Longer, balanced Guardian article

[InvisibleDragon]

Longer article about Stonewall and gender identity in the Guardian today:
www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jun/05/stonewall-trans-debate-toxic-gender-identity?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

I'm quite impressed - coverage of the Essex review and Stonewall misinterpreting the law, plus long quotes from Kathleen Stock. Big change from their usual line.

Peter Tatchell is unfortunately prominent and gets a closing remark:

You cannot base trans policies on the actions of a handful of bad apples. That would be grossly unfair to the vast majority of trans women who never have, and never will, pose a threat to other women.

But even thus is good. A few bad apples is a long way from "this never happens" and opens the door to robust discussions about how safeguarding is supposed to work.

Anyhow, these are people we are talking about. Treat everyone how they are and how you would like to be treated - with respect and equality.

You are trying to be funny are you MishyJDI? That statement is a bit rich.

I'm not getting too excited. Notice how the Guardian quotes the same people repeating the same old distortions, without question.

In the newspaper itself (replaced by a different quote in the online version), Peter Tatchell says Many trans-critical feminists demonise all trans women as predators and an existential threat to women. This is as wrong as demonising all Muslims for the terror attacks of a tiny unrepresentative minority.

How many times do we have to repeat that we don't demonise all trans women as predators and an existential threat to women?

Obviously feminists have a variety of opinions. But most of us object to the presence of male-bodied people in women's and girls' spaces because any single one could be a predator. Or because, for many women and girls, the presence of even the most harmless man in a place where we are undressing causes stress and discomfort -- worse for many women in whom it cold trigger a panic reaction.

And despite Tatchell's stated concern for Muslims, he doesn't mind the presence of male-bodied people excluding Muslim women from swimming pools, gyms etc. Maybe female Muslims don't count.

We have always had the right to single-sex spaces, and no one asked if we minded giving that up.

Of Akua Reindorf's independent report into Essex University, the Guardian says Stonewall appeared not to have picked up on the university’s “incorrect summary of the law”. That makes it sound as if it was the university's misinterpretation, whereas the university was following the guidelines given by Stonewall!

Reindorf said the mistake was that the policy said “gender identity or trans status” are protected under the law, whereas it is only gender reassignment that is protected. Yes, a massive "mistake"' that, by also ignoring women's protection under the Equality Act, effectively removes women's right to single-sex spaces!

Sorry about the exclamation marks. It's just breathtaking that Stonewall's Nancy Kelley has the cheek to say the distinction was semantics. And even worse that the Guardian reporter didn't pick her up on that.

Given that so little has been written about the issue n the Guardian and given the obvious forces there pulling in the opposite direction or at least hoping no one will touch the SW clangers, then it might be that the reporter is only just getting to grips with the issues. I know for very many the guardian is a lost cause but equally the DM and DT are speaking to the converted. The centre left and beyond will still get their steer from the Guardian and vice versa. All valid criticism above may find more receptive desks and ears from guardian journalists than they did before. There are GC people - the usual suspects - and I guess they are hoping that the two pieces today are real movement to more appearing. What was once no debate and no coverage seems to have moved to coverage at least

ThinkingaboutLangCleg - cracking post. And the question I ask is this: are Peter Tatchell and so really so stupid that they believe the gender critical position is to "demonise all trans women as predators"? Or do they know that it's a lie and just repeat it anyway? Because god only knows we have said over and over again that the reason for excluding trans women is because they are men, and we exclude men legitimately not because they are all predators but because some might be.

My hunch is that they're knowingly lying.

Thanks, RoyalCorgi. Peter Tatchell used to be one of my heroes. He's an intelligent man and I believe he understands the issues. So it's painful to hear him repeating anti-women statements that he cannot believe to be true.

As for why any veteran gay-rights campaigner would still support Stonewall, which is now actively hostile to lesbians -- I suppose queer politics is more important to them than the rights of lesbians, who after all are only women.