Suzanne Moore - naming and shaming

What a champ! Refusing to play by the rules.

And what utter cowards the signatories are.

Can't produce the receipts.

Wanted to stay anonymous.

Yeah, fuck off with that.

GO, SUZANNE!!!

Indeed

If any other British institution was so influenced US voices, the Guardian would be bleating about cultural imperialism.

but seriously annoyed that they think their mighty disapproval should have any sway over the editorial decisions of the UK arm of the newspaper.

The pompous and sanctimonious US Guardian article R0 posted upthread, written in response to an uncharacteristically reasonable one about our own fucking law, is one of the most annoying things I've ever read. I was raging.

Interesting times. Go Suzanne.

I've not seen Nick Cohen's name and she was bantering with him last night before I went to bed and it all kicked off. At least I thought it was banter....

Good, if true.....

The signatories have tried to give the impfession they represent the Guardian staff, Suzaanne has reminded them they only represent themsleves.

What is it with all these supposedly intelligent adults signing statements/letters and then taking no responsibility for having done so?

Do they consider them the same as various terms and conditions for apps which we mostly agree to without reading?

What pissed me off about the "don't burn bridges" message was that it's okay for 300 odd people to gang up on her because they thought it was anonymous, but it's not okay for her to fight back? That is so typical of our culture. And it's why, in a slightly different context, so many many women sign NDAs when they are at the receiving end of bullying or sexual harassment - they don't want to "burn bridges". We see it on here all the time, "My boss is a complete dickhead, but this is a small industry and I don't want to make waves."

God, wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world where people who are the sly, mean, bullying, sexual harassing ones are the ones who have to be worried about their reputations.

Burn bridges my ass. You go Suzanne.

Well if they were proper journalists they would have read it throughly and thought carefully before adding their name.

Alan Evans' twitter responses are fascinating. He's attempting to be aloof and not wanting to get drawn in to a discussion about exactly what he signed up to. Not sure if he thinks it's all beneath him, or if he's thinking 'Shit, what have I done', if he's trying to pretend there was some other as yet unmentioned reason for signing it, or he didn't realize and thought it was just a generalised "We love trans people, we do!" letter.

I am wondering if some of the journalists on that list are shitting themselves at the response on Twitter, and will do a "in hindsight signing this was a mistake" or "it wasn't about Suzanne Moore rather I signed it because of some other nebulous reason that is much less bad".

Too bad. They signed it. The screenshots are there. It’s no mean feat to erase something from the internet once it’s on there. If they are worried about signing something they thought would be anonymous then I’d suggest, in future, they don’t sign their name to anything they might get worried about.

I love how Owen Jones has his name last, presumably visualizing it as a grand concluding flourish, when actually it's probably the most expected anti climax ever.

Sam Leven first & Owen Jones at the end.

Unsurprised at how many of those names are from the US Guardian, but seriously annoyed that they think their mighty disapproval should have any sway over the editorial decisions of the UK arm of the newspaper.

2/11/2018 Guardian opinion by Sam Levin, Mona Chalabi and Sabrina Siddiqui:
'Why we take issue with the Guardian’s stance on trans rights in the UK
A recent editorial on the Gender Recognition Act in the UK was met with dismay by Guardian US journalists who believe it advanced transphobic viewpoints that are driving attacks on trans rights in America'

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/02/guardian-editorial-response-transgender-rights-uk

threads:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3412692-The-Guardians-US-Staff-are-Revolting

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3415571-Twitter-excoriates-Sam-Levin-one-of-US-Guardian-writers-who-penned-piece-objecting-to-Guardians-transphobia-Thread-title-edited-by-MNHQ

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3457268-Nominations-for-the-Mansplainer-of-the-Year-2018-award-please-huge-phallic-trophy-to-be-won

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3397633-is-this-an-about-face-from-the-guardian

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3409179-guardian-on-toxic-trans-debate

The science editor who signed is responding on Twitter, being a bit noncommittal and deflecting.

It is, isn't it? And the rest look like the petty wankers they are.

Really sorry that Suzanne was hurt, but yet more useful sunlight as it's being criticised by a lot of people, inc writers and journos, online.

When the letter was first reported I’m sure it implied it was signed by only journalists.

In fact it’s signed by PAs, finance people and software designers.

The absence of most of the guardians decent journalists is notable.

There might not be many recognisable names but there are quite a lo twith job titles like commisioning editor / editor / manager. Now it might be that the Graun is one of those places where everyone's a manager or editor but that sounds to me like a lot of people who might have power to hire and fire, not to mention commission.
The Deputy Editor of Guardian US signed.
And who or what is the Guardian Foundation?

Sorry I not to SS but this is Suzanne’s response to someone making a “don’t burn your bridges” comment
mobile.twitter.com/suzanne_moore/status/1240418873058394112
good advice. Never seen a bridge I wont set alight...

She is BRILLIANT

Tim Jonze and Simon Hattenstone are journalists.

Yes, but not columnists, which was my point. About half the signatories are journalists.

I do think the fact that so many of them were blokes working in IT makes the whole thing rather pathetic. Nothing against IT (some of my best friends etc) but they're a sideshow to the main operation. I mean, if it was a partner in a law firm, say, or an accountancy firm, who'd said some Bad Things, and the letter of complaint was mostly signed by the bods in IT, it would undermine the protest rather than support it.

We are also disappointed in the Guardian’s repeated decision to publish anti-trans views. We are proud to work at a newspaper which supports human rights and gives voice to people underrepresented in the media. But the pattern of publishing transphobic content has interfered with our work and cemented our reputation as a publication hostile to trans rights and trans employees

What is this bollocks that having a concern for sex-based rights is the same thing as being 'anti-trans'? 'Anyi-trans' and 'transphobic' are completely self-defined terms..meaningless in terms of a legal definition.

I doubt very much that SM is 'anti-trans'.Let alone 'hostile to trans employees'.

There is no understanding of free speech whatsoever. A paper that is unable to publish a feature which looks at an area of differing interests between self-i'd trans people in single sex spaces and sex-based rights is not a paper worth using to wrap chips.

Or to wipe your arse with, however bad the toilet roll shortage.

Unsurprised at how many of those names are from the US Guardian, but seriously annoyed that they think their mighty disapproval should have any sway over the editorial decisions of the UK arm of the newspaper.

Hardly any journalists on that list and a non-surprising amount of Male software engineers..

Go Suzanne!

I'm actually pleased with how many of the "big" journalists haven't signed it.

My guess is that is why she could not resist releasing it