Finally, a balanced overview article in the Guardian...

[MacaroonMama]

The Gender Recognition Act is controversial – can a path to common ground be found? - the guardian

Need to do breakfast! But this is mostly v balanced and optimistic

Why are you so obsessively focused on 53, out of interest? She's not the only one whose perspective on Peterson is very different to yours.

Oh, I absolutely advise people to watch Peterson’s talks. And more than 5 minutes of them, too. Ideally watch long enough that he gets on to a subject you know about, so you get that “wait a minute, he’s just confidently spouting total bollocks here” perspective on his wider oeuvre.

@AngryAttackKittens

Because she's the most vocal person here describing him as "extremely right wing". It's nonsense, absolute nonsense. Her refusal to watch something which utterly destroys that argument is just evidence of her ideological rigidity. Its funny.

We need a "chill out, fangirl/boy" smiley...

@AngryAttackKittens

And since I posted here virtually all of your posts have been aimed at me, so by all means feel free to come up with a fangirl smiley so I can use it in reply to you.

Any links available?

"This was my favourite bit...
"...Sophie Walker, leader of the Women’s Equality Party, who was torn apart over her party’s trans-inclusive stance in one notable Mumsnet webchat"

I think that's the first time the WEP problems have made MSM news?"

Well, yeah, because you're acting very oddly and you don't seem to have any interest in the topic of the thread. Do you have anything to say about the Guardian article?

Links to?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_live_events/2617026-Webchat-with-Sophie-Walker-leader-of-the-Womens-Equality-Party-and-London-Mayor-candidate-Tuesday-19-April-at-noon

@AngryAttackKittens

As already explained, there were multiple Peterson posts before mine, so not sure what the issue is

The Jordan Peterson is far right is an inaccurate trope trotted out by those who dislike his views, in much the same way Terf is applied to GC women, by those who dislike what they're saying.

Different tribes, same tactics.

Also, different thread. This derail is now really tiresome.

It only seems to be a 'derail' if you disagree, no one was shouting derail when JP was initially brought up, just to the responses to their comments.

Anyone is free to respond to any comment on this thread.

My suggestion would be if you don't want to discuss something, don't mention it in the first place, as it's highly likely some one else may have a view on it.

And tbh you look a bit silly declaring you don't want to discuss something that you brought up in the first place, as it's irrelevant.

Getting back to the article.... It looks to me like The Guardian are now trying to find it. I couln't see it on their home page or in 'Opinion'. Eventually found it near the bottom of the Columnists section. I would never have spotted it if I hadn't read about it here.

Sorry - trying to hide it, not find it.

I'm not sure of MN etiquette but wonder if it would be good for someone to post a link into AIBU? It's a good background article...

Do you really think so Floisme?

I wonder what would be the point really; I mean I'm about as trans-inclusive as they come round here and I thought the article represented my points very well really.

It says that there is wrongdoing on the extreme ends of both camps, that there are shady supporters of both camps, that there is genuine concern in both camps, that there is little evidence of nefarious exploitation in places where self-ID already exists, that the Equality Act provides exclusions to trans-inclusivity and will not be amended, that there are practical problems with utilising those exclusions effectively - and that needs attention, and that the solutions will likely be very, very practical - such as better privacy and security in toilets and changing rooms; and lobbying for those practical changes to protect women is what I've been saying we should do for some time now, rather than focusing on excluding all male-born bodies from those spaces.

And yet a lot of people on this thread think it represent their "GC" perspectives well too - so that can only be a good thing!

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that I think anyone sitting happily in the middle ground of this debate, whether it be more trans-inclusive or more trans-exclusionary, they're unlikely to be enraged by this article. So I can't see why they'd hide it, personally.

A great article. Can't see what Shon's comment was, but sounds like it was a positive view of it too, unless it actually refers to Gaby's makeup or something!

I need to read this thread later, but just thought posters on this one might want to know there's a new thread on AIBU titled something like 'is MN being demonised' with a link to a New Statesman piece by GlossWitch.

RatRolyPoly
There's been a significant consensus amongst some of the more prominent TRAs that Women's Place UK is a 'hate group'. It has been compared to KKK, BNP and consistently being accused of spreading transphobia. I would imagine that on the coverage of WPUK alone, the article is contentious.

Thanks Errol will find that, love Glosswitches writing.

Do you really think so Floisme?

It was just an observation. I am not a conspiracy theorist - I believe the moon landings really happened and that Diana died because she wasn't wearing a seatbelt. But Gaby H's articles are normally on the Guardian home page and I had to go digging to find this one. I've just tried again and it was the same.

It may also be that it hasn't been 'clicked to read' enough? I'm not sure how much is moved about that way.

R0wantrees, that's interesting; I thought the intro to the article painted more of a picture of the founders and the attendees to Women's Place meetings - the real people with real concerns and real fears. It gives the impression that those attendees may have been misrepresented by the other side.

Immediately after it paints a picture of real transwomen, and portrays them equally as real people with real concerns and fears. It gives the impression that they too may have been misrepresented by the other side (for example the comment about male privilege).

So to me it doesn't seem contentious at all. I mean it doesn't really say anything about the speakers at women's place (I've never been, but I've heard there have been things presented that I would myself find transphobic), and I think that's the main way it has managed to avoid (in my eyes) being contentious in its mentioning of them.

It was just an observation. I am not a conspiracy theorist

It was a genuine question, that's all! I thought perhaps you might have read it differently to me or know something I didn't. No harm and all that :)