Guardian dissection of how woke went wrong. Close but no banana

The analysis of the SC ruling is annoying and incorrect.

"with trans people losing hard-won access (at least on the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s interpretation of the ruling) to everything from grassroots sport to public toilets."

The SC ruling affirmed that it is unlawful to discriminate against people who have the PC of gender reassignment, so they should not be excluded from public toilets or sport. They can also make a case that sex segregation is discriminatory (as women have done). The SC were not taking a stand on 'woke'. They were just confirming the law.

Nobody can claim to be the opposite sex within the definitions of equality law, because that would render the PC of sex meaningless. The problem here is not the law, but the fact that it is impossible to change sex.

However, the section on Robert Wintemute is interesting. It's just not clear whether anything is learned from it.

I think the fundamental problem with 'woke' is that it often looks an awful lot like regressive people protecting their privilege.

I think “The Pool” was no more fairly soon after so I don’t think the article is available but this gives you an idea of how Gaby Hinsliff thought the self ID debate was going at the time. The most enraging line is the title of my thread. Also Hinsliff isn’t a particularly young woman.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3391208-it-may-be-a-while-before-older-women-stop-feeling-erased?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

That is a cynical, but quite plausible take on this. Flying kites, as it were…

I am deliberately commenting before reading the article but I will read it afterwards.

I think the whole issue is overreach.
Not just the trans issue which is clearly demanding a suspension of reality but also with racial and climate issues, both of which I support.

The police taking the knee, people celebrating vandalism of historical statues they don’t agree with , police again donning pride colours, vandalising works of art to protest climate change, taking over stations for Palestine, blocking roads for just stop oil.

All these things achieve the opposite of what was intended.

Plus as a pp posters mentions, blue haired privileged twenty-something london centric twats lecturing the rest of us is guaranteed to set teeth on edge.

Also the constant pushing of the “message” in much loved telly shows has pissed of huge sections of society who want to enjoy their programme of choice without propaganda to educate us out of “wrong think”.

The problem is that The Guardian doesn't want to talk about what actually went wrong. They're just putting out feelers to work out how they can shift their position into something more palatable with it attracting as little attention as possible.

That’s a much more sensible & balanced take if The Guardian really want to understand what went wrong ( if of course you regard as women having actual rights as ‘wrong’)

I admit I've only skimmed that article, mainly to see if Hinsliff acknowledges any part played by her own comments about the Cologne attacks. Yes it was a long time ago but I never felt the same about the Guardian again after her reference to young women and their expensive smartphones. But it looks as if that would have taken introspection too far for her own comfort.

Hard won?!!! Do FO. Stolen or appropriated ‘rights’ actually represents the truth. No emphasis about the actual consequences for women of being battered by men in sports or having a dick and balls swinging away in their changing rooms.

And how did they steal these ‘rights’? They were enabled by terminally leftwing woke bureaucrats, politicians and media (namely themselves). Some nerve in that article.

Hard-won access?

They infiltrated the corridors of power and then got everything they asked for, that actual women had fought hard for.

It looked pretty fucking easy to me. So easy that no-one even saw it happening.

James Marriott in the Times also has a comment about woke and the role social media plays in bringing it down:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/b8351e47-77db-4515-bb2f-a287e56d2f86?shareToken=d18c5fd626a6e4deb0d32b20823f4f47

That fact is being glossed over again and again. Mainstream media outlets like the BBC (and even some who are supposedly onside for women) have a lot to answer for in not presenting this accurately for what it was.

She still doesn’t get it

A campaign for self-ID initially enjoying cross-party support had somehow ended not just in defeat but in reverse, with trans people losing hard-won access (at least on the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s interpretation of the ruling) to everything from grassroots sport to public toilets.

that hard won access as she calls it was illegal!! They lost because the law was being broken whereas hinscliff makes it sound it was becatse women were just being big meanies

Yes some missed points (Gaby Hinsliff has always been a fence-sitter on sex/gender IIRC, though started writing about it more than a decade ago and is very familiar with the debate).

But an interesting article - great to reference Luke Tryl's excellent work and Robert Wintemute. It's in the Guardian and reads like it's deliberately resisting the temptation to say "JSO are terrible idiots" in favour of letting the reader do some thinking.