Terf war embroils Guardian HQ | article from The Spectator

[NonnyMouse1337]

www.spectator.co.uk/article/terf-war-embroils-guardian-hq

Mr S hears word that the editorial floors of the Guardian and its Sunday sister the Observer have become riven with tensions over the perennial problem of trans rights. WhatsApp groups are ablaze with talk that Observer commentator Sonia Sodha could become the next feminist hounded out of the group, following Suzanne Moore’s purging in November.

Good recommendation. I could get on board with that. Very much so.

I believe there's an app that lets you subscribe to a big range of magasines (all different publishers) for about £10 per month, so I don't see why there can't be one for newspapers too - unless the issue is ideological rather than technical.

@ArtemesiaK

I wish I had a subscription so I could cancel it! My partner does, but I don't feel that I can ask him (I could tell him, though!).... Is there another newspaper I could recommend to him? He's a feminist ally (he'd better be...)

@ArtemesiaK I’d recommend the FT as more what the Guardian used to be (or is that just me getting old…)

Really,@MoonlightApple? I thought it was just about money!

It certainly has an economic bias but it’s a lot more socialist than I expected when I started reading it. And refreshingly non-hysterical.

I absolutely used to love buying the FT.

It was a perk that I got to read all manner of publications for free most days years ago; but bought the FT, Economist, National Geographic mostly.

More recently: had the similar perks - just less so.

It is always good to read a broad range of publications.

@Random789

I wish newspapers would team up to support a shared subscription platform, where readers could pay a single regular fee in exchange for x articles weekly from the Guardian, y articles weekly from the Times, z articles from the New York Times, etc. Each subscriber could craft their own custom spilt between articles published by participating papers.

I want to support journalism by paying for what I read, but I don't want to throw all my eggs in one basket by supporting one paper and consuming its interpretations only. Neither do I want to pay per click, which would encourage clickbait journalism and outrage-confection.

I want to pay them all, in proportion to how much I use them, for doing their job properly, reporting the facts, providing analysis and not fawning at tribes and echo-chambers.

This would be a very good idea, yes. It might also help to puncture the bubble of agreeing views you tend to receive on social media.

A sympathetic Guardian article yesterday from a less obvious source - Arwa Mahdawi on the rise of the demisexual. (It was one of the most popular articles on the site yesterday.)

www.theguardian.com/society/commentisfree/2021/jul/13/what-does-the-dawn-of-demisexuals-tell-us-how-sex-drenched-society-has-become?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

While Arwa has not been noticeably GC previously, this article gently mocking those who give themselves labels such as demisexual and claim this makes them 'queer', also poignantly pointed out that the young people labelling their sexuality in all these complicated ways to be trendy in most cases were actually having far less sex than previous generations. She pointed out that in a porn-soaked world, many young people were retreating from sex. Worth reading.

Really good article.

North Carolina is among 37 states that have introduced some form of ‘Save Women’s Sports’ legislation that would ban transgender girls and women from playing on school sports teams that don’t reflect their sex at birth. North Carolina’s version targeted transgender girls from kindergarten through high school, though some states have expanded their bills to also include college sports, bucking NCAA transgender protections that have been in place since 2010

www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jul/14/madd
ie-jenifer-north-carolina-transgender-athletes

@zanahoria

North Carolina is among 37 states that have introduced some form of ‘Save Women’s Sports’ legislation that would ban transgender girls and women from playing on school sports teams that don’t reflect their sex at birth. North Carolina’s version targeted transgender girls from kindergarten through high school, though some states have expanded their bills to also include college sports, bucking NCAA transgender protections that have been in place since 2010

www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jul/14/madd
ie-jenifer-north-carolina-transgender-athletes

The link doesn't work anymore...but from the passage you highlighted:

Why is it always framed as 'targeting' and punishing trans people, instead of protecting and upholding the fairness of women's competition?

Also transgender protections? What does that mean? like 'protecting' the feelings of boys who want to unfairly win competitions that were meant for girls?

Yes. It should be reported as "protecting and saving girl's and womens sport".

There are 361 comments on the article:

disqus.com/home/discussion/www-spectator-co-uk/terf_war_embroils_guardian_hq/