JULIE BINDEL: This gender ideology is nothing less than a crime against a generation

@IrresponsiblyCertainAboutSexualDimorphism

The use of these terms is polarising

Yes, possibly, but I would think the debate is already very polarised and I would suggest that the rhetoric may be useful in terms of fighting for moral position.

The "GC" side is going to be framed a certain way by opponents (as hateful bigots); and I think it can be fair and useful to frame the "gender ideology" side in various ways if it's capturing a truth about them.

that was my criticism of the article too. But it is a small one compared to the general thrust of the article, which as pp have pointed out, has been written by someone who have been researching and highlighting the abuse of children for a long time now.

Would be interested to see what Owen Jones would say. (well not really since we know what he'd say, most likely)

No, I don’t.

I just do not think adopting the DM language is helpful.

Yes, large sections of the media, and the left of centre of society, are in howling denial over these issues. Its been like that for quite some time now. Sunk costs fallacy gets more, not less, relevant as time wears on and the omissions and false accusations pile up. (Cologne, Wi Spa, are two issues that spring to mind where the Guardian have failed women horribly).

On the bright side, five or six years back no bugger would publish anything on the subject at all. So, at least it's in the Mail. Most widely read UK paper, and a largely female readership.

Journalists concerned about the effect of this poisonous ideology on vulnerable children have two choices. Publish in right-wing papers (Telegraph, Times, Mail) or not publish at all. You seem to think the lesser evil is to not publish at all. I disagree. This needs to be seen. And right-wing parents care about their children just as much as left-wing parents do.

It is an excellent article by Julie and the more sunlight, the better.
The comments are a good vox pop.
As for 'right' wing...

because some things aren't reported in other papers?

What's your beef with the article? care to refute her points?

You could have Fidel Castro, Trotsky, Lenin, Jeremy Corbyn, stood in front of Thatcher-hating miners on a picket line encircled by the People’s Liberation Army all saying “trans women are men!” and TRAs would still claim being GC is “right wing”. Everyone knows it’s nonsense. So it’s still not clear why anyone should give a fuck.

Quite. TRAs can hold up signs saying things like "Decapitate Terfs" and that's fine and they're still considered by many to be the "most vulnerable" group of people in the country.

At the same time, we're expected to police our language in case we are thought to be a little bit right wing and/or be thinking about voting Tory (as quite a lot of people did at the last few elections which is why we have a Tory government).

I’m sorry I’m clearly not explaining myself properly.

No, this is not aimed at the Guardian readers. But its existence, and the language it uses, feeds the TRA narrative that the GC position is inherently right wing and therefore bad. There will be tweets from the usual suspects. This is why the Guardian has got itself into the mess it’s in.

Yeah, they aren't going to stop with the "you're right-wing baddies" nonsense.

What else do they have?

It’s worth noting how much the centre left is for men not women and is captured by TRA ideology

I dread to think of a media entirely captured - where would we see pro women views?

NZ springs to mind, but a new gov at least is changing direction

It is, but it's been discussed on here many times before. You could start your own thread if you want to discuss that.

Just thought the same. An example of another thread detailed by "but it's <buttergasp> IN THE MAIL"

Pass the smelling salts. Call the village elders

Isn't the Daily Mail the most popular paper in the UK? And many of its readers are Tory voters who are quite happy to be labelled as right wing.

The hard of thinking people you describe are likely to be Guardian readers. They won't even read this article because they wouldn't go near the Daily Mail in case they catch some right-wingness. Those hard of thinking people won't be affected by this article at all.

Critical thinking should not be a 'fragile flower' that needs to be protected.
If an argument doesn't stand up against a reasonable challenge, perhaps it is not a very good argument.

Is the fact that only the DM will publish this kind of article not worthy of discussion?

Nothing.

But there are some very hard of thinking people who like to believe right wing = bad and left wing = good, therefore the views of anyone who is or appears to be right wing can be discounted, and moreover their views are evil.

I think the real question is why so few left-leaning media outlets are refusing to DO THEIR FUCKING JOB and report the truth.

Any thoughts on that?

Anyway is there any chance at all that we could get back to discussing the contents of the article which is about what some adults are doing to children?

But what wrong with being right wing? Why the terror about that label?

I’m politically very left of centre and will disagree with many positions held by someone whose politics are right of centre. But I recognise they are legitimate positions to hold even as I disagree with them. The country has voted for right wing government for the last thirteen years. It’s hardly a tiny minority.

So TRAs tell other TRAs and their brainless followers something more believable that “trans women are women” and we, or Julie Bindel, are supposed to be concerned, because….why?

Who cares what they tell each other?! They tell their followers they won’t lose their sexual function and fertility, who cares if they tell them Bindel is right wing? We know they tell their followers the world is out to get them, Bindel shouldn’t have to rein it in, for that reason, it’s like building a dam of sand at the beach. She’s not trying to appeal to the brainless followers of TRAs, she’s appealing to the middle ground of people who actually matter.

The Guardian would have been a more realistic example of articles with a sneering tone.

I think what really plays into the hands of TRAs is worrying about what they and their followers might say about us and adapting our language to try and appease them. It won't.

Fucking hell. No. The TRAs use this as evidence to their brainless followers that JB is secretly right wing therefore her really important points about the appalling harms to children can be discounted.

What does the Guardian have to do with anything?

“Sneering tone”? You’re talking about the Guardian, right? Condescending sneering tone to people concerned about women’s rights?

”plays into the hands of TRAs”. So TRAs are going to win over the Daily Mail readers by pointing out Julie Bindel is sneering at them 🤣🤣