Advanced search

Guardian opinion article deploring govt silence on reportedly scrapping GRA

(19 Posts)
JustTurtlesAllTheWayDown Wed 01-Jul-20 11:27:10

Does no one do even the most basic fact checks at the Guardian anymore?
The article body refers to reforms being reportedly scrapped but the subtitle states its the Gender Recognition Act itself.
This would be bad even for a red top.

OP’s posts: |
JustTurtlesAllTheWayDown Wed 01-Jul-20 11:28:45

Screenshot because I'm sure they'll change it

OP’s posts: |
SunsetBeetch Wed 01-Jul-20 11:42:30

I've archived it here:

Floisme Wed 01-Jul-20 11:50:14

'Comment is free... but facts are sacred'
CP Scott, 1921, Guardian editor

The Guardian still use this as their by-line. What the fuck is going on there?

contactusdeletus Wed 01-Jul-20 19:37:25


^'Comment is free... but facts are sacred'^
CP Scott, 1921, Guardian editor

The Guardian still use this as their by-line. What the fuck is going on there?

No-one's free to comment either!

stumbledin Wed 01-Jul-20 20:11:51

Most times articles that aren't open to comment on via the web site are open to comment on the Guardian facebook page.

So if you want to comment on this story go to

JustTurtlesAllTheWayDown Thu 02-Jul-20 06:36:53

They've changed it so I guess that's something, but it was hugely irresponsible for them to put it up in the first place. Tempers are so frayed around this issue and there is already so much misrepresentation of the facts, that the last thing it needed was a major newspaper making it worse.

OP’s posts: |
stumbledin Thu 02-Jul-20 14:48:59

Sorry - being a bit slow - but what have they changed?

Ereshkigalangcleg Thu 02-Jul-20 14:55:11

Their mistake that the GRA itself is being scrapped, I imagine.

OhHolyJesus Thu 02-Jul-20 16:22:20

It's like the BBC - changing it after people have already read it and complained. How about getting it right in the first place and not misleading those who won't go back to read a corrected copy?

Thanks for the Archive Sunset will use that for my complaint.

Ozanne is on the LGBT GEO so could complain to them as well as The Guardian/IPSO and Tikvah Sarah's wife Jess Wood runs Allsorts...

Apollo440 Thu 02-Jul-20 19:10:49

Well it is good that they changed it. You say there is already so much misrepresentation of the facts. I haven't seen any evidence that is coming from the GC side. That seems to be the exclusive domain of TRAs.

DuDuDuLangaLangaBingBong Thu 02-Jul-20 19:28:24

Quote A prime example of this toxic discourse is how the conversation about “single sex spaces” for women has evolved. Trans women have been safely accessing these spaces for years. We are deeply concerned that leaked proposals calling for trans women to be barred from these spaces will ultimately victimise all women, trans or otherwise. Who decides what a “woman” looks like, and whether they therefore can access a space? Would a masculine-looking woman be disqualified? If we judge people not according to their behaviour, but according to what some third party perceives as their sex and gender, we risk imposing a singular idea of what a “woman” is.

This is a massive TRA talking point at present - but it’s easily resolved by updating the GRA to allow both self identifying ones’ ‘gender’ and ensuring that ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ are two separate categories, and that gender does not overwrite sex.
Thus, single sex spaces can be limited in law to a single sex and people with a gender presentation different to their sex can be sorted into their birth sex category when necessary by boring admin stuff, like ID (I have to show mine to buy spray paint!)
This solves the non-binary problem too - genders can indeed be infinite if all people are sorted by sex, and gender Identity is an optional extra for those who want one.

This is not what TRAs actually want, of course - but the fact their arguments usually support the feminist side of the debate better than their own seems to go straight over their heads.

contactusdeletus Fri 03-Jul-20 13:57:42

@stumbledin It's good to know there's some outlet for readers to express their concern, but I'm still leery about it, to be honest.

I don't have a Facebook account and have zero interest in creating one. I don't trust them with my personal information. I do however have an account with the Guardian. As a reader (and until recently, a paying subscriber) I shouldn't have to go all the way around the houses to comment on an article.

I wouldn't mind as much if they reserved the right to withhold comments for articles that had a particularly contentious subject matter, or ones which were currently subject to legal action. (Ongoing court cases and things.)

But this sensible approach isn't the one the Guardian is taking. What they've actually done is enacted a silent ban on any reader debate. It's clear as day they have an unofficial policy of "no comments, ever, on trans issues". Which tells me they know their readers aren't on board with their agenda. They're trying to silence us.

Even the way the debate is framed over there makes my skin crawl now. It's always some piece critical of J.K Rowling, classified as "Transgender Rights". Never "Women's Rights". They completely ignore her point. They certainly don't act like there are two sides to the debate. It's a case of, well who gives a stuff about women? If we ignore them long enough they'll probably shut up and go away.

And then every time you log on they're waxing lyrical about how "fair and impartial" journalism is more important than ever, and begging for your money. hmm

JustTurtlesAllTheWayDown Fri 03-Jul-20 15:21:13

There seem to be quite a few of us ex-Guardian subscribers. I've gone from reading them every day to avoiding. Unfortunately, they've demonstrated over and over again over the last few years that they have little interest in unbiased reporting. It's a real shame.

OP’s posts: |
AskingQuestionsAllTheTime Fri 03-Jul-20 15:46:35

I think I am suffering from irony overload: that someone pro-trans can write, apparently with deep seriousness, the words

"If we listen only to the loudest voices, or worse, silence those we don’t wish to hear, things can quickly turn toxic."

and not realise who it is who have "#nodebate" as their watchword, and shout loudly all the bloody time while trying their best to silence anyone who dares to suggest even slightly that she or he may not agree with them 100%, I choke on my raspberry vodka.

(I have just finished bottling it and of course I had to sample. It is utterly delicious. It is far too good to waste on my blasted keyboard.)

Whiteclaw Fri 03-Jul-20 15:49:03

Another ex-Guardian subscriber here. Today’s article was the one that tipped me over the edge.

Pluckedpencil Fri 03-Jul-20 15:59:16

The Guardian is now as bad as the Daily Mail. It isn't worth reading as it's agenda completely oblivates any facts contained.

Tootletum Fri 03-Jul-20 16:29:32

Pink news did the same thing. Unsurprisingly.

stumbledin Fri 03-Jul-20 16:48:36

Agree with most comments about the Guardian.

I used to read and comment way before the trans agenda took over, and believe me it was virtually impossible to comment as a feminist. Men were given a free ride, eg feminazi slurs etc., but the moment a woman posted something about men as a class it was censored.

There was a group of us constantly having to sign up with new names, but then thought why bother.

And some years later they did an investigation as to why not many women commented. They of course found they weren't at fault!

So probably no surprise they went from their pro MRA rights to trans activism.

Not saying anyone should comment on facebook, but it really shows up that their Guardian world is a tiny bubble.

But I suspect they will stop that soon.

Join the discussion

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet

Already have a Mumsnet account? Log in