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

No, but are we talking about them?

First, have you ever heard the maxim "a stopped clock is right twice per day"?

Second, are you seriously suggesting that agreeing with Trump's executive orders that protect women's sports and single-sex services, and mostly[1] agreeing with the order about prisons, makes someone right-wing?

There's a lot of stuff Trump does that's off-topic for FWR unless a case arises where it's infringed on women's rights, so it isn't discussed here, and rightly. This is FWR, not the Trump forum.

We don't have to preface every post we make where Trump has done something right with a laundry list of everything he's done that we disagree with. There's a passage in Catch-22 about that:

When they voiced objection, Captain Black replied that people who were loyal would not mind signing all the loyalty oaths they had to. To anyone who questioned the effectiveness of the loyalty oaths, he replied that people who really did owe allegiance to their country would be proud to pledge it as often as he forced them to.

Making the analogy crystal-clear:

When the left-wing feminists voiced objection to denouncing right-wing acts, the purity spiralist replied that people who were left-wing would not mind condemning all the right-wing acts they had to. To anyone who questioned the effectiveness of the disowning statements, he replied that people who really were left-wing would be proud to condemn right-wing acts often as he forced them to.

I'd actually started writing a laundry list of things Trump's done that I disagree with, and then I realised I was falling for that purity spiral trap, so I deleted it. I don't have to performatively disown his bad deeds. I'm not responsible for what he does. It's Rule One to expect me to act like I am.

The attached image is my political compass result from earlier this evening.

[1]: I disagreed only with the blanket cessation of cross-sex hormones. If someone's natural gonads are gone, their sex hormones need to be managed carefully because they've got none of their own, and that should be decided by doctors.

What's wrong with laughing at leftists, rightists, centrists, or anyone else who's doing something daft?

And feminists are meant to be the humourless ones...

We’re discussing the almost exclusive derisory tone about the Left and Leftists on FWR, as part of a wider thread about Glinner going to the Right and being no friend to women.

You can agree with any of his actions. I might agree with the ‘no men in women’s sport’ one. Shades of complexity enter though when considering why he might have taken that action and others like it. What did he stand to gain? From whom? Who is really pulling the strings?

That’s the reason I’m reluctant to agree with Trump on anything, and since 2015 I’ve been rarely proven wrong.

Lemme see:

• The right aren't claiming that people can change sex.
• The right aren't claiming that men should be allowed in women-only services and sports.
• The right are doing or planning to do some pretty awful things to both sexes (e.g. deporting immigrants whose sole crime is not having a visa), but... wait for it... these awful things aren't funny. The left aren't much better than the right on this, as evidenced by Starmer's handling of immigration.
• The left are claiming that people can change sex. This is absurd, and hence funny.
• The left are claiming that men should be allowed in women-only services and sports. This is absurd, and hence funny.
• The left are tantrumming like nobody's business because laws are being clarified in court, EOs are being signed, and sporting organisations are reestablishing women's categories as for women only. A toddler doing a clearly-fake-crying (clue: eyes are dry, there are no tears) and screaming bout in the sweets aisle is funny, and the left's tantrumming is just as funny.

Basically, the right haven't done much that is funny lately.

This is not a Right vs Left issue.

Did you read the PPs about how the trans shitshow happened under the Tories?
Did you read the PPs regarding the left wing feminists who battled this in the courts?

It's a feminist and women's rights issue.

So basically, it's not enough that he did the right thing by women and girls, but he has to do it for the right reasons? What ever happened to Frederick Douglass's "I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong", the emphasis being on do?

And you don't agree with him sending the men to the male prison estate where they belong? Wtf?

If Harris had got in, women would still be incarcerated with intact men, girls would still be having to get changed for school sports sessions in front of boys, and women and girls would still be losing medals, titles, and scholarships to men and boys.

Interesting, which director?

The right have sensibly rowed back from that. The left keep on going.

The GC voices on the left are a minority.

I'm talking about a class analysis of the two faction's recent behaviour, in terms of its humour value. When Penny Mordaunt was pushing self-id, that wasn't funny, it was terrifying. Philipson sitting on the EHRC guidance isn't funny, it's terrifying.

Gender Critical voices are a left wing minority. They're not a RW thing at all.

Sex realism and biological reality is held by the vast majority of people across all of society and political beliefs. From MAGAs in the US to the Communist Party in the UK.

No. What I object to is the posts here and on social media that criticise Good’s behaviour as though (mainly on X) there will be an acceptable reason for her to have been shot dead.

I won’t criticise women who are recording and protesting against ICE as I’m glad someone is doing it. I think I’d be too scared but hope will be brave enough to at least record if I’m in the vicinity.

I think we’re right at the tipping point of disaster in the US. I think of when we used to ask ourselves what might we have done had we been in the early years of Nazi germany and I’m worried that we’re not doing enough now. I agree that it absolutely isn’t safe.

I’m impressed you’re able to see what the US would look like under Harris; that’s a skill. I can only predict that the world would feel a good deal more stable, but that’s just me.

I don’t think his motivations were necessarily in the right place. I suppose you’ve heard of lobbyists? Trump’s lobbyists - or monetary motivators - could have been from the US or elsewhere. I suspect elsewhere.

However, on a surface level, be pleased for the decision, I guess, and that applies to any decision he makes.

YY.

Yes, I think so, that’s the whole point. You are condemning posters for laughing at left wing extremists because you believe it means that even though they claim to be politically homeless, they must be secretly right wing.

Yes, that’s the whole point. If I find myself agreeing with Trump, Hitler etc on the grass being green, it doesn’t mean I agree with them on anything else. But some posters clearly find that too annoying a fact to grasp.

That's correct. I keep treating gender critical as a synonym of sex realist, when the former is a subset of the latter.

Better than being the darling of misogynistic Reddit...

Yet you don't call out those on your side who call for feminists to be punched, curb-stomped, skinned alive, burned alive, shot, raped, etc.

As opposed to misogynist TRAs/MRAs grifting on Reddit, and the fox killer grifting on BlueSky?

There are a lot on the 'other side' (ie anti-women/pro-trans activists) who don't see their own hypocrisy too.

That’s because if you try hard enough, of course you can find some point of consensus with even the most evil of people with ideologies you’d never espouse.

That is why the analogy is facile.

Harris would not have done anything to keep men out of women's services, prisons, and sports, and it's disingenious to pretend otherwise. She's a Dem: so-called "trans rights", aka trans people having privileges that no one else, are party policy.

Have you ever heard the maxim "intent isn't magic", used to explain how good intentions don't make the bad outcome of a bad decision go away? Well, it works both ways. Whatever Trump's intent or motive was when he signed that blizzard of EOs about women's services, prisons, and sports, the outcome was good for women. And let's be honest, it's not like there was an option to vote in a president who would sign those EOs for pure reasons, was there?

Do you have any comment to make about Glinner - the person this thread is about, instead of of all the whataboutisms?

So if gender and sex are different, why are trans people demanding access to facilities of the opposite sex?