Interesting interview of Graham Linehan by an Observer journalist who, shock horror...

[OhYesWeAre]

... thinks that women are women! That would never have happened even a year ago.

But I also believe journalists should be more transparent about their opinions, so I was transparent with him: “JK Rowling, I don’t think should be cancelled. I think women should have single-sex spaces. I don’t think trans women should compete in women’s sports.”

Anyway it's generally a very interesting article. Obviously we know a lot of it, but there's more there.

https://archive.ph/HQHXZ

The Observer has always taken a slightly different line from the Grauniad.

And since April this year it isn't even owned by Guardian Newspapers - it now belongs to Tortoise Media.

Some Guardian writers, such as the excellent Sean Ingle who writes for Sport and has always been quietly realistic about men in women’s sport. Seems TRA s ( and Guardian editor!) don’t bother reading the sports section )

Yes but this is a journalist, writing for the Observer, stating his own beliefs.

Assuming that he wants to get further work, I find that astonishing. He wouldn't have made it part of the article before FWS, I reckon. Even after that judgement plenty have kept their heads down.

He's had 3 articles in the Observer since the change of ownership. I do think that is significant.

He'll also want to be able to keep in with the meeja crowd. Seems like times really are a turning.

Did he have to keep emphasising the area?

And the para beginning ‘on the back foot…’ well yes, mate, did it occur to you that that’s how GL might feel?

Although interesting in the end, as happens too often the article is really about the writer, not about Glinner.

If he wants to write an article about how most of us aren't brave enough to take a stand and stick to it despite how people respond to you or the impact on your life, he could have done it insteand of endlessly repeating criticisms of Glinner that others have made.

Why would any of us care that a small elite group thought they had to intervene.

Come to think of it, not mentioning FWR should how this was a, I am just being kind and caring, but still a hatchet job.

So Andrew in not reflecting women on FWR and others like us, you are part of the problem.

Sonia Sodha has written many many GC articles The Observer, so it's always been open to the GC point of view.

Sodha was the Chief Leader writer at the Observer for years before the sale to Tortoise. It’s always had a wholly distinctive
editorial line than the Guardian (and journalists writing opinion rather than news, are expected to bring their own views to the table).

I cant believe this ground hog day discussion.

Yes there has always been an editorial difference between the Guardian and the Observer.

I was going to be polite and not mention it, but OP's title is just inaccurate.

If anything it should have said the Observer is still employing journalists who know what a woman is.

So now the thread is taken up with the most in consequential aspect of the article.

It would have been worth editorialising if say Owen Jones or one of the other TRA clones at the Guardian had made such a comment.

Remember that the Observer is no longer part of the Guardian / Scott Trust. It was acquired by Tortoise Media in April

Er, excuse me. I focused on exactly the bit I wanted to focus on, thank you. My title was not inaccurate.

I was interested that a male journalist raised his head above the parapet. He's not one of the "usual gang" of mainly female journalists who are not afraid to speak the truth.

"I was going to be polite and not mention" that you had missed my point, but - whoops! There I go.

"So now the thread is taken up with the most in consequential aspect of the article."

It consequentional to me, thankseverso. So I started a thread on it.

You want to discuss other aspects of the article? In the way you deem correct? Then start your own thread, where you can police how people are allowed to reply 🙂

My point was about the journalist daring to agree with Glinner on some aspects. A male journo doing that would have been very unusual/unlikely even a year ago.

It's not just about agreeing that women should have their own spaces, JKR isn't the antiChrist, etc. It's about being seen to explicitly agree with Glinner.

Shows how times have moved on for Graham!

Happy days

I said I disagreed.

That is what a discussion forum is about.

I was sad because everyone chose to then focus on that, partly because they disagreed it was significant.

Had hoped that others would actually comment on the article.

Which, IMO, whether intended or not, was a hatchet job.

Aside from the fact that your whole post was very rude and dismissive of my OP, and of other posters, what did you "disagree" with?

Remember, this is a discussion forum, as you so patronisingly told me...

I've had experience of people like you on this board. You have decided something has been discussed enough before ("groundhog day"), and then you just straight up and thread police an OP ("I was going to be polite and not mention it, but OP's title is just inaccurate"), and then you criticise other posters for not discussing what you think they should be discussing 😐

Anyway, I stand by my previous posts, I found it surprising and encouraging that a male journalist admitted to some of the same views as Glinner. So fucking shoot me 😆

Which, IMO, whether intended or not, was a hatchet job.

I'm not sure it entirely was - I mean, Glinner doubles down at every opportunity when a little reflection or pause to think might be more productive. I've read Tough Crowd. He acknowledges he's a person who reacts with anger to his own detriment across his career.

I wish he'd look after himself a little more even if he might see that as giving in. It's just not healthy.

That's not the point.

The writer was presuming to say how someone should behave.

If he wanted to write about the ideal public campaigner let him do that.

But instead he exploitated Glinner's beliefs to then not talk about them and the consequences for him, but carry out some pseudo analysis that because he the writer thinsk the behaviour is wrong Glinner is at fault.

Its one thing asking how do you manage to keep going and report the response.

Quite another to then slur the behaviour.

The article was just all about the writer's prejudice as to how and in what way a campaigner should behave.

And should little empathy or interest in exploring the issue.

Edited to add: Compared to this https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5452309-nick-wallis-in-the-times-i-watched-as-graham-linehan-changed-the-way-we-police-free-speech

Glinner did subject him to a bit of a purity test, which I think would put anyone's back up.

He wanted to know not just if the interviewer was GC, but just how deep his commitment went and . I think that's a pretty ropey, personally.

I personally think class plays a huge part in both how Graham has been mis-treated and in how gender ideology successfully infiltrated society.

The first trans-identified people in the UK were upper-class like Robert/Roberta Cowell and Laura Maud/Michael Dillon. They had the means to indulge their fantasy and came from a class that controlled (and still controls) the legal system - (hence the Sandie Peggie travesty).

For decades, it was perfectly acceptable for plummy-voiced men in women's garb to abusively use the ladies but social suicide to call them out on it.

The middle-classes mainly fell over themselves to adopt the supposed more enlightened views of their superiors.

It was always going to be an outsider who stood up and said the emperor is bollock naked.

Graham is the George Bernard Shaw of his era.