Just want to make a couple or three points.
Of course the Guardian didn't fact check. They seem to think that this issue is all about emotions and this writer is one they constantly employ when wanting to create sympathy after there has been some small or signigicant step forward for women's sex based rights. They always too it. The writier is a useful tool. If the Guardian was concerned about "facts" they would upublish an alternative view. But they never do. The content of the article is immaterial. The Guardian is determined to show it isn't about anything as significant as an attack on women's rights, its just about being kind.
re lesbians mothers and custody I wrote about this on another thread were someone who (presumably "learnt" feminism at a university) was wittering on about 70s feminism being marxist and about equal rights on economic terms. I was pointing out the 70s feminism, ie Women's Liberation was very much about sharing through consciousness raising groups common experiences of oppression and discrimination. Which very quickly let to a widely held believe that it was men as individual and men as a class. Apart from political campaigns and actual practicla feminism (which is what radical feminism is) eg setting up refuges and rape crisis centres, the really big impact was on women's own lives. That they recognised the pressure of conforming to accepted standards means that had got married and had children without every thinking what about my own life. (Think the Women's Room one of the most influential books rather than an theoretical one.) Women left marriages and tried to keep their children. Women left marriages and started lesbian relationships and tried to keep their children. This last would always be used in court as justification for the man to have custody. (Not forgetting that in France for instance, women who so contravened the accepted standards of femininity could find themselves sectioned.) I dont think some realise how much things have changed, at least on the level of a more, though not universal, acceptance of same sex partnerships and parenting.
My third point is that going back to Queen Victoria apparently not believing women could be lesbian, there were never laws against lesbian relationships or directed at lesbians as there were against gay men.
And just remembered that when I was growing up there was always the suspicion that if a woman volunteered to be a guide leader (or whatever they were called) there would always be a bit of a snigger that the girls should watch out. But I think what was perhaps even more alarming is that then the view that anyone wanting to be near children did it for some predatory reason was somehow more about they wouldn't be able to control themselves, but no one ever talked about keeping children safe. I think that too has changed.
But to go back to my original point I really dont think it is worth the time looking at these type of articles in depth. In a way that helps them tie as down into the same arguements.
But just keep a count of the articles that give the voice to one side.
eg the one I mentioned yesterday and of course the infamous I may be a trustee of a famous women's organisation but the most important thing it to be kind to trans women, not to stand up for women's rights.
In terms of the overall battle we shouldn't get sucked into these silly side shows(*). But we do need to hold the media to account for not providing balanced coverage. eg as of yesterday only the DM had covered the Sonia Applyby court case.
(*) Sometimes it feels like they print these because they know FWR will bite the hook and then we all pile in and restate over and over again how bad / unfair / biased the article is and they just sit there laughing in the offices at how easy it is to get us all frothing and the mouth and caught up is dissecting something they never put any effort into, and is just about virtue signalling.