Guardian and manfriday! Finally, thanks Hadley!

[Tackytriceratops]

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/mar/31/man-explains-what-means-be-woman?CMP=ShareiOSAppp_Other

Whoop!

I'm pretty sure Hadley's here

I also wonder if Hadley has drawn her editor's attention to the boycott of The Guardian that many of us are taking part in. Given their circulation figures and begging letters, you'd think they wouldn't be so deaf to losing readers who considered themselves, as I did, 'Guardian to the bone'.

I refuse to even click on crap like this. Its toxic transphobia. I am writing a proper paper letter to the guardian about this and demanding a full page apology.

Let us know how it goes for you.

do you think he might even use.....a pen?

Given their circulation figures and begging letters, you'd think they wouldn't be so deaf to losing readers who considered themselves, as I did, 'Guardian to the bone'.

It’s not just feminists. They’ve lost support across the left due to their identity politics agenda. They’ve really fucked it up, for themselves and for those thousands of us who valued what the G of old stood for.

The Guardian do not deserve Freeman.

A bit late but thank you Hadley. I was going to email you personally to say thanks but then realised that my email address had my name in it and I'm worried about my job - that's how ridiculous this all is.

Still not moving back from The Times though.

Thank you Hadley!

Thank you Hadley. You are amazing

Not sure if this has already been posted Guardian article on Caledonian Sleeper story

It reads like the Hadley's article has hit a nerve and btw Rupert Soames is a DJ. Yup. That means he's really not a patronising git 'cos he knows more than you do about music. Ahem.

However, there is acknowledgement that sex based rights should apply in some instances, so not evangelical on the transwomen are women mantra.

Reappearing that bit about him being a DJ was just bizarre wasn't it?

Totally! I mean WTF?

That was a very odd article from Matthew D'Ancona, who is a Tory through and through. Take this bit:

"With a single word – “sigh” – Soames ensured that he would be cast in this controversy as the voice of cloth-eared patriarchy. As it happens, he is no such thing. In the best sense of the word, he is a liberal who, faced with an ethical conundrum, decided to err on the side of trust of his customers."

But why would you trust your customers? There's nothing special about train customers - anyone at all is capable of taking a train. It's a place where CEOs rub shoulders with petty thieves and criminals. (Well, not literally - that's why they have first and standard class - but you know what I mean.) There's nothing at all to stop sex offenders and murderers catching a train.

In the last four paragraphs he nails it. Unfortunately he sets his stage by casting women questioning and protesting about one specific issue of women losing the right to sex segregation/boundaries as 'feminists' to rhyme with 'stupid uppity women', with the misconception that the gender critical agenda is to somehow prevent trans people from doing... something. Being. It's all very vague.

As usual, I'm left wondering how much he had to cast both sides as being equally unreasonable to be allowed to post or to prevent himself being drowned in howls of transphobia. But ffs man, gender critical feminists are all for people dressing anyway they want, for gender stereotypes to be abandoned, for everyone being safe from discrimination and harm, very much for the male violence that is the root of murder, assault and harm for women and for trans people, the only frigging issue at all is retaining the right of biological women to exclude biological men without a GRC from a few specific situations of nudity, privacy and vulnerability, and the right to use language referencing the biology that 52% of the population have in common. That's it. That's all.

Take a journalism lesson from Hadley and address the real freaking issues.

yeah, the first half of that article was basically putting us in our places, but the last half made some kind of sense.

And yet still no-one has figured out that the people who have to budge up for gender non conforming men are other men. When we start seeing that I'll know we're getting somewhere.

As others have posted here, assume that serco will be instantly sacking all their ticket inspectors as all their customers are so trustworthy.

Yes, all the dude bros have turned out to speak about self-ID.

Because Hadley told them not to speak about self-ID.

So the media is now awash with articles about self-ID.

Which is exactly what Hadley wanted to happen.

Thank you Hadley

Brill post Kneedeep

Matthew’s article is patronising.

Hadley is getting quite a bit of negative feedback on twitter from people who I would have thought knew better. (I.e calling the article transphobic without addressing any of its concerns).

Do they think it’s possible to change sex? Do they think they have a gender? I just so want somebody to explain how. I’ve tried to discuss this on MN but people just disappear or retreat into the ‘scientists don’t know everything’ defence (really? like where babies come from?) or sexist stereotyping.

I understand why some trans people don’t like an ‘exclusively biological’ definition of men and women, but don’t understand how there can be another definition.

I don’t know how it’s transphobic for women to point out that with no clear definition of male and female, everything becomes unisex by default.

Mainly, I don’t understand why it’s transphobic for women to say they fear male violence.

I am completely flummoxed by ‘intersectionality’ and it’s relation to any of this. If it’s about different groups existing within a group who intersect with other groups, I don’t understand what puts me in the same group as trans women.

If intersectionality is about oppressed groups working together, even if the only thing they have in common is oppression, fine, but why am I intersecting more with trans women than gay men?

It’s completely impossible to have a dialogue, because it’s unacceptable to say trans women aren’t women, but literally no-one is able to explain why they are.

Thank you Hadley. Great article

:) Popchyk

Grateful to Hadley for the article, but as I said before, really dispirited by some commenters on twitter.

I really respect David Allen Green’s legal commentary on twitter, but he has just retweeted a Paris Lees article in Vogue on ‘fearmongering about trans women in public toilets’. NO! It’s genuine fear of MEN in public toilets.

He can talk about the problems of the Irish border and Brexit, but apparently can’t see why somebody who is concerned about men isn’t happy sharing a loo with somebody who is clearly male, however they ‘identify’.

He can call out Boris Johnson for his ‘cake and eat it’ Brexit, but apparently can’t see that a group defined by a vague, subjective word that nobody can understand - gender - can’t claim to need any particular rights, protections or services.

merrymouse, yes the complete lack of debate is so frustrating. i want to check my views but no-one who's pro self ID seems to be up for debate. they just want to tell me I think their child is a rapist or I'm scared of escalators, or have an irrational fear of male violence.

And I think pro self ID still feels like 'the right side of history' to people who are predisposed to misogyny and haven't thought about it, so there's still a lot of half asleep virtue signalling going on. As the issues become more widely discussed I think some people are going to feel pretty silly.

I also think there's genuine transphobia out there, I have started to see it on this site and on twitter, and it's easy to conflate women not wanting strange men in certain private spaces and women being transphoic.

Just wow, there are some dickish individuals out there. Try to reason with them and they just reply with ‘shut up terf’

twitter.com/eliseo65/status/980831745997262849?s=21

I love that Jones has become 'Little Owen'. Not sure if that's a MN thing but I like it