Graham Linehan

[leicsmac]

33 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

I don’t deny that some people are bigots who object to others who are different simply because of who they are. What I’m saying is that these people are in the minority, and that the large majority of gender critical figures do not belong in this category. To repeat what I said above, most people have no problem whatsoever with gender nonconformity. A person choosing to present themselves in a way traditionally associated with the opposite sex is a complete non-issue for the majority of their fellow citizens. You may not believe that, but I assure it’s true.

 

The reason something that should be merely a matter of personal preference has become a public debate is because many of the demands that trans activists have made are highly contentious to say the least, and therefore cannot be resolved without being debated. The attempt by many of these activists to prevent this discussion from taking place at all by labelling their opponents as bigots and transphobes actually worked for a while because people initially feared these labels, but it isn’t working any more because people are becoming weary of being bullied into accepting things they don’t agree with. To cite just one example, I noted the other day that the academic Malcolm Gladwell is now saying that trans-identified males should definitely not be allowed in female sports,  having previously said they should be allowed. He admitted that he never really believed that males should be in women’s sports but was ‘cowed’ into saying that he did. 
 

I think many people are sick of being cowed into supporting certain things they don’t really believe in, and are becoming more confident in expressing what they actually believe. The tactic of silencing them with accusations of bigotry had its day, but that day has passed. It’s not going to work any more. The actual bigots you mention will never be won over because they’re, well, bigots. But the vast majority of people do not belong in this category - it’s just that many of them happen to believe in women’s sex-based rights and the protection of vulnerable people from potentially irreversible medical interventions they may later regret. 

 

 

No, I don't believe that, and given the massive and disproportionate body of evidence of discrimination and abuse, both institutional and everyday, past and present towards people of that demographic, I'm not sure why anyone would. It's incredibly disingenuous and hypocritical to dismiss it as a "few bad apples" as it appears here. 

 

However, this is both a subjective issue and one on which I know my own viewpoints aren't impartial, so IMO folks are welcome to think that way and I will simply disagree. 

[ClaphamFox]

6 minutes ago, Clogger_ said:

Can't argue that the RW press have provided a fertile environment for such views from "LW feminists" and religious types, among others.

 

For sure, feel emboldened to speak freely on this. As with the nutjob who this thread is about, the law is there to make sure that lines are not crossed. I'm sure nobody is happy for others look at them as a "bigot"... but folks are not going to wish that one away. As with "justifiable concerns" about boats etc, they can continue to look to those with a similar worldview for support.

Boats?

[urban.spaceman]

On 03/09/2025 at 17:25, The Doctor said:

And this is part of the problem with the fallout of all this - like I wouldn't expect him to be comfortable using those spaces, or for the women using those spaces to be comfortable either (and this is a judgment call trans people consistently have to make - how consistently am I read as my gender, what space is safer for me to use: like I stopped using men's spaces after multiple occurrences of blokes walking in while I was washing my hands, turning round, walking out to check the sign, then coming back and getting aggy with me). The proposed code of conduct would ban him from using the men's loos, but him having a huge beard and being visibly a man would also bar him from the women's. So, then the question is where the hell he goes.

People are far too concerned about their "legitimate concerns" without showing a shred of compassion or understanding to innocent people who just need to live a normal life. 

 

On 03/09/2025 at 17:25, The Doctor said:

People will say third spaces but a) those spaces don't exist yet, is he supposed to spend 6 months+ housebound waiting, and b) are those spaces ever going to exist, who the hell is paying for the entire country to be remodeled to provide extra space for 0.5% of the population. You can argue the accessible loos are third spaces, and I know several trans people who've considered getting radar keys for this purpose, but then is that also discrimination against disabled people if the accomodations in accessible loos aren't needed.

Accessible loos are probably the better option all round, especially as not all disabilities are visible. But I can understand why that wouldn’t be a good compromise for a lot of trans people as:

a) they may not like the implication that being trans is a disability (would gender dysphoria qualify as a mental health condition or neurodiversity? Apologies if that offends),

b) it would disqualify their gender identity from being considered, because it treats them as something outside of “male” or “female.” For many trans people, being recognised as the gender they actually are is the whole point — they’re not looking for a third category or a workaround, they’re simply asking to be accepted in the same way as anyone else. Having to sacrifice your gender identity just because you need a piss would be a constant, daily reminder that you’re an “other".

c) it would also put extra strain on the limited number of accessible toilets, which are already essential for disabled people who have no other option.

Side note, but one thing I really like about the 2020 expansion of the Phoenix is the new toilets down the end next to screens 3 and 4 - all private spaces, no having to be near other people. Would like to see that a bit more in other public places. 

 

On 03/09/2025 at 17:25, The Doctor said:

It is a serious problem with historical precedence (was termed the urinary leash back in the Victorian age when women were starting to have more entry into the public sphere), but rather than questioning that and how we're going to be able to participate fully in society, instead it's constantly about a writer from the 90s who's given up their actual career in favour of staring at random women's crotches looking for a penis like a demented game of wheres wally, and that that description doesn't actually narrow it down to a single person is insane.

That's just it. For so many social/cultural issues social media has turned the discussion into this constant battle about the worst aspects of the issue with seemingly very little progression. It's like we're stuck in ****ing Groundhog Day, just repeating the same arguments every day, achieving very little as we constantly bounce off progress and go back to the beginning. 

[The Doctor]

46 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

People are far too concerned about their "legitimate concerns" without showing a shred of compassion or understanding to innocent people who just need to live a normal life. 

honestly the compassion bit gets a bit dubious even with people who aren't claiming to just have "legitimate concerns". 

 

Like honestly, sexual harassment is common and ignored or treated as just normal questions. What do your genitals look like and are your boobs real are frankly insane questions to ask someone when you first meet them and frankly, I think most people would consider that pretty perverted if asked of a cis woman, and yet they're basically the first couple of questions trans women get asked by a lot of people (first one obviously rephrased as "so have you had the surgery"). 

 

Accessible loos are probably the better option all round, especially as not all disabilities are visible. But I can understand why that wouldn’t be a good compromise for a lot of trans people as:

 

a) they may not like the implication that being trans is a disability (would gender dysphoria qualify as a mental health condition or neurodiversity? Apologies if that offends),

 

b) it would disqualify their gender identity from being considered, because it treats them as something outside of “male” or “female.” For many trans people, being recognised as the gender they actually are is the whole point — they’re not looking for a third category or a workaround, they’re simply asking to be accepted in the same way as anyone else. Having to sacrifice your gender identity just because you need a piss would be a constant, daily reminder that you’re an “other".

 

c) it would also put extra strain on the limited number of accessible toilets, which are already essential for disabled people who have no other option.

 

Side note, but one thing I really like about the 2020 expansion of the Phoenix is the new toilets down the end next to screens 3 and 4 - all private spaces, no having to be near other people. Would like to see that a bit more in other public places. 

 

a) So there's two linked but technically separate diagnoses. Gender Dysphoria falls under the DSM-5 and so is classed as a mental health condition, but technically speaking it is the distress experienced as a result of Gender Incongruence, which is under ICD-11 as a sexual health condition, so overall, being trans is a sexual health condition, with a frequent concurrent mental health condition.

 

b) Honestly the issue with third spaces is less "is it invalidating" and more "is it safe". There are multiple reasons why the concept of 'going stealth' (completing transition and never mentioning that you're trans again, just living fully as your acquired sex) exists but one of them is a safety thing. It is dependant on where you live and the general vibe of the place but it can be unsafe to be visibly trans in the UK, and a not insignificant number of people who will get violent about it - so having designated trans toilets can also function as a big "attack these lot" beacon to those people.

 

c) this is my main objection. Technically I could argue having a disability (IBS) but it's not severe (hence why I don't consider myself to be disabled) and I don't need any adjustments in toilet facilities like hoists, handles etc, just somewhere to sit down long enough to let my bowels finish their impromptu battle of the somme recreation. It does not seem reasonable for me to then use facilities with those adjustments, depriving people who do genuinely need them.

 

That's just it. For so many social/cultural issues social media has turned the discussion into this constant battle about the worst aspects of the issue with seemingly very little progression. It's like we're stuck in ****ing Groundhog Day, just repeating the same arguments every day, achieving very little as we constantly bounce off progress and go back to the beginning. 

 

Twas ever thus. What's shocking is how much the mood has changed over the last decade. After Theresa May took power, she proposed a very dry update to the GRA - not a priority to most trans people I know, certainly not compared to the relative inaccessibility of healthcare (a typical timeline at this point to get from referral to receiving a prescription is 6-7 years, you can chuck on another 5 easily for any surgery, and that's assuming that your GP will actually fill the prescription - even though the NHS specialist gives the prescription and tells the GP exactly what tests to administer, with instructions to send it back to the specialist -so a GPs total involvement is write a prescription and request blood tests- many GPs will plead a lack of training on this and refuse to administer the specialists treatment plan. This is what needs radical reform, but we won't get it because people think it's handed out too easily, rather than being like a decades worth of fighting with the medical system).

 

It's a piece of legislation in dire need of an update and with some ridiculous functions (as a result, my tax records are inaccessible to regular HMRC staff, I have to go through a special branch like a secret agent ), but legislation with minimal impact, and so wholly uncontroversial that it had support from basically all major parties. But, a handful of rabble rousers started making up things that the legislation doesn't do (it doesn't administer spaces, it doesn't impact anything other than your birth certificate, marriage certificate and death certificate) and have through attrition basically eradicated a lot of basic rights (the entire legislation came about because Blairs government were dragged into it by ECHR, because not having gender recognition violates article 8 rights to a private life, which is then rendered essentially null and void through being forced to out yourself as part of participation in society).

[The Doctor]

bringing it back to the man in question, he's been in court this last two days on charges of harassment of a minor and has come out with some truly disturbing things

 

 

Like, these are not the actions of a mentally well man. Much as it's easy to say he deserves condemnation for allegedly harassing a legal child (17 at the time of the incident), standing up in court and declaring how familiar you are with different genres of porn as part of your defence is the behaviour of a man in desperate need of an intervention and rehab.

[ClaphamFox]

A very predictable but nonetheless welcome outcome to this: the Met is no longer going to investigate non-crime hate incidents.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/comedy-writer-graham-linehan-has-case-dropped-after-arrest-over-social-media-posts-13454029

[Trav Le Bleu]

3 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

A very predictable but nonetheless welcome outcome to this: the Met is no longer going to investigate non-crime hate incidents.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/comedy-writer-graham-linehan-has-case-dropped-after-arrest-over-social-media-posts-13454029

I think the problem here is it only further publicised his opinions.

[dsr-burnley]

13 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

I think the problem here is it only further publicised his opinions.

Is that a problem?  There are still a lot of people who think that women should not be allowed a private woman-only space to get dressed in.  Until that opinion goes back into the fantasy world where it belongs, or until we live in a world where women are no longer in danger from men, then it should be published loud and clear.

[urban.spaceman]

11 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Is that a problem?  There are still a lot of people who think that women should not be allowed a private woman-only space to get dressed in.  Until that opinion goes back into the fantasy world where it belongs, or until we live in a world where women are no longer in danger from men, then it should be published loud and clear.

Where are trans people supposed to piss? And why are they more of a problem than predatory men?

[Mark_w]

17 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Is that a problem?  There are still a lot of people who think that women should not be allowed a private woman-only space to get dressed in.  Until that opinion goes back into the fantasy world where it belongs, or until we live in a world where women are no longer in danger from men, then it should be published loud and clear.

Maybe the incredibly disproportionate time and energy that goes into whining about this could be spent on the much more significant issue of male violence if people actually want to improve things.

[Spudulike]

19 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Where are trans people supposed to piss? And why are they more of a problem than predatory men?

Unless they are biologically female then certainly not in a toilet marked women. That's just creepy.

[Trav Le Bleu]

51 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Is that a problem?  There are still a lot of people who think that women should not be allowed a private woman-only space to get dressed in.  Until that opinion goes back into the fantasy world where it belongs, or until we live in a world where women are no longer in danger from men, then it should be published loud and clear.

It was from their viewpoint, hence why they did it.

[dsr-burnley]

38 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Where are trans people supposed to piss? And why are they more of a problem than predatory men?

Trans people aren't the problem.  the problem is that far too many people think that it is fair and reasonable for ANY man, be he trans or predatory, to go into women's changing rooms and take off his clothes and be resent while they are taking off their clothes.

 

I think some poeple genuinely believe that making a rule that any person with a penis who says he is a woman  and is telling the truth should be allowed in, and any person with a penis who says he is a woman and is lying should be kept out.  It isn't a practical policy. If it is normalised for men to enter women's changing rooms, then the wrong type of man will do it.

[The Doctor]

15 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

I think the problem here is it only further publicised his opinions.

genuinely yes. Like, the idea for arresting him was incitement to violence right? in which case, what is more likely to have lead to it - his post being seen by the limited audience on twitter, or him being arrested and that post being widely reported on? Unless we take the position that he was likely to act on his own comments (and given the alleged behaviour in the case he was back in the country for, you can justify that, but that's not then incitement), arresting him actually caused greater danger.

[urban.spaceman]

4 hours ago, Spudulike said:

Unless they are biologically female then certainly not in a toilet marked women. That's just creepy.

So female-presenting trans women would have to go into the mens? Does that mean male-presenting trans men would have to go in the women's?

 

Side note, I wonder how many toilets these days are actually marked 'men' and 'women'.

[Spudulike]

35 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

So female-presenting trans women would have to go into the mens? Does that mean male-presenting trans men would have to go in the women's?

 

Side note, I wonder how many toilets these days are actually marked 'men' and 'women'.

Yes and yes. It's all about biology and making a stand (in the first question) for women's rights. A biological male should not be in women only spaces however they present.

 

If the toilet isn't marked by sex then its most probably a single room to be used by one person at a time.

[CornwallFox]

8 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Is that a problem?  There are still a lot of people who think that women should not be allowed a private woman-only space to get dressed in.  Until that opinion goes back into the fantasy world where it belongs, or until we live in a world where women are no longer in danger from men, then it should be published loud and clear.

Are there any statistics for the number of assaults perpetrated by trans men? I haven't seen any so no idea what they'd show but I'm also doubtful many people using this argument have seen any.

[CornwallFox]

2 hours ago, Spudulike said:

Yes and yes. It's all about biology and making a stand (in the first question) for women's rights. A biological male should not be in women only spaces however they present.

 

If the toilet isn't marked by sex then its most probably a single room to be used by one person at a time.

Tbh I don't really have strong opinions on this debate, but I will mention that biology isn't actually as clear cut as people seem to think.

[Parafox]

2 hours ago, Spudulike said:

Yes and yes. It's all about biology and making a stand (in the first question) for women's rights. A biological male should not be in women only spaces however they present.

 

If the toilet isn't marked by sex then its most probably a single room to be used by one person at a time.

 

There's more of these particularly in the newer public spaces like supermarkets. They also include baby change facilities and disabled access.

 

One bog fits all.

[Spudulike]

8 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Tbh I don't really have strong opinions on this debate, but I will mention that biology isn't actually as clear cut as people seem to think.

Are you David Lammy or the fruit cake from the Monster Raving Greens?

[CornwallFox]

3 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

Are you David Lammy or the fruit cake from the Monster Raving Greens?

Which bit of biology do you think is straightforward? 

[Spudulike]

1 minute ago, CornwallFox said:

Which bit of biology do you think is straightforward? 

FFS  

[CornwallFox]

3 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

FFS  

Caster semenya. Previous elite female runner, I believe not currently allowed to run as a female. 

Born with female genetalia on the outside, testicles on the inside. Has heightened testosterone.

Where do you think semenya fits in your simplistic world view?

And if you want to look at genetics, we're not all xx or yy. Xyy, yxx and other variations exist. 

[ClaphamFox]

13 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Caster semenya. Previous elite female runner, I believe not currently allowed to run as a female. 

Born with female genetalia on the outside, testicles on the inside. Has heightened testosterone.

Where do you think semenya fits in your simplistic world view?

And if you want to look at genetics, we're not all xx or yy. Xyy, yxx and other variations exist. 

Caster Semenya has a disorder of sexual development (DSD). DSDs are very rare. The vast majority of people, including trans-identified males and females, do not have DSDs. The existence of DSDs in leas than 1% of the population in no way challenges the fact that more than 99% of the population is unambiguously male or female. 

[CornwallFox]

30 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Caster Semenya has a disorder of sexual development (DSD). DSDs are very rare. The vast majority of people, including trans-identified males and females, do not have DSDs. The existence of DSDs in leas than 1% of the population in no way challenges the fact that more than 99% of the population is unambiguously male or female. 

Still where is semenya supposed to go? 

As I said, I don't have strong opinions on this issue in general, just don't like that the voice of women is generally being assumed by men, and serious assaults are being assumed linked to the trans community without any evidence given to support that. Feel like it's more about people not liking trans people than anything else.