Private Eye spots Guardian now using sex observed at birth when describing 'cis' people

[frazzled1]

PE issue 1516.

Partial retreat by The Guardian from using assigned at birth when describing 'cis women/men' (it's sticking with 'cis' though).

'Cis' will now be defined as a person whose identity aligns with their sex observed at birth.

Every little helps. A chink of light from The Grauniad at last?

I won't even click on a link to The Guardian. It refuses to report news that contradicts its blinkered, ideology. Compelled speech is part of its myriad problems.

Comparable to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic!
The Grauniad has rowed itself too far up shit creek to ever make it back as far as I’m concerned.
Nothing short of a massive apology to women and a complete change of tack would even begin to redeem them.

Did anyone see the magnificent coverage the Guardian gave to the 50th anniversary women’s liberation conference held in central London earlier this month?

I didn’t. In fact I couldn’t find a word about this historic occasion. I am so hoping I just wasn’t searching effectively ....

Now we need a big push to move them to ‘determined at conception’.

Surely even Guardian staff know most western parents learn the sex at the midway pregnancy point, when it’s generally easy to spot via ultrasound.

You know that not everyone falls into 2 neat biological buckets, right? The majority do yes but intersex people do exist - you can have XY chromosomes and appear female, for example.

I find it absolutely baffling why some women are so threatened by a tiny minority of generally very harmless and oppressed people.

Or to just drop cis altogether, there is only one way to be a woman and that's down to biology. If some men want to call themselves transwomen that's fine, but we don't need a new word for women.

Intersex people aren't trans. It's not relevant to the use of cis.

I find it absolutely baffling why some women are so threatened by a tiny minority of generally very harmless and oppressed people

I find it absolutely baffling why some women are so threatened by a tiny minority of generally very harmless and oppressed people

Oh dear.

"appear female" is the sort of phrase often viewed as transphobic, even. I try to phrase things a bit more conclusively if I can.

inclusively! Autocorrect...

Are you suggesting that we have blood tests to see if people are true trans then @evenprimrose? It reads like you are saying XY and XX can't be trans?

evenprimrose
This is a good thread to start with if you're unfamiliar with what's going on. There's a great post near the start by Datun, and lots of links to help you to understand all the issues.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me

Nobody's afraid of the tiny % of people who have disorders of sex chromosomes, @evenprimrose.

We are afraid of men getting uninhibited access to women's spaces thanks to loopholes in proposed law and ideology. We are afraid of teenagers with mental health disorders being treated with irreversible drugs and surgery when not so few of then el change their mind in the next few years; and I can't speak for others on this one, but I am afraid of autogynephiles, because the ones I have met have been very threatening in their behaviour towards women.

Can anyone point me to some articles that will educate me on these subjects please as I see a lot of threads on gender and trans and I don't really understand any of the arguments. I would like to understand it all more and don't know where to start.
Thanks.

Did you miss the post two posts above yours Keepitup?

Thanks @MrsSnippyPants, yep did miss those two posts. I think I had the message box open, started something else, and then came back to it. I shall do some reading.

@OldCrone - thanks for that link, I shall go and educate myself

Falling into a biological bucket sounds messy.

I think most here would agree that people with disorders of sexual development are finding that they are being oppressed by oppressive transactivists trying to oppropriate their conditions to justify an antiscientific ideology.