Graham Lineham on Newsnight tonight!

[Destinysdaughter]

Just saw this on Twitter. Should be interesting...

I think a lot of the women who started going on tv/radio before the GRA consultation were subject to this style of questioning but have worked on it and got good at steering the debate and I take my hat off to them. It is quite a skill.

Maybe this is why they are not invited on

Thank you Graham!

It’s up to us now to get people we know thinking & talking about it. Thought I might start by asking did they see Newsnight and what are their thoughts on 12 years being given puberty blockers & 17 years olds having a double mastectomy

I’ll let you know how it goes.....

I don't think the twitter reaction is too bad. I'm seeing support from people outside my own twitter circle. The usual suspects were always going to slag him off anyway.

I'd imagine that the majority of Newsnight's audience won't be familiar with the TRA twitter mob. They'll have just seen an ordinary chap getting roasted for expressing concern about women's rights and children's wellbeing.

It was an ordeal, but not a disaster. More people will have had their eyes opened and their curiosity awoken.

Right.

Errr...

That was predictably awkward.

Well done @Glinner

It's not going to encourage him to be interviewed anywhere else is it?

Maybe that was the idea.

Graham Linehan is one of my heroes. He could have kept his head down like all the gutless careerists, he knew the TRAs would make his life hell, but he still speaks out. Glad I didn't see what sounds like a travesty of an interview, as I feel sick when women spout the men's rights line.

I really hope you're right AbsintheFriends.

I think I saw red because of her behaviour and couldn't really hear what he was actually getting across.

Very easy to say from the comfort of my sofa, I know, but I think things would have gone better if he hadn't invited her to give an example of the inflammatory language he was being accused of using - she was obviously going to have examples at the ready and it gave her the pick of how to frame the rest of the interview (i.e. invalidate everything he says by focussing on the Holocaust).

There are times when asking for an example of the alleged behaviour is helpful, but a in 5 minute news segment there just wasn't the time to analyse his tweets and defend them properly. It gave her too much power to dictate the direction of the discussion, IMO.

At least the got his point across at the end, though - it could have been worse.

twitter.com/hashtag/Newsnight?s=09
There are a lot of sympathetic comments on Twitter. Most of them from people I don't recognise. I don't think the BBC have done itself any favours.
Perhaps Newsnight's days are numbered.

That's true, he would have been better off ignoring what she said and just conveying his message regardless.

Politicians do that all the time.

I was enraged watching that. It was a total stitch up and Graham did admirably in the circumstances.

On reflection, I think people unaware of the debate thus far, who think the big concern is that mean girls don't want to let lovely gentle harmless vulnerable transwomen into the ladies-room-club, will have heard, maybe for the first time:

TransActivists make rape threats and death threats to women

Prostate cancer drugs untested on women are being given to little girls to stop their puberty.

Women aren't allowed to talk about this

30+ clinicians have left the Tavistock over concerns related to this - sone with the view that this is eugenics on gender non conforming kids and is seen by some parents as a cure for homosexuality.

Children as young as 4 are being labelled trans

Children are being told they can be born in the wrong body

Lesbians are worried about this - so it's not one big happy lgbtetc against hateful bigots

Saying men aren't women is treated as a hatecrime

Stats from Stonewall should be taken with a grain of salt (see above re hate crime)

Some people think it's the transactivists who are hurting vulnerable people

These are all from memory as I think back in the interview; I'm sure there was more that I've missed. I think there will be enough people who will be made to think wtf? by one or more of the above, and might go googling to see what Glinner's so worked up about, that the appearance will be a net win for reason.

Thank you, Graham. Thank you so much.

Off the back of that interview: does anyone know where you might find out the normal turnover rate for clinical psychologist type jobs? My understanding is those positions are highly sought after and usually have very low turnover.

The tavistock had 35 resignations in two years from I think five positions which would mean 3.5 resignations per position per year - supposing the normal turnover rate is one person leaving every five years then the Tavistock would have seventeen times the turnover of other jobs in clinical psychology. Could be a useful statistic to quote if anyone can figure it out.

For anyone new to these issues & wanting to know more, many have found this thread useful:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me

I guess you could find out (eventually, yawn...) from an NHS FOI request, Kantastic?

Well, following that 'interview' I feel I've had more of an insight into Sarah Smith and her views than those of her guest. Which is a huge failure on her part as a professional journalist.

He did manage to get a lot of points across in spite of the hectoring and interruptions.

Whilst bringing the Nazis into any debate I think is best avoided, I agree with PPs his point about this being a hinge point in history was a very powerful one. I'm familiar with all of this stuff and it made me sit up. I hope it would prompt someone newer to the whole thing to ask what on earth is going on that could lead him to say that.

I hope it would prompt someone newer to the whole thing to ask what on earth is going on

I think that certainly would have been achieved! The random mentions of lesbians (no explanation) and nazis, and the fact SS basically plugged the ongoing Twitter drama is going to intrigue anyone who's new to the debate!

Also, GL basically saying 'I'm just a comedian, I'm only here because no-one else will speak out' will surely pique people's interest too.

It was predictable that the interview was going to be “why can’t you be nice”?

Telling the truth is rude, provocative, offensive and ought to be illegal.

So what if women are being terrorised, bullied silenced and threatened. So what if children are being sterilised and mutilated. We should all just calm down and be nice!!

I agree with whoever said upthread that the average viewer would have taken nothing from that debate, other than it being a terribly shouty interviewer.

Being in a studio is a stressful experience. Especially when you know that there’s a whole heap of people who absolutely loathe you and are looking to you to trip up and you feel so passionately that you are terrified of letting down those whom you are speaking for.

Glinner. That was a very tough call for someone who though he is famous, is not media trained. He got some good points in.

I thought the interviewer was awful. I agreed with every word Graham Linehan said - and the interviewer's denial that children are being told they wer "born in the wrong body" is unbelievable - that's exactly what they're being told.

"You don't tell children they were born in the wrong body, because they're children, and they'll believe you!" Absolutely.

Classic BBC hit job - get someone on with a controversial view on something and then berate them to make them look clueless. Job done, collect your woke bonus points at the door

One of the problems with this issue is that the TRA lobby have made it impossible to discuss in any rational way. Even gender critical people have to submit to using nonsense buzzwords like ‘AFAB’ or ‘people with vaginas’ to appease the trans ideologues. It becomes such a vexatious issue to discuss that even skeptical people steer clear of it and journalists feel they have to prove their credibility by saying the right things. Impressive work by the trans lobby to achieve such change in such a short time. It effectively silences debate and makes any remaining gc people like Glinner look a bit nuts even though the craziness is all on the other side. Actual verifiable craziness & mental health problems in some cases. It’s an interesting study in silencing critical thought about an issue.

He got in an astonishing number of good points, in the face of a barrage from the interviewer.

1 Glinner seems sanguine that if Stonewall/whomever doesn't put up an interviewee then the interviewer takes on the burden of acting on behalf of the 'missing.'

2 At some point, there is a need for media training for live TV that prepares speakers for this level of intensive interviewing that involves accusations from lack of niceness to unkindness to kinship with Nazi attitudes.

i came across him badly im afraid.after frankie boyle blocked him over pushing his views.and his compiling of a list of conversion therapists.which made me feel really bloody sick so had to stop reading about him.
someone in my family commited suicide due to gay converstion therapy when it was common decades ago and so it just made me feel really uneasy reading it.

Well, following that 'interview' I feel I've had more of an insight into Sarah Smith and her views than those of her guest. Which is a huge failure on her part as a professional journalist.

It reminded me of Jo Coburn interviewing Maya Forstater. Absolutely clueless.
I think this was a new low point for Newsnight. The last one was during the GRA consultation when they had two men in the studio discussing whether self id would have a detrimental impact on women's rights
And WTF, Mary Beard?

Cheers Glinner