Stephen Fry - What a repulsive, condescending misogynistic turd

[Absentmindedsmile]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14820209/Harry-Potter-narrator-Stephen-Fry-turns-JK-Rowling-TERFs.html

Yuk.

Tell me you know nothing about France without telling me you know nothing about France.

How dare you. I've seen every Pepe Le Pew cartoon there is.

What is that even supposed to mean?! Why is it relevant, and why don't you do that to GC posters who are on here all day as well?!
For all you knew the poster might work shift hours, lots of people do. Not that it's any of your business.

The pile on of @Christmasmorale is appalling and an example of exactly what Stephen Fry was alluding to. She posted her opinions and was flamed for them in the most obnoxious way. It’s as though only one view is allowed and if you don’t tow the line you get verbally abused.

Balls!

I'd say more but that about covers it I think

Why do you take pleasure in this?

Examples of this 'verbal abuse' please?

And perhaps you should go and take yours.

she wasn’t flamed. She was challenged. Some posters were far more patient than necessary and far nicer than aggressive bullying TRAs.

I can’t believe I just responded to a childish post in a very childish way. This thread has caused me to regress.

You can read can’t you?

FFS 😂

Exactly, I mean if people are wanting to prove Stephen Fry's point, that it's just become toxic and attacking individuals, they're doing it fantastically 😂
It always just resorts to this level of childish "discussion", it's ridiculous.

Let's forget the dubious nature of anything Fry has said and focus on pile ones and disagreements on MN.

Ok then.

Much of this has already been mentioned on the thread, so this is just a personal reflection on the subject. It's clear that Fry is arguing for 'kindness' and for people to be careful in their language. That in itself is an odd position for someone who made a career out of saying outrageous, naughty, impolite things and who has himself spoken out vehemently about the chilling effects of cancel culture on free speech on which his profession as raconteur depends.

He's publicly opined on the issue multiple times over several years, including reversing himself and issuing mea-culpas. If he wants to criticize someone else by name in the press, I think it's reasonable to expect that by now he's fully familiarized himself with the the subject.

Rowling's position is coherent and clear, and hasn't changed markedly since her "dress however you please" tweet. Is Fry objecting to Rowling's 'misgendering'? Well, use of sexed pronouns has proved to be critical in debating the subject clearly. That's not Rowling being radicalized or 'not nice', it's a logical conclusion, and now an empirically observed fact. Is he objecting to her categorical position that in no instances should transwomen be allowed to access to women's spaces and services? There again that's justified by the fact that even if you believe there are instances of a sort of 'true trans', it's impossible to legally distinguish that in a way that keeps out highly objectionable, and obviously non-truetrans men. And empirically we know they will try to access those spaces in a high proportion. In addition Rowling has explained she does not accept there is a phenomena that can be called 'true trans'. To her triumphalism on the victory of a hard fought legal battle into which she has an enormous, public personal investment? One could go on.

In short, if Fry wants to wade into the debate yet again, he owes Rowling and us a clear articulation of what he supports and a proper critique of just what, exactly, is objectionably or incorrect about Rowling's statements and posts. He refuses to do that, and it's impossible not think that he's being hypocritical and cynical, and more than a little lazy, on a subject he claims to be so emotionally distraught over.

And while forgetting that a poster spent considerable time posting misinformation to support their opinion.

And it turns out that even the example they used for why they accused JK Rowling for attacking individual people was also misinformation.

It takes some disingenuity to characterise the posts from that poster as merely ‘they posted their opinion’.

Stephen Fry already came across as profoundly pompous and unpleasant (yes I do judge a 30 year age gap with his husband) even before these ludicrous musings against JKR.

What a grubby way to treat someone who has given him so much voice work and stacks of money from narrating all her books. Hashing it all out like that in the press just makes him look awful and her look principled.

Are you Munroe Bergdorf?

And why are you assuming all the women on this forum who disagree with you are white? I'd be very surprised if they were.

And yet... both these people turned out to actually BE men.
Go figure
Funnily enough we could also all see that Laurel Hubbard (white) Lia Thomas (white) and that Australian football arsehole who's name escapes me (also white) were in fact men.
It's the maleness we can see - every time regardless of skin colour.

Let me get this straight coz of a post I read in this thread.....just to sidetrack a mo. Is there now some big gang warfare going on between ppl who WFH and those who don't.

Im sure Sandy Toksvig has said she was treated badly by some people while at Cambridge because she was gay. That hardly sounds like someone who doesn't know what feelings are. And Emma Thompson has displayed compassion for others in all sorts if contexts. I hardly think you can accuse her of being a coldhearted intellectual with no grasp of reality. I dont think you are being entirely fair. Stephen Fry I dont know about. He's complicated. Sometimes I think he's a sweetie and sometimes he says things I can't fathom and I find myself questioning him.

The Daily Mail is one of the less irritating newspapers on trans issues. Although it usually toes the line on calling trans-identifying men ‘she’, it does cover their crimes and other harmful behaviour, unlike the Guardian, which is a pathetic shadow of what it used to be. Also the Mail doesn’t crop photos of trans-identifying men showing off their ‘euphoria’ in tights.

Actually it’s rather sad that you should refer to the Mail’s inglorious but long-ago Nazi-supporting past, when it is honest and decent on at least the trans issue, which is essential to women’s rights today.
The Guardian, by contrast, has a proud history which it has now trodden into the gutter.

Yeah, I mean, CS doesn't look like a masculine woman of any race, he looks unmistakably like a man, his hips, shoulders, chest, male facial features, gait. No woman looks like that, of any race.

" I really hope he gets murdered....first" I read that and started rolling round the floor laughing. Have you any idea how funny that sounds. I'm not having a go... it just sounds so funny. . You've made my night. Now on Traitors when he eventually gets done in I wont be able to contain myself.

The only place racism comes into it is where talent scouters deliberately search for males with DSDs in developing countries to train for female categories. This is a known and proven thing. It has two components that are attractive; there is no testing in sports (or at least up til now) so they can get away with it, and because they are non-white any scrutiny can easily be dismissed as racism. So they get away with it by using the cry of 'racism' to silence scrutiny. So win-win in their mind.