Her product is clearly revolutionary and will change the way golf is played, so what is the difference between telling people its inventor went to this or that university and suggesting to people munching overpriced open sandwiches that they are eating something which is traditional and has probably been around for centuries? Especially when you have promised to focus on the product not the producer. In the end the product is good, in spite of the amateur marketing.
- 1. He knows little or nothing about trans people
- 2. He considers trans people to be inherently evil
- 3. He considers trans people to be inherently problematic
- 4. He considers that being trans is a form of deception. This is reinforced by his subsequent misgendering of Dr V.
- 5. He is transphobic.
- 6. He lacks empathy for other human beings
Hannan also joins the lowest of the low when he deliberately misgenders her in the article. This is the oldest trick in the book and an opportunity to make your journalism appear 'edgy' and 'transgressive'. Except it is neither, misgendering is a low level moronic move which any idiot can do it. It is about as edgy and transgressive as neoliberalism and as intelligent as George W Bush.