Longer, balanced Guardian article

30 replies

InvisibleDragon · 05/06/2021 08:14

Longer article about Stonewall and gender identity in the Guardian today:
www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jun/05/stonewall-trans-debate-toxic-gender-identity?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

I'm quite impressed - coverage of the Essex review and Stonewall misinterpreting the law, plus long quotes from Kathleen Stock. Big change from their usual line.

Peter Tatchell is unfortunately prominent and gets a closing remark:

You cannot base trans policies on the actions of a handful of bad apples. That would be grossly unfair to the vast majority of trans women who never have, and never will, pose a threat to other women.

But even thus is good. A few bad apples is a long way from "this never happens" and opens the door to robust discussions about how safeguarding is supposed to work.

OP posts:

Original poster

InvisibleDragon · 05/06/2021 08:35

Because safeguarding is based on worse case scenarios. By talking about it as a personal attack he has demonstrated how clueless he is. It costs him him credibility.

Completely agree. It's fine for our day to day interactions to assume good intent. But safeguarding policies need to be robust to bad intent and malicious exploitation. And people who work at the sharp end of safeguarding issues know this.

OP posts:

SpindleWhorl · 05/06/2021 08:33

This article needs to be archived - I wonder if it will survive the inevitable LOJ-led tantrum.

Iwasonlytryingtohelp · 05/06/2021 08:31

Good to see in the Guardian too

Whatwouldscullydo · 05/06/2021 08:23

Very surprising fir the guardian as you say.

I think.that comment actually does us a favour in a way as unsay . Because safeguarding is based on worse case scenarios. By talking about it as a personal attack he has demonstrated how clueless he is. It costs him him credibility.

snowcobra · 05/06/2021 08:19

Very encouraging!

Unflip

1 2

Swipe left for the next trending thread