The Guardian describes an objection to puberty blockers as evidence for a moral panic

[zanahoria]

"Love’s win falls in a week when an academic has claimed that children are being put at risk by transgender books in UK primary schools. "

amp.theguardian.com/books/2019/sep/11/i-am-proven-joyously-wrong-picture-book-about-trans-child-wins-major-prize-amid-moral-panic

Is this really a moral panic? questioning a book that makes this claim about puberty blockers? Is this anti LGBTQ news?

' Later in the story, Kit declares that “the best thing about hormone blockers is that if I change my mind then they won’t hurt my body”.'

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/04/children-put-risk-transgender-books-misrepresent-medical-knowledge/

That is “moral panic” in the same way that we are all “transphobes and bigots”.

yes

and to make matters clear, I am questioning the morals of The Guardian but am certainly not in a panic about it as I am sure my reasoning is sound as is that of Dr Susan Matthews. She examined books and made a claim that they “fail child safeguarding and conflict with the law”.

As far as I know, the Guardian did not cover this story, they did not counter the arguments , they just dismissed it as anti-LGBTQ news.

I would also question their journalism that always reaches for the moral high ground, pours scorn on other peoples views, dismisses them as bigotry but does not bother to counter them

Yup, 'cos worrying about children ending up with crumbling bones and delayed/impeded cognitive development because of off-label use of drugs developed for other purposes (drugs with well documented horrendous side-effects when used, similarly off label, to attempt to treat endometriosis) is a "moral panic".

More and more I find myself chaneling Inigo Montoya: "Guardian journos, you keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean."

The Guardian only accepts approved moral panics.

I don't like the phrase 'wrong side of history' but, God, the Guardian is going to look stupid in a few years.

Kit declares that “the best thing about hormone blockers is that if I change my mind then they won’t hurt my body”.'

Contrast that with the unpublished Tavistock study, which indicated that puberty blockers may actually increase the rate of self-harm and suicidal thoughts.

Guardian, I have no words for how much I loathe you. I supported your 'quality journalism' for 20 years. What happened to you?

Guardian, I have no words for how much I loathe you. I supported your 'quality journalism' for 20 years. What happened to you?
Katherine Viner

The Guardian must know they’re not supported by the majority of their readers, as they never open comments on articles about transgender. They know that every point they claim will be countered btl.

If Kit thinks that then the doctors treating kit have not been truthful and Kit should sue them when Kit finds out their IQ has dropped, their bones have not hardened like they should have, they are infertile and sexually dysfunctional...

In the last decade or two, the Guardian has only cared about one thing - becoming a big player in the USA so they pander to the prejudices of the US Democrats who are knee deep in this nonsense as they sold out to Big Pharma.

Ironically if American corporate influence was changing other hallowed British institutions, they would be howling about it.

Well that's a quote that's going to be a millstone around their necks for years to come.

There's a point where this just ceases to have all relations to basic common sense, and the general public have no problem in recognising this.

It's like dismissing concerns about lobotomies or ECT as a moral panic.

" The Guardian must know they’re not supported by the majority of their readers, as they never open comments on articles about transgender. "

I am sure the great and the good at the Guardian dismiss all BTL critics as on line trolls.

he Guardian must know they’re not supported by the majority of their readers, as they never open comments on articles about transgender

They know but they have signed up to an ideology they can't get away from and the money they do get comes from the US arm, who had a tantrum last year.

Honestly it absolutely disgusts me what they will turn a blind eye to.

All the institutions are captured so an impartial Parliamentary Select Committee enquiry is needed urgently in this area, with a view to whether or not parliament needs to bring in a new law to making these powerful drugs only available on application case by case on special license, because of the huge physical and mental risks involved. Especially for children. The Guardian should be ashamed of themselves minimising this massively worrying area.

The Guardian must know they’re not supported by the majority of their readers, as they never open comments on articles about transgender.

I am not convinced they are. I remember a number of years ago when they had Laura Bates columns, which would get a lot of critical response i the comments. They seemed convinced that they were from trolls, which wasn't true, plenty were from regular readers who were progressive types in general. But they ended up stopping the comments entirely because they supposedly didn't really reflect the readership.

didn't really reflect the readership
Judging by the sales figures that would have been both of their readers.

If I could find another Saturday paper with a food supplement and an A5 TV guide, I could stop buying the Guardian forever

Don't they all have TV guides?

Just go online. All the recipes is there family. And just use ur guide on the telly for panning telly watching
Fuck buying the guardian.

The Grauniad spent years telling us there were definitely weapons of mass destruction.

They've always gone into bat for elite interests. Like genderism.

Shitty paper.

They are not a newspaper but ideological trash.

I hope Susan Matthews demands an apology, this is libelous.

Which papers would you recommend instead? I liked the book stuff on it but I don't like this 😑

The book featured in the Guardian article is 'Julian is a mermaid', which appears to be about a boy who likes dressing up as a mermaid. The bit I can see on the Amazon preview doesn't portray the boy as transgender, just a little boy who likes dressing up.

The article mixes up harmless dressing up for small children with anti-LGB protests and concerns about the long-term health implications of children being put on puberty blockers because they are gender non-conforming.

The Guardian seems to want to sexualise small children by linking their normal childhood exploration and play with drag queens and 'LGBTQ' culture. Although this may have come from the author, who also appears to see a link with this. This would not be my first reaction to a book which features a little boy playing dress-up.

I stopped paper-shop deliveries of The Guardian over 10 years ago because of the enormous price I was paying annually for a huge heap of paper that I had not had time to read! Since then, I donated regularly when I read online as I thought that was fair.

Never in a million years did I dream that I would ever pay to read The Times but I have done, not paper but online access, simply for their coverage of the "transgender debate" that no one is supposed to be allowed to talk about.

I am now tinkering with the idea of also paying to subscribe to online access to the Morning Star, for the same reason. Many moons ago, well before the internet, I wrote a couple of times for the Morning Star and my politics are still swayed more in that direction than that of The Times. To the Left but not Stalinist, as in the Momentum grip on the Labour Party and the much longer established infiltration of the Green Party.

So, voting-wise, it's a desert. Only the un-electable extremes of left and right seem to have any regard for reality on this issue but the Communists are spilt into multiple mini-clubs of navel-gazing ideologues and the far right are a bunch of spittle-flecked racists foaming at the mouth over Brexit.

But, at least in the Fourth Estate there are The Times and The Morning Star that can be relied on not to spout the Liberal-Leftie wide-eyed genderist gibberish typical of The Guardian.