Thought Police: Are we allowed to query 'woke'?

[Rately]

I just remembered a bit in Jon Ronson’s fabulous book, ‘Them’. He meets with David Icke’s PA, who was in the midst of negotiations to get Icke into Canada. The Canadians were reluctant to grant Icke a visa on the grounds that the “space lizards” Icke claimed were running the world, was a dog whistle code for The Jewish Illuminati* Conspiracy. The Canucks considered Icke’s whole schtick to be antisemitic hate speech and didn’t want him spreading such throughout the great white north.

David Icke’s long suffering PA had to try to convince the Canadian officials that David Icke genuinely believed in Space Lizards.

*Illuminati came up in predictive text. Spooky

Such an interesting book and documentary.

Icke is such a bizarre, unbelievable character that i sometimes wonder if it is all an intentional, profitable grift, or he really is mentally ill. That appearance on Wogan would be enough to have most people committed, although it doesn't say much for us as a society, that rather than reach out to help someone they were instead slaughtered in the press.

[JayzusB.Christ]

I just remembered a bit in Jon Ronson’s fabulous book, ‘Them’. He meets with David Icke’s PA, who was in the midst of negotiations to get Icke into Canada. The Canadians were reluctant to grant Icke a visa on the grounds that the “space lizards” Icke claimed were running the world, was a dog whistle code for The Jewish Illuminati* Conspiracy. The Canucks considered Icke’s whole schtick to be antisemitic hate speech and didn’t want him spreading such throughout the great white north.

David Icke’s long suffering PA had to try to convince the Canadian officials that David Icke genuinely believed in Space Lizards.

*Illuminati came up in predictive text. Spooky

Such an interesting book and documentary.

Icke is such a bizarre, unbelievable character that i sometimes wonder if it is all an intentional, profitable grift, or he really is mentally ill. That appearance on Wogan would be enough to have most people committed, although it doesn't say much for us as a society, that rather than reach out to help someone they were instead slaughtered in the press.

It's a bit of a tightrope, though.  My friend's ex-housemate has severe mental problems, manifesting themselves in delusions of grandeur (he's a terrible painter and singer who thinks he's a prodigy), and conspiracy-fuelled racism.  You might have seen him on David Baddiel's holocaust documentary earlier this year, accusing Jews of eating babies and singing a song about how Auschwitz was great.  It's hard to feel sorry for the guy, and I don't feel too bad about laughing at him. 

A certain conman-turned-politician too is clearly mentally ill, spouting crazy conspiracies and referring to his 'own great and unmatched wisdom'.  Again, I don't feel a lot of sympathy, and wish the world would just leave him in the dust (even as he shapes the future for decades to come, and hastens global catastrophe).

I saw Icke talk once in Trinity College; I was a bit disappointed that he never once mentioned the lizard elite - it was all Illuminati this and Illuminati that.  You'd think the fact that the Science Fiction Society organised his lecture would have alerted him to how seriously people took him.

[TordelBack]

So too with Antifa, which has been retooled solely as a name rather than a statement of intent.  They aren't "anti-fascists", they're just "Antifa", the barbarians at the gates of civilised society who want to destroy it.

Even the way it's pronounced An-TEE-fah, so instead of obviously being anti- anything in particular  it sounds more like some sinister foreign foodstuff.

[Richard]

What I find even harder to understand, is why the likes of ... Rowling, whose audiences I would assume skew liberal/progressive, are willing to sacrifice their reputations and credibility to knock a minority down a peg?

I don't think Rowling was trying to knock anybody down. She was only saying, in a measured and respectful manner,  that women (other than trans-women) should have been consulted before allowing trans-women to share their public toilets. She then got shouted down by lots of people who said that she must be anti-trans and evil. Weird that what women think only matters if they became women post-birth.

You don't have to agree with her. But to write her off as some kind of far-right bigot because she isn't "woke" enough for you is part of the problem -- it divides people into camps and polarises what passes for debate, instead of engaging with different opinions and arguing about them. It's an ideological purity test, and if you don't pass then your opinion doesn't matter and no-one has to consider your point of view because you're cancelled. It's just another kind of intolerance.

[Jim_Campbell]

You don't have to agree with her. But to write her off as some kind of far-right bigot because she isn't "woke" enough for you is part of the problem

No. Sorry, this is nonsense. Rowling's TERF-ery is longstanding and far-reaching — she's even linked to an online store selling anti-trans rights merchandise recently.

(Incidentally, the whole women's toilet argument is ridiculous. Trans women can already use women's toilets. The idea that men will suddenly starting donning frocks and a bit of slap so they can rape women in pub toilets is farcical, given that historically men have never had much trouble raping women if they felt like it.)

Note also her choice of pseudonym — Robert Galbraith was famously an adovocate of "gay conversion therapy". That's not an accident. There is literally no way her lawyers, or her agent's lawyers, didn't check the provenance of the name extensively and she could easily have chosen another.

For Christ's sake, her latest Galbraith book is about a psychopath who dresses up as a woman so he can murder women.

And no one is "cancelling" her. No one has stopped publishing her books. No one has prevented her from pushing her (multiple) anti-trans messages on social media. She hasn't found herself unable to give interviews in national newspapers.

All that's happened is that she's used her considerable reach to spread a very ugly message and a portion of her audience has found that unacceptable and chosen to stop supporting her. As is their unquestionable right.

[Richard]

Oh dear, I didn't know about the website she endorsed or who the other Robert Galbraith was. I only knew about the statement she released at the time. That does rather undermine my point a bit!

[Funt Solo]

There's this debate at the core which is about what's seen as biological males starting to take control of feminism - that's clearly a heated debate. But is it wrong to debate it? Is it "far right" to want to defend a space that's been fought long and hard for (is being fought for) against what's seen from within as a radical takeover?

The web site that Rowling linked to is on one side of that debate. You can decry it as anti-trans, but its supporters would say it's pro-feminism. The actual t-shirt she was saying she liked just says "This witch won't burn!", which isn't (in and of itself) anti-trans.

---

For the pen name, she says she got if from JFK and an Ella Galbraith. The conversion therapy guy's surname is actually "Heath".

Perhaps people are seeing links because it fits their narrative?

[judgeurko]

There's this debate at the core which is about what's seen as biological males starting to take control of feminism - that's clearly a heated debate. But is it wrong to debate it? Is it "far right" to want to defend a space that's been fought long and hard for (is being fought for) against what's seen from within as a radical takeover?

The web site that Rowling linked to is on one side of that debate. You can decry it as anti-trans, but its supporters would say it's pro-feminism. The actual t-shirt she was saying she liked just says "This witch won't burn!", which isn't (in and of itself) anti-trans.

---

For the pen name, she says she got if from JFK and an Ella Galbraith. The conversion therapy guy's surname is actually "Heath".

Perhaps people are seeing links because it fits their narrative?

But there is no radical takeover.

[Funt Solo]

But there is no radical takeover.

That's an opinion from one side of the argument.

[Jim_Campbell]

Perhaps people are seeing links because it fits their narrative?

For Christ's sake, her latest Galbraith book is about a psychopath who dresses up as a woman so he can murder women.

[Jim_Campbell]

You can decry it as anti-trans, but its supporters would say it's pro-feminism.

Jesus. Did you look at some of that merchandise? “Trans women are men”…? “Sorry about your dick, bro”…?

It is anti-trans. There’s no “but both sides” there.

[Leigh S]

Explain the counter argument that makes  "Trans Women are Women" radical in a way that isnt offensive to men or transwomen though?  The argument would seem to be that non-trans men would cynically abuse the ability to access womens spaces or that trans women should be excluded as "not really women".  It's a presumption that men or trans-women are dangerous and cannot be trusted.  It has a whiff of "if we start letting blacks sit next to us on Public Transport".  TThat isnt to dismiss the fact some women might find it uncomfortable to perceive a male presence in an all female space, but if we go down the route of allowing for other peoples worst fears to govern other peoples Rights, then what alternative do you propose for Trans people?

I mean I am uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with anyone, so should my discomfort mean we remove all multi occupancy toilets from public spaces?  I demand it I tell you!


Or in shorthand, I'm with Tordelback and Jim on all points.

[Jim_Campbell]

Flip side of the TERF argument on women’s toilets is that if everyone has to use the toilet/changing room/whatever that corresponds with their assigned gender at birth, then they have no problem showering after the gym, or going for a pee, with these fantastic specimens…

[TordelBack]

The bathroom argument was used against black people in the US too, long after 'equality' was accepted in law. I mean, a person likes to feel at ease in the toilet, and could you really if one of them was in there with you?

https://progressive.org/op-eds/long-ugly-history-bathroom-segregation/

I really do sympathise with women's concerns about the Ladies as safe, supportive spaces (although my experiences as a public & nightclub toilet cleaner wouldn't support the idea that many are), but it does come down to discriminating against a whole group because of the potential malfeasance of a few. Perhaps the whole public bathroom model just needs to change, as it did in the US.

[Professor Bear]

Not really germane to this discussion, but I developed a theory in my first few years of gainful employment that most misogyny could probably be traced back to someone who used to have a job cleaning a nightclub's female toilets on a Sunday morning.

There's this debate at the core which is about what's seen as biological males starting to take control of feminism

Biological essentialism is a conservative talking point, so you can see why this might make TERFs a fringe group within any left-leaning movement.