The Guardian's US Staff are Revolting

[FreshlyBakedRolls]

Seems like the Guardian staff over-the-pond are leading a revolt against the Guardian UK's editorial stance, as it is "Transphobic".

They state "our journalism should be grounded in the principle that trans women are women"

"Sex means a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth"
“The sex listed on a person’s birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person’s sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence.”

So no mention of gender at all in the Trump proposal. I did not know this.

Numerous academic studies have confirmed that trans-inclusive policies do not endanger cis people. On the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence that trans people, particularly women of color, are victimized at disproportionately high rates

I've seen this statement elsewhere, does anyone know what they are referring to?

How the fuck can the same people argue that the Trump proposal is defining trans people out of existence but the opposite; self ID, won’t negatively affect females??

IDK, it's a statement based on false premises:

"As scientists, we are compelled to write to you, our elected representatives, about the current administration’s proposal to legally define gender as a binary condition determined at birth, based on genitalia,"
". The relationship between sex chromosomes, genitalia, and gender identity is complex, and not fully understood. There are no genetic tests that can unambiguously determine gender, or even sex."
"In intersex people, their genitalia, as well as their various secondary sexual characteristics, can differ from what clinicians would predict from their sex chromosomes. In fact, some people will live their entire lives without ever knowing that they are intersex.5 The proposed policy will force many intersex people to be legally classified in ways that erase their intersex status and identity, as well as lead to more medically unnecessary and risky surgeries at birth. Such non-consensual gender assignment and surgeries result in increased health risks in adulthood, and violate intersex people’s right to self-determination."

It's complete nonsense, because it's only referring to sex discrimination by public bodies under Title IX, not a wider transgender status, and because there's nothing in the statement that suggests that people with intersex conditions will not be able to change their gender, rather what it's saying is that for Title IX sex discrimination purposes, people's sex will be considered to be that noted at birth unless they have genetic evidence to contradict that.

In cases where intersex conditions are known to have variant gender identities, it's very hard to imagine that this would be the case.

Quietcontrarymary

I am not sure what your question was, however this article, though old, might answer it:

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/04/02/mail-supremacy/amp

I'm not sure if it is behind a paywall as I have a subscription. If it is there are other articles from around 2012/13 when apparently the Mail was the top online paper. I dont know where it stands today, or whether their GC stance has impacted on its US readership. Sort of why I asked the question. I am also curious as to how important the US market is for the Guardian. I can understand why the Mail fills a mid market gap, but its less clear what gap the Guardian fills given the US has a number of high quality papers of its own.

That piece is like a right telling off to women
Cis that cis this
Where the fuck do they get off calling me cis
How dare we raise any issues. About delusions
The allegedly educated writing this shite
Don’t they realise that outside of their wee bubble that they inhabit nobody believes this made up shite
Imagine me telling my family neighbours friends that I was a cis woman
They wouldn’t even know what that meant thank god
Fuck off USA guardian wokie cis dudes

"I am not sure what your question was,"

I was just surprised at your casual characterisation of Americans as 'rednecks'.

If they disagree with the paper that much then why not resign and work else where, like for a US paper that believes TWAW and women should just "get over it" and do as they are told. How that is compatible with any sort of feminism is beyond me. I suspect feminists in the UK are more in step with the opinions of the average woman or person in the US than US feminists if they are all 3rd gen "woman has no meaning and we'll let the males define us" feminists

I don't suppose anybody explains what they think the word 'woman' means or why trans women are women?

Course not. TWAW. You're a bigot for even thinking the question is valid.

The other mind boggling thing is this. Take a look at the “Transgender” tab of the Guardian:

www.theguardian.com/society/transgender

Have a look at the articles. Look back page after page. The editorial is just one in a veritable ocean of pro trans articles. There have been at least 10 pro-trans articles since that editorial. So one crappy “let’s consider the whole argument” article and their whole world collapses. The idea the Guardian has been pushing a “transphobic” agenda for a while is so far removed from reality it’s utterly bonkers.

I think the main difference in the US is the involvement of the Christian Right, who also believe that a woman's place is in the home having babies.

”the US government is seeking to deny trans people the most basic recognition by claiming that gender is “determined by the genitals that a person is born with”

I know that we have started to use the two words in ways that are not synonymous (in order to pander to the woke brigade’s insistence that gender is a thing separate from sex) but for the vast majority, they still mean the same thing. That anyone can make the above statement in a (semi) serious news outlet is so outlandish I laughed. I realise it isn’t actually funny, but if I didn’t laugh, I might have to cry.

Mary...sorry poor drafting. I was using a, presumably no longer PC, term to refer to a section of conservative US society. Sorry if this caused offense.

I read the title and thought “Is this a new Horrible Histories book?”

So...what do I read now? I think I finally have to abandon The Guardian, it is just turning into a farce of a newspaper.

Genuine question by the way, what is there to fill the place the Guardian filled when it was good?

Good grief! Can’t people find something more worthwhile to fight. This whole ‘women are in danger’ from trans rights is absurd. Please look at the damage you are causing to vulnerable people. It is so sad that so few women are prepared to comment on these boards and get involved in the debate, for fear of being mocked and derided by a few women who have constructed a biological argument, that is in fact already being proven incorrect by scientists.

'Feminist'4 Don't you think feminists should have a say in the redefinition of 'woman' to include people with penises and girly feelz?

The right of trans people not to suffer discrimination or abuse does not endanger women.

The loss of the ability to clearly define who women are and the prioritisation of sexist concepts of gender over the real physical consequences of sex very much endangers women.

I think F4 may have posted on the wrong thread. Mind you, since F4 seems to get deleted rather a lot, I suspect that getting hold of the correct thread, or indeed point of a thread, may not be F4's long suit.

This thread is about the Guardian's journalism, as seen by a subset of their own journalists.

There is no feminism if there is no biological definition of female.

Aside from the bonkerishness which to be honest, no longer surprises me, I think the most revealing line was about the US editorial team not having an input.
Why would they expect to?

Nauticant
Yes, they'd be brimming over with ideas on how their Committee for Determining the Direction of the Guardian US should be put together in terms of representation, but when it comes to the Direction itself... tumbleweed.

Good grief! Can’t people find something more worthwhile to fight. This whole ‘women are in danger’ from trans rights is absurd. Please look at the damage you are causing to vulnerable people.

No shits given for the damage already being done to vulnerable women though, eh, F4? And the damage people like you do to other people's right to speak? Which has a wide effect, and funnily enough, often on the most vulnerable and marginalised people.

Shame on you. You were the one of the "teenage girl unhappy at having to shower in front of an adult penis is a transphobe" argument as I recall? Yeah, your compass as far as caring about others goes is top-notch and not at all skewed.

"Aside from the bonkerishness which to be honest, no longer surprises me, I think the most revealing line was about the US editorial team not having an input.
Why would they expect to?"

That struck me as well. I just can't imagine David Aaronovitch haranguing the editor of The Times about him not being consulted on an editorial about Brexit. And insisting that he be allowed to publish a piece admonishing the editor for having done so.

Because he is a proper journalist and doesn't have time for such utter narcissistic bullshit. And The Times would tell him to piss off.