The Guardian's US Staff are Revolting

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.

'Feminist'4 Don't you think feminists should have a say in the redefinition of 'woman' to include people with penises and girly feelz?

Good grief! Can’t people find something more worthwhile to fight. This whole ‘women are in danger’ from trans rights is absurd. Please look at the damage you are causing to vulnerable people. It is so sad that so few women are prepared to comment on these boards and get involved in the debate, for fear of being mocked and derided by a few women who have constructed a biological argument, that is in fact already being proven incorrect by scientists.

So...what do I read now? I think I finally have to abandon The Guardian, it is just turning into a farce of a newspaper.

Genuine question by the way, what is there to fill the place the Guardian filled when it was good?

I read the title and thought “Is this a new Horrible Histories book?”

Mary...sorry poor drafting. I was using a, presumably no longer PC, term to refer to a section of conservative US society. Sorry if this caused offense.

”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”

I know that we have started to use the two words in ways that are not synonymous (in order to pander to the woke brigade’s insistence that gender is a thing separate from sex) but for the vast majority, they still mean the same thing. That anyone can make the above statement in a (semi) serious news outlet is so outlandish I laughed. I realise it isn’t actually funny, but if I didn’t laugh, I might have to cry.

I think the main difference in the US is the involvement of the Christian Right, who also believe that a woman's place is in the home having babies.

The other mind boggling thing is this. Take a look at the “Transgender” tab of the Guardian:

www.theguardian.com/society/transgender

Have a look at the articles. Look back page after page. The editorial is just one in a veritable ocean of pro trans articles. There have been at least 10 pro-trans articles since that editorial. So one crappy “let’s consider the whole argument” article and their whole world collapses. The idea the Guardian has been pushing a “transphobic” agenda for a while is so far removed from reality it’s utterly bonkers.

I don't suppose anybody explains what they think the word 'woman' means or why trans women are women?

Course not. TWAW. You're a bigot for even thinking the question is valid.

If they disagree with the paper that much then why not resign and work else where, like for a US paper that believes TWAW and women should just "get over it" and do as they are told. How that is compatible with any sort of feminism is beyond me. I suspect feminists in the UK are more in step with the opinions of the average woman or person in the US than US feminists if they are all 3rd gen "woman has no meaning and we'll let the males define us" feminists

"I am not sure what your question was,"

I was just surprised at your casual characterisation of Americans as 'rednecks'.

That piece is like a right telling off to women
Cis that cis this
Where the fuck do they get off calling me cis
How dare we raise any issues. About delusions
The allegedly educated writing this shite
Don’t they realise that outside of their wee bubble that they inhabit nobody believes this made up shite
Imagine me telling my family neighbours friends that I was a cis woman
They wouldn’t even know what that meant thank god
Fuck off USA guardian wokie cis dudes

Quietcontrarymary

I am not sure what your question was, however this article, though old, might answer it:

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/04/02/mail-supremacy/amp

I'm not sure if it is behind a paywall as I have a subscription. If it is there are other articles from around 2012/13 when apparently the Mail was the top online paper. I dont know where it stands today, or whether their GC stance has impacted on its US readership. Sort of why I asked the question. I am also curious as to how important the US market is for the Guardian. I can understand why the Mail fills a mid market gap, but its less clear what gap the Guardian fills given the US has a number of high quality papers of its own.

IDK, it's a statement based on false premises:

"As scientists, we are compelled to write to you, our elected representatives, about the current administration’s proposal to legally define gender as a binary condition determined at birth, based on genitalia,"
". The relationship between sex chromosomes, genitalia, and gender identity is complex, and not fully understood. There are no genetic tests that can unambiguously determine gender, or even sex."
"In intersex people, their genitalia, as well as their various secondary sexual characteristics, can differ from what clinicians would predict from their sex chromosomes. In fact, some people will live their entire lives without ever knowing that they are intersex.5 The proposed policy will force many intersex people to be legally classified in ways that erase their intersex status and identity, as well as lead to more medically unnecessary and risky surgeries at birth. Such non-consensual gender assignment and surgeries result in increased health risks in adulthood, and violate intersex people’s right to self-determination."

It's complete nonsense, because it's only referring to sex discrimination by public bodies under Title IX, not a wider transgender status, and because there's nothing in the statement that suggests that people with intersex conditions will not be able to change their gender, rather what it's saying is that for Title IX sex discrimination purposes, people's sex will be considered to be that noted at birth unless they have genetic evidence to contradict that.

In cases where intersex conditions are known to have variant gender identities, it's very hard to imagine that this would be the case.

How the fuck can the same people argue that the Trump proposal is defining trans people out of existence but the opposite; self ID, won’t negatively affect females??

Numerous academic studies have confirmed that trans-inclusive policies do not endanger cis people. On the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence that trans people, particularly women of color, are victimized at disproportionately high rates

I've seen this statement elsewhere, does anyone know what they are referring to?

"Sex means a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth"
“The sex listed on a person’s birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person’s sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence.”

So no mention of gender at all in the Trump proposal. I did not know this.

Good grief
I am a biologist and was taught about intersex years ago. Nothing news. But conflating it with trans is ridiculous.
People are really proud of their ignorance of science these days.

"Biologists have increasingly recognized that there is a wider spectrum than two sexes, a view that more than 1,600 scientists supported"

Please could these 1,600 scientists explain how they think these other sexes are reproducing?

I don't suppose anybody explains what they think the word 'woman' means or why trans women are women?

If The Guardian is so transphobic, why don't these, ahem, journalists, resign?

They’ve written this so they don’t have to resign. They can retweet it to placate the woke folk and still keep taking the dirty money.

Ironic that under this thread, Mumsnet have placed an advert for Plan International:

'This is Evie. Unfortunately, she was born a girl.'

By which they clearly mean biological female.

The US woke Guardianistas would have a fit!

I'm so glad I never signed up to pay for Guardian membership.

" The Mail on line has a relatively large US readership, far larger than the Guardian. (I have read that it has the worlds largest English online readership.) I assume stereotypical rednecks dont read foreign press, and indeed it may come across as a bit left wing for some of Trumps supporters. "

Um what. Seriously?

Wow these fuckwits are dishonest motherfuckers.

Lies in the first fucking paragraph

'The Trump administration is trying to define transgender people out of existence. Last month, the New York Times reported that 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”.'

Why is that in quotation marks when it's not a quote from the source?

The actual source:

www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/us/politics/transgender-trump-administration-sex-definition.html

"Sex means a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth"
"“The sex listed on a person’s birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person’s sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence.”"

Nowhere does it say 'genitals', and neither is that synonymous with 'genitals'.

"Biologists have increasingly recognized that there is a wider spectrum than two sexes, a view that more than 1,600 scientists supported"

ORLY?

"Postdoctoral Fellow in Glaciology,"

"Education and Outreach Specialist in Agriculture ,"

"Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice"

"Professor of Management of Complex Systems ,"

"Asst. Professor of Cultural Geography ,"

"Student in Digital Media"

"Assistant Professor of Linguistics,"

WTF kind of shitty appeal to authority is that?

Fuck off.