How did @Glinner become such an ass?


I tend to have a very hostile reaction to people flinging around lawsuits over the internet. It’s gotten worse lately, I can’t imagine why.

So Graham Linehan (TERF, Gender-Critical Feminist, flaming twit, whatever) saw a video over the weekend and immediately contacted his lawyer. I think he’s a bit touchy about his ugly history.

And here’s the video. Maybe Linehan was just feeding the controversy to help popularize it?

The title is accurate. Linehan does want to eradicate trans children; among the points the video makes, backed with citations from the scientific literature, is that conversion therapy is torture that does harm, increases unhappiness, and makes the victims more likely to commit suicide. Does he plan to go to court to defend his coterie of transphobic fanatics and their distortion of reality?

Comments

  1. harryblack says

    Such an absolute scumbag. Like so many men who take on such crusades, he doesnt care about the issue at all, he only cares that people who should not be speaking up, disagree with him and wont be silenced by his crappy arguments and shitty jokes about them.
    He feels bitter that the left has moved past him and must defend his ‘centre’ as the correct position and anything to the left of that as being crazy.
    People like him are so unused to non conservatives agreeing with them or being convinced by them that when they find a topic where this doesnt happen, instead of doing some self reflection and reading, it becomes like a popcorn kernel stuck in their teeth that they just cannot leave alone.

    See also Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher and so many others.
    Makes me wish cancel culture was real and effective.

  2. UnknownEric the Apostate says

    And of course, like clockwork, Michael Nugent weighed in on the wrong side of the matter by openly defending Glinner. The Nuge is one of the great certainties of life, like death… you just KNOW he’s going to be on the wrong side of everything.

  3. billseymour says

    I’ve given up trying to figure out why some people are so awful. I observe that the deplorables are out there, but I have no clue how holding such opinions is even possible.

  4. says

    “Does he plan to go to court to defend his coterie of transphobic fanatics and their distortion of reality?”

    But it’s his opinion! Because his opinion that some people should be harmed makes him a dangerous, edgy, free speech hero while Pink New’s opinion that he’s totally full of shit is an attempt by liberal Nazi Stalinist oppressors to force silence upon him. So he’s justified in using government force to silence PN for their expression of opinion so that he can fight for the right of people to express opinion without fear of being silenced by the government. It couldn’t be more clear and logical, right?

  5. bobphillips says

    Lawsuits or threats of lawsuits for defamation–especially when initiated by wealthier or more powerful people–are essentially SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) suits for the purpose of suppressing speech. Often done to bully and intimidate someone into silence when there is no realistic legal basis. Such is this case. Often, victims just give-in because of the potentially onerous burdens of defense. Some states don’t allow such suits when they pertain to political speech, such as at a public hearing or in a letter-to-the-editor, but president chickenhawk Bone Spurs wants to greatly broaden the use of defamation suits so he can be even more of a bully than he already is.

  6. elvishpresley says

    TERF is a slur, a word employed to inspire threats of violence as well as actual violence ( much like “communist” several decades ago and “witch” several centuries ago). But TERF is generally used to silence women, and Linehan is not a woman (lol, unless he suddenly comes down with a case of ROGD, in which case he will be immediate accepted and celebrated as a woman!). May I refer all the pearl-clutchers here to r/itsafetish, r/BadlyBehavedTRA, r/cance11ed, r/cisprivilegeisalie, r/thisneverhappens, and r/terfisaslur?

    Transing children who are too mentally and emotionally immature to sign binding legal contracts, marry, or even learn to drive is the epitome of foolishness. Some of these kids are still of the age to believe in Santa Claus, yet you think their belief that they were “born in the wrong body” is correct? That a boy who thinks he has a female brain or female soul is valid? Next you’ll be asserting that Otherkin, humans who think they have the souls or spirits of animals are valid!

  7. Porivil Sorrens says

    @8

    TERF is a slur, a word employed to inspire threats of violence as well as actual violence

    This is a bad thing how? It’s an insult, you aren’t supposed to like being called it. Much like “transphobic fuckhead waste of human genetic material, better suited for fertilizer than breathing” is an insult. Funnily enough, it describes the same group, too.

    But TERF is generally used to silence women

    Women who are transphobic, yes.

    Transing children who are too mentally and emotionally immature to sign binding legal contracts, marry, or even learn to drive…

    Does not happen. Applying puberty blockers is a safe and reversible process and there is not a doctor in the world that performs SRS on children.

    Some of these kids are still of the age to believe in Santa Claus, yet you think their belief that they were “born in the wrong body” is correct?

    Yes.

    That a boy who thinks he has a female brain or female soul is valid?

    Yes.

    Next you’ll be asserting that Otherkin, humans who think they have the souls or spirits of animals are valid!

    No.

  8. harryblack says

    Oh great. Another TERF out to make a martyr of themselves!
    I keep reminding myself that we are winning the culture war against bigotry on the whole and that the younger bigots will probably grow old alone with their younger relatives wanting nothing to do with them.
    Its a small comfort.

  9. John Morales says

    elvishpresley:
    TERF may be a slur, but it means exactly the same as TERFs’ own preferred term: ‘gender critical’. You know, like ‘racist’ and ‘race realist’.

    (Or: “A turd by any other name would smell as faecal” — with apologies to The Bard)

  10. cartomancer says

    On a purely procedural point, I should point out that this “Essence of Thought” video is not a production of Pink News, the LGBT+ news website. It is the creation of a different group who happen to have come to the same conclusions.

    Linehan’s response, above, is saying that he has already tried to sue Pink News over their article on this topic, posted the day before (https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/02/04/graham-linehan-database-gender-critical-gay-conversion-therapy-twitter-ban-anti-trans/), and that he is prepared to sue the Essence of Thought people over the same thing.

  11. says

    I have to point out that I know a number of people who are proud to call themselves communists, and a few other who are happy to call themselves witches. I’m an atheist, and that’s also been used as an insult.

    It’s only a slur if it is used inaccurately, to do harm and place the target in an outgroup. “Trans-exclusionary (that’s the whole point) radical feminist” is an accurate term to categorize certain people, and it places them in a group of fellow travelers who share that idea that trans people must be excluded from the principles of feminism. When they complain that it’s a slur, it means they’re aware of how repugnant TERF ideas are.

  12. says

    elvishpresley, that’s a rather disingenuous post. No matter what term someone uses, they’re still pointing at the same thing. What you’re actually opposed to is the disapproval people have for those who are anti-trans. Objections about what term is used distract from the issue. The heart of the matter is whether or not the disapproval is warranted. I think it is warranted. Referring to people who you disapprove of is not an incitement to violence, and it’s dishonest to claim that it is.
     
    It’s also dishonest to imply that those who are supportive of trans people are simply recklessly rushing in to have people transition without consideration. Further, you’re essentially saying that trans people are equivalent to a confused child with an inaccurate understanding of facts who just needs to be directed to look at reality. That is not what a person being trans results from. Basically, in early childhood, a person is imprinting in various regards based on pattern-matching processes. Some of the things a person imprints with are the characteristics that make an attractive mate, or something like an ideal self, both patterned after what they perceive around them.
     
    These processes tend to result in people finding the characteristics falling into the range seen in ‘the other sex’ to be more attractive, and for people to see the characteristics and social role of ‘the same sex’ to be the ideal that they identify with. Sometimes these processes do not have the common results, which often leads to people being socially rejected. That some people attempting to explain why they feel the way they do can come up with inaccurate explanations does not invalidate them desiring their ideal and being uncomfortable having the ‘wrong’ body and being treated according to the conformity to roles expected of people with that body. Nor does it invalidate them wanting to pursue their ideal, any more than an inaccurate explanation would invalidate a cis person who was to propose such an explanation for why they are cis. Those who are cis simply don’t have their identity called into question for this to come up, as they are in the ‘norm’.

  13. says

    @14 “TERF is a slur” only serves to distract the conversation and use our own values against us. All the status quo ever needs to do is play defense, at least in the grand scheme of things. If we’re distracted by arguments about what is or isn’t a slur, if we’re second-guessing ourselves to make absolutely certain we’re doing the right thing, they win because we’re playing their game.

  14. says

    elvish Presley

    TERF is a slur, a word employed to inspire threats of violence as well as actual violence ( much like “communist” several decades ago and “witch” several centuries ago).

    Oh do fuck off. The worst thing about “terf” is that it’s usually inaccurate as most of you are not even feminists, let alone radical.

    Some of these kids are still of the age to believe in Santa Claus, yet you think their belief that they were “born in the wrong body” is correct?

    I also believe kids that age when they tell me they are hurting. Or that somebody hurt them. Being small doesn’t mean they’re stupid. Apart from that, here’s what transitioning at that age means: different hair cut, different clothing, different name.
    Funny how the people how proclaim that they are critical of gender get so upset when somebody’s clothing and name and style does not confirm the norms associated with their genitals.
    Anyway, you people need to think way less about the genitals of kids depending on whether they’re Andrew or Andrea. It#s frankly disgusting.

  15. curbyrdogma says

    Behold, the titi monkey – an example of a monogamous species with very little dimorphism between male and female:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/aww/comments/50karh/today_i_learned_titi_monkeys_mate_for_life_and/

    …the macaw…
    http://parrotfeather.com/macaws/blue-and-gold/

    …the mourning dove…
    https://www.hbw.com/ibc/photo/eared-dove-zenaida-auriculata/male-courting-female

    etc.

    In humans, the gender issue really has more to do with fitting into human societal roles. And yes, there IS a very strong need to fit in. However, we continue to frame the whole gender issue in terms of dimorphic stereotyping: i.e. Boys must be THIS WAY and girls must be THAT WAY.

    …instead of rethinking our definitions like so: Boys can be THIS WAY or THAT WAY. And girls can be THIS WAY or THAT WAY.

    …because there is such a wide range of diversity among individuals among the human population. After all, us humans have been circumventing the selective forces that may have shapes us in our distant ancestral past. Our species has gone from a polygamous ancestry to a more monogamous lifestyle in which the majority of people get to reproduce future generations. We’ve also gone from a social environment that favored men who could do a lot of physical labor, to a society that is not as dependent on physical labor as it used to be.

    I would have to agree that going to such radical physical measures as castrating little boys or “neutering” little girls and then putting them on a lifelong program of artificial hormones — before they’re even old enough to decide to want kids — is a bit… drastic. …All because people would prefer to think along overly simplistic binary stereotypes that have their base in more archaic times, instead of rethinking our expectations about gender roles.

    Unfortunately, it is indeed quite pitiable that the only way otherwise educated people can respond to an opposing view is to react with namecalling and ad hominem attacks – which are generally a sign that you really have no argument.

    P.S. NO thanks to you for giving fuel to the right-wingers…

  16. specialffrog says

    curbyrdogma: This article is about someone suing someone to silence them for making a reasoned argument citing evidence. Yet the issue is that some commentators here did not take a seemingly bad-faith argument seriously (thought some have responded in a more detailed manner)?

    Do you support Linehan’s SLAPP suit?

  17. says

    curbyrdogma: What is your point? You talk about castrating and neutering being “drastic”, but no one is proposing to do that to children. It’s about giving them time to mature and become comfortable with their sexual identity. So you’ve already brought up a red herring.

    Complaining about namecalling is rather bizarre, given that a) the video is about the mistreatment of children by TERFs, and I don’t think calling someone a name is at all comparable to making children miserable with coercion, and b) namecalling is also not comparable to a threat of a GODDAMN LAWSUIT.

  18. ColeYote says

    @8: Out of respect for your wishes, I shall instead refer to you and people like you as “reactionary fuckwits.” It’s more accurate anyway.

  19. Porivil Sorrens says

    @20

    I would have to agree that going to such radical physical measures as castrating little boys or “neutering” little girls and then putting them on a lifelong program of artificial hormones — before they’re even old enough to decide to want kids — is a bit… drastic. …

    You’ll be glad to hear that this does not occur, then. There is no epidemic of doctors giving literal children Hormone Replacement Therapy and Sexual Reassignment Surgery.

    At most, they’ll be allowed to socially transition and out on puberty blockers, which are both safe and reversible.

    Whatever dipshit terf site you get your fearmongering bullshit from is lying to you. Please, seek to engage with the real world, and not the one that lives in the heads of reactionary fuckwits.

  20. Porivil Sorrens says

    Ironically, this is a post from curbyrdogma about a year ago.

    It’s gotten worse since the Internet became more “user friendly”. There have always been science deniers, but now the internet gives them a platform to spread their propaganda and misinformation and become more emboldened as a political force.

    Must be hard to practice what you preach and accept the overwhelming multidisciplinary consensus in favor of the validity of transgender people rather than regurgitating terf propaganda. Life comes at you fast, I suppose.

  21. Porivil Sorrens says

    Ah, makes sense, curbyrdogma is a longtime terf troll here, not a confused random.

    They defended RationalityRules’ bullshit transphobia last august, as well as numerous other unhinged drive-by posts defending terf dogma (to the point of calling trans women “she-men woman haters).

  22. KG says

    All because people would prefer to think along overly simplistic binary stereotypes that have their base in more archaic times, instead of rethinking our expectations about gender roles. – curbyrdogma@20

    Others have already dealt with the lie that children are being castrated or neutered, but here’s a slightly more subtle type of TERF dishonesty, which is at the heart of TERF’s preferred term for themselves: “gender-critical feminists” – the pretence that trans* people and those who support their rights do so because they are in thrall to traditional gender roles. In fact, many trans* people do not present themselves, or wish to do so, in anything like the stereotype of their preferred gender – and greatly resent the fact that they are often obliged to do so in order to obtain hormonal or surgical treatment. Gender identity and gender expression are different things, and if TERFs could only get this simple point through their thick heads, they might abandon their transphobia – at least, those for whom it is not simply an excuse to have a target of hate might do so.

  23. John Morales says

    Um, KG, re “if TERFs could only get this simple point through their thick heads”:

    You’re not suggesting they’re thick as in stupid, are you?
    Because that is not the case in general.

    Charitably, I think the ones who bother to justify their hatred believe in the binary state as a brute fact of nature and furthermore in its immutability. And, since that’s their initial premise, any further argumentation is futile.

    In short, any stupidity would be incidental and not necessary.
    Bloody-mindedness suffices.

  24. says

    To the question in the title: He perved on a trans woman and got turned down ala the the start of the gamergate crusade, I had some contact with the lady he was horny for.

    I’d link the recipts, but the tweets are currently protected.

  25. says

    In humans, the gender issue really has more to do with fitting into human societal roles. And yes, there IS a very strong need to fit in. However, we continue to frame the whole gender issue in terms of dimorphic stereotyping: i.e. Boys must be THIS WAY and girls must be THAT WAY.

    …instead of rethinking our definitions like so: Boys can be THIS WAY or THAT WAY. And girls can be THIS WAY or THAT WAY.

    …because there is such a wide range of diversity among individuals among the human population. After all, us humans have been circumventing the selective forces that may have shapes us in our distant ancestral past. Our species has gone from a polygamous ancestry to a more monogamous lifestyle in which the majority of people get to reproduce future generations. We’ve also gone from a social environment that favored men who could do a lot of physical labor, to a society that is not as dependent on physical labor as it used to be.

    I would have to agree that going to such radical physical measures as castrating little boys or “neutering” little girls and then putting them on a lifelong program of artificial hormones — before they’re even old enough to decide to want kids — is a bit… drastic. …

    This could be seen as ill informed if you hadn’t posted it directly underneath my comment where I outlined what transitioning for little kids means.

    All because people would prefer to think along overly simplistic binary stereotypes that have their base in more archaic times, instead of rethinking our expectations about gender roles.

    You’re barking up the wrong tree. For one thing, it’s not us who insists that sex and gender are binary. We acknowledge that there’s a whole range of human experiences and bodies. You’re the one who insists that a kid with a penis and testes cannot be called “Samantha” and “she”, wear a dress once in a while and have long hair (or not).
    It’s the “gender critical” side that has openly admitted that they’d rather have cis butch women discriminated against than trans women admitted, who insist that women mus look like and be some certain way. Absolutely every cis woman standing up for trans women against transphobes on the net has been called a man because we have been deemed “too aggressive”, “too loud”, “too assertive” and “full of male privilege”.

    Unfortunately, it is indeed quite pitiable that the only way otherwise educated people can respond to an opposing view is to react with namecalling and ad hominem attacks – which are generally a sign that you really have no argument.

    Cry me a river

Leave a Reply