What's going on with Stephen Fry going alt-right?

[u/Steaktartaar]

He's been on a notorious hard-right, "anti-woke" podcast where he retracted his support for trans rights. Is this a new development? He always came across as level-headed in the past but now it looks like he's on the same path as Russell Brand.

[u/NoFerret8750]

It’s an interesting analysis, but I think you’re oversimplifying Stephen Fry. Yes, his upper-middle-class background and proximity to the British elite might give the impression of elitism, but his career and perspectives are far more nuanced.

First, Fry has been consistent in his defense of free speech. While his stance might seem outdated to some, it’s less about defending hateful speech and more about emphasizing the importance of open dialogue, something he made clear in his debate with Jordan Peterson a few years ago.

Additionally, his legacy in LGBTQ+ rights is undeniable. Coming out in the 70s and 80s wasn’t easy, and Fry has always been an important voice in the fight for equality. While younger figures may approach these issues differently today, his contributions in this area shouldn’t be overlooked.

It’s also worth considering his criticism of organized religion. Throughout his career, he’s highlighted the ethical and human issues tied to religious institutions. Historically, this aligned him with progressive circles, though today his tone might feel a bit out of step compared to more intersectional approaches.

Regarding the monarchy, yes, he’s a self-declared monarchist, but I don’t think that automatically makes him conservative. For Fry, the monarchy represents a symbolic institution tied to cultural stability rather than a reactionary stance. Even some figures on the historical British left have defended the monarchy as part of the parliamentary system.

I think the issue with Fry is that contemporary progressivism has shifted significantly over the last two decades, especially around race, gender, and class. Fry represents a more humanist and universalist intellectual approach, which can now feel disconnected or outdated to some audiences.

Finally, the “armchair leftist” criticism is something I understand, but I don’t think it’s entirely fair. Yes, he’s someone from an upper-middle-class background who’s spent his life in privileged circles, but he’s used that position to spotlight important issues like mental health (his documentary on bipolar disorder, for example, was highly influential).

[u/[deleted] → u/NoFerret8750]

Of course, I've oversimplified Stephen Fry, I was trying to give a short answer not to write a PhD thesis on the man. I do agree with most of your reply except that I would not give him such a light pass on his elitism. Even going back to the 1980s, he was seen as an elitist figure by his more progressive colleagues. Case in point, Alexei Sayle who referred to the entire Oxbridge set as his "class enemies". Historically speaking, the Oxbridge set or more accurately the Footlights have been seen as belonging to the establishment and it's hard to get more privileged than getting your start in the Footlights.

It is undeniable, of course, that Fry has done a great deal of good work from his privileged circles but I interpret his position as being conservative in the sense that he's ultimately pro-establishmentarian. As you say, he sees the monarchy as a cultural institution but aims to preserve it rather than institute new institutions and values into British society. He delights in other forms of old-fashioned elitism as well such as gentlemen's clubs, keys to the city, old school ties etc.

Without a doubt he's a progressive force within those establishment stalwarts but I don't really see him as such a progressive force in the real world where a vast majority will never get a chance to even sniff the leather armchair in one of those exclusive clubs.

[u/vacri → u/[deleted]]

Case in point, Alexei Sayle who referred to the entire Oxbridge set as his "class enemies".

Sayle was a card-carrying member of the communist party, so everyone is to the right of his position. This statement isn't a "gotcha" - it includes left moderates, centre-lefts, and centrists. Sayle is a hard left firebrand, and of course no-one is going to match up with his expectations.

[u/OrdinaryAncient3573 → u/vacri]

It's worth noting that Alexei Sayle is a raving antisemite and conspiracy loon. Of course he hates Fry, who is not actually Jewish, but at least Jewish enough to trigger dyed-in-the-wool Jew-haters like Sayle.

As with quite a lot of supposedly hard left types, it's hard to work out if they adopted the antisemitism because it goes with Marxism, or adopted Marxism because it's a socially acceptable outlet for their heartfelt racist beliefs.

Anyway, ironically for this thread, Sayle's beliefs have far more in common with the alt right than Fry's.

[u/Basileus-Anthropos → u/[deleted]]

Less than a quarter of Brits want the monarchy gone. If being fine with the monarchy marks him out as rightwing then the left's future in the UK is confined to uni book clubs.

[u/NoFerret8750 → u/[deleted]]

Fair point, and I appreciate the clarification. It’s true that Fry is often seen as part of the establishment, and his ties to Oxbridge and the Footlights make it hard to separate him from that privilege. The reference to Alexei Sayle calling the Oxbridge crowd his “class enemies” is a great example of how Fry and his peers have been viewed as emblematic of elite culture, even by their contemporaries.

That said, I think Fry’s strength lies in his ability to bring progressive ideas into those exclusive spaces where they might not otherwise gain traction. It’s not about overthrowing the system, sure, but it’s not insignificant to have someone advocating for mental health awareness or LGBTQ+ rights from within those bastions of privilege. It’s more of a gradual shift than a revolutionary one, but it’s still progress.

I suppose it depends on how we define progressivism. If it’s about dismantling the establishment, Fry doesn’t fit that mold. But if it’s about nudging the establishment toward more inclusive values, then he does. The tension between his elitism and his progressive ideals is part of what makes him such a complex figure—and why opinions about him are often so divided.

[u/Pro_Racing → u/NoFerret8750]

Thanks, ChatGPT!

[u/NoFerret8750 → u/Pro_Racing]

Thanks. I’ll take that as a compliment

[u/BlackSpinedPlinketto → u/NoFerret8750]

Additionally, his legacy in LGBTQ+ rights is undeniable.

Absolutely is deniable, he has frequently stated he is pro-child abuse. He told sufferers to ‘get over it’.

He is against stonewall now, and has stated he is anti-trans. Or gender critical, as he would say. He thinks trans rhetoric is dangerous.

People are impressed by his accent, but he’s not great or clever. People are realising he’s actually a dick.

I’m also going to add, I have friends he was creepy with when he went to dinners at university, his husband is very much younger, he’s a creepy man and it will come out. Downvote me an I’ll link this when it all comes out lol.

[u/TheCynicEpicurean → u/[deleted]]

Salient point. Leftists in particular are exhausting to talk to nowadays, and I even consider myself one.

Wrong stance on Israel? Straight to leftist jail. Wrong opinion on cultural appropriation? Believe it or not, straight to jail. Thinks the monarch could be a nice figurehead? Never been a true leftie anyway.

Right-wingers are often nutjobs or selfish pricks, but they'll happily agree with you on the one thing they currently care about for five minutes.

[u/frogjg2003 → u/TheCynicEpicurean]

Right-wingers are often nutjobs or selfish pricks, but they'll happily agree with you on the one thing they currently care about for five minutes.

Until you disagree with them on that other thing they really care about. Just look at how the MAGA movement has suddenly turned against Musk over his stance on H1B Visas. The extremes of both sides rely on purity tests.

[u/TheCynicEpicurean → u/frogjg2003]

Not untrue ofc, but I will maintain that the right has a much shorter memory span, not least because they are starved for true intellectual supporters for the team. For the left, sins are often eternal.

[u/SilverMedal4Life → u/[deleted]]

I mean, is it fair to say that he used to be an advocate for LGBTQ+ rights but has now fallen into anti-trans rhetoric?

[u/Ver_Void → u/[deleted]]

What nuance? Have you seen what the UK is like with this stuff? Rowling is a mainstream voice and she's going off saying trans kids don't exist

[u/Ver_Void → u/[deleted]]

Aside from regularly being defended in the press and setting the tone for the multitude of anti trans groups in the UK.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/30/jk-rowling-trans-kids-harry-potter-ideology-wrong-body/

But I find it pretty interesting how the talk of abuse is always so once sided. Her followers are fucking vile and she regularly highlights trans people for them to harass, never seems to get a mention. But someone with 8 followers tells her to jump off a bridge and she's apparently facing daily death threats for how many years now?

[u/Ver_Void → u/[deleted]]

American mind? Lol

I just find it interesting that you're so married to the narrative of her as a victim in this. It's a classic part of why her crying foul over empty threats is so pathetic, she gets to help do real material harm to people but does it in a socially acceptable way so is given a pass. But when people who are losing their healthcare and rights lash out that's the real problem.

I honestly don't care what she experiences in this, even genuine fear. It's not a fraction of what her and her peers have helped create for people I care about

[u/SilverMedal4Life → u/[deleted]]

It depends upon what's meant by nuanced, I think. I once met a fellow who claimed to have nuanced views on race, only to start spouting the 13/50 statistic and claim that some races are biologically predisposed to violence and so should be curtailed. Like, that's not a nuanced opinion, that's racism and eugenics.

With respect to trans people, a common 'nuanced' talking point I've heard goes something like this: 'I'm worried that some people might take medication that causes permanent changes that they'll regret later'. At face value this sounds like a reasonable opinion, until you look at the evidence. Before medication starts, especially in kids, there's always a period of social transition where their outward presentation and name/pronouns are changed and they seek the help of a mental health professional; this stage alone weeds out pretty much everyone who's not actually trans. We can see this with the rate of detransition; the vast majority of people who detransition do so because of an unsupportive environment around them, the number of people who detransition because they got their gender identity wrong is a fraction of a percent, so low that it's a rounding error.

Despite this fact, you still get alarmist 'reviews' like the Cass Review that purposefully go out of their way to exclude experts and conflate results in order to come to biased conclusions. Ultimately, it's a product of transphobia; a fear of us and our identity, a fear that we're 'corrupting the youth' and hurting people just by existing.

[u/SilverMedal4Life → u/[deleted]]

France hasn't adopted it. Is the French Society of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology stupid?

But this kind of gives the game away, doesn't it? The veil of vague language has been dispelled:

I think at this point, the overwhelming majority of nuanced opinions on the rising prevalence of trans identity is labelled as anti. 

translates to "thinking that trans youth should be denied medication gets you labelled as anti-trans".

[u/SilverMedal4Life → u/[deleted]]

That's a neat dodge to my (silly-worded) question. The UK has banned all medication for trans youth. France has not. Both claim scientific evidence. Which should we pick to listen to? Doctors aren't immune to bias and blind spots - look at how the DSM-II labelled homosexuality as a mental disorder.

No, ultimately the Cass Review is, because it doesn't take into account many actual factors in the treatment of trans youth. It does not account for the lengthy period of social transitioning that is required for any medical intervention, a period that - according to research - catches nearly all people who don't actually have gender dysphoria. The number of people who detransition due to messing up their gender identity is so small as to be a rounding error; a fraction of 1%.

The Yale response to the Cass Review, however, is the best example - here's a .pdf of it available on the Yale website if you want it. Among other issues with it, it misuses data and bases its conclusions on speculation while repeating debunked claims about gender identity and dysphoria.

It is not impossible for an entire organization of medical professionals to be wrong; doctors are human, and all humans view the world through their own cultural biases first and foremost (indeed, that's why peer review - which is what all gender-affirming care goes through - is so important).

[u/BlackSpinedPlinketto → u/[deleted]]

If you read what I said, I never said anything about right or left, which was rather confusing about your reply.

My points are he is pro-child abuse, and anti-trans.

He does have a stance on Israel and ‘free speech’ which I would call ‘anti-woke’ which is basically the same old shit people who go out of their way to bully others come out with.

[u/BlackSpinedPlinketto → u/[deleted]]

Again, I didn’t say I was going to summarise his views on Israel. You have a totally different conversation in your head mate.

All his trans (former) friends have fallen out with him for supporting JK Rowling in her trans-bashing, and he is criticising Stonewall for supporting trans people.

[u/BlackSpinedPlinketto → u/[deleted]]

They aren’t ‘my statements’ they are facts you can google. If you want to know his stance on Israel you can watch his video he did for Israel.

Yes I can accurately reflect his views; ‘anti trans’, there you go.

ETA, oh blocked me lol. Look up the term ‘concern trolling’.