Guardian article: where rights collide

[backaftera2yearbreak]

Article that most sums up how i feel about this situation

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

There's a thread on this - it's called a 'reverse ferret' apparently. The Graun have seemingly done a 180 without reference to their previous position...

Shack Up can you link to the previous thread please?

The Guardian REVERSE FERRET www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3397678-The-Guardian-REVERSE-FERRET

First time I‘ve been called the other woman.

Well written article

The thing is though, that the principles were settled already.

How the religious can manifest their faith in public was circumscribed by other protected groups.

No-one came for them. And it doesn't actually matter how much one nitpicks as 'but that's not exactly the same. The general idea that you don't get to define yourselves is the precedent, when you are the larger, more priviliged group. And. although women might disadvantaged when seem v men, that it not the case v trans community.

Think the trouble is from those commentators who are letting extremists hijack debate. But of course whenever someone points out that NAPALT they are howled at. And that is a shame.

Shackup thank you!

ShackUp: The Graun have seemingly done a 180 without reference to their previous position...

I think it's nearer 360 than 180.
They frame the issue as 'a conflict of interests between trans women and other women.
In other word, 'TWAW, but we'll let you discuss it while self-ID slithers through.'

If the Graun had suggested "a pause for reflection and space for a more constructive exchange" about whether TWAW, that might have qualified as a 90.

(And did you notice "male-bodied" in scare quotes, as though the writer thought that self-ID might change a penis to a female attribute?)