Glinner: thread for backseat moderators and hand-wringing [split topic]

[Bernice]

Women's clothes already come in midget, giant, and enormously bellied, surely broader than average shoulders would be good for swimmers and stuff. And an increasing number of designers are making gender-neutral clothes. ASOS has a range, although many of them are awful, but that's true of ASOS's other clothes as well.

Just to be clear, I was taking the piss with those questions. But thanks for answering patiently.

[Pdine]

I think the question that this debate has raised for me is not about trans issues specifically at all. You can maybe state it briefly as:

What should society do if different groups claim rights that - although reasonable in themselves - end up being incompatible?

I think that the history of expanding civil rights has up to now not had too much of a problem with this. Granting the right to whites-only spaces to black people upset racists, but racists' rights to whites-only spaces were never reasonable in the first place. Giving gay people the right to marry upset some who felt that it impinged on or broke 'traditional' concepts of marriage, but in the end those supporters of 'traditional' concepts of marriage couldn't identify any real repercussions beyond uncomfortable feelings. Society found it relatively easy to weigh the rights of fundamentalist B&B owners against gay couple guests. The 'unacceptable cake messages' cases in the EU and US got closer to finding a really intractable conflict, but (a) they concerned a fairly niche right and (b) the outcomes in both cases were (I'd argue) in the end reasonable.

All of these are successful examples of balancing rights I'd say; not perfect, but earnest and labourious attempts to find a societally sanctioned ethical basis for declaring where a line between conflicting rights lies. I don't think, though, that the fact that these examples worked out means that we will always be able to find such a line. Maybe in some cases there is no ethically justifiable line, there's just two groups with two views that in isolation seem fine but in combination cause conflict and upset. What do we do then?

One possibility is arguing that - where no agreed line can be drawn - society's role is to step back and just attend to practical outcomes. We do this with religions, obviously, where society feels no particular need to reconcile conflicting supernatural beliefs because in practice they don't usually result in conflicts. Catholics and Protestants believe different things about the physical process of communion/transubstantiation, but as it happens (or doesn't) in the privacy of people's throats, there's not much scope for practical contention. By this view society should step in either (a) where there is an ethically justifiable line to be drawn or, if there isn't then (b) where conflicts of rights result in actual harm. I think I agree with that view, but I'd be interested to hear other views. Should society always try to make a ruling once there's a public conflict occurring? Should society never try to make a ruling, and just devote energy to stopping people actually hurting each other?

[JaDanketies]

law and legislation should go for the least-harm approach.

[Pdine]

law and legislation should go for the least-harm approach.

Sure, but should they also try - where possible - to make a general declaration about which outcome of the conflict is least harmful? Trying to rule case-by-case on cake messaging is going to get hard quickly...

[JaDanketies]

Sure, but should they also try - where possible - to make a general declaration about which outcome of the conflict is least harmful? Trying to rule case-by-case on cake messaging is going to get hard quickly...

If it's evidence-based rather than based off gut instincts or casual bigotry, then yes of course.

[GoblinAhFuckScary]

I think that the history of expanding civil rights has up to now not had too much of a problem with this.

See: Gay rights

Not seeing your point as much more than semantics how this specific emancipation movement is so unique.

[Pdine]

If it's evidence-based rather than based off gut instincts or casual bigotry, then yes of course.

Yes absolutely... I'm just struck by how in some cases the evidence seems bluntly obvious - as with desegregation - whereas with others it becomes a more 'legislate and observe' strategy. I suppose my point is that not every kind of conflict can be resolved cleanly, obviously and without need for ongoing monitoring.

[Pdine]

See: Gay rights

Not seeing your point as much more than semantics how this specific emancipation movement is so unique.

I don't think it is unique, but I think it's harder to do right. I also think we will encounter more examples in future that are hard, because they will also involve conflicts that need deep thought and real, unbiased measuring of outcomes. Maybe the easier battles have been won already?

[dissolute ocelot]

I don't think there's anything new or difficult raised by trans people. For a long time there have been issues such as whether the Roman Catholic church, conservative Jewry, golf clubs, and freemasons should be forced to give women, gays, trans people, Irish, Jews, blacks, and other groups equal rights, but the consensus seems to be that public services must be for everyone but you let the nutters do what they want as long as it's in private and they're not actively inciting hate.

[JaDanketies]

I would think a more tricky balancing act that you couldn't defer to 'experts' or 'whatever produces the least harm' would be intentional race segregation. For instance, the Bahar Mustafa controversy from a few years ago, but writ large. It's one thing to host an event that is targeted towards women or ethnic minorities, and it's an arguably trickier proposal to host an event that white people or men are forbidden from attending. You'll be hard-pressed to convince people that it's okay to prevent people from accessing public or private spaces based on their gender or race, because they're part of the 'oppressor class'. Bahar Mustafa also compounded the problem by saying things like #killallmen - and if you're doing that in combination with throwing events they're forbidden from accessing, it's hard to say 'I'm only joking about kill all men, and anyway this is not really sexist because of issues of power and privilege and it's something that I should be allowed to do.'

I kinda think that this whole 'all white people and men are awful, and it is fine for me to say this' political movement died a death anyway a few years ago but I wouldn't be surprised to see it re-emerge.

When Bahar Mustafa happened, I was not very sympathetic, and I think things like that could've been used to subsume me into the alt-right. As it happens, it was a big hullaballoo about nothing and I can't believe I even cared about it.

Other things that I don't think should be a challenge but I can imagine getting a lot of societal pushback include:

• Gender segregation in religious facilities
• Ritual circumcision of infants

nothing to do with Glinner though

[chveik]

I think the question that this debate has raised for me is not about trans issues specifically at all. You can maybe state it briefly as:

What should society do if different groups claim rights that - although reasonable in themselves - end up being incompatible?

hmm. this might look like you're implying that terfs are actually reasonable.

[Pdine]

I don't think there's anything new or difficult raised by trans people. For a long time there have been issues such as whether the Roman Catholic church, conservative Jewry, golf clubs, and freemasons should be forced to give women, gays, trans people, Irish, Jews, blacks, and other groups equal rights, but the consensus seems to be that public services must be for everyone but you let the nutters do what they want as long as it's in private and they're not actively inciting hate.

What I struggle with, though, is whether it will always, necessarily, be easy to steer that course (or to put it another way whether we will always be able to build a consensus provided people behave reasonably)? I'd like to think yes, but I can't see any particular reason why that should be true.

I would think a more tricky balancing act that you couldn't defer to 'experts' or 'whatever produces the least harm' would be intentional race segregation. For instance, the Bahar Mustafa controversy from a few years ago, but writ large. It's one thing to host an event that is targeted towards women or ethnic minorities, and it's an arguably trickier proposal to host an event that white people or men are forbidden from attending. You'll be hard-pressed to convince people that it's okay to prevent people from accessing public or private spaces based on their gender or race, because they're part of the 'oppressor class'. Bahar Mustafa also compounded the problem by saying things like #killallmen - and if you're doing that in combination with throwing events they're forbidden from accessing, it's hard to say 'I'm only joking about kill all men, and anyway this is not really sexist because of issues of power and privilege and it's something that I should be allowed to do.'

I kinda think that this whole 'all white people and men are awful, and it is fine for me to say this' political movement died a death anyway a few years ago but I wouldn't be surprised to see it re-emerge.

When Bahar Mustafa happened, I was not very sympathetic, and I think things like that could've been used to subsume me into the alt-right. As it happens, it was a big hullaballoo about nothing and I can't believe I even cared about it.

Other things that I don't think should be a challenge but I can imagine getting a lot of societal pushback include:

• Gender segregation in religious facilities
• Ritual circumcision of infants

nothing to do with Glinner though

Thanks for that, and yes it's an interesting example because it's a conflict that - as you say - could have been more divisive and important if it hadn't just fizzled. I do think that this question is relevant to the Glinner thing, but only because an appreciation of how complex this kind of thing can be should make it easier to not get enormously angry with people who disagree with one about rights.

[Endicott]

hmm. this might look like you're implying that terfs are actually reasonable.

Yes, this. Summed up far better that I could. All the conflicts are strawmen.

[Pancake]

Can't believe there's a Glinner red button!

[Pdine]

Yes, this. Summed up far better that I could. All the conflicts are strawmen.

Why do you say that?

[GoblinAhFuckScary]

I think this argument stems from the assertion that there are no reasonable grounds for differentiating between trans women and women. This implies that sexual dimorphism isn't a reasonable ground for such a distinction. I agree it's a reach to then argue that this implies that sexual dimorphism is irrelevant in all cases, but I think that's where that view starts.

Going in circles pal

[Pdine]

Going in circles pal

I think you're taking something from that I didn't intend, which is my fault as reading it back it is very unclear :)

[PlanktonSideburns]

What should society do if different groups claim the right to exist rights that - although reasonable in themselves - end up being incompatible?

[Blue Jam]

The right to exist? That settles it then. Glinner is a shit Kafka. Trans Kafka. Woke up one day and realised he was an insect, crushed on the windshield of his own racecar bed.

[Blue Jam]

.

[GoblinAhFuckScary]

The right to exist? That settles it then. Glinner is a shit Kafka. Trans Kafka. Woke up one day and realised he was an insect, crushed on the windshield of his own racecar bed.

Oh my God.

[Pdine]

What should society do if different groups claim the right to exist rights that - although reasonable in themselves - end up being incompatible?

I'm confused now... that isn't a quote from me. I posted the bits that aren't in bold. If you're saying that an example of a conflict of rights might be one group wanting a right to exist, and another group wanting the right to eliminate the first, I'd say that would be a simple case for society to rule on: everyone has a right to exist. As I say though, I don't really feel I understand your post enough to respond sensibly.

[Endicott]

Why do you say that?

Sorry for the delay. Take encroachment into safe spaces as an example. The claim is that one logical consequence of self-id is that it will allow men to enter women's refuges. But this is a distortion. It is easily refuted because women's refuges are not places that are open to any woman, they are controlled spaces and whomsoever runs a refuge can exclude anyone they want if they think that person is going to disrupt the space. Hence the claim fits the definition of a strawman.

[Polymorphia]

I just want to say something, and I don't want it to disrupt discussion here. But it does seem weird that cis people here are so obsessed with Graham Linehan even at this point, tracking every move he makes, making claims about where this may have come from. Maybe the reason is evident in my post above (the absurdity of a known comedy writer descending into... this). But it does seem that Linehan's influence is incedibly diminished. Incredibly.

To some extent it's good, keeps a track on him, though some people have wondered if Linehan browses this forum, in which case:
- Doesn't posting here fuel him, if he reads this forum?

This ain't an indictment or nothing, and I don't want Barry to send this post to that other thread. Just an observation which I think is pertinent. I'm in other trans groups online (for your information, I'm trans - my gender is yet to be worked out, but it's something fem), and even the British members there have no real idea of what Linehan's doing, because he's really fallen out of relevance. Completely and totally, and they don't (from experience) want to hear about what's happening to him now. He's just on his shitty substack. At this point, countless pages in threads give him more credence than he deserves, really.

I'm willing to agree to disagree on this (really, only with trans people, and I mean that). The last posts of what he's posted on his substack made me feel sick, and honestly, who sees those posts but a few followers and us?

Huh, new page - wish it was better than this. Also, feel free to continue posting as you were (I say, hoping you don't give this fuckhead the pages he doesn't deserve)

[JaDanketies]

Well this is a forum about UK comedy rather than trans issues, so natch there's an interest in Linehan particularly.


I started posting here because I had a mawkish interest in him and this board was a large and amusing depository of info.

[Ferris]

It's fair enough, and it gets asked from time to time (not least by people who post in here regularly). I can't speak for everyone, but here's my take on it. I hope this doesn't come across as a vent - it isn't meant to. This is something I've been thinking about as well, so am I ok with this thread, and why do I think it is justifiable?

For me, the considerations fall into two broad categories; should we respond to him (especially now that he is diminished)? And does posting here fuel him further? My answers only apply to me, and hopefully they explain why I still follow this thread (albeit with periods of not giving a fuck).

To cover off point 1 - I never go looking for his content. He could post whatever outrageous nonsense he wants and I'd have absolutely no idea. Neither would the vast majority of people anywhere, even online comedy nerds like me. A few people will post it in here, and a few people (myself included) will respond to it. And that speaks to your point - nobody will see this. I'm not posting on behalf of a national news organization, CaB is not a major platform - he has his grubby corner of the internet and we have ours. As long as we strive to avoid interaction (and we should avoid direct interaction with him), this is so absurdly niche as to not merit damage to anyone. Commenting from the sidelines is fair enough, especially as he is the person who is regularly making his opinion as public as he can. It's not seeking out some anonymous blog poster - he's in Hansard with this shit and it appears to be a constant, unending stream. If he knocked it on the head for 2 months this thread would die on its arse, but it won't because he can't.

But should we track his every move? No, I don't think so, and I don't think we do really. We follow him closer than anyone else, because this is a comedy forum and he's a former comedy writer responsible for a lot of incredible stuff (albeit approaching 30 years ago). If Chris Morris had depth-charged his career by publicly devoting his every waking moment to Britain First (for example), then yeah I'd expect this is exactly the type of place to cover it (and likely, the only one). I also think the thread (broadly) has reasonable boundaries. We shouldn't (ever) mention his family - response to his public proclamations is fair enough but that should the limit of it.

Last point on him being diminished - yes, he is now a bit of a nobody, but once upon a time (ie a year ago) he used his niche celebrity to harm people. Pile-ons against female and male comedians, all round bullying, and just being a prick. He was banned for that (eventually) because people saw it and said "this is not ok". In our own way, that is exactly what we are doing - what he's up to is not ok. I have queer immediate family and I'm not going to skip a response to his latest escapades on a niche forum that no one will ever see because it hypothetically makes him feel better.

Finally - does this thread fuel him? Well, I think we're well past that. I think everyone would be happier if he stopped using the internet and sorted himself out a bit (I say as much every few pages), but he won't and Christ knows a thread on CaB isn't going to be the catalyst for him to give it a rest (or to continue). He's plowing his own furrow, and I don't think a few dozen strangers on the internet will impact that really. As someone put it earlier, him saying "I won't stop" actually means "I will continue to do this" and there's a big difference.

Ultimately, he can do what he likes. There's nothing a niche forum with a few dozen users can do to him that Real Life hasn't done already, and equivocating on the sidelines won't change that.

[Polymorphia]

Thanks for the replies, you all. I think I feel a little better about this. Maybe my despair is more about Linehan (once, a genuinely great writer) than this forum, and the forum consistently showing his downfall brings me more into despair. I guess, given it effects me specifically (and other users present here, and in this thread), seeing his nastiness really disgusts me, and likely much more than the average (cis) person here.

I'd hate to see yet another thread have to be made about him. A ninth thread. Let's hope not.

Maybe I'm more worried about cis users here descending into almost monomania about him, in a topic they have no real experience of. To cis people, Linehan's transphobia is merely an oddity, but to trans people (like me, and others here) it's genuinely fucking scary, and has precedent in day to day life

[idunnosomename]

except when we invaded his new substack to call him a cunt I don't think he's ever acknowledged us. if you search "Graham Linehan" on Google the first page, other than his wiki, is all news bits about how he's anti-transgender. not sure how many pages till we show up.

hey though he's still repped
https://www.independenttalent.com/writers/graham-linehan/

that executive producer/co-creator credit doing a lot of heavy lifting for the four-year gap on your CV eh graham

[bgmnts]

To cis people, Linehan's transphobia is merely an oddity, but to trans people (like me, and others here) it's genuinely fucking scary, and has precedent in day to day life

I'll be honest, that sounds a little presumptuous to me.

I think most cis people do genuinely care about these horrid people and the damage they could do to whatever marginalised group they want to aggressively oppress.

[Polymorphia]

I'd cut out "most", I doubt most cis people even have the slightest idea of trans issues.

I don't doubt your views or your emotions in holding them. I'm absolutely certain you care and I genuinely believe that. But what is to cis people "oh hell, trans people have this against them" feels like an actual fucking wall of death to me, and many other trans people