"If you don't agree with us, we'll throw a strop".
The role of the media, isn't to validate its journalists identity and political views its to a) reflect the concerns of the public and b) hold power to account
If they cease to do so, they cease to have relevance, they cease to have a purpose - and will cease to print.
Remind me, why did the Guardian soften its hardline pro-trans stance? Was it because it realised it was missing huge issues that the public were concerned about?
Reading this, its totally ridiculous:
For Victoria, the turning point came in October 2018 when the Guardian published what became a notorious editorial – a leader article setting out its official position on trans rights – which, it said, “collide” with women’s rights and put women at risk. This was despite LGBT organisations and many prominent feminists and women’s groups asserting the opposite.
So one group says one thing and the other says the opposite, but only one group should get a say, "cos they say so". Ok. Thats not how public debate works.
But Victoria’s immediate concern was that she had to go to work the next day, knowing what her employer’s publicly-stated position was on her. “It suddenly became real,” she said, before characterising her thought process that morning: “I’m entering this building with people who are denying my humanity.”
No you are entering a building which has realised its purpose is to enable public debate, not validate your identity. Public debate and openness is how you challenge prejudices and misconceptions by proving them to be unfounded. Of course its also how you find where abuses of power have been carried out - see the Tavistock for more information.
Shortly after, during two separate incidents at informal drinks with colleagues, one member of staff who had previously been Victoria’s friend at work defended the article, she said, and began citing trans women in sports as a reason to attack trans rights.
Errr, ok. So other people aren't supposed to have different opinions, they just have to agree with Victoria? And all that matters are trans rights and not acknowledging its a bit more complicated than that.
Good luck with that in court, that'll be an interesting one - The Guardian has to defend itself now - and either admit that its employee can not have this opinion or potentially provide evidence of why this might be considered a legitimate view to have.
Overall, whereas tabloid transphobia might be crass or even funny, she said, transphobic reporting at the Guardian was potentially more dangerous as it intellectualises prejudice for liberal-minded people. “The way it works is [to suggest]: transphobia is actually a ‘woke’ way of thinking. I think it misleads people into thinking the respectable thing to do is to raise these issues.”
What the fuck does this even mean? Intellectualise prejudice? Or just an opposition to allowing critical thinking in liberal minded people? Since when was critical thinking a bad thing?
Many at the paper who share her concerns told BuzzFeed News that the internal divisions over trans rights have resulted in face-to-face rows in the office, a widening rift between the UK and US offices (which is largely populated by pro-trans writers), and moves against staff who protest against transphobia. All of which, sources said, is affecting morale.
Since when did we have to agree with the US on politics? Or since when did we agree that the US was the way in which a left leaning newspaper should follow? You know that hot bed of socialism...
In June, the Guardian invited a panel of LGBT people to an internal event to discuss the reporting of LGBT issues. Christine Burns, one of Britain’s foremost campaigners for trans rights, and an architect of the Gender Recognition Act, told assembled staff that reporting in the UK over the last couple of years has resulted in her feeling “scared to death” for the safety of her community.
This is what happens when you encourage no debate though - there has been a backlash because women were not allowed to discuss their fears about their communities because there has been total blindness to how the trans issue might affect safeguarding. This was a conversation that needed to be had. If there had been this conversation from the state the problems now arising would not have happened. There was a deliberate strategy to get things through parliament 'under the radar'.
All this could have been avoided, if there had been any reflection whatsoever about how taking such a rigid line which didn't reflect public opinion, was going to hit the brakes at some point.
This is what happens when you have too many opinion columnists, rather than journalists writing for a newspaper. If they don't understand what the purpose of a newspaper is for - its not just to promote your individual world view, but to examine and criticially think about things from different view points - and THEN present an argument based on substance to support what you are trying to say.