Is this an about-face from The Guardian?

[NopeNi]

Well fuck me I wouldn't have expected to read this in the Guardian.

I mean, don't get me wrong, it still focuses on rights for transwomen and calls both sides of the debate "toxic" (of course) but it also says:

..."But misogyny too must be challenged. Gender identity does not cancel out sex. Women’s oppression by men has a physical basis, and to deny the relevance of biology when considering sexual inequality is a mistake. The struggle for women’s empowerment is ongoing. Reproductive freedoms are under threat and the #MeToo campaign faces a backlash. Women’s concerns about sharing dormitories or changing rooms with “male-bodied” people must be taken seriously. These are not just questions of safety but of dignity and fairness."

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/17/the-guardian-view-on-the-gender-recognition-act-where-rights-collide

If you cancelled a subscription to The Guardian after years of bias I’d give them an equal amount of time before considering renewing it.

That's a really thoughtful, carefully written and researched article. Someone at the Guardian is actually thinking about this.

What a bunch of utter cunts. They refuse to engage [and in fact one of their (disgraceful) journalists actively attacks and abuses women] until it’s obvious that they are standing on the outside looking in. The Guardian was always my paper of choice, it ain’t now. DH has also cancelled his subscription. They need to do alot more grovelling.

"trans women and other women"

In case we forgot, women now come second in a word string after the adjective "other".

Also, fuck this male-violence-shielding passive voice :

"The debate has become toxic, with trans rights activists and some feminist campaigners taking opposing sides."

The cowards couldn't say one single word about the barrage of threats and climate of fear the mostly male transgender activists have been fostering, opting instead to intentionally let violent men avoid responsibility for what their actions have done to freedom of speech (men's and women's) and freedom of assembly (women's).

Women have NEVER tried to stop transgender activists from meeting, not with words, not with threats, not by putting on masks and physically blocking them, not by harassing venues to drop their bookings.

Erasing male violence and positioning "trans women and other women" as equally opposing sides makes it out to be a catfight between women more than the one-sided male terrorism it has been.

I wonder if they were very happy to go along with the woke virtue signalling, but have suddenly wised up to the fact that this law is in danger of going through. And, if you engage your critical brain, anyone can see it stinks.

Endorsing it, as they have done, is going to be an awkward position for a newspaper to defend.

I won't be going back to reading or buying the Guardian anytime soon.

GRA debate aside I still haven't forgot about Cologne.

Ova - absolutely agree about Cologne. This isn’t a one off - it’s years and years of misogyny. They are steeped in it

LOJ has spontaneously combusted.

It's quite a good piece - imho

but the debate is only 'toxic' because the mainstream media ignored it for so long. This article has only been written because of the discussions on the much-maligned social media, the political campaigning of Fair Play for Women, and the guerilla campaigning of Posie Parker...

and of course the efforts of all the good folk of mumsnet...

I salute you!

How refreshing!

I’m starting to think we just might somewhere.

This bit especially heartening

Any new law must not give violent or controlling male prisoners a new opportunity to dominate women by changing gender and transferring to a female prison.

Absobloodylutely

Well, I am still very skeptical about the Guardian. Who knows what's coming up next in their paper. But this piece is heartening, because my friends are all Guardian readers (just like I used to be). So hopefully at least they can read this and see the question is a complicated issue with clear competing rights.
That is always the first step to re-engaging critical thinking.

Well nice to be portrayed as if we are not actually evil for a change.

The Guardian is entirely unwilling to examine its own prominent part in creating this toxic debate. Hypocrites.

The Guardian has silenced, dismissed and ridiculed women's concerns for years while faithfully regurgitating every bonkers TRA dogma going.

They can fuck right off.

"Someone at the Guardian is actually thinking about this"... and reading the Mumsnet FWR boards.

Well slap my arse and call me Judy (to quote Friends)

I can't cope with the Guardian being rational! I'd only just come to terms with them betraying us. This is good news.

also, bear in mind that the mainstream media and the establishment are still very much in cahoots about many things

it is not uncommon for politicians to 'suggest' to journalists (in particular editors and owners' that it would be 'helpful' to everyone if they could publish an article in support of X or against Y. It enables politicians to have a way out of trouble and provides the media with an opportunity to boast about their influence.

Reverse ferret is a phrase used predominantly within the British media to describe a sudden reversal in an organisation's editorial line on a certain issue. Generally, this will involve no acknowledgement of the previous position.

The term originates from Kelvin MacKenzie's time at The Sun. His preferred description of the role of journalists when it came to public figures was to "stick a ferret up their trousers". This meant making their lives uncomfortable, and was based on the supposed northern stunt of ferret-legging (where contestants compete to show who can endure a live ferret within their sealed trousers the longest). However, when it became clear that the tide of public opinion had turned against the paper's line, MacKenzie would burst from his office shouting "Reverse Ferret!"

REVERSE FERRET

I might should this all day tomorrow.

I'll still never buy it again or subscribe. My guess is that now the general public are getting wind of what's going on and how some of the TRAs operate The Guardian is beginning to re-consider it's previous position. Means fuck all about what they think about women and children.

They can fuck right off.

Yup, not only have I subscribed to The Times I've blocked The Guardian on our router so I'm not accidentally giving them clicks.

I've had enough sanctimony from Guardian reading handmaidens to last several lifetimes. They can all fuck off.

(I'd put money on a 'balance' editorial tomorrow, we'll be hellspawn again by the weekend)

Oh dear. The Guardian are about to learn that if they try to please everyone, they'll end up pleasing no one.

Plus, they're ouclishing this the day before the consultation ends?!? Too late.

‘The Guardian view’? This really is their official stance on GRA now?

I wonder how they consider the role of Owen Jones with regard to this toxic debate?

Because he stirred up a lot of it, and the Guardian meekly kept giving him the platform to do it.

The Guardian will need to accept responsibility for its actions otherwise that editorial is entirely worthless.

This is so they can say they were fair all along.

Isn't it?

It was me, I emailed them a couple of days ago to cancel my membership (because they asked for more money) because of their reporting around the GRA.