Unfortunately, I’ve become used to this kind of dishonesty from people like Sarah. I am not looking for devotion from anyone. Sarah was part of a Whatsapp group of journalists and cowardly ‘sceptics’ who were “working in the background” on fighting gender ideology to absolutely zero effect. They decided they didn’t like me embarrassing their timid mates, so they decided to pile pressure on me with manipulative finger-wagging emails when I was well into my third year of suffering harassment campaigns for standing against this nonsense. They had no empathy for what I was going through and I had done nothing but support all of them.
Oh what absolute bullshit. "Women he thinks owe him some kind of devotion..."??? EH?? If I had 5 BAFTAs and had written Father Ted & The IT Crowd etc etc I'd demand to be carried everywhere aloft in a golden litter. But you're one of the most modest and unassuming people I've ever met! (Not to mention how patient & kind you are to me!) I'm quite baffled by this attitude and I'm so so sorry you're having to put up with this sort of nastiness. I hope you know that they're in a tiny minority and there's an army of us who see and appreciate your courage and integrity.
After being a union official for many decades, and finding as the years went on more and more members were only willing to 'fight in the background' or better still just give me the bullets so they could take shelter whilst I fired them, ignoring the fact that unions are only effective when they act collectively, I am finding them same reaction from most in the Left in this fight. Disappointing is an understatement. However, having just received yet another 'fuck of terf scumbag' type stream of comments I have put the following up on my own Facebook. It may tweak the conscience of a few or give courage. Anyhow, it is wearing isn't it, not least because of the constant trickle of people who disappoint you. Stay strong comrade, we're in this together.
"This is typical of the abuse I get when I object to women being called ‘people with vaginas’ or ‘pregnant people’ and other terms that reduce us to our bits that make us female in articles (yes, I am talking about articles not some random flat-earther’s opinion). These terms are highly offensive to every woman I know. My guess is that most women - of all religion, culture, race, class and background would rather be referred to as a ‘woman’ than as a body bit. This abuse I and other women get when we speak up is enabled by the silence of the majority.
No one wants to be a lightening rod for this hate. I certainly don’t. But as a lifelong trade unionist I know it is the ones who speak up who effect change."
Forget “working in the background”. Get everything out there. The more sunlight the better. As we’ve seen at the Labour conference, it all just crumbles when people start asking questions.
Yeah so Rachel Reeves yesterday was inappropriate decorum personified. “Splutter splutter splutter splutter I don’t feel comfortable talking about … women’s bodies”. Like something out of a Jane Austen novel. Pass the smelling salts.
But the “working in the background” really gets me (and not just because Ditum et al have been so spectacularly unsuccessful at it). Working in the background is what THEY do. The Dentons document. Stonewall gaslighting entire sections of society that genderism is the same as Clause/Section 28 in the 1990s.
You can spot in her eyes the moment when Rachel Reeves latches onto the idea of claiming that she doesn't want to talk about perfectly ordinary bits of everyday anatomy as though it were shameful for anyone to ask. She's a deer in the headlights until she hits on that idea. Then the relief comes off her in waves.
I don't think there's anything wrong with working in the background, but if you do, you shouldn't criticise people for sitting on the front lines, drawing all the enemy fire. You certainly shouldn't be engaging in *friendly* fire.
Yes. And it's pissing me off a treat that all this talk of 'woman's stuff' is winding back the clock by centuries. Women aren't able to stand up or speak openly about our lives, experiences or bodies? What the hell? We need women and girls to be comfortable to use terms so we can describe what is happening. It's not shameful and it's not dirty. We must be able to discuss things relevant to us, us all and to the other sex. Men must be able to too.
We had adverts for period products for decades showing some strange clinical yet very scientific blue liquid as the reality is just too awful for our gaslit sensibilities. Now those products are for neutrois, maybe men, maybe not, don't judge, blood letting, don't be transphobic ARRGHHHHS.
Honestly, they are such assholes. I feel like apologizing to you on behalf of my sex, when you are one of the only men who have stood up for us, and you've done it in such a stalwart fashion and "borne so many mortifications" in order to keep going.
But the truth is, that like men, a lot of women ARE assholes. Also, a lot of people choose a field or pursue a platform not because of principle or belief, but because they think it's a niche where they can get recognition - however meagre - and they feel threatened if they think someone else is outshining them. The clue that this is their real issue with you is where they reference you as a "famous man" in that thread.
When I was a little girl, my mother, who was a very glamorous actress, would take me on pro-choice marches. We'd see the same organizers every time. My mother would say hello, and would give them money every time, and every time they would treat her distantly, and barely respond, but they would take her money. I asked my mother why they were so unfriendly and she said it didn't really matter to her, what mattered was getting the law on abortion changed.
I feel that way about these women too. They're jealous, judgmental jerks, but they have their uses. I would say ignore them, as Posie does. When everyone is sniping at you like that, it means you are making a difference.
I have no patience for this stuff. It frustrates me no end to be told who I'm allowed to support and chastised as some kind of handmaiden. I'm not going to pick a side because I'm not in high school. I don't have to agree with everything you write, just like I don't agree with everything Ditum, Lewis or Herzog write. It's so patronising to class that as offering "devotion", reducing women who support you to mindless sycophants.
I've just finished reading Kathleen Stock's book and, while I can acknowledge that she has done some great work supporting legal cases and giving evidence to parliamentary committees - her book is extremely dry. Not one person who isn't already well versed in the world of philosophical language and university-level gender debates is going to be one over by it. What I appreciate about your work is its immediacy and its clarity. I would send your work to anyone who is questioning gender ideology before I would offer them Stock's work. And I would recommend Julia Long - an absolute star activist - to anyone who wants to see a woman who isn't afraid of telling the truth to power.
Hi. New paid member here. After three months of freeloading and finding these updates more and more vital I took the plunge. Is there a general notice board for discussion?
I would like to make a suggestion. The Cervix question is not the question we should be asking. Yes it centres women in the debate and demonstrates the erasure of women. But it also (in some minds) centres women as the problem…in other words, ‘if only you trans-phobes weren’t so precious we could all just move on’.
I would rather we ask, do only men have penises. If the answer to that question is no transwomen sometimes have penises we can then get onto the safeguarding issues that answer brings up. As it is the damage that some disgusting men perpetrate with their penis that we need to deal with. It also centres the potential abuser in the conversation and the dangerous people we need to legislate against. Otherwise we risk vacillating between on the one hand arguing against the erasure of women and on the other hand the issue of protecting women (and children) from dangerous predatory men as we see time and time again on Her and other platforms.
Discord also needs to be investigated as this is the platform du jour amongst my teens and alongside all the game chat about Fortnite and Minecraft is a lot of despicable, grooming behaviour and misinformation.
I totally agree. However this cervix question has come to head this week because of Keir Starmer, the Labour Conference and Rosie Duffield (calling the cervix a pure woman thing was her original sin afterall). I think it’s great that this question has been cutting through on main stream media. However you’re right, the MAIN question is do women have penises? I feel after the cervix question the ground is well laid for the big one.
Bloody hell Graham, I get so TIRED on your behalf. They always attack you Twitter too where they know you can’t respond, then get all outraged when you use your Substack to defend yourself. It’s exhausting and cowardly. They KNOW what you say is true. I wonder what the real driver is beneath all this?
The surface has now been scratched with questions being asked in the mainstream media which is exposing this nonsense ideology. All these cheerleaders are realising they were hoodwinked but are doubling down and lashing out. Revenge is a dish best served cold Graham, savour every morsel.
I would say you've had devotion thrust upon you actually.
As a woman, I've always been a huge fan of your writing and this brought me to the Glinner, my male partner, who is a devout Catholic (I'm an atheist) was a bit reluctant to embrace Father Ted but he has utmost respect for your continuing fight on behalf of women because he and I agreed the whole madness is dehumanising to women.
That's interesting about your partner. Guess where I found a link to Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian? (A terribly sarcastic and very funny take on self-righteousness.) On a Christian website! Also a link to bumper sticker that said: Too Many Christians, Not Enough Lions! I think if one is going to consider oneself a Christian let alone a Roman Catholic one better have an ENORMOUS sense of humor!
Joking aside, my partner is a pragmatic catholic (they do exist), he's also on my side regarding the gagging rule for instance despite being pro-life (I'm pro-choice). And hell, he's 'living in sin' with an atheist so he's quite sound really.
There are many wonderful Catholics, some of the most dedicated people working for truth and justice. Betty Clermont is absolutely amazing: very devout author of The Neo-Catholics, a devastating critique, well-sourced, of the feudalists who run the RCC and their vision for humanity's future.
These words are nothing but vitriol. They seem spiteful, deliberately hurtful and unnecessary, regardless of your differences . They t aren't words that could be applied to you, Graham.
But worse even than that is her pressuring people to not agree with things you say because of the baggage she has attached to you personally. This epitomises much of what we're fighting. It's a big part of cancel culture. It's the tactic that gender identity extremists use when they urge people not to read what JKR actually said.
This is a two-pronged insult: firstly to you Graham asserting you are some sort of megalomaniac who needs affirmation and secondly SD is ignoring women’s agency to discuss and agree with who we please.
Graham - I just want to say that the likes of you and Posie Parker are the real leaders in the fight to push back this dangerous nonsense. I’m glad of voices even that I don’t agree with on lots of stuff like Kathleen Stock because I think ANYTHING that gets sunlight on this does more good than harm. But when and if battle lines are drawn and there’s no room for a fudge it’s you we’d want on our side x
Oh what absolute bullshit. "Women he thinks owe him some kind of devotion..."??? EH?? If I had 5 BAFTAs and had written Father Ted & The IT Crowd etc etc I'd demand to be carried everywhere aloft in a golden litter. But you're one of the most modest and unassuming people I've ever met! (Not to mention how patient & kind you are to me!) I'm quite baffled by this attitude and I'm so so sorry you're having to put up with this sort of nastiness. I hope you know that they're in a tiny minority and there's an army of us who see and appreciate your courage and integrity.
JL, I think you should be carried in a golden litter anyhow!
Oh Susan, how very kind of you! That's made my night! (It would require an extremely sturdy litter and plenty of burly blokes, mind you!) x
Really moved by this thread by Karen Actually. And I think she nails it https://twitter.com/karen_actually/status/1442808486908334085?s=20
After being a union official for many decades, and finding as the years went on more and more members were only willing to 'fight in the background' or better still just give me the bullets so they could take shelter whilst I fired them, ignoring the fact that unions are only effective when they act collectively, I am finding them same reaction from most in the Left in this fight. Disappointing is an understatement. However, having just received yet another 'fuck of terf scumbag' type stream of comments I have put the following up on my own Facebook. It may tweak the conscience of a few or give courage. Anyhow, it is wearing isn't it, not least because of the constant trickle of people who disappoint you. Stay strong comrade, we're in this together.
"This is typical of the abuse I get when I object to women being called ‘people with vaginas’ or ‘pregnant people’ and other terms that reduce us to our bits that make us female in articles (yes, I am talking about articles not some random flat-earther’s opinion). These terms are highly offensive to every woman I know. My guess is that most women - of all religion, culture, race, class and background would rather be referred to as a ‘woman’ than as a body bit. This abuse I and other women get when we speak up is enabled by the silence of the majority.
No one wants to be a lightening rod for this hate. I certainly don’t. But as a lifelong trade unionist I know it is the ones who speak up who effect change."
Forget “working in the background”. Get everything out there. The more sunlight the better. As we’ve seen at the Labour conference, it all just crumbles when people start asking questions.
More inappropriate decorum in the face of abuse and grooming.
Yeah so Rachel Reeves yesterday was inappropriate decorum personified. “Splutter splutter splutter splutter I don’t feel comfortable talking about … women’s bodies”. Like something out of a Jane Austen novel. Pass the smelling salts.
But the “working in the background” really gets me (and not just because Ditum et al have been so spectacularly unsuccessful at it). Working in the background is what THEY do. The Dentons document. Stonewall gaslighting entire sections of society that genderism is the same as Clause/Section 28 in the 1990s.
Keep on doing what you’re doing.
You can spot in her eyes the moment when Rachel Reeves latches onto the idea of claiming that she doesn't want to talk about perfectly ordinary bits of everyday anatomy as though it were shameful for anyone to ask. She's a deer in the headlights until she hits on that idea. Then the relief comes off her in waves.
I don't think there's anything wrong with working in the background, but if you do, you shouldn't criticise people for sitting on the front lines, drawing all the enemy fire. You certainly shouldn't be engaging in *friendly* fire.
Yes. And it's pissing me off a treat that all this talk of 'woman's stuff' is winding back the clock by centuries. Women aren't able to stand up or speak openly about our lives, experiences or bodies? What the hell? We need women and girls to be comfortable to use terms so we can describe what is happening. It's not shameful and it's not dirty. We must be able to discuss things relevant to us, us all and to the other sex. Men must be able to too.
We had adverts for period products for decades showing some strange clinical yet very scientific blue liquid as the reality is just too awful for our gaslit sensibilities. Now those products are for neutrois, maybe men, maybe not, don't judge, blood letting, don't be transphobic ARRGHHHHS.
WOMEN! Go on say it Rachel! WOMEN!
RR seemed to stumble on the same kind of escape hatch you hear in response to the Staniland Question™, "You're obsessed with genitals!"
It's part of the infrastructure that makes parasitic grooming possible in the first place.
Honestly, they are such assholes. I feel like apologizing to you on behalf of my sex, when you are one of the only men who have stood up for us, and you've done it in such a stalwart fashion and "borne so many mortifications" in order to keep going.
But the truth is, that like men, a lot of women ARE assholes. Also, a lot of people choose a field or pursue a platform not because of principle or belief, but because they think it's a niche where they can get recognition - however meagre - and they feel threatened if they think someone else is outshining them. The clue that this is their real issue with you is where they reference you as a "famous man" in that thread.
When I was a little girl, my mother, who was a very glamorous actress, would take me on pro-choice marches. We'd see the same organizers every time. My mother would say hello, and would give them money every time, and every time they would treat her distantly, and barely respond, but they would take her money. I asked my mother why they were so unfriendly and she said it didn't really matter to her, what mattered was getting the law on abortion changed.
I feel that way about these women too. They're jealous, judgmental jerks, but they have their uses. I would say ignore them, as Posie does. When everyone is sniping at you like that, it means you are making a difference.
Doesn't she just? And so perfectly dignified. Concerned with doing what she could to help, not concerned with the applause.
I have no patience for this stuff. It frustrates me no end to be told who I'm allowed to support and chastised as some kind of handmaiden. I'm not going to pick a side because I'm not in high school. I don't have to agree with everything you write, just like I don't agree with everything Ditum, Lewis or Herzog write. It's so patronising to class that as offering "devotion", reducing women who support you to mindless sycophants.
I've just finished reading Kathleen Stock's book and, while I can acknowledge that she has done some great work supporting legal cases and giving evidence to parliamentary committees - her book is extremely dry. Not one person who isn't already well versed in the world of philosophical language and university-level gender debates is going to be one over by it. What I appreciate about your work is its immediacy and its clarity. I would send your work to anyone who is questioning gender ideology before I would offer them Stock's work. And I would recommend Julia Long - an absolute star activist - to anyone who wants to see a woman who isn't afraid of telling the truth to power.
Hi. New paid member here. After three months of freeloading and finding these updates more and more vital I took the plunge. Is there a general notice board for discussion?
I would like to make a suggestion. The Cervix question is not the question we should be asking. Yes it centres women in the debate and demonstrates the erasure of women. But it also (in some minds) centres women as the problem…in other words, ‘if only you trans-phobes weren’t so precious we could all just move on’.
I would rather we ask, do only men have penises. If the answer to that question is no transwomen sometimes have penises we can then get onto the safeguarding issues that answer brings up. As it is the damage that some disgusting men perpetrate with their penis that we need to deal with. It also centres the potential abuser in the conversation and the dangerous people we need to legislate against. Otherwise we risk vacillating between on the one hand arguing against the erasure of women and on the other hand the issue of protecting women (and children) from dangerous predatory men as we see time and time again on Her and other platforms.
Discord also needs to be investigated as this is the platform du jour amongst my teens and alongside all the game chat about Fortnite and Minecraft is a lot of despicable, grooming behaviour and misinformation.
I totally agree. However this cervix question has come to head this week because of Keir Starmer, the Labour Conference and Rosie Duffield (calling the cervix a pure woman thing was her original sin afterall). I think it’s great that this question has been cutting through on main stream media. However you’re right, the MAIN question is do women have penises? I feel after the cervix question the ground is well laid for the big one.
Nicky Campbell asks "Is a woman with a penis a woman?"... Nick Thomas Symonds (Shadow Home Secretary) replies "yes"
Then another question on what they can access..
1.57 for a couple of minutes
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00101gl
Bloody hell Graham, I get so TIRED on your behalf. They always attack you Twitter too where they know you can’t respond, then get all outraged when you use your Substack to defend yourself. It’s exhausting and cowardly. They KNOW what you say is true. I wonder what the real driver is beneath all this?
The surface has now been scratched with questions being asked in the mainstream media which is exposing this nonsense ideology. All these cheerleaders are realising they were hoodwinked but are doubling down and lashing out. Revenge is a dish best served cold Graham, savour every morsel.
Vindication is an even better dish.
I would say you've had devotion thrust upon you actually.
As a woman, I've always been a huge fan of your writing and this brought me to the Glinner, my male partner, who is a devout Catholic (I'm an atheist) was a bit reluctant to embrace Father Ted but he has utmost respect for your continuing fight on behalf of women because he and I agreed the whole madness is dehumanising to women.
That's interesting about your partner. Guess where I found a link to Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian? (A terribly sarcastic and very funny take on self-righteousness.) On a Christian website! Also a link to bumper sticker that said: Too Many Christians, Not Enough Lions! I think if one is going to consider oneself a Christian let alone a Roman Catholic one better have an ENORMOUS sense of humor!
I love Betty Bowers!
Joking aside, my partner is a pragmatic catholic (they do exist), he's also on my side regarding the gagging rule for instance despite being pro-life (I'm pro-choice). And hell, he's 'living in sin' with an atheist so he's quite sound really.
There are many wonderful Catholics, some of the most dedicated people working for truth and justice. Betty Clermont is absolutely amazing: very devout author of The Neo-Catholics, a devastating critique, well-sourced, of the feudalists who run the RCC and their vision for humanity's future.
I do agree
Sounds like your scepticism was too real for them.
They're dreading you steal their thunder when the gender ideology shit finally hits the fan (which will be imminently, imho)
"Vendetta"? "Devotion"? "Obsessive unpleasantness"?
These words are nothing but vitriol. They seem spiteful, deliberately hurtful and unnecessary, regardless of your differences . They t aren't words that could be applied to you, Graham.
But worse even than that is her pressuring people to not agree with things you say because of the baggage she has attached to you personally. This epitomises much of what we're fighting. It's a big part of cancel culture. It's the tactic that gender identity extremists use when they urge people not to read what JKR actually said.
I won't have it.
This is a two-pronged insult: firstly to you Graham asserting you are some sort of megalomaniac who needs affirmation and secondly SD is ignoring women’s agency to discuss and agree with who we please.
And ‘the wrong side’ is another way to shit down debate.
Freudian slip 🤣 *shut 🤣
Graham - I just want to say that the likes of you and Posie Parker are the real leaders in the fight to push back this dangerous nonsense. I’m glad of voices even that I don’t agree with on lots of stuff like Kathleen Stock because I think ANYTHING that gets sunlight on this does more good than harm. But when and if battle lines are drawn and there’s no room for a fudge it’s you we’d want on our side x
Yes, Graham, you absolutely demand fealty every waking moment.
(You can almost hear the eye rolling in California)
I'm stunned at how they can be such utter hypocrites. The truth is staring them in the face!