'He has a point, but he's too blunt.' JKR

[IwantToRetire]

In response to " Interesting interview with @Glinner on @GBNEWS a few minutes ago about the trans debate. It's interesting how the tide is turning in his favour. I've seen old friends who shunned him admit he has a point but that he was too blunt. Even that would was unthinkable a few years ago. "

From the start, a key tactic of the gender identitarians has been linguistic prescription, and it's proved shockingly successful. Trans activists' shibboleths and euphemisms have been allowed to penetrate the upper echelons of our culture with devastating consequences to freedom of speech and belief. Huge swathes of liberal media, the arts, academia and publishing have thrown themselves with gusto into the defence of a quasi-religious belief causing provable real world harm, and in their arrogance they've been outraged when people they assumed were part of their In Group have refused to march meekly along in lock step.

Time and again, I've seen and heard well-educated people who consider themselves critical thinkers and bold truth-tellers squirm when put on the spot. 'Well, yes, maybe there's something in what you're saying, but it's hateful/provocative/rude not to use the approved language/pretend people can literally change sex/keep drawing attention to medical malpractice or opportunistic sexual predators. Why can't you be nice? Why won't you pretend? We thought you were one of us! Don't you realise we have sophisticated new words and phrases these days that obviate the necessity of thinking any of this through?'

As the vibe shifts, and a lot of people in the elite professions start trying to reposition themselves, the obvious place to start is, 'it's not that I couldn't see your point, but did you have to say it that way?' We dissenters were supposed to find a way of questioning the chemical castration of children while calling it 'gender affirming care.' We were meant to defend the rights of vulnerable women while also using female pronouns for male rapists. We should have found a way to discuss fairness for women and girls in sport, while pretending that the ineradicable physical advantage men have over women doesn't exist.

Either a man can be a woman, or he can't. Either women deserve rights, or they don't. Either there's a provable medical benefit to transitioning children, or there isn't. Either you're on the side of a totalitarian ideology that seeks to impose falsehoods on society through the threat of ostracisation, shaming and violence, or you're not. The alternative to being 'blunt' - using accurate, factual language to describe what was going on - was to surrender freedom of speech and espouse ideological jargon that obfuscated the issues and the harms caused. We've always needed blunt people, but we need them most of all when being asked to bow down to a naked emperor.

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1995491771950797148

It was quite mad. And not a little frightening.

The number of sensible, clever, caring and responsible women who were banned is scary

Haha!

By now, TRAs are only doing it for the money. They're certainly not doing it for the cred.

‘Inclusive’ toilets.

Least bad for healthy men.

Nah, I think that they have ended up here:

Don't do it for the sunshine
Don't do it for the moonlight
Don't do it for the good times
Do it for the boogie

They are just doing 'cos it's the only schtick they have.

And, for some, it probably given them a...

Yes, and while it's a lot better now I don't think there have been any apologies or bans lifted? Which if I'm right, is pretty shitty behaviour on MN's part tbh.

Edited to add the bit in bold, apparently I'm just skipping whole words now!

There’s a weird double standard in much of public discourse these days, isn’t there? Opinions have to be expounded in polite, reasoned language (with citations) so as not to be rude… but it can’t be too posh as then its privileged, over-educated white middle classes patronising the minorities and speaking from a position of irrelvant life experience.

So, Glinner is too blunt, M/C white women are too ‘naice’, JKR is too rich, blah blah.

Ultimately… people just don’t want to be told cold, hard truths that conflict with their world view and will find any excuse to discredit the speaker.

Just to add, I’ve seen Prof Winston’s opinion on sex chromosomes dismissed because ‘he trained as a doctor decades ago and the science has changed since’ !! 😵‍💫

So you think that huge swathes, maybe 20% - 30% ?? of these populations who have M on their birth certificates are now randomly putting F on their tax returns, employment docs, GP registrations etc? For shits and giggles presumably? What is it about these eminently sensible countries that make you think their populations are prone to such whimsy?

You know that the percentage of trans people is reliably around 1% or less in populations don't you?

And you know that transwomen score poorly across the board in terms of health and well-being, education, employment, income, political representation - the measures being assessed in these studies? Which would bring down the overall performance of the countries where they are being recorded in the female demographic, which should lower their position on these international tables?

And yet they are still at the top of these international tables for women's safety and wellbeing, and have been for years since implementing their gender self ID policies.

What's that phrase "Telling the truth is a revolutionary act"?

Society has been incessantly bullied by extreme trans activists for so long and it's remarkable seeing what can happen when compelled language is eroded.

'Don't be rude to the nice man! Why can't you be like Ireland/Argentina/Norway??? They aren't so uptight!'

We have heard it all before.

Could you please wait until she's advised me on my new kitchen? I'm such an airhead, I can't decide anything without Our Glorious Leader's guidance.

Do miss the 🤣 emoji…

In a nutshell.

If you identify a problem, you have to do something about it. If you can't see a problem you can do fuck all.

What is it about these eminently sensible countries that make you think their populations are prone to such whimsy?

They're obviously not sensible since they've passed laws which say that everyone can choose their sex. Which is clearly insane.

Quite! Im sure suggestions would regard Portugal ,with some of the most liberal laws in the world around drugs, assisted dying & LGBTQ, as eminently sensible has self ID. It resulted in this

reduxx.info/prison-guards-in-portugal-force-transfer-of-violent-transgender-inmate-from-womens-prison-after-threatening-to-strike/

Very 'all the other girls do this' vibes.

Oops he did it again! (?)

And every time one of them hands a journalist another little quote – another “baffled,” another “sorry,” another “he’s awful, but I hope he’s okay” – they get to carry on with their lives while mine gets smaller.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/11/graham-linehan-trans-critics/
In full at https://archive.is/Qvf3Q

I actually think it returns to his own character, really. He may be a fabulous writer, but he seems an unpleasant person that clearly holds grudges and expects returns on amorphous investments (“I did this for you, so you should publicly support me”). Life nor friendship doesn’t work like that. I’d be wary of someone asking that of me.

Thanks for the link @IwantToRetire I lost respect for a lot of people over the past decade. What a disappointment Bill Bailey is, not sure I ever thought much of Ardal (except as Father Dougal). I hope their cowardice will gnaw on their souls.

I am a little ambivalent about GL. I think it was amazing that he stood up for women and girls and has been a vocal male ally in all of this. I would have loved more people - male or female - to have stood by him or followed suit. I’ve met him and chatted at an event where he is pretty much the same outspoken, bitter-sweet, funny man you see in interviews. I thank him for his support.

And I do feel it is heinous that he suffered such a negative impact to his career and his marriage.

However, my issue - and I look to the recent article about Ardal - is that he has conflated his campaign for Women's rights/against medicalisation of children with a parallel crusade about his personal betrayal. That article is not about WR/PBs it is about the people who did not stand by his side. Who did not immediately understand the implications of the TRA movement and risk their careers along side him. It feels on some level like he is trying to bully everyone to take a vocal visible stand and you don’t win hearts and minds by being a bully - by being as abusive and abrasive as the other side.

My DH obvious shares my perspective on the GI stuff. He has sat and sobbed along side me many a time over the last 8+years and broke down in some measure of joy when the Cass Report came out. He has continually thanked me for the work I had done with my MP, writing letters/petitions via Bayswater, talking to people highly involved in some of the high profile cases, for writing about it (albeit anonymously because I can’t risk alienating my child or negatively impacting dh’s career). Because he can’t do any of those things.

So at work he remains neutral. His career and his ability to pay for the care my DD has needed [CAMHS never helped, we had to pay for everything, every step of the way] all depended upon his keeping his job. His company was a fully paid up Stonewall Champion for many years and a very very well known TRA was one of his reportees for a few years when he/they (a TW) reported to my DH. So my husband has publicly remained non-partisan, excused himself from LGBTQ!+ training due to ‘conflicting work commitments’, gone to make a call or changed the subject if raised at work.

I don’t resent him, I don’t accuse him of moral cowardice, I don’t expect him to sacrifice our family’s security because of what we believe - no, what we KNOW -to be true. I lost pretty much most of my ‘mummy’ friends during this period partly because a minority disagreed with me [do kinders with no understanding of the wider issues] but mainly because people did not want to get involved in something that, from their perspective, didn’t directly impact them and was already perceived as toxic and painful. We were investigated by Social Services twice - something that was emotionally traumatic for us both but also had the risk of impacting my DH’s job had they been contacted.

So I understand the apparent moral cowardice of people not standing up and shouting their support - they have mortgages and families. I am sure Ardal does do. They exist in a peculiar industry bubble where public mood can turn on a dime.

I admire and respect GL’s position and passion - but I also understand why people are not allowed to place their heads above the parapet. Some of these people could be powerful allies, however, if they could be coaxed into behind the scenes activism or simply demanding ‘neutrality’ in the work place. There are many ways to fight this and we don’t all need to be Glinners to affect change.

Thank you CautiousLurker2 That was a very clear and understandable explanation. You have come through a lot and have wise words.

There are many ways, and people have many different personalities and resources that will make a difference, together.

What an informative and wise post Thank you Cautious

And yet another long one! 🤦🏽‍♀️ Brevity is not my style 🤣

Thank you Cautious Lurker . A very good and thoughtful post. I hope your situation - and that of DH - improves in the fullness of time.

I love Linehans writing and even bought a few copies of his book as Christmas presents last year. But he seems to be one of life's extremists in all he does. Anyone not with me is against me sort of thing. A mental block of some kind which must make other people's behavior difficult for him to fathom at times.