Terf war embroils Guardian HQ | article from The Spectator

There are 361 comments on the article:

disqus.com/home/discussion/www-spectator-co-uk/terf_war_embroils_guardian_hq/

Yes. It should be reported as "protecting and saving girl's and womens sport".

Why is it always framed as 'targeting' and punishing trans people, instead of protecting and upholding the fairness of women's competition?

Also transgender protections? What does that mean? like 'protecting' the feelings of boys who want to unfairly win competitions that were meant for girls?

North Carolina is among 37 states that have introduced some form of ‘Save Women’s Sports’ legislation that would ban transgender girls and women from playing on school sports teams that don’t reflect their sex at birth. North Carolina’s version targeted transgender girls from kindergarten through high school, though some states have expanded their bills to also include college sports, bucking NCAA transgender protections that have been in place since 2010

www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jul/14/madd
ie-jenifer-north-carolina-transgender-athletes

Really good article.

A sympathetic Guardian article yesterday from a less obvious source - Arwa Mahdawi on the rise of the demisexual. (It was one of the most popular articles on the site yesterday.)

www.theguardian.com/society/commentisfree/2021/jul/13/what-does-the-dawn-of-demisexuals-tell-us-how-sex-drenched-society-has-become?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

While Arwa has not been noticeably GC previously, this article gently mocking those who give themselves labels such as demisexual and claim this makes them 'queer', also poignantly pointed out that the young people labelling their sexuality in all these complicated ways to be trendy in most cases were actually having far less sex than previous generations. She pointed out that in a porn-soaked world, many young people were retreating from sex. Worth reading.

I absolutely used to love buying the FT.

It was a perk that I got to read all manner of publications for free most days years ago; but bought the FT, Economist, National Geographic mostly.

More recently: had the similar perks - just less so.

It is always good to read a broad range of publications.

It certainly has an economic bias but it’s a lot more socialist than I expected when I started reading it. And refreshingly non-hysterical.

Really,@MoonlightApple? I thought it was just about money!

I believe there's an app that lets you subscribe to a big range of magasines (all different publishers) for about £10 per month, so I don't see why there can't be one for newspapers too - unless the issue is ideological rather than technical.

Good recommendation. I could get on board with that. Very much so.

Bit like Spotify, but for news rather than music

Yes, the calendar-based purchase idea is a good one. Instead of pre-purchasing a specified number of articles, you could specify days on which you wanted access to each paper. Then it would be exactly like going to the newsagent ieach day and choosing to buy the Guardian one and and the Times another day, etc.

All that is standing between me and becoming a pro-social multi-millionaire world-changing innovator is my complete lack of entrepreneurial, technical and design skills. Details, details.

Just a point on circulation (I don't think it's been mentioned) that a big earner for the press is sales at airports and with travel restrictions (covid) around the world, newspaper sales have gone down across the board.

That's a really great idea and I would also be interested in this model.

I wish newspapers would team up to support a shared subscription platform, where readers could pay a single regular fee in exchange for x articles weekly from the Guardian, y articles weekly from the Times, z articles from the New York Times, etc. Each subscriber could craft their own custom spilt between articles published by participating papers.

I want to support journalism by paying for what I read, but I don't want to throw all my eggs in one basket by supporting one paper and consuming its interpretations only. Neither do I want to pay per click, which would encourage clickbait journalism and outrage-confection.

I want to pay them all, in proportion to how much I use them, for doing their job properly, reporting the facts, providing analysis and not fawning at tribes and echo-chambers.

In the last year the Guardian has fallen from 132,000 to 109,000. But in the same period, the FT has gone from 157,000 to 97,000, and the Express from 296,000 to 238,000. The Mail has a lot more print readers than the Guardian (and always has had) but its drop from 1,169,241 to 960,000 seems a comparable level and speed of decline in percentage terms to that of the Guardian. (Up-to-date print circulation figures for the Times, Sun, and Telegraph are not available.)

Either way. I will write to the Observer to let them know that their stance and Sonia Sodha's writing are appreciated! As is Hadley Freeman's at the Guardian!

I used to work for them. I loved the paper and really believed in the job I had but hate how it’s going. I now subscribe to both the telegraph and the Times but not the G. I hope their fawning over the vile narcissistic OJ brings them down. Good journalism has its roots in integrity and theirs has been lacking ever since K Vine took over.

@MrsOvertonsWindow

Same. I freely read whatever I want, and they can whistle if they think they'll get a penny out of me again.

I'll buy the Observer still. If their figures are kept separate it should help to see the difference in sales.

I used to go out in the rain to buy the Guardian on Saturdays, even after I stopped buying it often during the week. It was painful letting go altogether. But I do feel as if I’m breathing more freely. Still miss the long-ago feeling that the Guardian was a friend, on our side.