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.


Graham Linehan: On Newsnight


As an archivist I have tended to cover people who are key influencers in this debate, but I have probably focused too much on those with whom I disagree. To remedy this I am going to give Graham his own series. I know it’s not exactly Netflix but his role needs to be on the record. I will start with his appearance on Newsnight, interviewed by Sarah Smith. Transcript below and a link to the YouTube.

Linehan Newsnight

Sarah Smith interviews Linehan

Smith starts the interview in, what seems to me, an accusatory tone. Full disclosure, I dislike this style of interview intensely, with both male and female interviewers. I think the idea is that if you rattle the subject they may reveal more than they otherwise would. At the same time, female interviewers tend to come in for more criticism, in general, and clearly it’s a very emotive topic, for me, so, I am not exactly impartial. That said, having watched it a few times, I am inclined to agree with Linehan’s sense that it was an ambush. Here is how the interview opens, after a perfunctory introduction. 👇

White Knighting?

Linehan explains that he felt obliged to step into the debate because he was witnessing the abuse and vilification heaped upon women, like Jane Clare Jones and Kathleen Stock, Graham felt a duty to speak up and also more able to, as he is self-employed. (As we have seen this did not protect him). Had a woman said this it would be unproblematic but I could already see he would be vulnerable to the accusation of “White Knighting” (Smith will raise this later in the interview). As an aside, men really can’t win on this one. I have been irritated myself with Johnny Come-Latelies entering the fray, who seem unaware the women have not been screaming from the rooftops, on this topic, for years and years. Linehan has been at this for years, at significant personal cost, and it is difficult to navigate how to be a male ally in this fight. I would just say, in comparison to Matt Walsh, Linehan is practically Graham Greer.

Also, to feminists like Janice Raymond and Sheila Jeffries, I am a Jane-Come-Lately and, no doubt they are, justifiably, irritated their pioneering work gets less mainstream attention, than it should. In the end I suspect the media will amplify whichever voices they find more palatable /moderate, to the frustration of us all.

Toxic Debate

Next Smith questions whether Linehan is adding to the debate in a constructive manner. 👇

Graham asks for examples and she duly delivers, with a bit of a chuckle, I might add. I presume she doesn’t think these interventions are funny because she is highly critical of Linehan’s rhetoric. So is it a “gotcha” chuckle?

It’s worth pointing out that Smith seems unaware that women are routinely called “Nazi” ; for speaking up about sex based rights or opposing “trans” medical treatments given to children. This, sadly is not confined to those my son dismisses as “nutters on the internet” The Council of Europe and a coalition of “Charitable foundations” have badged the disparate group, opposed to gender ideology as “anti-gender” activists. This has allowed them to lump U.K. feminists /femalists in with Hungary’s Viktor Orban, for one. Orban is also keen, on restricting of both abortion and gay rights; treating us as if we are allies is known as the association fallacy and is intended to discredit us. I have done a series on these documents which you can read here:

Moral Panic?

Smith is confusing a retaliatory /defensive strategy for a pre-emptive strike. 

Here is how Smith responds. I wonder if this is already coming back to haunt her.

Puberty Blockers!

Graham responds to defend his position, pointing out that we are performing experimental treatment on young women but it is actually worse than that. We are giving these drugs to children, of both sexes, as young as ten.

I believe the actual drug used in the U.K. is triptorelin, which, by the way, is also used to chemically castrate sex offenders. The specific drug is relevant in the U.K because the makers of Triptorelin are Ferring Pharmaceuticals, who gave the Liberal Democrats, U.K political party, £1.4 million in donations.

I did a piece on this funding.

Liberal Democrats & Big Pharma

Furthermore, children put on puberty blockers will invariably progress to cross sex hormones. (98%) and they will be sterile and have ruined sexual function. Don’t take my word for it, here is Marci Bowers; a trans-identified male and a surgeon who performs surgery on “trans” patients. (Infamously on Jazz Jennings).

I should also add that Bowers also works to try to help rectify female genital mutilation and is one of the most high profile to speak up about this. Cynics may see this as damage limitation, and it could be self-interested, it could also be a genuine concern at seeing the results of puberty blockers on the operating table. This is because boys will have stunted genitalia which will not only make it harder to re-identify with their sex but will also make any genital surgery more difficult; crudely there will be less material to work with.

Less heat, more light, Sarah.

This is Smith’s response to the concerns raised about puberty blockers. I am tempted to say “less heat, more light,Sarah!”. Notice she does not respond to the substance of Linehan’s point but dismisses his expertise and focuses on the “offence” angle. Well, given this is happening to my son I frequently call it “Mengele Medicine”. Sue me!

Graham pushes back hard on this point and his rebuttal comes across strong when you watch him speaking. (at the 2:30 point). Here is the exchange. Notice she cuts him off and doesn’t allow him, from my vantage point, to make his point.

I also found this an astonishing admission after Linehan raises the issue of the 35 staff members who have departed the Tavistock. Many of those ex-staff became whistleblowers and some of them were interviewed by other Newsnight Staff!

I am inclined to concur with the theory that Newsnight were worried about the excellent research done by other journalists on the same team. This may represent real divisions in the Newsnight team or a belief that a hostile interview, with Linehan, would persuade Stonewall et al, of their “balance”. (The BBC was still in various Stonewall “schemes” at this point.).

Bodily autonomy versus child safeguarding.

Sarah also seems to be woefully unaware, or disingenuous, of what is being taught in schools about “gender Identity”; I am going with disingenuous because her own employer produced something, aimed at children, claiming there are a hundred genders. She seems to be arguing for bodily autonomy here 👇. Remember kids are referred to the Tavistock as young as three and we start puberty blockers at 10 years old. Should it be entirely up to them?

Graham pushes hard back at this point and again, you can see the passion and urgency in the recording. (Time stamp 3:07).

Smith is utterly dismissive on this point; calling it ridiculous exaggeration.

Gay Eugenics.

Graham then brings up the reports of homophobic parents at the Tavistock.

Here are the reports of the Tavistock whistleblowers supporting his claim. Smith studiously avoids responding to this point.

Both sides!

Linehan makes it clear that the women he supports are being deplatformed, attacked and getting rape and death threats online. He sees it as his role to amplify these voices. He says he would be happy to step aside once they are given a fair hearing. He also points out that he has had threats, police visits and been doxxed, as had his wife.

Smith does not respond to any of this. Nothing about the sterilisation of proto-gay kids. Nothing about the silencing of women, the threats or aggression. Instead she, predictably, attacks him for his presumption.

There is some repetition of Smith accusing Linehan of ramping up the toxicity of the debate as if the interviewer wants the viewer to be left with that impression and not what is being done to children. She shows no curiosity about this, at all; which is shocking for an ordinary citizen, let alone for a, purported, journalist.

Graham points out that a number of prominent people, even ex Stonewall founders, pleaded with Stonewall to open dialogue, precisely, to detoxify the discussion. Stonewall refused, the same day. Smith could have probed this a little further but, instead, she read out a prepared statement from Stonewall. There is no surprises in their content, it’s the usual claim that “trans” people are oppressed, abused and hate crime victims.

Graham is allowed a final response until he is cut off. He is cut off at the word children which seems fitting since this is what will be remembered from this interview; the complete unwillingness to consider that something really dark was happening at the Tavistock.


Linehan is probably correct in his assessment that this interview was not a serious attempt to address the concerns he, and many others, were raising. However it felt, at the time, I think he has been vindicated and Sarah Smith should be haunted by her role. Imagine if so many journalists had not failed to do their job? Had this been stopped at the time of this interview maybe the reckless prescribing, currently harming my son, would have been stopped.

Final word to another Tavistock whistleblower.

If you think what I am doing is worthwhile you can support me here.

Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women’s rights, child safeguarding, freedom of speech and the truth. Speaking up in the hope that people wake up to the harm we are doing to our gay, autistic and other vulnerable groups.