LBC this morning

[koshkat]

Nick Ferrari covered the JK Rowling mess this morning on his breakfast show. He has often covered trans issues as one of the few broadcasters who can see this movement for what it is.

Sharron Davies was on and was superb putting her case with clarity and in straightforward language as usual. He agreed with every word she said.
Then came the editor of Diva magazine Carrie Lyell who was embarrassingly bad and folded under any questioning from Ferrari. She claimed that transpeople are being murdered every day. And agreed that Maya should be silenced.

Sunlight is a great thing and people are listening. Thank you JK Rowling.

Dangerous to listen to a radio show segment and agree with what was said. Dear goddess and my saggy tits. I despair.

The statement from the diva editor was “murdered on a daily basis for being transgender” Nick challenged the “daily” part hard and the interviewee eventually admitted that this was worldwide not UK. No challenge on the “for being transgender”

Like I say - this constant Manichean bullshit is why we have a Tory government. Purity politics and cancel culture has destroyed the left in this country and it's still not listening

Precisely. The Manichean tendency of certain vocal wokals is indicative of their fragile infantile arguments. This also explains their desire to keep a stranglehold on the parameters of debate. Because when challenged, implosion follows....,

I listened to lots more of LBC than I’d intended. Those voters seem to very interested in police powers (cams, tasers) and ambulances. Millions of people listening to that.

@Koshkat, I was driving and didn't take notes of exactly what was said during the interview, but I do know what wasn't said.

Riiiiiight. I will double check and let you know.

Thank you OneEpisode. I apologise for misquoting. Not sure where I got millions from...

Eq - you tried to shut down debate by calling Ferrari a 'bigot'. It does not wash any more.

It does not wash any more.

It's the infantilising that gets my goat. This is a forum full of intelligent, politically engaged women who are, for the most part, materialist feminists of one stripe or another. That they're going to hear Ferrari say one thing they agree with but not recognise when he says a dozen things they don't - what does this say? That the person suggesting it actually thinks FWR feminists are witless, stupid sheep while themselves being too daft to notice a guilt by association fallacy when it gets up and slaps them in the face with a wet fish.

Does my head in.

Have reported my original post to MN to amend it as it is a misquote.

Drop the politics of goody vs baddy. It's childish and superficial and I'm so fucking tired of it ruining every sodding thing.

I don't think I've ever agreed with anything more, right to the crux as per Lang

Why are women discriminated against?

Simple question.

"Drop the politics of goody vs baddy. It's childish and superficial and I'm so fucking tired of it ruining every sodding thing."

Exactly. It's pathetic, and it's scary that in a world where we have more information and are more educated than ever, people are still so incredibly stupid as to seriously feel like 'if that person said it, I can't agree with it, but if this person said it, it must be true.'

Bloody grim isn't it?

Why are women discriminated against?

Simple question.

I know! I know!

It's because of the feelings in our heads, and then people look into our souls and see those feelings, and realise we must be women. And then they decide to discriminate against us.

That they're going to hear Ferrari say one thing they agree with but not recognise when he says a dozen things they don't - what does this say?

I suspect that's not what posters who object to this sort of thing really worry about, though. They may worry about giving listeners to someone they see as spreading bad messages, but mostly they worry that people will see a bunch of supposed feminists speaking positively about things this person has said, and then going off and claiming they are all a bunch of bigots or alt right or something.

Now, I think that is a mistaken strategy, but it may be true that people will make those claims and associations, look at all the other people who have somehow become part of the alt-right in recent years, it's crazy. Or people who have appeared at things hosted by pro-life advocates have been said to have some undisclosed religious agenda, which is wrong and bizarre on about three different levels.

So I understand why people feel uncomfortable with being associated that way, it seems like it could lose you sympathy and also just seems very uncomfortable for some if they are used to seeing themselves as really separate from those people.

It's a wrong approach though. It's wrong in how it treats the exchange of speech and ideas, which is profoundly important in a democratic society. It's wrong in nurturing, even unintentionally, this mindset that people who think differently are evil and stupid. And it's wrong strategically, because in the end you are like an insurance company that pays out every claim in order to avoid a court battle - in the end all but one voice will be deplatformed and there will be no one to hear you, no one who is pure enough, and your voice will be silenced as well.

.. Ferrari bandwagon..

I bet that goes like the clappers.

I bet that goes like the clappers.

Can't.
Breathe.

Eq - you tried to shut down debate by calling Ferrari a 'bigot'

I'm sorry, that makes no sense at all. Expressing an opinion in the course of a discussion doesn't in any way prevent the discussion continuing - as this thread demonstrates. On the other hand, saying "Stop shutting down debate" when someone expresses their view very clearly is at least an attempt to shut it down.

LangCleg, saying we should be careful about aligning ourselves with the likes of Ferrari very clearly doesn't say that we are incapable of recognising when he is being bigoted. The point is the perception of others: if you align yourself with a known bigot, there is a distinct risk of devaluing the entire argument. I know it's an extreme but if, say, the likes of Savile had come out against TRAs, would we all be saying what a great guy he is?

I agree to an extent with what Goosefoot says, but surely we can promote this cause perfectly well without praying in aid known bigots with their own anti-feminist agenda? Goodness knows, there are plenty of sensible people out there talking and writing about this topic who I would far rather align with.

With some exceptions, there is a distinct flavour on this thread that, no matter how much you might agree with the basic point, if you don't agree with each and every aspect of the OP's posts then you're a traitor to the cause and open season for attacks. And that doesn't help the cause either.

I agree to an extent with what Goosefoot says, but surely we can promote this cause perfectly well without praying in aid known bigots with their own anti-feminist agenda?

I think that's looking through the wrong end of the telescope. I've moved away from thinking that a person must be disregarded if they can be shown to have a bad idea while, at the time in question, they're speaking about a good idea.

To me it's a question of ideas, good ones and bad ones, and not people (supported or cancelled). Once it becomes about filtering out people who are beyond The Pale you've got something like Momentum.

Who has said Ferrari is a great guy? His reach as a broadcaster has been referenced, and the fact that he has clearly understood this topic for some time.

Piers fucking Morgan is a grade A Pillock but I'm still quite happy to use his considerable reach to make people aware of the issues.

When people and publications I used to respect and 'align with' start engaging with reality over ideology, then I might employ the luxury of not needing to have this discussed by people I otherwise don't rate. We might even be getting there now.

But yes, when your response to the discussion getting airtime is to finger wag at incautious feminists getting fooled by a bigot, it does look a lot like an attempt to shut the conversation down. Because, sadly, that's all the word bigot seems to be used for now, and most of us have become inured to it.

It's good that this is being widely discussed on LBC and elsewhere. Finally the general public can see the politically correct madness for what it is. JKR tweet was absolutely spot on. No one should be persecuted for beliefs or how they want to live, but for fucks sake your basic biological sex CANNOT be cancelled no matter what you decide to do with the exterior.

As Caitlyn Jenner said on I'm a Celeb and I quote "I will always be daddy..." SAY NO MORE.

Ferrari bandwagon..

I bet that goes like the clappers.

LangCleg, saying we should be careful about aligning ourselves with the likes of Ferrari very clearly doesn't say that we are incapable of recognising when he is being bigoted. The point is the perception of others: if you align yourself with a known bigot, there is a distinct risk of devaluing the entire argument.

Who's this "we"? Try to avoid forced teaming, please. It's an abusive tactic. And please stop repeating the guilt by association fallacy. We've dealt with that one already.

We - by which I mean FWR regulars and materialist feminists generally - are bored with both these things. We were already bored with them three years ago. Three years is enough, thankyouverymuch.

They - by which I mean genderists - can use guilt by association if they want. They can lie or twist what I say if they want. I don't give a single, solitary, shiny shit.

What I won't do is censor myself because they might do that. Stop asking me to do that. It's anti-feminist, overused and frankly, bloody infuriating.

Trans people are being murdered every day, world wide, they are also more easily identified as women. Seeing as that’s why they are being murdered and that’s what the pathologist will identify them as.

It’s a bit like the rape case a few years ago where the transman raped by the Uber drivers said ‘but I’m trans’ when the driver attacked her. Nope you are being targeted because he identified that you are female, how you identify doesn’t protect you from that.