The Times is now turning off comments on all 'gender' articles

[MiladyBerserko]

The Times continue to cover this issue but now turn off comments on all 'gender' related articles. They do not turn off reader comments on any other topic, except where there is an open legal issue.

I am beyond frustrated with this. The Guardian nailed their colours to the 'Transwomen are women' mast a long time ago and disallow comments.

Now The Times seemingly cannot / will not allow reader feedback.

What is it about this issue that makes organisations run scared?

My comment was published, then all comments turned off, it was...

There are transexual adults, the concept of a transexual child is like a vegan cat. Children might be confused about their sexuality or how they fit in with peer groups, they might like toys stereotypically associated with the opposite sex and that’s fine. They don’t need to be lied to that they can be the opposite sex.’

@happydappy2

I've received a reply from The Times

Please be advised that if you posted a comment on an article and it has immediately disappeared, the article is likely being pre-moderated, which means that any comment posted will go into our moderation queue before being published. We set comments to pre-moderation on articles that are legally sensitive or attract a high number of comments which may contravene our community guidelines.

However, if your comment is published and subsequently disappears, it may have been flagged and removed for violating our community guidelines. These guidelines can be found by clicking here. Please be advised that there are children and young adults who identify as trans, and this comment therefore does include language that might upset or offend others, which may be why your comment has been removed on this occasion.

Just so you know, we do try to keep comments sections active on as many stories as possible. However, we do sometimes deactivate them for legal reasons (for example, because the story mentions an ongoing court case). Our newspaper and its comments sections are held to press standards outlined by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

"Please be advised that there are children and young adults who identify as trans, and this comment therefore does include language that might upset or offend others"

So that's it then. The Times editorial team have decided that children - children - ! - can be trans and that's ok. And need to be protected from feminists. ! All those dozens of articles written by Janice Turner, Sarah Ditum and yes, Debbie Hayton, concerned about providing puberty blockers to teenagers. And the Times editorial staff talk about TRANS CHILDREN as if they need protecting from women who are trying to protect them?

I really don't bloody understand this. Can anyone, anyone find out what's going on? Julie Bindel? Debbie Hayton? Suzanne Moore? @glinner?

Midcenturycleggs my comment was under the article in the Scottish section on Sunday entitled 'Scottish governments gender recognition reform, why gender identity is a disaster for our children.'
So they will acknowledge it is problematic for children, yet do not wish to offend (I assume) grown men who wish to believe they have changed sex.

Keep complaining to the editor and posting under other articles.

One thousand six hundred virtually all pro-JKR comments so far, now the Times comments are back on. They seem to be going straight in. Plenty of men.

All anti Starmer, some suggesting others they would vote for but being promptly informed the policy is shared by all but ... (unspeakable).... Tories.

Someone just suggested a pro-woman party for Scotland, as there's nobody to vote for at the moment but, crucially, Scotland has P.R.

P.S. What a dire betrayal Sandi Tokstig's so called 'women's party' was.

Well indeed. What has happened to the Women's Equality Party?

Let's hear their unequivocal statement now too, for all the world to hear.

One thousand six hundred virtually all pro-JKR comments so far

Someone call the cops. It's wall-to-wall hate crime over there!!

@MiladyBerserko

Well indeed. What has happened to the Women's Equality Party?

Let's hear their unequivocal statement now too, for all the world to hear.

I don't remember (or wish to) the details, but it was pretty much the extremist wing of SW Erin Pizzey pioneered refuges, then in old age became more captured than a medieval prisoner in the tower.

@ResisterRex

One thousand six hundred virtually all pro-JKR comments so far

Someone call the cops. It's wall-to-wall hate crime over there!!

Well that was an hour ago. Now, one thousand seven hundred.

Barely any contrary views. Almost all are variations of Kier hating, Labour membership cancelling, Rowling admiring G.C's.

I wonder whether Kier Starmer gets any feedback on these comments posted in The Times, and what he thinks! Does he think they are unrepresentative of potential Labour voters?

I think it's because, by now, the message has hit home and is well established: that, though there's 1 or so transwomen to every 40 natal women, the presence of that one transwoman (in a toilet, changing room or sport) is all it takes to oppress all the natal women around her. That is how powerful and mighty having a penis and testicles (or once having a penis and testicles) truly is. I think all of us here on Mumsnet have made our point: that's how delicate and fragile we are, when confronted by the mightiness of penises and testicles (or indeed penises and testicles that were once there, but have now been removed).

I think this is actually cause for celebration: We GC women have, at last, proven just how equal we are, by hammering home just how much the merest whisper maleness, or even the ghost of it, oppresses us. :) God bless J K Rowling and her superbly-applied make up and lipstick! :)

@Ides

I think it's because, by now, the message has hit home and is well established: that, though there's 1 or so transwomen to every 40 natal women, the presence of that one transwoman (in a toilet, changing room or sport) is all it takes to oppress all the natal women around her. That is how powerful and mighty having a penis and testicles (or once having a penis and testicles) truly is. I think all of us here on Mumsnet have made our point: that's how delicate and fragile we are, when confronted by the mightiness of penises and testicles (or indeed penises and testicles that were once there, but have now been removed).

I think this is actually cause for celebration: We GC women have, at last, proven just how equal we are, by hammering home just how much the merest whisper maleness, or even the ghost of it, oppresses us. :) God bless J K Rowling and her superbly-applied make up and lipstick! :)

Oh what rot. Not sure why you wasted the time typing all of this stuff out - because you know that it’s either disingenuous and mendacious, or it’s just outright stupidity.

Either you genuinely can’t really understand the issue, or you’re making this caricatured nonsense up that you know perfectly well is complete shite. So come on, which one is it?

I think we should all have a virtual hug, and weep softly amongst ourselves at how our message that we're all so weak in the presence of penises and testicles has finally been accepted! Shall well do that on, say, this coming Friday, at 6 pm? :)

The accusation always seems to be that those with GC views are 'obsessed with genitals' but comments made by Ides always contain an extraordinary number of references to dick and balls.

More seriously Ides, your comments show a startling lack of empathy for those who feel threatened by the presence of 'dick and balls' because of previous trauma. It just shows yet again how gender ideology is the epitome of a luxury belief.

Posts making fun of rape and sexual assault of women? That's a bit grim Ides.

@Ides

I think we should all have a virtual hug, and weep softly amongst ourselves at how our message that we're all so weak in the presence of penises and testicles has finally been accepted! Shall well do that on, say, this coming Friday, at 6 pm? :)

Do you have any empathy for the six year old girl confronted with a penis is in the Wii Spa in California?

If there were your imaginary 40 women with one naked male we would eject him. As you well know.

Most changing rooms are only a few women at a time. Mothers with their daughters in an open gym changing room are unable to eject a man. Nor would teenage girls in an open pool changing room.

It’s about girls and women being confident in going into the loos and not being confronted by a male. Because we have been brought up to avoid males, especially in vulnerable situations like changing rooms.

If you change that dynamic you put girls in danger. Most trans women, know this and have respect to not be a dick about it.

It is Ides’ single track that is playing over and over different threads. It is not just snide and snark, this are posts showing hate for women’s needs for safety and privacy. Remarkable to see such hatred for women in plain sight.

I think you will find Ides has disproportionately more sympathy for their transitioned male friend (and possibility any other male from the way their posts come across lately) than for any woman who needs space away from any male.

The monstering that these posts have taken on is remarkable .

@Ides

I think it's because, by now, the message has hit home and is well established: that, though there's 1 or so transwomen to every 40 natal women, the presence of that one transwoman (in a toilet, changing room or sport) is all it takes to oppress all the natal women around her. That is how powerful and mighty having a penis and testicles (or once having a penis and testicles) truly is. I think all of us here on Mumsnet have made our point: that's how delicate and fragile we are, when confronted by the mightiness of penises and testicles (or indeed penises and testicles that were once there, but have now been removed).

I think this is actually cause for celebration: We GC women have, at last, proven just how equal we are, by hammering home just how much the merest whisper maleness, or even the ghost of it, oppresses us. :) God bless J K Rowling and her superbly-applied make up and lipstick! :)

What a ridiculous comment

@Ides

I think we should all have a virtual hug, and weep softly amongst ourselves at how our message that we're all so weak in the presence of penises and testicles has finally been accepted! Shall well do that on, say, this coming Friday, at 6 pm? :)

Ides you can be a rape apologist in far fewer words. Save your wrist strength for something else.

[quote OvaHere]Perhaps we could use this thread to signpost each day which comment section is being used that day to discuss the articles where comments aren't allowed. Ridiculous I know.

I've found some comments about the Starmer article on this piece about the cultural boycott of Russia.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-is-a-war-so-dont-dance-with-the-enemy-sjktzf9nl[/quote]
I like this idea and would be happy to join in.

If this continues I may be switching papers despite the excellent Janice Turner.

Switching to the Spectator or the Telegraph will involve holding my nose before taking that plunge. But if the Times no longer want to let Females have a public voice then they have become the misogynistic paper that the Guardian is. Remember last year or the year before when the Guardian had to sack 300 staff at the same time the Spectator were hiring. I don't think the Times will be heading the same way any soon but when the sex gender debate becomes more out in the open as it is rapidly then they will be remembered for censoring women's voices. I do feel incredibly sorry for Janice Turner as I think she'll be joining Suzanne Moore soon.

PankhurstConnection MarlboroWoman
Since the thread was started, The Times has changed its position, and has opened comments. There are now around 1.8K comments under the JK Rowling article, the absolute stonking majority in support of her. I doubt that Janice Turner will feel the need to leave.

@Gastonia

PankhurstConnection MarlboroWoman Since the thread was started, The Times has changed its position, and has opened comments. There are now around 1.8K comments under the JK Rowling article, the absolute stonking majority in support of her. I doubt that Janice Turner will feel the need to leave.

I saw that after I posted - I hope it continues.

One thousand eight hundred people almost without exception can tell the difference:

There is always a risk to women, of being raped or killed, by men.

There may sometimes be a risk to men, of being spoken to 'unkindly', by men.