Jo Maugham

[GoodbyePorpoiseSpit]

I follow Jo on Twitter and feel that the GoodLaw project is a needed and good thing when it comes to holding ministers/gov spending to account. He seems to take refuge in the rule of law and facts .... so, so WHY after the recent ruling on puberty blockers is he tweeting and retweeting Trans folk who are sharing (in emotive and extra detail) their experience post ruling. What his deal?? What’s his skin in the game? Looked through some old tweets and he really seems to have come down hard against women’s rights.
Ca anyone explain his deal here?

Other notable quotes. Again, the metaphor of journey beimg used here.

I've been on a journey on trans issues - and I have ended up a long way from some or even many in my tribe - and I wanted to set out some things I've learned along the way. THREAD

[...]

If you are a man and the reality of your engagement with equality issues is that you do little more than default to the views of a significant woman in your life that doesn't make you woke it makes you lazy.

If you are a man and the reality of your engagement with equality issues is that you do little more than default to the views of a significant woman in your life that doesn't make you woke it makes you lazy

Because anyone can do better than listen to a woman, much less learn from her, even if you have to pretend so she’ll let you shag her.

I noticed that angry outraged Tweet of his as well. I unfollowed him immediately. I wonder if he’s got less female followers now?!

@nauticant

Tax law is notoriously difficult and does attract a tiny group of very clever people who can master it.

However, people who have that extremely narrow form of cleverness sometimes assume they must be brilliant at everything. Which ironically is its own form of stupidity.

The Germans have a word for this, of course: fachidiot

Noun. A derogatory term for a one-track specialist who is an expert in his field, but takes a blinkered approach to multi-faceted problems.

which certainly seems to apply to our Jo

I too have a theory for why Jo is so interested, but getting deleted is not how I care to start my weekend, so I’m not going to share it.

To be honest, the more testerical he gets, the better, because if all you’ve got is bloviating outrage, and your case is so unformed it can immediately be switched from the one you said you were bringing, to challenging another one that’s already happened that you didn’t seem to have noticed was happening, then what you’re saying is you don’t know what you’re doing, and you haven’t got a case. Good.

What I’m not pleased about is him ratcheting up the emotion and making trans people feel they’re under attack. I never fail to be shocked by how cavalierly vulnerable people are treated by those who profess to be looking out for them.

Poor Jo needs just wants to go clubbing to let off some steam.

The arrogance of a man who thinks three senior judges have failed to appreciate all sides (having heard all sides), throws around suicide “statistics” with no proof and against Samaritans guidelines, accuses Fair Cop of being “terrorist” (when the cause Fair Cop is fighting for should send chills down every lawyer’s spine) and blocks any woman who either disagrees with him (politely or otherwise) or likes a tweet that disagrees with him (like me!).

His echo chamber is so complete I doubt there’s anyone on Twitter able to disagree with him.

have you seen his tweets this morning?

'first they came for the Jews'

could he (and his two fellow white oxbridge males) hate women more?

no one allowed to reply even though he likes to insist people 'listen' more.

Oh yes Helmet he's pulled out the big guns this morning, abortion charities are afraid to speak out about the Bell ruling because he says: they fear public criticism from an unholy alliance of the 'Christian' Right and trans exclusive 'feminists'. Now where have we heard that before? There's no evidence of it. He's not acting in good faith.

No, there is no evidence of it and if you read the ruling it's very clear that it deals exclusively with the situation regarding puberty blockers and isn't more widely applicable. I'm assuming Jo has read the ruling so he must know that he is talking nonsense.

And to be honest, since when have abortion charities been afraid of criticism from the Christian Right? That has been a feature of their existence since day one. It seems equally unlikely that they would be afraid of criticism from "trans exclusive 'feminists'" (note the quote marks around feminists) given that bashing so-called trans exclusive feminists is a sport everyone can join in. Unlike fox-killing, which is just for the select few.

I'm not blocked yet if I need to take one for the team and tweet him anything?

it's very clear that it deals exclusively with the situation regarding puberty blockers and isn't more widely applicable.

Indeed - previous case law for contraceptives, abortion, blood transfusions is brought up in the judgment and used as a comparator for why this alleged "treatment" is different (indeed, "unique").

All are subject to the same law and rules. Unlike the others, "puberty blockers" fail the tests due to what they do and the lack of an evidence base.

There was no change in any of the rules here - the rules are now just being properly applied to an experimental treatment that had not been properly assessed according to those rules.

Thats why I and others crowdfunded the case - we could see the rules weren't being applied, and it seemed clear that they could be applied as-is without any need to endanger other things like reproductive rights.

I think Twitter just does this to people. It is a destructive medium.
I think if you get lots of followers and positive attention over something (e.g being a Twitter remainer fighting the good fight) it becomes addictive and all encompassing and you start to get delusions of grandeur about your thought on all sorts of other matters too and when that goes away (and you actually become a bit of a Twitter meme due to an unrelated thing you do) it is devastating and you want an issue that will give you authority / respect again and Jo has decided this is the issue.
I never really get the demograph argument generally, that there is a divide between younger and older people on the any debate and over time the younger viewpoint will win out. Labour activists use it for lots of their arguments but what they forget is that young people grow up and become older people and views change and so that perfect demograph of younger people taking their exact viewpoints in everything into their middle/ old ages just does not really happen.

But if this concern from abortion rights charities exists, it could be cleared up very easily by simply reading the judgement, where it articulates how this ruling doesn’t affect abortion or contraception.

Why is he doing this? Why can’t he just tell the truth?

you cant tweet him on this: when you are as privileged a white male as jolyon you certainly dont need to hear nasty women's voices on ..i dunno things that may affect them like abortions, consent or on experimental drugs for kids.

Why is he doing this? Why can’t he just tell the truth?

Maugham is one of those people who loves occupying the moral high ground. In terms of personal sanctimoniousness, the only other person who can begin to match him is Owen Jones. So he has to pretend that this ruling will have an impact on young women wanting abortions because he knows perfectly well that, if it's only about access to puberty blockers, lots of people will agree with the ruling. If he creates fear that it also affects abortion, then everyone can join him in tutting about those terrible feminists.

*The Germans have a word for this, of course: fachidiot

Noun. A derogatory term for a one-track specialist who is an expert in his field, but takes a blinkered approach to multi-faceted problems.*

Brilliant, Sophocles! Steve Pinker instantly springs to mind.

@RoyalCorgi

Why is he doing this? Why can’t he just tell the truth?

Maugham is one of those people who loves occupying the moral high ground. In terms of personal sanctimoniousness, the only other person who can begin to match him is Owen Jones. So he has to pretend that this ruling will have an impact on young women wanting abortions because he knows perfectly well that, if it's only about access to puberty blockers, lots of people will agree with the ruling. If he creates fear that it also affects abortion, then everyone can join him in tutting about those terrible feminists.

I think you’re right

he has to pretend that this ruling will have an impact on young women wanting abortions because he knows perfectly well that, if it's only about access to puberty blockers, lots of people will agree with the ruling. If he creates fear that it also affects abortion, then everyone can join him in tutting about those terrible feminists.

Spot on Corgi

Quote from JM: "(which echoes a journey of my own with someone I love)"

someone I love

Sophocles I've a pretty good idea what your theory might be, and I think I share it.

Ps another one loving "fachidiot" - that's made my morning.

Cara 🤫 mum’s the word. Or maybe it’s - uterus owner who’s uterus I once occupied’s the word. Seems unwieldy though.

@HecatesCatsInXmasHats

Oh yes Helmet he's pulled out the big guns this morning, abortion charities are afraid to speak out about the Bell ruling because he says: they fear public criticism from an unholy alliance of the 'Christian' Right and trans exclusive 'feminists'. Now where have we heard that before? There's no evidence of it. He's not acting in good faith.

He's probably just talking about Amnesty and Liberty and we already know what they think.