Another day, another complaint to the Guardian

[Misiecle]

This is the third complaint I've made on trans issues coverage in the last month.

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/07/montana-transgender-student-athletes-ban-bill - article states: "Supporters of the sports bills have said that they will ensure the playing field in girls’ sports remains fair. But there is no research suggesting that trans girls have an unfair advantage in school sports."

(Article quotes the 2017 review Sport and Transgender People: A Systematic Review of the Literature Relating to Sport Participation and Competitive Sport Policies pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27699698/)

I've pointed out that there is a lot of research showing just this (quoting the Sex Matters website).

Feeling a bit down about the need to fight. And should I give up the subscription? Or keep it in the hope it gives me a bit of leverage?

I understand where you're coming from, NotBad but I increasingly look at bylines on articles to see if I trust the journalist. I am immensely sceptical about anything that comes out of the Guardian US or Australia offices, but there are other journalists there who I trust and respect. Similarly in the Mail I wouldn't bother with anything by Amanda Platell or Sarah Vine (who are columnists, in any case, rather than news reporters) but I think Sanchez Manning of the Mail on Sunday is excellent.

It's quite funny that every time I now go to the Guardian site it tells me how many articles I've read that year (350 apparently) before asking me for money. They had my money for years, but now I choose to spend it elsewhere.

@Skyliner001

You'd probably feel more at home with the Daily Mail OP 😊

Because anyone gender critical has to be a right wing bigot?

Don't be so rude.

In terms of complaints, the Guardian used to be signed up to the Press Complaints Commission, but they now mark their own homework.

A consequence of this is that they don't feel the need to respond to complaints: the editor "reserves the right not to consider complaints from anyone not personally and directly affected by the matter which forms the subject of the complaint".

I've complained a few times to the Guardian about factual inaccuracies, no amount of following up or reminding could elicit a reply.

This stonewalling (!) of complaints has most likely contributed to its solipsistic outlook and ideological drift.

It’s funny how those who throw accusations at people for reading the Daily Mail never ask themselves why the left wing press hates women so much.

If the 'Guardian staff and agencies' had even bothered to look at the responses to the paper the article links to, they'd have seen research that did more than "suggest" an advantage.

But that would not have met ideological requirements.

research.tees.ac.uk/en/publications/comment-on-sport-and-transgender-people-a-systematic-review-of-th

www.usapowerlifting.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/USAPL-TUE-Committee-Powerpoint-Report-2019.pdf

@peadarm

In terms of complaints, the Guardian used to be signed up to the Press Complaints Commission, but they now mark their own homework.

A consequence of this is that they don't feel the need to respond to complaints: the editor "reserves the right not to consider complaints from anyone not personally and directly affected by the matter which forms the subject of the complaint".

I've complained a few times to the Guardian about factual inaccuracies, no amount of following up or reminding could elicit a reply.

This stonewalling (!) of complaints has most likely contributed to its solipsistic outlook and ideological drift.

Interesting. Most of the UK press, including the big names, are signed up to IPSO, but not the Guardian, which given the youth and inexperience of its readership is particularly worrying. I notice Pink News isn't either.

But there is no research suggesting that trans girls have an unfair advantage in school sports

Even without knowing the specifics of how much advantage going through a male puberty confers throughout a lifetime, there is a significant difference which is not often talked about.

Elite Sportswomen - like elite sportsmen - have to work so hard to maximise their athletic potential, putting hours into training, diet, psychology, understanding their bodies, menstrual cycle etc to push their female body to the absolute maximum.

On the other hand, elite TW athletes (and those with male DSDs) are being asked to take hormones/drugs to minimise their athletic potential. Be 'less good' than they naturally are.

They can also be significantly older - decades even - than their natal female opponents and still be contenders as they are no longer at their male physical peak.

These male athletes are required to have lower testosterone levels to prove they are now so 'bad' at sports that they can (potentially) be beaten by women.

Having said that, is there any evidence that the male teenage runners in girls' races in America are even using blockers/cross sex hormones or are they just easing off in some races?

It’s the antithesis of all other elite sport where athletes are pushing their physical bodies to the absolute limits - and so very disrespectful to the female athletes - as the message is: 'Be (quite a bit) worse than you have the potential to be - and minimise rather than maximise your performance - and you can still win'.

Grew up with The Guardian and loved and bought for years but felt a sea change after Cologne. So disappointed by Katherine Viner's instincts as editor, I now probably wouldn't bother picking it up for 'free' with a Waitrose shop if it was the last paper left...

@Skyliner001

You'd probably feel more at home with the Daily Mail OP 😊

I can't even begin with this. Where are we, the fucking playground at Political Purity Community College? Although - ironically - the Daily Mail hates women as well, at least it knows its audience, something the Guardian is struggling with. Never underestimate the sophistication of newspapers or their readers.

Feel similarly conflicted over the Guardian, and there are enough glimmers of hope to keep me reading. They do print corrections as a pp said, and 'NO evidence' is factually inaccurate but they are covering themselves by having a quote say it, and not balancing the quote with reality.
However, it's so nonsensical to say that we need to separate sports by sex, but quote a source saying males who identify as trans don't have an advantage. Nonsensical to the point I hope that it is intended as more sunlight - surely they know that most readers will fill in the gaps with logic? In the way that referring to a transwoman sex offender as 'she' but then including a photo gets the message across.

Very interested to hear where Glinner is going with this...

Yeah, the claim the people in question don't have an advantage is pretty suspect, given we know that they are not taking any kinds of hormones or blockers. They literally are males who identify as girls.

So does the Guardian believe that males have no advantage in sport generally? Or only if they are somehow trans identified?