'The Guardian has found itself defending a sex-offender's right to expose themselves to children'

OJ’s proclamation that the LGBA’s supporter are mainly straight! Dude, most of the TRAs are straight

This is increasingly one of the logical absurdities.

But that's a different form of straight. Being queer acts as a modifier so straight isn't what it is for non-queer people.

Aren't we all trans or queer in some way given the size and coverage of the trans umbrella?

In your mind, I know you're still thinking in a heteronormative way, bigot.

Had a good ole chortle at OJ’s article. Little does he know that he’s the biggest bigot of them all. All the pearl clutching at a gay man attending Pride in a t-shirt proclaiming his support for a LGB charity. The fake comparison to a Trump supporter turning up at an anti-Trump protest. He even disparaged Andrew Doyle, another gay journalist, for calling out woke homophobia.
Perhaps my biggest chortle was for OJ’s proclamation that the LGBA’s supporter are mainly straight! Dude, most of the TRAs are straight.

*wand wagon = band wagon

The article closes with the question 'Who benefits from this?'

That's something I'm struggling to understand :

• some people have suffered from dysphoria - either themselves or their children - and can't see past that to the wider consequences (but not many)
• some sexual predators want to break down protections for women (again, not many)
• some people hate women (I know we underestimate misogyny, but still...)
• Some people probably just aren't thinking very deeply about it, and just jump on the righteous wand wagon.

But there are plenty of thinkers - journalists, politicians, industry leaders (please hold the sarcasm on this - these are groups who try to figure things out) who are so committed to to gender ideology who don't fall into any of these readons

Is it just that they didn't think about it much initially, and then confirmation bias kicked in?

I don't understand why so many people and institutions were captured.

I cancelled my subscription to the guardian after that article. It's no longer a news source just a mouthpiece to an agenda

Can Owen Jones please explain why it is apparently oppression for women not to allow males in women's spaces? Because in his anti-science word-salad puff piece for Faye, he fails to back up his bigoted tantrum.

Another sadly disillusioned ex-Graun fan here. I cannot believe how far it has lost its way. Everything has to be commissioned or reported from the perspective of supporting the wokebro ideology. It’s so extreme.

Also youth-obsessed and sneeringly ageist. But of course.

One profound irony is that 10 years ago The Guardian did one of the scoops of the decade against News International and now there's some kind of weird distorting mirror thing going on with The Guardian spreading disinformation to cover up a (arguably much bigger) scandal and The Times (in the News International successor entity) seeking to uncover it, and also to reveal that something has gone badly wrong at The Guardian.

How on earth does the Guardian report on the Taliban and women rights? I'm pretty sure that as a woman in Afghanistan I couldn't identify as a man and have all the rights men get. Surely when they're discussing this they have to use one of the terms like, uterus-havers in order to be accurate. Or do they know it's a wink wink thing with the reader - you know what we mean when we say female in this piece. Bonkers.

(OJ)

Is this the article?

It's basically about the oppression of white males.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/03/anti-lgbtq-hate-crime-bigotry-britain

The problem is the women who choose the women's session, and their children, chose a women's session- a penis free space.
The mixed sessions or male sessions are ideal for people with a penis.
The mixed sessions are also clothed.

So there are nude sessions for women, nude sessions for men and mixed nude sessions? Not sure that I understand the problem?

That the man who wore an LGB Alliance T shirt to Manchester pride is some sort of ‘wrong’…

Oh dear, what line is OJ taking?

Owen Jones’ article today is pathetic. Cancelling my subscription (should have done it years ago).

That guardian piece is appalling. Really really shit. I know what they're like now but I was still wtf.

They can't have news pieces using the word women and meaning sex about things going on around the world. Abortion taleban etc.

And then have this.

It's mind blowingly hypocritical.

That Dave Hewitt article is so good - completely nails the issue. It would be depressing but the Guardian nailed its colours to the mast many years ago so progressing to defending a sex offender's rights to indecently expose himself to a child is the logical progression. Idiots.

It would be funny if it weren't so enraging. I never, ever thought that I'd abandon the Graun. Read it for 40 years. Now I wouldn't wrap my fish and chips in it.

Sloane ranger?
How old do you have to be for that to spring to mind as a user name?

Do cockhavers prefer to be referred to as cockhavers or prostratehavers? I always forget.

Oh, but this cockshower isn't representative of all cockhavers, so how dare you shame all cockhavers on the basis of this person's behaviour?
(Or something)
Most cockhavers will be quite innocent and therefore entitled to have and show their cocks in women's spaces. (Or something.)