The Guardian's U-Turn... why?

[SPOFS]

Let's face it, the Gaurdian do not care about women. This is evident from much more than their previous stance on self-id.

So, why have they suddenly at the eleventh hour (as in right before the consultation closes) changed their mind about there being "no debate"?

I wonder if it's anything to do with their circulation figures...

I think it's something like that. They see how much support The Times and Daily ShiteMail having with this and realise they're looking like misogynistic dicks. So now they're kind of keeping their position, but agreeing that women are, you know, actual women who, you know, understand actual women's lives.

I think GC people on the staff (Hadley F?) have finally got through to them that their key demographic (errr women) are not happy. Maybe even directed them towards mumsnet.com?

Do we have any circulation figures for The Guardian vs The Times?

If I were a cynic I would say that (like the BBC) they are arse covering so that if self ID does come in they can say that they did cover both sides of the argument before the consultation closed. If it were purely about circulation figures they could have printed it weeks ago or even in a few weeks time. If you were into conspiracy theories you could suggest that both the Guardian and BBC chose to give exposure at the last minute so that the consultation website would be overwhelmed and slow down so that people would give up......

Possibly also the discussions around misogyny becoming a hate crime may have nudged them a bit given they've been accused of having misogynistic overtones.

What Waspnest said

I don't know. But if you think that you're potentially alienating 52% of the population, or even half of that half, and they (like me - former Guardian reader) are heading to The Times more often now, it would make sense to calm your rhetoric down.

But it's too late for me: I will never forget that The Guardian has resolutely been consistent in its support for the undermining of my identity, my rights to safety EVEN if they were unfounded (which they're not). They have failed to recognise the fact that I, like about 25% of women have experienced rape/sexual assault and our reasons for wanting sex segregation in certain spaces are entirely based on our reality, which in turn is based on our sex.

And it allowed us, many of whom are campaigning against increasing the likelihood of us being raped AGAIN, to be called terfs.

The Guardian needs a front page public apology to women. And some mechanism by which half the population can't be thrown under a bus again.

Saying that I would LOVE LOVE to have someone like Carole Cadwalladr do some poking around at the people and organisations, funding and agendas behind the TRAs. There's so much quite murky stuff already out in the open, I'm sure there would be even more behind the scenes that could be discovered with a bit of digging by someone experienced at this. (See the other thread about the recent conference!). It would be interesting if the Guardian had actually discovered some things that put a different slant on the matter... though I know realistically the biggest driver is likely to be sales!

Flowers
June 2018
Times 428.03k
Grauniad 138.08k

A day late and a dollar short.

It's not a u-turn it was a strategy. They knew full well what they were doing, promoting trans ideology propaganda at all costs, knowing women were getting ignored, and knew they should be publishing GC articles. But there was not a hope in hell of doing that while the consultation was on. They've left it till basically the day before, knowing hardly anyone will pick up on it then go on to fill out the consultation based on GC views.

If they, that's the Guardian, BBC and the Independent, had covered the Chanellors, Jess Bradley, Karen White when they happened more of their readership would have thought "fucking hell" but they kept with the fluffy sparkly poor vulnerable narrative in order to push their agenda until the last possible moment.

Now if anyone says they weren't balanced they can point to a couple of vague half-arsed references to GC articles and say they weren't.

They're cunts.

I think the turn around might have coincided with the news stories saying that misogyny might be made a hate crime. Was that Mon or Tues?

I think they are being led toward siding with who looks like they are going to be the winner but also there's the pincer movement by those who are susceptible to the gaslighting plus the big bully voices, but also some want to cover their arses. There is bound to be an internal power struggle. Same as in RL.

Argh! Just refreshed and seen cross post with Ekphrasis re misogyy hate crime!

Times 428.03k
Grauniad 138.08k

That's print though, right?

I wonder if there's been trouble at t'Guardian rapidly depleting trust fund mill with decreasing online subs compared to The Times increasing?

People don't pay online subs to the Guardian, though - it's free. Whereas the Times is behind a paywall.

The Guardian does of course ask its readers to make regular donations, but that's slightly different.

It coincided with the letter in Pink New from transactivists (and some MPs ) saying that media coverage had been unfair and one-sided. Since there has been restraint across the board on the KW issue (just imagine the old News of the World style coverage that could have got) it might have ruffled a few feathers in the newspaper rights world. Or they may have been going to let a few GC bits through at the last minute. Who knows.

The last minute Guardian coverage has really just been a face saving exercise. The editorial comment showed that there is still no real recognition of the very real issues that would negatively impact upon single sex spaces as the result result from even easier Self ID.

The Guardian, and everyone, needs to recognise and accept that gender and sex are two separate things.

Women are women because of their biological sex, and all that arises from that female sexed body. Trans women are a separate category from women; and women's ability to name their own experience, and to have access to single sex spaces is paramount. Trans people are admitted to single sex spaces when that is deemed acceptable by women themselves. Not just on the say so of trans women.

Trans women are not women, no matter how they identify or what they feel. Sex and 'gender identity' must remain separate categories, each with their own protections in law.

Off topic a bit, but the Mail, who were the early adopters and had some surprisingly good articles by the likes of Richard Littlejohn and Sarah Vine, seem to have stepped right back, leaving coverage to The Times and Speccie.

I wonder whether the priority is Cabinet cohesion. Do not attack Penny Mordaunt till Brexit is sorted. (Though fine to allow Kate Hoey to have a go at Bercow and her female colleagues www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6288657/Labour-MP-Kate-Hoey-calls-speaker-John-Bercow-resign.html.) In the meantime allow David Davies to stick his head above the parapet and say things others are thinking, in part so that there are lots of good reasons to drop Mordaunts approach before an election.

I think (hope) they're seeing the writing on the wall....that the tide has turned, that the consultation won't go the way they thought it would. They don't want to be on the wrong side of history and are jumping ship.

A leopard doesn't change its spots. (Ab)normal service will resume shortly.

It's absolute bollocks. The BBC have ignored it too and the day before the consultation is due they discuss it on QT and on various radio/TV programmes. Utterly, utterly disgusting.

Fuck them, I'm going to Murdoch, the Times and Sky. At least we fucking know there is an agenda there.

I'm done with the BBC and the Guardian.

Another one!

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/19/david-gauke-priority-should-be-protecting-women-when-placing-transgender-inmates-karen-white

Another one!

Now. A couple of months of abuse of women by TRAs for speaking up later. Tzzzz.

Anyone seen Little OJ recently? Or has he self-combusted in a cloud of righteous woke champagne socialist ire?

Anyone seen Little OJ recently? Or has he self-combusted in a cloud of righteous woke champagne socialist ire?

Don't know. I searched for him along all the shores of the right side of history, but could not find him here.

Yeah - it's all a bit late isn't it. This should have been happening last week at the very latest.