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

Ironically perhaps my own criticisms of Graham are more the times he's gone in the other direction and pushed the idea of 'trutrans' men and given a significant platform to Hayton. Hayton who says oh so reasonable things publicly whilst having a hand in authoring union guidance (never retracted) that champions cross dressing men in female spaces in schools.

I'm not sure whether he still holds to this idea that some men are genuine in their pretence of of being a woman and the arbitrary idea that we can pick out the deserving ones. It did rankle at the time though but quite possibly he's moved past that phase and realised you can't ring fence pretend womanhood to men you like/have been nice to you. Either they're all women or none of them are.

Like a number of men he's better and more consistent on the subject of children and medicalisation and for that I am grateful. His treatment on Newsnight by the BBC was appalling considering what their own journalist Hannah Barnes went on to uncover. He was absolutely right and deserves to be vindicated on that particularly.

I suppose what I'm saying is I do find myself at odds with him sometimes but in the grand scheme he's been brave putting his neck on the line when so many others wouldn't and haven't. So on that basis I've bought his book and should I ever meet him in person I would buy him a pint.

“To me, these phrases and this view that you can stand against genderism - just not too staunchly, but in a "measured" way, highlights the complete loss of freedom of speech and the massive shift of the overton window in the space of 5 years ish.
Part of Graham's creative gift is that he will be able to see this very clearly, and be unable not to call it out. I feel the same. The perception of those who don't will be that they are cowardly. I think this is a reasonable perception. To all those who suggest he has been injudicious in this, good for you, you are able to be "measured". But we are not all the same in the way we see and express things. We need people like GL and KJK in my opinion, thank god for them. “

Spot on.

Also I’d like to see some honesty from these “I like to take a more moderate approach” virtue signallers. More moderate than what? More moderate than who? The “more moderates” need the GLs and the KJKs to be able to paint themselves as moderate. JKR expressed herself more moderately than GL - did that stop her from being slandered, accused of bigotry, and subjected to cancellation attempts? No it did not. HJ presents thoroughly researched, evidenced, cogent, articulate arguments. Can she get work other than as co-director of Sex Matters now? No. No she can’t.

The personal and career risks of saying anything at all - no matter how politely expressed, reasonable, and evidenced - are astonishingly and frighteningly high. And that applies to everyone - with a media profile or without.

edited: missed out the “and” between personal and career.

Not a problem, I understand where you’re coming from.

And this.

“There is no sane world in which one can go too far in speaking up against children being harmed and experimented on. The Cass report has effectively told us that this has been happening. We will all know children for whom this is happening now.”

@MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving Sorry , my post could be read as implying you're anti Irish or whatever on reading it back. Apologies.

It's Hadley Freeman syndrome.

Thank you for the share, that's a great article. I genuinely feel that the tide is turning now 🤞

I think the weird tone is to do with editing. As in, an editor has added some lines.

That’s a supportive article on the whole. The final paragraph doesn’t sit quite right with it.

@MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving Sorry , my post could be read as implying you're anti Irish or whatever on reading it back. Apologies.

Thanks, appreciate that.

I’m disappointed in Hadley. I’ve just read her recent book on her eating disorder and fell even more in love with her than I had previously. This is of course my own fault and in reality I do understand that I can agree with people on one area and not another.

However, what I don’t understand is what this article is supposed to say and why now? It can only be in response to his book, surely? So why not say nothing at all if you don’t like it/him? Who’s told HF to write this? Why move to the Times so you can be free and then write this?

Yes. I feel the same now

Also I’d like to see some honesty from these “I like to take a more moderate approach” virtue signallers

@LoobiJee i think the points you make are very interesting. As I said upthread, I think we need the different voices to reach different people - some will be persuaded by the forthright approaches of Glinner and KJK. Others by the more cerebral approach of Stock. Etc.

I’m not sure though in your characterisation of people taking the moderate line as “virtue signallers”. Are you saying that as those who express themselves “moderately” are facing problems, then why not just be brave and say what you think without any filter? Because if you’re going to get shit for saying something moderately then you might as well get it for saying it in a forthright manner?

I felt it was a pretty fair article, and don’t think it was snide at all.

Why is this so difficult to understand? She's praising his bravery and fortitude thru the whole piece. She's admitting she isn't as brave. She's saying because of her Jewish heritage, she's uncomfortable with Nazi references. She's saying he's gone longer and deeper than anyone, and she regrets not having the same courage. And she's concluding that his choices have nearly broken him, who would choose to be where he is?

I'm a therapist with two practices. All of you work in places with varying levels of sensitivity and tolerance to skeptical discussion on this subject.

How many of us have been prepared to say the things he has? We all use alter ego usernames. How many of us would absolutely be transparent in the workplace, with family friends colleagues, online, using our real names, as we also got ground into the dust?

Am I prepared to lose my practices and be heavily censured by my governing body?

I'm thinking we all know the answers to these Qs. If I'd been made destitute for speaking up publically like he has, and a journalist said I fought the good fight, but my language didn't always help me, they wish they were as brave as me, but noone would want to be in my position as a therapist with no patients, how lonely that is, they'd be speaking accurately. Even if it's not what I wanted to hear.

I'm disappointed that Hadley missed the opportunity to talk more about all the wonderful things Graham has done to raise awareness about what has been happening to vulnerable young people.

With his book coming out soon I hope other journalists will get a chance to show him the support he deserves.

@RealityFan she is saying he chose to speak. I suspect he would argue that he could not make the choice not to speak or to stay silent. The final lines read to me like that childish refrain "see you, wouldn't want to be you". The article lacks empathy and support. I don't know how one can read that final paragraph in another way. I can't.

“Why is this so difficult to understand?”RealityFan

Ingave never been sure why I don’t understand things that others find it easy to understand. Or why it takes me longer to understand something. I assume it’s because I am not very bright. I’m educated to post degree level but I did they by ticking boxes and didn’t find it easy. I’m good at things that my intelligent friends just can’t do. But there is no merit in being able to clean and tidy or look after children.

I guess I’ll just have to ask my therapist why I find it so hard to understand a piece of English writing.

Apologies if I came across crassly.

Apology not accepted

🙄

I think initially he thought he had enough clout, popularity and money that he wouldn't be cancelled. Literally only JKR is in that position as far as I can see. He perhaps thought male privilege would see him through, as it has with so many others. Jonathan Ross for instance came out of SachsGate unharmed, backed off the gender wars when his daughter publicly chided him and here he is praising the book, the sneaky turncoat. And by the time he realised how badly this was going to harm him, how thoroughly he would be cancelled he was backed into a corner with nothing to do but push on. He probably thought, as many of us may have, that it would be a battle more easily and more quickly won.

I wish him well, hope the book regenerates his finances and he can get in touch with his funny bone again.

I totally understand how the fight against gender ideology becomes almost an obsession. There is so much to it, and it’s all so totally insane, how so many institutions have been completely captured before anyone noticed, and so many apparently educated, intelligent people spouting such absolute fucking nonsense.

And then the horrendous levels of medical harm to children and young people.

If I’d lost my job and most of my so-called friends for talking about this, I would behave EXACTLY as Graham has done, and I would find it difficult to always hide my anger at the sheer INJUSTICE of it all, to both myself and all the other victims.

I’d not heard before that he helped Sall Grover financially.

I think he’s an absolute hero, and I’m glad to help him in the small way I can by subscribing to his sub stack and buying his book.

https://x.com/salltweets/status/1705870086786155001?s=20

There was a point in December 2018 when he went on a Christmas break. I always felt she should have stopped then, he might have got out of it without imploding his entire life if he had.

I've said earlier I have a lot of compassion for Graham but I don't think what he's done has been particularly necessary and I know that's pissing people off but he's hardly the only GC voice out there.

As I said earlier, I've been in the position of experiencing hideous workplace bullying after whistleblowing over safeguarding. I know what it feels like.

And people around me told me to carry on and "do the right thing" because "someone had to" while they all sat there not sticking their own necks out.

I would never, ever, ever do it again. It wasn't worth it.

And when I look at Glinner that's all I see. Not worth the price he's paid. No matter how right he is (and he is).

I was paid off but never vindicated. I was right. Ultimately it meant nothing.

That’s a fair challenge MyLady.

I did hesitate over “virtue signallers” as a potentially unfair characterisation. It would have been better (more moderate, even! haha) to look for a more neutral term.

But if I were going to present a justification for using “virtue signallers”, my argument would be that the “more moderate” cohort aren’t presenting themselves as having made the less ethical / less effective / less cogent choice when they produce the “I like to be more moderate” line. They are not (generally) saying that GL and KJK have the best and bravest approach which they themselves don’t have the personality type to adopt. What they are doing is heading into “s/he brought it on themselves” territory.

(To be clear, when using “virtue signallers” I’m mainly thinking of media types trying to distance themselves from GL. On this forum, in contrast, there are many, many posters who acknowledge GL and KJK’s courage and impact and acknowledge that they themselves couldn’t do the same. I can’t work out if Hadley’s article was an attempt to do the latter, which ham-fistedly ended up in virtue signalling territory instead.)

“Are you saying that as those who express themselves “moderately” are facing problems, then why not just be brave and say what you think without any filter? Because if you’re going to get shit for saying something moderately then you might as well get it for saying it in a forthright manner?”

What I was trying to say is that it’s not accurate to claim that the moderate approach is the superior approach. For the following reasons: it isn’t necessarily more effective, and it won’t necessarily keep you safer.

I agree with you that different people will be persuaded by different approaches; and that a diversity of approach is valuable.

“And by the time he realised how badly this was going to harm him, how thoroughly he would be cancelled he was backed into a corner with nothing to do but push on. He probably thought, as many of us may have, that it would be a battle more easily and more quickly won.”

Didn’t he say pretty much exactly that in an interview a few months back?

And also that he couldn’t believe no one else was speaking out?

I think what jars is that there is an undertone of he brought this all on himself ie victim blaming. Instead of criticising Graham’s approach she should be blasting the people who have made it so risky to speak out when terrible harm is being done. Graham started from a place of huge public success, adulation even, as a comedy writer so in some ways he had the furthest to fall and it is indeed a tragedy that someone who has given so much joy to others is now unable to do the job he loves and is still loved for.