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"

a few women who have constructed a biological argument, that is in fact already being proven incorrect by scientists.

Those scientists were defo not there when I shoved a couple of babies out of my hoo ha so I don't think they have seen much in the way of proof.

Electron1, no, but I prefer not to be defined by the babies I’ve pushed out of my hoo ha!

Feminist4
Electron1, no, but I prefer not to be defined by the babies I’ve pushed out of my hoo ha!

I don't feel defined by the babies I've had, but I couldn't have had them if I was a man, or if sex was irrelevant.

I prefer not to be defined by the babies I’ve pushed out of my hoo ha

You know perfectly well gender critical feminists aren't defining women on the basis of having babies.

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've forgotten who said this a few pages back, but it pretty much nails it for me.

But Katharine Viner has already published it in The Guardian, Flo.
Throw a hissy fit about something that doesn't concern you and The Guardian will reward you by publishing your article.

Yes, you’re right.

We're already seeing 'women and cis women'

Once women are forced to go along with this, then the "transwomen were never men, they have always been women" narrative gets applied, and it becomes understood that transwomen are actually cis-women and always have been. As well as transwomen. And as well as women. The goal is to have women lose their ability to define themselves, to be worn down by a series of colonisations, and eventually become so worn down they can't put up a fight when the intended end point is reached: "there is no difference whatsoever between reactionary old-school women and the new and improved stunning and brave women". Woman 2.0 will be exactly the same as woman 1.0 in all respects except one. They will be superior.

but I prefer not to be defined by the babies I’ve pushed out of my hoo ha!

But the expectation that you would push a baby out of your hoo ha would have defined your ability to participate in society until widespread access to contraception only a few decades ago, and still stops many women having equal rights now.

Assuming the continuation of the human race, women will continue to push babies out of their hoo has and bear all the physical consequences of having a body of the type that pushes babies out of hoo haas.

It's no more possible to escape the physical consequences of being born female than it is to grow wings and start flying.

For several years now, the Guardian has been moving away from its traditional position as the paper of choice for the British left, and instead trying to pander to US 'liberals', the sort of 'woke' people who would normally read The New York Times and vote Democrat. This has been obvious to long-time (ex) readers like myself for quite some time, and the trans issue is just one aspect of it. Notice that the 'Comment is Free' section is rarely 'free' at all - fewer and fewer articles are opened for comments, and those that are tend to be non-controversial stuff like TV reviews or click-baity filler about sex or celebrities.

No wonder The Guardian is begging its readers for cash at the end of every article. As someone who used to be a regular reader, I can honestly say I would be happy if they went under.

"there is no difference whatsoever between reactionary old-school women and the new and improved stunning and brave women".

A bit like the 'trans women have vaginas, women have front holes' claim.

I found the Guardian just became much less objective. It was always left wing but used to seem more balanced to me. Now it seems all opinion pieces and brainwashing.
It writes off Brexit without ever discussing the disadvantages of the EU and positive reasons for leaving, it is pro Corbyn despite his obvious shortcomings and the nasty prejudiced group that is Momentum and the Tories can never do anything right because they are the Tories. I hate American politics with its OTT polarisations and posturing. I really don't see why the Guardian wants to pander to that unless it's planning to move over there.

Their analysis seem to stop at the boundary of "be nice to people who we identify with".

In this new complicated political world where left-right, black-white, etc are breaking down, being a weathervane is a path to extinction for a newspaper.’

^ What Nauticant said.
The Guardian has totally lost the plot.

it is pro Corbyn despite his obvious shortcomings

Are you joking? The Graun has been fiercely anti Corbyn since the day he announced his candidacy. They may occasionally have a few pro-Corbyn articles for 'balance' but their anti-Corbyn agenda is obvious. The Guardian these days is strictly 'centrist' so Corbyn doesn't fit in.

Agree with the rest of your post though.

I really don't see why the Guardian wants to pander to that unless it's planning to move over there.

Money I guess? The American market is potentially about 5 times greater than the British market and more internationally influential, and in the internet age why limit yourself? Mind you, going by the constant begging messages at the bottom of nearly every article, they're not doing that well at the money thing.

The Hadley Freeman thread (referenced above):

The GRA and self ID are v different from Trump erasing trans identity and it’s unfair to conflate them. It is also v sad to see people I respect dismiss British feminism as somehow more backward and conservative than American feminism (1/2)
It is also v sad to see people suggest anxiety about self ID is just about “cis women’s intolerance”, as if women were naturally, and randomly, the more bigoted sex. This is a nuanced subject, not a partisan debate

twitter.com/HadleyFreeman/status/1058656391890698240

Some good discussion in the comments along with some odd contributions.

On that thread people are confidently tweeting that British feminists are "backward". That alone is enough to confirm to me that this side, the GC one, is probably the best one to be going on with.

Let me sum up:

An editorial calling for input of British women apparently dehumanizes transwomen because Trump.

Young females experiencing demoralization is at record highs, but depression, well, it's all about the trans.

Also, discussing the sexual assault of female prisoners by a trans-identifying at least for the moment male, should be a discussion about transwomen's rights when behind bars.

Say what?

Either women just don't matter or they really do believe that cis privilege crap.

Also, let me add:

Trump throwing his lot in with the Christian Right, which hates the LGB as well as the TQ was meant to triangulate and polarize. Voila.

Take comfort that while he's in office, these jagoffs will continue to insist they're being persecuted and women need to aid and comfort them, but once he's left office they will expect a payoff even though it will not be their lobby responsible for removing him.

And, he's going after "cis" women at the same time, but 3rd wave feminism has never actually grasped the idea that misogyny is a real thing, so a lot of the young girls will be busy throwing away their rights to help their trans "sisters".

You can tell The Guardian is aimed at US liberals by the fact most of the ‘cultural appropriation’ outrage centres on plastic sombreros.

Since when were Mexicans the most oppressed minority in the UK?

Well, much as I disagree with the article, it does show to me why the Guardian has been so far down the road on gender (and I do mean gender, not sex). One editorial, and they get this aimed at them. Which they publish. That's a good thing I think.

I would like to invite Katharine Viner on here for a web chat but there's no point; the chat would be destroyed by the trans issue. And I say that as a frequent poster on GRA threads.

Yes, Materialist.

Exactly, except I'm not so sure they didn't create them. Female liberation scares the living bee-jebus out of fundamentalists.

I once read a high school textbook about social movements in 1970's, and as many people know, US high school textbooks have to be approved by a committee in rightwing Texas.

Texas buys more schoolbooks than any other state except one, and California has had its hands tied by special interests and tax policy --- so publishers publish for the Texas market rather than create 2 versions. That committee is why the US still has creationists in large numbers, and why Hillary's candidacy will not be included in high school history books.

The book I read included lots of material about Vietnam, black male voting rights and had a whole 2 chapters on women. One was a chapter on The Malaise boredom of being a housewife - and the other was how rape cases come down to he said / she said.

I'm not surprised they don't know squat in high school. What makes me angry though is how colleges are selling them out with gender studies.

LGBTQIA - WTF? (I get lost after the Q)

Intersex. asexual.

Although really it's now the T 🌈, and the LGB can get in line or fuck off. Q - aren't we all? I - we hear time and again how I do not want to be used for T purposes.

It's all about the T.

If you can't see sex, you can't see sexism.