The Guardian have upped their game, we’re now Anti-trans for asking for same-sex spaces

[AMCoffeePMWine]

www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/18/dozens-arrested-in-los-angeles-as-anti-trans-protest-outside-spa-turns-violent

“Women carrying signs reading “protect female spaces” and “It’s worse in women’s shelters”. Calls to defend “female spaces” and “women’s shelters” have become rallying cries of anti-trans groups, who have falsely suggested that trans-inclusive policies endanger cis women.”

This, according to the Guardian, is what makes women anti-trans. It’s infuriating. Using “Falsely” to describe women’s experiences of having biological males in female spaces.

All this from one woman saying No to willies waggling in front of women and girls.

Shit! Damn it

I've just taken a look at this year's (2020) Press Awards and The Guardian has done pretty poorly for a total of eight, including joint wins:

1 Joint Winner Fashion Journalist of the Year (shared with The Financial Times)
2 Health Journalist of the Year
3 Political Commentator of the Year
4 Joint Winner Technology Journalist of the Year (shared with Tortoise)
5 Reporting Diversity (a freelancer for The Guardian)
6 Joint Winner Scoop of the Year (shared with The Mirror)
7 Joint Winner Special Supplement of the Year (shared with The Sun) and
8 News Website of the Year.

So, three outright wins, one win for a freelancer and four joint wins. By contrast, The Mail won 10.

The Guardian is now so disappointing. I used to firmly believe they were a source of reliable unbiased news (when reporting news, and not opinion pieces), but lately I’ve been spitting feathers at the falsehoods they put out there.

I do still read, but I unsubscribed some time ago. A PP mentioned that when they see the yellow note on The Guardians site asking for donations, they laugh and continue about their day, which is what I do too. But other PPs have said they won’t give them clicks.

Which of these two options impacts them the most, do you think? In terms of getting the message across that we are just not buying it?

A whole article saying the quiet bit loud. Good. Clear sunlight needed.

This is an explicit stating of the facts discussed here for years: activist requirements are incompatible with women's needs and rights.

Now we've admitted it, let's move onto the only way to meet all needs equally and fairly which is accepting TWATW and creating additional mixed sex spaces and resources.

For anyone who is cancelling subscription to The Guardian, please consider letting them know the reasons why.

When I stopped mine (after buying the paper regularly for over twenty year) the person who recorded my reasons commented that many women had raised similar issues.

Well the guardian is one of the reasons why this previous very socially liberal individual has substantially turned rightwards. Their stance on women's issues (they don't matter) has made me question all sorts of other issues where I would normally have naturally leaned on the same side. It has also pushed me into proselytising on GC issues, one person at the time. They are a disgrace.

November 2018 relevant thread discussing US Guardian employees' reaction to Guardian editorial:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3412692-The-Guardians-US-Staff-are-Revolting

Guardian US Opinion,
'Why we take issue with the Guardian’s stance on trans rights in the UK'
by Sam Levin, Mona Chalabi and Sabrina Siddiqui

"A recent editorial on the Gender Recognition Act in the UK was met with dismay by Guardian US journalists who believe it advanced transphobic viewpoints that are driving attacks on trans rights in America"
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/02/guardian-editorial-response-transgender-rights-uk

In response to the editorial,
'The Guardian view on the Gender Recognition Act: where rights collide'

"It should be possible to advance trans equality without harming the interests of women. But a toxic debate has made it harder"

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/17/the-guardian-view-on-the-gender-recognition-act-where-rights-collide

I think clicks relates to advertising revenue. I guess the articles that get more clicks mean they will also get written about more. Not sure what the answer is, I don’t want to give them clicks, but also I think we should be reading alternative views.

STILLTish article,

15th July 2019
'Why are the Guardian suddenly so woeful on women’s rights?'

(extract)
"Why is the Guardian so woeful on Women’s Rights these days when, arguably, we are facing the biggest attack on our sex based rights in my lifetime? Coverage of Marie Dean was a low point

It was this article which first confused and then outraged me. (You can find more on this case on my blog here.) For the purposes of this article suffice to say it was campaign journalism to facilitate a move of a prisoner to the female estate. What the Guardian did, until shamed by angry readers, was to de-sexualise the nature of the “burglary” and, in effect, disregard any risk to the female prisoners.

It was the above piece that inspired me to do a bit of digging. The Guardian has a history of exposing #DarkMoney & labyrinthine ownership structures, which mask influence or hide money. So this was where I started.

The Guardian itself reports that it has a unique ownership structure. Part of that structure is The Scott Trust. As you can see 👇 the Board of the Trust have ultimate editorial control & power to sack the editor

This is one of The Board members. He is also on the board of The Paul Hamlyn Foundation, which immediately looked familiar.

It was the Paul Hamlyn foundation that caught my eye because I had seen them referred to in the accounts of the Mermaids charity." (continues)

gendercriticalwoman.wordpress.com/2019/07/15/why-are-the-guardian-suddenly-so-woeful-on-womens-rights/

@Blackandwhitehorse

I think clicks relates to advertising revenue. I guess the articles that get more clicks mean they will also get written about more. Not sure what the answer is, I don’t want to give them clicks, but also I think we should be reading alternative views.

A page can be archived and then the link to the archived version shared. Many pages will have already been archived eg US Guardian opinion article linked above archive.fo/xErsq

Editorial
archive.fo/sZqd3

When I stopped mine (after buying the paper regularly for over twenty year) the person who recorded my reasons commented that many women had raised similar issues.

That's interesting.

Great post R0wan
The loss of the Graun to pseudo journalism is so sad (wouldn't stuff my shoes with it now but it was my paper for thirty years)

No, What I am against is prejudice. If there was an incident, then a police report and charges can be laid. American facilities are pretty good with CCTV, so shouldn't be hard to catch the "Perp" if they existed. So far..... well nothing, it seems.

That would be because a male getting their penis out in a spa with naked women and girls is legal in California as long as they say they are a woman too. So no police incident. It's really quite desperate, Mishy. I'm embarrassed for you.

Mumsnet is the home of the #believeher campaign. We believe women when they say they have been sexually assaulted or sexually harassed.

MishyJDI's post can always be relied on to miss the point. It's as reliable as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

It's a lame attempt to deflect from the point.

Ereshkigalangcleg
I can't remember the specifics of the straw that broke the camel's back for me in 2018 but I phoned through and the person I spoke to recorded the reasons for my cancelled subscription. She was also interested to know that I had (for the first time ever) taken subscriptions for The Times and Spectator purely for their more balanced/accurate reporting of the implications of proposed changes to the GRA.

How can safeguarding be inclusive if, by definition, it includes sexual offenders? To be inclusive you include everyone or you exclude people. It can't be Schrodinger's safeguarding.

Quite. Just like Schrodingers penis - it wasn't there because that would be a police incident and they wouldn't be able to get away with it, but simultaneously it was and you shouldn't be looking, and it's completely fine for it to be there, bigot.

"Why would they put a dress on and pretend to be trans to commit a crime?"

Being trans or pretending to be trans is completely irrelevant. There is no objective definition of trans. All that is suggested is that people should use facilities where they feel most comfortable, regardless of sex.

It’s surprising that you seem to visit this board regularly but haven’t realised that your definition of trans has been rendered obsolete.

[quote R0wantrees]November 2018 relevant thread discussing US Guardian employees' reaction to Guardian editorial:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3412692-The-Guardians-US-Staff-are-Revolting

Guardian US Opinion,
'Why we take issue with the Guardian’s stance on trans rights in the UK'
by Sam Levin, Mona Chalabi and Sabrina Siddiqui

"A recent editorial on the Gender Recognition Act in the UK was met with dismay by Guardian US journalists who believe it advanced transphobic viewpoints that are driving attacks on trans rights in America"
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/02/guardian-editorial-response-transgender-rights-uk

In response to the editorial,
'The Guardian view on the Gender Recognition Act: where rights collide'

"It should be possible to advance trans equality without harming the interests of women. But a toxic debate has made it harder"

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/17/the-guardian-view-on-the-gender-recognition-act-where-rights-collide[/quote]
Sam Levin again there I see. Has form for presenting editorialising as reporting.

“...a policy that could cost lives and prevent millions of Americans from existing in public spaces”

Interesting R0wan and they keep calling their journalism independent and this from their website Our independent ownership structure means we are entirely free from political and commercial influence. Only our values determine the stories we choose to cover – relentlessly and courageously. mmmmmmm

“Existing in public spaces” apart from smiting it’s such embarrassingly juvenile writing! Unless sam has discovered physics of which im unaware, people exist in public spaces by dint of being a mass occupying space & time

Trans ppl don’t suddenly become invisible if people don’t give them what they want

Sam Levin again there I see. Has form for presenting editorialising as reporting.

As Helen Joyce points out, this kind of reporting helps no-one.

What’s the point of sending reporters to ‘fly over America’ to find out why people won’t vote Democrat if you can’t be bothered to report accurately on what people think in California?

If a man or anyone seeks to abuse women and children, there is little stopping them entering a toilet or changing room now.

Yes. We know. That is what we are protesting about. Do keep up!

Mishy
If a man or anyone seeks to abuse women and children, there is little stopping them entering a toilet or changing room now.

Why would they put a dress on and pretend to be trans to commit a crime?

If anyone, of whatever gender or sex commits a crime or abuse, they can be challenged and brought to justice. Creating fear over trans and other minorities because they are different is just so wrong in my opinion.

^^
This is completely wrong. Studies clearly show that women and children encounter much higher levels of sexual abuse in spaces where there are male bodies. Unisex spaces time and time again show higher rates of assault. In fact around 90% of changing room complaints around sexual assault, harassment or voyeurism take place in unisex facilities.

Interestingly 41% of male bodied transwomen in prison are registered sex offenders. Some sex offenders start transition in prison.

There is very little justice for women and children who are abused, the statistics show that almost 1% of reported rapes are prosecuted in England and Wales.

If a man or anyone seeks to abuse women and children, there is little stopping them entering a toilet or changing room now.

It strikes me that this disingenuous argument is another example of TRAs thinking women are NPCs with no agency or inner life. There's quite a lot women can do to get rid of a man who comes into a women's changing room if he's not allowed to be there, ranging from yelling at him to calling the management or even the police, to ganging up together to shame him out of there.

None of those options exist any more if the man is allowed to be there, or even worse, could have you charged with a hate crime for saying he isn't allowed to be there and calling the police on him.

But I think the TRAs genuinely don't understand that we're people so they don't understand that women don't just stand around dumbly waiting to be assaulted when an obviously dangerous man enters our space.

Do let us go over these things again and again Mishy, for any interested lurkers. Sunlight is good.