The Guardian REVERSE FERRET

[RedToothBrush]

amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/17/the-guardian-view-on-the-gender-recognition-act-where-rights-collide
The Guardian view on the Gender Recognition Act: where rights collide
Editorial

So after all this time, the Guardian say this.

They have had months to calm the debate.

They wait until now. Then pull a reverse ferret
ferret

I genuinely don't know whether to laugh or cry.

In a particularly revealing paragraph, the newspaper states: ‘Women’s oppression by men has a physical basis, and to deny the relevance of biology when considering sexual inequality is a mistake.

Well, yeah?

And this is an outrageous statement why exactly?

FFS.

Anyway, I would also like to know what the reason for this apparent turnaround is, especially the deletions Betty mentioned.. Has somebody there managed to finally read some facts or something?

Social media have unhelpfully amplified both extremes of the argument? (End of article). Excuse me? The one extreme of the argument has been well embedded in mainstream media and mainstream politics. An extremism that has crystallized women‘s response. And no, it is not extreme to say no to narcisstic abuse.

Skepticat identifies a significant issue in The Guardian article.

So according to the Guardian, adult human females are not described as cis women, non trans women, non men but 'other women'

other women

it does not matter how many little yellow begging boxes the guardian put up, they're never getting another fucking penny from me

All that is proposed is a simple administrative change, that has already worked well in Ireland and other countries, to make it simpler and less costly on the public purse for GRCs to be issued.

Ah, the 'simple administrative change' defence again, that if delayed will cause a 'flurry' of suicides, according to Stephen Whittle.

Nice try, Halka, but that's already been debunked on another thread

I only just caught up with this. Am open mouthed at the volte face.

Either it means we are winning or we are losing ...but they have gone on record with some core tenets there which will be hard to row back from. Am allowing myself a flicker of hope.

Trans Media Watch have not tweeted for 21 hours. A long thread by Jenni Kermode got two or three likes. They must be in shock.

Trans Media Watch have not tweeted for 21 hours. A long thread by Jenni Kermode got two or three likes. They must be in shock

It was Pink News award night last night, lots of folk partying there.

Helen Belcher (Trans Media Watch) published an open letter yesterday with some influential signatories: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3397760-Open-Letter-about-Trans-Media-Portrayal-signed-by-lots

It really isn't an about-turn from The Guardian. It is just the editorial team trying to show they are actual journalists in reporting in one of the major issues of the day, and commenting upon it.

As long as the phrase 'Trans women are Women' remains central then trans rights will always be at the cost of women's rights. If the GRA is amended to allow Self ID - this is just the thin end of the wedge. The whole concept of woman and the language surrounding it will be the next focus for Stonewall et al.

Women are not 'other': not just a distinct CIS category.

'actual journalists' - like student union free mag journalists?

I love the Reverse Ferret thing.

I have visions of a ferret in a tight tube; it is amazing how they can bend back on themselves and thus, still come out forwards.

The 'othering' of women. A bit literal there.

Whilst I'd love this to be the tide turning, I'm not sighing with relief yet.

Loving RedToothBrush's artist's impression.

The editorial is so mealy-mouthed, isn't it? It's as if they haven't worked out which side is going to emerge victorious, so they're hedging their bets. Whoever decided that the category of women consisted of "trans women" and "other women" should probably be put up against the wall of King's Place and shot.

This "minor administrative change" - as others have noted elsewhere, it offers the keys to the front door to anyone who fancies getting into your house and all they have to do is sign on the dotted line.

I prefer an approach which ensures people only get in after stringent checks.

I shared this on face book and now wished I didn't - I commented it was too late. I can't work out if a comment has totally misunderstood my stance as she's said - well said, then commenting about the dignity of transwomen being forced into cis men's spaces....

^ mumsnet confused face - I can't see emojis!

As long as the phrase 'Trans women are Women' remains central then trans rights will always be at the cost of women's rights. If the GRA is amended to allow Self ID - this is just the thin end of the wedge. The whole concept of woman and the language surrounding it will be the next focus for Stonewall et al.

Yes. Very true.

But we still have movement in a reverse direction. Which I'll take.

Stephen Whittle (Press for Change) and very influential TRA on thread yesterday said:

"In the end we will pull ourselves together and continue the campaigning – as we have always done. We know we have Labour behind this one, so will simply do our best to get them elected. As I tell the community “we have always lost more battles than we have won, but we only ever need to win the big one”.

I hope that clarifies matters.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3397010-Guardian-article-on-MPs-concern-with-GRA?msgid=81891984#81891984

Please read this important document detailing the key issues in the 2004 debate:
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1049289194370002945.html

The tone of the article - reasoned, balanced and analysing what is at stake for both interest groups - is the tone that we would have expected to come from the government, political parties and the Guardian at the beginning of the consultation period.

Instead, the government, the Guardian and all political parties kicked off the consultation by nailing their colours to the mast of transgender rights. Women's organisations, alone, asked for a respectful, balanced and evidence-based discussion about the unintended consequences.

They were ignored and sidelined. It's a bit late to persuade me that the Guardian has changed its tune. It's an arse-covering exercise in the face of news stories about fearful MPs and petitions to bring Stonewall out of hiding.

WTAF!?!

I am absolutely astounded re the extreme audacity of the Guardian to print that article without any mention of at all of what has gone before.

No you cannot just rewrite history. Fuck off!

Admitting that they were wrong would have got them a lot more respect than this very definition of a ferret reverse (LOVE that phrase - MIL is an expert so I shall be using Ferret reverse at every opportunity). We so need an emoji

Perhaps they all had a fight and Polly Toynbee pinned Little OJ to the floor while Hadley Freeman frantically typed the leader column

While Oliver Burkeman was lookout and Suzanne Moore held Zoe Williams off with a chair.

And someone hid Gaby Hinscliffe's mobile phone which upset her so much (because phones are all we wims think about) she got distracted and didn't realise what Hadley was up to.

Ha ha ha! Thanks all

Seriously though - I was really happy to read this and I can’t see why anyone on the trans rights side could be upset with it - and yet they are. Extremely, flouncingly upset.

My Twitter feed is full up of people retweeting and liking a rant about how transphobia is more hurtful than ANYTHING AT ALL and conflating positions people haven’t taken. It’s all about how a childless person with a vagina is just as much a woman as a trans woman with a penis or an older woman who’s had a hysterectomy. And the old ‘violent men will get access anyway because they’re violent men it’s nothing to do with trans people.’ These are people who know and like and respect their opinions on things who are liking this rant. I feel so fundamentally misunderstood in my position as gender critical.

In the meantime that Guardian op ed is getting denounced by all sides when it’s really balanced and reasonable.

I feel like I’m in a parallel universe.

LOJ is keeping quiet on this at the moment, having tweeted without reading the editorial (one assumes) that "Another thing. Newspapers which are propagating fears about streamlining the Gender Recognition Act need get their facts right. They are almost always talking about things which are already the law. If they want to repeal the Equality Act 2010, they need to be open about it."

twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1052866652809744384

(As an aside, I read through the comments on the Twitter feed just posted and got to the bottom, where Twitter warned me that there were more comments to load that contain offensive language. I had to click to consent to seeing them. I held my breath, steeled myself but decided I was ready for the torrent of abuse that was about to unfurl across my computer screen....

"Oh bog off and let people in a democratic society talk about things you sanctimonious little twerp."

Twitter obviously has a low threshold for some forms of abuse)

"Oh bog off and let people in a democratic society talk about things you sanctimonious little twerp."

Oh my life what genuis.

Btw, if you haven't read the other thread on the reverse ferret, please do:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3397633-is-this-an-about-face-from-the-guardian

I've comments on pages 8 and 9 about a journalism summit going on today, which is giving lots of incite into the state of the media and why The Guardian has done its reverse ferret and why Mr1984 needs to fly under the radar for a while on this subject.

Coincidentally, the tv show Press that was on bbc recently used reverse ferret and explained it to the lay person so perhaps it is not the best tactic to use at the moment.

I’m not surprised anymore but I’m very angry as to how women are just assumed to be happy to take shit off everyone and then expected be greatful for a few crumbs when people know they’ve pushed too far. It’s the petrol station flowers from the serial philanderer of editorials.

It’s the petrol station flowers from the serial philanderer of editorials.

This sums it up perfectly!