The Guardian, clearly realising it can't ignore a huge story, but on the other hand not wanting to upset the rampant TRAs in its midst, has published a particularly feeble article that attempts to explain the debate between feminists and TRAs. In a painful attempt to be even-handed, it tries to make the TRA case sound reasonable as opposed to the steaming heap of misogynistic nonsense it actually is. (It's a bit like writing a well-meaning guide to why black people in South Africa are upset about apartheid, and giving the white view equal prominence to the black view.)
Here it is:
www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate
No surprise that the piece is by Libby Brooks, who also thought that the important part of the story about Julie Bindel being attacked was Edinburgh University's LGBT committee resigning in response:
www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jun/06/edinburgh-lgbt-committee-resigns-over-transphobic-hate-on-campus
and who, a few years ago, wrote a piece called "Grooming and our ignoble tradition of racialising crime" which is all about how awful it is that Muslim men are being blamed for the abuse of girls. (Sample quote: "But what has not emerged is any consistent evidence to suggest that Pakistani Muslim men are uniquely and disproportionately involved in these crimes, nor that they are preying on white girls because they believe them to be legitimate sexual quarry, as is now being suggested.")
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jan/07/grooming-racialising-crime-tradition