The Guardian again: Gaby Hinsliff misses the point(65 Posts)
She hasn't understood the point about self-identification - that under the Labour interpretation of the rules, any man will be able to stand on an AWS by virtue of saying "I'm a woman". I'd love to ask Gaby if she thinks Eddie Izzard - who has said he wants to stand on an All Women Shortlist - is a woman. It's not open for comments, unfortunately.
I know. I was just coming on to comment about this. Utterly, utterly misses the point.
Wtf is that.
Does she seriously buy into women who don't have a vagina. The very way that babies are told apart at birth.
I agree with Gabby that men can represent women. People are capable of empathy and I think that argument against trans rights is a weak one.
What she does, which is infuriating, is use trans women as if an agreed fact. The article is based on a false premise and the debate needs to be shifted back to the start.
Do you believe in trans women's rights is like being asked "what will you use when you fall off the flat earth".
What is it with these fucking women who cannot work out that they are fucking women because of their fucking biology?
Honestly - what the fuck?
Came on here to comment on the same.
Do you think this is a response to all the opinions the Guardian received on the greatest current threat to women's rights the other day?
Hopefully someone on twitter will point out that this is about Self ID, not transgender people.
'Gender assigned at birth'
I'm so sick of reading this stupid crap. Nobody's 'gender' is 'assigned' at birth, but their SEX is DETERMINED based on the EVIDENCE that you see in front of your eyes. I can't understand why some people still don't get that
And the handwringing about the suggestion that transwomen might actually be 'more male than female'.
I'm so sick of this shit from the Guardian. I wonder if Julie Bindel is begging to write something but they have locked her in a cupboard somewhere
What is the point of having shortlists for women ( or any other group) if they are so diverse that nobody can explain who they are or what they have in common?
I wasn't going to read the article but decided if I was going to have a view I should read it.
The article assumes the following:
Transwomen are women.
Self-ID is not a thing, it's all about transssexuals who've going through Hell.
The law does not already provide for transwomen to be on AWS legally.
You would think that a journalist writing about this issue at this stage in the game would have got the basics right. But we're dealing with the Guardian here and when it comes to trans issues, what they do isn't journalism.
FYI: Gaby Hinscliff is the journalist who write that horrible victim-blaming piece after the Cologne attacks... she's no friend of women.
I cannot stand the Guardian any more because of sh*t like this. It will not allow anyone to write anything gender critical nor will it even allow comments. How did it get to a point where a supposedly left-wing newspaper just prints piece after piece which deny women a voice.
She has missed the point on many levels. 'Oppressed by gender' is in the byline - well, no, oppressed by biology. That is the point! So many women are not buying into gender crap but just for example say an equally qualified and experienced man and woman go for a job. They are in their mid-30s. Both have shiny new wedding rings on. 'Better select him' says the boss 'She'll be up the duff before the year's out.' That is biology not gender.
And yes of course men can have empathy with women, and that is great - but we have women's officers, BAME officers, LGBTetc (not being rude I just can't remember all of the initials) from those groups to ensure representation for as wide a variety of people as possible. This is why not all those positions are open to white straight 50+ men. I am sure lots of those men could think of the needs and experiences of women, BAME people, LBGT people - but as a society, we have chosen to ask people from those specific groups to best represent them (this seems to be universal when representation is needed iyswim - university, politics, unions, etc).
Sorry I am waffling. Very much heartened by the peak transing that is going on, by the solidarity on here and by my experiences in real life (friends, DH, parents, my MP, teachers at my kids' school) but the Guardian is being wilfully obtuse and refusing to engage properly with the frankly very intelligent discussions that lots of women would like to have. And it makes me sad, and ANGRY!
nauticant: "You would think that a journalist writing about this issue at this stage in the game would have got the basics right."
Yes. She is, after all, an experienced journalist. She could have made the effort to read up a bit on the issues first. But she clearly hasn't 'bothered to do any reading at all. (Note that she's framing the article as a response to something she heard Linda Bellos say on the radio - a pretty good indication that hasn't tried to educate herself about what's happening.) She hasn't grasped the fact, for example, that there's a legal issue with allowing self-identified transwomen to go onto all women shortlists. She certainly hasn't grasped the fact that the vast majority of "transwomen" are men who have not had surgery, not had hormones and have no intention of having either.
The 'assigned female at birth' thing littered throughout the article is unfuriating. The tiniest proportion of people are intersex and have historically been assigned a gender. Otherwise it is the most straight forward thing imaginable. It's no harder than telling if a baby is human or a puppy.
And she writes about people being oppressed because of their sex as if it's a thing of the past. Try telling that to all the girls who will undergo fgm this year, or child marriage or who will be raped.
She hasn't even considered the ramifications of self-id. She has spectacularly missed the point.
Try telling that to all the girls who will undergo fgm this year, or child marriage or who will be raped.
Or any woman of child bearing age who hasn’t obviously completed her family and wants to lead a political party.
OTOH - I read it as acknowledging that biology is important - she got so much wrong but if she holds that to be true then she will Peak.
Agree with cista that article she wrote after the Cologne attacks was an utter disgrace.
I'm so over The Guardian and have been for a while, but it pains me as it used to be one of my favourite places to waste time online.
But the fawning over the likes of Shon Faye/Paris Lees/Jane Fae etc, the sanctimonious lecturing by OJ and the stalinist censoring of any even slightly gender critical comments btl (which has been going on for years) shows me they don't a shit about women unless they have cocks.
In this twitter thread, Sarah Ditum reeled in Gaby Hinsliff to ask her the direct question that Hinsliff studiously avoided in her article:
Unsurprisingly Hinsliff seems not to want to answer.
"But the fawning over the likes of Shon Faye/Paris Lees/Jane Fae..."
This is one of the things that makes my blood boil. Obviously their entire approach is enraging, but the fawning over narcissistic men in lipstick and dresses as if they provide some profound insight into womanhood is cringe-making. They never commission transmen, or even interview them. Yet everything a transwoman says is somehow deemed to be worthy of admiration, however shallow, fatuous or self-aggrandising.
The new Nipt test can also test for sex at 10 weeks gestation. In order to test for trisomies where there are extra chromosomes, including those that cause some intersex issues.
I'm starting to use that in my arguments.
Sex assigned at conception.
Sex determined at conception.
Male or female or trisomy at conception.
I knew I was having a male baby at 11 weeks.
That was another peaking moment for me.
All women short-lists are aiming at getting 50% of MPs as women. Because 50% of the population are women. Now "transwomen" will have the chance to fill the women spaces. And will no doubt become hugely over-represented, while women continue to be under-represented, but not allowed to complain (because of transwomen being women). Will transwomen use "empathy" in their representation of women? Any more than men do? Or will they continue in their obsessive focus on transrights and taking things from women? 1 transwoman in Parliament would be sufficient, in terms of numbers, to reflect the number of transwomen in society.
That twitter convo is contributing and I do like the response re eddy izzard...
Join the discussion
Please login first.