Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

OscarMIlde

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Claiming to be a molecular biologist is clearly not the same thing as being a molecular biologist... or do you imagine that your claims should simply be taken at face value, or add any kind of authority to your opinions?

Even if you actually are a molecular biologist, the title alone doesn’t indicate anything as to your ability, and if I were going off your opinions alone, I would never imagine you actually are a molecular biologist. In short, I couldn’t care less for whether or not you’re a molecular biologist, it’s only your opinions I’m interested in, not your academic qualifications or work experience. I’d only be interested in those if I were considering you as a potential candidate for employment, and fortunately you’re not the only molecular biologist I could choose from.

I’m prepared to take you at face value though for the sake of discussion, though your fallacious appeals to authority mean nothing. It would be rather like JK arse kissing Stephen King when she thought he agreed with her, and then withdrawing her fawning praise when she realised he didn’t :pac:

So firstly you claim that the biology is too complex for me to understand because I didn't elucidate on precisely every aspect of how someone develops into a fully formed adult of their biological sex, a task that could fill a textbook and still give an incomplete view. Then when I mention that I am, and I really am, a molecular biologist, with a degree, PhD, years of postdoctoral basic research experience and clinical experience, you decide I am 'appealing to authority'. This from the person who claimed on the J.K Rowling thread that people were using scientific arguments and words to sound clever.

You can't argue with the actual points people make about biology, so you resort to whataboutery of 'future knowledge' and class them as close minded. When called on the regressive nature of the stereotypes transwomen adopt when claiming to 'know' they are really a woman you claim to disagree with such stereotypical views. Your positions are logically inconsistent and I don't understand why someone would be so intent on defending the ideology behind such views when they also claim to not agree with labelling and putting people into boxes based on their sex.

One eyed Jack

OscarMIlde wrote: »

I'm not ignorant of the cultural ramifications of science. We held regular ethics classes in undergraduate where we hashed out real world implications of scientific advances. However really none of the arguments brought forward by either you or Jack have anything to do with science. When you're pressed on biological realities the issue is either avoided by not replying directly or clouded in paragraphs of irrelevant waffle. The closest either of you get to defining why transwomen are women is stereotypical guff about wearing feminine clothes and womanly feelings, whatever the hell they are.

Hold your horses there a minute, Jesus :pac:

Don’t be conflating my opinions with someone else’s as though I ever thought I had to bring forward a scientific argument in the first place. I don’t, because human rights aren’t based upon science, I’m sure you covered that in your ethics class. You haven’t pressed on anything even close to biological reality either btw with your opinions being limited to talking about chromosomes for the most part, and when I invited you to talk about the role of hormones - nothing!

I haven’t even attempted to define “trans women” because I just don’t use the term, and I have already given how I define women, nothing about feminine clothes and womanly feelings, that’s JK’s territory the whole “womanhood” gig, as though the term somehow means inalienable rights pertaining to women only based upon nothing more than feelings of feeling safe or unsafe. That’s why I criticised the stereotypical characterisation of women in need of protecting from men. It amounts to nothing more than fearmongering nonsense.

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Attempting to alter these signalling pathways in pre-teens/teens to 'treat' transgenderism has untold effects on all these areas. The signalling pathways of cells are incredibly complex and difficult to elucidate. No one can state with any certainty that these hormonal interventions are safe. Children being given these treatments are guinea pigs. They will certainly suffer from it if a few years down the line they decide they actually want to 'revert' to their real biological sex, as it is not possible to reverse the effects of these hormone treatments. I don't see how children are psychologically, emotionally or mentally well equipped to make life changing decisions such as these. In addition they most likely will be at increased risk of hormonally driven cancers in later life.

You know just as well as anyone else does that nobody could offer complete 100% guarantees of any outcomes with regard to the safety of a paracetamol tablet, so merely stating that hormone treatments which have been in use since the 70’s are unsafe is bringing nothing new to the table. That’s why patients have multidisciplinary teams of a whole plethora of medical professionals, so they aren’t simply guided by your having the willies that this stuff is experimental and therefore must be bad because unknown consequences. That’s not a scientific argument. It’s an argument based entirely on your own feelings.

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Yet you blithely advocate for 'treatments' such as these, despite the medical and psychological risks attached, and claim that I am the one lacking scientific, sociological and philosophical acuity. It would be laughable if it didn't have such serious real world implications.

What’s laughable is your claim that I ever advocated for these treatments when I have said only recently that I do not support the pathologisation and medicalisation of children, and therefore I do not support current aims to have the age at which children are recognised in Irish law as their preferred gender reduced from 16 (it’s normally 18 but 16 in exceptional circumstances). I must have explained it numerous times already that rights are matters of law, not science, and on the basis of anything you have written above, I see no evidence that you actually do possess the scientific, sociological and philosophical acuity to be able to understand that human rights are matters of law, not science, and your credentials as a molecular biologist are about as useful as tits on a bull in that arena.

Gruffalux

OscarMIlde wrote: »

I'm not ignorant of the cultural ramifications of science. We held regular ethics classes in undergraduate where we hashed out real world implications of scientific advances. However really none of the arguments brought forward by either you or Jack have anything to do with science. When you're pressed on biological realities the issue is either avoided by not replying directly or clouded in paragraphs of irrelevant waffle. The closest either of you get to defining why transwomen are women is stereotypical guff about wearing feminine clothes and womanly feelings, whatever the hell they are.

The reality is we are not hermaphrodites, it is not possible to change biological sex. There are some people who due to developmental defects will not have fully developed as a distinct biological sex, we class these people as intersex. Development is a highly complex process, and the full biological development of a human occurs not just in utero but continues throughout life, with the full adult expression of the biological sex of a person manifesting during puberty.

The hormonal cascades of puberty are not just linked to development of functional adult gonads and secondary sexual characteristics like breast development, deepening voice and facial hair. They also effect the developing brain and growth of a person.

Attempting to alter these signalling pathways in pre-teens/teens to 'treat' transgenderism has untold effects on all these areas. The signalling pathways of cells are incredibly complex and difficult to elucidate. No one can state with any certainty that these hormonal interventions are safe. Children being given these treatments are guinea pigs. They will certainly suffer from it if a few years down the line they decide they actually want to 'revert' to their real biological sex, as it is not possible to reverse the effects of these hormone treatments. I don't see how children are psychologically, emotionally or mentally well equipped to make life changing decisions such as these. In addition they most likely will be at increased risk of hormonally driven cancers in later life.

Yet you blithely advocate for 'treatments' such as these, despite the medical and psychological risks attached, and claim that I am the one lacking scientific, sociological and philosophical acuity. It would be laughable if it didn't have such serious real world implications.

Just to quote again
Thanks

One eyed Jack

OscarMIlde wrote: »

So firstly you claim that the biology is too complex for me to understand

No I did not, and further to that I invited you to crack on if you had a point to make about hormones.

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Then when I mention that I am, and I really am, a molecular biologist, with a degree, PhD, years of postdoctoral basic research experience and clinical experience, you decide I am 'appealing to authority'. This from the person who claimed on the J.K Rowling thread that people were using scientific arguments and words to sound clever.

You are appealing to authority, and again - I don’t care for your credentials. I’m only interested in your opinions.

OscarMIlde wrote: »

You can't argue with the actual points people make about biology, so you resort to whataboutery of 'future knowledge' and class them as close minded.

I could if you had one, but you don’t, all you’ve managed so far is to allude to chromosomes and displayed no evidence of knowledge I would expect you would have as a molecular biologist. I never referred or insinuated that anyone who disagrees with me was closed minded btw, and in fact if you were bothered you’d have seen where I said I understood where Cteven was coming from, I don’t agree with where he’s coming from, but I have a better understanding of where he’s coming from now at least. Closed minded? I don’t think so.

OscarMIlde wrote: »

When called on the regressive nature of the stereotypes transwomen adopt when claiming to 'know' they are really a woman you claim to disagree with such stereotypical views. Your positions are logically inconsistent and I don't understand why someone would be so intent on defending the ideology behind such views when they also claim to not agree with labelling and putting people into boxes based on their sex.

No I didn’t claim to disagree with such stereotypical views. You really ought to read what I actually wrote because based upon the evidence so far, I’m beginning to doubt whether you’ve ever so much as opened a science book tbh. I said that I couldn’t be arsed with that new fangled nonsense, but if you want to challenge it, more power to you. There’s still nothing scientific about that though, it’s entirely your own political hobby horse.

Gruffalux

OscarMIlde wrote: »

All of the people listed are biologically women apart from trans women, who are biological males who feel like they are or want to be women. They are however not women, no matter how much this fact hurts their feelings.

And this.
All the other adjectives supplied in that post merely describe the already extant category of woman who is biological adult human female. Trans as an adjective cannot constrain or change the reality of that category. The attempt to turn the word trans in this instance into merely another descriptor of the ontological fact of biological woman is what is an exercise in propaganda. Transwoman is not a subset of woman. It is a category of its own, if one does not want to go so far as to upset people and say it is a subset of male. And saying this does not negate the existence of transwomen or transmen and affect at all ones ability to respect, admire and protect them. It is just stating truth, which is important to do.

AndrewJRenko

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

My issue is self Id, at least in its current format.

Have any particular difficulties arisen for you in the five years of self id in Ireland?

CtevenSrowder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have any particular difficulties arisen for you in the five years of self id in Ireland?

Oh we're back to this old chestnut. Been answered already.

suicide_circus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Claiming to be a molecular biologist is clearly not the same thing as being a molecular biologist

Beautiful. Sublime.

Can anyone else see where I might be going with this quote?

sydthebeat

suicide_circus wrote: »

Beautiful. Sublime.

Can anyone else see where I might be going with this quote?

The ironing is delicious

jam_mac_jam

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Oh we're back to this old chestnut. Been answered already.

This has been used constantly to avoid answering a question. You are not allowed bring anything up if it's not a major issue in Ireland.

BattleCorp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You are appealing to authority, and again - I don’t care for your credentials. I’m only interested in your opinions.thing scientific about that though, it’s entirely your own political hobby horse.

I would have thought credentials as a molecular biologist would be important in a discussion about what is essentially a topic that biology plays an important part of the discussion?

One eyed Jack

suicide_circus wrote: »

Beautiful. Sublime.

Can anyone else see where I might be going with this quote?

Yep, on your way to catching up with the response I gave already I would think -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well it’s ok too for anyone to claim they are a molecular biologist, it’s still different than being a molecular biologist? That’s not what I had an issue with, my issue was with the idea that simply claiming to be a molecular biologist should lend weight to a person’s opinions. It doesn’t, any more than claiming to be any gender lends any weight to the idea that they are that gender?

You left out the bit where I said I was prepared to take the poster at face value, I’d do the same for anyone claiming to be of a particular gender. That in and of itself makes no odds to me whatsoever.

However, if they were to claim that as a molecular biologist they recommend that an infant be subjected to unnecessary surgical procedures, then we might have an issue (for a couple of reasons, not the least of which being that a molecular biologist wouldn’t have the authority to make such a recommendation!), but if someone were simply claiming to be of a particular gender? Fcuk it, you do you and all that. I couldn’t care less, no impediment upon my life whatsoever.

I’ll still treat both the molecular biologist and the person who claims a particular gender the same as I would anyone else, and if they’re one and the same person - a molecular biologist who doesn’t conform to gender stereotypes, it’s still all the one to me tbh.

Sittingpretty

BattleCorp wrote: »

I would have thought credentials as a molecular biologist would be important in a discussion about what is essentially a topic that biology plays an important part of the discussion?

You’d have to give that response an 11 out of 10 for its sheer gall though.

Sudden Valley

This thread has become a carbon copy of the Jk Rowling thread with the same arguments from the same people on both sides might as just combine them as people are going round in circles at this stage. I don't think the thread title is even correct - Linehan has got a lot of stick for questioning trans ideology but he wasn't kicked off twitter for that.

Where exactly do all these commentators go when they kickedoff twitter(e.g. Katei Hopkins, Milo etc.) and do you make any money being on Twitter?

One eyed Jack

BattleCorp wrote: »

I would have thought credentials as a molecular biologist would be important in a discussion about what is essentially a topic that biology plays an important part of the discussion?

As I said already, even in that discussion, it wouldn’t be their credentials that matter, it would be their opinions, if the conversation were solely about biology. It’s not about biology as far as I’m concerned, it’s about people’s freedom to be protected from discrimination, and in order for that to happen they must first be recognised in law, as opposed to simply being recognisable under an electron microscope by a molecular biologist.

seamus

Sudden Valley wrote: »

Where exactly do all these commentators go when they kickedoff twitter(e.g. Katei Hopkins, Milo etc.) and do you make any money being on Twitter?

They usually end up getting kicked off all their platforms in time. I don't think anyone makes money from Twitter, but it's a lead generator for other platforms like YouTube or Twitch where they do make money.

When they're left with nowhere else to go, they typically end up on the scrap heap, going bankrupt and starting back at zero.

They'll have made a few friends in wealthy circles who'll give them a quiet job with a steady income, but they'll be kept well out of the spotlight.

Linehan should have enough of his own money that it's not an issue for him. This is an entirely personal crusade.

CtevenSrowder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If you REALLY want to prevent women being sexually assaulted or raped, you have lots of actual targets available to you, such as the men who assault, sexually assault and rape women every day here.

But instead, you focus on one very narrow theoretical niche scenario.

I'm not too convinced about your objective here.

Those men aren't put into prison with women. The 'niche' scenario you talk of was played out in Britain, with disastrous consequences. So it is not theoretical.

Gruffalux

seamus wrote: »

They usually end up getting kicked off all their platforms in time. I don't think anyone makes money from Twitter, but it's a lead generator for other platforms like YouTube or Twitch where they do make money.

When they're left with nowhere else to go, they typically end up on the scrap heap, going bankrupt and starting back at zero.

They'll have made a few friends in wealthy circles who'll give them a quiet job with a steady income, but they'll be kept well out of the spotlight.

Linehan should have enough of his own money that it's not an issue for him. This is an entirely personal crusade.

Funny though that the MAPS and NOMAPS dont get kicked off Twitter. The anime accounts allowed to discuss minor attraction. And elsewhere the subreddits like deadeyes, rapekink, abusedsluts, slaveauction, and strugglefcuking remain but not gender critical. Where exactly is this other scrapheap that could possibly be more vile I ask meself.

seamus

Gruffalox wrote: »

Funny though that the MAPS and NOMAPS dont get kicked off Twitter. The anime accounts allowed to discuss minor attraction. And elsewhere the subreddits like deadeyes, rapekink, abusedsluts, slaveauction, and strugglefcuking remain but not gender critical. Where exactly is this other scrapheap that could possibly be more vile I ask meself.

You know, you're basically going to have to explain your post to me. I gather you're talking about some dark corners of reddit that have yet to be banned, but outside of that I'm lost.

It's pretty universal that the more high-profile you make your hate speech, the more likely you are to be kicked off a platform in a blaze of glory.

Reddit has a poor record on ousting toxic groups across a wide spectrum. They generally seem to take the approach of ignoring it until someone is doxxed, killed or injured or until there's a possibility the site staff could get in legal trouble.

ancapailldorcha

seamus wrote: »

You know, you're basically going to have to explain your post to me. I gather you're talking about some dark corners of reddit that have yet to be banned, but outside of that I'm lost.

It's pretty universal that the more high-profile you make your hate speech, the more likely you are to be kicked off a platform in a blaze of glory.

Reddit has a poor record on ousting toxic groups across a wide spectrum. They generally seem to take the approach of ignoring it until someone is doxxed, killed or injured or until there's a possibility the site staff could get in legal trouble.

On my phone, Reddit's turned their logo black presumably as an empty gesture of support for BLM while profiting handsomely from hosting all sorts of hateful and bigoted nonsense for years.

I've no idea what those two groups are either.

Wibbs

Gruffalox wrote: »

Funny though that the MAPS and NOMAPS dont get kicked off Twitter. The anime accounts allowed to discuss minor attraction. And elsewhere the subreddits like deadeyes, rapekink, abusedsluts, slaveauction, and strugglefcuking remain but not gender critical. Where exactly is this other scrapheap that could possibly be more vile I ask meself.

Yep the platform does seem to have a set of biases alright, though I would reckon it's much more about what's going to hit their bottom line(or they think will), what is getting the most attention currently and the number of voices calling for action and censure on particular subjects. So in this case there are more and louder voices speaking out against and calling for action over what they see as transphobia than those speaking out against the other subjects above. Add in that trans is more in the public eye and discourse than the others and with more famous people in the mix and you have the squeaky wheel gets the grease protocol. If say "strugglefcuking"(the hell?) garnered more attention from the loudest voices calling for action you'd get action.

AndrewJRenko

Gruffalox wrote: »

"Second, regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime. By contrast, female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls (aHR 4.1; 95% CI 2.5–6.9) but did not differ from male controls. This indicates a shift to a male pattern regarding criminality and that sex reassignment is coupled to increased crime rate in female-to-males. The same was true regarding violent crime."

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

You're still focusing on that very, very narrow niche.

What proportion of violent crimes against women are carried out by trans women?

AndrewJRenko

Gruffalox wrote: »

Hibo Wardere lives in the UK. You can see parts of it across the sea from places here on clear days! She is from Somalia. It is in the UK that she is accosted by UK bullies who attack her for speaking out on UK soil about female genital mutilation. FGM that happens in the UK. Because using the word female is transphobic. Did the women who call other women in this thread hear that - Hibo Wardere is a transphobe too. Good company for me. Fantastic woman.

FGM happens here too, but we don't get quite so much tweeting and posting about the dangers to women from FGM, strangely enough.

AndrewJRenko

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Oh Gruffalox, did you not get the memo that informed boards.ie users that they may only discuss things that happen in Ireland? We’re not allowed to care about or discuss things that happen anywhere else. Got it?

:pac:

Pure strawman there.

You are welcome to care about anything and everything.

It is the inconsistency of the passionate search across the globe for trans issues to get excited while ignoring the very real dangers to women and girls from men today that bothers me a little.

CtevenSrowder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

FGM happens here too, but we don't get quite so much tweeting and posting about the dangers to women from FGM, strangely enough.

Ah yes, FGM. Another bastion of 'Diversity' and 'multiculturalism' that we all have to pretend is so fantastic, cheered on by the likes of you know doubt. So FGM and male rapists in women's prisons. What else have you got up your sleeve to **** women over with?

AndrewJRenko

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Oh we're back to this old chestnut. Been answered already.

And the answer is still 'none' - no issues arising.

AndrewJRenko

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Ah yes, FGM. Another bastion of 'Diversity' and 'multiculturalism' that we all have to pretend is so fantastic, cheered on by the likes of you know doubt. So FGM and male rapists in women's prisons. What else have you got up your sleeve to **** women over with?

I think you've missed the point just a little bit.

CtevenSrowder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And the answer is still 'none' - no issues arising.

And? There were no issues arising from the 8th amendment until there was. It took 30 plus years and the death of a women to undue that complete monstrosity of a law. I merely suggest we don't go down the same path again.

Gruffalux

seamus wrote: »

You know, you're basically going to have to explain your post to me. I gather you're talking about some dark corners of reddit that have yet to be banned, but outside of that I'm lost.

It's pretty universal that the more high-profile you make your hate speech, the more likely you are to be kicked off a platform in a blaze of glory.

Reddit has a poor record on ousting toxic groups across a wide spectrum. They generally seem to take the approach of ignoring it until someone is doxxed, killed or injured or until there's a possibility the site staff could get in legal trouble.

My point is, as any honest reading would allow, that Twitter or any of these platforms do not have a moral compass that is somehow guiding them. They claim to have, but they are wholly amoral.
Half of all child abusive content found online was on Twitter in 2019. https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2019/11/twitter-has-the-most-child-abusive-content-out-of-all-social-media-platforms-report.html?m=1

They set themselves up as curtailing hatespeech etc but what they engage in is politically correct expediency. They are amoral as long as they are PC. Their terms and conditions permits discussion of paedophilia. They link to youtube where minors can post their video journeys through getting a neo vagina but other content can be deplatforned. When Tumblr brought in their no nudity policy they made a specific derogation for post op trans images.

It is quite clear that a specific type of debate is being censored. Granted some of the parties may be rude and ignorant and I do not support that, but other extremely rude and ignorant people are allowed to remain. Rachel McKinnon famous transwoman cyclist wished that all cis people would die in a grease fire. McKinnon retains their account. Plenty of death and rape threats are levied online at people who critique gender theory and your line that Twitter, like some poor addled benign grandpa seeking out all the rudeness within its remit, has just not yet gotten round to banning those arseholes is frankly bullsh1t.

CtevenSrowder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I think you've missed the point just a little bit.

Oh you had a point did you? Bringing up FGM in a debate such as this; one may call that deflection.