Guardian article - gender critical.

[AssignedPerfectAtBirth]

amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/06/feminist-linda-bellos-women-trans-male-violence

Brilliant and important article. Kudos to the Guardian for printing

This thread annoys me too:

twitter.com/UglaStefania/status/916627657084882944

Comments on The Guardian article still not open I see.

We're getting crapped on by both sides here, it's really depressing.

Yes. It's the only time transmen ever make any noise, to crap on other women. A lot of times it seems to me to be coming from a place of not only gender dysphoria but internalised misogyny.

That Owl idiot can fuck right off. Stupid narcissist.

That's a great explanation of what intersectionality should be but rarely is in practice.

Owen Jones is mouthing off on Twitter... He is claiming that transphobia is the last acceptable form of bigotry.

Well homophobia certainly seems to making a huge comeback, due to so many blindly accepting the trans-narrative. So theres that I guess. Always amazes me when gay people especially cannot see how homophobic it all is. Most lesbians 'get it' but gay men seem to be lagging a bit behind in understanding it all.

This is also interesting - twitter.com/LaurakBuzz/status/916421708223078400

I'm trying to think of something to add to get the point across that 'femininity' is not something biological women all identify with as standard either, that's not what makes us women. And that's not what we're fighting against.

There's not much that the TERFs are bringing to the table that hasn't been debated at length before. They think trans women are a danger to cis women, statistics clearly shows that is not the case.

From one of the comments on there..what statistics would these be then? All stats I have seen show that transwomen offend at the same rate as males...which is unsurprising. Also it appears that trans women (or those claiming trans status anyway) commit sexual crimes at a extremely high rate for the minority of people they supposedly are. Which is quite worrying.

That owl thread is the new direction I think alba. Debate itself is an unreasonable request because it suggests trans people don't exist. I don't quite get it but it's a line I've seen a lot since there started to be some analysis of "no platforming".

Basically rather than deny women a platform they are now refusing to engage at all and suggesting anyone who does must be a TERF

That owl; person is being ridiculous. As always it goes back to 'trans people exist'...well of course they do, I have never seen anyone claim they don't?! The debate is not about if trans people exist, and never has been. I do think they deliberately miss the point a lot of the time as they have no actual arguments against what peoples REAL concerns are, so twisting everything and outright making up rubbish is the best option they have.

Statistics show no such thing. The only evidence is the disputed Swedish study which suggests they commit crime at the male rate. And why wouldn't they?

That Laura thread
Trying to suggest women's facial hair and men's are the same. Ffs. I have a bit of chin/lip hair I have to pluck but Drs it's not a beard.
Secondary sex characteristics are different between males and females. It's like some kind of parallel universe. Specially this person calling themselves a girl.

It seems to me that some of them believe this bullshit, and some of them just lie and lie in the hope that some of the lies will stick. And because people accept things so uncritically, they do.

Makeup and hair are nothing to do with being female. It's bloody chromosomes FFS.

Yes, Owen thinks that being a gay man means that he can say whatever he likes and everyone should just agree or else they're bigots. Most of the time, its lesbians he's calling homophobes!

Owen Jones thinks that being gay gives him a get out of jail free card.

No Owen, being gay doesn't stop you from being an arrogant prat who hasn't got a clue how daft he is.

Lesbians don't matter to him, they are even less important than straight women. He doesn't deserve our time or thoughts tbh

the writer kept saying gender instead of sex which bugged me a bit, and some may find it hard to follow if they are not already versed in the ideology and rhetoric used but it's a start.

Comments still not opened on the article.

On reading the article I thought that if this was a start I might end up changing my very negative view on the Guardian. (Having in the past felt I was aligned with their values.)

By offering comments and then changing their mind, my view of them has actually fallen lower. Do they have any values at all or is it just expediency to fit in with the latest left-ish identity de nos jours fad?

It's a fail from me.

I know what you mean nauticant. I haven't bought a copy of The Guardian since the challenge to Jeremy Corbyn's Labour leadership despite having bought it for over 20 years previously. It wasn't a matter of my being pro or anti Corbyn, it was more that he was coming up with ideas that challenged the status quo on the left and instead of listening to and representing him fairly they demonised him just as much as the Daily Fail did.

The Guardian's decision to support him close to the general election, after vilifying him relentlessly disgusted me. As a newspaper it's become so middle-ground and afraid of challenging any political issues that might be seen to rock the boat. Spineless is the proper word to describe it these days.

On another similar issue, I contacted The Women's Equality Party on September 25th to ask them for their position regarding proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act. Apart from an email acknowledging receipt of my enquiry I've heard nothing back.

Perhaps they gauge the likely vehemence of any potential comment thread by the number of shares an article gets? Low shares = nobody's interested. Medium number = there's likely to be a fair few comments. High number - potential meltdown. That article has a very high number of shares compared to most of the others, which is a good thing, but has maybe caused them to decide that comments would be too awkward to moderate? I'd have been very interested in seeing the comments, and had hoped that in amongst the inevitable mudslinging there might have been a few previously uncritical types having their eyes opened. Certainly, if it had appeared this time last year, I'd have found it a revelation.

A local branch of the WEP retweeted something gender-critical earlier today. Possibly it was even this article. I wish I could remember, but there's been a lot, just lately...

I think you might be right different. I've noticed lots of Guardian articles of late that might be covering so called 'controversial' political issues not being open for comments.

Also I received the most recent newsletter from the WEP in the last couple of days and it contained no mention whatsoever of the proposed changes to the GRA. FFS!