In Defence Of Graham Linehan; Part 1

Part Two That Newsnight Interview            Part Three A Glinner of Cope 

In the war between trans rights activists and feminists, the first descriptor you'll hear is 'toxic'. And it is toxic, with some obnoxious and sinister characters. 

So, if you had to guess, who would you would you pick as the worst? Deserving of relentless ridicule and abuse? 

Some are rapists, like Allison Woolbert and Karen Lawson or David Challenor. 

Sophie Labelle aka Assigned Male, who is a 'little', did 'diaperfur' cartoon characters based on photos of real life babies. 

Lorelai Bailey built shinigami eyes and has been accused of rape by multiple people. Jess Bradley, Lily Madigan and Eli Erlick (archived article here) have all been accused of sexual assault. 

Alok "Dark Matter" Vaid-Menon, who thinks little girls are 'kinky'? 

Dana McCallum, twitter engineer, who mocked women for fearing rape, then raped his ex-wife? 

Dana Rivers?

Eli Erlick still has a platform and is treated as if relevant, appearing on Vice debate panels and Doctor Phil recently

Keffals? 

How about India Willoughby - the racism, homophobia, the misogyny? 

Willoughby, who on Big Brother loudly castigated 82-year old Amanda Barrie, (after she'd already apologised for misgendering) shouting what I imagine is a mantra forever on cognitive loop:

"I am a woman. A real woman. A real woman, Amanda. Good, I'm glad it's sinking in, so I'm gonna say it one more time so it really penetrates - I. Am. A. Real. Woman"?

No, it would appear that the most hated is on the other side. 

-

I could continue listing bastards and firing references / ad homs into the void. I could bore a desensitised audience with the ferocious campaign of harassment, threats and insults from activists - and I'm gonna be doing a bit of that, anyway - but - this isn't about who is bad. This is about someone who is good. 

Unlike those above, Graham Linehan, aka Glinner, is not a racist or a misogynist, or a rapist. It looks unlikely he grooms unhappy kids and secretly sends them bathtub estrogen, or compiles vast hit lists of heretic women and, unless he's a truly evil genius, he's never annihilated an entire family. 

No. I'm afraid it's something much worse - Glinner is terf adjacent. A supporter of women. A feminist enabler.

Glinner was stupidly young when Father Ted became a hit. He'd already written for a plethora of comedy shows and I imagine having that meteoric success could confer some level of hubris. He was known as a left wing geezer and like most of us on one side of the political landscape, his reactions were likely reflexive sometimes. That's quite a prominent feature of the people on the Internet, and especially blokes. 

Perhaps he's been guilty, to a much lesser degree, of what he's now victim of, but the difference here is he's honest about that. He's made admissions and, in one notorious case, a full, unreserved and very public apology. 

What's also unlike those typical twitter brocialists is, he's had the courage to be unpopular among peers. That's a rare thing, especially to stick with it - this isn't a one-off edgy take. 

So, is it white-knuckle, cloud-shouting bigotry, or is it a matter of principle he feels compelled to make a stand over? 

Now here's the thing - Graham Linehan can be abrupt, dismissive and rude. He's also defiant, dogged and like anyone who stumbled into this debate, stunned at the ferocity, exasperated and increasingly angry. 

That anger doesn't remain in the confines of personal offence, however. It snowballs constantly. 

Because this is a complex and immense political and social project unfurling. It's authoritarian, dictatorial and censorious, and it's built entirely on shite. 

And since the day he woke up to this, Glinner has stood with women, with gay people, with sane transsexuals. He's been a huge force in exposing the madness and ceaselessly promoted others. 

A common accusation to anyone involved in resisting this project is that we've become obsessed, gone mad. 

It's impossible to counter, and at some stage you realise it's almost without exception a disingenuous, insulting insinuation, functioning like the accusations of hysteria once did. You can't discuss it because they won't meaningfully engage. They're being sly and cowardly, impugning your mental health, your rationality and it starts to feel like gaslighting. 

This is must be significantly harder when your accuser and you are well known, and they do it publicly.

Richard Herring, a former friend, strongly suggested Glinner is mentally ill in response to Alan Driscoll. (I'll get onto Driscoll later, he's sinister, nasty and pathologically fixated on Glinner). 

Anyway, when cornered, with the chance to defend his friend and tell Driscoll to stop being such a bunny boiler, Herring declines. He flees like terrapins slap into a Spanish river at the sight of humans. He uses an expedient, shitty ploy to excuse himself from the witchfinder specific. All under the guise of being a compassionate, thoughtful mate. 

So, what terrible things has he actually said about trans people? As for abusive bully - considering Driscoll's frantic, Glinnercidal fury it's difficult to take any other way than an all-consuming vendetta pursued through any proxy available. 

Most importantly, when has he been wrong? No one gives a shit about the 'choke on my girl dick' 'STFU terf' rhetoric, they laugh at the assault of Maria McLaughlin and minimise the sex offending larpers, but still portray Glinner as both wrong and abusive. When was this? 

The truth is, everyone knows how loud, influential and vicious TRAs are - that's precisely why there's a quiet complicity: Herring is attempting to save face by implicitly agreeing Glinner is behaving terribly, while hiding his scurrilous cop out behind a shield of an ostensibly cautious responsibility. 

And there's countless more like him, dismissing challenging information as worthless and deranged, whether generic, beardy panel fillers like Herring, or even the gleeful, professionally offensive. 

For example, Frankie Boyle: who joked that the reason Katie Price needed security because her autistic son wanted to rape her, but thinks Ricky Gervais joking about Bruce / Caitlyn Jenner is beyond the pale (all about context, apparently - only Boyle is smart enough to get it. That and punching up not down - it's well known that millionaire Republican Jenner is more vulnerable than a blind, autistic child).

Boyle knows being a savage, shark-eyed nihilist is his career, but that also trans politics must never be mocked - so he clutches his pearls and cracks jokes about the disabled, women, and raping women - because that is, genuinely, significantly less controversial. 

Boyle - one part overstuffed & threadbare upholstered chair, two parts ethical guidance scholar, 1,763 parts rape enthusiast

Same goes for the two pricks from Little Britain and the many more, who have all been highly controversial but are now meticulously sticking to mother's maxim "if you don't have anything nice to say, say nothing at all - unless it's Glinner". 

Speaking of mothers, there's the singer turned creator of Hallmark Cards Mothering Sunday jingles, Billy Bragg (seriously, have you heard this? If one of my children bought me that for Mother's Day, I'd probably have to slap them out) I'll get to him one day. Pompous wanker. 

Mind Your Pansexuals & Qu**rs

Time and again, you can be proven right, but you'll never get an acknowledgement. The focus recalibrates, the conversation moves on to the next outrage. 

Because, now we get to that embarrassing error, it's suddenly all about the tone. 

People think you sound too... Aggressive? Vociferous?  They also refuse to speak up while simultaneously attempting to shame you for taking a stand. 

"I know the kids with mastectomies and futures robbed of healthy, sexually functioning bodies, and rapists in women's prisons and changing rooms, I know it is quite bad, but look - you're all alone up there, like a nutter! It's embarrassing" 

"Okay, well once other people speak up, the weight's off my shoulders a bit. Back me up! Say something" 

"No. I really can't do that. Just get down and shut up" 

"You're a coward. You know this is wrong, you know it makes no sen.." 

"Jesus FUCK, are we still on this subject? Do you eVEr tAlK ABOUT OThEr tHInGs?" 

It's infuriating. People admit to the problem sometimes, privately - Sally Ann Dixon, Katie Dolatowski, Isla Bryson etc. But anything more than minimising the incidence, asserting trans vulnerability and a glowing reaffirmation of every other trans person is deemed too harsh. So is mentioning it frequently, even when there's a daily outrage. 

For Glinner, a number of the rifts which have occurred are around this - tone, or optics. Don't share and mock images men have put up on lesbian dating sites, for example. The misgendering is cruel. Stop talking like that. 

Occasionally, this comes from other gender criticals, and while I sometimes sympathise, it amazes me how much attention it can take. TRAs don't police each other like that. I know we're better than them, and don't ignore egregious crimes, but I also see the strength in avoiding friendly fire. 

Linehan perfects the head tilt on his Her profile (Glinner's writeup) 

Is the image above really more ludicrous than the real ones below that? We're not talking about transsexuals tentatively posting on dating sites with interest in women: we're talking about undoctored men becoming insulting and aggressive on a lesbian dating site, reporting them for prejudice, during a loud campaign to condemn 'genital preferences'. Isn't it about time this was exposed? Would people believe it without the profile pictures? Do these men deserve sensitivity? 

Any time Glinner's in the press it's the same - "anti trans campaigner" "Graham Linehan in 'transphobia' storm" - like JK Rowling, it's bias confirmation, vague claims and opinions which aren't examined or substantiated. Liberal sneer quotes, deliberately bad framing. 

It often won't assert that any singular thing he's done is transphobic, or why, it just suggests it within the confines of libel law. For example, reporting him as being permanently banned from twitter for transphobic harassment, when in fact the offending tweet was "Men aren't women tho"

Then, the obsession claim. 

Aside from the obvious pantomime villain click bait, it's an understandable accusation; trans activism and the politics around it does appear to consume him. 

I get that accusation, too. And even when making a conscious decision to lay off the trans stuff, I only need to mention it once again before another wave of the same denunciation comes down. 

Do you know what would stop me from going on about it? To not be surrounded by people ignoring it, or - worse - cheering the fucker on. 

Ironically, when I catch up with friends who acknowledge the madness enveloping our society, we're over the subject fast. 

It's the giant rainbow elephant in the room no one will admit to seeing, and each time I see it trampling people, or when they slyly throw peanuts to the ground or rail against smaller doorways (literal gatekeeping) I'll mention it. Being told to shut up is the least effective instruction. 

Glinner has said for years, he'll stop when others - especially women - feel able to speak. And clearly, when women are still terrified of being 'outed' as gender critical, when we can't even watch our own films without smoke grenades being thrown from the prams of wailing black pampers, that's not yet been realised. 

When people tell him to lay off while refusing to do anything themselves, or when he, like everyone with functioning observational skills, sees the constant bullshit, it's difficult to ignore, to not see as yet more complicity in an appalling assault on women's rights and reality. 

Add to that the unhinged abuse he's received and yeah, he'll be unlikely to let it go. Among many other things, some activist(s) went so far as to mock up a conversation where Glinner apologises for sending naked pictures to women on MumsNet. 

These people are the most dishonest and shameless on earth. 

Quote at bottom, in orange, is from Glinner's no 1 hate-stan, Alan Driscoll. Let that be your proof it's fake. 

Having lost so much because you refuse to give insincere apologies and then shut the fuck up will leave you angry, or 'obsessed' if you're a gaslighting wanker. 

Try telling anyone who's suffered a harassment campaign or injustice that they need to chill out and give it a rest. Refuse to look at the evidence that's all around you, that they beg you to look at - see how that goes. 

It's the equivalent to one bloke telling you 'cheer up, giz a smile love' when ten foot away he and his mates catcalled you with offensive gestures. It's enraging. 

If Glinner is to be condemned, why is that same standard never, ever, held for the regular proponents and rent-a-gobs - those I mentioned at the start, and the many more - who seem to suffer no consequences for their appalling rhetoric or acts?

Part 2 will look at a couple of media stitch-ups, and then I'll get onto some of the scandalously malevolent characters involved in defaming him. 

Please check out Glinner's fund raiser, and even better, contribute.

Graham is being sued by *the Scottish actor* who traded nude images to bribe people into submitting to the gender recognition reform bill, reported Ceri Black (further run down of his vexatious complaints by Ceri here) and Marion Millar to the police, and here's what he did to a non-compliant gay magazine!)