Complaints about media coverage

There's a different threshold. For something to be anti-trans, all it needs to be is detrimental to trans interests

Snappity this is nonsense.

Words matter, journalism matters, free speech matters.

‘Anti’ means opposed to/against so snappity it’s actually less to prove than being detrimental to trans interests...

They still have to put it in quotes and attribute it if it is the opinion of a third party and the fact that they haven’t means the paper is, having held it out as a statement of fact, responsible for proving that the protest was anti trans.

I do find it rather illuminating that re trans issues you seem to think the papers should just be a mouthpiece. Maybe you would understand why that’s bad if you considered what would happen if the paper printed a news article that stated one of the protest’s aims as though it were a fact...

Thing is, none of us are wanting that. We all thing it is important for newspapers to print news that has been fact checked, is fair and with views in a polarised debate properly attributed to the relevant third party.

We would all be worried it would place trans people at risk of violence and increase transphobia if the paper had taken that approach...

Interesting that despite a bomb threat, rape threats, a museum exhibiting threats of violence to women and a set of weapons, an actual prosecution for assault etc etc you want papers to be the mouthpiece of transactivism and print their side as though it is fact...

I think you are confusing anti-trans and pro-lesbian. I think your confusion about this is very, very telling.

Any description of anti-trans should be in quotation marks. It must be attributed. It doesn't stop it being defamatory: in fact, it is defamatory. I hope the protestors lodge complaints on this basis. However if not in quoration marks it is being reported as a fact, not an accusation by one side.

I think you are confusing transphobia and anti-trans. There's a different threshold. For something to be anti-trans, all it needs to be is detrimental to trans interests.

Good on you, miri!

This isn't to do with the pride protestors but I emailed the managing editor of the DM and asked them to stop presenting puberty blockers in such a flippant manner and to actually mention their negative side effects especially when people cited them as no big deal. I read an article by Juno Dawson this morning which said:

"In 2015, Juno announced she was transitioning to live as a woman, and the biggest myth the author wants to dispel is the idea that there are children across the UK changing gender in childhood.
'The notion that one can “transition” a minor - it doesn’t happen in the UK. Under 18s are supported by Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services and the NHS until they reach adulthood.'
A young person may be prescribed hormone blockers to temporarily put puberty on hold, making an eventual transition easier if they so decide in the future. "

I was still cross at the end of the day and thinking also of the article on the mermaids prom a few days ago which mentioned blockers in an off hand no big deal way so often. Like so many things we are being told, its a lie told over and over again that people have started to believe.

It probably won't make a blind bit of difference but I was inspired by everyone else who put in complaints on this thread

Poula I suggest you check out the case where the person went to prison for pretending to be what they were not. They were convicted of rape.

These people keep coming out as homophobic and misogynist, I suspect because they are not aware that both sex and sexual orientation are protected characteristics under the EA and they are persecuting Lesbians.
I wish someone would print off the page of the EA that lists the protected groups and send it to them. If I were a betting person I would bet thy have been provided with the fraudulent list.

I note you didn't answer my question. Veeery happy to answer when you have answered.

This is a recent speech by Julia Long who was one of the protesters.

Its an opportunity to listen to her position and the background to the protest.

Pratchet, I am not a trans rights activist. I do not own Twatter or FB accounts and only read the crap spouted on social media when it's pointed out to me. I'm just a normal person quietly trying to avoid being abused in the street or getting my head kicked in. Inferring I do not have sympathy for frightened people however they identify is rather insulting. Anyway, you didn't really answer the question. Is that ridiculous statement I've posted twice slurring trans women as a group acceptable to you?

You're a TRA so you never had any sympathy. Men who call themselves lesbians are behaving like predators. They aren't lesbians, they want to deceive, bully and shame lesbians into sex. Is that predatory behaviour or not? Answer the question.

Practchet. When I heard this "A man who calls himself a lesbian is a rapist" I immediately lost any sympathy. As the rad fem gender critical stance is trans women are men, my logical and fair interpretation is "A trans woman who calls herself a lesbian is a rapist".
Please if you can bothered, would you like to explain how that slogan is not a defamatory anti trans statement? How is calling a another group rapists in any way pro lesbian?

Magdalen Berns RE: "your dating preferences are discriminatory"

They are not anti-trans, they are pro lesbian. That is defamatory. The fact that you think it's fair coverage indicates there has been extreme bias.

The media coverage has been fair. These protesters are most definitely anti-trans. It's obvious so why complain about the accurate reporting?
I was particularly startled when I heard the chant, "A man who calls himself a lesbian is a rapist".

It's driving me crazy this misframing. I keep shouting at the headlines "They're NOT anti-trans! They may be anti-self ID, anti-being told who they should fancy. They may even be anti the idea that transwomen are women but they are NOT anti-trans".

NO ONE is saying that trans people are wrong to exist or should have human rights taken away from them

This is clear to everyone by the much wider outpouring of support and solidarity with trans people by the majority of lesbians.
It may be fuddled on here, but it is perfectly clear to everyone else what exactly happened.

Threads in response to the protest at Pride London:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3299646-Lesbians-protest-at-London-Pride-getthelout

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3300768-Lesbians-react-to-London-Pride

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3300986-Stonewall-condemn-transphobia-at-London-Pride

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3300704-misogynistic-bros-part-1-zillion-stephen-fry

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3300978-julia-long-is-a-legend

They weren't there to raise any awareness of anything pro lesbian whatsoever

So we are to take every trans person at their word but never believe anything a lesbian says. Mkay.

link to the lesbian protesters' statement & discussion:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3301033-Get-the-L-Out-Statement-by-the-lesbian-protesters-at-Pride-London

..........and white supremecists are not anti poc?

They weren't there to raise any awareness of anything pro lesbian whatsoever. It was an anti-transgender attack.

This is clear to everyone by the much wider outpouring of support and solidarity with trans people by the majority of lesbians.

It may be fuddled on here, but it is perfectly clear to everyone else what exactly happened.

They see you.

That's wrong, everyone knows it is wrong. The straight fact is they are terrified of the trans lobby. Journalism is an insecure profession and if trans complain it matters and you could be in trouble. If women complain it won't matter and you won't be in trouble.

So, let's get this straight.

According to a justification of the protest as 'anti-trans' in the media for the reasons above.

Therefore, in the abortion debate it should follow that if a pro-life organisation calls pro-choice protesters 'anti-life', that's exactly how the BBC, Guardian and others should also describe the protesters because 'otherwise they could be described as biased'?

For example, if transactivists were described as anti-women, it's fair comment, but there would be an outcry.