Another hit job from a captured press

Please help to defend Graham against a very nasty hit piece in The Independent

On 30th December The Independent published a despicable ‘opinion’ piece about Graham, denigrating him and his pro-women activism.

The Independent @Independent

Opinion: Why do people like Graham Linehan keep choosing this hill to die on?

independent.co.ukOpinion: Why do people like Graham Linehan keep choosing this hill to die on?Once upon a time, ‘@Glinner’ was a byword for everything that was great about Twitter. Now it’s become a byword for hate

In sharing the article on Twitter, its author, Marc Burrows stated that Graham “Has gone stark raving mad with hate”. That tells you all you need to know about his vitriolic and dishonest piece of writing.

The article contains some outrageous slurs, is riddled with untruths and, of course, completely distorts Graham’s position and intentions.

Consequently, I will be writing to The Independent to challenge the allegations and inaccuracies in their scandalous hit-piece and to make a formal complaint.

If you would like to do the same you can find all the necessary contact details for The Independent here. Please help me to defend and support Our Graham; he’s always had the courage and integrity to do the right thing and it has cost him dearly - let’s make sure we have his back. The more of us who object, the better.

Below is my complaint to The Independent. Feel free to use any or all of the text and/or the links etc to write your own complaints and emails. Thank you so much.

Richard Best
Managing Editor
The Independent

Dear Mr Best,

RE: Marc Burrow’s article on Graham Linehan published 30/12/2022

I am writing to complain in the strongest terms about an opinion piece entitled “Why do people Graham Linehan choose Twitter as their hill to die on?” written by Marc Burrows and published on 30th December 2022.

I am appalled that you have allowed such an article to appear in your publication. It makes wholly unfounded allegations, totally mispresents Mr Linehan’s position, actions and intentions and, quite frankly, is nothing more than a spiteful personal attack.

Mr Burrow’s piece is riddled with inaccuracies. I cannot believe someone who purports to be a journalist can be so poorly informed of the issues surrounding the gender debate and have so limited a knowledge of the facts and the arguments.

The article centres around comments which Mr Linehan has made via his Twitter account since his return to the platform. However, Mr Linehan’s views are misrepresented, his words are capriciously edited and taken entirely out of context and much salient information is omitted. I would like to address each point individually:

1. The article begins with an outright lie, claiming that Mr Linehan is “A vocal opponent of trans rights”. This is entirely untrue and I would ask you provide evidence of such a serious allegation. Mr Linehan is nothing but supportive of trans rights and has never suggested otherwise. His campaigning involves the defence and upholding of women’s rights, certainly NOT the removal of trans people’s rights. Never once has he even suggested (let alone ‘vocally’) that trans people should lose their legal rights.

2. The article draws attention to one of Mr Linehan’s tweets made following the passing of Scotland’s Gender Recognition Reform Bill. Mr Linehan posted a photograph of some trans activists celebrating in the Holyrood public gallery. Mr Burrows was offended that Mr Linehan used the word ‘bloke’ with which to refer to them. The people in the photograph are male, however they may ‘identify’, and certain of them are known to have made threats of violence against women on social media, publicly maligned and insulted prominent feminists and actively campaigned to erase women’s legal sex-based rights. In addition, one of them has advertised a ‘seven inch surprise’ in his underwear whilst openly stating that he uses women-only spaces. Such information puts Mr Linehan’s comments - that these people are ‘blokes’ - into proper context.

   Furthermore, as a journalist, Mr Burrows should be familiar with the Forstater v CGD judgement which legally protects the expression of ‘gender critical’ views. Those of us who do not believe that human beings can magically change sex are perfectly entitled to refer to male people as males.

3. The article also discusses Mr Linehan’s Twitter thread about ‘H’ - Ian Watkins - of the pop group, Steps. This thread was specifically about Mr Watkins using a blocker app to shut his ears to feminist opinion on social media. Mr Burrows quotes only part of Mr Linehan’s first tweet from a lengthy thread and accuses Mr Linehan of “Associating queerness with predatory deviance”. That is absolutely NOT what Mr Linehan was doing and to misrepresent his views - by omitting important parts of his thread - is deeply unfair.

   The article claims that Mr Watkins “Had used an app that blocked people with transphobic views from appearing in his Twitter feed”. This is a distortion of the situation. In truth, Mr Watkins used an app which blocks anyone who challenges the rhetoric of gender ideology, consequently blocking the thousands of people - mostly feminists - who are discussing women’s sex-based rights and safety. The deliberate silencing of women’s voices on social media is behaviour which others have every right to challenge and comment on.

   What the article omits to mention is that Mr Watkins blocked so many Twitter users, mainly women, that #BlockedByHFromSteps became a trending hashtag on social media and was even the subject of newspaper articles. Mr Linehan’s comments should be viewed in this much wider context. He was far from alone in discussing Mr Watkin’s behaviour.

   Furthermore, implying that Mr Linehan was “Associating queerness with predatory deviance” seems like a deliberate attempt to mispresent his words and intentions. There is nothing whatsoever in Mr Linehan’s Twitter thread that makes any such association. Mr Linehan pointed out that one of these add-on blocker apps is rumoured to have been designed by a convicted paedophile, David Chanellor. He also made the point that, when celebrities use such apps, they are, however unwittingly, enabling predatory males who benefit from silencing vital discussions around safeguarding issues.

   Mr Linehan clearly states in this Twitter thread, “Now to be clear, H from Steps probably has no idea he was using Challenor's blocklist. It may not even BE Challenor's blocklist. But whatever he's using, at one stroke he's silenced a whole tranche of feminist thought, one particularly concerned with safeguarding… Celebrities thinking of using these tools may want to think carefully about what they're passively enabling.”

   His point is absolutely clear and he is obviously NOT trying to associate ‘queerness’ (whatever that is) with predatory male behaviour.

4. Another allegation made against Mr Linehan in this article is that “He started comparing gender affirming treatment to Nazi eugenics”. Again, this is untrue and totally misrepresents what Mr Linehan has actually said. Mr Burrow’s comment is, no doubt, a reference to Mr Linehan’s appearance on Newsnight almost three years ago during which he discussed the medicalising of - specifically - gender non-conforming children.

   Mr Burrow’s comment ignores that Mr Linehan was specifically referring to the medical treatment of minors and gives readers the (entirely wrong) impression that Mr Linehan opposes medical treatment for gender dysphoria in adults. He does not. What Mr Burrows erroneously describes as ‘gender affirming care’ is, in fact, the use on children of experimental and untested drugs that have repeatedly been shown to have harmful and long-term side effects.

   In February 2021 the British Medical Journal reported on the findings of the Tavistock clinic’s own puberty blockers trial. It found that the drugs did not alleviate the negative thoughts of children with dysphoria and issued warnings over their potential side effects: “Puberty blockers used to treat children aged 12 to 15 who have severe and persistent gender dysphoria had no significant effect on their psychological function, thoughts of self-harm, or body image... However, as expected, the children experienced reduced growth in height and bone strength by the time they finished their treatment at age 16.”

   A number of psychiatry papers have been published which discredit affirmation treatments for dysphoric children. (For example, Griffin et al, published in the BJPsych Bulletin). Finnish health care no longer prescribes puberty blockers to minors. Sweden’s Karolinska Hospital has also ceased this practice, stating, “These treatments are potentially fraught with extensive and irreversible adverse consequences such as cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, infertility, increased cancer risk, and thrombosis.”

   The New York Times recently published an article revealing “There is emerging evidence of potential harm from using blockers, according to reviews of scientific papers and interviews with more than 50 doctors and academic experts around the world.” It highlighted the devastating and potentially permanent effects of hormone treatment on bone density. “During puberty, bone mass typically surges, determining a lifetime of bone health. When adolescents are using blockers, bone density growth flatlines.”

   Here in the UK The Cass Review’s initial report highlighted significant concerns about using puberty blockers to treat gender-confused children. It acknowledged the significance of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, the link between childhood dysphoria and co-morbidities, the rapid increase in teenage girls experiencing gender issues, the concerns of the therapists and clinicians, the limitations of an 'affirmation-only' approach, the lack of evidence regarding puberty blocker use and the woefully insufficient follow-up information on patients.

   Subsequently, the Cass Review has deemed that the Tavistock gender clinic is ‘not a safe or viable long-term option’ for the treatment of gender-confused children and the clinic is due to close very soon.

   Mr Linehan’s warnings over the use of puberty blockers to treat vulnerable gender non-conforming children have been vindicated time and time again, an extremely important fact omitted from Mr Burrow’s article which vilifies him for objecting to their use!

5. Mr Burrows makes the serious allegation that Mr Linehan “Discovered that trans people were asking for basic acceptance, and it seemingly drove him to madness”. As Mr Linehan has made clear on numerous occasions, he is nothing but supportive of trans people and their rights. Indeed, he has numerous trans friends and supporters. He speaks out against the ideology which clashes with women’s sex-based rights and spaces and leads to vulnerable and gender non-conforming children being pushed down a path to becoming life-long medical patients. To claim Mr Linehan is opposed to trans people having ‘basic acceptance’ is a wholly unfounded slur and totally misrepresents his position.

6. Mr Burrows also totally distorts Mr Linehan’s intentions regarding his joining the lesbian dating app, Her. Mr Burrows claims that he joined the app “So he could expose trans and non-binary members he felt weren’t feminine enough”. Again, this is entirely untrue and totally misrepresents Mr Linehan’s actions and intentions. Mr Linehan wanted to highlight that males were joining a lesbian dating app. The issue was clearly not with their ‘femininity’ (or lack thereof) but with their sex. He made that perfectly clear in his posts about this action.

   In one of his Substack posts on this subject Mr Linehan stated, “I’m doing this to demonstrate that it’s impossible to tell the difference between men and self-identifying ‘transwomen’. I’m doing it to expose an ideology that is homophobic, misogynistic and puts women and girls in danger. There is NO difference between me and the other men on this site. If I’m mistaken, I’m happy to educated as to why.”

   It is not a controversial view to believe that males cannot be lesbians. It is not controversial to believe that lesbians should not be forced to include male-bodied people in their dating pool. Many lesbians have been speaking out for several years about the problems, even abuse, they face for trying to maintain female-only spaces. Mr Linehan was trying to draw attention to these issues.
   

7. Mr Burrows accuses Mr Linehan of “Attempting to block lottery funding going to charities that supported trans children”. Again, this is a total distortion of the facts. Despite it being very vague and not naming the ‘charities’ (plural), I assume Mr Burrows’ comment refers to the charity, Mermaids, and the £500,000 grant it was awarded by the National Lottery Community Fund in 2018.

   A great many people objected to Mermaids receiving that funding, not just Mr Linehan, over concerns that the charity pushes vulnerable children into medicalisation. Indeed, so great was the opposition that the National Lottery felt it necessary to conduct a review into Mermaids’ suitability to receive the grant. Furthermore, this funding was subsequently withheld in October 2022 following a number of scandals surrounding the charity.

   Can Mr Burrows really be unaware of all the recent controversies surrounding Mermaids and the shocking revelations about its so-called ‘support’ for vulnerable gender non-conforming children? In 2021 Mermaids was fined £25,000 for failing to keep the personal data of its vulnerable users secure. More recently it has been revealed that Mermaids has been supplying dangerous breast binders to underage girls without their parent’s knowledge or consent.

   The Charity Commission has now opened a statutory inquiry into Mermaids because of concerns over its governance and management.

   Again, Mr Linehan’s concerns about Mermaids have been more than vindicated time and time again. But none of the above information appears in the article to provide context for Mr Burrows’ accusations.

8. Mr Burrows describes Mr Linehan as “Awful”, an “Irredeemable Irish Darth Vader”, “More hate machine than man” and “Twisted”. How can a supposedly reputable newspaper publish such unfounded personal insults and pretend it’s journalism? Mr Linehan is none of these things; he is a very brave and principled man who campaigns to defend women’s sex based rights and spaces and to protect vulnerable children from harm.

I believe that, at the very least, your publication owes Mr Linehan a retraction and an apology for this vitriolic and wholly unfounded article. But I think you should also have the courage to offer Mr Linehan a right of reply.

Yours sincerely,
Etc…

CC:
Richard Booth (News Editor)
Victoria Richards (Voices [Comment] Editor)
David Marley (Acting Editor)
Chloe Hubbard (Executive Editor)