Guardian opinion piece supportive of Stock

[Dadalus]

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/13/discussion-women-trans-rights-feminists

This is in the actual Guardian and not the Observer which is usually more GC.

Comments are off currently, sometimes they enable them later in the day but I'd be surprised.

Too little, too late.

I think we should show some respect here for Susanna Rustin's bravery in writing this (it's not the first piece she's done on the topic for the Guardian). Since Suzanne Moore left, she and Hadley Freeman have been holding the fort alone.

I thought it would be Rustin (who has posted GC pieces previously) and it is.

I don't think there is such a thing as too little too late, with this topic. Lots of people are on the side of "trans rights" because they are brainwashed and lied to, or just don't understand the issue because they still think trans people are rare and all post-op, for example. Lots of people are still not aware of the links to fetishism, the funding by big pharma, the homophobia, the predators taking advantage, the medical transing of kids just because they are gay or GNC, etc.

The more all this comes out, the more people will understand and make sense of it all and see why feminists (and increasingly LGB people, police, HCPs etc) have been saying what they have. The Guardian, if it's survived, is unlikely to be left behind in genderwoo land once most people understand what's been going on - especially under an eventual new editor. It's important for all media platforms to consider all the arguments, and be open to change.

Susanna Rustin has always been supportive. She must get a lot of grief at The Guardian. God for her and glad they've printed it.

Sorry, but the guardian need to crawl in to a hole and stay there.

How long before Susanna gets piled on?

I suspect it has taken a lot of persuasion to get this piece published. She doesn’t have a column or regular slot.

@RoyalCorgi

I think we should show some respect here for Susanna Rustin's bravery in writing this (it's not the first piece she's done on the topic for the Guardian). Since Suzanne Moore left, she and Hadley Freeman have been holding the fort alone.

Brave? I guess. But also timid: "for many people, the words “man” and “woman” signify biological sex"; and "I don’t expect most people to agree with the thoughts I have set out above".

Almost all people think "woman" and "man" denote biological sex. And most people outside of the Guardian bubble will agree with the thrust of her article.

The Actual Guardian! This is great. More please!

It's linked on The Guardian's 'Opinion' Twtter.

So far it's just trans-woman Roz Kaveney responding, calling the author Susanna Rustin a bigot;

What Ms. Rustin means is that she wants to feel good about being a bigot and not have to worry about being fash-adjacent.

To which I say Tough Shit.

Earlier Ros wrote;

Some feminists - including those mentioned favourably here - are campaigning to remove those rights

Naturally they didn't provide any evidence of any campaign to remove rights.

I imagine TOJ will be incandescent and will be calling for a mob to visit Ms. Rustin's home address tonight.

More cans of Stella in front of Guardian HQ imminent.

But also timid: "for many people, the words “man” and “woman” signify biological sex"; and "I don’t expect most people to agree with the thoughts I have set out above".

I know what you mean. I think that's the problem with working for the Guardian. She knows most of her colleagues don't agree with her and perhaps she thinks the rest of the world is like the Guardian. Fortunately, it's not.

I agree BaronMunchausen though I appreciate it can't be much fun being GC at the Guardian and good on Susanna for continuing to speak up at all

But I get frustrated that we still pussyfoot around the issues

Support for all single-sex private spaces like changing rooms or hospital wards to become mixed-sex is tiny - once you spell it out in surveys

Also, 'transgender people' covers such a wide range of groups from the lifelong gender dysphoric, the very different male and female cohorts, right through to the genderfluid part-time cross dressers, that the phrase is now utterly meaningless

@secular111

It's linked on The Guardian's 'Opinion' Twtter.

So far it's just trans-woman Roz Kaveney responding, calling the author Susanna Rustin a bigot;

What Ms. Rustin means is that she wants to feel good about being a bigot and not have to worry about being fash-adjacent.

To which I say Tough Shit.

Earlier Ros wrote;

Some feminists - including those mentioned favourably here - are campaigning to remove those rights

Naturally they didn't provide any evidence of any campaign to remove rights.

I imagine TOJ will be incandescent and will be calling for a mob to visit Ms. Rustin's home address tonight.

I see that Kaveney doesn't have a counter-argument but goes right for the ad hominem attack and disinformation.

@RoyalCorgi

But also timid: "for many people, the words “man” and “woman” signify biological sex"; and "I don’t expect most people to agree with the thoughts I have set out above".

I know what you mean. I think that's the problem with working for the Guardian. She knows most of her colleagues don't agree with her and perhaps she thinks the rest of the world is like the Guardian. Fortunately, it's not.

Yes, I thought "I don’t expect most people to agree" was odd. Surely most people think that “man” and “woman” signify biological sex, and most people don't believe that people can change sex. And most people don't think that people with penises belong in women's prisons, refuges or changing rooms.

@AlfonsoTheDinosaur - that’s what the standard TRA approach is, isn’t it? Dishonestly repeating the line that GC views are aligned to hatred and the extreme right. Like that awful Judith butler interview where she had GC feminists in bed with the Proud Boys - like there is some wholly united anti-trans movement to which anyone who deviates from the TRA orthodox line is a part.

Unfortunately, repeating lies works. Think about jkr’s reputation - she is undoubtedly seen as less than ethically squeaky clean now, and none of it derived from digging into the detail of what she said. I even find myself questioning whether I hold GC views because of a bias. Haven’t uncovered it yet, but it shows the power of repeating a line unwaveringly and confidently again and again.

As seen on Twitter. You cannot make

"While I want people to be free to live as they choose, I also believe that human bodies have limits. And I am concerned about the influence on young people of the idea that, with the aid of medical technology, these can be transcended." - Susanna Rustin, who wears spectacles

*cannot make this up

I guess the difference is that SR doesn't pretend the spectacles are her eyes and that she has great eyesight FFS

mobile.twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1448272184791666689

Jess has tweeted it, there is already the predictable responses in her replies

Jo Maugham retweeted a response to the 'human bodies have limits' line which says that we should rip out grandad's pacemaker, because we must never use medical technology. That's a pretty breathtaking straw man right there.

@PronounssheRa

mobile.twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1448272184791666689

Jess has tweeted it, there is already the predictable responses in her replies

So many people mentioning 'denying existence' and 'they don't want us to exist'. Ffs exist how you like but don't invade sex segregated spaces. Wtf.

@WeeBisom

Jo Maugham retweeted a response to the 'human bodies have limits' line which says that we should rip out grandad's pacemaker, because we must never use medical technology. That's a pretty breathtaking straw man right there.

And you'd think being a barrister and all, he would know a shit arguement when one pops in to his head.

Its times like these I feel bitter about white male privilige.

Jo Maugham retweeted a response to the 'human bodies have limits' line which says that we should rip out grandad's pacemaker, because we must never use medical technology.

You know, we use pacemakers precisely because there are limits to our medicine. We can't make people grow a new heart or give them a magic pill to make it better, so we have to resort to an artificial cludge like that.

And if we can't repair someone's heart, how on earth do people think we can make people change sex?

(I figured this out when I was about 12 or 13 and read about a "sex change" and could tell that that did not tally with known medical technology).