The Guardian covers Hubbard. You'll be surprised

There may be more on board who are younger. But anyone whose raised this with me has been totally 100% that it's a load of rubbish.

I think the problem is.

It's top down and so many orgs are captured it's the 'right thing' for those who are involved in those circles etc iyswim. To the extent that politicians of all flavours have somehow got to understand that they cannot speak freely on this subject.

What's forgiving and forgetting got to do with anything? The Guardian have done, and continue to do, a huge amount of damage to women's rights, both domestically and in their increasing influence internationally. They have systematically failed to report on the matter of trans rights destroying women's rights, lied about it, or positively promoted it. They continue to provide Owen Jones an unfettered platoform to spew his misogynist bile, while female journalists are shut down, to the point where if one of them, as pp said, dares to "state the bleeding obvious", she is viewed as a modern day Cassandra. And all the time, they are viewed as the newspaper of the good, the compassionate, the inclusive, the liberal. When they have been anything but this on too many occasions for too long. So no, I am not going to believe they are suddenly informed, reformed, regretful or sincere. It's good that they are allowing journalists to speak about Laurel Hubbard, but quite frankly, to ignore the elephant in the room, when every other news source is talking about it, would have made them look very odd and completely out of step. It is a self serving move, not one of journalistic integrity.

Yes, they seem completely synonymous when googling.

Agree with pp, the argument being read by the traditional Labour/Green readership is vital. Political allegiances and media choices form a very strong link. Sport, if you are interested in in, is not seen in party political terms, plus it is v visual. You could see the E German athletes who were unknowingly drugged looked different from other competitors in some categories

Although that's a guess and tbf the old name is very available if you search the new one.

Maybe just fancied a change?

I think because there was something connected to the quality/ grading of Rachel's submissions in her academic area, that Rachel complained about and it all got a bit public.

That's my assumption anyway.

Why is Rachel McKinnon now known as Veronica Ivy?

They haven't opened it for comments yet, now that would be interesting. Probably too 'hot' a topic....

A clear, logical and well-structured article that focuses on facts and refutes a couple of the key arguments of the other side, such as the old 'Michael Phelps is 10 feet tall and has flippers so what are you going to do about swimmers like him???' argument.

The Guardian's American readers won't like this at all so I expect there will be a rebuttal printed in the next few days from one of the usual suspects, most likely an American trans activist. Chase Strangio, perhaps?

1. Visual representation. Hard to argue with a factual picture.

1. The communal ownership of sport and supporting your nation or a particular sport means that people feel a personal pull to this in a way they don't with the other scenarios unless directly affected.

What is to stop countries who partake in state sponsored doping to drop that risky and costly practice and adopt a much cheaper option of selecting transwomen for their teams? I suspect we are not that far from that and only then the world will sit up and take notice.

Yep, good, well done Guardian. You have finally managed to state the bleeding obvious.

They are reacting to the changing narrative.

Also this situation is so obviously out of order that they've probably thought shit it's the Olympics etc it's so obviously unfair set can't go on about how brilliant it is.

They can still support any changes that are made that mean some transwomen can still compete.

They can still say well elite sport is a totally different thing to everything else.

What's forgiving and forgetting got to do with anything? Point is loads of lefty thinking people - most of my real life friendship circle - read the Guardian and trust me, they take note. Do we want people to change their minds or not?

But above all, there needs to be a realisation that you can’t always have it all. Just as women and trans men can’t dominate in men’s sports; and men can’t enter women’s sport; trans women shouldn’t be able to push open a door that was locked for a reason. It isn’t fair.
Bloody hell.

Perhaps more than other uk papers the Guardian works as a collective with section editors having freedom to commission pieces without following the editor’s explicit line? Or perhaps the writer fought like hell to get this piece in and people like Sean Ingle, Susanna Rustin or Hadley Freeman were loudly behind her? Like GC academics if your workplace was either hostile or had very vocal colleagues, it’s going to be hard to stand up or speak out? A sliver of sunlight has hit the Guardian. The important thing is whether that piece gets lots of hits and readers write in with praise for it. Seems there is more space for GC pieces than there were a year ago

I don't think this signals any kind of shift in the Guardian, sadly. Newspapers' sports sections are always a bit separate from the rest of the paper.

My concern has been for a long time. That the 'compromise' will be changed rules for sport (I suspect even then they'll do something that doesn't mean no transwomen can compete). And that'll be it.

That's two GC pieces by Kenan Malik, the Chimamanda Essay and this by Tanya Aldred. Sport yes , especially at Olympics. But also trying to abolish the word Mother. You do that at your peril.

The Maya judgment puts the Guardian on the wrong side of history. They have silenced/been complicit in silencing women against their rights under the EQA. They realise they have majorly fucked up. Sport and the LH controversy gives them, as pp said, low hanging fruit to give balanced coverage on, without offending their "be kind" narrative too much. Are we supposed to forgive and forget the last 3-4 years of almost complete betrayal of women's rights by this "news" paper?

How does this (great article) come from the same place as all the previous ones about trans sports. I seem to remember a v different narrative re the US and sports scholarships etc. That was mere weeks ago?!

I mean, it's great, but, why now?

Awww,I bet little OJ is throwing the birthing person of all tantrums at this.

I’ve got a vague memory of Hadley F tweeting way back when the IOC policy changed (was it 2016?) saying that it seemed like it was throwing women under the bus (or words to that effect). Good to see she’s hung on in there! I don’t think I could bear to go into the office and have to see LOJ’s little smug knobhead face...

For me though, this piece is too little too late.