Is this an about-face from The Guardian?

I wonder why they've done it. What's happened. What do they know?

Nope, Grauniad. We all know that had to be dragged out of you.

You can still fuck right off to the far side of fuck and, when you get there, fuck off some more.

You'll need to grovel for a very long time before I even consider you within the pale again.

RedToothBrush - They’re going to have a pretty busy time whitewashing their past if that’s the case.

Also cancelled my membership but am glad to hear about this. There are some at least questioning journalists there like Hadley Freeman and Suzanne Moore.

There is a LOT of hysteria and accusations of literal murder on twitter.

"The Guardian rejects the idea that one of these positions is the right one – and the other wrong."

Anti-trans group leads march

anti-trans rhetoric is like homophobia

anti-trans zealots

Who in the name of Christ do they think they are fooling?

In the article: "The public needs to be better informed"

You're a newspaper. If the public is ill informed, it's your fault.

Sorry, but no. This is FAR too little, FAR too late, after they had an enormous hand in making it all worse. It will take a lot more than this to win me back.

**

Redtoothbrush
I ❤️You and I am moved to tell you. Your work on MN in the last two years has really helped me to keep a tenuous grip on my sanity. Thank you.
And all the other amazing women on FWR too.
And those who say fuck you to the Guardian... yes indeed.

Does anyone remember when,after slagging off Corbyn for ever, they decided to flip 180 degrees and all the journalists announce he was the best thing ever?
That didn't last long. And neither will this.
Fwiw it's too bloody late. For me, anyway.

I don't agree they've gone as far as rationality.

Rationality would be saying something like "how the living fuck did we get to a point where paedophile rapists are being incarcerated with women and children oh Jesus has it got anything to do with our propaganda on behalf of Marie/Gary dean" or similar.

Or "oh my god we've just realised we are complicit in the state-sanctioned destruction of the endocrine systems and fertility of vulnerable children"

Your?

It was me, I emailed them a couple of days ago to cancel my membership (because they asked for more money) because of their reporting around the GRA.

This is so they can say they were fair all along.

Isn't it?

I wonder how they consider the role of Owen Jones with regard to this toxic debate?

Because he stirred up a lot of it, and the Guardian meekly kept giving him the platform to do it.

The Guardian will need to accept responsibility for its actions otherwise that editorial is entirely worthless.

‘The Guardian view’? This really is their official stance on GRA now?

Oh dear. The Guardian are about to learn that if they try to please everyone, they'll end up pleasing no one.

Plus, they're ouclishing this the day before the consultation ends?!? Too late.

They can fuck right off.

Yup, not only have I subscribed to The Times I've blocked The Guardian on our router so I'm not accidentally giving them clicks.

I've had enough sanctimony from Guardian reading handmaidens to last several lifetimes. They can all fuck off.

(I'd put money on a 'balance' editorial tomorrow, we'll be hellspawn again by the weekend)

I'll still never buy it again or subscribe. My guess is that now the general public are getting wind of what's going on and how some of the TRAs operate The Guardian is beginning to re-consider it's previous position. Means fuck all about what they think about women and children.

Reverse ferret is a phrase used predominantly within the British media to describe a sudden reversal in an organisation's editorial line on a certain issue. Generally, this will involve no acknowledgement of the previous position.

The term originates from Kelvin MacKenzie's time at The Sun. His preferred description of the role of journalists when it came to public figures was to "stick a ferret up their trousers". This meant making their lives uncomfortable, and was based on the supposed northern stunt of ferret-legging (where contestants compete to show who can endure a live ferret within their sealed trousers the longest). However, when it became clear that the tide of public opinion had turned against the paper's line, MacKenzie would burst from his office shouting "Reverse Ferret!"

REVERSE FERRET

I might should this all day tomorrow.

also, bear in mind that the mainstream media and the establishment are still very much in cahoots about many things

it is not uncommon for politicians to 'suggest' to journalists (in particular editors and owners' that it would be 'helpful' to everyone if they could publish an article in support of X or against Y. It enables politicians to have a way out of trouble and provides the media with an opportunity to boast about their influence.

Well slap my arse and call me Judy (to quote Friends)

I can't cope with the Guardian being rational! I'd only just come to terms with them betraying us. This is good news.

"Someone at the Guardian is actually thinking about this"... and reading the Mumsnet FWR boards.

The Guardian is entirely unwilling to examine its own prominent part in creating this toxic debate. Hypocrites.

The Guardian has silenced, dismissed and ridiculed women's concerns for years while faithfully regurgitating every bonkers TRA dogma going.

They can fuck right off.