Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

So we have had self id for years and nothing has happened yet.....

But we must be fearful of the consequences of self Id.....

Right......

Yes, a bit like the 8th amendment. Nobody died because of it until they did. I'm sure you remember the name Savita Halappanavar. A terrible law that had awful consequences not forseen, or wilfully ignored, by the majority at the time.

Thankfully we have removed such a poor law.

Annasopra

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Imo, the law should be that one goes to prison based on their gender however, one should only be able to change their gender once they have gone through a full transition.

Many trans people cant have surgery for medical reasons, many cant have surgery for financial reasons. Forcing them to have surgery is absolutely crazy and an abuse of human rights - Sweden had to drop forced sterilisation laws for example.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the venn diagram of posters who are defending Linehan and who are opposed to #metoo #ibelieveher is a perfect circle.

I’ve somewhat defended Linehan (though also think he has some mental issues) and I wasn’t opposed to #metoo. I thought it was for the most part a great movement. I’m more iffy on #ibelieveher. It’s almost like people are incredibly complex and can’t be slotted into neat little boxes.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah I've updated my post for you. This one is a from the law society

https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/male-bodied-transgender-inmate-housed-with-women-prisoners/

Funny, when I googled what you did, I got articles about a trans sex offender going into women's prison.

A person with charges of sexual assaults against women and children being housed in a women's prison... What could go wrong

And you'd be the first to bang on about how rape and sexual assaults are often unreported. So the lack of news coverage isn't indicative of it not happening by your own metric.

Also, a trans person gaining a promotion or a scholarship designed for the opposite sex is not going to make the newspapers here, but doesn't mean that it a glaring loophole that needs closing.

So you are saying that cis men claiming to be trans are raping women but we are not hearing aboutnit because of underreporting?

In that case 33 year old blonde men could be raping other men and we don't hear about it because it's underreported. Better ban all 33 year old blonde men from men's changing rooms.

Your whole argument is basically self id causes huge problems so the absence of any problems means they mustn't be being reported.

CtevenSrowder

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Many trans people cant have surgery for medical reasons, many cant have surgery for financial reasons. Forcing them to have surgery is absolutely crazy and an abuse of human rights - Sweden had to drop forced sterilisation laws for example.

Nobody is forcing anyone to have surgery.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

seamus wrote: »

Whatever your own personal issues with trans gender people, Linehan is definitely the wrong horse to back. Because of his actions, his wife has left him, his entire family have abandoned him, and his best friends and co-writers staged an elaborate intervention to try and pull him away from his obsessiveness.

Seamus, find me even one source that confirms the bolded part. Just one.

Or actually, any of the family stuff. I believe a brother-in-law once tweeted him saying “Stop this” or something. That’s it.

Name your sources.

suicide_circus

Akesh wrote: »

True but that is the accepted definition through critical theory which cannot be proven either way. There is absolutely no basis for proving something is a social construct or the result of culture. If you run a study and don't get the results you want you don't publish the data or restart the study.

The definition of gender has changed due to the offense it causes a tiny minority of the population.

I really don't know why anyone pays any heed to those who proclaim opinion as fact.

when there is no objective reality, nothing is provable, hence critical theory. It's utter balderdash of course, the worse kind of rambling nihilist drivelling **** but it's deciding national policy as we speak. Its our duty to resist, until we're sent for re-education of course

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

seamus wrote: »

Linehan was at it for months, and was found out a large number of times.

He has also been involved in doxxing plenty of individuals and has had restraining orders taken out against him for harassment.

He'd been outed a number of times trying to chat up trans women on Twitter and other platforms, and getting abusive and degrading when he was shot down.

Whatever your own personal issues with trans gender people, Linehan is definitely the wrong horse to back. Because of his actions, his wife has left him, his entire family have abandoned him, and his best friends and co-writers staged an elaborate intervention to try and pull him away from his obsessiveness.

Remember "Fr. Ted - The Musical"? Yeah, Arthur Mathews and Neil Hannon agreed to do that with Linehan in the hopes that he might be able to focus his mind and get him back to normality. That's why we've heard nothing about it since it was "nearly finished" two years ago; because Linehan doubled-down on his crazy and alienated his friends.

Even the loudest terfs who were initially the ones to push him on, have told him to get to fvck and stop trying to be a spokesman for women's rights. That's how toxic and insane Linehan has become.

Linehan's downfall is not due to "cancel culture", "PC gone mad", or "radical liberal trans activists". It's down to a man clearly falling into a spiral of mental illness and using his position and past works to amplify hateful and violent messages.

Luckily the people left on Twitter highlighting the erosion of sex-based rights are generally much more moderate than Linehan and anyone who goes after them will look completely insane. As we saw with the response to Rowling. The people instructing Rowling to suck on their girldick sure are on the right side of history.

And I will highlight again that much of your post there is based on gossip. Unless you’d like to produce some evidence?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

So you are saying that cis men claiming to be trans are raping women but we are not hearing aboutnit because of underreporting?

In that case 33 year old blonde men could be raping other men and we don't hear about it because it's underreported. Better ban all 33 year old blonde men from men's changing rooms.

Your whole argument is basically self id causes huge problems so the absence of any problems means they mustn't be being reported.

Another Cathy newman.....

That's not what I am saying. I am saying that housing sex offenders with male genitalia in a women's prison is a terrible idea and is only possible due to the self identification laws.

The fact that there is no report any rapes yet doesn't make it an acceptable situation to be occuring. There are plenty of examples from similar countries where rapes have occurred. Why must you wait until it happens before you do something about it?

And yes, perhaps I was glib with my underreporting comment but I though an intelligent man with a massive understanding of science such as yourself would have been able to see the actual point being made.

My whole argument is not that self ID problems are underreported. It is that they are absolutely countless ways it can be abused and looking at examples of where it has happened in countries similar to our own, it would be reckless and ridiculous to not close these loopholes.

Annasopra

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Nobody is forcing anyone to have surgery.

What do you mean here then?

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

one should only be able to change their gender once they have gone through a full transition.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It really isn't as simple as vagina= female not matter how much people want to say it is.

It really is. If you were born with one set of genitalia, then that's your sex.

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What do you mean here then?

How is that forcing anyone to do anything?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I agree. To an extent - the claim that women are 'more at risk' from people who are trans than from people who are cis males is not one I find credible.

As a biological woman who has been in a great many women only spaces where there were trans women not once have I ever been 'threatened' or treated in any way that made me uncomfortable. I cannot say the same about spaces I have shared with cis men. Now that is anecdotal sure, but my experience of being a cis woman in women only spaces is a lot more extensive than Linehan's or, indeed, any of the other knights in shining armour claiming to want to 'protect' me and other women.

I am merely pointing out how many so many people who would respond to the first tweet the way I described would also respond to the second tweet the way I described so perhaps you should speak the them not me about nuance and little brackets.

Can people stop with this stupidity?

I’m a biological woman, as are other posters here voicing concerns.

Here’s the thing: any biological woman who has no problem with sharing facilities with transgender women loses nothing either way.

Biological women who do have a problem with it have something to lose and are afraid to speak about it in real life. Anonymity on forums like this is all we have really. And even on here, we are assumed to be men.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Where is the proof that women are being targeted by trans women in women only spaces???

You know that many creepy to downright criminal things that happen to women and especially girls are never told to anyone, right? I’m sorry, but are you waiting for something awful to happen? Trusting that nothing has never happened because we’ve never heard about it is hopelessly naive. And I’m more interested in prevention.

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

How is that forcing anyone to do anything?

That is saying you cant get a gender recognition cert until you have had surgery e.g. Forcing surgery despite the fact most trans people dont have surgery and cant have surgery

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I am saying that housing sex offenders with male genitalia in a women's prison is a terrible idea and is only possible due to the self identification laws.

The fact that there is no report any rapes yet doesn't make it an acceptable situation to be occuring. There are plenty of examples from similar countries where rapes have occurred. Why must you wait until it happens before you do something about it?

I’ve already provided evidence that the vast majority of female victims of abuse in prisons are abused by other female inmates and staff (there are male prison officers in women’s prisons too, but the majority of abuse of inmates is carried out by female officers), and it’s only now violence against female inmates becomes an issue for you on the basis of male inmates trying to take advantage of a prison policy to get more lenient treatment? Prison inmates have been at the same sort of craic since prisons were first thought of.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

My whole argument is not that self ID problems are underreported. It is that they are absolutely countless ways it can be abused and looking at examples of where it has happened in countries similar to our own, it would be reckless and ridiculous to not close these loopholes.

What you’re describing aren’t anyone taking advantage of any loopholes in legislation. What you’re describing is a minority of people who are acting in bad faith, and it would be reckless and ridiculous to argue that a law which is intended to protect people from discrimination should be rolled back because there are a minority of people who choose to flout the law. We punish those people, we don’t punish people who are innocent of any wrongdoing.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I too find you extremely contradictory.

Your views are those of a TERF but you are not a feminist.

Gee, it’s almost like TERF is a moronic slur or something. I know this might be hard to comprehend but the people who want to protect women’s sex-based rights and sex-segregated spaces are many and varied. Left wing, right women, men, women, feminist. Maybe a dunderheaded slur doesn’t work. You could, you know, not use it?

Bannasidhe

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Loaded question? Yes, because you know the answer is no. You cannot change your sex. I'm talking of sex, biological sex. Even the case that you linked re the Dominican Republic:



The people are biologically male. I fail to see how it backs up anything you said. They can have operations to remove their penis that eventually develops, take hormones, but they are still biologically male. Likewise trans-people (trans-women in this context).

It is a loaded question until you clarify what the you think is the difference between 'sex' and 'gender'.

Either way 'change' is not the word I would use - I would use 'correct'. A mistake was made - as nature often makes mistakes - and a person ends up with a body that is the wrong sex/gender/whatever the hell you want to call it. The mistake is corrected.

CtevenSrowder

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

That is saying you cant get a gender recognition cert until you have had surgery e.g. Forcing surgery despite the fact most trans people dont have surgery and cant have surgery

As opposed to the opposite, which is forcing women to accept biological males into their spaces. Yet you think that's ok.

Mine is what I'd consider somewhat of a compromise.

CtevenSrowder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It is a loaded question until you clarify what the you think is the difference between 'sex' and 'gender'.

Either way 'change' is not the word I would use - I would use 'correct'. A mistake was made - as nature often makes mistakes - and a person ends up with a body that is the wrong sex/gender/whatever the hell you want to call it. The mistake is corrected.

The 'mistake' of being born biologically male or female cannot be corrected. I mean biological sex in the way that everyone means it bar a tiny lunatic fringe.

Bannasidhe

Gruffalox wrote: »

You are talking about intersex people.

As an example of how gender/biological sex is not a simple matter of what genitalia a person is born with - but you know that don't you.

All you are doing now is trying to take umbrage on other people's behalf by claiming I said something I didn't say.

Not very honest debating tactic now is it?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ve already provided evidence that the vast majority of female victims of abuse in prisons are abused by other female inmates and staff (there are male prison officers in women’s prisons too, but the majority of abuse of inmates is carried out by female officers), and it’s only now violence against female inmates becomes an issue for you on the basis of male inmates trying to take advantage of a prison policy to get more lenient treatment? Prison inmates have been at the same sort of craic since prisons were first thought of.





What you’re describing aren’t anyone taking advantage of any loopholes in legislation. What you’re describing is a minority of people who are acting in bad faith, and it would be reckless and ridiculous to argue that a law which is intended to protect people from discrimination should be rolled back because there are a minority of people who choose to flout the law. We punish those people, we don’t punish people who are innocent of any wrongdoing.

I'm a little oldschool in that thinking a man who raped women and children shouldn't be housed in a female prison.

Yeah, men get raped in male prisons and women get sexually abused in women's prisons. That is terrible and I never condoned it. But that still doesn't change the fact that it is absurd that a male rapist can self ID and be in a female prison.

How do you suggest we punish the people who flout the law when the legislation is so poorly thought through that there is no way you can question someone's gender for fear of being considered discriminatory?

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Another Cathy newman.....

That's not what I am saying. I am saying that housing sex offenders with male genitalia in a women's prison is a terrible idea and is only possible due to the self identification laws.

The fact that there is no report any rapes yet doesn't make it an acceptable situation to be occuring. There are plenty of examples from similar countries where rapes have occurred. Why must you wait until it happens before you do something about it?

And yes, perhaps I was glib with my underreporting comment but I though an intelligent man with a massive understanding of science such as yourself would have been able to see the actual point being made.

My whole argument is not that self ID problems are underreported. It is that they are absolutely countless ways it can be abused and looking at examples of where it has happened in countries similar to our own, it would be reckless and ridiculous to not close these loopholes.

Made up loopholes do not need to be closed. And if something hasn't happened in Ireland which has had self id for years then it's a made up loopholes.

For instance a Cis man could potentially rape another cis man in male prisons or male changing rooms. Is this a loophole that needs to be closed? Should we concentrate on the fact that it's exceptionally rare and unlikely and implausible in Ireland or should we aggregate over the entire world until we find one case and then make law based on that case?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

tigger123 wrote: »

What do you suggest happens to trans women then? We just ignore them and hope they go away?

Third spaces.

Transgender women can also use the male facilities. Now, that’s usually countered with “But that’s unsafe for transgender women”. It’s fair to point that out BUT then women’s fears cannot be then be dismissed. Anyone who takes transgender women’s safety fears seriously whilst dismissing women’s fears is nothing but a massive hypocrite, I’m afraid. And the transgender woman will have comparable physical strength to the man attacking her, where a woman will be at a physical disadvantage to the male-bodied person in her space.

CtevenSrowder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As an example of how gender/biological sex is not a simple matter of what genitalia a person is born with - but you know that don't you.

All you are doing now is trying to take umbrage on other people's behalf by claiming I said something I didn't say.

Not very honest debating tactic now is it?

For ~99% of people there are no complications. The definition extends beyond just genitalia-but you know that don't you. You are taking a very simple concept and trying to complicate it, muddy the waters as such.

Bannasidhe

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Bannasidhe, if that’s what you think, at least have the courage of your convictions and say that it’s what you think, not some unnamed ‘person’.

And your assertion is not correct for me personally. Biological female. Have had many things happen to me in my life that have highlighted my vulnerability as a member of the female sex class.

No doubt you have seen I already made reference in this thread today to people who claim to be about protecting women from predatory trans women yet would be the same people who cry foul at #metoo when it's predatory cis men are the subject. Those are the people I am referring to. The 'whim' was a reference to the suggestion that people will seek gender re identification on a 'whim'.

Yes, I do think it's a whim -I don't think the loudest voices give a monkeys about protecting women from trans people - they are simply transphobic.

jam_mac_jam

LLMMLL wrote: »

Made up loopholes do not need to be closed. And if something hasn't happened in Ireland which has had self id for years then it's a made up loopholes.

For instance a Cis man could potentially rape another cis man in male prisons or male changing rooms. Is this a loophole that needs to be closed? Should we concentrate on the fact that it's exceptionally rare and unlikely and implausible in Ireland or should we aggregate over the entire world until we find one case and then make law based on that case?

Is the issue of women's sport also a non existent loophole?

Annasopra

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

As opposed to the opposite, which is forcing women to accept biological males into their spaces. Yet you think that's ok.

Mine is what I'd consider somewhat of a compromise.

Its not a compromise. Its a human rights abuse because you are forcing it and many people cant medically have surgery.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm a little oldschool in that thinking a man who raped women and children shouldn't be housed in a female prison.

Yeah, men get raped in male prisons and women get sexually abused in women's prisons. That is terrible and I never condoned it. But that still doesn't change the fact that it is absurd that a male rapist can self ID and be in a female prison.

How do you suggest we punish the people who flout the law when the legislation is so poorly thought through that there is no way you can question someone's gender for fear of being considered discriminatory?

I suggest we punish people who commit abuse the same way we always have done. It’s not that the legislation is poorly thought out at all, as it’s intended to protect people from unlawful discrimination, not to enable people to commit abuse. What you’re suggesting is the equivalent of arguing that because there are some people who use marriage as a means to abuse people, we should prohibit everyone from being able to enter into marriage, just in case like.

Are you honestly suggesting that people who have a fear of being considered discriminatory for engaging in discrimination should be protected in law? You don’t imagine there would be anyone who would flout the numerous loopholes in that particular law do you?

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

It really is. If you were born with one set of genitalia, then that's your sex.

Then all those children in the Dominican Republic who grow a penis when puberty starts are female?

CtevenSrowder

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its not a compromise. Its a human rights abuse because you are forcing it and many people cant medically have surgery.

No-one is forcing it. They can have surgery or they cannot, it's up to them. There is nothing preventing them living their life as the gender they choose. If they do not, it will not be recognised legally.

Unless we find some other way of, for example, preventing biological males in women's spaces. I'm all ears. None is forthcoming.

What do you propose exactly? Or is it a case of women just having to suck it up? I won't hold my breath waiting for answer to these questions. We both know you won't answer them.