Rest is history podcast disappointment

[Podcastproblemcast]

Listening To episode 618 and hear them say that Edward VI would have seen his sister Mary as a ‘middle aged terf”…. Someone with “antiquated, unacceptable, very cancellable views”.
Im hoping that I have missed the point being made.

Oh dear. I have always thought Dom is a TERF and Tom is suspect.

I've not forgiven Tom for his series on Lord Byron where he described Byron's exploration of cross-dressing kink as 'exploring his feminine side'.

No Tom, that wasn't what it was at all.

Oh that's very disappointing!

Fuck's sakes.

I was listening to Anne De Courcy on the Country House podcast who said it is remarkable that we think men can be women and in 50 years time this will seem insane - she was making the point we shouldn't just the past based on our own moral judgements.

That’s Very disappointing.

Yeah I think you misread it. He's talking about the views of Edward VI, as a teenage radical. I think it's an apt analogy: a young person goes away to university and believes they've got the ultimate answer to righteousness and people with the Old Religion are just hopelessly out of touch. They were also making fun of her being seen as old when she's about 36.

Antiquated, unacceptable, and very cancellable is exactly what placard waving genderwoo students think of your terfy opinions. That's the whole "right side of history" position.

While they have quite pointedly never discussed trans, they definitely make their feelings clear about cancel culture, which is why I found it surprising how much Tom didn't get it when he talked about Byron.

However if you really want to hear someone not get it, then William Dalrymple on Empire talking about his mate Jan Morris is it. They had a 'early people were all trans' episode which was like a tick box on luxury beliefs.

That's exactly how I understood it as well. It is a clear comparison to how the views of modern middle aged women are so often just dismissed as being terfs by the young.

Very well put - that's exactly how I read (heard) it.

Not guilty. Tom Holland has been openly supportive of JK Rowling, at a time when it was much easier to either criticise her or to say nothing.

They are more cautious about being open on their views in some areas now that they are such huge global names, but I would say they are on the GC side (definitely wouldn’t describe Dominic Sandbrooke as a radical feminist 🤔 so not Terfs as such). I think it’s a good relatable shorthand of describing Edward VI’s views, not their own views.

Yeah I got that. I just thought he could have picked a different example. Glad it’s me being thick though.

OK I forgive Tom. Well partly, it was a lesson in just how different things look to men than women. Romantic hero or grubby sex tourist? Turns out it can be a finer line than you might think.

Pretty sure Tom is on board, don’t know about Dominic.

Dominic is a raging TERF. He is literally the embodiment of pissed off middle age.

Dominic is absolutely on board. He is always the first one to point out women's perspective (heartwarming given he's meant to be the bluff Tory etc etc etc) and has definitely made references to terfiness and JKR before.

One reason I ditched TRIP but still adore these two.

Absolutely, he was on the TRIP (US) on election night and absolutely nailed the views of the US public when it came to identity politics and the effect of the 'Kamala is for they/them, Trump is for you campaign'

They are absolutely making a point about Edward VI being a narrow-minded and judgemental teenager

Tom was quite good about calling out the TRA attempts to label Elagabalas as 'trans' were lacking in any factual basis whatsoever.

I think these two are fundamentally right headed about this. Unlike their idiot misogynistic buddies on TRIP

Phew, would have been sorely disappointed to lose faith with TRIH, I've lost enough podcasts as it is.
I was listening to Tom Slater on the Heretics podcast and he eloquently explained why I have gradually stopped listening to TRIP, Newsagents and alsoFi Glover and Jane Garvey.

I thought it was because they are not brave enough to tackle this subject but he explains that they are all stuck in 1997 neoliberalism. They haven't moved with the times, I don't think TRIH necessarily want to tackle it either but I don't get that vibe from them.

He was the only clued in person on that.

I'm so glad you turned out to be wrong on this, OP - I opened the thread with dread - but it's good to see TRIH discussed. I would really love to see them do something on the history of women's rights - within the UK, or globally. It is so stark when you see how recently we began to be treated, legally at least, as equal citizens. Last week was the 50th anniversary of the Sex Discrimination Act reaching the statute book. Did anyone see much in the way of commemoration of that? Nope, me neither.

That was exactly my take as well. They are both team TERF!

Phew 😁 I am glad for the clarification!

Absolutely. It’s still jarring to hear that word though isn’t it, no wonder it gets our backs up and it’s understandable to fear the worst.

I do think some of Tom’s views on e.g. Byron are a little unsound, but was very glad to hear Dom being totally Team Fanny recently 😆

This is how I interpreted it - just put a lot more eloquently than I could.