Who has most disappointed you?

[Calistano]

I'd say Russell T Davies when he had his drunken rant. I get his concern that lgbt is being fractured. But his absent concern for Women and their rights was palpable. I honestly thought he had more sense.

@Kernackered it's 'Dear Diary' from 8 August this year, about twenty minutes in. It was more Chuck but Josh did not disagree. I haven't wanted to listen to them since, I really thought they had more intelligence than this, it's so tribal and sheep-like.

Thanks. I think I'll avoid that one. It took me a long time to get past their drag episode very early on where they referred to " fishy" drag Queens passing several times. Then they later issued an apology for using offensive terms (I glfirget what but along the lines of saying "he" instead of "she", and completely ignored the fishy comments coz that's absolutely fine.
They just seem so adamant to ve seen as cool chilled out Liberal kinda guys and haven't examined the arguments AT ALL. I think most Americans are like this regarding women's rights

@Kernackered gawd I hadn't heard the Drag episode and didn't know about the 'fishy' comments. How utterly utterly disappointing. As you say they are very quick to apologise for anything that might offend other groups, but not females it seems.

Yeah it was early though. Like pre 2010 ish and I kept thinking well I probably would have agreed twaw back then so ignored it. Seems they haven't caught up on the issue then

Reminds me of this - an apology was made because fishy is 'transphobic'. No apology offered to women about such an offensive, misogynistic term being used to reference female bodies -
metro.co.uk/2019/12/28/vivienne-hits-back-criticised-using-word-fishy-big-fat-quiz-year-2019-11970023/amp/#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16959983318555&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com

I'm not sure if I've quite understood you correctly. Are you saying that while we can make confident statements defining the theological or religious beliefs of major religions, with gender ideology there is no standard or accepted version? It's just all over the place, so it's difficult to make any useful claims about exactly what it believes?

With regard to metaphysics, I'd just point out that there seems, particularly among people like the New Atheists, to be a rather odd idea of what that means - it seems to defined as "supernatural stuff." It's really not that, it's one of the basic categories of philosophical inquiry, that deals with the nature of being, first principles, causation, and the nature of substance, among other things. It's also closely intertwined with epistemology - how we know.

People like Dawkins who misunderstand and reject even the possibility of metaphysics are taking the answers to many of those questions completely for granted - the fact is they have a metaphysics as much as any religious POV, except they don't have it consciously. And so can't easily examine and take a critical stance on their own first principles.

Surely he's lying (to himself?) This is insane

Surely he's lying (to himself?) This is insane

Some people are very easily bamboozled by language shenanigans. They accept, in a very concrete way, what they are told about changes to language that are often highly abstracted.

I think there is a fairly large section of the population like this.

Yes: turns out not to be the woman I mistook her for.

My list could go on for ever. Won't go over those mentioned time and again here, but Angela Eagle, the whole of the Labour shadow cabinet, Sandy Toksvig (no friend to women and girls), Helena Kennedy and all the other influential women who might have been able to make a difference but left it to a bunch of busy ordinary women with mortgages and jobs we need to get on with the job. I'm so pissed off with all the ballsy, mouthy female comedians who have gone silent on this issue. Vichy feminists, all of them: collaborators.

@Rudderneck

I'm not sure if I've quite understood you correctly. Are you saying that while we can make confident statements defining the theological or religious beliefs of major religions, with gender ideology there is no standard or accepted version? It's just all over the place, so it's difficult to make any useful claims about exactly what it believes?

No, my point is that it became kind of like an official view to make statements that were religious/historical nonsense, because it was politically convenient to do so; or more charitably perhaps, because they believed that it was genuinely better for society to lie in this situation.

And the dishonesty was all tied up with a claimed need for "tolerance" and "diversity". Opponents were, "trying to divide us", and could be vilified.

I agree metaphysics doesn't mean, "supernatural stuff", but of course traditional metaphysics did include supernatural stuff with arguments for theism.

All these women that seem to make a living out of berating people on Twitter e.g. Carole Vorderman, Marina Purkiss and Jemma Forte. They claim they're standing up for women but not a peep about trans issues.

Historically Christians have never taken the bible literally. Most people had never read it of course before the Reformation. It was to be interpreted in the light of reason according to Augustine. Or was it Aquinas...always get those mixed up.

Anyway Dawkins isn't bothered either way. After all he thinks there is no truth in Shakespeare, it's all just made up. Instead of engaging with first causes or whatever he prefers to quote some deranged hell fire preacher. Or an obscure dietary law. Now that he has stepped back from the abyss I expect his more militant followers are disappointed in him.

Jeanette Winterson, too.

Oh dear...always thought Winterson was fearless and a professional contrarian. I'm a bit surprised. Has she just kept shtum?

Well, there's this book. Which I admit I haven't read...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Frankissstein-Love-Story-Jeanette-Winterson-ebook/dp/B07KXF79RD/ref=sr_1_16?crid=1PHG9KM9BFTME&keywords=jeanette+winterson&qid=1696092575&sprefix=jeanette+winterson%2Caps%2C78&sr=8-16

Late to this thread apologies - but what did she do/say ?

Another one to add to the list OP is
BBC R4 ‘Woman’s hour’
stopped listening April last year after the interview by Emma Barnett ( clearly TWAW and whose interview manner was clearly lacking in any in-partiality ) with Maya Forstater ( who should be a dream to interview and who held her own) followed by an episode with that bloke Grace Lavery.
Loyal listener lost for life.

I don't think Emma Barnett is TWAW, is she? I thought she grilled her guests regardless of their views.

Doctors, for not speaking out. Surely people with extensive medical training and knowledge of the body are aware of the catastrophic affects of deliberately delaying puberty or swamping a young female body with testosterone?

And the idiocy of the Marie Keating Foundation in Ireland last week adding prostate cancer to their list of 'female' ailments. JFC, what a way to insult the memory of that lady.

womans hour- the episode in question involved Emma B trying to get Maya to admit that her tweets were transphobic.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00154ct
For a show that has ‘ Woman ‘ in its name it avoids any discussions around threats to woman’s spaces eg any of the issues of threats to lesbian spaces , womens sports etc (admittedly I have stopped listening as said in previous post ) but on reading through the episode guides - I learn more on what is affecting women’s spaces from MN.

David Tennant. He has always seemed so "sound" on woman's issues.

On a personal level, it’s a friend who, despite being a trained nurse, believes people can change sex, and we should just be kind, because it doesn’t actually affect us at all.

Lauren Fleshman, a US track and field athlete who wrote an entire book on the differences between men and women in athletics and then said at the end that it was ok for transwomen to take part in womens's sport.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B09FHF1TK4/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_d_asin_title_o08?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Also parkrun, who allow men to self-ID into the female category and therefore hold womens' records.

But what is even worse about this, is that if someone decides that they are a woman from now on, it doesn't affect their performances going forward, it also changes them all retrospectively! There is a guy who has run the most parkruns of anyone (nearly 900) and he was very fast in his youth and certainly fast enough to beat the fastest woman in quite a few parkruns. If he decided tomorrow that he was going to be female from now on, all his times would be changes to female ones and he would "win" a lot of parkruns from years back. How can that possibly make sense?

Only in Wonderland.