the Financial Times has fallen

I'm a big fan of Robert Shrimsley in the FT but I've just noticed that last week he retweeted Peter Tatchell with a comment saying how much he admired him. Someone said - err, no, misogyny - but didn't provide any evidence.

I'm not on Twitter since I found myself on TERFblocker but if anyone is on there and has a spare five mins, it might be worth sharing with Robert that letter from Peter Tatchell about how very much children enjoy sex with adults...

I really am so fed up with how teflon this movement is. Promoting abuse in plain sight and yet being amplified by people with decent platforms and brains in their heads.

While the lighter side of this debate is often dressed up with rainbows and unicorns and covered in glitter I make a point of not forgetting the darker underbelly.

I'm not in the habit of wearing a tin hat, but there are wealthy individuals from organisations with power and influence who have sway with the FT.

Some of them must be panicking now that a few brave people are getting their voices heard. I don't imagine that article found its way into the paper by accident.

They kept the other MTF people on their list though. I believe there was a total of 4 XY people on their list of 100 top businesswomen. Absolutely fucking shameful.

re Bunce www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3405274-Pips-Bunce-dropped-from-FT-list

mirandayardley.com/en/so-brave-so-stunning-pippa-bunce-the-transvestite-rebranded/

"So our dear friend Pippa Bunce is in the news again because he has, unbelievably not so unbelievably in this mixed-up, muddled-up shook-up world, managed again to penetrate the Top 100 Female Executives list in the 2018 FT HERoes Champions of Women in Business 2018. This is a great example of the stupidity that arises in our brave new world, where we are told equality is for everyone and we must all be inclusive: a cross-dressing beta male who emboldens, double-underlines and showers in magical unicorn glitter all the passive, sexually objectifying stereotypes that women have fought against for centuries, gets recognition as a woman in this most conservative, most closed to women yet financially lucrative sector of the economy. This is so over the top ludicrous, it should be satire. But it isn’t."
(continues)

Spoiler: they dropped him when he called women TERFs

www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/gender-fluid-exec-named-on-list-of-top-100-women-in-business-a3942896.html

Wears dresses three days a week I mean

Was it the FT that said a man who wears dresses was the top woman in business last year?

Agree I wouldn't say this one article demonstrates the editorial opinion of the whole paper.
Another piece was on "which celeb would you add to your bubble" and suggested J K Rowling: "The Harry Potter author sits quietly on her laptop, leaving you to wonder which delightful novel she is composing. Then a Molotov cocktail flies in the window, and you realise that she has been on Twitter. You nonetheless decide her visit was worth it."
I definitely think there are some staff that support her

Also this one references JKR, title pretty self explanatory, link for other subscribers. The pandemic has killed nuance on social media - on.ft.com/37tPcT5

As I said the more mainstream this becomes hopefully the more papers like FT will sit up and yes follow the money as a lot of their investigative reporting does.

They now need to run a piece by Helen Joyce about her book. Absolutely.

Would love to see a piece about Dr Jessica Taylor's book, too.

FT for Schools ... Register for free Financial Times access for 16-19 year olds, teachers and schools

Well, isn't that interesting?

Mark Gevisser is not an FT staff writer, and a feature in the weekend paper based on an upcoming book is not necessarily representative of the editorial line of the paper, but I would not be surprised if there were a few letters to the editor about this. Anyone feel like writing one? More likely to be published if you are concise, measured and reasonable sounding.

I wondered how it had gone down on twitter, not that much commentary really, but I did notice it was being pushed by one single FT account:

mobile.twitter.com/ft4s/status/1276727913237413889

FT for Schools ... Register for free Financial Times access for 16-19 year olds, teachers and schools

The article characterises the gender critical view as coming from the religious right and then uses this distorting lens to present the gender critical view as:

one single theory allegedly at the heart of the western secular experiment: that gender — as a mutable social construct — exists in the first place, as opposed to sex, which in their view is objective, natural and divinely ordained.

That misrepresentation is sneaky and dishonest. I loath activism journalism.

The issue of the transitioning of kids is mentioned but useful information to enable a reader to understand the concerns, even a mention of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones, is absent.

I get that it's healthy to have opinion pieces putting forward opposing views. But the level of bias and spin of that article crosses the line.

Yes they need to showcase the other argument - urgently

The likelihood of the FT giving its front two pages of Life and Arts to an entirely GC focused opinion piece is zero. Its associate economics editor in the same section wrote an enthusiastic review of a book advocating land redistribution.

showcase the other argument - urgently.

Helen Joyce comes to mind unless she's very busy with the book.

You can get past the FT paywall by doing a Google search for the exact title of the article.

I bought the newspaper as I’m a scrapbooker. No chance to read the article as on the other side was a really interesting obituary to Vicki Wood, the first woman in Michigan to be allowed to race against men in Nascar.

Yes they need to showcase the other argument - urgently. Or they are showing up their lack of critical thinking.

the FT seems to be open to reporting different views on the subject

When did the FT given the front page of the Life and Arts section to a Gender Critical view? The FT is neither neutral nor objective.

It’s an opinion piece, the FT seems to be open to reporting different views on the subject. That’s good. I don’t see how this means it has ‘fallen’, everyone is entitled to their views.

Yes I don’t think the FT has fallen & I very much doubt the average FT reader was reading that & nodding along...

Fuckssake there are no good newspapers left.

I read that yesterday. It would be hard to find an article so filled with bias, so lacking in objectivity and which happily parrots the talking points of an ideological agenda without question. But it is wrong to say the FT has 'fallen.' This is typical fare. To call it left of centre doesn't adequately describe its extreme political bias.