Main Edition
US
FR
November 12, 2024 - 7:00am
According to Alastair Campbell, the trans debate could do with “a little less polarisation and a little more attempt at understanding”. This vital insight was shared shortly after a clip from his podcast, The Rest is Politics, saw Campbell admitting to fellow host Rory Stewart that he underestimated the degree to which US voters would be swayed by anti-woke advertising: “Trump talking about kids going in as boys in the morning and coming back as girls in the afternoon, the dressing room stuff, all that.”
God, not the dressing room stuff! Women’s privacy — or children’s safety — is all such a lark until some underhand anti-wokeist decides to use it against you.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Campbell’s attitude was a source of irritation to those of us who do not think the only problem with male people in female spaces is that Donald Trump might make a big deal out of it. Those who challenged his sexism included J.K. Rowling, to whom Campbell responded with his sage advice on what “the debate could do with”. That’s all well and good, but then there’s the rest of us, scrapping it out, getting into trouble with our vulgar, inconvenient opinions. After all, we could be floating above it all, dropping in the odd “be kind” or “this is a very complex issue” or maybe even “there’s toxicity on both sides ”. The Society of Authors has even gone so far as to tweet, more than once, “play nicely” to its members — which is easier, I guess, than defending authors who have been naive enough to express an unfashionable belief.
As anyone who has been on the receiving end of these kinds of injunctions will know, they rarely have anything to do with how carefully you are expressing yourself. When Rowling wrote her “infamous” 2020 essay on sex and gender, it was a model of compassion, one in which the author had made far more than a mere “attempt at understanding”.
There was a brief period, just after it was published, when all the progressive, voice-of-reason types were trying to decide whether it was okay to tentatively approve of it, or at least not openly denounce it. Then came the deluge — the graphic threats and utterly unhinged accusations from trans activists — and at once it was necessary to create a crime to fit the punishment. Campbell would do well to read that essay, read the responses and then ask himself: what more could that woman have done?
The problem isn’t just that the “be kind” proponents ignore all the work that has already been done. It is, as Jenny Lindsay’s book Hounded shows, even more distressing to see those who position themselves as speakers of truth to power behave as though you are an idiot for having believed in truth-telling at all. Why couldn’t you be more like the women of the now-defunct Women’s Equality Party, who claim to have “held a members’ assembly to try to shed light and diminish heat in the fight between trans inclusive and gender critical feminism that is weakening the women’s movement to the delight of regressive populists”? (This is a very long way of saying “asked people to play nicely”.)
The trouble is that what these people are doing isn’t politics. It’s the avoidance of politics: a smug avoidance that poses as a virtue. Others — dismissed as one blurry mob — can shed as much light as they like, but it seems some people will always choose to sit in the dark.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeNeither does he have the moral authority or sufficient comprehension of the facts. And from the evidence of his recent beasting by JK Rowling on Twitter, he has at most only half the wits required.
“Taking the heat out of the debate” is something commentators say when they realise they’re on the wrong side but can’t admit it. After all, Campbell doesn’t want to be disinvited from all those splendid Islington dinner parties does he.
The “heat” was put into this debate by the people who want to allow men into women’s spaces and cut healthy body parts off distressed children with impunity. As has been shown again and again, many of those people have no hesitation in resorting to violence, threats and abuse when their demands are not acceded to.
The wilful “both sides” blindness of commentators such as Campbell to this fact was astonishing at first but now its just tiresome. Like a toddler insisting he didn’t eat the ice-cream when the evidence is all over his face.
One more thing. It took this issue torpedoing their favoured presidential candidate for numpties like Campbell and Stewart to pay attention to what the gender-critical movement have been telling them for years: if the political left does not come to its senses then the political right will weaponise it.
That in itself is a moral failure on their part. Like only noticing that you shouldn’t drive at 60 mph outside a school when you get caught by the police. The time to notice how important this issue is was when it became clear that children are being mutilated with almost no evidence base, that rapists are being placed in women’s prisons, and that men are punching women in the face at the Olympics.
Actually he has every right to lecture women on trans issues that is what freedom of speech involves. The fact that he and his favoured candidate Harris push the generally unpopular trans line has consequences to use the cant phrase of the cancellers. The consequence is that you lose elections to candidates espousing more rational policies on the issue.
If you want to win elections don’t do it; or if you want to make sure your opponent has other less popular policies to counterbalance your unpopular policy or lie about what your policies actually are – it might work as it did for Starmer but not apparently for Harris.
Well said on freedom of speech. It works both ways.
It wasn’t really well said. To say Campbell has no right to lecture is to say he has no right to lecture – by way of critique, not proscription.
The use of the phrase “no right to” is now being taken as something other than what its original intention was: which is more accurately “no moral right to”.
Taken at this latter meaning, the author is absolutely correct. Plus, to be fair, she may have not written the headline.
I agree with you that the author probably had no input into the headline. My objection to the phrase is precisely that it has a clear meaning namely that he has no entitlement to speak about something.
I am opposed to the woke approach to language that plain words should in fact mean something other than their plain meaning and instead some other tendentious meaning should be smuggled into them. If someone wants to say “no moral right” they should say so and make plain that that they are not challenging free speech but are suggesting that in view his moral turpitude it would be better if he piped down.
Let us stick to the plain meaning of words and get away from racism being redefined to exclude racism against whites unless perhaps they are Jews etc etc.
Before the whole wokeist agenda arose, the phrase “no right to” had the precise meaning that i alluded to, i.e. no moral right, and it’s due to the more recent discourse around “right to” that you’re now having to make that point, which you may well consider to be necessary, but shouldn’t be.
In other words, don’t pander to the wokeist agenda.
I agree, about the woke abuse of language – listening to that complete arse, Rory Stewart, on his “Goebbels and Gollum” podcast, he basically tried to imply that even thought he had been completely factually wrong (about Harris winning) that because his opinion was based on ‘optimism’ he was in fact morally right and a prophet as well! It was an astonishing, self regarding word-salad worthy of Harris herself.
There are reasons why Alistair Campbell has no right to speak. And they’ve got nothing to do with his views on the trans debate.
How that toxic twerp is constantly kept on view is beyond me. He shouldn’t be anywhere near a TV camera or microphone. And yet time and again there he is. Quite possibly the worst person to come out of the Blair Administration. And that’s saying something.
That depends what you think “lecture” means in this context.
If you think it is being used as a simple synonym for “express an opinion”, then I agree with you. He has the same right to express an opinion as anyone else, no matter how asinine, self-serving and ill-founded.
But it isn’t. Used in this context, “lecture” is accusatory. The author (or headline writer) is accusing Campbell of scolding gender critical feminists in a condescending, self-important manner on a subject about which he is unqualified.
So when I say that I agree with the author that Campbell “has no right to lecture” I am agreeing with her that he has no standing to scold gender critical feminists in a condescending, self-important manner on a subject about which he is unqualified. I am not saying that I agree with the author that he has no right to express an opinion, because that is not what she is saying in the first place.
The only way to hit him hard is to not listen to him and his monarchy loving sidekick.
The fact people pay money to listen to these two beggars belief! I hear they filled the Albert Hall. Unbelievable.
Or, as John Lennon sang: how many holes to fill the Albert Hall?
ars*holes?
Shush. We think these things. We don’t say them.
The emphasis should be read on “lecture” i.e. impart your wisdom to those who are as yet unaware of the great truths with which you are familiar. Every right to speak, yes; but lecture, no.
The thing is, while I do agree that people should refrain from calling all trans people pedophiles (or all ‘TERFs’ Nazis, by the same token), the problem with the ‘why can’t people be understanding?’ line is that it effectively shuts down all gender critical concerns about women’s safeguarding and a slide towards nonsensical ideas about gender (an attribute we all supposedly have), without even acknowledging the substance of those arguments.
Can you imagine responding to somebody concerned about corruption with ‘why can’t you just be understanding about politicians?’. Err. No. You can respond by citing stats showing corruption isn’t an issue, fine, but not just patting people on the head and telling them not be mean.
I’d respect this take if Campbell were to cite a level-headed, non-hyperbolic organisation like Sex Matters as an example of ‘good’ gender discourse. But I bet he wouldn’t. In practice, his stance means that trans-activists ought to be able to shift society however they like, and nobody is allowed to push back.
There are amoeba with more self-awareness than Campbell. This is the same individual who thinks Douglas Murray should face imprisonment for spreading misinformation leading to violence. Who am I to argue with the world’s leading expert in that particular field?
I don’t particularly like Trump, but Campbell should rest assured that I like him a lot less. And if Campbell’s absurd ad hominem (that the bigger issue is who is making an argument rather than the argument itself) then maybe he should think about shutting up.
The reason why trans activists push such an obviously false ideology so hard is to justify the unjustifiable like putting male rapist into female prisons. There is #nodebate because they know there is no validity to their argument.
First draw sensible boundaries on children, female spaces and sports, then have a sensible discussion on how society could bend a bit to accommodate the tiny proportion of people who suffer from gender dysphoria (a mental health condition). In short trans women are not women, but trans people are people who are mentally quite vulnerable. It is interesting that trans men have comparatively much fewer real issues being accepted for what they are.
Men are rigid, women are more flexible (this is also the answer to the question of whether gender reassignment is possible).
It’s very funny to see so many dislikes here for a simple and long-established fact that women are more phenotypically variable, while men are more genotypically variable, which is, in fact, the whole point of sexual reproduction.
Learn biology, gentlemen, only from more ancient textbooks, not polluted by DEI-psychopaths.
It’s not at all obvious that’s what you were referring to. Rigid/flexible can describe individuals (and refer to different attributes), while phenotypical/genotypical variance is a statistical measure of a set.
Neither is it obvious how either measure would answer the question of whether gender reassignment is possible.
There is no such thing like “gender reassignment”
Oh, there is. It’s more accurately described as “surgical mangling.” It gives a lucky few relief from misery and the miserable majority something new to be miserable about.
I’d say the two key issues for both women and trans people are safety and belonging. Yet we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that these concerns are universal. Drawing hard lines along sex or gender often obscures this.
Take prison, bathrooms, changing rooms: women are justifiably concerned about the threat of (sexual) violence from (mainly) male-bodied people in their space. So are trans people. So are many men, especially in prison.
Having female-only spaces/sports is a pragmatic solution to part of a complex problem. It’s an easy first step. Maybe it’s the best we can do in many cases. But it’s not a moral imperative based on the sacred binary of biological sex. Nor is it “job done”.
You write about a tiny proportion of trans people that would need accomodations. Yet it’s very likely that many men would benefit from, and like to access, such accomodations. Whether that is individual toilets and changing rooms, or prisons that keep their inmates safe from violence.
By the way, not all trans people are “mentally quite vulnerable”. Nor do all suffer from gender dysphoria – some have gender euphoria.
Perhaps “trans men have comparatively much fewer real issues being accepted for what they are” ie as trans-identified females, because they are not a threat either to men or to women — in all the ways that “trans women” (trans-identified males) are a threat to women.
Everything this toxic neo-con does and says is in an attempt to rehabilitate himself following the terrible crime that he committed in 2003.
The only genuine way to do that would be to admit culpability and withdraw from public life altogether. But let’s not hold our breath.
He’s a narcissist. Never gonna happen.
He’s also a depressive ex-alcoholic. Maybe he will fall off the wagon and top himself.
What horrible thing to write. I don’t read the guy or Rory Stewart but I’d never wish that on an enemy. Pull your head in.
Yes I remember all that he did and yes, he will never apologise.
Personally, I don’t think Alistair Campbell has the right to lecture to anybody on anything.
War criminal. Best ignored.
Tbh, I think he’s a bit thick. The same goes for people like the Milibands: they have opinions and so they are right. I’m sure that everyone around them can see that they’re thick but nobody likes to say.
One other point while I’m rolling.
I really hope we’re exiting the “vibe politics” era now. I’m not exonerating the political right from this, but the political left have really leaned into this heavily in the last decade or so and it has a horrible impact on government. “Be kind”, “inclusive”, “take the heat out” etc etc. All hopey-feely emptiness designed to give people the “feels” that they are on the right side without actually looking at the real content.
Fingers crossed, Kamala Harris’s campaign will be looked back as the tipping point. All that “JOY!” and chummy inclusivity with her celebrity pals. But nary a policy in sight.
One last thing, if I’m allowed a bit of a digression. Back in the Rat Pack days Frank Sinatra would often riff on a bit of low-level racism towards Sammy Davis jnr. Stuff that is unacceptable today but at the time was considered quite mild and chummy.
Sammy – who knew which side his bread was buttered – would always apparently play along, launching into an exaggerated open-mouthed guffaw when Frank referenced watermelon. But he wouldn’t make a sound. It was an empty stage laugh, part of Sammy’s act to keep Frank happy and the money rolling in while holding a bit of himself apart.
I thought of Sammy’s guffawing a lot watching the footage of the Harris campaign. All those wide smiling celebrities on stage with her. All that exaggerated gesturing and ostentatious “JOY!” It looked as artificial as Sammy pretending Frank Sinatra’s coconut jokes were comedy gold. It made me even more certain than before that most activist-celebrities don’t actually give a crap about any of it, so long as acting like they do secures them more cultural capital.
chummy inclusivity with her celebrity pals.
It turns out that she had to pay them hundreds of millions of dollars (Oprah alone was paid $1 million for a single appearance) and, as a result, the $1bn war chest is now massively overspent. What a shame, eh?
In fairness I’ve also heard that has been denied. It wouldn’t surprise me if it is true, but I’m not in a position to say one way or another.
Elon Musk also told Joe Rogan that what happens is celebrities get phone calls from powerful Hollywood Democrats “suggesting” they should publicly endorse the candidate. The consequences of not doing so being obvious without needing to be spelt out. Again, I’m not in a position to say if this is true or not. But an industry which relies so heavily on patronage is obviously open to this kind of influence.
I think we can safely assume that Campbell’s predictive powers on this topic are as accurate as Stewart’s on the US election.
I agree it’s a silly thing to say, but not for the same reasons as the author. It’s silly because it ignores the psychology of the activist. Activists don’t really do understanding, they do hate. Without an enemy to attack they are nothing. And if there is no real enemy, they’ll invent one.
In most cases, it’s a self fulfilling prophecy. Each side attacks the other side, and projects the worst possible motives onto them, and after a few rounds of conflict it all becomes true, and both sides feel justified in their mutual hatred.
Alistair Campbell has no right to lecture anyone about anything.
Ah! but you forget… AC is right; he must be because he’s part of the new educated elite ,who always know what is right when it comes to other people’s lives. (For “other people” read racists, misogynists, bigots, ignorant, right-wing, white-van-driving, old, etc.)
Campbell has every right to speak but no media outlet shoud pay him and anyone who accepts what he says has been decieved.
Alastair Campbell is a bore with access to the media and a go-to name for a controversial quote. Why does anyone listen to him about anything? For a long time the poisition of national plonker was held by Piers Morgan, sometimes going to others for short periods, but the default national plonker was Morgan. Campbell is competing for the status. But Morgan is funny, doesn’t lose his temper, and knows he is ridiculous. Campbell isn’t, does and doesn’t.
According to Alastair Campbell, the …. debate could do with “a little less polarisation and a little more attempt at understanding”.
Funniest thing I’ve read since Victoria Sponge.