Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

ohnonotgmail

Hector Savage wrote: »

Very reasonable from him, anyone with any sense would agree with his statement.

did he mention in his statement that he has been doxxing and deadnaming trans people?

Penn

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

did he mention in his statement that he has been doxxing and deadnaming trans people?

Not to mention accusing them of being "groomers" as well as repeatedly directing his followers to harass people on his behalf.

Didn't see that in his statement either.

Good riddance to the pr*ck. It's no surprise he's now moved on to the same site Katie Hopkins and other hateful bigots have moved to since Twitter stopped tolerating their sh*t.

Hector Savage

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

did he mention in his statement that he has been doxxing and deadnaming trans people?

deadnaming ??

ohnonotgmail

Hector Savage wrote: »

deadnaming ??

i'm sure you are intelligent enough to use google.

Wombatman

Hector Savage wrote: »

deadnaming ??

Check out the Muhammad Ali vs. Ernie Terrell fight.

"What's my name?"

Sittingpretty

Hector Savage wrote: »

deadnaming ??

I hadn’t heard of this before either, it’s purposely calling a trans person by the name they used to be known before they transitioned and refusing to acknowledge their new identity.

AndrewJRenko

Gatling wrote: »

What personal discomfort .

You do know the word grooming isn't a sexual term many people including young people can ge groomed for religious beliefs , gangs and criminals , drugs .

But yes let's get back to giving vulnerable children being medicated because some qusudo quack has told them it's the right thing to do because they are trapped in the
Wrong body ,or someone groomed them online into believing that they don't fit in because they are trans ,

Children should be protected from all forms of grooming especially where they are being used as guinea pigs to push trans rights ,

Children need protection not unnecessary medication

Are you denying that transgender children exist?

Stark

The whole "grooming" argument reminds me of the mindset that led to the Section 28 laws in the UK. Laws that did far more harm to children than they ever prevented.

Sir Oxman

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Nah. Even sites like Boards have rules against insulting and abusing other people. Time was when someone was banned because they were being an arsehole like that, we didn't have hordes of hand-wringers screeching about 'free speech'. Well, we didn't have quite so many of them.

You know the rules when you sign up to a site like that. Can't stick to them? You should be banned. Thinking the people that person is abusing are fair targets doesn't really change that.

Byeeee!

keano_afc

Linehan made the mistake of taking on the holy cow of social media - trans radical activists.

About a month ago, I was tweeting a person who claimed they were a woman despite being male. I asked them to define woman in the context they were using it, only to be met with abuse. I finished the conversation by saying that she was entitled to believe what she wanted, but biologically she will always be male.

An hour later, my account was suspended without warning. Twitter told me it was because I had "multiple accounts for the purpose of harassment". I had one account. I appealed, but Twitter refused to rescind my ban.

Trans people and their supporters are untouchable on Twitter. People like Adrian Harrop can stalk, bully and abuse women at will without consequence. Monroe Bergdorf can tweet vile abuse and get away with it. They are given free reign.

Humberto Salazar

It's clear Twitter is left leaning and allows far more leeway towards that than those with right wing ideology. It's best that anyone with conservative ideology go elsewhere. Let the lefties have that platform to themselves.

Penn

keano_afc wrote: »

About a month ago, I was tweeting a person who claimed they were a woman despite being male. I asked them to define woman in the context they were using it, only to be met with abuse. I finished the conversation by saying that she was entitled to believe what she wanted, but biologically she will always be male.

I know we're all in quarantine etc, but.... nothing better to do? Bit of gardening, maybe? Some good home workout guides available.

Bannasidhe

keano_afc wrote: »

About a month ago, I was tweeting a person who claimed they were a woman despite being male. I asked them to define woman in the context they were using it, only to be met with abuse.

You took it upon yourself to define what constitutes being a woman and now you are complaining that you were met with abuse?
Mate, I'm a biological female and if you tweeted me with that crap you'd have been told where to shove it.

Sir Oxman

keano_afc wrote: »

Linehan made the mistake of taking on the holy cow of social media - trans radical activists.

About a month ago, I was tweeting a person who claimed they were a woman despite being male. I asked them to define woman in the context they were using it, only to be met with abuse. I finished the conversation by saying that she was entitled to believe what she wanted, but biologically she will always be male.

An hour later, my account was suspended without warning. Twitter told me it was because I had "multiple accounts for the purpose of harassment". I had one account. I appealed, but Twitter refused to rescind my ban.

Trans people and their supporters are untouchable on Twitter. People like Adrian Harrop can stalk, bully and abuse women at will without consequence. Monroe Bergdorf can tweet vile abuse and get away with it. They are given free reign.

BiB
Twitter apparently used that against GL as well.
No evidence proferred.
There's a big problem right now, if only people could recognise it.

Smith152

Penn wrote: »

I know we're all in quarantine etc, but.... nothing better to do? Bit of gardening, maybe? Some good home workout guides available.

Why don't you have anything to better to be doing than being on boards.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You took it upon yourself to define what constitutes being a woman and now you are complaining that you were met with abuse?
Mate, I'm a biological female and if you tweeted me with that crap you'd have been told where to shove it.

Took it upon yourself to define what constitutes being a woman? As if it is open to interpretation?

ILoveYourVibes

Deleted User wrote: »

Took it upon yourself to define what constitutes being a woman? As if it is open to interpretation?

Its up to every woman to define this for herself.

ILoveYourVibes

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Its up to every woman to define this for herself.

It really is not. Woman has a definite meaning.

You don't get to decide your biological sex anymore than you can choose your height or natural eye colour.

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

Took it upon yourself to define what constitutes being a woman? As if it is open to interpretation?

As is being a man.
Most gay people can tell you many many tales of how they have been told that aren't a 'real' man/woman. Not 'masculine' or 'feminine' enough is the usual one.
So yes, it is open to interpretation.

Ironic how often it is a case of 'I am man and I will tell you what is woman, I do this to protect womankind'. Utter crap. They do it because some people have the cheek to not conform to a narrow definition decided by someone else.

And if people want to start dishing out judgement on twitter they can't then complain if they get abuse. They are getting back what they are dishing out.

Hector Savage

Sittingpretty wrote: »

I hadn’t heard of this before either, it’s purposely calling a trans person by the name they used to be known before they transitioned and refusing to acknowledge their new identity.

oh booo f*cking hoo and I was called specky 4 eyes when I first got glasses in school....

thewolfisloose

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/twitter-closes-graham-linehan-account-after-trans-comment-1.4290547?mode=amp

Isn't this just censorship rather than protecting anyone?

That's what it looks like to me.

It's perfectly fine for someone like Trump to spew his hatred on the platform every day of the week but when it comes to debate on social issues action is taken.

I am now anticipating a thread full of crybaby Father Ted fans. Boards seems to be full of them.

Irish people ruin Father Ted by relentlessly quoting it every chance they get.

briany

thewolfisloose wrote: »

Irish people ruin Father Ted by relentlessly quoting it every chance they get.

I doubt that, but then again I'm very cynical, as you know.

suicide_circus

I can no more believe that Caitlyn Jenner is and always has been a woman than I can believe that Moses received the ten commandments on Mount Sinai. I am not of that church.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As is being a man.
Most gay people can tell you many many tales of how they have been told that aren't a 'real' man/woman. Not 'masculine' or 'feminine' enough is the usual one.
So yes, it is open to interpretation.

Ironic how often it is a case of 'I am man and I will tell you what is woman, I do this to protect womankind'. Utter crap. They do it because some people have the cheek to not conform to a narrow definition decided by someone else.

And if people want to start dishing out judgement on twitter they can't then complain if they get abuse. They are getting back what they are dishing out.

Oh ok. So you agree with the people who say that gay people aren't real men/women? That it is up for interpretation? What a strange example to use to prove your point.

And no, it's not "I am man, I will tell you what is woman" (veiled accusation of the ever hilarious mansplaining accusation). I'm explaining (,not mansplaining) that you cannot will yourself to be something you are not. You can pretend and you can live your life however you want. But not everyone has to deny reality and biology to cater for your whim.

blanch152

Gender and biological sex are not interchangeable terms, but too many people treat them as if they are.

You can be biologically of the male sex but identify to the female gender.

There are important philosophical and practical differences between the two. A person, who to all intents and purposes is of the female gender, but was born biologically a male cannot by treated by a gynecologist.

There are other, less obvious, distinctions as well. Yet, the wish of a person to be considered female must also be respected. Finding a balance should be a consensual and considered discussion, rather than one based on conflict and shouting others down.

keano_afc

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You took it upon yourself to define what constitutes being a woman and now you are complaining that you were met with abuse?
Mate, I'm a biological female and if you tweeted me with that crap you'd have been told where to shove it.

Nope, I merely asked a biological male to define what makes him a woman.

Stark

Hector Savage wrote: »

oh booo f*cking hoo and I was called specky 4 eyes when I first got glasses in school....

Stupid analogy. "Deadnaming" is more akin to an adult calling a gay person a ****** than it is to schoolyard teasing. It's something done deliberately to cause hurt/offence by people who are old enough to know what they're doing.

thewolfisloose

briany wrote: »

I doubt that, but then again I'm very cynical, as you know.

Yeah, I fairly walked right into that.. :rolleyes:

Sittingpretty

Stark wrote: »

Stupid analogy. "Deadnaming" is more akin to an adult calling a gay person a ****** than it is to schoolyard teasing. It's something done deliberately to cause hurt/offence by people who are old enough to know what they're doing.

I have to agree with this. I’d never heard of it before and I do think it’s very disrespectful, it’s not something I would ever do to a trans man/woman because it is only done to be deliberately hurtful in my opinion.

Sorry about that

thewolfisloose wrote: »

I am now anticipating a thread full of crybaby Father Ted fans. Boards seems to be full of them.

Irish people ruin Father Ted by relentlessly quoting it every chance they get.

Sorry about that.