Hadley Freeman Article About Graham LInehan

[Igneococcus]

Not actually read it yet but here for anybody who'd like to read:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/6f23ce7c-596a-11ee-a62b-d21c2c8f0b9b?shareToken=3adab3e87e06a1d37788d0b2482f02b6

I don't think she should have written it, I think less of her for it, but she's a journalist and can write what she wants, I'm not her keeper.

I do find the timing odd, she's portraying Graham as a tragic figure who's lost everything and yes of course there's some truth in that. I'd argue though that his narrative is on the up, he's on his way to redemption, his book is selling well, he's been proved right time and time again, public opinion is shifting.

It feels more like a piece criticising him for his 'tone', yes he's a gobshite and quick to anger, he's not perfect, but it read to me like putting the boot in.

I felt it lacked true empathy. Knowing how personally he takes things I would imagine he's deeply upset by it. I would be, being portrayed as some tragic loser. He might have lost a lot, but I suspect he's gained a lot too. He certainly knows who his friends are now. Someone who cared about him wouldn't have written that and published it.

Maybe some of the 'true' feminists are pissed off because his books selling so well. Who knows? A very odd article.

This

It's a rather sneery article I thought. Seems Freeman has never really found the courage to fully abandon fence-sitting and is now reluctant to acknowledge that Glinner's contribution to this debate has been far more influential than hers.

Same. Bought three copies of the book

It is a bit. I quite like Hadley and that she’s been brave to write about what she has. But this is a little strange.

A bit like ‘I used to know this guy when he was famous for cool stuff but then stopped knowing him when he got a bit extreme but he’s written a book I haven’t read and I expect it’s quite good. He was right about some stuff though, but not the nazi thing and now more people know he was right about some stuff but too early and didn’t write about it as nicely as I did and oh, by the way, see ya nobody wants to be ya, bye.’

Yes, this. I’ve cowardly kept quiet as I know my views (you can’t change sex and women don’t have penises) horrify some friends and family.

This is such a great summary. Hilariously but depressingly spot on.

She's allowed to have her limits on this, actually. If you haven't had multiple memers of your family murdered by the Nazis due to their ethnicity, you might not get why comparing everything to the Nazis is unhelpful?

Yes, and I said as such. This is her limit. But what is not clear is why she didn’t raise it publicly at the time, or privately with Glinner at the time, or what she would consider a more appropriate analogy for medical experimentation on gay children, and why she’s chosen now to point out that this is her problem with him, something he said 3 years ago. Why not interview him and ask him? Confront him about it while discussing his book like when she interviewed Atwood?

Like I said it’s an odd confusing approach that’s a departure from her usual standard.

I wonder if they’re not doing ARCs of his book, as I’d imagine she’d be a likely person to receive one.

It seems strange to post this ‘non-article’ which is a bit damning with faint praise now - vs once she’s read the book.

I think I expected maybe a proper profile, given she does interview people. It was a weird article, not sure what the point was.

Hadley Freeman, whose work I usually love, seems to be conflating two criticisms: tone-policing Graham’s writing, and criticising him as “obsessive” for having said too much on the subject.

I somewhat agree with her on the first point, but criticising him for having devoted too much energy to talking about this is ridiculous. She says he was right “too early”; but if he hadn’t put so much energy into being right with the volume and determination that he was, it might still be “too early”.

Graham’s amplification of stories like the WPATH eunuch guidelines and the political career of Aimee Challenor helped to change the conversation. He became a journalist covering this story and self publishing his work because of the failure of the media to do that job, meaning he had no other way to attempt to get his cancellation rescinded. Now that parts of the media are finally emboldened to cover feminist concerns properly it is bizarre to criticise one of the people who made that possible by doing that work.

In any case her central thesis (his obsessiveness) is undermined by the fact that Graham seems keen to get back to his day job, as evidenced by the fact that he is reducing his writing on this subject and spending more time on comedy now that the conversation has changed. It almost reads like she is chastising Graham for poking his nose into journalism instead of leaving it to the professionals. She should instead have considered why he felt he had to.

She says he was right “too early”; but if he hadn’t put so much energy into being right with the volume and determination that he was, it might still be “too early”.

Good point. Also, when you are publically so cancelled from your day job, it’s not surprising that you might get somewhat more focused on the subject that put you in that position, with more time to also do so.

I thought this would be her regular Sunday column but it's not, there is also a column about Russel Brand and a book review by her (not GL's book), so it's in addition to her usual work for the ST.
I hope the actual book review will be done by someone with less personal involvement.

I subscribe to The Times and can recommend comments but the reply option has disappeared. (Just for this article.) anyone else having this problem? Another way TOL can silence people from telling the truth…

@happydappy2 Sometimes the comments are turned off over night while the moderators are off work, I hope comments will be allowed again soon.

I do find the timing odd, she's portraying Graham as a tragic figure who's lost everything and yes of course there's some truth in that. I'd argue though that his narrative is on the up, he's on his way to redemption, his book is selling well, he's been proved right time and time again, public opinion is shifting

That's what bothered me about the article. HF could have told his story and ended with something positive, reflecting on the success of his book and the turning of the tide, instead of portraying him as a loser to be pitied.

She hasn't flagged up this article on her Twitter account like she usually does, which is interesting. I do think less of her for writing it. It smacks of self-interest.

Great article. I like what she says about the possibility of losing oneself in relation to all the gender madness. It's a clear indication of deep sympathy for Linehan, even when his tactics were ones that she felt uncomfortable with.

Being faced with such relentlessly illogical perspectives, and then being accused of hate for expressing mild and uncontroversial biological truths, is so deeply distressing that naturally it puts you into a horribly intense, defensive, disorientated, gut-twisted state. Even when you are just an everyday no-followers randomer (me). Linehan is an example of what it can do to you when you have a high profile so that your views attract a lot more hostile interaction.

I stopped following him fairly early on on Twitter, not because I disagreed with his views, not because I didn't appreciate his bravery in speaking out. I stopped following him because his frantic, gaslit fury and desperation made me feel my own frantic, gaslit fury and desperation more acutely. It started to feel like the truth was just as poisoning as all the lies.

It almost feels like self-harm, following trans-related issues in the media. And I think Freeman is right to point, gently, to some of the effects of that harm in Linehan's case, the occasional 'recklessness' of his activism. It is a compassionate criticism.

I still feel massively grateful to him, though. If his bitterness is sometimes too much for me, I'm sure it will be dissolved when he starts being treated fairly, as I hope he will be soon.

Just one point of disagreement with Freeman. She seems to imply, wrongly, that Father Ted is Linehan's greatest comedy, when in fact that is the superb and faultless IT Crowd. My (Catholic) DH favours Father Ted but as an upstanding apostate of the Church of England , Rev is the only priestly sitcom I can truly venerate.

Agree. I would have thought that she would be one of the people to take the opportunity to note the tide turning (and then to be part of the momentum making it turn). Instead, she’s almost done the opposite, seemingly apropos of nothing. It’s curious.

“criticising him for having devoted too much energy to talking about this is ridiculous. She says he was right “too early”; but if he hadn’t put so much energy into being right with the volume and determination that he was, it might still be “too early”. “
^^
“He became a journalist covering this story and self publishing his work because of the failure of the media to do that job, meaning he had no other way to attempt to get his cancellation rescinded. Now that parts of the media are finally emboldened to cover feminist concerns properly it is bizarre to criticise one of the people who made that possible by doing that work. “
^^
“It almost reads like she is chastising Graham for poking his nose into journalism instead of leaving it to the professionals. She should instead have considered why he felt he had to.”

Such good points.

A recent article from The Irish Independent mentions Graham (in the context of the cancellation attempts on Róisín Murphy) and reminds us that Graham has always been passionate and has always spoken bluntly on issues he cares about; however, because he’s not in lockstep with his former lefty, middle-class group on this issue, his passion and bluntness are being used to castigate him now.

"Linehan has strong views about lots of things. He was a vociferous opponent of the Eighth Amendment and targeted several vitriolic online comments at me and others with pro-life views. He is a harsh critic of the Catholic Church.
But neither Catholics nor pro-lifers ever tried to have him cancelled or destroy his career, which is pretty much what has happened to him because of his views on gender theory."

David Quinn: Lone voices are being silenced as trans row shuts down free speech https://archive.ph/FRmda

Exactly this.

I dont blame him at all. I have been publicly GC since 2018 when I was 26. At that age, you can imagine the "cancelling". I share his motivation, but wish he'd take a step back for his own sake. This isn't to patronise, but out of genuine empathy.

Yeah not a fan. I love Kjk and don't feel these criticisms are applicable to her. It's not about tone policing or purity spiralling. Graham does come off as a sad figure in a way no other GC figure does

“The idea of doctoring healthy kids' bodies really, really upsets me. I said so and B threw some more suicide threats at me and then stormed off.
So here I am, late on a Saturday night, feeling like I've disgraced myself for not keeping quiet.”

You absolutely did not disgrace yourself. You showed empathy, support and compassion toward a concerned father.

The gender zealot disgraced himself by scolding and bullying a concerned father in order to display his “The Right Side Of History” credentials and political tribal allegiance.

The reason the gender zealot stormed off is because you touched a nerve by expressing concern and caution about removing children’s healthy body parts or preventing their natural physical development.

I think your experience encapsulates the madness of this ideology. That expressing concerns about harm to children’s bodies leads to verbal abuse and tantrums from individuals who consider themselves ‘the good guys’ is just unbelievable, and yet here we are.

You did a good thing supporting the concerned father. Hopefully he feels a little less isolated thanks to you.

On the use of inaccurate/ misleading / exaggerated claims about suicide risk to justify interfering with children’s healthy bodies, there are threads on here which debunk those claims. I can’t remember the thread title but other posters in this discussion might have them to hand.