Guardian Article

[RaymondSpectacles]

www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/27/reasons-to-be-hopeful

Refers to women receiving an experimental HIV vaccine as 'cisgender women'. It's just tautology, isn't it?

Ugh!
I thought, fair enough they only say it once, the rest of the time it's just "women" but that once basically links itself to every other time the word "woman" is used in the article, implying that the word "woman/women" means a male person unless you specifically say that word.
No, it doesn't!

I've complained to the readers' editor!

The term ‘cisgender women’ in an article (Reasons To Be Hopeful in 2021, 27.12.2020) about women who are receiving potentially life-saving treatment to prevent HIV infection in South Africa is, firstly, tautological, and secondly, highly offensive to women. Clear use of language when discussing female biology and medical treatment is of utmost importance in upholding the safety of women.

Did they check all were cisgender or assume?
What was the basis of excluding none cisgender women?
Or by cisgender do they simply mean female women ?

Reason to be hopeful from the guardian - participants in important medical sexed-based research is actually based on gender identity. We know many people who categorise identify as ‘cisgender’ women who aren’t women. Not a reason to be hopeful.

In fairness to the article, the word woman was used more frequently. Would be interesting to see if ‘cisgender’ was reported in the actual academic paper or whether the guardian, as usual, just can’t help themselves.

Ex guardian reader here.

Is the readers editor still that chap called Ian something?

Please let us know if you get a response.

(Their style guide has nothing to say about the conflation of sex and gender.)

I just don't understand why the distinction is needed. It doesn't illuminate the issue, it clarifies nothing.

Also transphobic , as transmen and non binary people with female bodies are also vulnerable to HIV just like other females.

Well exactly. Were transmen excluded from this research?

I think this is it here.

www.hptn.org/research/studies/hptn084#views-field-field-public-files

HPTN 084 will enroll approximately 3,200 women 18 to 45 years old in sub-Saharan Africa who are at risk for acquiring HIV.

No cis to be seen here. Looks like the guardian is changing the eligibility criteria.

So a fair bit of editorialising from the Guardian, lest they be accused of transphobia.

Perhaps the Guardian and the Observer could explain why one of their columnists criticizes the Lib Dems for one kind of anti-scientific bullshit (Nick Cohen on Bath Lib Dem councillors and MP supporting a group which opposes the construction of a 5G mast) but the papers agree with the Lib Dems on the humans changing sex anti-scientific bullshit.

Cognitive dissonance much.

There's another frustrating Guardian article today supporting the use of 'Karen' as an insult. Claims it's only used for racist women. That's not true and the Guardian should know it.

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/27/karen-race-white-women-black-americans-racism

From the background and rationale of the trial's protocol:

This study has a similar design to an efficacy study in HIV-uninfected men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women (TGW) (HPTN 083) and will provide complementary information on uptake, usage and efficacy of CAB LA vs. daily oral TDF/FTC in HIV-uninfected women to be submitted as a single package for licensure of CAB LA for HIV prevention.

Because it looks like sex differences are rather important and very properly appropriate for analysis:

In women, pharmacokinetic (PK) studies have indicated significantly lower concentrations of TFV-diphosphate (TFV-DP) in vaginal than rectal tissues,16,17 suggesting that adherence for women will need to be more consistent than for MSM.

According to the Guardian's style guide, you're only supposed to use "cisgender" when comparing the experiences of trans people with people who aren't trans. So it's completely unnecessary in this article. That's quite aside from the fact that lots of women hate it, which I don't suppose the Guardian cares about very much.

NotTerf - that article about the "Karen" meme is vile. Just when I thought I couldn't hate the Guardian more...

Mildly amused by the point of carefully selecting only females who perform femininity and identify with sexist stereotypes furthering their own oppression to test a lifesaving medical treatment.

"I'm sorry Mrs Jones, but you have short hair, you're wearing trousers and have dropped in from your spot welding hobby group.... this medication would definitely not work for you."

There's another frustrating Guardian article today supporting the use of 'Karen' as an insult. Claims it's only used for racist women. That's not true and the Guardian should know it.

Appalling journalism - to be expected.

A white man - a policeman - killed George Floyd. Blame all white men? No. Blame all policeman - whatever their ethnicity? No. Let’s blame the women.

I have no idea about the ‘Karen’ example given - but I am far more aware of the presence of men around me when I am alone than my DH because I am a petite woman with no physical ability to defend myself against any man.

Fuck you Guardian.

@RoyalCorgi

According to the Guardian's style guide, you're only supposed to use "cisgender" when comparing the experiences of trans people with people who aren't trans. So it's completely unnecessary in this article. That's quite aside from the fact that lots of women hate it, which I don't suppose the Guardian cares about very much.

It's ridiculous to even have the word in the style guide. The vast majority of women probably don't identify as anything. If you're not a believer, "cisgender" is just an unwanted nonsensical label. The Guardian is now beyond parody.

The Guardian have really gone down the rabbit hole of identity politics.

Or by cisgender do they simply mean female women ?

They do.

The Other Side are all about words creating reality, so to understand reality we must analyse the usage of words. Out in the wild, not chained and dead in a dictionary.

The people who use 'cis' and 'trans' to denote the two subgroups of 'woman' are extremely consistent in their usage. Pick any thread you like on the topic, and see for yourself; it's really quite striking.

When it precedes 'woman', the 'cis' prefix is used for those born female; the 'trans' prefix is only used for those born male.

In a perfect mirror, when the following noun is 'man', 'cis' denotes those born male, and 'trans' those born female.

Whatever the dictionary, the doctors, the activists, the shouty twats on twitter, or anyone else may say, in the shared social reality we create with our words, 'cis' and 'trans' function to indicate sex.

That's how they're used. And we're always being told: definition is determined by usage.

Wow, that Karen article is dreadful. I thought these people believed in intersectionality, ie implying they get oppression has many axes?

Does this women actually think that white women are de facto oppressors? Does she never stop to think why the meme is about a Karen and not, say, a Keith, and why the Keiths have got off scot free in the apportioning of blame?

@EmbarrassingAdmissions

From the background and rationale of the trial's protocol:

This study has a similar design to an efficacy study in HIV-uninfected men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women (TGW) (HPTN 083) and will provide complementary information on uptake, usage and efficacy of CAB LA vs. daily oral TDF/FTC in HIV-uninfected women to be submitted as a single package for licensure of CAB LA for HIV prevention.

Because it looks like sex differences are rather important and very properly appropriate for analysis:

In women, pharmacokinetic (PK) studies have indicated significantly lower concentrations of TFV-diphosphate (TFV-DP) in vaginal than rectal tissues,16,17 suggesting that adherence for women will need to be more consistent than for MSM.

Exactly, it is very important to differentiate. Generally we tend to to not be included in HIV trials so great that this is happening. Hoping for good things from injectables for prevention and treatment. Thanks for the link OP

So did the scientists recruit female people who self ID as women.. why was that relevant for this trial?

Oh it wasn't and they didn't. The guardian made it up.

I thought you weren't supposed to assume people's genders? How do the guardian know how all the women in the trial felt inside about their gender id?

I’ve read the Guardian religiously for 30 years. I’ve had enough of their anti-women bullshit.

Just discussed with DH and we’re agreed - 2021 is the year for no more Guardian in our house.

@FamilyOfAliens

I’ve read the Guardian religiously for 30 years. I’ve had enough of their anti-women bullshit.

Just discussed with DH and we’re agreed - 2021 is the year for no more Guardian in our house.

We have managed for about four years now.

It was very easy.