The Guardian

I'm a lifelong Guardian reader and as GC a feminist as you can be

I can only say you must stand firm, then - because the Guardian simply never prints, or reports, on anything that is remotely GC. Even when a woman loses her job because she says men can't become women, and a campaign is launched which raises thousands of pounds for her legal defence.

I do still look in at The Guardian- but it frustrates and annoys the hell out of me. I see it becoming less & less about journalism and more & more about political allegiances and right-on view points.

There are still a few writers I do really like, though.

Neuroscientists tend to agree that the whole notion of an essential ‘self’, gendered or otherwise, is an illusion.

There’s a shit-load of processing going on up there and we tell ourselves stories about ourselves that make us think of ourselves as a consistent, coherent entity.

We aren’t really as deep as we think we are.

It’s interesting listening to people like Sam Harris talk about this. He’s a scientist (and very vocal atheist) but he’s very influenced by Buddhism and practices meditation. He’s also experimented with psychedelics. He’s very much about surrendering your sense of self but not in some religious or hippy sense that the self is some kind of spirit independent of the body. It’s very much rooted in biology.

Daniel Dennett, another prominent atheist, writes about this too. Harris and Dennett disagree on things like free will (Harris is a determinist; Dennett is a comparabilist) but they agree that there isn’t really a ‘self’ innthe way it is popularly meant.

And if there isn’t an essential self, there isn’t an essentially gendered self either.

I find the Grauniad's reporting shallow and biased, often barely scraping the surface of complex subjects and rarely (if ever) daring to tell it like it is on gc matters. Way too much woke shite and a seemingly deliberate avoidance of truth and facts. But I still read it.

I am also very vocal in real life about the erosion of women's rights and the ramifications of self-ID. The widespread ignorance about what's happening is deeply worrying.

My first question in any of these debates is - how can women's rights be defined and protected if the definition of "woman" is changed to include men?

That's right. They can't.

I noticed that articles now talk about trans women, not transwomen,

What’s your paper of choice then OP? I read the guardian online because it’s free but will buy the Saturday Times occasionally and have free access to 2 articles a week online for both Times and Telegraph. I don’t expect to agree with everything anyone prints.
Times this week was praising what Michael Gove did for education for example.

I assume she's not on MN then? For a long time I was sceptical about how far the Guardian had gone because it didn't seem that visible to me. Then I started following the Guardian on Twitter and realised not a day goes by where there isn't a transgender story told from a particular perspective that's being promoted. I can see the issue if it's her main source.

Good for you Jen

Are you happy with their reporting of the issues?

I'm a lifelong Guardian reader and as GC a feminist as you can be.

Put basically it's social conditioning.