Guardian doubles down on 'gender affirming'

[thinkingaboutLangCleg]

The Guardian excelled itself today, in its efforts to prevent gender-questioning people having access to independent counselling that won't just usher them on to drugs and surgery.

The issue filled an entire double-page spread in the main paper. Three detailed news stories covered the government's recent decision to ban gay but not trans 'conversion therapy', and feminists trying to 'weaponise' gender identity.

The message throughout was that anyone wanting to give confused young people access to other information was anti-progress and anti-trans. There was barely a sprinkling of quotes from other viewpoints.

www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/01/conversion-practices-u-turns-set-tories-back-25-years-with-lgbt-community

www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/01/gay-and-trans-rights-issues-divide-both-tories-and-labour

www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/01/what-are-lgbtq-conversion-practices-and-why-is-there-a-push-to-ban-them

A long Opinion piece in another section by Jayne Ozanne, founder of the Ban Conversion Therapy coalition, pushed the same message.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/01/ban-conversion-practices-trans-people-lesbian-gay-people

Yes I saw this online. How sad for the Guardian that it has settled for selling the snake oil.

From Manchester to the coffee lounges of shit humanities departments in the north-eastern and west coast US. Heartbreaking.

It's becoming desperate really.

It seems so undeniably obvious that gender ideology and it's proponents are funded by pharmaceutical and drug companies.

No one, literally no one could possibly support forcing children into a lifetime of drug dependency and health problems (requiring further drug dependency) and surgery on top of that.
Unless you're in it for the $.

And it is the paper read by younger people, because it's free.

I'm not sure young people read papers to be fair.

It's adults reading the paper and enforcing their religion onto the vulnerable minds and bodies of children.
The Guardian is directly responsible for pushing this ideology. What is the relationship with Stonewall and the Guardian?

What is the relationship with Stonewall and the Guardian?

Oooh good question….

The sooner this rag goes under, the better.

The sooner this rag goes under, the better.

It will never go bust. It's owned by a trust which has an investment fund of £1BN, the profits of which subsidise the Guardian. It also solicits donations from wealthy US political backers- hence the focus on pushing ideas popular amongst the US left. It's been run at a loss for many years.

My partner often makes comments on the Grauniad. Whenever he tries to get something regarding women's rights on, it's almost instantly deleted and all his future posts get "pre-moderated".

@luciatrope

My partner often makes comments on the Grauniad. Whenever he tries to get something regarding women's rights on, it's almost instantly deleted and all his future posts get "pre-moderated".

Yes, I was having the same trouble. I was a long-term commenter, always under the same name. My comments were courteous and never broke The Guardian's supposed rules -- aggressive or abusive etc. Any links I put were always to reputable research.

A few years ago I started noticing that my comments were often deleted, especially on anything feminist in relation to trans issues. So I realised the real rule was "don't give any information the moderators don't like".

The Guardian and the Telegraph are both not really newspapers, more the personal rants of rich lobbyists.

The BBC is annoying in many ways, but at least it tries incredibly hard not to be biased. Why read the Guardian when the BBC is free?

The BBC is annoying in many ways, but at least it tries incredibly hard not to be biased.
Are you sure? That's not the BBC I recognise

Is anyone surprised by this? Graun has been full on TWAW batshit mentalist for years, and i dont see that changing soon.

The BBC is annoying in many ways, but at least it tries incredibly hard not to be biased

I've given up with the BBC, it's well and truly swallowed the Kool Aid, see also their reports on surrogacy

@Pudmyboy

The BBC is annoying in many ways, but at least it tries incredibly hard not to be biased. Are you sure? That's not the BBC I recognise

To be fair, they did let the Nolan Stonewall podcasts go out.

I've given up with the BBC, it's well and truly swallowed the Kool Aid

Yes and no. There are sections (like BBC 3 and newsbeat) which have been completely captured and it has a huge recruitment bias towards the upper middle classes of the south east, but....

It also has far more journalists embedded in the regions than the other big news orgs, which is how the Nolan podcasts occurred. It has a really effective core of hard nosed political and investigative journalists. It has inbuilt mechanisms to question its own biases which have allowed those journalists who saw the problem to undo quite a lot of the damage.

I hugely support the BBC. I certainly don't agree with everything they publish. Isn't that partly the point of an organisation that strives for impartiality? I'm never going to agree with everything they publish. If I did, it wouldn't be impartial.

For me, Nolan brought them back towards more of a balance on this issue.

I agree about the BBC. Regrettably captured by the trans dogma, and surprisingly poorly informed about women's issues. But it does try to be impartial, as it's meant to be. Also, excellent coverage of news and issues around the country. And still, I think, more honest than those papers that simply lie or ignore things they don't want the public to know.

What are they going to do when the full Cass report comes out?

What are they going to do when more countries join Sweden and the Netherlands in putting the brakes on this abhorrent practice?

I don't believe that anyone with any command of the subject could fail to see what the "wrong side of history" is here. It's fucking obvious. Doubling down at this stage seems like a crazy thing to do, they need a slow and sneaky reverse ferret. Unless there's something bigger at stake than the reputation of the paper. And what could that be?

(That's not a rhetorical question, by the way. I have no specific conspiracy theories in mind!!)

Jayne ozanne. The one that told people how to hide their extreme porn. Is that the Jayne ?

Jayne ozanne. The one that told people how to hide their extreme porn. Is that the Jayne?

I don't remember that. Are you thinking of Jane Faye (formerly John Ozimek)?

That was Ozimek / Jane Fae, yes.

What are they going to do when more countries join Sweden and the Netherlands in putting the brakes on this abhorrent practice?

I don't believe that anyone with any command of the subject could fail to see what the "wrong side of history" is here. It's fucking obvious. Doubling down at this stage seems like a crazy thing to do, they need a slow and sneaky reverse ferret. Unless there's something bigger at stake than the reputation of the paper. And what could that be?

Well, it seems they're just in lockstep with the US Democrats, who are also doubling down on "life-saving gender-affirming treatment", as in a recent press conference.

The US is looking increasingly isolated here.

But the Guardian seems to be banking on those gender-crazy US Democrats for a large part of its readership and income. They're really going to struggle to reconcile the huge divergence between US elite and wider UK views on this. (Much as we saw in CGD vs Forstater).