Graham Norton has terminated his Twitter account after attacking JK Rowling

[SwanageBay]

Well that's one less beardy man on there defending rape and death threats.

I do t think he deserved the level of vitriol he got on Twitter.

I would regard myself as Gender Critical and have scoured everything JKR has said and found nothing that could be read as transphobic.

Graham Norton had a very short conversation where he said that his opinion wasn't needed or relevant and that people should listen to the experts like Trans women if they want people to hear about Trans issues. He didn't say anything against women or for Transwomen, he made no mention of JKR, it wasn't a long piece where he could provide a full and thorough detailed like of experts that should be consulted.

If I was to criticise him for anything it would be that he tried too hard to be neutral for fear of having an opinion.

Unless just saying something as innocuous as listen to trans people

Why should we be instructed to listen to transpeople on matters of women's rights?

Ridiculous. All he said when asked was: "cancel culture" often is just consequences for actions, I have nothing to say on this topic and don't want to make headlines, talk to experts and trans people instead
Exactly!

In what way is this her fault?

Well, that bit him on the arse didn't it. He's a celebrity who did what he said celebrities shouldn't do and now he's cancelled being held accountable.

You know what Graham Norton didn't say?

He also didn't say that he would listen to women's voices discussing the areas of conflict of their rights with demands by trans groups.

You are quite right. He said, people should listen to trans people. He completely ignored what Joanne Rowling was saying when answering that question.

I did watch the interview. Do you ever think deeper than superficially?

Do you understand that if Norton was being balanced, he would have said, people should listen to trans people, and that for the areas of conflict, they should also listen to the other stakeholders - women? It was then quite clear that he did not make that clarification after it was brought to his attention.

So, Titan, when it comes to transitioned males participating in the female category of sports, should the only people that should be listened to be 'trans' voices?

What about when discussing the needs for female rape crisis groups and shelter? Should the only people that should be listened to be 'trans' voices?

Do you see the issue? Or was your post just lacking in critical thinking about what was said, and what was not said, and what then was not corrected if Graham Norton did not actually think that female voices, celebrity or not, should ALSO be listened to when it is a matter that impacts on them?

Norton did not attack Rowling and the only people who would think that are those who didn't hear what he actually said.

I admired the way he addressed it WITHOUT making it a pile-on on Rowling. I'm not a fan of everything she says or some of the people she's allied herself to but I think a lot of criticism of her is unfounded and Norton did a very good job of not stoking the 'burn the witch' fire.

As @AgathaAllAlong says, you're not helping your argument if you essentially react to 'your side's' reaction to something rather than actually finding out what the real story is, which is what appears to have happened here.

But his comments have seemed really measured (albeit fence sitting) there doesn't really seem any explanation of what has happened.

He has had ample time to explain what he meant. Did he come back and clarify that where women and girl's rights were in conflict, that yes, women's and girl's voices should be equally listened to? Regardless of the celebrity status of that women or girl?

Or did he just ignore all the explanations and flounce off twitter?

His comments were entirely disingenuous and cynical.

cancel culture issue is about people being hounded out of jobs and receiving death and rape threats.

he completely and deliberately ignored that to say something which of course sounds reasonable if you totally ignore what the actual issues are

He said it's accountability. Well, "accountability" for women who stand up for their rights is death and rape threats, doxxing, losing their jobs etc.

He also said listen to the voices of the people going through it and the experts except it's just one sided isn't it? Listen to the TW and Mermaids etal not the women, not the medical experts, not the detransitioners.

Yes he did. He just did it in a really sly and underhand way.

He's a twat

You know what else he didn’t say?

When asked directly ‘Do you think JKR is a transphobe?

He didn’t say NO. No I don’t think she is a transphobe.

He could have.

But by choosing not to, he not only hung her out but himself too.

Right at the start of this whole shitshow he made reference to JKR's 'problematic' views. Without clearly having any understanding of what they actually were.

Who are these experts and trans people?

Experts like Mermaids? Who said in court that they are not experts in anything. GenderGP? One doctor struck off, the other suspended. WPATH? Susie Green is a prominent member (not an expert in anything according to Mermaids' testimony in court). GIDS? Being closed down for serious failings.

Which trans people? Dylan Mulvaney? Lily Madigan? Jane Fae? Karen White? Katie Dolatowski? Barbie Kardashian?

Give me one reason why anyone should be listening to anything any of these 'experts' and trans people have to say.

Or are there other experts and trans people we should be listening to? How do we know which of these are credible and worth listening to?

Yes, it was the snidey way he had the "problematic" woman on, to let her "wang" on about her book. And of cause she LOVES the fact she gets thousands of abusive messages, rape and death threats on twitter.

Better to have not had her on, than speak about her afterwards like that. Horrible thing to do, so two faced. Unprofessional. Low.

"TRAs" interpret JKR's words to be transphobic and the response is "Did she actually SAY anything transphobic? Have you READ her essay?" and it's deemed not ok at all to "put words in her mouth" or "interpret it in the wrong way", but it's ok for JKR to do it to Graham Norton? Rightio.

He actively said his voice is of no worth in this conversation, that he didn't want to be dragged into the conversation, made that clear, and gave a measured response of "talk to the experts and trans people" and somehow that means he supports the rape and murder of women?

What a bunch of hypocrites.

"Norton said it felt absurd that many of those who complained about being “canceled” were then able to talk about their cancellation in newspapers and in interviews."

What I am talking about is this. So, a woman is 'cancelled' for speaking at a consultation, at a seminar, at a conference, or loses their jobs, for speaking out about the conflicts where the demands by another group impacts their rights, and Graham Norton says 'well, they are hardly cancelled, they are still talking'.

This is a sleight of hand.

Because the women are not getting representation where it is needed for balance. Just because they are talking still, doesn't mean that where that discussion needed to happen for balance, that that balanced view was given.

That is the effect of what Norton is saying.

It is purely distracting from the reality. That the women needed to bring balance to a discussion are being dismissed and some people like Norton are saying, 'It's ok though. They are still saying things in public hiding the fact that the voice was excluded when it was needed for policy. Or in some cases, people's livelihoods were lost.'

Why are people trying to parse this in a way that minimising what he said? And he really could have corrected after people pointed this out.

Right. He's literally said as much.

We all know the times interview was just Norton placating the TRAs that had been on his back.

Guess what! Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

He actively said his voice is of no worth in this conversation, that he didn't want to be dragged into the conversation

But it was all too late then. He'd already waded in, bringing himself into the conversation, by calling JKR's views 'problematic'.

He was under no pressure to comment on her views at that stage at all. He walked right into the debate all on his own.

Alright, my point still stands. Does his calling her views "problematic" actually mean that he supports the rape and murder of women?

This with bells on!

Well, no one knows because he didn't clarify which views of hers were problematic...

Alright, my point still stands. Does his calling her views "problematic" actually mean that he supports the rape and murder of women?

No your point doesn't still stand. You said he wanted no part in this conversation, which manifestly isn't true as he walked into the conversation himself.

As for your second point, he declares a woman standing up for the sex based protections of vulnerable women to have a 'problematic' view. You make of that what you will. I know I have.

What did JKR say @Feyrethefae ?

So because he didn't clarify, it's ok to put words in his mouth and make assumptions? It's ok for people to say he doesn't give a shit about women because he didn't explicitly put in a mountain of disclaimers? It's ok for JKR to say he supports rape and murder of women because he didn't explicitly SAY that he didn't?

All of this is what GCs say that TRAs have done to JKR's words.