Help me articulate why this article in the Guardian has so enraged me.

[franke]

www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/dec/27/everybody-is-talking-about-it-womens-rights-to-take-centre-stage-in-2020

It's not the article itself which is the problem. It's the bare faced hypocrisy of the Guardian in printing it I think. I wouldn't have expected them to mention the struggles feminist groups and individuals are facing as a result of the erasure of women as a sex class, since they are complicit in this. But every sentence I read here was heavy with what was unsaid. The threats of violence, the silencing, the overt misogyny faced by women trying to defend their rights against a pernicious ideology. It's the typical Guardian wall of silence and incredibly obtuse.

I don't post here often because others are better at setting out the issues than I am. But to see this article in that paper irked me.

So they've replaced 'cis' with 'other'? Hilarious.

Just a step now till non people

As I mooted about 5 years ago or so...

"Other women" alone is enough to make sure that I never do anything to knowingly promote or assist The Guardian ever again. I already took out a Times subscription after being a lifelong Guardian reader so this is just another nail in the coffin.

other women or did they just misgender transmen?

(yes, I know transmen aren’t even on their radar and are as unimportant as us ‘other’ women)

The heroic corporate media journamalists have always been committed to rescuing the women in other countries while exploiting the women at home.

I think the reason for the two-facedness over women's rights is that the Guardian is completely able to spot attacks on women's rights WHEN they are on women in poor countries far away, so eg they can see that period huts are bad or that girls need separate toilets to encourage them to go to school in Africa etc.

BUT when it comes to actual women in their own backyard, they have been so blinded by trans mantras (pun here intended) that they are happy to deny women's rights in favour of those of loud-voiced men.

And I am not sure that the Guardian editors even know they're doing it. It's like a lovely, very sweet woke female Facebook friend I have, who would never, ever be unkind to a soul, who has totally bought into TWAW because she'd hate to ever be unkind to anyone. Too many women (and some men) on the so-called 'progressive' left still think like this. They can only see clearly when gazing into the distance - up close, the woke glasses have made them blind.

And they literally can't see the hypocrisy in their approach and the disjointed thinking.

I felt the same when I saw the headline.

other women or did they just misgender transmen?

(yes, I know transmen aren’t even on their radar and are as unimportant as us ‘other’ women)

Yes, quite a telling phrase.

when it comes to actual women in their own backyard, they have been so blinded by trans mantras (pun here intended) that they are happy to deny women's rights in favour of those of loud-voiced men

Nah, the Guardian is fine when it comes to the rights of middle class women. If you work for the BBC or a broadsheet, if you're a high-ranking cicil servant or a university lecturer, a professional politician or an Oxbridge trustafarian the Guardian will have your back. If you're a working class woman (or man, even!) they don't really give a crap.

Is change coming to the Guardian in 2020?

www.theguardian.com/membership/2019/dec/28/2020-guardian-readers-stories-predict

"The big stories of 2020, as predicted by Guardian readers
We asked you what you’d like to see from our coverage in the coming year, and we received hundreds of replies from around the world - with areas of interest ranging from the climate crisis to exposing inequality and fake news

… A lot of readers suggested that the growing controversy around gender transitioning merited deeper enquiry in 2020, particularly the antagonism between trans-rights activists and women’s rights groups.
“I would like to see The Guardian uphold its journalistic integrity and not shy away from reporting on difficult issues that affect all of us simply because it is proving to be inconvenient or embarrassing to its ideological stance,” said Melissa from Edinburgh."

Have MNetters been busy, I wonder? Does this signify a change of heart on the part of the Guardian and a belated recognition that maybe they haven't been on the right side of history in attacking women's rights after all?

Not much use if their coverage ends up being "those nasty women are wrong, there's nothing to worry about, and our editorial stance on this has been impeccably fair, and if you say otherwise we'll just delete your comments".

The Guardian does not allow comments on this article for a reason. (Same goes for articles about its beloved Western backed coups, but I disgress...)

The Guardian hasn’t been the same paper since the day GCHQ supervised the destruction of the Guardian’s hard drives after they published the Snowden revelations.

BickerinBrattle

This.

And it breaks my heart.

A lot of readers suggested that the growing controversy around gender transitioning merited deeper enquiry in 2020, particularly the antagonism between trans-rights activists and women’s rights groups.

I was one of those readers. Someone linked to the survey a few weeks ago on a MN thread, and I think several of us responded.

I was one of those too, they didn’t publish my rant comment either, but Melissa from Edinburgh summed it up perfectly. Journalism over ideology.

other women or did they just misgender transmen?

No, they meant women. I think someone did a hasty find+replace to change 'cis' to 'other' after the Guardian decided to remove cis from its style guide. The census article was written by Libby Brooks, who was on Twitter the other day explaining to incensed readers why the Guardian uses the horrible expression 'cis women'.
Now it's 'other women'. Oh well.

I responded to their survey too. In much ruder terms than Melissa. I suspect many of us were much more forthright than Melissa about the Guardian’s absolute betrayal of women. But it seems they have at least seen the comments and registered them on some level.

Still won’t buy the Guardian again though. Not till they’ve issued a heartfelt apology and run a series of articles on what women have suffered because of the TRA movement, how children are suffering and what part the Guardian played in promoting the ideology behind it all. It may be quite a wait.

No, they meant women. I think someone did a hasty find+replace to change 'cis' to 'other' after the Guardian decided to remove cis from its style guide. The census article was written by Libby Brooks, who was on Twitter the other day explaining to incensed readers why the Guardian uses the horrible expression 'cis women'.
Now it's 'other women'. Oh well.

Yes, that's a good point, but even so, it does erase FTM trans people as they said in the quoted paragraph "transgender people" and "other women" not "transgender women". Tut tut Guardian, your agenda is clear.

... after the Guardian decided to remove cis from its style guide..

I've just had a look at their style guide and "cis" wasn't mentioned at all. Which is odd I think because for example "chavs" is there and for that word it says - a term best avoided. So you'd expect something similar for cis surely?

I can't track down any sources for this apart from Julie Bindel mentioning it on her twitter briefly. Does anyone here have more detailed info?

It's a pretty important development and will be so disappointing if it's just rumour.

Other women, eh? Talk about the otherization of women. While the one adjective that would make sense in this context is 'actual'. 'Actual' would also be congruous with the only objectifyable, noncircular definition (so, actual definition) of 'woman' available. Someone should tell the Guardian.

The census article was written by Libby Brooks, who was on Twitter the other day explaining to incensed readers why the Guardian uses the horrible expression 'cis women'.

I hadn't seen the Twitter thread, so for anyone else who missed it, here it is:

twitter.com/libby_brooks/status/1207019287195660288

Libby Brooks has form, as I'm sure we all know.