The Guardian again: Gaby Hinsliff misses the point

Janice is wiping the floor with Gaby, honestly.

Bloody ell, MARGARET ATWOOD of all people has just retweeted that article!

Oops - misread the sarcasm in the ‘born a gender’ twitter post.

JT has just been told by another poster that trans women are born the female gender.

I honestly don’t think GH thinks that you can be born a gender, or that women suffer discrimination because people are recognising their gender, but while it’s fine and almost necessary to be a left wing atheist, for some, belief in in gender is now mandatory.

God I love Janice Turner. What a fabulous, incisive woman she is. Thankful that she’s on the GC side.

And then Janice Turner arrives into the discussion on twitter:

twitter.com/sarahditum/status/961899466008793088

and in a trice Hinsliff is looking even more evasive.

Angry I think some women are incredibly flattered that men want to join their gang.

I say this because I have the uneasy feeling that if all of this was happening say 20/30 years ago I would have been one of those women.

One of the (only) things I like about getting older is being able to see things in a more critical way!

It's extreme virtue-signalling by a social justice warrior.

If you look at her responses on the twitter thread, this is not a case of accidentally missing the point. She's actively trying to undermine the gender critical position using classic TRA tactics. No friend to women, this one, if you remember what she wrote about Cologne.

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.

The only thing those men provide a profound insight into is how narcissism works, and also fetishism in some cases. I find the fawning over them interesting in that I'd like to know why some women find them so fascinating, and I think if we could answer that question it might help us from a strategy perspective.

Why should women have to make room when we are still under-represented?

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Let men give up a few more spots. Why is it always women who have to be nice and budge over?

Looking at that twitter thread, I'm developing a very strong dislike of the argument "but there will be a tiny minority of cases so even if there's a problem, it'll be a tiny one".

On that basis you can excuse just about any outlandish thing.

I saw the headline and the name of the author and didn't bother to read the article: Hinsliffe has form for throwing women under the bus.

The Guardian is transideology central and cannot die a horrible flaming financial death soon enough.

In the twitter thread GH says:

“I've never seen a piece of legislation yet that didn't have exemptions for hard cases”

I just don’t think that is how the law works. Life isn’t a feel good christmas film.

I am usually a lurker but I feel like I’m peaking every day now.

I’m particularly irritated by this from Hinsliff:
“It seems odd, too, to exclude a minority not currently represented in parliament from measures to make it more representative.”

Women are a Majority who are not represented in parliament and AWS are specifically created to rectify this. If some minorities e.g.BAME people, trans identifying people are not currently represented there should be other mechanisms. Why should women have to make room when we are still under-represented? Is it because of gender expectations that we should be nice?

Actually I don’t want to fight someone else’s battles for them, and I don’t feel sorry for trans identifying people and I will not step aside. Maybe my selfishness makes me a man?

Absolutely hackmum!

However I think they did have a TIF who used to write pretty regularly about their transition but as I'm hardly on the website anymore I'm not sure if they still do.

Just in case it disappears...

That twitter convo is contributing and I do like the response re eddy izzard...

mobile.twitter.com/sarahditum/status/961897703994200064

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.

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.

In this twitter thread, Sarah Ditum reeled in Gaby Hinsliff to ask her the direct question that Hinsliff studiously avoided in her article:

twitter.com/sarahditum/status/961897703994200064

Unsurprisingly Hinsliff seems not to want to answer.

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.

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.

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.

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.