Guardian mods and censoring women

[Angryresister]

There's an opinion piece about the possible removal of the
ankh upset statue, and the headlines questions if this is a real issue which feminists should be fighting. In response a poster said this and I attempted a comment in support but was told comment has been deleted. My comment did not appear either. Ironic since that was why we commented...so I just thought I'd repost it here:
"Catherine, there is a more pressing concern: the attempt to change the very definition of woman. But no one, particularly at The Guardian, is allowed to talk or write about it. Why don't you do an article on that if statues aren't important enough?"

I think this is part of a larger pattern of censorship, which is why its considered acceptable for a major newspaper to do it.

Absolutely

I used to post on the Guardian a lot. Then this trans issue came up and I found almost everything I said was censored - with the implication to others, used by some TRAs, that what I'd said was horribly bigoted and transphobic. I hardly go to the Guardian now, even to read its articles. To think I nearly became a paying subscriber...

I used to be a regular Guardian reader.

Not any more, they've shown they support the men's rights movement.

I post on the Guardian sometimes. I’m a model poster - always polite, always reasonable. Never used to get modded until I started commenting on trans issues - but now I routinely get under premoderation because my polite and reasonable comments are deemed to break the rules.

Apart from a couple of journalists (like Hadley Freeman and Oliver Burkeman), the Guardian is dead to me now.
I bought the paper almost religiously. I saved supplements. I even have a mug.
But they have shown me they don't give a shit about truth anymore.

Hannah Jane Parkinson in today’s Observer has a dig at people who object to the term cis. What is it with these people who are so dim they don’t even understand the arguments?

"ankh upset statue" - what the heck is that?

The title of the opinion piece is:

"Putting a woman on a pedestal? Is this really the most pressing of feminist concerns?"

With the byline:

"Surely women can come up with better campaigns than balancing statuary"

So one would assume comments suggesting "better campaigns" would be accepted. And you didn't even mention trans-gender in your comment, so I don't see how they thought it was contentious.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/26/putting-a-woman-on-a-pedestal-is-this-the-most-pressing-of-public-concerns#comments

I too have now gone off The Guardian. Last year I actually made a one off payment as a non-subscriber. Won't be doing that again.

I stopped commenting on The Guardian after even my most polite, mildly gender critical comments were deleted. Then I was warned my comments were being premodded and I haven't commented since, on anything.

I often access the Guardian and get their begging letter. "No," I think savagely, "I won't support you while you sell women down the river." Their stance on the trans issues and over the New Year's Eve attacks crossed the line for me. As for that quote "Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - how painfully ironic.

So, did a group of Guardian editors / managers sit in a meeting and decide that gender critical comments will be moderated?

There must be a way to find out what their policy is ... or get someone who used to work at the Guardian to tell us ...

Mumsnet surely have a way to find out ...

One side effect of being censored is that you can't articulate your own thoughts. All your focus goes on not being censored. I had a debate with a TRA about whether it was reasonable to expect lesbians to have sexual relationships with transwomen. The TRA got to bring out his full argument, including accusing me of redefining lesbian, calling me a bigot, saying that the penis doesn't have to be involved etc. I was being very careful and still got posts deleted, which allowed the TRA to pretend I'd been saying horrendous things. I regret to this day not only not being able to debate properly, but not even being able to think of all my arguments at the time because all the focus was on avoiding censorship.

Sorry yetanother, it was meat to say Pankhurst!

It wasn't my comment that I posted, it was the original one that was deleted...mine too though

I posted on the other thread. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the office at The Guardian. I suspect there are GC people like Hadley Freeman and Julie Bindel trying to get articles approved only to be blocked by the woke. I'm sure there are people sitting on articles waiting to moderate anything about it and they regularly don't open comments for trans articles because their readership is actually GC.

The Graun does seem peculiarly determined to drive huge swathes of (what's left of) its readership into the waiting arms of the Spectator.

Perhaps they're on some sort of commission.