What is in the water this week?! Glinner now making a mockery of the cause

[RobynMiller]

I know I know I should just get off twitter but this week is just back to back GC news and not in a good way.

If you haven't seen, Glinner posted a video mocking Green Leader Zack Polanski, understandable plenty of material for a comedy writer there, but the video is so unhinged and unfunny.

Some speculating Graham was drunk when he made it but it's been 24 hours and he's left it up so maybe not.

I feel like we are finally gaining real ground in this fight and this makes GCs look like a bunch of lunatics.

I know there is no formal hierarchy but like it or not, for better and worse, we do have public faces and 'spokespeople' for this fight and this is just embarrassing.

I just feel so helpless because there can't be any accountability for this kind of thing but my God.

Thanks for listening to my rant, just been a very frustrating week.

Video here: https://x.com/Glinner/status/2047187374699126873?s=20

Well one outcome, of course, is that you end up with perfectly legal adults chronologically, but with the minds and bodies of pre pubescent children.

It's not hard to understand why there is such a concerted effort to stop people talking about the effects on children of this awful ideology.

And of course, where better to attempt to shut down conversations regarding children, than Mumsnet.

Oh yes. Very worrying. And these people will have many mental health problems. Very easy for them to be exploited. And who benefits from lifelong patients? It seems a lot of the push is coming from the medical profession. So you have lots of people needing life time supply of drugs and surgeries and mental health interventions.

Language evolves organically, by group consensus.

Diktats about language being imposed for politics and power is authoritarianism. Women didnt ask or need to be rebranded.

So people who follow Genderism can use their own invented words, of course, but cant expect anyone else to use them or meekly accept being defined by a new term that equated roughly to 'unbeliever' .

I have been irritated by this thread, and the JKR thread- the assumption that there’s one, correct way to believe men and women can’t change sex.
It’s such a simple truth, it doesn’t need a manual of how to believe it.
There’s no need for an agreed and published creed.

Men cannot be women and vice versa.
There doesn’t need to be ‘something in the water’ for people to hold a range of opinions, behaviours, attitudes. That’s just, you know, normal.

Weird grouping of ‘trans’ boys and ‘cis’ girls to make some sort of point. Unless…

The funny thing is, that even the low entropy word nozzles that regularly turn up here, self-rightreously spewing over the threads, can't even do the gender thing properly. Almost all of them violate gender rules constantly, by misgendering everybody willy nelly. I mean willy nilly.

How dare they disrespect and invalidate my hypothetically very important and meaningful gender identity feelings by assuming I have cis gender, at this moment today. Maybe I do, maybe I don't - if I wanted someone or indeed everyone to talk about my gender I'd probably shoehorn it into the conversation all subtle like "yeah that reminds me about this one time I had the big fem energy cow gender but we went to dairy queen and it was hilarious but also beautiful you know?"

Yeah. In fact, until you pointed that out, the grouping with "cis" girls meant I casually read TPA's comment as about a male child who is trans. And that is despite me being well versed in the language of gender ideologists. So much for "natural evolving language" 🤣

Now what do trans "boys" and "cis" girls have in common that TPA should think of them together like that? 🤔

Your ‘Ms’ example is a false comparator as the power dynamic is completely opposing in your example. Surely someone pointed this out when people have tried to use it before? Or does it just get applauded when you have seen it before.

The word ‘cis’ is also meaningless for the purpose because it also relies on the term ‘assigned at birth’ which is now quite well known to include male people who were identified as female in error at birth in the category of ‘cis female’.

It forceably categorises people as believing in a philosophical belief that doesn’t reflect material reality as well. There are religions who have a descriptor for people who don’t believe, so are people who believe in gender identity theory following that as an example?

Cis was a word that someone attempted to repurpose from science in a way that simply doesn’t work. It never was a term meant to describe humans or human belief.

Just like the words girl, woman, and female were never words created to include any male person. The impact of including any male person in the category of humans those words describe is to make those words completely meaningless because they then include every person. Some people use the terms girl, woman, female to mean any person because they use the terms for male people as well as female people.

What is happening is a group of people will use continue to attempt to make language changes but meaningless language is harmful to society so the language changes are not going to happen or last long at society level.

Authoritarianism, intimidation and bullying are the tools used to rebrand women. To remove the accurate language of women and girls from public life. And to transition children while demanding that responsible adults never mention anything related to physical impact of the experimental drugs and brutal surgery because you'll be accused of being a perverted creep.
DARVO in glorious technicolour.

I rarely comment on posts by parents of vulnerable children who've been persuaded that their bodies are wrong. Partly because I'm a parent and I know how difficult that is and partly because I'm aware that being unable to safeguard your child from getting caught up in all this must be uniquely painful. Sadly when parents spend their time berating and gaslighting other parents (see Maugham and Tennant as examples) we have to make an exception and point out the techniques they're using. In the case of Maugham & Tennant it's open bullying, threats and intimidation - trying to turn the mob on women. In other cases it's attempted emotional manipulation, the use of guilt by association (so ironic) and a desperation to correct the mostly factual, science based words and opinions of women on a feminist board.

Did you think thought this post through at all?

Is victim blaming / shaming someone, something you do often in your relationships with others?

No @Helleofabore and I’m not doing that in this comment. But that’s exactly what you seem to be trying to do to me?

Good to know.

So if you’re meeting lots of women and they’re all over anxious and suspicious… maybe it’s more of a you problem? Have you ever thought you might be the one making them anxious? Maybe some self reflective work may help…

Look we all know that using "cis girls" to mean a type of girls and "trans girls" to mean a type of boys is completely deliberate misdirection. That's what the adjective cis is for, that's what the fought-for space is for.

I'm not dividing the world into cis and trans any more than I'm dividing the world into lay people and clergy or believers and infidels.

Whether non-binary comes under trans or non-trans is never exactly specified. Oddly, the movement seems to admit the possibility that people don't have a gender identity providing they identify themselves as agender or nonbinary. But don't admit the more likely possibility that someone not having a gender identity would classify themselves by their sex which they do have. As that would have the tiresome consequence of dumping huge swathes of feminists into the non-cis bucket. It all falls apart if everyone belongs to the category of special people and can demand the same special privileges.

Alternatively, if the poster was meeting with women who are rightly anxious about being identified publicly for their views or simply judged negatively for their views, those women have just had their suspicions and cause for anxiety validated. (Particularly if it was a group who was very worried about being infiltrated by someone intent on causing harm as has happened in the past)

If they realised they were meeting someone who made them feel that they were being judged for their valid concerns, of course they will then be likely more anxious and suspicious. Making it a self fulfilling cycle.

Yes, if we use the term cis to mean 'has a gender that matches their sex' as so many people say it means, the only ciswomen on MN are the TRAs. Those of us that are GC (the vast majority of this board) don't have a gender so are not cis.

I agree with this

Im quite wary about the whole movement now, as some of it is very far removed from my own values, whilst I remain GC

What did he actually say in the video? Which bits specifically did you find unhinged or unfunny? (Those are after all two slightly different things.)

In what way is GL making a mockery of the gender critical cause?

The way you've phrased this, I can't tell if he actually mocked the gender critical movement within the video, or if you're offended because you consider him a sort of spokesperson for it, and you're embarrassed to see him drunk.

I agree.

You see the same thing with KJK and JKR. People are just totally unable to accept that these "figures in the movement" are human beings like the rest of us. Like any other human being, they will have flaws, and frustrating contradictions within themselves, and opinions you disagree with. They will have friends you don't like. They will occasionally embarrass themselves. There will be times when they don't express themselves as well as they could.

(There will also be times when you simply misunderstand the point they're making, or when they sound the alarm on something and your own flaw is that you refuse to listen because you don't like their tone.)

That's life. They're human, and so are you! I don't know when we all lost sight of this and started demanding total perfection out of everyone who speaks on this issue, but it's childish and I'm sick of it. And then people come along and say "oh, but I'm afraid the movement will be hijacked" . . . 🙄 Here's a thought! If we all learned to be more generous to those we have minor disagreements with, and to be more critical of our heroes, the whole movement would be a lot harder to hijack.

Language evolution

"oh, but I'm afraid the movement will be hijacked" . .

They're not though. They're the ones attempting to undermine it by reducing support.

Pointless, of course, especially at this stage.

I am so tired of the meaningless attempt to shoehorn every single social or political issue into boxes labelled 'right-wring' or 'left-wing'. I thought it was widely agreed after the Brexit referendum and Trump's first election win that these terms are nowadays pretty meaningless when it comes to social issues. You can be in favour of traditionally left-wing economic policies but also very socially conservative. There are plenty of sexist dinosaurs in the Labour Party illustrating that. You can be totally in favour of women's rights, a woman's right to choose and so on, but also a Tory voter because you want low taxes and minimal state interference. Baroness Nicholson has done a lot of good work for the sex realist cause (I prefer that to gender critical, it causes less confusion) but she is a Tory peer. I would disagree with her on many things but not this one. This is fine because we are both grown ups.

People from every single political party are capable of recognising the problems with the idea that an individual who clearly belongs to one sex can say 'I identify as the other sex' or 'I don't idenfity as any sex' or 'I want the right to identify as whatever sex I feel like from minute to minute' and others should be compelled to go along with it.

We have plenty of precedents for people with different political viewpoints coming together to fight a common foe, e.g. World War II - Communists (eventually) joining everybody else to defeat Fascism. Government of national unity in the UK.

There's been quite an influx in recent weeks of "I'm as GC as they come, but..." and "there's a definite GC to far right pipeline, so be careful who you associate with..." posts.

I wonder why. There isn't an election coming up, is there? I only mention this because we occasionally get visited by Labour stans who seem to think they can shame us into supporting Sir Keir Starmer KCB KC.

For anyone who isn't aware of what Linehan is mocking here, it maybe bears repeating. Scroll down this BBC article to hear ZP himself defending his tit hypnosis. It's nothing to do with feminism or trans issues and everything to do with Polanski's lack of credibility.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn9enygvezeo