Simon Callow article in The Times

[AnyOldPrion]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/actor-simon-callow-attacks-stonewall-the-lgbtq-group-over-trans-self-identification-6l3nd7hw3

Sorry, no share token, but pleased to see another significant figure speaking out.

@AlecTrevelyan006

Joe Lycett *@joelycett*

6h
To my trans followers: please remember there are many, many people who don’t believe your mere existence is ‘divisive’ or that you are a ‘danger to women’ or any equivalent nonsense and that the T is as important and valued as all the letters in LGBTQI+ Rainbow flag Transgender flag

Do people wilfully misunderstand? No one is saying that trans people are a danger to women.

Simon callow is a great actor and a bona fide star. A long and illustrious career. National treasure material I'd say.

When his name comes up I always think of the scene with the pond in a room with a view

He doesn't speak out much I don't think or court the press.

He's been an openly gay famous actor for as long as I can remember so that's the early 80s I suppose. Visible, I think the term is, as a gay man.

I find it utterly bemusing how people especially young (ish) gay men are so quick to say oh how terrible bad man etc.

Is it a similar mechanism to young women dismissing older women etc?

In this case though. The idea that so many life long lefties / feminists / lesbian women/ gay men/ people who have been activists / lost friends to AIDS/ etc etc etc. Have suddenly become horrible bigots.I mean yes people you think are good eggs do sometimes come out with a load of old shit. But this is a LOT of people.

It's a fascinating thing to see in real life. And it's educational to be on the 'wrong side' of the left, as it were, for the first time.

I just can't get my head around the refusal to even think for a second. Maybe they have a point?

And it's not things that would seem to be a bit tricky to decide on. Think well I don't know.

It's massive stuff that is a no brainer to the vast majority of people everywhere.

Males in women's prisons Inc sex offenders
Stats
Communal changing
Services for women who have been harmed by men
In patient mental health units
Sports
Etc etc etc etc

It's utterly bizarre and would be fascinating if it wasn't fucking me off so much.

I don't think with people like oj it's about anything more complex than deep seated misogyny.

Combined with the tendency of those who are 'left' to believe they are immune from being biased etc. The belief that led to the long term issue with anti Semitism in Labour being ignored.

Joe Lycett's not very bright is he? Never heard of him before but only a dim person would equate being against self-id to being against trans existence. Ridiculous man.

Haha, OJ is so reliably shrill on this. Every attempt at discussion is an “onslaught”

I refuse to believe he’s anything other than a satirical comedy character

A comedy exposing the the blue tick shrill characters could be funny

since when is the campaign to get your dick out in the women's changing room the legitimate struggle of an oppressed class?

they want the right to do something that no man should have the right to do.

There is clear justification to restrict access to single-sex in spaces with naked bodies - showers, changing rooms, hospital wards. And elite sports. And spaces with the vulnerable - prisons, refuges, rape centres, shelters. Yet Stonewall and the blue-ticked men call this anti-trans.

Most activity in society involves both sexes. Trans people can relate to others in their chosen gender and from what I've experienced personally are welcomed and treated with compassion.

Do people wilfully misunderstand?
No one is saying that trans people are a danger to women.

Stonewall, OJ etc have done an excellent job of telling everyone that any “debate” about self ID, is equivalent to stating you think all trans people are a danger to women and transphobic. The general public can’t be blamed for latching in to this, because they sit. Really think too deeply about the actual issues and where Self ID ends up.
I really do think every interview or any communication by GC people should start with a clarification that we are worried about criminal men NOT trans people in general. If the general public heard it enough, then the hysterical, lying fraternity, wouldn’t get away with the line “debate equals transphobia”.

Unless this is powerfully replayed to the general public, Stonewall, OJ etc will will continue to lie about GC people.

Excuse typos!

There's on in the Indi too:

https://www.independent.co.uk/celebrity-news/simon-callow-stonewall-transgender-b1908390.html?fbclid=IwAR1beN0vDSVDJRVAQWNMhDXRAogmoDMoD52sgF8tAs1HU9dMgAOQg81fH2U

ThNk you Simon! 👏👏👏

As an aside, RT has always reminded me of this retro kid's tv favourite...

@NonnyMouse1337

"Stonewall said: ”We are working towards a world in which all lesbian, gay, bi, trans and queer people are able to thrive as themselves. We’re very proud of our work towards trans equality, as well as our work for all lesbian, gay, bi and queer people. From LGBTQ+ inclusive education to equity in healthcare, our work helps all LGBTQ+ people.”

You know what really angers and upsets me about Stonewall and other gender zealots? The utter betrayal and undermining of the L, G and B.

The gender zealots are not content with making up their own definitions for trans, queer and the other trailing alphabets. No, they are determined to break any link with SEXuality for lesbians, gays and bisexuals. Already on the Stonewall website, it claims homosexuality is an outdated and offensive term. (Newsflash: it's not) They want to brainwash younger generations by avoiding the connection between the terms lesbian/gay with homosexuality. So now lesbian and gay no longer means same sex attraction, but same gender attraction.

Bisexuality was the last remaining one with links to SEXuality. First, the gender zealots pronounced that bisexuality is an attraction to two or more genders. But the SEX in bisexual was an awkward reminder of reality. Observe now that bisexual has morphed into bi. I've even seen some bisexual groups overrun by gender zealots who call it bi+. I mean, what the fuck does bi+ even mean?!?

This is a sinister assault on the reality of sex underpinning homosexuality and bisexuality (and by extension heterosexuality). They want to obscure and break any link or reference of human sexuality to reality. Younger generations are being g***d into thinking terms like lesbian, gay and bi are frivolous labels that are based on some nebulous feeling rather than a factual term for describing the nature of sexual orientation. It's so upsetting.

The gender zealots demand respect for their endless gender identities but refuse to respect homosexuality and bisexuality. I am biSEXual and not ashamed of my attraction to both sexes. Leave my sexuality alone you fuckers! Get your own bloody words instead of changing ours!

Stunningly good post.

@terryleather

As an aside, RT has always reminded me of this retro kid's tv favourite...

It is uncanny isn’t it?

I really do think every interview or any communication by GC people should start with a clarification that we are worried about criminal men NOT trans people in general.

But it isn't about criminal men, it is about men generally. Why should I have to give up my privacy nd dignity because a man decides, for any reason Including because they want to call themselves a woman, they want to get their dick out in a women's changing room?

But it isn't about criminal men, it is about men generally. Why should I have to give up my privacy nd dignity because a man decides, for any reason Including because they want to call themselves a woman, they want to get their dick out in a women's changing room?

This is the whole thing - women shouldn't have to waste time defending or justifying their rights in law.

A simple "no" to any men, no matter what they think makes their case the exception should be enough.

It's not just about criminal men. I don't want my daughter pressured by school or peers to undress next to a male child. She doesn't want to in front of her own brother or dad and they are well known and definitely not of any ill intent. I don't see why that should change if one of them then said 'identify as'. An idea in someone's head changes nothing in the situation.

Exactly, and this is where focussing on safety misses the point. When we do this we can be handwaved away with "incidents are very rare" and "it's not fair to all trans women". No. Any male in a woman's space is violating my boundaries and taking away my privacy and dignity, in and of itself. They don't need to be obviously dangerous or particularly objectionable personally. They should not be there by virtue of their sex. None of them.

Why don't women's feelings matter, when people bend over backwards to please and coddle the feelings of males?

Any male in a woman's space is violating my boundaries and taking away my privacy and dignity, in and of itself. They don't need to be obviously dangerous or particularly objectionable personally. They should not be there by virtue of their sex. None of them.

Exactly.

I don't want to get changed in front of my father-in-law, or my son's friends. It's not just about male intent. It's about privacy.

God, these blue tickers putting out statements "to my followers", like they're Jesus or something.

@thirdfiddle

It's not just about criminal men. I don't want my daughter pressured by school or peers to undress next to a male child. She doesn't want to in front of her own brother or dad and they are well known and definitely not of any ill intent. I don't see why that should change if one of them then said 'identify as'. An idea in someone's head changes nothing in the situation.

Exactly, my dad and uncles were/are lovely, but I wouldn't undress in front of them. So why is it OK with a stranger who has male tackle?

Read this and just thought "bravo". The LGBQT community need to speak out more as it carries such weight.

I sometimes try to reverse my logic to see if I am wrong and missing something

...perhaps we all need to just be kind, the willy havers don't want to upset us by waggling their tackle about in our spaces. They cannot help it as they do not want other men to see their willys in male spaces. Their willys are special and more private you see, but women should be happy to view them. Having them in our space makes us vulnerable to assault but they assure it it won't happen. We ought to agree as they are theoretically women, with women's willys.

We have to appease their needs and put their feelings first as they are vulnerable victims. Theoretical women's needs therefore trump biological women's needs.

Nope, the logic is flawed as a willy haver is male.
I still think sex matters.

@AlecTrevelyan006

Joe Lycett *@joelycett*

6h
To my trans followers: please remember there are many, many people who don’t believe your mere existence is ‘divisive’ or that you are a ‘danger to women’ or any equivalent nonsense and that the T is as important and valued as all the letters in LGBTQI+ Rainbow flag Transgender flag

But that's not what he said, though!

God, these people

I don't see why that should change if one of them then said 'identify as'. An idea in someone's head changes nothing in the situation.

Quite. A female's experience does not change in the slightest depending on what is in the head of the male person at the time. It's really beyond arrogant to expect female people to predicate their experience on what a male person instructs.

The whole lot of 'you won't be assaulted, it never happens' (except for x and x and x and x) 'well you can't base your safety on a few outlying bad experiences!' and the 'wanting privacy and dignity is stupid and you should get over it' and 'you should overcome your trauma and fear and problems with male people feeling threatening to you when you're vulnerable and undressed' - is equally sauce for the gander as the goose. This has to equally be advice acceptable to give to TW as to why they should simply use male spaces, if it is considered acceptable to give to female people.

Otherwise, of course, it would just be rank sexism.

But that's not what he said, though!

The only way they can argue against our points is by completely making up what our points actually are.

Us: You know, it's a really, really bad idea for rapists to be housed in women's prison just because they say they're women. The female prisoners don't deserve that as a punishment, it's dangerous and incredibly cruel.

Them: Oh. My. God, so what you're saying is every trans person is a massive danger and a rapist and you wish we didn't exist and you want to take away all our rights, you fucking Nazis!

Pathetic children. Waste of time trying to have a grown up conversation with them.

I always thought Joe Lycett was an insufferable arsehole, and I guess it's true. They just don't factor in women at all do they? Once again, women don't count.