Graham Norton “as if there are trans armies coming over the hills”

[Lifeaintalwaysempty]

like Graham Norton, this disappointed me in the Times today. I find it so patronising with regards those who have a stake in the debate on protecting sex based rights, and worryingly he is justifying the TRA aggression on the basis that this is how you get progress???

it’s ok for a man to say that a bit of violence is to be expected and accepted when it comes to protecting TRAs.

It's pretty shocking coming from one of the BBC's biggest names. You'd have thought he'd have been briefed to either avoid the issue or to make some bland statement about the importance of listening to both sides, but to back aggression against women who simply believe in biological sex and protecting women and girls is

I expect he's pretty scared of being written off as non-woke like JKR. It's a cost free intervention.

Pandering to the young and woke market - trying to remain relevant.

Maybe after that interview he has had a taste of what happens to anyone who associates with JKR and feels a need to protect the GN brand?

Has she ever been on his shit show?

This was only in November.

I would really like to see a journalist or presenter confront him with this and put it plainly:

You are advocating for a bit of male violence against women and children being ok and probably the right way forward in order to strip their sex based rights away, for the benefit of males. Which women and children do you think this should happen to? Your mum? Any nieces or nephews? What degree of violence are you advocating here? A punch in the head like Maria got, or full blown multiple rapes that leave a woman so badly injured she may not be able to have children? Would you like to meet those women and explain that what they endured is justified and worth it so that male people can successfully reduce female rights in the UK to their own advantage?

And how do you think this weighs up against the five people dead in the Capitol building because of believing a little bit of violence is worth it in the name of political fervour? Graham?

You glib, thoughtless, crass numpty.

I was reading that he's been a guest-judge on Ru Paul's Drag Race. Probably thinks that's all he needs to know about trans issues then. 🙄

I find advocating extremist positions and violence. as acceptable very very troubling . And from someone in the public eye with a position of responsibility against a vulnerable group.

Never liked him or understood his popularity. But thought it was just me. Although he was funny , once, in a show written by Graham Linehan. In short - ' how did that eejit get on the television?'

‘..Some aggression’ ?!

I don't want to come across as assuming that all Irish people must know each other or whatever but if @glinner DOES know Graham Norton, maybe they could have a chat about the issues at stake here?

@Eowynthewarrior

I find advocating extremist positions and violence. as acceptable very very troubling . And from someone in the public eye with a position of responsibility against a vulnerable group.

Yes - imagine if he was advocating violence against disabled people because T wanted access to all disabled spaces, charities and services.

I think minimising is another reflection of where we now are with this issue. We’ve had years of shouty maximising their needs and now they’re on the minimising, pacifying, ‘you’re imagining it’ backfoot.

@ChattyLion

‘..Some aggression’ ?!

I think he means when women expressing opinions are told to “suck my lady dick” and they and their family are threatened with rape by angry men on Twitter. Or he could have meant when 60 year old women attending open air events are attacked and beaten by angry men. You know, just “some aggression” from vulnerable , misunderstood men who need understanding and protecting from hurt feelings.

Viques, quite so. So insulting to all the many women who have suffered from this male sexual entitlement movement. What decent person would want to wave all that away as though the ends justified the means..

Many gay men are not that politically minded; nor have they been traditionally; and certainly not until the advent the AIDS epidemic. Back in the 70's and 80's it was lesbians who were doing the real counter-cultural stuff; setting up the co-ops and bookshops; printing presses and cafes.

Most gay men seem, automatically, to support 'trans rights' in a knee jerk kind of way, as some sort of natural affiliate to gay rights. They miss the point entirely; and it has been one of the biggest disappointments, and revelations in this whole saga.Many gay men will simply refuse to critique drag, too.

..... and a lot of the misogyny in the male gay community, formerly, unnoticed and uncommented upon, has now become far more apparent.

Actually turned right off him when he made that deeply offensive and cruel comment, about Amy Winehouse - for laughs.

@Justhadathought

..... and a lot of the misogyny in the male gay community, formerly, unnoticed and uncommented upon, has now become far more apparent.

Have thought this for some time

He's a bit of a tit, isn't he? I think it's the flippant "oh just be nice, silly women" types that annoy me the most. It may only be a "tiny minority" but it affects us all, particularly the more vulnerable 51% of the population: women and girls. What a thoughtless arsehole.

oh just be nice, silly women" types that annoy me the most.

Me too. They are harder to deal with. But the sexism is real.

Also if the trans armies aren’t coming over the hill, which is it? If this affects only a tiny number of people why do every else’s rights have to be sacrificed to validate them? If it’s growing and sizeable section of society, then doesn’t that seem to point more s some form of social contagion and the need to urgently investigate what’s really going on, rather than the urgent need to pass validating affirmative legislation which negates the rights of others, like self ID removing all single sex provision entirely as was proposed recently at government level? What currently ungranted rights does Norton think are required?

If numbers in society are supposed to provide justification for new policies and laws, then we still logically haven’t got a solid numbers basis for saying that the legal and moral rights of women (however they identify) and children (however they identify) to safety, privacy, dignity and safeguarding should be disregarded. That’s whatever estimated head count of gender believers we go with, however tenuously Stonewall tries to extend the umbrella.

Because logically the biological classes of women and children will always be greater In number than those among them believing in gender, and most importantly women and children will always be relatively way more at risk if men are allowed into their dedicated spaces, because of what we know about the male sex (of course: however those males identify).

I still want to know what human rights trans people don’t have.....