The Times is now turning off comments on all 'gender' articles

I think they should decide between allowing comments or not allowing comments across the entire paper. It's the in between that winds people up.

When all news was print media nobody could comment other than writing a letter to the paper or Points of View. So as a society we'd probably cope with that.

Censoring some but allowing others erodes trust more than not bothering with a BTL section at all.

I agree, and people commenting on other stories about GC articles might force a decision either way.

I think it’s deliberate, we’re being crowded out, to get a reaction, I’m left with an uncomfortable feeling about all this, seeing the anger rising in women, feeling my own anger rising, it feels like we’re being manipulated & played, pawns in a game. @lightand said follow the money, overseas money & interference?

This about The Telegraph is interesting, does nobody not think that a lot of this is going on with other newspapers/media, other topics/society issues, foreign powers trying to destabilise society
twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1502763923812065287

unherd.com/2021/02/the-communist-party-on-campus/

The Mail for all its faults is publishing articles about this daily. And the comments are a mix of horrified and supportive.
Now the Guardian......

Always follow the money

I think they are a hidden force in the UK

Never underestimate the power of advertisers.

I think we all need to write to them and complain.

It's quite a recent change. There really was a massive volume of comments on pretty much any gender related article. If everyone who commented on the times articles complained they may change it back.

I would say that the majority of comments could be construed as from a gender critical viewpoint.

For all their faults, (where do we start?) Tories can tell the difference between the two sexes, and are the one party in the country who have refrained from demanding as party policy that bearded rapists must be allowed in women-only previously 'safe' spaces

Lot's of articles and subjects are sensitive to someone. Not a good enough reason especially when many of the articles are actually about politics, policy and legislation.

If they want to turn of comments on a fluff lifestyle piece like the couple from yesterday I don't care too much about that. When it's about something an elected politician has said or the SNP forcing through unpopular legislation I very much mind.

Long time Times subscriber and I’m very surprised about it. I just about understood it for yesterdays article about the couple (woman and trans woman) as it was a bit sensitive, particularly the part about no sex life, but it’s otherwise a new departure.

It’s a shame because they have allowed Janice Turner a voice. I’m going to write a complaint.

So for:

1. legal issues, or 2) sensitive topics

The Sunday Times Editorial team can be contacted at the following addresses:

· Sunday Times News: [email protected]
· Sunday Times World News: [email protected]
· News Review: [email protected]
· Sunday Times Sport: [email protected]
. Culture and arts: [email protected]
· Sunday
· Letters to Editor*: [email protected]

•	General queries: If you’re in the UK please dial:
From your mobile: <a class="break-all" href="//tel:0207%20711%201527" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">0207 711 1527</a>
Free from your landline and mobile phone: <a class="break-all" href="//tel:0800%20018%205177" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">0800 018 5177</a>
If you’re in the Republic of Ireland please dial:
From your mobile: <a class="break-all" href="//tel:015360818" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">015360818</a>
Free from your landline: <a class="break-all" href="//tel:1800949687" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">1800949687</a>

•	Corporate subscriptions: <a class="break-all" href="//mailto:[email protected]" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">[email protected]</a>
•	Technical questions: <a class="break-all" href="//mailto:[email protected]" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">[email protected]</a>
•	Customer services: <a class="break-all" href="//mailto:[email protected]" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">[email protected]</a>
•	Newspaper archive: <a class="break-all" href="//mailto:[email protected]" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">[email protected]</a>
•	Legal archive: <a class="break-all" href="//mailto:[email protected]" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">[email protected]</a>
•	Crossword Club: <a class="break-all" href="//mailto:[email protected]" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">[email protected]</a>

A response that has been circulating regarding comments being switched off on women's rights articles was this:

The Times is not the only paper willing to publish GC articles butnobodytoldme
The Daily Telegraph has articles pretty much every day on the issue.

When all news was print media nobody could comment other than writing a letter to the paper or Points of View. So as a society we'd probably cope with that.

Censoring some but allowing others erodes trust more than not bothering with a BTL section at all.

I guess the Money section too.

They've been able to capture all our institutions via their secret backroom deals for so long that the emerging of democracy, accountability and the rights of others must be a shock for them. As the Times continues to report the issues freely, I suspect they've decided that sacrificing comments are worth allowing journalists to report all the continuing scandals / outrages around this issue.

Yes that seems quite a plausible explanation. Plus the American "social credit" style company they've outsourced to as pp have mentioned.

What part of a newspaper DOES interest rich men?

[quote OvaHere]Perhaps we could use this thread to signpost each day which comment section is being used that day to discuss the articles where comments aren't allowed. Ridiculous I know.

I've found some comments about the Starmer article on this piece about the cultural boycott of Russia.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-is-a-war-so-dont-dance-with-the-enemy-sjktzf9nl[/quote]
Sorry @OvaHere, cross posted. The crash test dummies article has GC comment, and the Ned Sheeran one is pretty solid GC, being next-one-along at the moment.
But I guess the comments on Mr Sheeran won't necessarily attract many politicians.

Also this one about Sunak and NI rise.
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sunak-must-be-flexible-above-all-and-put-off-the-ni-rise-797ghfbvn

It would be the worse for us if they choose between not allowing articles OR not allowing reader-responses.

Politicians of every party don't givadam about the public (proof abounds) So, how can we attempt to reach them?

I'm flailing here, but if there's anything they may look at, and may even be seduced into reading comments on, maybe that's where to aim a GC reader response?

Perhaps we could use this thread to signpost each day which comment section is being used that day to discuss the articles where comments aren't allowed. Ridiculous I know.

I've found some comments about the Starmer article on this piece about the cultural boycott of Russia.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-is-a-war-so-dont-dance-with-the-enemy-sjktzf9nl

from engaging

The silencing of this debate has disproportionate impact on women who are now prevented by engaging in the Times comments by their recent policy on closing comments on gender (sic) articles. Is this not indirect sex discrimination by a service provider and in breach of the equality act?