4 ms·

Graham Linehan is an example of nothing other than how to tank your marriage, friendships, and any semblance of a professional career over a misguided moral cru

Graham Linehan is an example of nothing other than how to tank your marriage, friendships, and any semblance of a professional career over a misguided moral crusade. He was a well-known and liked figure in Ireland off the back of Father Ted, Black Books and the IT Crowd. He was a huge blogger and early presence on Twitter, with both him and his wife being public feminists and supporters. He was also - and this is the important bit - a public advocate and supporter for the pro-choice position in our abortion referendum, which gave him some sense of intellectual and moral security in his heartfelt positions, as well as a huge fanbase. Unfortunately some of his previous advocacies evolved into TERFs, and he with them. This then became a mono-crusade under the guise of standing up for the women in his life and women in general. Slowly but surely his fanbase, his professional connections, and society at large fell out of step with him. https://metro.co.uk/2021/02/23/graham-linehan-joins-queer-womens-dating-app-her-stunt-14130662/ https://metro.co.uk/2021/02/23/graham-linehan-joins-queer-wo... As his antics became more extreme and problematic in their optics, his friends, his family, and his Wife begged him year after year to stop sabotaging his own existence before eventually having to leave him. He's dug down so far at this point that he's being courted by Joe Rogan, which is probably the saddest bit of this entire story.

SideburnsOfDoom 11mo ago
This recent interview piece is instructive: https://observer.co.uk/culture/interviews/article/graham-linehan-wont-shut-up https://observer.co.uk/culture/interviews/article/graham-lin... The interviewer is clearly sympathetic to Mr Linehan and their personal views are not opposed. But nonetheless they end up thinking "I tried to understand why I couldn’t get through, why the piece I’d wanted to write for years would be a failure" - because the guy is an obsessive, unwell crank, that's all. It is a sad story.
gadders 11mo ago
[flagged]
- ben_w 11mo ago
  The UK Supreme Court ruling went out of its way to say that it wasn't vindicating any such position, saying: It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy. The principal question which the court addresses on this appeal is the meaning of the words which Parliament has used in the EA 2010 in legislating to protect women and members of the trans community against discrimination. Our task is to see if those words can bear a coherent and predictable meaning within the EA 2010 consistently with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“the GRA 2004”). (Para 2) and The court also concluded that a biological sex interpretation would not have the effect of disadvantaging or removing protections from trans people. This is because, in addition to protection based on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, they would also be protected from discrimination based on being perceived as or associated with a sex which differed from their biological sex (paras 249-261). - https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10259/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-... Unfortunately, it was taken as vindication of the anti-trans position by all public commentators regardless of the commentators themselves were pro or anti.
  - siddge 11mo ago
    That's because the Supreme Court's job is statutory interpretation, not making political statements. But given that it's such a politically divisive topic, I think it's clear they felt the need to remind readers of the FWS judgment that it's about the former and not the latter, and that it should be considered in this framing. That it also happens to be a major and very welcome win for women's rights is orthogonal to the intentions of the UKSC.

SideburnsOfDoom 11mo ago

This recent interview piece is instructive: https://observer.co.uk/culture/interviews/article/graham-linehan-wont-shut-up https://observer.co.uk/culture/interviews/article/graham-lin... The interviewer is clearly sympathetic to Mr Linehan and their personal views are not opposed. But nonetheless they end up thinking "I tried to understand why I couldn’t get through, why the piece I’d wanted to write for years would be a failure" - because the guy is an obsessive, unwell crank, that's all. It is a sad story.

gadders 11mo ago

[flagged]

ben_w 11mo ago
The UK Supreme Court ruling went out of its way to say that it wasn't vindicating any such position, saying: It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy. The principal question which the court addresses on this appeal is the meaning of the words which Parliament has used in the EA 2010 in legislating to protect women and members of the trans community against discrimination. Our task is to see if those words can bear a coherent and predictable meaning within the EA 2010 consistently with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“the GRA 2004”). (Para 2) and The court also concluded that a biological sex interpretation would not have the effect of disadvantaging or removing protections from trans people. This is because, in addition to protection based on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, they would also be protected from discrimination based on being perceived as or associated with a sex which differed from their biological sex (paras 249-261). - https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10259/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-... Unfortunately, it was taken as vindication of the anti-trans position by all public commentators regardless of the commentators themselves were pro or anti.
- siddge 11mo ago
  That's because the Supreme Court's job is statutory interpretation, not making political statements. But given that it's such a politically divisive topic, I think it's clear they felt the need to remind readers of the FWS judgment that it's about the former and not the latter, and that it should be considered in this framing. That it also happens to be a major and very welcome win for women's rights is orthogonal to the intentions of the UKSC.