Susanna Rustin in the Guardian

OJ at a FiLia disco?

No need to settle scores, except perhaps what should happen to OJ. Personally I'd like him to have to go out to dinner with 50 GC women

I agree Susanna has been GC on Twitter for some time.

I may never feel the same way about The Guardian again, nevertheless I welcome this because it's the only way some of my lefty friends and colleagues are going to read and take notice of GC arguments. The time for settling old scores is after we've won.

I genuinely think the TRAs thought they could get away with anything in terms of attacking JKR, but when they sent death threats and RIP hashtags over a book that any sane person could see wasn't even about a transgender person, I think it woke a lot of people up; the letter that dozens of writers signed (who could have envisaged that a month ago) and now a GC opinion piece in The Guardian that is pretty much identical to what JKR was saying.

Yes, my thoughts exactly. Most media organisations will have many editors and if the editor in chief doesn’t set an explicit line then it’s a question of second guessing what direction to take and those with loudest voices and most hysterical followers getting things published.
The measured, rational tone of that piece suggests susanna Rustin is not one for histrionics.

It's obvious that there's a split within guardian UK, with some people really wanting this issue properly discussed and others (most?) wanting articles promoting the aims & world view of the current trans rights movement (and as mentioned they have had funding to do that). But they have now published a few gender critical articles, or articles which report on the issue neutrally (like the one on the wep consultation). Those journalists who support that must have been working hard within a difficult environment to get it to happen at all. Rustin has been engaging with & promoting gc feminists and their ideas publicly for ages. That was brave anyway. This is definitely very positive and I don't care how much later it is than Janice at the times. If we criticised & discouraged everyone who came later to this than someone else, the only UK journalist would still be Julie Bindel.

I am not very 'out' in my own name so I am more of a late comer than Rustin anyway.

@Singasonga I so agree with your posts. SR has been very courageous on this, she's not a fiery columnist but a fairly sober and serious op-ed writer who specialises in climate. I love Suzanne Moore but they are two very different journalists.

And yes wholeheartedly agree that if we say we want less censorship and more debate we have to live those values, and not only when they 'benefit' our 'own side'.

meaning our journalism is free from bias and vested interests – this makes us different.

Weren't they given 250k by the Open Society Foundation or something to write about gender identity stuff?

"The Guardian has no shareholders or billionaire owner, meaning our journalism is free from bias and vested interests – this makes us different. Our editorial independence and autonomy allows us to provide fearless investigations and analysis of those with political and commercial power."

Did they ever write anything about the Denton report?

Yeah men on the FB page saying “Terf”🙄🙄

It's worth jumping on the Guardian Facebook page to give support to the people trying to argue with mansplainy Guardian men.

If this is a genuine change of heart at the Grauniad and not just a one off, then we should graciously accept their repentance and encourage their further progress back to the fold of women’s rights, however much we may despise them privately for their previous cowardice and betrayal.
If we scorn them, and the TRAs pile on to attack them, they will scurry straight back to chanting TWAW and throwing women back under the bus. We must nurture their small shoots of GC logic and encourage them to grow!

SR has been amplifying other GC feminists for ages.

Singalong, interesting point.

The Spectator could perhaps be criticised for the absence of gender affirming articles. No media outlet will be all things to all people, and equally no one should expect a publication to dovetail exactly with their views.

That said I am pleased that the Spectator managed to find space for Suzanne Moore, and equally that the Mail found room for Julie Bindel.

I want their voices to be heard, even if it means being alongside less comfortable views. Good now that the Guardian is indicating that it too is willing to allow GC voices. For many feminist writers, and readers, this is their more natural home.

The author might have been pitching to write that article for months, for all we know.

I really think my issue is the feeling of betrayal. Graun for years and then the big jolt. I agree that getting into a purity spiral isn't helpful but I don't think that's the case. I'm glad the article has been published but there is a culture war at play and it will take some time for the whole debacle to right itself. If the US media suddenly begin to care about the rights of women disappearing down the pan, then the Guardian will change tack. I just feel the US has too much influence right now.

but condemn the Guardian for publishing both GC and TRA views. if only it were that balanced, I would never have left

As for the Spectator, it has always had the misogynist crap stirred in and some of the comments are a sight to behold but I always get stuck in, to give as good as I get. The Spectator works on free speech and 'publish and be damned', it has never taken the moral high ground

The criticism was of Ruskin, and the comparison was against other female journalists who spoke out earlier. That is unfair and unnecessary, and I repeat that it is getting into the very purity spiral-type behaviour that we often criticise here.

And separately, I am still angry at the Guardian for their betrayal of women, but they weren't always like this and they didn't change to this overnight. This is yet another baby step on their part, but it is good to see it. And we cannot simultaneously laud the Spectator for publishing GC viewports alongside endless misogynist crap in the name of pluralism, but condemn the Guardian for publishing both GC and TRA views. You either want to see debate or you don't.

singasonga I don't think you can say there has been a mind change at the Guardian, this is one article. It is good to see, but it's not the same as an individual having a mind change (welcome thought that is and I have posted to that effect re Eddie Redmayne).

This is about a media corporation that has thrown women under the bus and until it does more than throw us the occasional crumb, in the hopes we think it's a mega change, I will be agreeing with bluecat

Could readership numbers have anything to do with it?

The recent article in the Spectator about the Co-op boycott suggested they now sell more copies, albeit weekly, than the Guardian do on a weekday. A centre right magazine is thriving whilst the established left of centre is not. And the same probably applies when looking at Times vs Guardian circulations. Yet we have a Tory PM who is struggling, and a newish Labour Leader with relatively broad appeal.

Why?

I assume we can all point to one reason. Is the Guardian doing the same? Are they brave enough to risk their American subscribers and donors.

Lambasting everyone who wasn't right up there in the first round is counterproductive

Agree, there's so much more to do, the more supporters, the more sunlight the better.

Thanks, iguanadonna! The conversations here are wonderful; incisive and clear and argumentative but also courteous and often hilariously funny.

Fb page comments are interesting. It evidently annoyed a lot of men. One confused woman who seems to think feminists want women to be tied to biological destiny.

Lambasting everyone who wasn't right up there in the first round is counterproductive, and even (dare I say it) a bit purity-spirally.