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"

Er, Hellsandhsirnets, yes, I said I would have no problem and not would my daughters, sharing a changing room with transgender women. I think there are far worst potential dangers to be fighting against, than a small minority of marginalised trans women. But hey ho, the derision begins.

Juno Dawson is claiming on Twitter that they are turning down work opportunities and master classes with the Guardian because of its "transphobia". 

I said I would have no problem and not would my daughters, sharing a changing room with transgender women.

But you also said that women who are distressed at sharing with transwomen are only distressed because they have been brainwashed.

Care to expand on that?

So the US editorial team should get an input into coverage of UK legislative issues because... why? Are they all experts on the UK legislative process? (Or is it that when it comes to this particular issue, the dogma is now that all discussion is only Good People vs Bad People and details can’t matter?)

Transwomen are men. They are women only in their minds.

Quite a few women aren't comfortable sharing toilets and changing rooms with men.

@Feminist4

Hello. May I ask, why do you think it is better to segregate people by gender rather than sex? I cannot see the purpose to separating people by gender. You may as well split people by music type! Additionally, most people don't know their own gender and there is no objective way of finding it out!

Er, Hellsandhsirnets, yes, I said I would have no problem and not would my daughters, sharing a changing room with transgender women.

The issue is not whether you would be happy to share a changing room with anyone - I regularly change in full view of everyone on a beach, albeit with strategic use of a towel.

The issue is that some women have good reason not to want to share a space where they are vulnerable with men. Perhaps some progress could be made on this issue if the fundamental fact that women are concerned about men, not trans people, could be recognised.

Maybe progress could be made if transgender rights didn't apparently depend on the end of recognition of women as a biological sex and the promotion of the idea of segregation by gender.

Given that it's less than 100 years since women could vote on equal terms with men in the UK (much less in other parts of Europe), and that in many parts of the world women are still excluded from society, no, I can't think of many issues that are more important.

HRTFT because I clicked on the link in the OP, and was gobsmacked by the photo chosen to illustrate the article. Was it chosen deliberately to show what 'male bodied' means?

I assume stereotypical rednecks dont read foreign press,

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.

"Probably no longer" ? Are you serious. It's the same as "white trash" or chav.

Rednecks were originally Southern white labourers who were sunburnt from working in the field when their wealthy employers were pale but it has always been used pejoratively. There have been some attempts to re-claim the term similar to black people and the n word re-appropriating a slur.

My DH, who is generally neutral about GRA topics (having heard my rants, but is still not really getting it) even he found that article a pile of crap.

I was perplexed when i read it. One tiny editorial in the face of so much pro TRA stuff or studied silence / non coverage. How can the guardian possibly be seen to be all over of GC side. The Guardian has a hell of a long way to go before I think that they have achieved anything like balanced coverage, let alone being GC .

merrymouse
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.

This is an extreme characterisation which reflects poorly on you. There is no attempt, let alone any serious attempt, to look beyond the caricature you paint, and to see that things are rarely that simple. If you think left equals good and right equals bad you are in danger of abandoning critical thinking and falling unthinkingly for the next trend the left latches on to.

I agree with your post charlestonchaplin

There have been some very narrow- minded posts on this thread.

The Guardian has a proud history of fighting for the voiceless, the vulnerable and the disenfranchised

Although ironically it should be noted that unlike biological women, nobody has ever denied trans women the vote on the basis of their sex.

The double standards are astounding. Women concerned about men in their spaces are sneeringly referred to as being worried about their "safety" - and yet if a trans person claims that they feel unsafe because they're in the same building or on the same panel as someone with GC views, that's to be taken entirely seriously.

I also think the objection to "male-bodied" is notable - because that's already a compromise. That's what we say when we're being nice and considerate and don't want to describe someone as male or a man, even though they are. They want nothing except their own ideological position to be expressible.

If you think left equals good and right equals bad you are in danger of abandoning critical thinking and falling unthinkingly for the next trend the left latches on to.

I'm not sure what you are objecting to. The Christian right have no influence on politics in the UK, and therefore the conflict has not been right vs. left.

Are you objecting to the claim that right wing Christians believe that woman and men should have traditional roles in the family?

Or is it that when it comes to this particular issue, the dogma is now that all discussion is only Good People vs Bad People and details can’t matter?

Ding ding ding!

I would add that I see this less as specifically American bossiness (Mona Chalabi is British btw), and more representative of international left-left youngish politics. The authors are all right around 30 and their view seems common amongst a certain set of the uberwoke on campuses and elsewhere.

I am only a couple of years older, but their cohort seems almost like a different generation when it comes to how formative and important internet use was/is for them. Plenty has been written about how people seek out the like-minded on the Internet, which can have wonderful supportive community-building effects but also contributes to a kind of intellectual balkanization. I think that's at play here more than America-centrism.

The hatred for Trump is making people lose their minds. They have to oppose what he does regardless of what it is.

WomanOfTime

That's what we say when we're being nice and considerate and don't want to describe someone as male or a man, even though they are.

Holy shit, Woman, you're so right. We've been so brainwashed that I no longer even notice how careful I am to avoid the word 'man'.

PS it also doesn't help that we're not allowed use the word on MN when describing a male-bodied person.

I also think the objection to "male-bodied" is notable - because that's already a compromise.

Totally agree. They dismantle language obsessively to make sure we have no acceptable way to distinguish between transwomen and women. If the ‘trans’ bit wasn’t so useful in the oppression olympics, they would drop it like a hot potato as hate speech. I’m sure that will happen soon.

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"

It's the dishonesty that makes me catch my breath. If someone said "but surely sex is shown by the genitals that a person is born with for just about everyone" there'd be a stern scolding about biological essentialism and "gender" meaning far more than mere sex. But if the woke brigades were allowed to impose what they want, then the concept of sex would disappear altogether. (Well, "except for relationship purposes" and some other self-serving exclusions.)

The slipperiness is that "sex" and "gender" aren't the same thing until it has an impact in the real world and then "sex" is replaced with "gender" and women's spaces get colonised by feminine people with penises.

LemonJello, I'm convinced that is coming. I think the 'trans' word will linger for a while as a cultural artefact, and, as you say because it provides useful leverage. But long term, given the shift towards "Transwomen have always been women" and the idea that a male body is a female body if the owner identifies as a woman, the term 'trans' will eventually become more of a hindrance than a help, because of the inevitable and obvious question "If you were always female, in what sense are you 'trans'?"

I'm paying close attention to what new words are emerging to see what will replace it.

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.
Yes. Katherine Viner (is she still editor?) needs to put her foot down. Irrespective of her own views, the US Guardian has no business (that I can see) interfering in the UK edition.
If she lets this go we will all know who's really in charge.

I do note that the 'evil American bigots are behind this' is one that TRAs use over and over again. L. Madigan recently claimed that Madigan's critics on Twitter were predominantly farright American Christians.

It's the same way that a black transwoman being killed in Atlanta can be weaponised by very very white Aimee Challenor in Coventry