Glinner Bullseye comment on X

[Thatcatsaflippingnightmare]

Always trying to explain Glinner to DH, today he showed me on X JD Vance defending murder of the woman by ICE. Glinner had replied something like 'bullseye', as in agreement. I tried to comprehend with "satire?" but he said no he's on Liz truss show these days. I said well he's always been about protecting women and children, he's not suddenly supporting femicide, but the post convinced DH otherwise. Any insights? I'm not on social media

I'm not scrolling through eight years of his tweets to try to find evidence of what I remember. https://www.nme.com/news/tv/channel-4-pulls-it-crowd-episode-over-transphobic-content-2778346 indicates clearly that his GC views were already well-established and well-known before Channel Four pulled it.

It's a step beyond what happened with Charlie Kirk because there some people were making fun of or celebrating his death but I wasn't aware of anyone excusing his killer. Whereas here, not only are there posts laughing at the death/implying she was a bad person, people are praising the actual killer. And not randos on the internet. People in the US government.

I've watched multiple interviews in which he's discussed that particular episode. He's said that the topic wasn't something he thought about much until he got the idea for the episode and that, for him, the idea Linehan wanted to get across with that episode was that Reynholm was missing out on finding the perfect partner because Reynholm couldn't get over the fact that 'she' was a man. And like a lot of comedy ideas, it doesn't bear much logical analysis, it's just meant to be funny and show the audience how silly the characters are.

I'm not talking about channel 4 pulling the episode or the gc twitter spats that lead to that.

I'm saying glinner hadnt been gc before people told him the episode was insensitive, he became anti trans rather than admit fault. Before trans people appear to have been a mere funny plot device for him. Like gay people in the Gay! episode

This is all because he wouldn't admit he was wrong and it's cost him his career and life. Now look where he is, maga country retweeting people who want women's vote taken away. What a Knight in shining amour.

Do you have a citation for that claim?

Goodness the patronising… A couple of things here. First thing you have absolutely zero idea who you’re talking to and what I’ve been through. Patronising people gets nowhere.

Secondly, we need people to go to these places and witness what’s happening and video them. That is why we have the video from this incident. As you’ve said yourself, it’s why we have the footage from the George Floyd incident. Sometimes it is hard to draw the line there between observing and interacting, ICE themselves will initiate interactions with observers. I have an acquaintance today who has videoed an ICE interaction in a city that not mentioned in this thread. She had her children with her and stayed well back from the incident, but they made it clear they didn’t like it.

What I’m not going to do is tell other women what to do. Particularly other women who are on the ground in these scenarios. I’m not the keyboard warrior here. I hate that term. Anyway, this is something that should be discussed. Type away, and by the way, I didn’t use the term bootlicker so you’ve incorrectly attributed that.

It's my recollection that Linehan had been supporting GC women and positions before C4 memory holed that episode of IT Crowd in late 2020.

He's a stubborn man but I don't recognise your description of him from what I've seen of his behaviour and heard him say in interviews. And I've also seen him admit fault for past behaviour, so he's not intransigent full stop.

Agree that we shouldn’t be ascribing words to people incorrectly, as you did in your previous comment to me regarding the term bootlicker…

Fair's fair, replying to someone's attempt to explain their thinking and engage in the discussion with, "Don’t annoy those men who are busy setting up a dictatorship! Be nice and polite, women!" is pretty patronising.

No, that was FuckReality, who you then posted in support of.

If Darnella Frazier had taken option two and fled the scene, I would not have judged her. Sticking around to film is risky. If the press, who are trained to observe and document events and wear clear identification that they are press, are keeping clear of a scene, perhaps others should too? Activists may have told you to behave and respond in particular ways, but that's not actually training and gives you a false sense of security.

We have plenty of people on this forum who are firearms trained (including how to react if someone aims at you) or Northern Irish with lived experience of armed road blocks. You don't know who we are and what we've been through. You are patronising us.

He did indeed but I think people whinged on about it for a few years before C4 pulled it. ISTR his first ban from Twitter was about 2018.

This morning, he responds to justifiable pushback with an ableist slur but deigns to criticise the original poster calling for the repeal of the 19th.

He's very Trump-like in many ways; there's no solid, underlying philosophy behind the positions he takes, just a bitter reaction to perceived slights and the only crime in Graham's world is disagreeing with him.

And the vehemence of his reaction seems particularly strong when that criticism comes from a woman.

He's just not interested in their views; he's only interested in the money he can take from them to pay his £2,600 PCM rent in AZ

The tweet in question

https://x.com/Glinner/status/2010466188791566615

You obviously want ‘gender critical’ to be a right wing concept, but that doesn’t make it so.

Gay people (who have many different political opinions - sexuality is not a decision in a voting booth) have faced discrimination precisely because of the gender boxes enforced by gender ideology. The U.K. Suprene Court decided as they did because of arguments presented by lesbian groups who want to protect their right to say no to men.

But you seem to prefer to listen to gobby men, whatever they are saying, which tells us everything we need to know.

Graham makes me sad. He is I think the most talented comedy writer of our generation, but a brittle personality incapable of letting any slight, real or perceived, pass by without rageful comment combined with how quickly and totally he was shunned by his tribe when he started expressing GC views has totally addled his brain. He is clearly not built for the world of social media.

He is one of a number of people who were of the liberal left wing who after being so thoroughly cancelled have slid into right wing views and have been welcomed with open arms by them. Everyone loves a convert. Blocked and Reported have a few episodes on this phenomenon.

I have been dubious of him and KJK for some time. I used to follow him on substack and X but his relentless posting, obsessive nature and at times cruel posts quickly turned me off. I unfollowed years ago.

I know many of us from he left have been banging the drum for years saying that in the UK this is a left wing, feminist movement, spurred by women wanting to promote safe guarding and women's spaces. I think this was largely true for many years, and the right wing smears were just that. Now, as GC views have become more wide spread I am not so sure this is true. It is all part of the wonderful new world we find ourselves in

However i stand by what i said, GC views are right wing. They're grossly oversaurated by right wing figures, parties and media

What a laughably naive understanding of GC views and their portrayal.

I agree, but would distinguish between gender critical and gender conservative.

Yes. There was a useful Venn diagram that someone posted a while back; it clarified the fact that there are three different positions on sex and gender, not two. Does anyone have a copy?

(Eta: sorry notbadconsidering I’m replying to the post you replied to not yours)

That’s because left-wing people who are GC, and people in many traditionally lefty fields like the arts, social work and academia, mainly have to keep quiet about it to keep their jobs and often their friends and families, especially their indoctrinated children.

Meanwhile the obvious empty-brained ludicrousness of gender ideology that has become affiliated with the “left” (bizarrely, as it’s a very classist, capitalist, hugely misogynistic and often racist movement) is an open goal for the right so of course they are going to attack and oppose it. However, if you think GC in itself is right wing you don’t understand what GC means. It is not the same as thinking women should stay in a gendered box because of their sex - it’s the oppposite. It’s thinking that as you can’t change sex, women are stuck with the disadvantages of their sex (as are men, though their sex-based disadvantages are fewer) and therefore women need sex-based protections and provisions - while also being free to do and be whatever they like in terms of gender expression, career, relationships, clothing etc.

Conservative sexists think women should be confined within “feminine” gender norms. GC feminists don’t. But it’s not really surprising that this is all a bit too complicated and nuanced for people who think sex doesn’t exist, biology isn’t real and simultaneously that you can change sex (that doesn’t exist) and are being shafted by big pharma.

Then you do have people like Glinner and KJK (and sadly others) who embrace the right, sometimes the far right, from what seemed to be a GC perspective. That could be because they have been so comprehensively kicked to shit by the left, I guess, or because as we see with Glinner, they maybe weren’t actually genuinely left anyway - or at least not genuinely feminist. (KJK often points out she never claimed to be a feminist.) I don’t like this at all and don’t understand it. For me being GC is a natural part of being a lifelong left-wing feminist, along with being a rationalist who understands evidence.

GC views aren't inherently right wing - the UK communist party for example are quite GC and they're as far left as it goes. Ask your average labour voting trade union member whether they're okay with a 16 yo boy who identifies as a girl playing rugby against their daughter and sharing the showers after, I think you'll get a very similar answer to the right wing. Maybe a different choice of swear words.

A certain contingent of leftist politics has currently bought into genderism, which is something those of us who are left leaning and gender critical can work on. Look at the green party - every time they suspend or expel gender critical members of green party women, more step up to take their place. Extraordinary resilience and strength in depth from leftie environmentalist gender critical women.

Sorry if you don't like being lumped in with the right wing or that your movement attracts them but its the company you're keeping. If reform get a landslide because they know what a woman is, maybe this one issue will look pretty small beer compared to what do in government. Is the NHS worth destroying to own the trans? Is it worth having barely educated grandchildren in terrible schools taught jingoistic drivel as long as GC views are part of that indoctrination?

If its anything like Trumps america which nigel obviously wants to emulate, how will women be treated? I don't hold much hope for our rights being the same and I'm not throwing trans people under the bus to get there either. Just who are the right wingers coming for AFTER trans people?

Again, it's as though you can't hear feminist voices.

I have attached the diagram.

Reform are not gender critical. They just know that sex exists. I don't think they have a clear opinion on this issue - Farage recently seemed to suggest that he was open to the idea of men in women's prisons - and I suspect this is because his interest begins and ends with attacking his political opponents.

From what I understand, you agree with all the right wing commentators that a woman is somebody who complies with stereotypical gender norms. The only point of contention is whether a man can be a woman too as long as he complies with those norms.

Gender ideology is fundamentally right wing, because it prioritises individual desires over collective rights. It reflects what is emerging as the Trump administration's ideology - might means right, and no man should be hindered by pesky things like women's rights.

Just who are the right wingers coming for AFTER trans people?

You tell me. You have more in common with them than I do.

The US right are not remotely "gender critical". Like you, they don't even know the meaning of the term.

They are traditional sexists with no real concept of "women's rights". They mainly object to the transgender movement because the TRAs have successfully aligned with the left and tacked their cause onto the LGBTQ alphabet.

If the right (and the left) could perceive what transgender ideology is really all about, they would realise it's essentially a regressively sexist men's rights movement. It's actually very ironic that in setting themselves against the transgender movement, the right are opposing activists who fully endorse their own misogynist, sexist worldview.

If, heaven forfend, Farage has more success in the next GE, there will be plenty of blame to go around.

No need to heap it all on the few hundred mumsnet FWR posters, surely.