I wrote about dishonest journalists playing both sides of the gender debate

Hmm - I enjoy your writing very much (especially the comedy side) and also find Helen to be an excellent writer. I'm not a huge fan of this latest round of beef between journalists spawning a swathe of articles about who is the saying the right things in the right order, or why. That said, I think you've been unfairly singled out by Lewis, Singal, Herzog, etc so appreciate you have a right to reply.

I think you've all made valuable contributions to exposing the big issues here, and would hate that to get diluted in the longer term.

@MujeresLibres I suppose what I was thinking though was an article that covers all the issues that is not presented as an opinion piece though. I've seen one or two articles covering parts of the issues in brief but not a comprehensive overview. I think something like that would be a good start.

I can't criticise others for not speaking out because I don't as I am scared of the professional and social ramifications and am not as brave as glimmer.

Helen has done some good work and I feel uncomfortable criticising her. Having said that I understand how hurtful and unfair her comments must have seemed. I love your work, you're honest and brave.

I don't like seeing this polarised into two opposing sides with one who must be right and the other who must be wrong. Just about everyone is between those two poles and will respond badly to "you're either with us or against us" messages. It looks like purity politics to non-polarised people and it's worth understanding just how off-putting it is to them.

It's not helpful to focus on being right rather than on being persuasive by inviting undecideds to understand a reasonable position.

The Atlantic piece by Helen Lewis that you criticised does explain the silencing of gender critical women:

"As [JK Rowling] wrote last year, she has grown accustomed to “threats of violence, to be told I was literally killing trans people with my hate, to be called cunt and bitch and, of course, for my books to be burned.” The former Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont told me that, in her assessment, many of the angriest voices against gender-critical feminists like Rowling were male allies of transgender people, rather than transgender people themselves. “I see young women silenced … I see young men emboldened and empowered,” she said."

"Cherry and McAlpine, the two most outspoken and high-profile internal party critics, have been ruthlessly marginalized by the SNP hierarchy: Cherry was sacked from the party’s senior team at Westminster, while McAlpine lost her place at the top of a candidate list after an SNP committee ruled that it should go to someone who identified as disabled."

And she criticises policy-making that goes along blindly with TRA's demands:
"What is driving the SNP’s behavior? In the case of equality legislation, many of its activists believe that gender self-identification is the great civil-rights struggle of our time. Another explanation is that the party’s hegemony is so assured that its leaders live in a hall of mirrors, with NGOs and lobbyists reflecting their own opinions back at them. Big charities rely on the Scottish government for the bulk of their income, encouraging them not to rock the boat. It was considered radical when McAlpine invited grassroots feminist groups and gender-critical academics to give evidence about recording sex data in the census—instead of relying solely on charities such as Engender, which receives £275,000 of its yearly £355,000 income from the government. She had broken the hall of mirrors."

The article is not perfect but Helen Lewis was speaking up on this when nobody else was, and getting abuse for it.

Yes, we do need more pieces to run, but it won't suddenly turn it all around. There have been decent articles in The Times, The Observer, even the Mail. You are correct that it is not given due prominence due to incorrect positioning as an extreme minority issue though.

Yes, bang on @Glinner.

Stella is so right. I can forgive ignorance or naïvety, but not those who are in the most privileged positions. Or the bloody bbc.

I can't help but feel that one good, factual only article appearing in the national newspapers could start the backpedaling on this whole sorry mess.

I'm pretty sure 99% of the public might realise that the be kind message doesn't take into account the threats to women's rights and the nuance of the argument if they read.

*There is no research to indicate gender dysphoria is relieved by hormones/surgery.
*There is evidence that puberty blockers harm the body.
*There is evidence that using hormones for long periods harms the body.
*There is no evidence to suggest halting puberty does not not affect brain development.
*Most trans identifying teens desist with a watch and wait approach.
*Male patterns of violence are consistent across all gender IDs.

Fact is, one of the reasons this has been allowed to gather such steam is because trans is still considered vanishingly rare, in the old style of transexuals. The general public consider their likelihood of being affected by it or even meeting a trans person very low so 'be kind' and giving on seems a non issue because they consider it to apply to hardly anyone. This has also helped fuel the most marginalized group ever fiction.
I do think that one good, non biased piece about the facts- what comes under the trans umbrella, what the demands are, would help the general public understand what is nasty feminists have been objecting to. That's why there's such an urgency to ensure it's never discussed, as to do so would leave Joe Public with questions that want answers.
The sooner light is shone on it the better. Both women and trans people who are horrified by the current rhetoric need this bringing into the light.