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 don't understand why Arwa Mahdawi feels that women shouldn't be able to refuse leg waxing services to men, particularly if they are working from home.

It's as though the part of her brain that might be able to process thoughts about personal safety shuts down when trans rights are mentioned.

I don't think my child's school is accusing me of being a sexual predator when they ask me to abide by their child protection protocols, so why is it offensive for women to exclude a male bodied person from a service they carry out in their own home?

EA 2010

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7

"These exceptions would allow:

a massage service to be provided to women only by a female massage therapist with her own business operating in her clients’ homes because she would feel uncomfortable massaging men in that environment."

Suzy Lamplugh Trust: Bogus callers:

"Never let someone into your house because you don’t want to seem rude or unsympathetic"

www.suzylamplugh.org/pages/faqs/category/personal-safety

oops, your point about massage services and the law was so good I made it again PencilsinSpace!

Looks like waffly rubbish to me, fence sitting. There is no such thing as a woman with male genitalia, and why refer to that clearly disturbed person as 'she' anyway.

I'm wondering if the progression for those like Arwa Mahdawi might go something like this:

TWAW > sunk costs fallacy > NATWALT > OMG 😲

I wonder what Owen Jones is doing right about now?

He's:

1. Re-tweeted that "brilliant" Guardian US article from last year twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1155510600845447168

1. Re-tweeted Freddie McConnell, the transman from the Seahorse film, who seems to have no idea what the trans lobby is. twitter.com/freddymcconnell/status/1155451764558184448

So, Owen, when are you going to resign from The Grauniad in protest at their shameless transphobia?

Transgender Trend have published an article which the clinicians at the Tavi tried to get the Guardian to oublish, but the Guardian ignored it:

www.transgendertrend.com/2017-letter-gids-clinicians-ignored-guardian/

Just read that letter. 2017 for FFS. The Guardian sat on that for 2 years.

twitter.com/guardian/status/1155208514194853889?s=19

The TRAs are very very upset with the Guardian about the article about children.

Looks like a targeted attempt to get it ratioed but not working as yet. They are frothing.

Julian Vigo's response to a tweeter who asks why The Guardian is finally reporting on this issue:

My guess: fear of a lawsuit

The TRA pile-on serves The Guardian right really. No sympathy from me.

Looks like it was orchestrated sneakily by Owen Jones himself. He retweeted that Freddie person but didn't comment himself on his own paper's transphobia.

Cowardly (if OJ is such a great trans ally why doesn't he take a stand himself?) and sneaky at the same time. Then he retweeted that US writers' diktat that The Guardian must always start every story from the premise that transwomen are women.

The Guardian are always going to have the trans cult after them from now on. Simply because The Guardian has always indulged them thus far, has bent over backwards to present their dogma. The Guardian is weak. And the trans cult knows it.

The trans cult don't bother going after The Times or The Daily Mail. Because neither of those publications will ever cave to the trans cult so there is absolutely no point in hounding them.

They go after The Guardian because they know that they can bully The Guardian via their inside man, Owen Jones. Zero gratitude for the positive coverage of trans ideology so far. Nothing will ever be enough. And they will always turn on you.

That's where appeasement gets you.

Wonder if Owen Jones has given any thought as to how he will extricate himself from the cult when the time comes. Cos the time is coming. Even OJ must know that.

This is damning:

www.transgendertrend.com/2017-letter-gids-clinicians-ignored-guardian/
“We Really Really Tried.” A 2017 Letter from GIDS Clinicians Ignored by The Guardian

In today’s Observer, sister paper to the Guardian, there is an article about the current controversies surrounding Tavistock GIDS, and the concerns expressed by current and former GIDS clinicians and senior members of staff over the past few months.

It has been a great disappointment to many on the Left that the Guardian has been largely silent on this issue. But two former GIDS clinicians sent a letter to the Guardian back in 2017 to alert them to serious concerns about what was going on within GIDS. One of the authors of the submission to the Guardian commented to us “we really really tried.” However, rather than jumping to publish such a devastating testimony – the kind of exclusive most journalists would give their right arm for – the Guardian chose to ignore it.

We are very happy to publish that letter here. We are very grateful to the GIDS clinicians for writing such a powerful and honest testimony and for allowing us to publish it. The rest of this post is in their own words

READ THE LINK ABOVE

Thanks for that Red and well done Guardian

There's an appearance by an FWR favourite under the Freddy McConnell tweet:

twitter.com/JosieLong/status/1155480561353445377

READ THE LINK ABOVE

Red - I was just coming to start a thread for that article. Would you consider doing it with your post as the OP? I really think it deserves one of its own.

Transgender Trend have published an article which the clinicians at the Tavi tried to get the Guardian to oublish, but the Guardian ignored it:

very interesting

The Guardian sat on that for 2 years.

They chose to ignore the voices of the concerned practitioner experts.

They are complicit.

The article is on Society Guardian Facebook page. The comments are what you would expect, including T*erfs kill and someone flouncing for the sake of their mental health.

Vicious, murderous transphobic lies. The anti-trans lobby is the only lobby pressuring Tavistock to not give objective advice

There is no way to have any kind of reasoned discussion with someone with those attitudes.

This is not the righteous, finally waking after slumber to see the truth. This is the wickedly complicit, nervously covering their arse so that they can still pour scorn on the people who have been pointing out their complicity all along.

Rubidium that ridiculous article that loj linked to from last year's Guardian "Cis women’s intolerance should not be a legitimate reason for limiting the rights of trans women"

As well as being breathtakingly misogynist and terribly misleading it was also railing against this editorial which I found surprisingly balanced for the Graun. I'm not sure I'd seen it before and was probably 'a moment of madness' in their usual über woke stance.

That's a good article, franke, especially for the Guardian. But I had to cringe at this sentence: UK law acknowledges circumstances where there is a conflict of interests between trans women and other women.
It demonstrates just why we should be wary of that little gap between "trans" and "women"; furthermore, it sounds here as if "other women" are just another valid grouping whose rights need to be equally considered.
Language matters. Correct would have been "between women and transwomen", making "women" the established group and transwomen the "other" trying to get in.

It demonstrates just why we should be wary of that little gap between "trans" and "women"

It demonstrates why we should be wary of the term 'transwomen' full stop.

Language matters. Correct would have been "between women and transwomen", making "women" the established group and transwomen the "other" trying to get in.

I agree that language matters. I don't think the space matters very much. The issue is the misappropriation of the word 'women' by men.

Correct would have been "the conflict between women and men who identify as women". That makes clear what is actually going on here. Using 'transwomen' for men hides the fact that this is a male assault on women's rights and boundaries; it differs only from previous historical assaults by men in the sheer brazen reality-denying audacity of it, such that even women who resist it are obediently calling these men 'women' while doing so!

Take the line from the Guardian piece cited by franke above:

'Cis women’s intolerance should not be a legitimate reason for limiting the rights of trans women.'

And see how obvious the sexual politics are when you use clear language:

'Women's intolerance should not be a legitimate reason for limiting the rights of men'.

It's a men's rights movement. And its proponents are hiding this behind Orwellian language that reverses reality and renames men as 'women' and reframes women as men's oppressors. We can never expose their true politics as long we keep going along with their language manipulation.

This is not the righteous, finally waking after slumber to see the truth. This is the wickedly complicit, nervously covering their arse so that they can still pour scorn on the people who have been pointing out their complicity all along.

I'd agree in the case of the Arwa Mahdawi article. But not necessarily true of the Guardian (or Observer) as a whole. The Observer has always been a bit more receptive to gender-critical perspectives, and I don't think it's ever published any insane, full-on TRA rants such as the ones that little OJ publishes in the Guardian.

As for the Guardian, I think it probably imagined that supporting trans rights was the correct thing to do and decided not to bother investigating further. It no doubt thought it was on the right side of history and therefore the gender-critical voices would fade away. It's been taken aback by the strength of feeling amongst women, and the fact that the Times, Mail and so on get a lot of social media traction for their gc stories. It may finally be waking up to what's going on - but we should wait and see.

Twitterhole

I fell down a twitter hole (with twitter turned off, nats) and it would appear The Grauniad has been transphobic for the last 10 years or so, apaz

Who knew?

twitter.com/Sandra_NiD/status/1155560222938816514

Also: Cis lawyer ??????????????????

OJ and that Freddie person are the ones orchestrating the Twitter backlash against The Guardian for their article about the safety of children at GIDS.

Both of them write for The Guardian. The Guardian editor might wish to reflect on that. Neither seems to wish to resign in protest though, so clearly they don't feel that strongly about it.

1K comments on the Guardian Twitter thread.

Most of them objecting to The Guardian touching this subject. Which is a betrayal, apparently.

Be interesting to see whether The Guardian caves and removes/edits the article. They can't, surely? I suspect a Hostile Media For Trans Kids article by the end of the day in the way of "balance".

This is their own mess though. This was always going to happen.