Is this an about-face from The Guardian?

Sorry Justine - but under pressure from TAs via twitter, Mumsnet brought in the "extra-special" moderation rules for "transphobia" which are not in line with your moderation on any other minority -racism, homophobia, anti-semitism etc - or applied to any other board except FWR.

This is something that has really made me angry. So many forums where feminists are held to a higher standard. Where eventually a feminist fails to be nice enough, empathetic enough, considerate enough and thus hounded away and othered. God forbid if a feminist should express anger, oh no, that's not very nice - away with you, you mean person.

The fact that this was done on a forum predominantly populated by women and run by women is just astounding to me.

MN agreeing with The Guardian on this issue isn’t a good thing IMO.

I'll happily take a row back to MN's current position from where the Guardian was. I don't agree with MN's orwellianess over certain issues, but its better than the previous Guardian editorial line.

Any journalist who says they were "tricked" is the fraud and embarrassment, frankly. A bunch of normal women across the country have been speaking out about this at great personal risk, with no money, platform or institutional support. These women face actual violence, harassment, and intimidation. I am a nobody who has been frightened to even post on Mumsnet, because everyone I know believes these articles that have been basically an integral part of the propaganda machine on this issue.

Yes, and this cannot be forgotten. Women in the real world, ordinary women like Posie (and her children), Anne R, Julia, Venice, Linda, Maria M, Heather - have been actually physically harmed and faced real harassment, being reported to police, being privately prosecuted, and put up up with serious threats and abuse from the trans-activists - who in general can be described as aggressively males - however they "identify". News outlets like the Guardian have been complicit in this - I can't just forget that because they've suddenly, at the last moment, published this editorial.

I thank Justine for tweeting that piece, and allowing us this space to discuss the issues - but I would say that she has also been complicit in the silencing of women. Sorry Justine - but under pressure from TAs via twitter, Mumsnet brought in the "extra-special" moderation rules for "transphobia" which are not in line with your moderation on any other minority -racism, homophobia, anti-semitism etc - or applied to any other board except FWR. You allowed our language to be curbed and censored. You allowed women to be banned for breaching these new Orwellian language rules.

But misogyny too must be challenged. Gender identity does not cancel out sex. Women’s oppression by men has a physical basis, and to deny the relevance of biology when considering sexual inequality is a mistake. The struggle for women’s empowerment is ongoing. Reproductive freedoms are under threat and the #MeToo campaign faces a backlash.

God, how to write it so that most people will skim-read thinking it's a few boring feminists fretting about hypothetical oppression. Why not try direct language?

'But sexism still exists. Whatever your 'gender identity', you are still either male or female. Women female ones are at a physical disadvantage, and at risk, by dint of being smaller and less muscular than men. Women female ones still have less freedom and less representation than men. Access to abortions is under threat, and the #MeToo campaign highlighting sexual harassment has stirred up a backlash among those who think that women shouldn't object to being groped and assaulted.'

Then go on with...
'Women’s concerns about sharing dormitories or changing rooms with male-bodied people must be taken seriously. These are not just questions of safety but of dignity and fairness.'

I cancelled my subscription to the Guardian a couple of weeks ago, I wrote them an email stating it was due to their stance on the trans issue and that I really enjoyed reading their paper otherwise. I suppose I'm not the only one to have cancelled their subscription, I hope it's got them thinking.

After participating in discussions where ableism was acceptable on Mumsnet, I don’t have a huge amount of respect for Justine Roberts and the double standards on MN. They have all these rules about how we have to discuss trans issues and none for any other issue, such as when speaking of disability, religion, race.... indeed I have reported both ableist and racist comments on MN which they never removed. Never mind that actual MN members were distressed by the comments, nothing happened. But a targeted campaign by those not members, and we are given rules which prevent our rights to freedom of expression. MN agreeing with The Guardian on this issue isn’t a good thing IMO.

As for The Guardian. Don’t be fooled. It’s one editorial. It doesn’t wipe out the enormous harm they have done to women for months on this issue. Including their completely irresponsible and dangerous approach to discussing suicide. They certainly won’t stop printing OJ’s women-hating drivel.

No, I’m not for one moment thrilled nor will I be reading The Guardian again anytime soon- I didn’t click on this, I’m going to stop giving them clicks in fact.

"The UK may be moving towards a situation where the default is single-gender spaces rather than single-sex spaces, with organisations such as the Girl Guides amending their practices. The implications of this shift should not be underestimated. The public needs to be better informed, and safeguarding considered."

How can they write this with a straight face?

"But misogyny too must be challenged. Gender identity does not cancel out sex. Women’s oppression by men has a physical basis, and to deny the relevance of biology when considering sexual inequality is a mistake. The struggle for women’s empowerment is ongoing. Reproductive freedoms are under threat and the #MeToo campaign faces a backlash. Women’s concerns about sharing dormitories or changing rooms with “male-bodied” people must be taken seriously. These are not just questions of safety but of dignity and fairness."

Have they been hacked?

I thought women who had these concerns were bigots who deserved whatever they got (and the threats were explicit and that was fine).

This is DEFINITELY so they can point at it if / when things go tits up AND?OR someone has hacked them.

Like they give a fuck about women where is all this stuff even coming from?

"Any new law must not give violent or controlling male prisoners a new opportunity to dominate women by changing gender and transferring to a female prison."

But TWAW! You can't put a woman in a mans prison! Some women are violent too! You just need to do proper risk assessment!

Come on Guardian WTF

Women are a disadvantged group!

Are they taking the piss?

"feminist campaigners taking opposing sides.

The Guardian rejects the idea that one of these positions is the right one – and the other wrong. Important questions of personal identity are at stake, but also legal rights and protections. (The rights of trans men are far less controversial because they do not, while transitioning, gain access to spaces designed to protect a disadvantaged group.)"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

WTF

I don't know why they are saying this but it is in polar opposition to what they have been saying for what 2 years or more?

Which is TWAW, women they like to call "cis" should STFU, and of COURSE on uttering the magic words "I am a woman" any man should be able to go anywhere at any time, and choose a female prison, secure psychiatric ward, should they prefer.

In addition, brave new breed of sportswomen doing so well is awesome and brave.

In summary.

I think this is so that they can claim they were "even handed" if /when crimes against women/girls go through the roof and womens sports are fucked and pushed back out of politics business etc as is starting to happen already because with everyone acting ahead of and against the law, how can it be turned back?

Over on twitter 'Dr' Harrop is disappointed, a sure sign of something good.

Of course they knew. They just didn‘t give a shit as long as they felt they were on the right side of history, even if that turns out to be the side of the Handmaid‘s take. Now that it looks like women aren‘t the pushovers they thought they were, which bodes badly for their historic predictions about right sides, they cover their behind. That is all

Yes this is probably right.

a small minority of trans activists, who misrepresent the majority of transsexuals

You know, you're still not getting it. The population of transsexuals is tiny. The population of non-dysphoric males declaring themselves trans is large and it is backed up by an equally large population of misogynist wokebros and another equally large population of pomo-addled handmaidens.

This is not the tail wagging the dog. Transactivism is the dog.

Attempting to silence some of us permanently.

Oh fuck off. Can they hear themselves?

I wonder if it is beginning to dawn on the Grauniad that, whatever the outcome of the consultation, we are not going to stop? And that Labour is not going to win a general election while its front bench is completely pomo-addled? Think of the Shon Faye histrionics earlier - the sudden realisation that the post-industrial heartlands - the very votes Labour will need - are not going to buy it. Oh my god, they're telling the plebs about this! Panic stations! suddenly looks very transparent, does it not?

This. And no, we're not going to stop. This women's movement is just getting started.

Until I became involved in this issue I don't think I'd so much as signed an online petition - so hardly much of an activist. I've done more in the last 2 years than the rest of my life combined

this is me too (hah!)

I spent hours last night emailing every company I could get a contact for on the Stonewall ad, asking them if they knew that it looked like they were taking a stonewall backed, anti women position on the GRA consultation

I've filled in 2 government consultations now

a lot of my disposable income goes on this issue

i am a very, very lazy person. I don't quite recognise this activist who seems to want to get out

Tale, not take, dear autocorrect.

Of course they knew. They just didn‘t give a shit as long as they felt they were on the right side of history, even if that turns out to be the side of the Handmaid‘s take. Now that it looks like women aren‘t the pushovers they thought they were, which bodes badly for their historic predictions about right sides, they cover their behind. That is all.

ITS THEIR JOB TO KNOW!!!

Likewise MPs* and the people in companies who sign off on endorsing Stonewall messages.

*Or at the very least to listen, take on board and represent.

Interestingly Justine has come out and said this echoes Mumsnet's position.

Well too right!

I genuinely think they hadn't realised what being a transwoman in 2018 means.

THIS IS A NEWSPAPER

It's their job, to be ahead of everyone else and find shit out.

Not be so dim as to us the excuse 'oh well we didn't know'

They are the very people who ARE supposed to know on behalf of the rest of the public.

It's not as if The Times haven't managed it. And it's not as if The Guardian journalists are incapable of reading The Times.

Do not give them room for shitty meaningless excuses.

ITS THEIR JOB TO KNOW!!!