the Financial Times has fallen

[MaMaLa321]

A full page article in the FT this weekend 'The new Gender Wars' by Mark Gevisser. An uncritical acceptance and promotion of trans rights.
It's behind a paywall, so no point linking.
But I feel so sad. Another great institution has fallen.

I wouldn’t read it even without a paywall. I don’t read articles about gender because it’s irrelevant to me, like any ideology I don’t believe in.

Not a subscriber to FT so I can’t read that one but this same journalist did a Long Read recently for the Guardian from an international perspective on LGBT rights and the ‘backlash’ there has been against them. (That’s often code in the work media for conflating women saying no with the actions of violent homephobes)
www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/16/how-globalisation-has-transformed-the-fight-for-lgbtq-rights

‘Woke’ media that should have said

www.ft.com/content/003c71d6-b55c-11ea-8ecb-0994e384dffe for those who do subscribe

They've got a book to sell, hence the multiple pieces in different newspapers.
It tries to align self Id along the same lines of freedom of expression of sexuality, and any objection as right wing /religious fanaticism.

It does mention women's concerns and transition in children, and doesn't entirely dismiss it.

"Young people like Liam and Rose are moving themselves, and the culture, into uncharted territory. They are the first generation to undergo early transition. How can there be guarantees of what will happen to them later in life, psychologically and physiologically? The science is fresh and its beneficiaries still young, the oldest of them only in their late twenties. Little wonder that there is anxiety and dissent among the professionals who treat them — as was recently exposed by reports of the number of clinicians who have left the NHS’s Tavistock gender identity service."

It's feels like a report influenced a lot by how they think it will play out on social media. A little critical but then backpedal lest it be too accusatory.

It is disappointing that the FT doesn't do some proper journalism on this. I subscribe because I am a fan of their investigative pieces like The Presidents Club scandal and the recent Wirecard fraud.
Hopefully as more sunlight hits they will start paying attention.

It's hardly 'fallen' for a paper to give someone the opportunity to voice an opinion, is it? I mean, unless the FT also have a policy of blocking gender critical voices - and as far as I know, they've not covered the issue that much, either way - then I don't see a problem. This isn't a leader column. It's an article. Here's hoping they afford eg Kathleen Stock space, too.

I have no issue at all with debate, and all views being heard. That's healthy, no?

I read it and it’s pretty crap. But it’s written by someone selling their book. It’s a puff piece more than anything. They now need to run a piece by Helen Joyce about her book.

I note that the comments were disabled. FT readers won’t be lapping this stuff up. It’s a very sceptical readership on all matters.

I actually think the FT should run a piece on the massive scam of diversity training and diversity allyship that you pay Stonewall et al for. The corporates love that stuff and are throwing money at it. There’s a scandal brewing as we know. Asda found out the truth at the heart of many of these campaigns this week. FT could do some really good investigative journalism on this if they chose to.

I’d wager that quite a few FT names are GC. Robert Shrimsley, Katie Martin at a guess.

What a biased attitude from the OP.

I read that yesterday. It would be hard to find an article so filled with bias, so lacking in objectivity and which happily parrots the talking points of an ideological agenda without question. But it is wrong to say the FT has 'fallen.' This is typical fare. To call it left of centre doesn't adequately describe its extreme political bias.

Fuckssake there are no good newspapers left.

Yes I don’t think the FT has fallen & I very much doubt the average FT reader was reading that & nodding along...

It’s an opinion piece, the FT seems to be open to reporting different views on the subject. That’s good. I don’t see how this means it has ‘fallen’, everyone is entitled to their views.

the FT seems to be open to reporting different views on the subject

When did the FT given the front page of the Life and Arts section to a Gender Critical view? The FT is neither neutral nor objective.

Yes they need to showcase the other argument - urgently. Or they are showing up their lack of critical thinking.

apologies if some posters think the title is too extreme. I suppose I've depended on my weekend fix of the FT to be apolitical, as much as a paper can be. I

I bought the newspaper as I’m a scrapbooker. No chance to read the article as on the other side was a really interesting obituary to Vicki Wood, the first woman in Michigan to be allowed to race against men in Nascar.

You can get past the FT paywall by doing a Google search for the exact title of the article.

showcase the other argument - urgently.

Helen Joyce comes to mind unless she's very busy with the book.

Yes they need to showcase the other argument - urgently

The likelihood of the FT giving its front two pages of Life and Arts to an entirely GC focused opinion piece is zero. Its associate economics editor in the same section wrote an enthusiastic review of a book advocating land redistribution.

@EmperorCovidula

Fuckssake there are no good newspapers left.

The Times.

The article characterises the gender critical view as coming from the religious right and then uses this distorting lens to present the gender critical view as:

one single theory allegedly at the heart of the western secular experiment: that gender — as a mutable social construct — exists in the first place, as opposed to sex, which in their view is objective, natural and divinely ordained.

That misrepresentation is sneaky and dishonest. I loath activism journalism.

The issue of the transitioning of kids is mentioned but useful information to enable a reader to understand the concerns, even a mention of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones, is absent.

I get that it's healthy to have opinion pieces putting forward opposing views. But the level of bias and spin of that article crosses the line.

I wondered how it had gone down on twitter, not that much commentary really, but I did notice it was being pushed by one single FT account:

mobile.twitter.com/ft4s/status/1276727913237413889

FT for Schools ... Register for free Financial Times access for 16-19 year olds, teachers and schools

Mark Gevisser is not an FT staff writer, and a feature in the weekend paper based on an upcoming book is not necessarily representative of the editorial line of the paper, but I would not be surprised if there were a few letters to the editor about this. Anyone feel like writing one? More likely to be published if you are concise, measured and reasonable sounding.

FT for Schools ... Register for free Financial Times access for 16-19 year olds, teachers and schools

Well, isn't that interesting?

They now need to run a piece by Helen Joyce about her book. Absolutely.

Would love to see a piece about Dr Jessica Taylor's book, too.