The Guardian's U-Turn... why?

A day late and a dollar short.

Flowers
June 2018
Times 428.03k
Grauniad 138.08k

Saying that I would LOVE LOVE to have someone like Carole Cadwalladr do some poking around at the people and organisations, funding and agendas behind the TRAs. There's so much quite murky stuff already out in the open, I'm sure there would be even more behind the scenes that could be discovered with a bit of digging by someone experienced at this. (See the other thread about the recent conference!). It would be interesting if the Guardian had actually discovered some things that put a different slant on the matter... though I know realistically the biggest driver is likely to be sales!

I don't know. But if you think that you're potentially alienating 52% of the population, or even half of that half, and they (like me - former Guardian reader) are heading to The Times more often now, it would make sense to calm your rhetoric down.

But it's too late for me: I will never forget that The Guardian has resolutely been consistent in its support for the undermining of my identity, my rights to safety EVEN if they were unfounded (which they're not). They have failed to recognise the fact that I, like about 25% of women have experienced rape/sexual assault and our reasons for wanting sex segregation in certain spaces are entirely based on our reality, which in turn is based on our sex.

And it allowed us, many of whom are campaigning against increasing the likelihood of us being raped AGAIN, to be called terfs.

The Guardian needs a front page public apology to women. And some mechanism by which half the population can't be thrown under a bus again.

What Waspnest said

Possibly also the discussions around misogyny becoming a hate crime may have nudged them a bit given they've been accused of having misogynistic overtones.

If I were a cynic I would say that (like the BBC) they are arse covering so that if self ID does come in they can say that they did cover both sides of the argument before the consultation closed. If it were purely about circulation figures they could have printed it weeks ago or even in a few weeks time. If you were into conspiracy theories you could suggest that both the Guardian and BBC chose to give exposure at the last minute so that the consultation website would be overwhelmed and slow down so that people would give up......

Do we have any circulation figures for The Guardian vs The Times?

I think GC people on the staff (Hadley F?) have finally got through to them that their key demographic (errr women) are not happy. Maybe even directed them towards mumsnet.com?

I think it's something like that. They see how much support The Times and Daily ShiteMail having with this and realise they're looking like misogynistic dicks. So now they're kind of keeping their position, but agreeing that women are, you know, actual women who, you know, understand actual women's lives.