The Guardian have upped their game, we’re now Anti-trans for asking for same-sex spaces

Editorial
archive.fo/sZqd3

STILLTish article,

15th July 2019
'Why are the Guardian suddenly so woeful on women’s rights?'

(extract)
"Why is the Guardian so woeful on Women’s Rights these days when, arguably, we are facing the biggest attack on our sex based rights in my lifetime? Coverage of Marie Dean was a low point

It was this article which first confused and then outraged me. (You can find more on this case on my blog here.) For the purposes of this article suffice to say it was campaign journalism to facilitate a move of a prisoner to the female estate. What the Guardian did, until shamed by angry readers, was to de-sexualise the nature of the “burglary” and, in effect, disregard any risk to the female prisoners.

It was the above piece that inspired me to do a bit of digging. The Guardian has a history of exposing #DarkMoney & labyrinthine ownership structures, which mask influence or hide money. So this was where I started.

The Guardian itself reports that it has a unique ownership structure. Part of that structure is The Scott Trust. As you can see 👇 the Board of the Trust have ultimate editorial control & power to sack the editor

This is one of The Board members. He is also on the board of The Paul Hamlyn Foundation, which immediately looked familiar.

It was the Paul Hamlyn foundation that caught my eye because I had seen them referred to in the accounts of the Mermaids charity." (continues)

gendercriticalwoman.wordpress.com/2019/07/15/why-are-the-guardian-suddenly-so-woeful-on-womens-rights/

I think clicks relates to advertising revenue. I guess the articles that get more clicks mean they will also get written about more. Not sure what the answer is, I don’t want to give them clicks, but also I think we should be reading alternative views.

November 2018 relevant thread discussing US Guardian employees' reaction to Guardian editorial:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3412692-The-Guardians-US-Staff-are-Revolting

Guardian US Opinion,
'Why we take issue with the Guardian’s stance on trans rights in the UK'
by Sam Levin, Mona Chalabi and Sabrina Siddiqui

"A recent editorial on the Gender Recognition Act in the UK was met with dismay by Guardian US journalists who believe it advanced transphobic viewpoints that are driving attacks on trans rights in America"
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/02/guardian-editorial-response-transgender-rights-uk

In response to the editorial,
'The Guardian view on the Gender Recognition Act: where rights collide'

"It should be possible to advance trans equality without harming the interests of women. But a toxic debate has made it harder"

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/17/the-guardian-view-on-the-gender-recognition-act-where-rights-collide

Well the guardian is one of the reasons why this previous very socially liberal individual has substantially turned rightwards. Their stance on women's issues (they don't matter) has made me question all sorts of other issues where I would normally have naturally leaned on the same side. It has also pushed me into proselytising on GC issues, one person at the time. They are a disgrace.

For anyone who is cancelling subscription to The Guardian, please consider letting them know the reasons why.

When I stopped mine (after buying the paper regularly for over twenty year) the person who recorded my reasons commented that many women had raised similar issues.

A whole article saying the quiet bit loud. Good. Clear sunlight needed.

This is an explicit stating of the facts discussed here for years: activist requirements are incompatible with women's needs and rights.

Now we've admitted it, let's move onto the only way to meet all needs equally and fairly which is accepting TWATW and creating additional mixed sex spaces and resources.

I've just taken a look at this year's (2020) Press Awards and The Guardian has done pretty poorly for a total of eight, including joint wins:

1 Joint Winner Fashion Journalist of the Year (shared with The Financial Times)
2 Health Journalist of the Year
3 Political Commentator of the Year
4 Joint Winner Technology Journalist of the Year (shared with Tortoise)
5 Reporting Diversity (a freelancer for The Guardian)
6 Joint Winner Scoop of the Year (shared with The Mirror)
7 Joint Winner Special Supplement of the Year (shared with The Sun) and
8 News Website of the Year.

So, three outright wins, one win for a freelancer and four joint wins. By contrast, The Mail won 10.

Shit! Damn it

This article has finally made me unsubscribe from the guardian. I don't now how they can publish such shut

As mentioned above, The Guardian isn't regulated by IPSO:

www.ipso.co.uk/complain/who-ipso-regulates/?letters=g

The recourse would need to be a complaint to The Guardian or, if a matter was serious enough, the courts.

Apologies for typo above, should read DBS.

I remain very sceptical on this! I'm all for safeguarding, but it needs to be appropriate, proportionate and inclusive. Not based on fear of a minority.

Adult male people are not a minority. Safeguarding is not required to be 'inclusive. By definition it is applied to all those in a risk group in order to prevent a small number within that group who represent risk, eg a small minority of those employed in schools are predatory paedophiles but all adults employed by schools are DSBS checked and required to abide by all Safeguarding policies.

If it's US/Australian Guardian what is the recourse wrt complaints? Presuming the PCC doesn't cover it?

Surely anyone reading this thread can see the desperate attempts at obfuscation and confusion for what they are.

1. it’s impossible to watch the video and not be clear that the flashing happened. There are many upset women and at least one upset little girl in it. Plus all the evidence evidence it’s not the first time.
2. this form of flashing is legal so how would the police be involved?
3. “pretending to be trans” is hardly an onerous effort when literally any man can just march right in to the women’s section, get his dick out and get in the jacuzzi next to a little girl. The extent of the “pretending” necessary is saying “It’s OK, I’m transgender” if challenged.

TRAs have succeeded in sowing a lot of confusion in the past, it’s their main “debate” tactic. But to get confused by the bollocks presented on this thread you’d have to be some desperate libfem idiot who actively wants to be confused so they don’t have to admit what they’re supporting. I don’t think the confusion-sowing tactic is going to work for much longer. More and more people are going to wake up to the fact that what’s happening is very simple.

No dress required
Nothing required, just a declaration
Reporting it will result in fuck all except perhaps the person reporting being given a talking to for being a bigot because 'female penis'
Oh but we can report after a crime has been committed, oh how fabulous. That will be such a comfort to the victims that could have been protected by SAFEGUARDING. It can be reported! Great! And then brushed aside with lack of evidence.
Oh but a man will come in and attack you anyway if they want, so yeah let's just remove any safeguarding issues and make it even easier! Don't call it out when a male with a semi wanders round women and girls, don't call management to remove them when they sidle up next to a child because it's probably a harmless lady peen you bigot. Just don't look, feel unsafe, uncomfortable. But if they are there to commit a crime, the only point you're allowed to say anything now is when they start attacking you, and just hope someone comes to the rescue.

Just, and I cannot stress this highly enough, fuck off.

Translate: Be kind to sex offenders or else.

This in today's Sunday Times shows where that gets you:

archive.fo/fvKRK

Blinded by righteousness they're heading out to where the ice becomes thin.

Perfectly put.

I see that my post about feelings has been deleted, so I will try again.

I'm all for safeguarding, but it needs to be appropriate, proportionate and inclusive. Not based on fear of a minority.

How can safeguarding be inclusive if, by definition, it includes sexual offenders? To be inclusive you include everyone or you exclude people. It can't be Schrodinger's safeguarding.

Waitwhat23

@Beefcurtains79 or as a family friend so charmingly put 'it's only a few women who have been raped'. It amazing how 'be kind' works, isn't it?

Translate: Be kind to sex offenders or else.
With family friends like that who needs enemies eh?

@Beefcurtains79 or as a family friend so charmingly put 'it's only a few women who have been raped'. It amazing how 'be kind' works, isn't it?

Blackandwhitehorse

@MishyJDI it’s already happening in prisons. Scotland, California and Canada have already had incidents of sexual assault due to self ID. Do you think these women are just collateral damage?

Not collateral damage, they think they are liars.

It will be interesting to see how it addresses the precipitous drop in readership.