Nigella Lawson apologizes for 27 year old column

[Igneococcus]

It reads like a hostage note:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9272cff6-f2cd-11ea-9de6-a6e4d4016fb7?shareToken=f1646908d8ee981cca03f1ebbff8ec12

Bovary, I think you and I are almost speaking in different languages. I'm trying to understand your points, but you listed multiple issues in your previous post such as the 4000% increase in girls wanting gender reassignment. I would consider that a topic separate from Nigella's apology that warrants its own thread, and in fact there have been many such threads.

It may be a separate topic from Nigella's apology, but it's certainly relevant to the article which she apologised for. Her article in 1993 was about a woman having unnecessary surgery to remove her healthy breasts and uterus, which is what many of these girls will also do if encouraged along this path of thinking that there is something wrong with their healthy bodies.

I don't think we can discuss the nature of Nigella's apology without discussing what she was apologising for. She has apologised for being critical of young women having unnecessary surgery to remove healthy body parts, and the ethical position of the doctors who are willing to carry out those operations.

@WinterIsGone

One of the comments under The Times article says Nigella "changed her mind because she currently has a young trans person in her family". Is that the case?

Wouldn't surprise me. I think this is one of the reasons for TRAs being so keen on the idea of the 'trans child'. Once everyone has a 'trans child' in their family, it is much harder to push against trans ideology, because it looks and feels like a criticism of that child.

We have to keep in mind that such children are victims of the ideology. Criticising the ideology is about protecting these children.

I read a distinct "I'm sorry you feel that way " tone about her apology. As well as a "please don't troll me, I'll look like I'm saying shit you like"

I'm amazed any celebrities bother to keep a twitter account any more. Surely the minor benefits from a slight uplift in profile are hugely negated by the ever present threat of pile ons, cancellations and requests for personal struggle sessions.

Timeline

Nigella tweets pro-trans article
mobile.twitter.com/Nigella_Lawson/status/1299832628003176448

Receives much approval from usual sources
metro.co.uk/2020/08/30/nigella-lawson-says-trans-rights-lgbtq-organisations-thank-speaking-13198563/

Christie E-C calls her out on it and requests apology
mobile.twitter.com/ChristieElanCan/status/1300455167444299778

And keeps calling her out until NL offers the apology

Looks like Nigella went woke well before all this hit the fan.

@JKRisaqueen

It showed what her true opinion is before it became shaped by other people's

Rather unfair to assert this.

Maybe she has listened to different arguments and is more convinced by some than others?

@MoltenLasagne

I'm amazed any celebrities bother to keep a twitter account any more. Surely the minor benefits from a slight uplift in profile are hugely negated by the ever present threat of pile ons, cancellations and requests for personal struggle sessions.

I've always thought that if I were a celeb, I'd get my PR person to run my Twitter account and keep it strictly about my work. I'd also insist that they never tell me the password so as to eliminate the possibility of me posting drunken rants! The risk of making a single poorly worded statement and then being the subject of cancel culture would be just too great.

Hostage note? Strange choice of words.
People sometimes change their minds, their opinions, it's not unheard of.
So when this person brought up this article, stands to reason that if she'd changed her views she'd say so and apologise if felt the need to.
I know I'm not particularly proud of all my views from nearly 30 years ago, difference is they weren't aired in public via social media.
If they were and they'd got unearthed, I'd probably feel like saying I don't think that anymore.
Hardly a case of "people made me apologise!" People can change, you know.

People can change, but the SM agitator hive mind decides whether they have or haven’t.

One of the comments under The Times article says Nigella "changed her mind because she currently has a young trans person in her family". Is that the case?

I didn't know this but I was going to suggest the same thing. It's the same with Jolyon Maugham. Rational thought goes out of the window. It's all about not hurting the feelings of the young trans person.

I know I'm not particularly proud of all my views from nearly 30 years ago, difference is they weren't aired in public via social media.

Neither was Nigella's - social media didn't exist 30 years ago.

We're getting to the stage that if anyone holds an opionion which deviates even slightly from woke dogma, they'll keep it to themselves. That of course doesn't mean they won't continue to hold those opinions, in fact they'll likely believe in them even more firmly. I see a massive backlash brewing.

Indeed. I've been saying and posting this for months and called vile names and been ruthlessly shut down as a result. I won't stop though. And the backlash is going to be terrible. Balance always finds a way to restore itself but there's often a lot of casualties in the process.

It's the same with Jolyon Maugham.
Does he have a trans relative?

Wouldn't surprise me. I think this is one of the reasons for TRAs being so keen on the idea of the 'trans child'. Once everyone has a 'trans child' in their family, it is much harder to push against trans ideology, because it looks and feels like a criticism of that child

OldCrone

That's a really interesting point. As a tactic to completely disable any criticism and cement compliance, it would be effective.

People who push their own agenda whilst trampling over other peoples rights are actually very narrow minded, not the other way around.

Well said Patricia and you are quite right about the risks to women with learning disabilities or difficulties too of losing single sex spaces.

I know I'm not particularly proud of all my views from nearly 30 years ago, difference is they weren't aired in public via social media

Neither was Nigella's - social media didn't exist 30 years ago.

Sorry, in case it needs clarifying, when I say in public I mean in social media platforms and also opinion pieces in newspaper columns
The most public place my thoughts and opinions ever went 27 years ago was sometimes in my diary.
Ahh, those were the days lol

Apologies if this is explained in the article - the token doesn't work for me and I must have used up this week's quota - but has someone actually combed through Nigella's work - presumably not online if 27 years ago - to find that piece? Because if that's the case then I don't blame her at all for being thoroughly rattled.

It may be a separate topic from Nigella's apology, but it's certainly relevant to the article which she apologised for. Her article in 1993 was about a woman having unnecessary surgery to remove her healthy breasts and uterus, which is what many of these girls will also do if encouraged along this path of thinking that there is something wrong with their healthy bodies

Well said OldCrone. I wonder if the surgeons who are performing these operations on young women will ever be held accountable?

Also Bovary I think it was you (apologies if not) saying upthread we’d have to burn all historical texts at this rate. Yes.
The TRAs would be pretty happy with that, they love a historical rewrite and can pretend that 2+2 has always = 5.
The sad thing is with cancel culture and trigger warnings and all of the other shit, younger people in particular will stop knowing where to find or wanting to read opposing views. I know that’s a massive generalisation but the whole thing scares the absolute shit out of me. It’s modern day book burning.
Anyway I call on Nigella to follow her apology tweet with a journalistic piece about her politics and with others commenting. I don’t care if she has personal skin in the game or not she doesn’t have to talk about it. The personal is political and we can have protected subjects that are off the table and can’t be talked about when those views massively impact other people (women, children, lesbians in particular)

Typo! We Can’t have projected subjects..

Ah ok I've just seen, the person who complained was the subject of the article?

Also Bovary I think it was you (apologies if not) saying upthread we’d have to burn all historical texts at this rate. Yes

Chatty

It wasn't, but I agree with this assessment of cancel culture. There is a Year Zero fanaticism at the heart of it.

The sad thing is with cancel culture and trigger warnings and all of the other shit, younger people in particular will stop knowing where to find or wanting to read opposing views

Exactly. In fact the idea of legitimate opposing opinions has been incinerated. There is just compliance to the orthodoxy. Or denounce the heretic.

Yes. We really do have to force the discussion of this up to the highest levels from the grassroots, before it’s too late. The professional middle tier of social organisations have already given up on women.

@Floisme

Ah ok I've just seen, the person who complained was the subject of the article?

Yes floisme. It seems like NL was called out on Twitter for not apologising for 27 years and not being a trans ally despite recent tweets suggesting support for the trans movement.

@IrmaFayLear

How do people find old tweets/articles etc that are "offensive" ? Do they forensically search a particular person's archive as they are targeting them in particular, or is there a small (or large?) army out there all digging through everything anyone said or wrote of a dubious nature, however long ago?

I read a lot, and virtually everything written pre-, er, now, contains something someone might object to. Some things a great deal worse than others, of course, but I foresee that almost every single thing ever published is going to have to be burned if we carry on with this "cleansing" business.

I'm pretty sure you can just advance search old Tweets for no-no words. If you dislike someone and they've got an account that dates back to the birth of Twitter in 2008/9, you're bound to find something juicy to get them cancelled.

Newspaper archives are also easier than ever to search. So I guess old columns will be the next thing.