The Guardian's US Staff are Revolting

Agree

Cis also serves that purpose. I'm going to guess that trans will eventually be dropped because of its 'othering' nature, but cis will be retained with a vice like grip.

This. EXACTLY.

The recipe is an Ottolenghi one - and perhaps unsurprisingly one can order dried lime from Ottolenghi online.

He does like his niche ingredients!

Good to see Hadley on twitter standing up for British feminists and criticising the patronising and ignorant (not all American feminists believe TWAW) tone.

From the US earlier this week:

'Were there Transgender People in the Middle Ages?'
by GABRIELLE BYCHOWSKI on NOVEMBER 1, 2018 19K VIEWS

www.publicmedievalist.com/transgender-middle-ages/
twitter biog: Dr. Gabrielle M.W. Bychowski
@ Transliterature
Anisfield-Wolf SAGES Fellow at Case Western Reserve University. Ph.D. Transgender and Disability Studies Scholar. Medievalist. Trans Woman.

Washington, DC
thingstransform.com

Where are the editors?

Appropos of just how bonkers The Guardian is today's Feast section has quite a nice recipe for leek, potato and stilton cakes.

What is bonkers about the recipe is the suggestion that instead of say 15 minutes boiling the potatoes before mashing them (the normal way for making fish cakes) it says to bake them at 220C for an hour and then mash them. What a waste of energy and time, especially for a recipe which otherwise would be very cheap to make.

The ingredients include "1/2 tsp of ground dried Iranian lime". Helpfully "If you can't get hold of dried Iranian lime, use a teasponful of lime zest, or just leave it out altogether"

The recipe is an Ottolenghi one - and perhaps unsurprisingly one can order dried lime from Ottolenghi online.

"our journalism should be grounded in the principle that trans women are women"

What happened to truth and freedom of speech? I'm glad I'm no longer funding this nonsense, but after 20 years as a subscriber I'm still interested to know why the Guardian is so blind on this issue. Is it just identity politics, or is the G's funding model more complex than it lets on?

In chemistry, the terms cis- and trans- are used to describe the positions of a group with respect to a double bond. The meanings are 'same side' and 'opposite side', or 'same' and 'opposite'.

Therefore ‘ cis-woman' = 'same-woman' = 'woman' and

'Trans-woman' = ‘opposite-woman’ = ...

It’s all right there.

Cis also serves that purpose. I'm going to guess that trans will eventually be dropped because of its 'othering' nature, but cis will be retained with a vice like grip.

Yes but they'll still need to retain some kind of different language to distinguish between the class of women who must obey and the class of "women" who must be obeyed.

What else is the purpose of TERF?

Yes but they'll still need to retain some kind of different language to distinguish between the class of women who must obey and the class of "women" who must be obeyed.

This nails it for me.

If it weren’t for the leverage (and funding) the word ‘trans’ would be gone already.

Yes but they'll still need to retain some kind of different language to distinguish between the class of women who must obey and the class of "women" who must be obeyed.

Viner has shown real weakness here.

Feed the monster and the monster will come after you.

Yes ^^

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. That capitulation just incentivises people to push their agenda even more.

Viner has shown real weakness here.

Feed the monster and the monster will come after you.

This article has really pissed me off!
There's so much there that is wrong, I can't begin to articulate it.

If it weren’t for the leverage (and funding) the word ‘trans’ would be gone already.

Very, very, very important point.

it also doesn't help that we're not allowed use the word on MN when describing a male-bodied person

No, it doesn't. It's insidious and it affects the way you speak outside the forum. Another reason I heartily disapprove of terms being verboten (including the terms used by the "other side").

Yep Floral, it is the obvious next step in an ideology that prohibits any distinctions being made between those who are women and those who aren’t but wish to be.

If it weren’t for the leverage (and funding) the word ‘trans’ would be gone already.

I do note that the 'evil American bigots are behind this' is one that TRAs use over and over again. L. Madigan recently claimed that Madigan's critics on Twitter were predominantly farright American Christians.

It's the same way that a black transwoman being killed in Atlanta can be weaponised by very very white Aimee Challenor in Coventry

I just can't imagine David Aaronovitch haranguing the editor of The Times about him not being consulted on an editorial about Brexit. And insisting that he be allowed to publish a piece admonishing the editor for having done so.
Yes. Katherine Viner (is she still editor?) needs to put her foot down. Irrespective of her own views, the US Guardian has no business (that I can see) interfering in the UK edition.
If she lets this go we will all know who's really in charge.

LemonJello, I'm convinced that is coming. I think the 'trans' word will linger for a while as a cultural artefact, and, as you say because it provides useful leverage. But long term, given the shift towards "Transwomen have always been women" and the idea that a male body is a female body if the owner identifies as a woman, the term 'trans' will eventually become more of a hindrance than a help, because of the inevitable and obvious question "If you were always female, in what sense are you 'trans'?"

I'm paying close attention to what new words are emerging to see what will replace it.

the US government is seeking to deny trans people the most basic recognition by claiming that gender is “determined by the genitals that a person is born with"

It's the dishonesty that makes me catch my breath. If someone said "but surely sex is shown by the genitals that a person is born with for just about everyone" there'd be a stern scolding about biological essentialism and "gender" meaning far more than mere sex. But if the woke brigades were allowed to impose what they want, then the concept of sex would disappear altogether. (Well, "except for relationship purposes" and some other self-serving exclusions.)

The slipperiness is that "sex" and "gender" aren't the same thing until it has an impact in the real world and then "sex" is replaced with "gender" and women's spaces get colonised by feminine people with penises.

I also think the objection to "male-bodied" is notable - because that's already a compromise.

Totally agree. They dismantle language obsessively to make sure we have no acceptable way to distinguish between transwomen and women. If the ‘trans’ bit wasn’t so useful in the oppression olympics, they would drop it like a hot potato as hate speech. I’m sure that will happen soon.

PS it also doesn't help that we're not allowed use the word on MN when describing a male-bodied person.

WomanOfTime

That's what we say when we're being nice and considerate and don't want to describe someone as male or a man, even though they are.

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'.