Susanna Rustin in the Guardian

[Botsy]

Couldn't see this posted but feels like a step forward

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/30/feminists-anti-trans-idea-sex-gender-oppression

She is saying all the things I learned by spending the quarantine studying this topic. It became really clear that the erasure of the female biological sex is intended and not just a side-effect of the weird new inclusiveness, and that made me come here and join you. Because if we can't mention sex we can't address sexism and other sex-based forms of unequal treatment.

I also learned that 'the other side' accepts no compromises. That is very unfortunate as that means battle.

I think this is just a token. You can be certain there will not only be letters to the Guardian about how terrible and hurtful it was to publish it but expect at least 3 articles in response.

Going on past records for every 50 pro trans article there is one faintly pro woman article.

I just dont understand how someone who thinks like this can work at the Guardian. Nearly everyday they print something that denegrates women. Why would you work somewhere with people who dont think you have any rights.

The fiercely trans-ally type places online already think the Guardian is disgustingly transphobic anyway (after that one fairly measured 'both sides' piece which got the pushback from the US Guardian), so this will just seal the deal in their eyes.

On the facebook link to the article every negative comment is by a man.

And the arguements are so cliched, you're all right wing, you're all old, you're terfs - and the best one "wouldn't it be easier to just use the indentity non-male"!!! Seriously, this is the level of thought of the average Guardian reader ........ [grin[

Thank you Susanna. A great thing to read.

I know a lot of us are thinking 'Too little to late', but I prefer to view it as the tide turning and sense winning out. I'm just enjoying watching it happen.

Altogether now - pull!

Is it bad that I'm looking forward to LOJ's mantrum over this...

Has Talcum X thrown one of his mantrums yet?

This is such a moderate article.
No-one of good faith could object to it.

Good to see this in the Guardian, sadly the last place I would expect to read a pro-woman editorial these days. I can imagine the rage and mantrums (wonderful description, RoyalCorgi!) in their US offices.

Article about menstruation and health today talks about ‘women’ all the way through. I shouldn’t be happy for such small mercies, but compared to what we’ve been getting...

www.theguardian.com/society/2020/oct/01/irregular-periods-linked-to-increased-risk-of-death-before-the-age-of-70-says-bmj

Nepeta, totally! Have also come to realize that female erasure is the point, not an accidental side effect. Glad you're here! A lot of women finding their way now

[quote justawoman]Article about menstruation and health today talks about ‘women’ all the way through. I shouldn’t be happy for such small mercies, but compared to what we’ve been getting...

www.theguardian.com/society/2020/oct/01/irregular-periods-linked-to-increased-risk-of-death-before-the-age-of-70-says-bmj[/quote]
It's extraordinary that we should feel relief and gratitude about an article on menstruation naming women. I feel discombobulated daily. Maybe this is what dysphoria feels like? The separation of what you know about yourself from the way the world responds to you and talks about you? Who the eff knows: I just want our words back.

Great to speak up now, Susanna Rustin, but brave women like Janice Turner have been doing so in the face of hate for much longer. You are riding on her coat tails, on JKR's and on those of every non-famous, ordinary woman in the street who has been brave enough to post here, sign petitions and turn up to meetings.

My thoughts too @BlueCatRedCat

Just read this - amazingly well-written and a perfect summation of my own views. The issue is not that GC feminists ignore gender or don't believe in it but simply that we know that the barriers posed to women by physical sex must be acknowledged above all else if feminism is to have any real meaning. If you deny the reality of physical sex, you're denying the basis of the oppression of women.

I'm sure Rustin now awaits the usual hate mail, death threats etc for having stated her gender critical views and yet there is nothing hateful in what she says. It's just Beauvoirian feminism, as she puts it, plain and simple.

@BlueCatRedCat

This is face saving at its most brazen. The Guardian have been on the wrong side of history, and they know it. In fact, they have been instrumental in creating the culture of febrile misogyny dressed up as social justice advocacy that every corner of society, politics, medicine, sport and law is now mired in. The jig is up. Great to speak up now, Susanna Rustin, but brave women like Janice Turner have been doing so in the face of hate for much longer. You are riding on her coat tails, on JKR's and on those of every non-famous, ordinary woman in the street who has been brave enough to post here, sign petitions and turn up to meetings. You can sod off.

You are entitled to your view of course, but what a bizarre take on this article. If we are to prevail in our goals to retain women's rights, more people need to look deeply into the issues. More need to start changing their minds. More need to donate to the judicial reviews. More need to start finding the courage to speak up.

Lambasting everyone who wasn't right up there in the first round is counterproductive, and even (dare I say it) a bit purity-spirally.

Fb page comments are interesting. It evidently annoyed a lot of men. One confused woman who seems to think feminists want women to be tied to biological destiny.

Thanks, iguanadonna! The conversations here are wonderful; incisive and clear and argumentative but also courteous and often hilariously funny.

Lambasting everyone who wasn't right up there in the first round is counterproductive

Agree, there's so much more to do, the more supporters, the more sunlight the better.

Could readership numbers have anything to do with it?

The recent article in the Spectator about the Co-op boycott suggested they now sell more copies, albeit weekly, than the Guardian do on a weekday. A centre right magazine is thriving whilst the established left of centre is not. And the same probably applies when looking at Times vs Guardian circulations. Yet we have a Tory PM who is struggling, and a newish Labour Leader with relatively broad appeal.

Why?

I assume we can all point to one reason. Is the Guardian doing the same? Are they brave enough to risk their American subscribers and donors.

singasonga I don't think you can say there has been a mind change at the Guardian, this is one article. It is good to see, but it's not the same as an individual having a mind change (welcome thought that is and I have posted to that effect re Eddie Redmayne).

This is about a media corporation that has thrown women under the bus and until it does more than throw us the occasional crumb, in the hopes we think it's a mega change, I will be agreeing with bluecat

The criticism was of Ruskin, and the comparison was against other female journalists who spoke out earlier. That is unfair and unnecessary, and I repeat that it is getting into the very purity spiral-type behaviour that we often criticise here.

And separately, I am still angry at the Guardian for their betrayal of women, but they weren't always like this and they didn't change to this overnight. This is yet another baby step on their part, but it is good to see it. And we cannot simultaneously laud the Spectator for publishing GC viewports alongside endless misogynist crap in the name of pluralism, but condemn the Guardian for publishing both GC and TRA views. You either want to see debate or you don't.

I really think my issue is the feeling of betrayal. Graun for years and then the big jolt. I agree that getting into a purity spiral isn't helpful but I don't think that's the case. I'm glad the article has been published but there is a culture war at play and it will take some time for the whole debacle to right itself. If the US media suddenly begin to care about the rights of women disappearing down the pan, then the Guardian will change tack. I just feel the US has too much influence right now.

but condemn the Guardian for publishing both GC and TRA views. if only it were that balanced, I would never have left

As for the Spectator, it has always had the misogynist crap stirred in and some of the comments are a sight to behold but I always get stuck in, to give as good as I get. The Spectator works on free speech and 'publish and be damned', it has never taken the moral high ground

The author might have been pitching to write that article for months, for all we know.

Singalong, interesting point.

The Spectator could perhaps be criticised for the absence of gender affirming articles. No media outlet will be all things to all people, and equally no one should expect a publication to dovetail exactly with their views.

That said I am pleased that the Spectator managed to find space for Suzanne Moore, and equally that the Mail found room for Julie Bindel.

I want their voices to be heard, even if it means being alongside less comfortable views. Good now that the Guardian is indicating that it too is willing to allow GC voices. For many feminist writers, and readers, this is their more natural home.