Aren't like 10% of all sysadmins furries? People controlling internet spaces liking weird (legal) porn seems unsurprising and not something anyone should care about.

Is there anything more damning against Aimee besides "she seems to have some unusual sexual preferences"? I find the idea that "this person likes cartoon animals in diapers" leads to the conclusion "and thus is a danger to children" seems like a stretch.

Hiring her dad seems like bad judgement, but she was 21 and it doesn't seem like there is evidence she was procuring victims or anything like that.

Graham Linehan is like the UK Tucker Carlson of hating trans people (note all the confusing misgendering in this article). Accusations from him should be taken with a large grain of salt.

The only thing I would probably say is that this person was in charge of subreddits like /r/teenagers

If you had even some suspicion that this person could be compromised or maybe not be a great option for the ADMINISTRATOR of certain groups that could be easily influenced, wouldn't it be better to just decline them as not a great fit for that role?

This just seems like bad judgement given the fact that she was thrown out of two parties and just the association with her father at 21 (very much an adult mind you) seems like it would immediately disqualify her from working with children (note: nothing against them working for reddit, but in the capacity they were employed it seems incredibly irresponsible of Reddit)

There's a lot going on in this article. The introduction alone provides everything you need to know about the tone used throughout the text.

Instead of listing everything, I prefer to refer to this piece that provides helpful references on how to cover stories about transgender people while remaining neutral on the subject: https://www.glaad.org/reference/covering-trans-community.

You will quickly notice that the text goes out of its way to deliberately break GLAAD's Media Reference Guide and others like it.

"Media reference guides" are not absolute in any sense, however. They're simply another sort of social advocacy.

To put it bluntly, calling a transgender woman a "trans-identified male" and a "young and deeply troubled boy" is very poor taste.

It is. I found it hard to wade through the article.

That said, the accusations, which appear to be substantiated and in some cases legally proven, are truly nauseating.

Safe assumption that this is intentional on Graham’s part. https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2020/jun/27/twitter-clos...

The original link was to this story in the Spectator https://archive.is/OqCr0

That's such an incredibly vile article, it pretty much amounts to cyberstalking. It's pretty disgusting how he morally grandstands after digging out the fetish content of a really troubled 15 year old:

> Whilst we might recognise that Aimee Challenor is a tragic victim in this mess, we must remember the positions of power and influence he held and how quickly and easily he reached them.

The Spectator is equally vile too. It's the best example of how the British class system gives the most mediocre fringe twats a platform to deliver their vitriol with a public school veneer.

> It's pretty disgusting how he morally grandstands after digging out the fetish content of a really troubled 15 year old

Not sure if linking profile archives here would count as doxxing, but the troubling content continues into at least 2018, when she would have been in her 20s.

It seems to me that the author is trying to highlight the person in question's extreme privilege. Were it not for Challenor's father, it seems like this person may not have had the opportunities that they do.

Given that the author is Glinner, a notorious transphobe (who has been banned from pretty much every even somewhat sensible platform for that), I very much doubt he cares at all about anything except that the person in question is a trans woman.

Glinner is awful, and no one should ever read anything by him.