Graham Linehan: 2

In this piece I am going to cover an interview with Linehan on this show. The show is based in Ireland and hosted by William Campbell. I decided to transcribe it, in part, not because I am unfamiliar with Graham’s views, but in order to understand what devices are used by journalists /commentators to avoid having to confront the fact that the is one of the moral questions of our time. It is my firm opinion that if you care about women’s rights, gay rights, and the safety of children there is only one right side; purported “neutrality” is in fact taking the side of proponents of gender ideology; which is misogynist, homophobic and against child safeguarding.

Before the interview begins the introduction explains that the interviewer tried to add explanations, for the listener, who may be unfamiliar with some of the people / controversies covered. Kellie Jay Keen Minshall (KJK) was omitted from the commentary so an explanation of who she is was added at the start. We are told that she “describes herself as a women’s rights activist” Two prominent, trans-identified and male, YouTubers are quoted (Contrapoints and Jesse Gender) as “highlighting a problematic relationship between the gender critical movement and the far right”. The podcast highlights this as “exemplified by the presence of far right groups at her speaking events”. It then adds that the events are open and there is no evidence that KJK invited these groups. In fact KJK has made it clear that these groups were neither invited nor welcome. It is also interesting that KJK is cast as “self-described” as a women’s rights activist which casts doubt on the validity of this claim. The Trans Activists are taken at face value.

Below 👇 is Jessie Gender painting KJK as a fascist. Astonishing that he was treated as a reliable source. He also is celebratory about the violence on display at the New Zealand rally, positively gleeful, in fact.He spouts the lie that he lives in a country that promotes genocidal policies against “trans” people.

Jessie Gender

The interview begins with a list of Graham’s accomplishments and then moves into a borrowed line from Father Ted to ask “I hear you’re a transphobe now”. Graham explains how we got into this issue which was after he was attacked for an episode of the I.T Crowd, which featured a “trans” character. He explains that he had never encountered such violent rhetoric. for a comedic episode. The host asks Graham to explain who attacked him; this would be one of many interventions where the flow of the conversation is interrupted and Linehan is asked to pause, clarify his language or the host refers to his “passion” for this topic.

Linehan explains he was exhorted to “educate yourself” , so, he did and what he found was troubling. He is keen to distinguish between “trans-activists” and “transsexuals”. I agree that people calling themselves “trans” or “trans allies” are not a monolith. Graham does not believe anyone can change sex but he does believe that not all people, even those who identify themselves as “trans” share the views of modern day trans-activists. I also diverge on the idea of “true transsexuals” but that is a journey that took me a while. I do agree with the idea that the “trans” umbrella has now expanded to cover so many different groups and is now a virtually, meaningless term. The only way woman’s rights can be protected is by a simple focus on biological sex.

Campbell seeks clarification on whether Graham is saying the term “trans” has broadened to include too many disparate groups or is he dismissing the idea of “trans” as meaningless. He also again asks him to clarify that he is not talking about “literal violence” only “violent rhetoric”

Linehan clarifies that he is talking about violent language and offers an example of India Willoughby who claims that “terfs” are promoting a “literal genocide” against trans-identified people like him. Here a few examples of India making these claim.

Graham thinks commentators, like Willoughby, deploy this rhetoric quite cynically but believes impressionable young minds may be taking this literally. He then proceeds to criticise the mainstream media for delegitimising women’s voices who want to discuss women’s right to single sex spaces and child safeguarding.

Again the host interrupts to ask, again, for Linehan to clarify that he is talking about violent language not violent action. He recognises that Linehan is highlighting the catastrophising of the TRA side but asks if the other side are not also using hostile language which suggests “trans” people should not be allowed to just go about their lives? Graham concedes that there are extreme voices on the gender critical side but these are “fringe” and don’t equate to the violent rhetoric of the “TRA” side. (I would have asked him to supply an example at this point because it is not at all clear that calling a man, a man, is not considered, by Campbell, to be hateful rhetoric) Once again the host asks him to repeat, once again, that he is referring to violent language not violent action. That is at least three times he has asked for this clarification.

Linehan points out that there have been violent actions against women, most recently a 70 year old women who had her skull broken in New Zealand. Violent imagery and rhetoric contributes to an atmosphere that seems to sanction violence against women. This was Campbell’s, astonishing, response”I don’t want to minimise these incidents but in the context of the war in Europe…and even what you might encounter after closing time..that’s not n awful lot of violence really is it?” . Seems like minimising to me since the man who punched an elderly woman would appear to be a young man. In normal circumstances this would be unequivocally condemned. Linehan also points out that both he and Campbell are men and may not fully appreciate the impact of on line threats of rape and violence directed at women.

Graham then outlines what happened to Kathleen Stock, a Lesbian who was essentially hounded out of her job as a Professor. He also brings up the expectation that Lesbians expand their dating pool to include men who claim to be Lesbians. Graham then points out that if the same threats and violent language were used against black people he didn’t think Campbell would be quite so willing to dismiss it. Again Campbell interrupts him to say he understands Graham is passionate about this issue but he wants to put a question to him..Linehan counters with a question for the host about why he is not passionate about this issue? Is he not concerned for women’s spaces and sports?

Campbell concedes this is a reasonable point to raise but he wants to leave this question and instead he makes the point that both language on this issue is so extreme it obscures the issue. Then, inexplicably, he veers off into Californian gun laws and how they were designed to keep AK47’s out of the hands of the Black Panthers. (It is noticeable that he reaches for United States examples which is, I think, because this issue seems, in the United States, superficially, to be more dividing people on party political lines. This makes it more easy to paint it as a Left /Right issue). From Californian gun laws the host segues into the real threat that “trans” people must feel they are facing and asks if Linehan has any charity for them. This is the #BeKind argument which is really #BeCompliant.

Graham asks the host to outline the source of this feeling of being under threat. Is it Lesbians saying women don’t have penises or is it the hyperbole about genocide put out by activists like India Willoughby.

Campbell, tellingly, reaches for another U.S example quoting a Conservative, Catholic commentator, Michael Knowles. who is on record saying “transgenderism should be eradicated from public life” . He has threatened to sue people claiming this can be equated with a threat of a genocide to “trans” people.

Campbell outlines that he believes Knowles was being deliberately ambiguous so that he would have plausible deniability and evade any consequences for his words. Linehan fires back a riposte about why a right wing commentator has any relevance to gender critical women, in the U.K; who count significant numbers of Left Wing, trade unionists among their number. The answer is, in my view, because it is a lot harder to sell left wing women /Lesbians as simple bigots.

Not to be outdoneCampbell claims Knowles is portraying “trans” people as “killable”. He then brings up the spectre of a modern day Enoch Powell figure calling for the eradication of “Irishness” to be eradicated which would make Linehan feel under attack. Linehan points out that Knowles may very well attract people with unpalatable beliefs but people who share concern about “transgender ideology” are also reasonable people concerned about childhood medicalisation. Indeed. Campbell is using guilt by association to smear people with concerns about gender identity ideology.

Somehow we get into Eddie Izzard and his (laughable) claim that he would have been a victim of the holocaust. Unbelievably, Campbell claims this is not such an outrageous claim because “Transsexuals, be they white, straight, blue-eyed or not were the first victims of the nazis”. He does soon walk back the claim about being the first victims but this is a common claim of trans-activists and seems to be appropriating the persecution of homosexuals and conveniently ignores the history of cross -dressing nazis. The idea that there were sufficient numbers of “transsexuals” to round up in the 1940’s is ahistorical nonsense. There were so many pictures of cross-dressing nazis there is an entire book on them.

The interview gets a bit heated at this point. The host is not impressed with a critique of the transvestite Eddie Izzard, claiming to be a “woman”, seeking to get elected as an M.P and openly using female spaces, All the while still getting acting roles in his male persona. Here is Eddie using female toilets whilst, I am informed, there was no queue for the mens. Not sure what his hands are doing.

The host then brings up the mythical “passing” trans male and whether Linehan would insist that they should use male spaces. In response Linehan brings up three named trans id males; two of whom are on record for not using female spaces. The host does concede that few men pass as women but still insists on whether a “passing” man should not be forced into male spaces. I don’t think it will be a surprise. to Graham, that I disagree with him on the next point. Graham harks back to, in my view mythical, time when women felt an alliance with “trans women” and this has been fractured /broken by trans-extremists. A better response would be a question about whether a man has the right to over-ride female consent for a male to share a space where women are undressing. Does a “passable” male have the right to observe women undressing if she doesn’t know she is sharing a space with a male?

Graham does, rightly, point out that some trans-identified males did try to campaign for third spaces but activists don’t want this because they want to be validated in female spaces and to dominate and invade women’s spaces. Campbell’s response is to question this with “Can you see into their hearts?” To which I say “No we cannot, which is why Self-ID is such a bad idea”. He then brings up another trans-activist talking point asking of Graham wants to bring in genital inspections or chromosomal checks. Graham makes the point that all these things have operated by a social contract that most men have honoured.

On the issue of men in woman’s sports Graham uses the example of Fallon Fox who severely injured female MMA fighters and then boasted about it.

The host responds that MMA fighting is a violent sport and many women have been injured by other women though he does concede that he finds arguments to end sex segregated sports unconvincing.

Campbell again notes Graham’s exasperation at people not speaking up on this issue but asks him to consider that people are put off by the stridency of both sides of the debate. He also says that if he were in the “trans” community this tone would make him bind more closely to the “trans” community. He also accuses Graham of being indiscriminate in his criticism and again claims the “trans” community are deserving of respect in much the same way as the black community. Again, drawing an analogy to racism is a common TRA talking point, a better analogy would be Rachel Dolezal identifying as black and taking leading positions in groups set up to advance the rights of the black community.

Graham makes the good point that left wing progressives who stay out of this debate do, in fact, cede grounds to more extreme right wing elements and asks again why they are not speaking up about woman’s rights and sports…Campbell interrupts to point out that sports are “inherently unfair” , indeed they are if men are allowed to take prizes intended for female athletes.

The conversation moves to the topic of detransitioners which doesn’t get a response because the host makes an outrageous claim that Linehan’s twitter ban makes him akin to Donald Trump. Linehan is not having that and points out some of the facts of the ban and how the host is misleading the audience. Undeterred the host then brings up Breitbart news and the way they treat migrants who provide a skewed perspective just as Graham does on his blog which details the sex offenders who are identifying as “trans” and being placed in female prisons. This gives the host an opportunity to ask what I am going to say is a disingenuous question about how these crimes are in the U.K which doesn’t allow Self-Id. Anyone seriously informed about this issue would know that self-ID exists in policy if not backed up by the law. After he is contradicted on the claim that Self-ID doesn’t exist in the United States (it does in many states) he falls back on the argument that sex offenders won’t be put off by the law if they wish to access victims in female only spaces. I find that a morally bankrupt argument.

The host then brings up the fact that the virulent hard right oppose trans rights and makes the spurious claim that pantomime dames would be illegal if they get their way. Graham’s rejoinder is that there is a danger of an over-correction which is why it is important that Left Wing progressives join the fray. The hosts final sally is to blame people for appearing on Fox news to which the response is to post out that left wing news outlets are denying coverage of the issue and this is why people are appearing in the only media giving voice to these concerns.

The host, in my view, may very well believe he is covering the issues in a neutral way. However, he repeatedly interrupts important points and by asking, repeatedly, for clarification Linehan is only talking about violent language, not acts, he deflects criticism away from repeated violent threats against women, invariably from men. He claims there is extreme language from both sides but he doesn’t even feel obliged to identify similar violent language from women and he certainly can’t come up with a single instance of actual violence, f perpetrated by women, against men with a “trans” identity. When presented with evidence of violence against women he minimises it with the rhetorical device known as whataboutery (See what about the war!). He repeatedly uses examples from the United States, especially extreme right wing sources. Another tactic is to repeatedly refer to the tone of the argument and how passionate his interviewee is on the issue. I suspect he didn’t want to talk about detransitioners because a father upset at the harms done to this group paint the “passion”in a much more reasonable light.

You can read my notes here.

Linehan Here Show Final

You can listen here: 

Linehan Interview

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.


Leave a Reply