Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

joeguevara wrote: »

Because firstly it’s inherently incorrect and basically back of a cigarette packet science. If you are going to get fully behind someone on a topic that is so complicated at least make the person a recognised medic or scientist rather than a kids author. Secondly, by her post she was denying transgender. It is a protected gender. Civil rights trump the ramblings of someone who hasn’t a clue what she is saying.

Excuse me? Stating that biological sex is real is “inherently incorrect”? Joe, seriously. And are you really, really saying here that you need to be a doctor or biologist to know that? I’m embarrassed for you. That’s mortifying.

If biological sex wasn’t real, there’d be no need for the transgender prefix.

super_furry

Cry-arsing onto Mumsnet at 3am in the morning is a sure sign you need help. It's basically a step away from telling McDonald's cashiers about your ex-wife and how she's turning the kids against you.

BarnardsLoop

Danzy wrote: »

Did you just assume my gender?

Wow what a le epic meme XD

Seriously, get some better material.

joeguevara

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Excuse me? Stating that biological sex is real is “inherently incorrect”? Joe, seriously. And are you really, really saying here that you need to be a doctor or biologist to know that? I’m embarrassed for you.

I never said that. I said that it’s incorrect to simplify biological sex to simply XY and XX. No need to be embarrassed for me, I would have assumed the same thing but then actually did a bit of research. I found this article fascinating. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

But I’m sure writing 6 or 7 books that’s basicallyabout a guy who cockbl0cked his two best friends makes her more of an expert on biological and neuro science.

Just to say I am know way saying that there’s countless genders and crazy stuff that’s spouted.

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

I don't understand the heat that twitter sometimes gets. If I launch a website and allow people to post on it, I can delete what I like, I leave up what I like, I am not responsible for the content, nor am I forced to leave everything up. I am not producing a publication. If you don't like my website, don't use it. Those who publish material on my website are responsible for what they publish.

That was exactly Twitter's argument for years. "Hey, we're just the middleman."

Facebook still defend that ground more resolutely.

It's why a lot of people want the likes of Twitter and Facebook nationalised, because it's the modern public square. If it was nationalised it would fall directly under the First Amendment.

Tony EH

Nationalise a private enterprise???

That's lefty Socialism talk that is!!!

Ya feckin Commie.

super_furry

Deleted User wrote: »

That was exactly Twitter's argument for years. "Hey, we're just the middleman."

Facebook still defend that ground more resolutely.

It's why a lot of people want the likes of Twitter and Facebook nationalised, because it's the modern public square. If it was nationalised it would fall directly under the First Amendment.

Ah yes, just like Karl Marx said, as working people must seize the means of production to be free, so should sh1t-posters seize the means of their internet rants.

Not sure how the American First Amendment helps Linehan mind you, but I'm sure a dedicated Marxist like yourself can work it out.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

joeguevara wrote: »

I never said that. I said that it’s incorrect to simplify biological sex to simply XY and XX. No need to be embarrassed for me, I would have assumed the same thing but then actually did a bit of research. I found this article fascinating. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

That’s an opinion piece by a partial author, not a peer-reviewed article. And it’s been widely criticised. Beloved of bovine ‘sex is a spectrum’ mouth-breathers though.

If there’s more than two sexes, can you named the third gamete? The fourth? The fifth?

Also, define ‘woman’ and ‘man’ without referring to either biological sex or gender stereotypes.

joeguevara

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That’s an opinion piece, not a peer-reviewed article. And it’s been widely criticised. Beloved of bovine ‘sex is a spectrum’ mouth-breathers though.

If there’s more than two sexes, can you named the third gamete? The fourth? The fifth?

Also, define ‘woman’ and ‘man’ without referring to either biological sex or gender stereotypes.

See the thing is I am not a scientist and have no qualifications to begin to answer what you have asked. The beauty of it is though because I’m not qualified I don’t go posting social media denying the existence of protected genders.

As for peer reviewed articles try this one https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001899

Smegging hell

super_furry wrote: »

Cry-arsing onto Mumsnet at 3am in the morning is a sure sign you need help. It's basically a step away from telling McDonald's cashiers about your ex-wife and how she's turning the kids against you.

Linehan tweeted a link to a thread on boards a few weeks ago so maybe he'll pop up here too.

Stark

For all we know, he's here already.

eviltwin

Smegging hell wrote: »

Linehan tweeted a link to a thread on boards a few weeks ago so maybe he'll pop up here too.

Wouldn't surprise me if he's here already

joeguevara

If he is here I just wanted to say ‘Deres more to oireland Dan dis’.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

joeguevara wrote: »

See the thing is I am not a scientist and have no qualifications to begin to answer what you have asked. The beauty of it is though because I’m not qualified I don’t go posting social media denying the existence of protected genders.

As for peer reviewed articles try this one https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001899

You... didn’t even read the abstract for this paper, did you? It says nothing about there being more than two sexes, it just outlines different way to confirm biological sex.

As for protected status, in the UK, where Rowling lives, sex is a protected characteristic distinct from gender. Sex-based rights (distinct from gender-based rights) exist there. Did you know that? And people like Rowling are being heavily criticised for wanting them to be preserved.

Also, LOL at you backing away from something you declared was “inherently incorrect” upthread. I mean, it was obvious you hadn’t a clue what you were talking about but such swagger.

Smegging hell

joeguevara wrote: »

If he is here I just wanted to say ‘Deres more to oireland Dan dis’.

Ooooh... scary Irish men. Would you like to recruit me? :P

joeguevara

Smegging hell wrote: »

Ooooh... scary Irish men. Would you like to recruit me? :P

Just listening to U2 in preparation for Sunday Bloody Sunday'. What a great song. It really encapsulates the frustration of a Sunday, doesn't it? You wake up in the morning, you've got to read all the Sunday papers, the kids are running round, you've got to mow the lawn, wash the car, and you think "Sunday, bloody Sunday!".

Stark

joeguevara wrote: »

See the thing is I am not a scientist and have no qualifications to begin to answer what you have asked. The beauty of it is though because I’m not qualified I don’t go posting social media denying the existence of protected genders.

As for peer reviewed articles try this one https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001899

I sort of feel we're disappearing down the same rabbit hole that the homophobia threads descend into in trying to find biological explanations to justify the existence of people who are differ to the majority. Ie: one side appealing to nature and saying that to express attraction to or identification with the "wrong" gender is "biologically unnatural" and therefore wrong, and the other side trying to come up with biological justifications such that homosexuality is present in non-human animals, or that differences in brain chemistry exist and the like. The "lifestyle choice" vs "born this way" arguments. As opposed to calling out the appeal to nature fallacy for what it is and how modern civilisation is far removed from how animals live or living purely according to our biological instincts.

People who differ to the norm deserve the same rights and respect as people who are "normal" as long as their differences are not doing harm to other people, simple as. No need to dig out the biology textbooks to try and justify it.

super_furry

super_furry wrote: »

Ah yes, just like Karl Marx said, as working people must seize the means of production to be free, so should sh1t-posters seize the means of their internet rants.

Not sure how the American First Amendment helps Linehan mind you, but I'm sure a dedicated Marxist like yourself can work it out.

I'm......

























































not a Marxist.

joeguevara

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You... didn’t even read the abstract for this paper, did you? It says nothing about there being more than two sexes, it just outlines different way to confirm biological sex.

As for protected status, in the UK, where Rowling lives, sex is a protected characteristic distinct from gender. Sex-based rights (distinct from gender-based rights) exist there. Did you know that? And people like Rowling are being heavily criticised for wanting them to be preserved.

Also, LOL at you backing away from something you declared was “inherently incorrect” upthread. I mean, it was obvious you hadn’t a clue what you were talking about but such swagger.

I admitted I don’t have a clue. I admitted I don’t have a real interest in the whole gender debate. Obviously I’m going to make mistakes. But i don’t publish hate speech. I don’t cause distress for people by denying their identity. I actually go by a live and let live philosophy. Better off.

If you want to preserve rights that means gender based rights are diminished, then It gets difficult because of the law.

But a person who isn’t an expert should err on the side of caution and think about the effect of tweets.

joeguevara

Stark wrote: »

I sort of feel we're disappearing down the same rabbit hole that the homophobia threads descend into in trying to find biological explanations to justify the existence of people who are differ to the majority. Ie: one side appealing to nature and saying that to express attraction to or identification with the "wrong" gender is "biologically unnatural" and therefore wrong, and the other side trying to come up with biological justifications such that homosexuality is present in non-human animals, or that differences in brain chemistry exist and the like. The "lifestyle choice" vs "born this way" arguments. As opposed to calling out the appeal to nature fallacy for what it is and how modern civilisation is far removed from how animals live or living purely according to our biological instincts.

People who differ to the norm deserve the same rights and respect as people who are "normal" as long as their differences are not doing harm to other people, simple as. No need to dig out the biology textbooks to try and justify it.

Agreed. Thanks for talking sense.

joeguevara

The discussion here has become tnettenba. I didn’t think I’d post overnumerousness posts on this issue. I only came here to drink milk and kick ass.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

joeguevara wrote: »

I admitted I don’t have a clue. I admitted I don’t have a real interest in the whole gender debate. Obviously I’m going to make mistakes. But i don’t publish hate speech. I don’t cause distress for people by denying their identity. I actually go by a live and let live philosophy. Better off.

If you want to preserve rights that means gender based rights are diminished,

But a person who isn’t an expert should err on the side of caution and think about the effect of tweets.

How so? And the implication here if that if gender-based rights aren’t to be diminished, then sex-based rights will have to be eroded. Are sex-based rights unimportant? Vulnerable women and girls rely on those rights.

joeguevara

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

How so? And the implication here if that if gender-based rights aren’t to be diminished, then sex-based rights will have to be eroded. Are sex-based rights unimportant? Vulnerable women and girls rely on those rights.

What are sex based rights specifically? I just read Rowlings open letter explaining her tweet and puts context. Sex based rights and gender based rights can do-exist. But if you want to preserve sex based rights because of selfish reasons and openly state that transgender as a fad and huge amounts have been brainwashed into it.

I do think that in such complicated topics where it can be quite emotive, it is a bit rich hiding behind free speech when you are limiting yourself to 280 characters. If you want free speech use it to its fullest.

joeguevara

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

How so? And the implication here if that if gender-based rights aren’t to be diminished, then sex-based rights will have to be eroded. Are sex-based rights unimportant? Vulnerable women and girls rely on those rights.

Youre right. I just wished everyone got along.

Btw love that word swagger.

joeguevara

People shouldn’t worry if they come from Iran. It doesn’t bother me where people are from Iran, France. I’m very modern.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

joeguevara wrote: »

What are sex based rights specifically? I just read Rowlings open letter explaining her tweet and puts context. Sex based rights and gender based rights can do-exist. But if you want to preserve sex based rights because of selfish reasons and openly state that transgender as a fad and huge amounts have been brainwashed into it.

I do think that in such complicated topics where it can be quite emotive, it is a bit rich hiding behind free speech when you are limiting yourself to 280 characters. If you want free speech use it to its fullest.

Not all of the following would be written into law but they all should be considered: single sex spaces such as domestic violence shelters, prisons, changing rooms. The right to have a female or male doctor - that one might not be written into law but it’s pretty important to a lot of people. A name might not denote femaleness or maleness but a woman may want a female doctor and a man may want a male doctor. A police officer carrying out a full body search - would a woman be able to object to a transgender police officer doing that search? Or vice versa for men? Biological males competing against women in sports.

So, what do you think? Is any of the above reasonable? Or is it selfish?

Another thing that nobody can explain to me is why transgender women’s safety fears are taken seriously by some who in the same breath dismiss women’s safety fears. Why is one taken seriously and the other not?

joeguevara

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Not all of the following would be written into law but they all should be considered: single sex spaces such as domestic violence shelters, prisons, changing rooms. The right to have a female or male doctor - that one might not be written into law but it’s pretty important to a lot of people. A name might not denote femaleness or maleness but a woman may want a female doctor and a man may want a male doctor. A police officer carrying out a full body search - would a woman be able to object to a transgender police officer doing that search? Or vice versa for men? Biological males competing against women in sports.

So, what do you think? Is any of the above reasonable? Or is it selfish?

Another thing that nobody can explain to me is why transgender women’s safety fears are taken seriously by some who in the same breath dismiss women’s safety fears. Why is one taken seriously and the other not?

None of that is unreasonable or selfish. I do like the mixed doubles in Wimbledon though. I think the world record for long distance breastroke is held by a woman and it’s the only sport where being a female is an advantage due to structure or something.

No safety fears should ever be disregarded. I hate people who do that. Similar to the huge disregard of domestic abuse against men. I do think that crazy decisions are made when it comes to this. The case of a transgender person who was housed in a woman’s prison sexually assaulting female inmates comes to mind. Probably implemented by a recently graduated academic with no clue of actions.

The Floyd p

I'm delighted he's been thrown off the platform, same as that Hopkins yoke, anyone who spews that much negativity deserves to be gone. He didn't have a dog in this fight beyond some half-hearted excuse about hating bullying, but still posted with such regularity that it became an obsession. Hopefully he can use this time to educate himself and better himself, ultimately.

joeguevara

The Floyd p wrote: »

I'm delighted he's been thrown off the platform, same as that Hopkins yoke, anyone who spews that much negativity deserves to be gone. He didn't have a dog in this fight beyond some half-hearted excuse about hating bullying, but still posted with such regularity that it became an obsession. Hopefully he can use this time to educate himself and better himself, ultimately.

Katie Hopkins, 45, has been permanently banned by Twitter for breaching its rules on abuse and hateful conduct.

I'm genuinely stunned.

Looking at her face, I thought she was 65.

dd973

Never really liked Linehan that much but don't know why he'd want to preoccupy himself with Trans people or LGBT politics, how does any of that stuff impinge on his life?