Celebrity pundits

Comments

9 responses to “Celebrity pundits”

1. 

   Omar

   Mar 12, 2026 5:50 AM

   It’s quite startling to watch him say it. He’s very impassioned and emphatic about it, making big eyes and frowny mouth. The whole second half of the sentence is in spoken italics. Fuck you, bro. No we don’t. We get to have all our rights, because they are rights, not nice little prezzies the men dole out to us if we behave ourselves. Of course we think that men should not compete in the female category, and no that does not mean we have to welcome them in our spaces and our feminism and our rights. That includes you: get out.

   Agreed. Piss off, you ignorant, pretentious bastard.
2. 

   Your Name’s not Bruce?

   Mar 12, 2026 5:57 AM

   Now he has recanted his recant and revealed a new Gladwell Compromise which dictates if women win the argument on women’s sport “they have to support the rest of the trans agenda”.

   I’m guessing that Gladwell didn’t feel that he received enough adulation and thanks from women when he finally recognized reality. Or at least not enough to make the trans backlash endurable, or worthwhile. Maybe he had second thoughts on his reading of the tides, that he’d misjudged this particular “tipping point”, and that he ought to jump back to the comfort and safety of trans groupthought. Maybe someone in the publishing industry or lecture circuit threatened to cancel him if he didn’t take back his tentative and late-to-the-party recognition of the reality of sex with regard to sport? Turns out that for him, supporting lies, intimidation, and emotional blackmail is more rewarding or, perhaps, less bothersome. After all, it’s not his rights that he’s giving away.
3. 

   Your Name’s not Bruce?

   Mar 12, 2026 6:02 AM

   Or, to put it more succinctly, women failed to kill the fatted calf for him.
4. 

   What a Maroon

   Mar 12, 2026 7:02 AM

   And you have to do it for 10,000 hours!
5. 

   Your Name’s not Bruce?

   Mar 12, 2026 7:31 AM

   And you have to do it for 10,000 hours!

   ZING!
6. 

   Acolyte of Sagan

   Mar 12, 2026 1:52 PM

   . “If you’re someone who thinks that trans women should not participate in the female category, you have to go out of your way to be an advocate for all other aspects of the trans agenda.”

   Why? Where’s the logic behind that statement? If I think that Pete Hesgeth should have no place in government does it follow that I should therefore go out of my way to be an advocate for all other aspects of Trump’s agenda?
7. 

   Dave Ricks

   Mar 13, 2026 2:10 AM

   His statement might make sense as projection, if he really thinks:

   If I’m someone who thinks that trans women should not participate in the female category, then I have to go out of my way to be an advocate for all other aspects of the trans agenda. This will keep me safe in my tribal groups, and ease my cognitive dissonance by steering clear of peak trans, an ultimate confrontation with the incoherence of gender ideology.

   And as a pundit, his thinking should be everyone’s thinking.
8. 

   iknklast

   Mar 13, 2026 6:48 AM

   And as a pundit, his thinking should be everyone’s thinking.

   I often wonder why so many of our public intellectuals are so poor at thinking.
9. 

   Francis Boyle

   Mar 14, 2026 1:46 AM

   @AoS

   It’s the mugger’s compromise, pure and simple.