Gaby Hinsliff in the Guardian

[testing987654321]

Essentially an appeal to build bridges. At least the argument is being acknowledged although it still appeals to the "be nice" by stating that But nobody should want trans people to feel unsafe or cast out, and barring a trans woman from women’s services seems the cruellest of personal repudiations.

It's that rohypnol again, it does sound cruel to ban "a trans woman from women's services". Words are powerful and we should use words more accurately.

Why the battle over trans rights is a minefield for Labour
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/15/trans-rights-labour-leadership-candidates?CMP=ShareiOSAppp_Other

You see I don't think Gaby Hinscliffe can ever have really thought the whole thing through; or else she's not fully aware of what constitutes 'being trans' these days. Has she ever taken trans ideology through to its logical conclusion? I Don't think so!

Some refuges have now accepted trans women (excellent risk assessment helps, and careful laying out of accommodation). Some schools absorb gender-questioning pupils without fuss; teens queue happily for mixed Topshop changing rooms; and with time, maybe we’ll wonder why unisex loos were ever an issue.

Well that's very simplistic. Because can or has ever gone wrong in any of those situations. Also I notice that all the examples given here, which I think she is saying are where the two groups have found "common ground", are all very clearly examples of one group, taking precedence over the group. None of those are middle ground with compromises from both sides (unless you include risk assessments apparently being carried out, as a compromise). Those are all one group getting what they wanted and the other group being dismissed or made to put up with it.

Well that's very simplistic. Because (nothing) can or has ever gone wrong in any of those situations.

Some refuges have now accepted trans women (excellent risk assessment helps, and careful laying out of accommodation)

I'd like to know more about this excellent risk assessment. One of the things we know about abusers is that they can be very pleasant and charming - indeed that's how they win people over. So how exactly do you risk assess someone who hasn't got a criminal record but nonetheless poses a threat?

I think its worth bearing in mind that this is probably written under the strong guidance of the queer editorial board, with direct supervision by OJ!

She has in fact written from a more woman focused position than this.

They are probably a bit shaken that Suzanne Moore has found this Labour stupidity so awful, but couldn't get her opinion published by the Guardian, that she went to the Telegraph (a sort of heresey for Guardianites).

This is their tokenistic attempt to acknowledge yes there is a sort of problem but really it is because "cis" women aren't being understanding enough.

And as someone has posted on facebook where this is also being discussed, you only have to go to the Guardian's own facebook page where they have this listed in the opinion section, to see that the Guardian's decade long erasing of women's rights has meant that most of their commentators have no inkling that this is anything to do with women's rights.

It is a very strong example of how a newspaper policy or not covering or just dismissing as trivial an issue (eg women's sex based rights) that the majority of readers just absorb this message over time.

(Not only is it badly written, but badly researched. Or as I said little more than a sop to show the Guardian is sort of in touch with the fact that there is an issue - but they aren't going to give it the energy of publicity.)

My family, all Guardian readers, think I've gone full on rightwing with my angry TERFiness and complaining about Guardian bias.

Because they've never read it in the Guardian they've no idea there's even an issue. They're not on Twitter, so they were shocked to hear that LOJ is a spiteful little misogynist, too. It's amazing what you can get away with if (a) you're The Goodies and (b) you completely ignore a whole issue.

I will never ever click on an article by Gaby Hinscliff until she apologizes for her remarks on the Cologne attacks.

Because they've never read it in the Guardian they've no idea there's even an issue. They're not on Twitter, so they were shocked to hear that LOJ is a spiteful little misogynist, too. It's amazing what you can get away with if (a) you're The Goodies and (b) you completely ignore a whole issue

That was me two years ago......a Guardian reader and not a user of social media or twitter. I hadn't the slightest inkling that any of this was going on....until the Women Don't have Penises sticker on the Anthony Gormley iron man on Crosby beach, in my home city, caused supposed outrage locally. I woke up pretty quick!

It's not often one piece of writing would have me putting someone in the "nope, fuck off forever" category but seriously, did you read it?

Agree. I want nothing to do with her; she is as much of a misogynist, and a panderer to MRAs, as Owen. The Guardian has lost me forever as a reader because of its silencing of women.

If they are now in trouble financially, and dependent on an American readership, perhaps they should not have alienated 20-odd million adult females in the UK? Fuckwits.

Comparing the choice between women and the more extreme end of trans ideology as "Sophies choice" is fucking insulting to women.