@BaronessWrongCrowd
I wonder why the change of tack.
Loss of subscribers/readers. They've had their begging bowls out. Jobs are being lost.
I think they are starting to realise that by backing the TRA's they backed the wrong horse.
Turns out that people, especially women, don't like being told how they should define themselves. So they have shifted their spending elsewhere. Who would have thought this would happen... oh... 
This.
I spent quite a long time thinking I was the only one who felt this way about The Guardian. But the recent pay cuts thread on here opened my eyes to how many women felt the same way - and how many had, like me, cancelled their subscriptions or stopped buying the paper in silent protest.
Thing is, The Guardian have been so terrible about this issue for so long now, that I'm not sure the occasional common sense article is enough to claw back women's trust in them. It's not as if they're making any attempt to apologize either. There has been no "we understand we handled this poorly and we must do better" statement. No series of articles accurately representing women's concerns. And no change to their style guide, so that situations like the J.K Rowling one can't be classed as her being "against trans rights" (which she blatantly isn't). Refer to it as a "women's rights" issue or as both a woman's and trans rights issue, but stop erasing and misrepresenting one side of the argument. It's not that hard to do.
If The Guardian really wants to win back women, these are some basic steps they could take to show good faith.