David Bell in today's Guardian - great article

I think David Bell is excellent and the clearest I’ve heard on the fact that ‘trans’ does not apply to children

but I’ll never forgive The Guardian for being so complicit in the harm that is gender ideology

They've got so far by lying that it must go against the grain for the Guardian to be forced to produce accurate unbiased journalism.
Good to see that there are eventually limits to the lies people can tell.

Yup, Julie Bindel has skin in this game too, as the Herd article explains, so it makes sense that she would know.

I posted same thought on the other thread about the piece. Bell looks very much like he demanded and got a right of reply. I rather suspect that Bindel - who got a correction to the original piece - is heavily hinting that was the case

Apologies if this has already been linked but here's an article about the article (yes I know it's getting complicated) from Unherd that includes this from Julie Bindel:

'Speaking to UnHerd today, Bindel said, “I know how hard David Bell had to try to get the Guardian to agree to him writing an opinion piece, following his complaints about the Freddy McConnell article. I don’t believe for one minute that the Guardian has decided it has been wrong all along on this issue, but its hand has been forced.”

So maybe not so much a reverse ferret as the Graun being pressured into allowing a right of reply to McConnell's piece? I guess time will tell. Certainly it might explain the curious truncation of the online version.
https://unherd.com/newsroom/the-guardian-publishes-article-defending-cass-report/

As she was the person who directly oversaw the vast majority of my assessment and treatment during my time at GIDS, I am horrified at the way she has been villified. There is not a single person on Earth who I owe more to nor respect for her reasoned and measured professional conduct at the most difficult time in my life.

@ButterflyHatched thank you for the article, and the letters that followed. However, I really don’t feel ms Wren is the victim here.

Absolutely. The media, politicians, journalists, celebrity, organisations. They all need to accept they were wrong and apologise for the sometimes grave harm to which they have contributed.

Thanks Bonfire. That is a very interesting read and interesting to see how it has been treated by the Guardian.

That's such a good article from someone at the heart of the Tavistock and with a real insider's view of the catastrophe that was GIDs. The revelations of the safeguarding fails from the Sonia Appleby case still resonate. Thank heavens it's now closed.
Despite all the efforts by the adult trans lobbyists, it's becoming evident that placing the new centres in Children's hospitals with their standards of research & evidenced healthcare that all other children receive, was a genius move.
No more adults insisting that their personal anecdotes /wishes /beliefs take priority over the safety and wellbeing of vulnerable children. The multi disciplinary teams and awareness of the levels of social grooming of children will hopefully ensure that there's no place for these lobbyists. Although they're not going without a fight as we can see.

The two versions look almost identical to me (as far as I can tell from the photo in the OP).

The reverse ferreting has begun then

Bloody rich of the Graun to be talking about this when they’ve towed the TRA line for years, including the employment of LOJ and allowing Hayley Friedman and Suzanne Moore to be hounded out.

Trying to cling onto the perceived moral high ground regardless, even as a Cass-shaped earthquake upends the landscape

I'd recommend reading Bernadette Wren's insightful words on the subject from 2021, given that unlike Bell, she actually had a direct role in the department in question:

Bernadette Wren · Diary: Epistemic Injustice (lrb.co.uk)

It looks like now The Guardian has spoken it's socially acceptable to come out against the sterilisation of children:

https://twitter.com/lindasgrant/status/1783788727719825611

A graceful admission from the Graun would not come amiss.

Are those pigs in the sky?

Same thought went through my mind, and no doubt they will receive a few letters from people making just those points. A graceful admission from the Graun would not come amiss.

What this actually means is that a more complete version - presumably with more, and more detailed - criticism would not be available online, as that is the "content" which ends up being taken up in any "viral" reaction AND being archived for the future.

The archive is particularly important, as that is (a) the record which readers and researchers will draw from and (b) the searchable record (because the print version, even if someone scans it, effectively only becomes a picture, and not a searchable one unless it's tagged.

It's quite a big deal to have print and a (n archived) digital versions of an article be very different. In the future, we will need to know what was known and what was printed, in order to be able to explain our history and politics.

Another thread about the online version of the article

David Bell in the Guardian www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/5062591-david-bell-in-the-guardian

Abra1t · Today 10:59

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/26/cass-review-gender-identity-services-report

Thanks for posting that, it was informative in more ways than one. I know the Observer has been publishing balanced articles on the subject, but it seems to be a first for the actual Guardian to have published one so wholly critical. I wonder if they've reached a turning point, where GC voices are not only tolerated, but allowed to publish their opinions in it?

They did have the letters last week, of course, but to have commissioned a column seems promising.

Thanks op.

Does this mean I have to pay them money to read it in full?

“they filleted the paper article to create that shorter piece on the website”

That makes no sense. Are they worried they’re going to run out of internet?

It was a fabulous article. I am glad the Guardian published it. Think the jig is up.