Is this an about-face from The Guardian?

Well it’ll take a lot more than that to atone for not covering the David Challenor case for nearly a week, or for that dreadful Caroline Lucas piece. Or before they see another penny of my money.

However.

A lot of my workmates read the Guardian and this article might just give me an opportunity to start a conversation.

I want to win this.

(And it’ll piss Owen Jones right off.)

So much as it sticks on the craw to say it: thank you Guardian.

I feel very suspicious about the motive behind this sudden volte-face. Its not diverting my attention for one second.

ToetoToe
I think it's just about getting something, anything, through the Commons (and getting what they imagine will be approving headlines) as they know the SNP, Labour and the Lib Dems won't oppose them.

Fuck - someone posted on David Davis thread last night that there is a cabinet member determined to pass self ID. Still trying to work out what his/her motivation might be. But none of it will have the safeguarding of women and children in mind, I guarantee it.

At best that article is a (very) grudging admission that there may be two sides to the story so yes the Guardian can fuck right off.

But Red very interesting to see that the complexity of the GRA consultation has been raised in the House of Lords.

Just a thought about stitching women up. In Scotland they rushed through a change to the legal meaning of female at the llth hour, when people weren't looking and were busy getting their consultations in. It would be interesting to see what is tabled in the HoP at the moment. The fuckers in Scotland completely ignored the consultation too - it was just a charade of democratic process.

They can fuck right off

Yup

Too little much too late

I love REVERSE FERRET

Thanks Red.

Hilarious.

Posted this on the other thread:

Article by Susie Green, obsequious review of Butterfly in the last 10 days. I’m not giving them ANYTHING until I see some proper balance. What that editorial needed was a strong line or paragraph admitting they haven’t taken editorial balance on in it the past. When I see some of their obviously GC writers be allowed to write articles, with comments opened, I’ll view them as a fair place.

Having seen the advert in the paper today I’m changing my bank from Barclays. I left the guardian months ago and now subscribe to the Times.

Remember to shout REVERSE FERRET when appropriate.

Thanks Red.

I think that's what we call DARVO isn't it?

Too many people have short memories. Give it a few weeks and half the woke will be saying this is what they believed all along.

So true.

The Natacha Kennedy thread for those of you blocked. This is from 14hours ago.

Deeply Unhelpful Saboteuse @natachakennedy
This is what the "trans debate" has become;

"A debate about trans people from which trans people are excluded"

When was the last time you saw a #trans person in the media arguing for trans rights
@guardian

@Independent
?

No-one is being silenced except trans people.

This is not just silencing by forgetful omission or by 1 or 2 sub-editors, this is a system-wide, coordinated, deliberate, targeted exclusion of #trans people's and our supporters' voiceas from mainstream media, focussed on excluding those arguing in favour of GRA reform.

Yet the voices whose arguments are being heard everywhere in the media are not only arguing that they are being silenced but being given multiple platforms to do so.

If you are shouting "I AM BEING SILENCED!" in mainstream media, you are not being silenced.

Yet one of the anti-#trans groups has started engaging in stirring up hatred and vigilanteism against #trans people with the obvious aim of inciting violence against us in Manchester.

Attempting to silence some of us permanently.

Are any mainstream news rags reporting this?

The @guardian has published four articles in four days arguing against #trans rights. Not a single one has included a trans person's voice arguing the contrary position.

...yet two of those four articles tell us that anti-#trans voices are being "silences"

This is beyond parody, it has become Orwellian.

The @guardian is shredding its credibility (credibility built up by the amazing work of people like @carolecadwalla), in favour of clickbait.

And that was BEFORE the editorial.

how many pro women articles in the last 6 months versus anti woman ones?

There were 2 unforgivable ones that I noticed. The first lobbied for a dangerous sex offender to be moved to the female estate, the second celebrated a mother who sourced cross-sex hormones for her minor child against NHS advice.

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/27/marie-dean-trans-prisoner-male-prison-hunger-strike

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/feb/10/raising-a-non-binary-child-as-long-as-one-of-the-side-effects-wasnt-death-it-was-the-right-way

I'm blocked by India W and on terfblocker too. I spent more time logged out of twitter than logged in at the moment, otherwise there are gaping holes in conversations

They can fuck right off

THIS. With fucking bells on.

No idea, but judging by the ‘related stories’ under the guardian article about the MP meeting, there were none at all between June and October.

So I would assume we are owed quite a few more!

Red - Just Hadley's, I think.

And how many pro women articles in the last 6 months versus anti woman ones?

Looks like I'm blocked from Kennedy's tweets - I've never even heard of her before. Must have been put on some list by India Willoughby, who blocked me last week

Kennedy is wrong. It’s not 4 pro women articles in 4 days, it’s 5 prowomen articles in 4 days.

I agree with sillage further up the thread, the article describes women as 'other women' alongside trans women. I couldn't get past this on first reading

I suppose all those cancelled subscriptions meant it was either publish that article or add a picture of a dog on a piece of string to their bottom of the page begging bit.