The Guardian's censorship of women's comments

[WombOfOnesOwn]

Today, just like many other days, an article was posted on The Guardian about transgender issues, and MANY women responded with reasonable concerns. Their comments just like on many other days disappeared without a trace, deleted because they didn't toe the party line on trans issues.

www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/46b82s/the_guardian_publishes_an_article_on_bathroom/

Commenters on this forum cite that The Guardian is the third-most viewed news website in the world. How many women read these cleansed-out comments section and feel like they must be the only woman in the world who doesn't think trans women are exactly like other women, should be allowed to participate in women's sporting events, et cetera?

In some ways, it almost seems like gaslighting -- in many of these situations, a tremendous majority of the comments are deleted, leaving only comments from the viewpoint of a small minority (who then look like their viewpoint is the popular one, for anyone reading the story after the erasure). Women's views on this subject are being erased.

Maybe it's time to start an email campaign to The Guardian and let them know that if they discard women's viewpoints, they can also kiss our clicks and subscriptions goodbye. Anyone else think this is a good idea?

I don't think it's even a trans woman, I think it's right on male liberal lefties who think they are being totally righteous and on the right side of history. If it were trans people I'd be more sympathetic to a degree but it's 'cishet' men (ie the kinds of men who describe themselves as such)

"I think it's right on male liberal lefties who think they are being totally righteous and on the right side of history."

I think you could be right, Vince.

Also, I've seen a lot of 'you'll be on the wrong side of history' comments aimed at anyone considered a terf. It's one of the things to say now isn't it, along with 'fuck off and die terf' and 'trans women are women and anyone who disagrees is a terf who should die in a fire.'

I want to get 'terf and proud' into circulation.

I don't want to use their slurs personally.
But "just an ordinary woman who do not believe that blokes wearing wigs are female like me" is too long isn't it.

I prefer 'gender critical' (or 'gender resisting' if I am expected to describe myself in their terms. I don't like saying I'm agender because really I'm not - that ignores the fact that it's hard to escape the impact of gender) to TERF.

IMO 'terf' is hate speech and I think we should be challenging it as such whenever it is used.

I believe there is an analogy with the way words like 'Paki' which on the face of it were purely descriptive became used firstly in association with threats, and secondly more widely than the group that they literally describe (so Asians from all over the Indian subcontinent get called Pakis and never in a positive way).

A problem with 'terf' as a term (aside from the fact it was invented specifically to demonise feminist women and has evolved into widespread use to demonise any woman who doesn't buy 100% into trans dogma) is that it takes a woman centred politics - radical feminism - and gives it a prefix that recentres it on men! The 'Trans(woman) Exclusive' bit is a swerve that suggests that the whole of Radical Feminism, rather than being by and for and focussed on female people, is actually all about maliciously denying male people. It's a pretty classic whiny manbaby MRA way of looking at things - not 'what are women doing for themselves' but 'what aren't they making for me!'.

I've been noticing this happening at the guardian for while but it was always more subtle than this and I tried to downplay as it's one the few places I went to read but the recent spate of articles spewing bile at women and calling people out as bigots has been the final straw for me. The left press is dead, it happily sacrificed itself on the altar of false righteous BS.

I think it's right on male liberal lefties who think they are being totally righteous and on the right side of history.

Yep, and front and centre is Owen "Trans women FTW" Jones, the odious little shite.

I am really disappointed in the way all these comments are disappearing. Perhaps the Graun needs a new editorial stance. Or even a woman editor in chief? Oh wait...

So shall I report this and ask MN to invite the Guardian editor/ CiF editor in for a webchat?

Would also be interesting to get Daily Fail one in.

And the Sun

And Mirror

I've submitted a comment to Guardian for Women's Day

I actually think that the Guardian is worse than the DM when it comes to comment censorship. At least the DM lets people comment against their agenda, Guardian doesn't.

I have been surprised by comments on the Daily Mail website. It's not a paper I read and I'd never considered looking at its web-site before I joined here.

I have been genuinely surprised and heartened by comments on occasion.

The article about Natalie Towers for example has this as its best rated comment (by 5250 likes to 750 against)

The court heard Towers has a history of emotional and psychological problems." She needs help, not a prison sentence.

Whatever one's views are on late abortion that seems the most appropriate response in this case.

The other recent one was about a rape case- the majority of comments would not have been out of place here.

Funny old world isn't it?

Here's another load of guff on this issue from the Guardian.

www.theguardian.com/education/2016/feb/26/first-trans-student-to-run-for-womens-officer-stands-up-to-backlash#comment-69449274

I don't agree that the Guardian doesn't allow posts that are against its agenda to stand. It allows loads of sexist and misogynist posts to stand.

Oh.

What 'community standards' do these comments break?

I posted this on another thread but I'm so bemused. I've just had two comments under that article deleted. Both comments were questioning the mod's quickness to delete. They weren't even replaced with the deltipn message. They just vanished.

"She's still hideously white" is fine however.

I think we shd just post loads of messages asking about their deletion policy
It's bloody ridiculous

Wow. Rather than posting comments, maybe a letter of complaint accompanied by screenshots would get a response? They need to explain what on earth is the reasoning behind deleting innocuous comments like those.

I complained and I have heard nothing.

Who employs the mods?

Who employs the mods?

I don't agree that the Guardian doesn't allow posts that are against its agenda to stand. It allows loads of sexist and misogynist posts to stand.Oh.

Says interesting things about their agenda, doesn't it?

Transwomen are men, and this is very obvious from the fact their rights are considered more important than those of women.

Transwomen are, how much? 5% of population? Women are 51%. If transwomen were just another minority group, this would not happen.

Apparently, pretending to be a woman doesn't even result in as much as loss of male privilege as being a Muslim in a Christian country or being black in the US does.

Probably because the trans movement is so very successful at eroding women's rights.

I don't think that the average hetero male who supports transwomen does so because he thinks it's the right thing to do. If so, that sort of person would be equally vocal in supporting men of color, etc.

Just thought I'd belatedly add that I had loads of comments zapped from that too. It made me very angry today- I was looking at a poster's history- someone who'd been quite rude to me. I saw that over the years he's got away with calling other posters morons and twats and idiots; his style is extremely combative and aggressive. Whereas I've never been rude or personal or used offensive language against any group of people and I've been in pre-moderation since the Cologne debacle.