The Guardian's US Staff are Revolting

You can tell The Guardian is aimed at US liberals by the fact most of the ‘cultural appropriation’ outrage centres on plastic sombreros.

Since when were Mexicans the most oppressed minority in the UK?

Also, let me add:

Trump throwing his lot in with the Christian Right, which hates the LGB as well as the TQ was meant to triangulate and polarize. Voila.

Take comfort that while he's in office, these jagoffs will continue to insist they're being persecuted and women need to aid and comfort them, but once he's left office they will expect a payoff even though it will not be their lobby responsible for removing him.

And, he's going after "cis" women at the same time, but 3rd wave feminism has never actually grasped the idea that misogyny is a real thing, so a lot of the young girls will be busy throwing away their rights to help their trans "sisters".

Let me sum up:

An editorial calling for input of British women apparently dehumanizes transwomen because Trump.

Young females experiencing demoralization is at record highs, but depression, well, it's all about the trans.

Also, discussing the sexual assault of female prisoners by a trans-identifying at least for the moment male, should be a discussion about transwomen's rights when behind bars.

Say what?

Either women just don't matter or they really do believe that cis privilege crap.

On that thread people are confidently tweeting that British feminists are "backward". That alone is enough to confirm to me that this side, the GC one, is probably the best one to be going on with.

The Hadley Freeman thread (referenced above):

The GRA and self ID are v different from Trump erasing trans identity and it’s unfair to conflate them. It is also v sad to see people I respect dismiss British feminism as somehow more backward and conservative than American feminism (1/2)
It is also v sad to see people suggest anxiety about self ID is just about “cis women’s intolerance”, as if women were naturally, and randomly, the more bigoted sex. This is a nuanced subject, not a partisan debate

twitter.com/HadleyFreeman/status/1058656391890698240

Some good discussion in the comments along with some odd contributions.

it is pro Corbyn despite his obvious shortcomings

Are you joking? The Graun has been fiercely anti Corbyn since the day he announced his candidacy. They may occasionally have a few pro-Corbyn articles for 'balance' but their anti-Corbyn agenda is obvious. The Guardian these days is strictly 'centrist' so Corbyn doesn't fit in.

Agree with the rest of your post though.

I really don't see why the Guardian wants to pander to that unless it's planning to move over there.

Money I guess? The American market is potentially about 5 times greater than the British market and more internationally influential, and in the internet age why limit yourself? Mind you, going by the constant begging messages at the bottom of nearly every article, they're not doing that well at the money thing.

Their analysis seem to stop at the boundary of "be nice to people who we identify with".

In this new complicated political world where left-right, black-white, etc are breaking down, being a weathervane is a path to extinction for a newspaper.’

^ What Nauticant said.
The Guardian has totally lost the plot.

I found the Guardian just became much less objective. It was always left wing but used to seem more balanced to me. Now it seems all opinion pieces and brainwashing.
It writes off Brexit without ever discussing the disadvantages of the EU and positive reasons for leaving, it is pro Corbyn despite his obvious shortcomings and the nasty prejudiced group that is Momentum and the Tories can never do anything right because they are the Tories. I hate American politics with its OTT polarisations and posturing. I really don't see why the Guardian wants to pander to that unless it's planning to move over there.

"there is no difference whatsoever between reactionary old-school women and the new and improved stunning and brave women".

A bit like the 'trans women have vaginas, women have front holes' claim.

For several years now, the Guardian has been moving away from its traditional position as the paper of choice for the British left, and instead trying to pander to US 'liberals', the sort of 'woke' people who would normally read The New York Times and vote Democrat. This has been obvious to long-time (ex) readers like myself for quite some time, and the trans issue is just one aspect of it. Notice that the 'Comment is Free' section is rarely 'free' at all - fewer and fewer articles are opened for comments, and those that are tend to be non-controversial stuff like TV reviews or click-baity filler about sex or celebrities.

No wonder The Guardian is begging its readers for cash at the end of every article. As someone who used to be a regular reader, I can honestly say I would be happy if they went under.

but I prefer not to be defined by the babies I’ve pushed out of my hoo ha!

But the expectation that you would push a baby out of your hoo ha would have defined your ability to participate in society until widespread access to contraception only a few decades ago, and still stops many women having equal rights now.

Assuming the continuation of the human race, women will continue to push babies out of their hoo has and bear all the physical consequences of having a body of the type that pushes babies out of hoo haas.

It's no more possible to escape the physical consequences of being born female than it is to grow wings and start flying.

We're already seeing 'women and cis women'

Once women are forced to go along with this, then the "transwomen were never men, they have always been women" narrative gets applied, and it becomes understood that transwomen are actually cis-women and always have been. As well as transwomen. And as well as women. The goal is to have women lose their ability to define themselves, to be worn down by a series of colonisations, and eventually become so worn down they can't put up a fight when the intended end point is reached: "there is no difference whatsoever between reactionary old-school women and the new and improved stunning and brave women". Woman 2.0 will be exactly the same as woman 1.0 in all respects except one. They will be superior.

But Katharine Viner has already published it in The Guardian, Flo.
Throw a hissy fit about something that doesn't concern you and The Guardian will reward you by publishing your article.

Yes, you’re right.

The right of trans people not to suffer discrimination or abuse does not endanger women. The loss of the ability to clearly define who women are and the prioritisation of sexist concepts of gender over the real physical consequences of sex very much endangers women.

I've forgotten who said this a few pages back, but it pretty much nails it for me.

I prefer not to be defined by the babies I’ve pushed out of my hoo ha

You know perfectly well gender critical feminists aren't defining women on the basis of having babies.

Feminist4
Electron1, no, but I prefer not to be defined by the babies I’ve pushed out of my hoo ha!

I don't feel defined by the babies I've had, but I couldn't have had them if I was a man, or if sex was irrelevant.

Electron1, no, but I prefer not to be defined by the babies I’ve pushed out of my hoo ha!

a few women who have constructed a biological argument, that is in fact already being proven incorrect by scientists.

Those scientists were defo not there when I shoved a couple of babies out of my hoo ha so I don't think they have seen much in the way of proof.

Holy shit, Woman, you're so right. We've been so brainwashed that I no longer even notice how careful I am to avoid the word 'man'.

I spent 15/20 minutes explaining my views to my Labour MP and his older male assistant today at his surgery and I always said male or man, or cross dresser, transvestite, fetishist or transsexual. And they never batted and eyelid. Not a flicker.

The only word I hesitated on was when I was saying they don't mostly have surgery, and only use hormones to grow....and the elderly man said breasts!

Why are we censoring ourselves. It's ridiculous.

The only word I heisted over was when I was discussing

I know what you mean pachyderm. It is quite terrifying how devoid of critical thinking ability many people are.

I worry about a kind of generational brain death caused by twenty or so years of the internet. Those young journos seem so stupid and ignorant, and incapable of rational argument. They bloody terrify me to be honest.

This is why it is imperative that we retain the word woman to mean adult human female. Cis is insulting & irrelevant. One of the linked articles from US guardian did make me chuckle, a woman who aged 19 transitioned to become a man, yet had no surgery, had a Drs appt for a health check up, the Dr asked to check the persons testicles-they explained they didn't have any....Dr was slightly bemused then asked, so you're a woman with short hair? trans person was offended, but I think the Dr was spot on! That person was still a woman, even if T had made them look more masculine.

How can they not see that they are saying biology itself is offensive and outdated?

Now there are many things about the human body that I think evolution has let us down on - the matter of teeth jumps to mind. I also find it hard to come to terms with it dating sometimes, when I can't do things I used to.

But actually claiming that the concept of a body itself and all of its functions no longer matter because we're all so modern now? I wish.

If they keep pushing then public peak trans will just arrive earlier. Ordinary people don't recognise or use Cis and know what a woman is.
They seem to live in a woke bubble divorced from reality

We're already seeing 'women and cis women'