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

Women are a disadvantged group!

Are they taking the piss?

"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."

But TWAW! You can't put a woman in a mans prison! Some women are violent too! You just need to do proper risk assessment!

Come on Guardian WTF

"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."

Have they been hacked?

I thought women who had these concerns were bigots who deserved whatever they got (and the threats were explicit and that was fine).

This is DEFINITELY so they can point at it if / when things go tits up AND?OR someone has hacked them.

Like they give a fuck about women where is all this stuff even coming from?

"The UK may be moving towards a situation where the default is single-gender spaces rather than single-sex spaces, with organisations such as the Girl Guides amending their practices. The implications of this shift should not be underestimated. The public needs to be better informed, and safeguarding considered."

How can they write this with a straight face?

After participating in discussions where ableism was acceptable on Mumsnet, I don’t have a huge amount of respect for Justine Roberts and the double standards on MN. They have all these rules about how we have to discuss trans issues and none for any other issue, such as when speaking of disability, religion, race.... indeed I have reported both ableist and racist comments on MN which they never removed. Never mind that actual MN members were distressed by the comments, nothing happened. But a targeted campaign by those not members, and we are given rules which prevent our rights to freedom of expression. MN agreeing with The Guardian on this issue isn’t a good thing IMO.

As for The Guardian. Don’t be fooled. It’s one editorial. It doesn’t wipe out the enormous harm they have done to women for months on this issue. Including their completely irresponsible and dangerous approach to discussing suicide. They certainly won’t stop printing OJ’s women-hating drivel.

No, I’m not for one moment thrilled nor will I be reading The Guardian again anytime soon- I didn’t click on this, I’m going to stop giving them clicks in fact.

I cancelled my subscription to the Guardian a couple of weeks ago, I wrote them an email stating it was due to their stance on the trans issue and that I really enjoyed reading their paper otherwise. I suppose I'm not the only one to have cancelled their subscription, I hope it's got them thinking.

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.

God, how to write it so that most people will skim-read thinking it's a few boring feminists fretting about hypothetical oppression. Why not try direct language?

'But sexism still exists. Whatever your 'gender identity', you are still either male or female. Women female ones are at a physical disadvantage, and at risk, by dint of being smaller and less muscular than men. Women female ones still have less freedom and less representation than men. Access to abortions is under threat, and the #MeToo campaign highlighting sexual harassment has stirred up a backlash among those who think that women shouldn't object to being groped and assaulted.'

Then go on with...
'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.'

Any journalist who says they were "tricked" is the fraud and embarrassment, frankly. A bunch of normal women across the country have been speaking out about this at great personal risk, with no money, platform or institutional support. These women face actual violence, harassment, and intimidation. I am a nobody who has been frightened to even post on Mumsnet, because everyone I know believes these articles that have been basically an integral part of the propaganda machine on this issue.

Yes, and this cannot be forgotten. Women in the real world, ordinary women like Posie (and her children), Anne R, Julia, Venice, Linda, Maria M, Heather - have been actually physically harmed and faced real harassment, being reported to police, being privately prosecuted, and put up up with serious threats and abuse from the trans-activists - who in general can be described as aggressively males - however they "identify". News outlets like the Guardian have been complicit in this - I can't just forget that because they've suddenly, at the last moment, published this editorial.

I thank Justine for tweeting that piece, and allowing us this space to discuss the issues - but I would say that she has also been complicit in the silencing of women. Sorry Justine - but under pressure from TAs via twitter, Mumsnet brought in the "extra-special" moderation rules for "transphobia" which are not in line with your moderation on any other minority -racism, homophobia, anti-semitism etc - or applied to any other board except FWR. You allowed our language to be curbed and censored. You allowed women to be banned for breaching these new Orwellian language rules.

MN agreeing with The Guardian on this issue isn’t a good thing IMO.

I'll happily take a row back to MN's current position from where the Guardian was. I don't agree with MN's orwellianess over certain issues, but its better than the previous Guardian editorial line.

Sorry Justine - but under pressure from TAs via twitter, Mumsnet brought in the "extra-special" moderation rules for "transphobia" which are not in line with your moderation on any other minority -racism, homophobia, anti-semitism etc - or applied to any other board except FWR.

This is something that has really made me angry. So many forums where feminists are held to a higher standard. Where eventually a feminist fails to be nice enough, empathetic enough, considerate enough and thus hounded away and othered. God forbid if a feminist should express anger, oh no, that's not very nice - away with you, you mean person.

The fact that this was done on a forum predominantly populated by women and run by women is just astounding to me.

Hear hear @hereseyandwitchcraft. Very well said.

I agree with the editorial. I think this is push back against the stifling of the debate by TRAs. I hope this will open up a more nuanced discussion and allow GC voices to be heard, and the distinction between gender and sex in law to be defined, as well as sex-segregated sexes to be respected.

It's still just about the only public place that it can be discussed at all though -

They must have been and still be under terrible pressure to shut it all down and they don't, their advertisers will be under constant pressure to withdraw etc etc and the personal threats towards Justine & family are I suspect v awful.

So I take the other view, they could easily have shut all this down for an easy life and TBH it proably wouldn't have dented their traffic too much.

So I take the other view, they could easily have shut all this down for an easy life and TBH it proably wouldn't have dented their traffic too much.

I disagree. The traffic to this single board increased twelve fold in a year. I imagine it's much higher again by now. IMO this is a big factor in why this board and this conversation is still happening here.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3302495-This-is-how-traffic-to-the-feminism-board-has-increased

I’m thankful that women have been able to speak on mumsnet even if at times it seems they were censored.

If it wasn’t for mumsnet then I would be uninformed. I’m not on Twitter, have deleted Facebook, read the guardian and always thought the BBC would keep me informed, naive or what.

I peak-transed because of mumsnet and have successfully peak-transed others irl including my DH. All due to the resources on mumsnet.

It’s not just that the Guardian missed the story. They actively silenced women trying to point it out to them, quickly and comprehensively deleting ANY comments suggesting women had a stake in this debate.

Yes, yes they did.

And, perhaps, are now belatedly realising that they have spent years giving a big old FUCK YOU to the actual people who might keep their trust-supported, haemorrhaging-money newspaper afloat.

I really am their paying demographic - left of centre, social conscience, all that. But, more to the point, I'm a woman, part of the group that commands 80% of UK household expenditure. I'm also that haggard old boot this ageist movement likes to mock, so I've paid off my mortgage and my children are earning their own money. I have disposable income, unlike the Patreon and GoFundMe grifters. And because I'm left of centre with a social conscience, I set aside a proportion of money to spend on good causes or because it's the right thing to do.

I am the sort of person that would pay a fiver a month to help the Guardian stay afloat.

If only they had spent the last few years not actively working against me.

Too late, Kath Viner, too late. You'll not be getting a penny from me. And as few clicks as possible too, because why should I encourage advertisers to use you?

Same here. If wasn’t for mumsnet I wouldn’t have known
Then I have gone about peaking plenty peopke
Seems ike no one really has heard
But not now
Ppl are really sick of it now and fed up with it being pushed everywhere
I even hear guys now saying to each other as insults
Suck my lady dick

I’m thankful that women have been able to speak on mumsnet even if at times it seems they were censored

You’re thankful women are allowed to speak at all? On a forum set up for Mums? Even though they’re deciding what we can say? Supporting an ideology to the extent they are determining the language we use here?

No, I’m not thankful. That’s what Mumsnet was set up for. No other issue here is regulated this way. It’s insulting.

Yes I am.

It would have been much easier for them to shut it down.

It would not have harmed their business IMO.

And justine (who has been swatted in the past by MRAs lets not forget) has not done that. And she is a PUBLIC face >>

I chanaged my email address on here to a brand new one in case they got hacked. I have NEVER mentioned this at work or to most of my friends. I can't imagine the abuse that she has got that I am avoiding even a tiny part of at all costs. I'm a wuss. She doesn't need this grief and could have avoided it.

Yes I am grateful.

Me too, Nothing (the email change, I mean). Not that it'll help if they let another dodgy intern loose on the data.

Off topic, but very much on topic at the same time.

Today there seems to be a big press summit going on, which is looking at the state of journalism.

Make no mistake about this; To save democracy we must save journalism. To save journalism, newspapers and broadcast media have to do more than parrot lobby groups. They have to drill down into areas of public interest and concern.

So lets start with the first thing of interest this morning:

Press Gazette @pressgazette
Reuters Institute of Journalism's Nic Newman: "We have reached a low point in the quality of news ... this is about the difference between journalism and stuff on the internet." #journosummit18

Oh god yes. Who would like to argue against that one on FWR??

Anyone?

pressgazette.co.uk/news-uk-chief-attacks-bbc-for-chasing-online-traffic-and-straying-from-editorial-remit/
News UK chief attacks BBC for 'chasing online traffic' and 'straying' from editorial remit

News UK chief David Dinsmore launched an attack on the BBC for “directly challenging core tabloid journalism” as he opened Press Gazette’s Digital Journalism Summit this morning.

Dinsmore, chief operating officer at the Sun and Times owner, claimed the BBC’s editorial remit has “strayed a long way from what makes it onto the ten o’clock news”.

He said the BBC was really the “British Publishing Corporation – because broadcasting only seems to be one of the any things it does these days”.

The News Media Association chairman and former Sun editor said the BBC must reconsider how it measures its success because “popularity isn’t the right bar”.

He questioned whether writing 250 words “off the back of a tweet by Piers Morgan” was something the BBC should be doing, and criticised it for “chasing clicks by publishing populist content” about Love Island and, more recently, the so-called Strictly snog.

“The BBC has become Britain’s largest publisher and it competes directly with all of the news publishing industry,” he said.

“They are chasing online traffic by publishing popular news content which bares no resemblance to the BBC’s charter commitments and they are challenging subscription websites by offering commentary, analysis and long-form journalism.

“Vitally, by offering all of this for free, they are reducing the leverage of commercial publishers to challenge the platforms to offer a fair value for our content.”

Dinsmore added that, if commercial publishers had the same vast resources, the ability to publish everything for free, and the SEO strength to always rise to the top of Google, there would be a level playing field.

“But we don’t,” he said. “We have to make our journalism pay.”

Dinsmore urged the BBC to return to its “core public purpose of serving impartial news and content that is not well-served by the commercial sector”.

He added that closer attention should be paid to the BBC’s output and how licence fee money is being spent.

Click Bait journalism is not journalism and its harming all journalism when the BBC engages in it.

And isn't it interesting that The Times, is currently the most trusted media group in the Uk. The BBC has recently suffered a MASSIVE decline in its trust rating. I suspect the Guardian is also having an issue with this.

The Trans Issue is really showing up the problem in a BIG way. It is the perfect example of it.

Dominic Ponsford @Domponsford
David Dinsmore ' What makes people poo in public is not public interest journalism' - David Dinsmore @newsuk @pressgazette #journosummit18 - 'BBC must return to core public interest purpose'

And its interesting in how the public are responding to 'serious' journalism in a positive way, on this issue. How many MNetters have taken out Times subscriptions and Spectator subscriptions lately? Its paying.

Also coming out of the conference:

Becky Bocchetti @etctrainer
Who actually pays for news, then? ‘Younger audiences actually more willing to pay’ for news services than older audiences. . Why? Seems to be off the back of expecting to pay for @Netflix, @Spotify etc quality subscriptions. #journosummit18

Well thats an interesting one. Young people are happy to pay for online content. So click bait isn't necessarily THE thing going forward.

Press Gazette @pressgazette
“The Internet is no longer seen as some separate place where things aren’t paid for as in the real world.”

NewsworksUK @newsworksuk
We are seeing a rise and rise of subscription news; publishers are building fluid models with various options including premium, registered and micro subscribers says @DouglasMcCabe @EndersAnalysis #journosummit18

Press Gazette @pressgazette
“When will the platforms recognise the cost of quality journalism?” asks Sun digital editor Keith Poole. #journosummit18

The Sun’s Poole adds: “Data is a powerful tool in online journalism, but we have editors informed by print data not led by it... We’re a team of human algorithms if you like.” #journosummit18

So the importance a story, isn't just about the clicks. Its about the reaction to the story in addition to the algorithms.

Press Gazette @pressgazette
Luke Lewis of iNews: It’s not really been our experience that “Facebook traffic boom” is over. He also notes strength of news aggregators bringing traffic - big part of audience growth is figuring out those platforms and what works. #journosummit18

I am a great believer in the value of the BBC as a news source that is available to all, because if you make news only available to those who can afford it, you create both information poverty and create a void into which conspiracy theory and fake news can and will dominate. But yes you also need to properly fund good journalism.

I find the timing of the Guardian's about face, rather interesting in light of all this.

It very much suggests there are issues with the Guardian model - I note that the guardian has been well recieved over the Cadwalladar / Facebook revealations and this is where they have been getting a lot of praise and I suspect clicks and sales. You know, the heavy stuff, not the opinion stuff.

Press Gazette @pressgazette
Sarah Marshall, head of audience growth at Vogue asks editors globally to create audience "growth plans" including evergreen which is "really big for the Vogues"and planning around long-forms "which are what drive loyalty". #journosummit18

Hmm, the trans issue as a brand driver is not an ideal thing to build a long term loyalty base around. Its an area which alienates a core part of the guardian's natural base. The newspaper needs to have a broader appeal and work on its loyalty and trust issues.

Press Gazette @pressgazette
Emotive words and big numbers can help grab clicks to push content up the search results rankings. Longer, more in-depth content "definitely ranks better" but it isn't just about word-length, Luke Lewis, head of audience dev at iNews tells PG's #journosummit18

Wow. Thats unexpected...

This is ongoing, but I've got to nip out. If there is anything else interesting I'll stick it up.

This is HUGELY important, and significant imo.

Thanks to whoever mentioned blocking the Guardian. No clicks from me now either.