About time: Guardian waking up?

[aliasundercover]

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/27/male-genitalia-week-in-patriarchy-women

www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jul/27/trans-lobby-pressure-pushing-young-people-to-transition

How they square these articles with TWAW is anybody's guess, but it looks like somebody has finally had the sense to stop and think about a few things.

I've just read these articles after being out all day. I think the world is finally starting to wake up to the realities of TWAW. It is a chink of light. Thank goodness.

I'm so relieved someone else posted this! Feeling a bit cowed by the 'things I hate about MN' thread which has got lots of 'I hate the transphobia' comments. But then I read this and I thought, well, no, this is so important, this really is happening right now to children, and like so many people I know a vulnerable teenager who has made a few moves towards transition and I am just hoping desperately that they DON'T get a referral to a specialist healthcare service, because I believe the professional ethics and attitude to duty of care in some specialist services have become utterly distorted by the pressure they are under, by the nature of the caseload, and by the isolation of one perspective from a more generalist approach without apparently any external cue to reflect on practice.

And breathe.

They've seen that the tide is turning I guess.

Two articles based on what the Times and Mail have been covering do not go far enough to restore the reputation of a paper that has been manipulating the news and silencing women for too long.
BUT - it's a small step in the right direction.

It's the Observer.

The Observer and the Guardian have different viewpoints - kinda like how the Mail on Sunday has a different editor to the regular Mail, and is thus a bit more moderate.

The Observer tends to be more anti-trans agenda, to the extent that the US Guardian staff wrote an article complaining about the Observers coverage of the trans issue

Also it's an Observer article and they have a different editorial line to the Guardian.

uklib snap

I don't think that article is anti-trans in the slightest.

neither article is open for comments I see

anti-trans agenda

or pro women, but this isn't even that, it's "based slightly in reality".

Being pro women's sex based rights is not being ''anti trans''. If it is, its not us trying to erase a whole group, is it?

The first article is from The Guardian and is about how only the right-wing press are reporting on Yaniv and how it's not fair and it makes a mockery of the hate crimes that trans people face. Precious little about the poor immigrant women who are the real victims. But progress that The Guardian is finally mentioning it. It is discussed at the end of this thread.

The second one is from The Observer which takes a different stance from The Guardian. I've noticed that The Observer has a much more rational approach than The Guardian when it comes to puberty blockers for children.

That is an excellent article that summarises a lot of the pressing issues around children identifying as transgender.

Worth remembering that it was The Observer that first broke news of the David Bell report at the Tavistock last year in which staff were raising all sorts of concerns about the GIDS service. The Times then picked the story up later.

The Observer has done its homework on this issue.

The second article is good.
Arwa Mahdawi's piece is ridiculous - she reckons that Yaniv is just a troll and explains that the story has only been covered by the "rightwing press" because transphobia. Absolutely pitiful.

Worth remembering that it was The Observer that first broke news of the David Bell report at the Tavistock last year

Wasn't that the reason the Guardian US had a tantrum, because they didn't like the idea of Children at risk being highlighted?

I was going to post that link! Great stuff, Guardian! I was a long time Guardian reader and poster, their genderist ideology drove me away - are they turning a corner?

“Anti-trans”

Reporting the concerns of someone who has worked at GIDS regarding the use of puberty blockers is not anti-trans”.

Three young Guardian US workers wrote that “journalism should be based on TWAW”, which they should be utterly embarrassed about. It’s like saying reporting on space should be based on a flat earth.

The 'politicised trans groups put children at risk' article is on the front page of print version of The Observer tomorrow.

Not the main story, but still the front page.

twitter.com/observeruk?lang=en

The article on the Yaniv case is mainly concerned with how the blatantly offensive behaviour of JY will bolster right wing voices and stoke hatred for people who identify as trans.

The writer also says that if it was leg waxing then JY would have been absolutely right to take action. Ummmm.... NO. If any of these women didn't want a male person in their home, or to go to a male person's home, or to provide any grooming to any part of a male body, that is 100% their prerogative, and their being dragged through court proceedings for that would be equally unjust and oppressive.

The point isn't just that balls are balls, or that JY is a creep. The point is that transwomen are male, and women - as individuals nor as a class - should not be manipulated, emotionally blackmailed, coerced or otherwise compelled to pretend otherwise, when doing so puts their safety, dignity, opportunities or comfort at risk.

I think that Guardian article is crap. The author says firmly that although we should excuse women from handling male genitals if they dont want to, it would absolutely be transphobic for these women to refuse Yaniv a leg wax.

That’s ‘transphobic’ for a woman working alone from her home , and thus only accepting female clients, to refuse to invite in a seriously dodgy and unpleasant MALE waving more red flags than Butlins.

In other words, normal risk assessment is transphobic. Thanks, Guardian.

Cross posts to say the same thing !

Just read the first one. So a woman working in her own home shouldn't be allowed to refuse to have a person in their home who they judge might be a threat, by any criteria? if jy had asked for their legs to be waxed that would have been A-OK to sue anyone who refused?

Has the journalist thought that one through? what if jy insisted on being interviewed at the journalist's home and wouldn't take no for an answer? should she be sued for refusing due to a feeling of 'this person sounds threatening and unstable'?

I thought there was a let out if you were taking people into your home (not sure about Canada)? Did the homophobic b&b owners eventually get off because of that?

There could be real prejudice involved. Like racism for example, or genuinely using the fact that a male person is wearing a dress and tiara as part of a judgement on their relationship to reality and social norms. Or just not seeing a man as a woman, despite current requirement to do so. Real prejudice, but about trying to be safe in a vulnerable position. What then?

Excellent that the Observer is reporting on this and so prominently: it is an absolute scandal what is going on in the NHS and with private doctors too (for different reasons.).

Yaniv has peaked a lot of people recently.

It's reaching the mainstream and outside the Twitter bubble, most people are not buying into this.
Maybe MSM has seen how people are reacting to this insanity and covering their asses.

Yes you BBC and Guardian. Is this what we call a reverse ferret?

The Guardian on Twitter.

twitter.com/guardian/status/1155208514194853889

"Young people not getting objective advice because of trans lobby pressure"

That is exceptionally strong wording for The Guardian. Have they ever even mentioned the trans lobby before?

Someone is blubbering on that thread:

"Seriously, what the fuck? You're an allegedly progressive outlet, why the fuck are you giving voice to this Mumsnet bullshit?"

That only the “right wing” press are reporting Yaniv is to the shame of the “left wing” press, not an indictment on the “right wing” press itself.