Baroness Nicholson 'cancelled' by Booker board

[BaronessSnippyPantsofCroneArmy]

They will not rest until every disobedient woman is purged from society.

www.thebookseller.com/news/booker-prize-nicholson-barr-1207926

Can you copy and paste @Lamahaha?

I would like to tell Sarah Perry that her views that women must cede their rights to self-definition and single sex spaces cause me distress. And therefore she must not express them publicly.

Or is it only a particular view that must not be expressed publicly? Because that sounds somewhat at odds with the principle of freedom of speech, and surely no liberal author would be in favour of that.

Quite interesting looking at Damian Barr's Twitter. He's not quite getting the unadulterated applause he was hoping for. Some people are making some very sensible points about 'cancelling' people. Men, too, so he might even listen.

I'm disgusted that a writer would launch a campaign to silence someone with different views. Utterly aghast. It is genuinely chilling that anyone thinks cancelling someone due to their perfectly legally held views is something to be celebrated.

I don't know much about the ins and outs of the vote on gay marriage. I understand it wasn't universally supported, for various reasons. But to think that someone who voted against it should be hounded like this is madness.

Of course, it's only this particular peer that's being hounded. I wonder why that is?

That's an excellent article, Lamaha, thanks for linking.

@ Lamahaha you will probably find that MN decide copying whole articles breaches copyright and remove your post.

Better to ask that it be removed and ask if anyone has a share token.

@Lamahaha

@Needmoresleep

@ Lamahaha you will probably find that MN decide copying whole articles breaches copyright and remove your post.

Better to ask that it be removed and ask if anyone has a share token.

I was afraid of that. OK, I'll ask here: anyone got a share token? I'm going to report it.

I actually got a mailing about Damian Barr's Salon LIVE event tonight!
(Will be telling him where he can stick it)
www.theliterarysalon.co.uk/get-tickets/douglas-stuart-and-damian-barr-shuggie-bain

If it wasn't for the fact that I'd be giving him £5 I think I'd be joining to just keep asking for answers to all the questions he avoided on twitter by hiding away during the storm he created.

However they have asked for questions for his guest:

Although we still can't be at The Savoy you can join us tomorrow online! We'd love to hear what questions you'd like Douglas to answer. Email anything you've always wanted to ask or questions about Douglas' debut novel for a high chance of hearing them answered tomorrow!*⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

SEND YOUR QUESTIONS : [email protected]
(poor Megan...she says her favourite book is 1984 - George Orwell !)
I wonder how all his female staff feel about this?

I remember he had a job advertised a few months ago as a Business Development Manager and there was a line that stood out for me about "sharing diverse ideology" or something which I found a bit

Share token.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b8b56510-b6fb-11ea-8c72-5b725bcf2bc7?shareToken=93fd1e4f9353d2daa7e723a81b47cd5a

The thing is - everyone has worked with someone like that.

Opinionated, bossy, head girl, queen bee, top dog, bully... whatever you call them, these people tend to strut around as if they are Very Important and are the only ones with relevant opinions - and make damn sure everyone knows about it.

Generally (I have found) they are definitely the empty vessel that makes all the noise, and people breathe a sigh of relief when they leave. Even people you thought were their number 1 cheerleader/knew them to be shagging in the post room behind their wives back.

Why? For an easy life, don’t want to be the ‘one’ who says anything against a ‘popular’ person, don’t want a fight, don’t really care enough to get into a debate, fear of being the next target. Some people are just horrible in their own right and agree.

Thankfully I have worked long enough to see that what goes around comes around in 99% of the cases. Sometimes you just have to wait a long time for the universe to level out.

Richard Dawkins has retweeted the times article, TRA pile on has begun.

I refuse to believe that Dawkins buys into trans ideology - he must be able to see it for the belief system it is.

dawkins has back-tracked before tho hasnt he?
i dont doubt he knows what he is but get the i cant be arsed vibe from him.

@merrymouse

This is odd from Sarah Perry:

I would also add there is a world of difference between someone merely holding views, and someone in a position of power affirming those views publicly and irresponsibly and with no regard for distress caused to individuals or disrepute brought on an institution

You can hold views, but you can't express them?

(And I'm still not sure which views Baroness Nicholson is supposed to have affirmed?)

There's a gap there with regard to understanding how voting in Parliament is supposed to work. As in, what it's for. I'd expect someone sitting in either House would be perfectly nice and civil to people in their personal life, but making major decisions about social institutions means you really are meant to be serious about it and say whet you think it best and right at a totally different level.

The Times article is very good. I also saw a sympathetic tweet from David Aaronovitch this morning - Times writers seem generally to be more switched on than those of other newspapers.

Dawkins knows gender ideology is nonsense. I think he's probably been wary of speaking out in the past. It's probably bad enough receiving hate mail for expressing atheist views, without receiving hate for not subscribing to gender ideology.

I wasnt sure if he's already dipped his toe in, why one earth would he not say something.

I'm steadily get more and more pissed off by scientist who have a strong platform not saying anything - if he came out in support of biological reality then he would give shelter for 100's of scientists to be able to publish and critically think publicly.

@RoyalCorgi

The Times article is very good. I also saw a sympathetic tweet from David Aaronovitch this morning - Times writers seem generally to be more switched on than those of other newspapers.

Dawkins knows gender ideology is nonsense. I think he's probably been wary of speaking out in the past. It's probably bad enough receiving hate mail for expressing atheist views, without receiving hate for not subscribing to gender ideology.

One would hope as an evolutionary biologist he'd know the difference between the sex which produces the small, mobile gametes and the one which produces the large, immobile gametes...

(Interestingly, the TRAs don't seem to have edited the wikipedia page on anisogamy yet... still give it time. The day is young.)

Twitter thread by author Jane Harris, one of the few non-big-name writers speaking up, about Booker trustees who have NOT been cancelled in spite of "problematic" opinions.

twitter.com/blablafishcakes/status/1276123610101538816

Dawkins probably wouldn't care too much about the women's rights angle, but he's a free speech proponent, isn't he?

Some of the "hate speech" / "no crime hate crime" stuff is dangerously close to heresy and blasphemy laws of old.

Also I would've thought he would care about children being told they were born in the wrong body, just because they play with the wrong toys, or have a feeling in their head, and need life long medication and surgery to "fix" it.

Has anyone posted this? Not directly relevant but someone on Twitter dug it up and I remember the story when it happened- just hadn’t connected the Baroness of today to it!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/WkiLgbPpdd/boy-in-the-photo

with no regard for distress caused to individuals or disrepute brought on an institution

And there you go. That view from Sarah P summarises all that is wrong with current culture. It is not what you say that matters, but how it makes people feel. It doesn't matter how your express your view, what reasons you have for your view, what evidence you have for your view, what dictates whether you should speak is how it may make someone feel.
(unless the person with feelings is a woman, in which case carry on saying what you like).

Well thank you rogdmum, I’m sat here snivelling like a right idiot. 😢

I can see Fox is going nuts about this on twitter. Apparently The Times got the pronouns wrong. Jolyon is upset too (natch)

(The Times article, I mean)