#offended

Conosco troppo gli uomini per ignorare che spessol’offeso perdona,ma l’offensore non perdona mai. Jean-Jacques Rousseau I know men too well to ignore that oftenthe offended forgives,but the offender never forgives. Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Red Devils Grounded: Carrick Fumes as United Stumble to Sunderland Stalemate The final whistle at the Stadium of Light blew, marking a forgettable 0-0 draw between Manchester United and Sunderland. For the Red Devils, fresh off securing their coveted Champions League qualification last week with a thrilling 3-2 victory over Liverpool, this result felt less like a minor blip and more like a…

By: Helen Pluckrose

Published: Feb 27, 2026

I recently made this post in response to a Daily Mail headline:

Elaine Craig, who was a member of The Fantastic Lesbians group, responded to me with this:

The letter, as reproduced in the Daily Mail read like this.

On reflection, I think my post was too glib and flippant. It failed to explain itself. I don’t think that there is anything wrong with feeling offended per se and I would certainly never argue that people should not be allowed to express anything. I also agree that Colman’s comment was not at all helpful to increasing public acceptance of homosexuality. I’m just not sure the lesbian group’s response was either.

A few days ago, I published a piece asking people to stop taking on bisexual and autistic identities as a form of political identity that may or may not be supported by actually having same-sex relationships or a diagnosis of autism. I argued that this ascribes political values to innate sexual attractions and neurological wiring in a way that is presumptuous and unwarranted and that it enables political activists to foreground themselves as spokespeople for groups whose experiences and needs are likely quite different. I said that I worry about what effect this can have on young bisexual and autistic people having to navigate a world in which their attractions or wiring has been politicised. In short, I agree with much of the Scottish lesbian group’s objection.

My “I wish people wouldn’t” sentiment was in relation to the framing of this. By using the rhetoric of “the hurt that can arise” when “lived experiences that have involved marginalisation” are taken on by someone who does not “share that identity” and operates within the ‘social context’ of sexual attraction that has a ‘heteronormative framework,” I fear that a line which really needs to exist between same-sex attracted people wanting to live lives of dignity and acceptance and Critical Social Justice activists operating in the realm of Queer Theory gets blurred. I think better responses to a heterosexual woman seeing herself as a gay man in her relationship would be, “Well, you’re not.” or “How could you possibly know what that feels like?”

This does not, however, mean that this was the wrong stance for the group to take given that the person they are appealing to is Ms. Colman. Is she most likely to be receptive to arguments for people finding her words deeply painful in the social context of heteronormative assumptions that cite the importance of the lived experience of having a marginalised identity? Yes, quite possibly she is. It is quite likely that she also operates within this feelings-centred, identity-based, standpoint epistemology framework. An argument that she is doing harm that is based on shared premises could therefore reach her more effectively than simply pointing out that she is neither a man nor gay and that this was a silly thing to say.

I said “I wish people would not” take this feelings-based, identity-based stance because I think it is unlikely to be effective with anyone who does not already accept the underlying premises. Those who do share this epistemological framework — identity-based knowledge, lived experience as authoritative, the idea that words and discourses inflict psychological harm, and a worldview organised around privileged and marginalised identities — but who prioritise the interests of people who identify as a gender different from their biological sex are not going to be persuaded by it. They will simply use the same framework to argue that they are the marginalised group, and that trans and non-binary people suffer harm when their lived experience is invalidated by discourses such as the lesbian group’s, which they would frame as operating within a “cisnormative” context.

And because this whole system rests on politically defined categories of privilege and marginalisation, and on subjective accounts of psychological harm, the disagreement quickly collapses into yet another battle over whose identity-based lived experience is authentic, and whose claimed harm should take precedence.

Meanwhile, those who are skeptical or tired of rhetoric involving marginalised identities, lived experience and cis/heteronormativity will tune out. Those who are hostile to the rights and freedoms of same-sex attracted people and the gender non-conforming will use this to claim that it is all bound up in queer theory and ‘woke’ activism or, alternatively, laugh at the LGBT ‘eating each other.’ Those who are actively trying to distinguish the LGB from the T or the apolitical reality of being same-sex attracted or gender non-conforming from political concepts of ‘queerness’ and Critical Social Justice activism and may have a variety of political or philosophical views are likely to resent being placed in this framework and find their goals made harder by it.

The only people who will think this statement makes an unambiguously clear point are those who already accept the epistemological and ethical framework indicated by it and believe it a priority to protect same-sex attracted people from beliefs they find false and hurtful rather than trans-identified or non-binary people.

I am also very concerned about the regressive attitude coming from the illiberal right which is becoming more hostile to gay men, lesbians, bisexual people and those who simply don’t conform to traditional gender presentations. I believe this anti-gay, pro-gender conformity stance is enabled to grow and to seem reasonable and ethical to increasing numbers of people who would not normally be illiberal but inclined to ‘live and let live’ because the existence of same-sex attracted people and the gender nonconforming has been so intensely politicised and forced upon people by the Critical Social Justice movement. The backlash against authoritarianism so often hits, not the authoritarian activists, but the people they claim to speak for, even if they had no part in the activism or opposed its political tenets and epistemological grounding. I think that, to address this most productively, not politicising same-sex attraction in language liable to recognised as sharing many features with that of an authoritarian movement so many feel antagonistic towards would be better.

Consequently, I said that I “wish people would stop” grounding their objections in claims of deep psychological pain caused by silly or unserious statements. This does not mean those feelings are unreal or that people shouldn’t be sympathised with. It means that I think they are poor grounds on which to appeal to others. People can and have felt genuinely hurt or offended by all sorts of things — women entering the workforce, criticism of religion, or simply seeing gay and lesbian people live openly. Feelings of hurt are not authoritative in themselves. The same principle applies to those who treat their own disgust as moral authority. These reactions are subjective, and the power to decide which feelings count as morally binding will always sit with the dominant moral orthodoxy. It is far better to argue that something is materially harmful, factually false, or ethically wrong. This is why I think the most constructive response to Colman saying she feels like a gay man is simply to focus on the truth claim: “Well, you’re not a gay man and and it’s a silly thing to say.”

Of course, the Fantastic Lesbians were not suggesting that anybody should be banned from saying anything, but simply expressing their own feelings on the matter. It is perfectly acceptable to feel offended or hurt by things and say so, provided one does not expect everybody else to take responsibility for those feelings and penalise them for hurting them. The lesbian group did not. I am not sure what Ms. Craig meant by not expecting anybody to care about those feelings given that the open letter did specifically appeal to Ms. Coleman to consider the hurt and pain she was causing. However, the group was not being authoritarian and so I was not raising any ethical objection and absolutely support their right to express their own feelings, in their own way.

I will always support people’s right to express any feelings, views or opinions and other people’s right to then express contrary ones. Ms. Colman is ‘allowed’ to feel that she is a gay man and say so. The Fantastic Lesbians are ‘allowed’ to feel that this is deeply painful to their lived experience as people with a marginalised identity in a heteronormative framework. I am ‘allowed’ to feel this is counterproductive and wish people would stop doing it and instead make arguments about what is true and what is consistently principled. It’s “turtles all the way down” with protection of freedom of belief and speech! What people are allowed to say and what is true, principled and helpful to say are different things.

However, my X post was too glib and dismissive. A better version would have read:

I wish people would do less appealing to identity and feelings in highly politicised language and frame their support of the rights and freedoms of same-sex attracted people and their concerns about certain forms of gender identity activism in more material terms or through principles that apply consistently across contexts.

Become Offended

“…Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. And blessed is the one who is not offended by me.” Matthew 11:4-6ESV

Imagine with me: A hill littered with rocks and straggly grass. All across this hill were people of every shape and size. Many were crippled in one form or another walking with crude crutches. The lepers stood at a far distance hoping to see and hear their name called. Blind men struggle to hear the sounds and sort them correctly. What’s happening, thought a deaf mute?

Rumors abounded, about the local priest asking Jesus to come to his house to save his daughter’s life. Many said they ‘knew’ she was dead, but after Jesus went inside, the girl came out alive. Others were talking about the disgusting woman with an issue of blood. Jesus had actually touched her. Called her daughter! After His touch, she claimed to be healed of her disease. Some guy said his mother who’d been bent over almost touching her toes was now standing straight as an arrow because of Jesus. Was it any wonder that all these people had come to see Jesus?

Jesus stood. Can everyone see Him? Rumors also told, in the synagogue at Nazareth, Jesus read earlier today— “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, because the Lord has anointed Me to bring good news to the poor; He has sent Me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;” Isaiah 61:1ESV. The priests were angry with Him.

Here He was with those who needed Him the most. With a touch, or a word all of those were met at the point of their need. Amazement shrilled through the crowd as they watched missing body parts grow back. Muscle mass was restored to withered legs as paralytics began leaping and praising God. Those with blind eyes began seeing clearly forms, figures and colors, as they shouted praises. Deaf ears opened as those now hearing tried to mimic the sounds others were making. Every oppression was reversed. Even lepers were healed. Can we imagine the joy as miracles happened all around them?

Weird. Jesus didn’t directly answer the question John the Baptist’s apostles came to ask. He simply said: “blessed is the one who is not offended by me.”

At the crest of the hill stood the Pharisees with arms crossed. ‘It’s the Sabbath! They spat out with disgust. Who does He think He is working on the Sabbath?’ Can we hear them become offended at Christ?

Today, these miracles are happening in various places around the world. Internet live reports of the miracles are wonderful. Yet there are many with their arms crossed today saying: ‘the miracles are all AI generated. Nothing really happened as was reported. God quit healing back in the time of the Bible book of Acts.’ Skepticism keeps them offended at Christ.

What if? —Don’t become offended. Dare to believe that Christ Jesus can meet the need in your life which is so big nothing else can come close to helping. Believe Jesus when He says: “…with God all things are possible.” Matthew 19:26, He ought to know for He is God. Or will your skepticism take over and cause you to be offended? It’s your choice. You choose.

LET’S PRAY: LORD God I know Your heart is for all mankind to believe in Jesus and all His mighty works. Please give more grace to the skeptics. Help them to not be offended, in the name of Jesus Christ I pray.