Two journos quit "transphobic" guardian

[puffyisgood]

Apologies if covered elsewhere, I didn't see it.

www.vice.com/en/article/g5vx8j/guardian-trans-journalists

As far as I can tell mostly triggered by a single article written about the 'cotton ceiling' in the light of its prominence in the Bailey v Stonewall etc tribunal - www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/29/if-lesbian-prefers-same-sex-dates-thats-not-bigotry-desire-personal-thing.

All seems a bit silly to me, regardless of which 'side' you're on. I don't know when things became so ludicrously tribal, I'm [sadly] old enough to remember the days when the Daily Mail gave a column to Roy Hattersley in the interests of balance. A very different time...

I don’t blame OJ for not resigning. Times are hard. But maybe he could move on from this with a bit more understanding of what it means to have someone lean on your ability to make a living to make their ideological argument.

yep. by coincidence, according to Twitter, she and Mx Parsons have a bit of a past.

www.5rb.com/news/julie-bindel-settles-libel-claim-with-pinknews/

So one of the transmen is non-binary? How?
Have tried, but I still don’t understand what non-binary is though. Is it the same as «queer»?
does it just mean you occasionally wear men’s boxershorts because they are comfy? Or that you can parallell park?

but I was chuffed that the article was published! I don’t know how to cancel my subscription (it is probably dead simple, but technophobia) and I felt that justified my continued contribution 😄

Parsons told VICE World News that they were initially pleasantly surprised by how quickly their article was commissioned, and noted that all of the people they had spoken to in the organisation were either queer themselves or they appeared to be trans allies, with many having their pronouns listed in their email signatures.

It was impossible for me to go ahead and write something for the Pride edition, knowing that the organisation had supported that article

"If it isn't an echo chamber I can't write for it"

They also ask for a change in the newspaper’s editorial stance to reflect that trans women having rights does not disadvantage cis women.

Well, they can ask for a change in the newspaper’s editorial stance to reflect that the moon is made of green cheese.... but as we say here, "no" is a complete sentence.

Objectively speaking, just because they can't see the disadvantage doesn't mean there isn't one. And if we dump objectivity and see it purely in their terms they aren't cis women so how could they know if cis women are disadvantaged?

And "cis" women? Creepy. You'd think they'd have more respect for the names women use for themselves and for not labelling women. Looks like a bit of internalised misogyny there.

Is this really really about the lesbian article? That's insane! They are really objecting to the idea that a lesbian should be free to be/say she's only attracted to females? Because this is hurtful to males? Can they even hear themselves?

Lols! This cheered me immensely after a day in the garden tackling jungle-proportion bindweed. Damn radical feminist old woman doing literal violence to living things with her bare hands. Thanks for the update.

OJ said Helen and Helen's youtube talk was 'chilling'.

Lots of TRAs said it was calling for genocide.

OJ said, no, genocide is a word with a specific meaning.

Then they all got very cross with him.

More in this thread: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4562095-so-disgusted-tonight

Good work! When they come for India Willoughby for denying their transness then i believe the purity spiral of doom will be complete.

Is this really really about the lesbian article? That's insane! They are really objecting to the idea that a lesbian should be free to be/say she's only attracted to females? Because this is hurtful to males? Can they even hear themselves?

In an echo chamber you can only hear yourself and the identical views of others.

Thank you @Hagiography

Well, that's been three hours now. But OJ has been busy, so obviously must have not seen his (ex)colleagues' pleas yet. He has been occupied by tweeting about Neighbours ending.

nitter.net/OwenJones84/status/1535271599552831488#m

Goodness me; I am sorry for mis-pigeonholing Vic. Such an easy mistake to make!

Sexing people is so much simpler.

I think there are quite a few detrans TW who wish that all they'd had done was cutting the head off.

I predict that OJ will try to straddle the fence by retweeting the article, making supportive noises towards FM and VP, making scornful noises towards the paper, possibly following this up with a (Graun-published) comment piece of his own bemoaning the sad transphobic state of affairs at the Guardian - but definitely won't bite the hand that feeds him.

Hard week he's having.

Why are journalists allowed to make false statements with no pushback? It's a false statement that women's rights are not at all affected by what is happening.

Being entirely erased is not something meaningless, and losing places on the podium, athletic stipends, places on short-lists, the language to complain about any of this, and the ability to fight against sex-based oppression in all those places were it happens globally, all these matter very much, and all can end up causing permanent losses for women as a sex.

Bugger, I got rid of my deckchairs when i cleared out the shed last week.

meh I'll stand if it means i get to watch OJ self combust over the next few days. I'm sure someone will let me sit on theirs for five minutes every hour!

Women’s rights are not affected because the person who took that podium/grant/place was a woman, and probably a much more womanly woman that the woman who got outwomaned out of her place. +1-1= no change at all.

Re: title. Bummer. Don't let the door hit you on the arse on your way out.

Now when you put it like that it makes perfect sense!

Thanks x

Standing room only here waiting for Owen's balcony appearance on Twitter. Any minute now, I'm sure.

One could almost imagine this whole farce has been orchestrated for the sole purpose of putting OJ on the spot.

Tinhat, anyone? Meat pie while you wait?

It is the fault of you horrible women that I got my coffee down the wrong pipe and then coughed it all over the screen.

Can posters please stop using Talc●m X to describe OJ, it is racist and gives the TRAs something to attack us with.

did they jump before they were pushed? Looking for a new income stream

Can lesbians reject other women on other grounds according to them I wonder, such as not fancying tall, dark-haired or skinny women for example? Or not wanting a Tory, smoker or atheist as a partner? What about finding self-delusion or coercion a turn-off? Is it only being male that you're not allowed to find unattractive? So many questions.

Is Talcum X not just a pun that satirises his view of himself?