The Guardian's US Staff are Revolting

I read the title and thought "well, granted they're sanctimonious, irritating, and shouldn't be sticking their noses into British affairs that don't concern them, but isn't revolting a bit much?"

Then I realized that you meant that other kind of revolting, which does fit well with the Year Zero vibe a lot of the more unhinged trans advocates and other assorted embarrassments to the left have going. Maybe they'll start smashing everyone's specs next.

I voted remain. I would still vote remain if there were a second referendum but I have lost patience with the let's talk up the worst possible scenario remainers.

And as for Corbyn sniping at May from the sidelines that she should hold an election to give him a chance to negotiate Brexit- now that really is a nightmare scenario.

So far as the writers of this piece, the idea that the US journalists should have been consulted on the content of a UK editorial is outrageous. It is yet another example of the controlling, dictatorial attitude of some on the left.

I voted Remain. I thought that the EU was shit but Brexit would be shitter. I am still of that opinion. Lexit case is pie in the sky, as is the Singapore fantasy of the arch Brexiteers.

But yes: an issue that cuts across party lines, as do trans issues.

I voted for remain but I weighed up both sides of the argument. I have more in common with someone who voted Brexit after weighing up both sides of the argument than anyone who voted Remain without even considering voting otherwise.

The biggest division in society is between the Thinking and the Unthinking.

I don’t care which way you voted if you didn’t think about it.

Agree with Lass. I voted remain but it wasn't an easy decision and I wasn't distraught when Brexit won and am now keen to get on with it. Many of the EUs rules are very pro free market and big business. I was very concerned when I thought Calmac might lose the ferry service. Socialist paradise EU is wishful thinking.

I think that hilarious, hole-ridden, ranty letter will go a long way to peak trans-ing Guardian readers online.

It sounded imperialist. It demanded adherence to the faith. It whined. It was unhinged, unbalanced and spread statistics that have been debunked as 'fake news'.

A Drama Queen, left without a shred of credibility. Nice to see the writer getting his arse kicked on Twitter. I get the feeling that he may not have expected that reaction.

Oh and if anyone was actually in favour of remaining in the EU but didn't vote or openly support remain because they couldn't bear to be "aligned with Cameron and Osborne" then I have nothing but contempt for such narrow-minded cowardice.

Brexit (or more specifically whatever happened to our political discourse post-Brexit) has led to some weird bloody alliances, though. Owen Jones and Darren Grimes patting each other’s backs because pfft who cares about a bit of illegal campaign spending, The People are too smart to be fooled anyway! is just odd.

The EU needs to be able to sell goods to the UK. Itinerant labourers worked on British farms before we joined the EU.

Talking down and doom mongering is much easier than actually doing or saying anything constructive.

h and as a remainer I'm fed up of the scare mongering being put out by Remoaners

Thought you were better than that

The trump thing reminds me of Brexit. It was really difficult as a remainder to be "aligned" with Cameron & Osborne. (Corbyn was invisible). I think many felt the same way and look how that turned out

The oft repeated on here claim that radical feminists/ gender critical feminists are sooo much better at clear, critical analysis than [insert whatever non- radical feminist faction is being called] out seems unjustified.

I can only assume you never saw the fiercely pro- remain video Jeremy Clarkson and James May made otherwise you would have self- combusted in a cloud of blinkered, self- righteous lefty wrath.

Oh and as a remainer I'm fed up of the scare mongering being put out by Remoaners. Trade will go on, life will go on.

The trump thing reminds me of Brexit. It was really difficult as a remainder to be "aligned" with Cameron & Osborne. (Corbyn was invisible). I think many felt the same way and look how that turned out 

I used to live in the US and still have lots of favorite blogs and twitterers I read, people who got me through the dank Bush years and the elections stolen from Hillary.

And one by one they all seem to be falling into brainwashed mental goo. Zombie repetition of The Catechism. Zero ability to name facts. No recognition, none, that women are nothing but acceptable collateral damage in the rush to take care of mtf trans. (Oblivious to the lack of eequivalent concern for ftm people.) Unable to grasp that treating trans people like human beings does NOT mean that women can be erased.

It makes me heartsick. There's a reason I'm reading more and more UK-based writers.

Observer article today:
'Gender identity clinic accused of fast-tracking young adults
Tavistock Centre launches review amid parents’ fears over pace of transitioning decisions'
(extract)
"Britain’s only NHS gender identity service for children is reviewing its operations amid claims made by a senior member of staff that it is failing to examine fully the psychological and social reasons behind young people’s desire to change gender.

The views are shared by a group of parents of transgender children, who have raised their own concerns that the Tavistock Centre’s gender identity development service (GIDS) in London is “fast-tracking” young people into life-altering decisions without fully assessing their personal histories.

In a letter to the trust’s board, seen by the Observer, the parents say they fear “the GIDS team is being asked to engage with and assess complex and difficult cases within a highly constrained time frame”.

They continue: “We have specific concerns about the situation of those with gender dysphoria in the age group 17 to 25 who are referred to the [adult] GIC [gender identity clinic], where they do not receive the complex psychosocial assessment offered at GIDS: for these young adults there is little exploration of the family or cultural context of their still developing gender identity.”

The Tavistock confirmed that a senior member of staff had submitted a report to its board, raising issues about its service. The Observer believes that the report questions whether the clinic should do more to consider young people’s personal histories, notably by examining whether they are on the autistic spectrum, have experienced trauma or are being influenced by social pressures, before helping them on the path to transition. As a result, the clinic has begun an internal review, to see whether these views are shared more broadly by staff.

In a statement, the Tavistock said: “A document has been produced that makes allegations about the service. In response, our medical director is conducting a review of the issues raised. All staff in the service are aware of the review and have been encouraged by both our medical director and chief executive to avail themselves of this opportunity to express their own views about the service.” (continues)

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3413518-Observer-articles-on-fast-tracking-at-the-Tavistock-clinic

RTB

RedToothBrush
It's infuriating isn't it?

Tonight I've had a bit of a shit night. Some guy decided I was a soft touch and when I challenged him about being rude, took it upon himself to belittle me by referring to me as a 'little lady'. Suffice to say I went nuts at him, saying he was sexist, how he'd never say that to a man, and how he was deliberately trying to belittle me. All of which he denied. Naturally.

My sex, is one of the main reasons I happen to be 5'1". It's got nothing to do with how many babies I've pushed out. My size is why I am so frequently challenged in a way that 6'2" DH never is (who wasn't with me tonight). He is not patronised nor literally spoken down to. He doesn't have people pat his head.

I can't identify out of my size. It's something that goes further than gender stereotypes; your size affects how others assess you as someone who is easy to challenge or perhaps you might be wiser to keep your mouth shut. It contains a huge amount of power dynamics.

Women who are particularly small feel that size diffence most. Bigger and tall women feel it too, but I'd argue not quite so acutely. It's harder to assert yourself in a room of men when you can't make eye contact with them. It's harder to even be part of a conversation if everyone else present is over 6ft. (Remind me the phrase 'going over someone's head. Would it have sexist overtones?)

Your size is determined by your sex.

I bet if you were to do a study based on human interaction by size, it'd throw up some interesting patterns. With women faring worse. Across the board. Purely because of that physicality that does not get erased even if you try to erase sex.

I'm sick to the back teeth of it. I'm sick of being expected to defer and just suck this up.

Your sex is important - because its not just about your bits, it's also about stature and presence in no small part.

Attempting to reduce it to that, misses a HUGE part of the argument.

I note that the populas poll picked up on this area. A certain percentage of those saying they believed that trans women were women, faltered at the question over sports and didn't automatically agree without question that trans women should compete with women. Instead they said don't know or prefer not to say. In other words, they were subconsciously acknowledging they were uncomfortable with the physical difference and how this disadvantaged women.

The woke polled could get their heads around lady peni. They could not ignore the other issues related to sex and physicality.

You can not ignore either. It renders the lived experience of us 'little ladies' as completely devoid of value. It says, that calling us 'little ladies' isnt completely loaded in its sexist undertone. It says its fine to try and intimidate on that fashion.

Why do men do that? Remind me.

Someone earlier posted that everyone is losing their heads over Trump, falling over themselves to oppose every single thing he says or does.
The change is (AFAIK) the repeal of an executive order made by Obama, conflating sex and gender identity. Trump now has the unwelcome task of defining sex because his predecessor did not acknowledge its existence.
What's more worrying is that 1600 "scientists" are unable to tell what sex a human is. Great news for male chicks in battery egg production, they'll no longer get ground up alive because "scientists" can't tell sex any more.

If you can't see sex, you can't see sexism.

Although really it's now the T 🌈, and the LGB can get in line or fuck off. Q - aren't we all? I - we hear time and again how I do not want to be used for T purposes.

It's all about the T.

Intersex. asexual.

LGBTQIA - WTF? (I get lost after the Q)

Yes, Materialist.

Exactly, except I'm not so sure they didn't create them. Female liberation scares the living bee-jebus out of fundamentalists.

I once read a high school textbook about social movements in 1970's, and as many people know, US high school textbooks have to be approved by a committee in rightwing Texas.

Texas buys more schoolbooks than any other state except one, and California has had its hands tied by special interests and tax policy --- so publishers publish for the Texas market rather than create 2 versions. That committee is why the US still has creationists in large numbers, and why Hillary's candidacy will not be included in high school history books.

The book I read included lots of material about Vietnam, black male voting rights and had a whole 2 chapters on women. One was a chapter on The Malaise boredom of being a housewife - and the other was how rape cases come down to he said / she said.

I'm not surprised they don't know squat in high school. What makes me angry though is how colleges are selling them out with gender studies.

Well, much as I disagree with the article, it does show to me why the Guardian has been so far down the road on gender (and I do mean gender, not sex). One editorial, and they get this aimed at them. Which they publish. That's a good thing I think.

I would like to invite Katharine Viner on here for a web chat but there's no point; the chat would be destroyed by the trans issue. And I say that as a frequent poster on GRA threads.