Two trans journalists quit The Guardian, citing transphobia

[Popchyk]

www.buzzfeed.com/patrickstrudwick/two-transgender-employees-quit-guardian-transphobia

Lawsuits against The Guardian to follow, no doubt.

The article is quite funny in its po-faced declarations of transphobia (and no evidence whatsoever to back them up).

That's what happens when you indulge, indulge, indulge.

They turn on you. They always turn on you.

Look at A Challenor and the Green Party, after everything the Greens did for the Challenors. Challenor quit, citing transphobia.

These individuals and people who report misgendering and other such 'hate incidents' to the police are doing damage to actual trans rights. Employers will start avoiding hiring trans candidates out of fear of being sued over nonsense.

In June, the Guardian invited a panel of LGBT people to an internal event to discuss the reporting of LGBT issues. Christine Burns, one of Britain’s foremost campaigners for trans rights, and an architect of the Gender Recognition Act, told assembled staff that reporting in the UK over the last couple of years has resulted in her feeling “scared to death” for the safety of her community.

I think it's time for the GRA architects to do some soul-searching.

Reminds me a bit of when it all went crazy at that college in Canada. Evergreen? Something.
And how they have gone after goldsmiths for racism.

It seems identity politics cults have a thirst that can never be quenched.

What happened to the case with the Times journalist suing the paper for being transphobic, is it ongoing? I can't remember the name of the employee.

Ah, Katherine O Donnell. It was reported on a bit earlier in the year, can't find any references to any decisions.

Judgement expected in August, it says here. www.pressgazette.co.uk/ex-times-journalist-claims-paper-pushes-anti-trans-agenda-and-calls-redundancy-process-a-sham/

”colleagues had made transphobic remarks to her”

”multiple sources ... have described to BuzzFeed News as a deepening internal war over the rights of transgender people”

”allowing a bitter schism to develop between pro- and anti-trans journalists”

”one member of the staff who had previously been Victoria’s friend defended the article, she said, and began citing trans women in sports as a reason to attack trans rights”

”the internal divisions over trans rights have resulted in face-to-face rows in the office”

Translation: people are finally getting so sick of the pressure to lie and bend everything to fit round people who have utterly irrational beliefs and expectations that they are gaining the courage to speak up. And once people start to speak out, the naked emperor must flee to preserve their fragile bubble....

Puuuuuuulllllllll!!!

Many men would stand up to protect women's spaces and see a lot of the trans stuff rather odd. By there are plenty of bright articulate men who will object to being silenced. James Kirkup got it early, but if this continues, others will start sticking their heads above the parapet.

The Buzzfeed article claims that the Times case is due to conclude by the end of the month. That'll be interesting.

one member of the staff who had previously been Victoria’s friend defended the article, she said, and began citing trans women in sports as a reason to attack trans rights. Another colleague, she said, “poked fun” at her, asked if she was trans, and told her, “If you went to prison, I’m not sure which prison you should go to.”

“It allowed me to see firsthand the damage this type of piece causes,” said Victoria.

Sure because no one would be bothered by transwomen in women's sports and women's prisons if it wasn't for those pesky journalists.

So having someone like fun at you is a sueing affair?

I wish I’d known that before I chose to wear red trousers and a black jacket to work and was barraged with circus/ringmaster jokes!

If accidental misgendering is illegal, god knows poking fun must be a gulagable offence.

What’s the stance of workplace practical jokes?

'cut off their hands, burn them with fire, make a pile of the heads over against the city gate, men impaled on stakes, the city destroyed and devastated, turned it into mounds and ruin heaps, the young men and the maidens in the fire burned.'

I think that's ACAS guidelines, but possibly not verbatim.

No, sorry, my mistake, that was Neo-Assyrian King Asuhurnasirpal II .

I really wish I hadn't googled 'death by burning', to be honest.

What kind of knob things that a newspaper is only supposed to present one viewpoint on issues?

Even papers with a fairly strong editorial bias in one direction still offer a range of opinions and analysis.

Have these people ever actually read a newspaper?

Christ on a bike, if the G isn't as safe space then they're going to find the real world very tough indeed. The only publication that might share their values is Penis News otherwise I'm not hopeful for their future employment prospects. Maybe they'll do a medium article on how they paid the mortgage with their principles and humanity.

I'm in a large(?) FB group called Stop funding Hate.

They are in uproar about this attack on humanity blah blah.

Helmet Is anyone on Stop Funding Hate pointing out the lack of any hate? How many of the group are actively participating in the uproar? I've noticed a shrinking in the pool of people willing to label as transphobia ordinary questioning. There seems to be quiet backing away from the loons.

Flounce flounce flounce

Have I got this right - both Guardian and Times are being sued for transphobia by employees?

Transprivilege - labelling people / organisations as phobic for absolutely sod all. They should have been advised to ‘check their privilege’ before flouncing off.

one member of the staff who had previously been Victoria’s friend defended the article, she said, and began citing trans women in sports as a reason to attack trans rights

Because that's the language that people would normally use when discussing the issue "it's a reason to attack trans rights". No one said that to them, ever.

The Guardian had been seriously crap for a long time - I read a copy a while ago and was shocked at how one sided some of the pieces were

I actually don’t mind that too much - all news sources have a bias, and if it’s overt that’s ok.
What I find dishonest about The Guardian these days is when it does not report events that don’t fit its world view. For example: they had plenty of stories about Munro Bergdorf being sacked, but went oddly quiet when that event led to the discovery of rubber-wank-at-a-children’s-charity guy.
Tell us what happens. Put your own spin on it if you want, but don’t try to hide truth from us. We’re in 2019, you’ll get found out, and it makes you look silly and dishonest.

Constant, total capitulation and submission are required.

Best not to start pandering in the first place

towel, just looked- 42 likes and 8 shares BUT one v brave soul is picking the article apart in the comments...

I actually don’t mind that too much - all news sources have a bias, and if it’s overt that’s ok

I think overt is one thing, dishonest is another. Failing to look into a story properly, not looking for information from all sides, deliberatly writing things in such a way as to bias the reader in one direction, withholding information that might not support your point.

Those are major journalistic sins. It's not the same as having a political bias, for example towards libertarianism. You can look at things through that lens, that's what is usually meant by a journal having a bias.

Those other things are breaches of journalistic ethics. Somehow people have lost that distinction.