Janice Turner puts the boot into @glinner

[chilling19]

Janice Turner's 'review' of Graham Linehan's book. Why would she do this?
archive.ph/72B9W

We all know the issues of genderism cause pain. It is why we fight them - pain for ourselves, each other, and in particular young people. I think it is unkind then to publicly denounce a person like Glinner for expressing that pain. I think less of Janice Turner as a professional for this. Shame. No-one seems to consider that Glinner might not really have been able to not express something so crazy. This may in fact be where his comedy genius lies too. Churlish of her. He has my sympathy and my thanks.

Yes - I hope he’s currently putting together a documentary or panel show highlighting how gender ideology is affecting life, careers, politics, education, etc.

He’s a massive voice to have onside, but he has of course been a wrong voice about things, such as Aids not being a problem for anyone heterosexual, and that HIV was not the cause of it. I worked in the field at the time and he was very very unhelpful. I’m glad there was no internet back then, that’s for sure.

@OvaHere good post. I suspect you are right in your prediction. It is a worrying time. Asking oneself if one would be prepared to lie about fundamental truths (sex) in order to usher in a politics that looks after the needy more. A real dilemma. I don't have an answer yet personally. A lot soul searching needed.

"The Father Ted creator is a comedy genius but his vituperative advocacy for women's rights does more harm than good."

It's quite a claim that Glinners advocacy has done 'more harm than good'.
I've watched 'The mess we're in' podcast and he seems pretty balanced on that and they have great female guests from around the world fighting against gender ideology.
Perhaps it's a legacy media vs new media problem, Journalists like to set the direction and don't like other voices gaining traction.

It's interesting that Bindel and WPUK get name checked. It does make one wonder if they're encouraging their friends to write such pieces in order to disassociate themselves from the less genteel amongst us.

Why would she do this?

Spite, envy, and fear.

I think her review is fair enough. A lot of headline reviews by name columnists end up being about the wider issues of the book and a personal perspective rather than close criticism and textual analysis.

Just to say I am a massive Glinner fan as a writer and to some extent as a campaigner and have encountered him a couple of times at WPUK, SFW and Sex Matters events. I have the book on order.

But also I am dismayed posters on a FWR thread are criticising a female journalist for writing about a man without taking into account his feelings or profile.

Politics is a dirty business. I mean, if you think you have a chance at more influence, maybe you need to show you're "pure" by dissociating from those who use the word "pedophile" pretty liberally.

Who knows, I think Turner is staking her position that she objects to Linehan as the patriarchy, and that she's in the "intellectual" GC camp, the one of Dr. Jane Clare Jones and WPUK...she and they really hate KJK, and see Linehan cut from the same cloth.

And maybe seeing him have a moment of sheer joy and respite for once as his book launch exceeds expectations, she feels she is ok to kick him.

We all moaned about that lecturer barracking the recent book launch, calling him a little bully and snitch. I'm sorry, but I feel this about her.

This is no Hadley Freeman look both ways take, this is snide, pure and simple.

He's essentially a writer who does edgy comedy. Of course some of his stuff is going to land poorly. Especially when he's been put directly under fire and his career was basically slammed into a wall. He's not a politician.
I'm prepared to cut him a load of slack. Other people don't. Which is OK as long as we acknowledge what he has sacrificed. At a time when no one else would.
The only way he can be brought back into the fold of successful writers is when the rest of the industry wakes up. It's starting to. A bit. But we are a long way off. It.

Quite possibly. See this glossy piece for instance. The Times in general has gone cold on shining the light it once did on these issues. It feels like - as a paper - we're being warmed up to Labour. That's their prerogative as a paper, some might argue. But as the "paper of record", it's worth mentioning.

At last, an outbreak of peace in the gender wars

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9c1d5572-686c-11ee-a4e7-0fb10af55688?shareToken=8a4157ac11fa59eb4c39e3096aeddc46

I commented on this elsewhere. I've noticed recently they've not reported on some things The Telegraph have picked up and the coverage has notably shifted to leaning pro Labour.

I'm assuming that when an election is announced the Murdoch papers are going to throw in with Starmer as they did with Blair. Good investigative reporting on these issues may well end up a casualty of that choice.

You're very right to point this out. Agree with your take on Turner, she's saying Labour has done enough with turn from Self ID, it's come in from the cold, Phillips has hosted well attended meets with Rosie Duffield, and the worst of the battle is over.

Even the toilets get a bye from Turner.

Labours tanks are on the lawn. Turner isn't going to stand in front of them, she's going to put garlands around the necks of those driving them, the ones she approves of...Starmer, Streeting etc.

To now associate with the jihadi types like KJK and Linehan, not only would it serve no purpose, it would be counter productive.

Expect more and more distance from the likes of Turner, Hadley Freeman, and the mudslingers.

Not quite sure where Bindel, Moore, Bartosch and JC Jones will fit along this spectrum?

I agree Ova, Reality and I very much hope investigative journalism does not end up a casualty.

I thought this was odd a year ago:

Trans charity’s chatroom for children condemned as irresponsible free-for-all

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bb4574c0-40e5-11ed-a7af-c587dcb7526e?shareToken=4268aec29e22f42a18c43d2e130ebc73

Ostensibly decent job on Mermaids but with a free ad for Childline sandwiched in the middle? They didn't even seem to look at their "strict controls". You only needed to have gone on there to know what's in that article doesn't stack up.

I've no idea why WPUK was singled out by JT in the "review" in question. They could be just as puzzled for all I know. But overall, things feel off

Course they are, head girls are gonna head girl.

I feel this is taking on all the signs of a resolving civil war. Until now, a decade plus of amoral attacks and land grabs from marauding TRAs, doughty resistance and surprising wins and messaging victories by the GC incumbent citizens (we have Winston Churchill, they have India Willoughby).

And make no mistake, it's the TRAs that are the aggressors here.

But of course total victory for either side impossible to achieve, especially when the new voice of the outside world which will broker the peace, ie the UN/Americans/Europeans is declaring a settlement on their terms. This is the equivalent of the incoming Labour govt.

Right now the likes of Janice Turner, Hadley Freeman, Helen Lewis are talking up Labour, and ostensibly talking down the firebrands (Linehan)...indeed Graham has been scathing of Freeman and Lewis, soon I'm sure Turner.

I see this contingent as the "this best we're gonna get, influence Labour further as friends inside the tent, try to prevent trans conversion ban and more transparency on gender teaching in schools, ensure its not so easy for men to get GRCs".

Right now, Zelensky also has words in his ear saying deal with Putin.

I'm really unsure how the more radical feminists will position themselves, the ones who are properly left wing, socialist. Are Bindel, Moore, Bartosch, JC Jones etc going to "settle" for a "least worse case"? Or split from the accomodating group, and keep running exposes on teen medicalisation, gender secrecy in schools etc?

Of course, KJK and Linehan will give no quarter, they're not political or journalists. Nor do I suspect Gervais will let up on the disinfectant of piss taking.

From my POV as a full on GC, but also aware of the compromises of politics, I fully get why the accomodating group will do this. They're GC women but also Labour supporters, with connections and friends in the party. And they want a Labour govt instead of a Tory one for lots of reasons. And for them, the basics of Starmer's offer is just enough, and they can wheedle more change if they're close to the party after the GE.

Others are more distant, and will view this a sellout.

Me? If the result of political musical chairs, a Labour govt is facilitated by GCs in positions of influence and the result is no Self ID but a steep uptake on easier to acquire GRCs, trans conversion ban and stringent online anti hate laws come in chilling the discourse, and gender teaching in schools remains clouded in secrecy, it'll be a capitulation by Turner et al that should haunt them.

But that's a civil war for you. You as citizens can be in the "right", and still shafted by the powers that be. And their enablers.

Also, it's in the Acknowledgements granted rather than in the main body of the book but -

I think it's unfair to say he is the only man.
James Dreyfus and Dennis Kavanagh have been very vocal
.

I think the fact that he’s Irish has to be considered here too. For some English people, we Irish aren’t genteel enough because we are very blunt when we’re arguing our case, we tend to swear in our every day speech and we’re extremely sarcastic (when being both friendly and unfriendly 🤷‍♀️). There’s no back doors in Graham Linehan, what you see is what you get, and this seems to make a lot of English, middle-class people wince - he’s not ‘naice’ enough for their tastes.

It's very 'head girls' spiteful. Very much echoes the nasty 'pound store' crack by Ditum against KJK.
Both Linehan and Kellie-Jae are true heroes, giving everything they have to stop children from ruining their bodies, their health , their lives permanently.
And that's the difference...

KJK is really hated, isn't she? suspect it's the non feminist label she wears with pride, her "family values" identity that isn't where so much Second Wavers want to go, her absolute talent for getting her name and brand on the map, and her populist like appeal. She doesn't give a shit if the theoretical feminists want to support her or not. Isn't there a big fall out with WPUK, Jane Clare Jones etc?

Chris Rufo in US who has led the charge against CRT and CGT has criticised who he calls the theoretical allies against woke progressivism, but who fail to really knock the wall over.

The Quillette and UnHerd crew, Wesley Yang, Bari Weiss, Andrew Sullivan etc. From his view, it's not enough to talk. Talking won't knock the ramparts over.
What's needed is action, in his case absolutely getting DeSantis on board with the fight, and if he doesn't become president, he'll transfer his energies to Trump.

I suspect of all the voices over here, Rufo would only feel KJK and Linehan have made any difference. I'm not sure if he feels even Jordan Peterson has done enough.

I think it's ridiculous to start judging people according to how dedicated they appear. Linehan might have messed up his life because he was obsessed, but that was his choice, and it doesn't make him morally better than all the women quietly and doggedly fighting this in their own lives and careers.

That too , @UtopiaPlanitia . I was too cowardly to bring that up. Didn't want to be accused of special pleading!

I love Irish people ❤️

I’m glad of all the voices speaking up on this issue.

The mind-changing goes only one way, once you’ve seen the damage being done in the name of “trans rights” you can’t unsee it. People don’t start off being all “experimental treatments on people too young to give informed consent are baaaad” then swivel to “meh, whatever they want, none of my business”.

Bit by bit, voice by voice. Whatever it takes. There’ll be a voice to suit everyone.

Of course you can judge people on their dedication! What they do, their actions, the sacrifices they've made, and what it's cost them.

What else are you going to judge them on? Their sex, skin colour, nationality?