The fucking Guardian again

How refreshing, and interesting, that The Guardian, today, allowed all comments on the above article. Not one was deleted. Well done The Guardian. There is nothing to be fearful of when it comes to women voicing their views and concerns.

Sorry, one link didn't work: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/14/mainstream-pride-flag-queer-people-paris-is-burning

The Guardian is relentless:www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/14/mainstream-pride-flag-queer-people-paris-is-burning#comments

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/13/catholic-trans-child-vatican-gender-transition-family

Today's edition.

Here is the Guardian thread.

What do people think about posting all/any issue as it relates to the Guardian here? Might be more effective and easier to locate for such discussion, rather than having multiple threads.

I see that the headline of the article, about the attack on Julie Bindel, has been slightly modified now ( note at bottom about amendment) Still distorted though, with the focus on the resignations, rather than on an attack on a writer for their own paper.

Still, at least, the editor is obviously aware that they are treading a very strange path with their reporting, and non-reporting, when it comes to trans issues, and the issue of women's opposition to Self ID.

Yes just it's like uber Guardian. On acid. They really outdid themselves. Mind you, the response on their Twitter feed is very critical

At least they gave the last word to a sane voice.
But normally I wouldn’t use the grauniad to line the litter tray

The Guardian reporting on the attack on Julie Bindel in, now, typically weird and distorted way: www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jun/06/edinburgh-lgbt-committee-resigns-over-transphobic-hate-on-campus?CMP=share_btn_link

Sorry, twicemummy1. Hadn't noticed him before.

Why is everyone letting dwatsuts piss all over every feminist thread and make everything all about him. Ignore, ignore, ignore

Also, dwatsuits, no one here is advocating the criminalisation of women working in prostitution. The option exists of criminalising the purchasers rather than the sellers here and that is not a new idea. Does it blow your mind? Is it so unthinkable that male wants should be legally proscribed?

I am not propagandising for the tories or ignoring murdered women. I am advocating tactical voting to keep people who mean harm to girls and women out of government. At heart I gave the same concerns as you. These smears are unfair and your political tribalism potentially hinders the fight against a common enemy.

A system which forces men to identify themselves when paying for ssx would also help, so if they do commit a criminal offence they will easily be caught.

That seems an impractical suggestion, dwatsuts. Do you think women who work the streets are likely to be in a position to demand ID (or any other fucking thing) from punters? And if any tried it they'd soon be undercut by women who wouldn't. Desperate women are desperate.

So you're saying we're wilfully misinterpreting what she said because we want to? Again no. Words have meaning and some have more than one meaning and some have multi-layered nuanced meanings which can be interpreted more than one way depending on context. And she knows this - probably better than most, so all the more reason to choose her wording very very carefully which I think she did. It was a deliberate choice to use that word in that context as is her choice to romanticise prostitutes and sanitise prostitution.

You have to want to read her as saying it's a privilege to be a victim of violence to see that as being said, that's the problem.

The idea that certain voices should be privileged, including the voices of victims of violence, is common, its common in feminist statements and on MN.

No one thinks that means they are privileged to have been victims.

I thought her argument was complete bullshit, both factually and logically, and said so in the BTL comments. Implying that not seeing her using the same language of privilege feminists use al the time as a problem makes me complicit in her ideas is.... well, its not less anti-woman than her own view is, that's for sure.

She's protecting men and advocating for their interests. That's what she's up to and it shows in her language choices.

You know, you don't have to agree with someone to give them a little grace when they choose an awkward way of phrasing something. Not everyone is equally talented at communication.

Oh stop it. This isn't a case of being a prick for picking on someone's spelling, grammar, vocabulary after they post on mumsnet. Not even close.

No. If you claim to be an academic, in this case an associate professor no less, and put yourself forward as a public spokesperson for a marginalised group as in writing and lecturing on the subject then I'd say it's pretty much a job requirement if you are a professional communicator to have at least some modicum of talent at communication.

Do the people advocating for legalised prostitution realise that what they are arguing for is Robert Pickton or any man like him to access women's bodies as long as they don't attack them, except of course they will attack them? The dregs of society, the worst of men use prostituted women, yet we expect these vulnerable women to open their bodies to them.

We keep men like this away from prosittuted women by cimrinalising johns and pimps and supporting prostituted women out of the life.

You know, you don't have to agree with someone to give them a little grace when they choose an awkward way of phrasing something.

When it comes to people like this erasing male violence against prostituted women, there's no compromise. Even if it is graceless. There are things that are more important. Women are being killed.

Not everyone is equally talented at communication.

She's being published in the Guardian as an expert on this. She should be able to communicate clearly. Anyway I think she did make her priorities clear.

Jumping on stuff like that as a regular tactic to get the upper hand in a discussion isn't a way forward in any sense, it's not even a good way to discredit people as others tend to sympathise - they can all to easily imagine being called out themselves when they misspeak, because we all do it from time to time.

Is that what you see? Someone trying to get the upper hand? No I'm angry at the way she's erasing male violence against prostituted women whilst accusing anti-pornstitution feminists of violence against prostituted women. I don't notice you complaining about her taking an easy way to discredit us.

All it does is convince others you are a jerk and don't really care what people are saying or thinking, and your own ideas aren't good enough to stand on their own.

Calling me a jerk. How graceless. My ideas are fine thank you, they've convinced quite a lot of women.

And since you brought up Pickton, I'll mention that those who are advocating on behalf of those women have said we should listen to them and their experience, though obviously they don't mean directly.

Well not obviously as your first response to that convo was to discuss the relaitve merits of woman-hating parties. Priorities, eh?

Yes, because I'm sure everyone here already knows that violence against sex workers is a problem, and you don't need me to explain that.

Could you explain to me the "privileged position that all those dead women hold with regards to teaching us about male violence? How do we listen to them when they have no voice? I'm unable to see it.

Listen to sex workers who are alive, listen to sex workers who have survived violence, listen to the friends of those who are dead who can speak on their behalf.

We'll have to find another way to keep violent rapist murderous men away from prostituted women.

How? We can put violent people in prison where they can't harm anyone else, but if a violent person is released and they haven't been rehabilitated (if the justice system fails us, for example), they will be free to offend again. Then there's also the issue of a first-time offender... we could stop women from working as sex workers, but that would mean criminalising them and I find it ethically abhorrent to criminalise a sex worker.

When you're talking about women who have been beaten, raped and killed then perhaps it's wise to choose your words more carefully. that standard woke academentia.

You know, you don't have to agree with someone to give them a little grace when they choose an awkward way of phrasing something. Not everyone is equally talented at communication. Jumping on stuff like that as a regular tactic to get the upper hand in a discussion isn't a way forward in any sense, it's not even a good way to discredit people as others tend to sympathise - they can all to easily imagine being called out themselves when they misspeak, because we all do it from time to time. All it does is convince others you are a jerk and don't really care what people are saying or thinking, and your own ideas aren't good enough to stand on their own.

"What's there to say? Obviously killing women is bad."

Well not obviously as your first response to that convo was to discuss the relaitve merits of woman-hating parties. Priorities, eh?

Could you explain to me the "privileged position that all those dead women hold with regards to teaching us about male violence? How do we listen to them when they have no voice? I'm unable to see it .

so then they can work with their friends for safety and protection

Doesn't work. Men are too dangerous:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/6567989.stm

We'll have to find another way to keep violent rapist murderous men away from prostituted women.

What about all those murdered women dwatut?. Anything to say about them, or are you just going to ignore them like Angryllama did?

What's there to say? Obviously killing women is bad.The answer there is to remove laws which force women into vulnerable positions; abolish laws which criminalise multiple sex workers in the same building, so then they can work with their friends for safety and protection. A system which forces men to identify themselves when paying for ssx would also help, so if they do commit a criminal offence they will easily be caught.

The solution is to look at countries where sex workers are safest and copy what they're doing.

What about all those murdered women dwatut?. Anything to say about them, or are you just going to ignore them like Angryllama did?