etc. He might well be doing it for the publicity but he is doing it all over the mainstream media and that's important. A few women I work with were at a diversity session and were like when they uncovered a few of these issues. This stuff is not in the mainstream and we are at risk of some things that are horribly unfair and misogynistic just creeping up on us and becoming what's completely accepted and lawful by stealth. I liked that he had someone who had transitioned from Male to Female as part of the debate who was also level headed on issues like a biological male's advantage in women's sport.

It doesn’t matter how often it’s happened or even if it’s never happened! This is about more than this one issue (although it’s a very important one!). This is about the absolute truth of biological fact, and the right to speak freely what we all know to be true. Everything else is secondary to that (but not less important!).

On PM, I do not need to admire the man, nor like him, nor agree with everything he says or everything he stands for, to appreciate his action on this vitally important issue. That kind of thinking is what has got us into this horrific position in the first place. Some overarching principles are too important to be lost in ideological or abstract argument.

I don’t care if he’s ‘advocating for women’, being entirely self-serving or just arguing for the sake of it. In this case he is absolutely right to take the stance he has, and I applaud him for doing it publicly and decisively. We need as many men in the public eye as possible to take this up (because sadly a large proportion of the public won’t actually listen unless a man speaks).

Here you go Beveren

transcrimeuk.com/

We need as many men in the public eye as possible to take this up (because sadly a large proportion of the public won’t actually listen unless a man speaks)

Most of the men who would take anything Piers Morgan says seriously are the kind of men who likely already think the whole trans thing is millennial snowflake bollocks. He's not going to convert anyone because by and large he's a pillock, and most sensible people think he's a knob.

We can do better than him!!!

I don’t disagree with you on that. I’m not talking necessarily about men only though, I’m talking in a very general sense. Women can’t get anywhere without significant backing from men. Because, you know...

And absolutely, I’m not arguing that women don’t do/aren’t doing a better job of it, just very few people give a shit when it’s feminists/mere women talking. Drives me crazy, but there you go.

I appreciate that he's bringing this debate into the public eye and showing it for the bollocks that it is. Don't have to like him. But I signed to keep him because I don't believe in erroding free speech through deplatforming people for telling the truth.

The thing about the gender issue is that it isn’t JUST a feminist issue.

As Lang has said on another thread, it’s also a child protection issue.

But more than that, it’s an issue of REALITY-based law and politics: are we going to re-orient our law and politics to give primacy to subjective internal feelings over material reality?

Because if that’s the case, there are implications for everyone and for all sorts of issues, not just feminists and not just gender.

When I watched the Piers clip, I thought that this was where he was coming from, though he did mention genderism’s knock-on effects for women at the end.

He wasn’t speaking as a feminist, though. He was speaking as someone who sees the logical conclusion of subjectivity-based law and politics: the question of WHOSE subjectivity counts leads to the issues of thought and language control, meaning totalitarianism.

Benjamin Butterworth looked, in that interview, like a smug little authoritarian prig determined to put everyone else’s thoughts into a vise until they were reshaped into obedience to Butterworth. All in the name, as Butterworth continually squawked, of “compassion.” (Though, yes, he agreed, women would lose out.but that, he said, was due to “misogyny.” Nothing, apparently, to do with the Butterworth Doctrine.)

Piers wasn’t arguing the feminist cause. He was arguing the anti-totalitarian cause, and he did a very good job of it.

I applaud anti-totalitarians.

I still can't see those stats on that link, Datun?

Beveren

It's possible that the website is under attack? Keep trying.

The thing about the gender issue is that it isn’t JUST a feminist issue.

As Lang has said on another thread, it’s also a child protection issue.

But more than that, it’s an issue of REALITY-based law and politics: are we going to re-orient our law and politics to give primacy to subjective internal feelings over material reality?

Because if that’s the case, there are implications for everyone and for all sorts of issues, not just feminists and not just gender.

When I watched the Piers clip, I thought that this was where he was coming from, though he did mention genderism’s knock-on effects for women at the end.

He wasn’t speaking as a feminist, though. He was speaking as someone who sees the logical conclusion of subjectivity-based law and politics: the question of WHOSE subjectivity counts leads to the issues of thought and language control, meaning totalitarianism.

Benjamin Butterworth looked, in that interview, like a smug little authoritarian prig determined to put everyone else’s thoughts into a vise until they were reshaped into obedience to Butterworth. All in the name, as Butterworth continually squawked, of “compassion.” (Though, yes, he agreed, women would lose out.but that, he said, was due to “misogyny.” Nothing, apparently, to do with the Butterworth Doctrine.)

Piers wasn’t arguing the feminist cause. He was arguing the anti-totalitarian cause, and he did a very good job of it.

I applaud anti-totalitarians.

Yes. THIS is the overarching principle.

Argh shit I tried so hard on my touchscreen to get that all in bold.

Most of the men who would take anything Piers Morgan says seriously are the kind of men who likely already think the whole trans thing is millennial snowflake bollocks.

Maybe. But I think a lot of his audience may not be aware of a lot of the rhetoric or what's going on.