Jon Ronson and Adam Buxton

[WarriorN]

I'm astounded at this "bonus episode" of "and things fell apart."

Absolutely everything Glinner has said has been proven.

This is a twitter link, I imagine it's on bbc sounds

x.com/glinner/status/1769152705333699000?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

x.com/glinner/status/1769353751025029587?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

Pish. At least half the women on MN would have probably told him to get some kip while they took on the be kind bullies. Not that I'd blame anyone who didn't tbh - it was very nasty back then.

Linehan was punished swiftly and severely pour encourager les autres.

I think he was completely blindsided by this - probably because it doesn't tend to happen to men of his stature and politics.

I think the issue was so clearly nuts to him that he was genuinely gobsmacked by the backlash and lack of support from people who'd given support on issues that seemed similarly unfair and mad.

It didn't take long before his career was irrevocably damaged and I don't blame him a bit for doubling down in an attempt to push through the madness.

JR, AB and Louis Theroux all saw what happened to him and chose the bodyswerve. They will have to live with themselves and have clearly got a narrative that they're comforting themselves with.

Now, I don't have the financial skin in the game to keep on the side of the worst of the TRAs, but would I drop a friend like that? And would I make that podcast episode to indulge in public self-soothing about the "rightness" of my actions? I really, really hope not.

@Velvian I see Graham Linehan's behaviour as having been detrimental to starting a real challenge to the male trans rights activism. The issue needs nuance and care to start a challenge

I do understand your point here, of course, but the echoes of KJK being told off by the police for being “untoward about a paedophile” are really unfortunate.

There’s no question that Glinner was and is correct and the “behaviour” that needs to be criticised is the cowardly spineless behaviour of his former friends.

I agree with much of what has been said already. Glinner himself made the point that he posted early on just after his cancer operation when he was on pain medication - arguably from that point there was no going back. As for Adam Buxton when he says he could see no enlightenment or talks of a zero sum game. He means he couldn't see a way that the argument about women, from women's perspective, could be presented in a way that didn't show the men pushing TRA up for what they are. It was women's problem, so not of interest to him. Like many I think Glinner is heroic in this.

I think the issue was so clearly nuts to him that he was genuinely gobsmacked by the backlash and lack of support from people who'd given support on issues that seemed similarly unfair and mad.

He's said as much himself. He said he thought that once he told people what was going on, and how women and children were harmed, they would say "My god, that's terrible" and join him to fight it. He really didn't expect that people he had liked and respected for years would be so indifferent to the harm being done to women and children that they would prefer to keep silent about it, particularly if there was any risk at all attached to doing something about it.

It is a real shock, I think, to learn that people you always assumed were decent and honest and kind are actually cowards. Worse than that - not only are they too cowardly to support you in doing the right thing, they will distance themselves from you and make catty remarks behind your back about how you've gone a bit mad and ruined your own life.

This. I honestly think the nuanced and caring approach, the kind of toxic empathy, rather than looking truth in the face has allowed this to happen. In the early days many of us thought it would end before children were harmed. Then we realised that it wouldn't because enough adults would look the other way. It is truly shocking to me.

I just want to say. I am a big fan of Glinner because of everything he does for FWR.

My older son (14) (who has autism and SEN) recently discovered The IT Crowd and mentioned to me in passing it is a shame he likes it so much because Graham Lineham is 'anti trans'. This was about 8 months ago, perhaps. I said to him; 'Show me where he is anti trans. '. I then directed him to Glinner's substack. (And confess I flexed a bit about how Glinner is on MN and I have been on threads with him).

Ds is totally with Glinner and we are now having convos IRL about trans and about how it is all absolutely fine to live your own life- but the rabid TRA stuff is totally Not On. We talk about cancel culture (and of course JK). And about how some people with less than honourable intentions have hijacked the trans cause for nefarious means.

A week or so ago I was taking DS's friend home after a school concert and friend spied my HP key ring and said something along the lines of 'shame JK Rowling is anti trans'. DS1 piped up with 'have you read what she actually said? It's just cancel culture and you should actually read what she is saying'.

You can see the amused disgust from men towards a man they felt stupidly sacrificed his own best interests for something really not worth it - the issues of women and children. It's an academic game to them, not something they need any real feelings or investment in because it's not them being excluded from their own space, they have no clue about the issues of a six foot self identified woman in their toilet or changing room save as an interesting mental exercise. And they'll play the mental exercise interesting game entirely from the perspective of a sexist bloke slightly less sensitive or perceptive than three short planks, who's not really bothered what another bloke does or wears, because he's not the one who's going to be threatened or assaulted.

When some twit pulls the 'daddy only hears nice voices' card, but daddy's all kindness and attentive listening to a bunch of blokes screaming rape and death threats with sociopathic imagery that would get a crisis team or a serious crime squad taking notes?

Daddy's a sexist twit quite enjoying dominating women.

zero sum game

Yes, it's an odd thing to say, as the usual line is "trans rights and women's rights don't conflict".

"Zero sum game" means they're in total conflict - only 1 can win. And that's true. You can either have have female-only sports (or whatever) or you can let in any man who wants in.

So yes, it's conceding that the only way to give women and Graham what they want is to say "no" to trans demands. And apparently they're unwilling to say "no" to "transwomen", so there's no point having the discussion.

(This is one way of telling transwomen aren't women - men like this don't have any problem saying "no" to real women.)

Bullshit. If a poster said now in AIBU that her husband was on twitter all the time - at stupid o'clock in the morning and on Xmas Day - and getting into spats online, that were impacting on her, their kids and their finances, she'd be told to cut and run.
Same as posters whose husbands are gaming addicts. The advice is the same.
My comment was not on supporting him, it was about supporting her. Her BIL - and it was James not Peter, my apologies - did intervene but it made no difference. If you become absolutely obsessed with taking on the bullies and becoming a keyboard warrior 24/7 to the detriment of your nearest and dearest, your priorities are severely skewed.

JoodyBlue · Today 14:15

He means he couldn't see a way that the argument about women, from women's perspective, could be presented in a way that didn't show the men pushing TRA up for what they are.

Damn tootin'! He decided to side with the Lovely, Kind, Gentle Ones and to Hell with the consequences.

FFS that is awful - so he turned on his friend for sharing a photo that tells the truth about where this ideology leads....what a snake.

Also - the fact RJ thinks the image is 'unpleasant and harmful' is very telling - he doesn't want to see what's right in front of him, and is affronted that it's clearly pointed out.

That's so interesting. There really is nothing new under the sun.

@RethinkingLife so interesting, your post. I can think of many examples of this, of those who spoke up in the earliest years. Many trying to assert that of KJK, although she's not having it 😁

critiquing the people who were right by saying they were too strident, too [X] etc.

So what [x] insertion would you use for someone who accuses a parent of being an "abusive groomer"?

What would you call this? Too strident? Too truthful? Too much?

Because wherever your beliefs lie - and I do believe with necessary that both sides are in conflict - calling someone a nonce for sticking up for their kid is obnoxious.

I think the issue was so clearly nuts to him that he was genuinely gobsmacked by the backlash and lack of support from people who'd given support on issues that seemed similarly unfair and mad.

I think many of us have felt like that at some point. I had a conversation with a friend who would pride herself on being progressive/liberal/inclusive (take your pick) and her response, after I had explained about the Scottish Prison Service policy/self id/women being incarcerated with violent male sex offenders, was 'well, those women committed crimes so they put themselves in that position' and I just stared at her gobsmacked at the utter dismissal of vulnerable women.

Jon ronson isnt thick, he knows the direction of travel regarding trans. He'll be cringing about not seeing the problem with the man on the womans basketball team.

He's smarting. The elite media class have got this so wrong, and its difficult to backtrack now - especially him as its documented that he knew what glinner was saying years ago. He cant pretend not to have known, and hes an journalist ffs, he should have been amongst the first to spot the story.

He and others are likely trying to change the narrative and pull strings - hes had a chat andrew gold (minor youtuber dipping his toe into gc), who else has he promised work to? Im guessing theyll be lots of podcasts/youtubes about cults, conspiracy theories and obsessives and gender critical will be mentioned in all of them. So skipping the embarassing obvious investigations into how the elites were silencing GC, and onto safer content for the likes of Ronson - how careers and relationships can break down.

It is telling that he couldnt understand why Glinner would feel passionate about a subject and the suffering of others to put his career and marriage on the line.

Ta dah! We now have JON Ronson

@illinivich and hes an journalist ffs

I shouldn’t be laughing given how awful all this is, but now I’m just hearing JR’s breathy little voice saying “But I am AN JOURNALIST!” in a pearl-clutching tone of voice.

P.S. You can keep him

Gasp! I thought you meant Jon was joining the discussion for a moment. No such excitement.

Though I expect he trawls this and other sites , trying to glean some pickings for his next ' this is so weird , what can it all mean ? ' programme

It is telling that he couldn't understand why Glinner would feel passionate about a subject and the suffering of others, to put his career and marriage on the line

What does it tell you?
Because I don't get it. I really don't. I understand the issues but I don't understand if you loved your partner of sixteen years and the daughter you claim you're protecting, why you'd put them at risk physically, emotionally and financially by entering debates at 2am. It's actually very selfish to those you love.
He will argue that having gone down the rabbit-hole, he couldn't stay silent and that it only takes one person to do nothing/the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing...but it comes across as someone fighting (arguably not his fight either) as they feel they have to "win" the debate.
I'm not sure if that is passion or narcissism.

For those of you who have read Tough Crowd, does GL explain his reasoning? Does he go into what cemented his passion/transformation from comedian to activist? Genuine question. (It's £8 on Kindle, free with an audible trial - is it an interesting read objectively?)

@Dostadning but it comes across as someone fighting (arguably not his fight either) as they feel they have to "win" the debate.
I'm not sure if that is passion or narcissism.

Other people have made this sort of point too. For what it’s worth I really don’t think Glinner sees himself as some sort of saviour swooping in to save the day in an act of narcissism. It’s more that this is really serious and so many people have just looked the other way and stuck their fingers in their ears.

And always worth remembering what the “debate” consists of. Glinner was banned from old-Twitter for saying “men aren’t women”. That this is even remotely “controversial” (it isn’t!) speaks volumes about why he felt he had to persist in pushing back against the madness.