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...

It's insulting to Malcolm X, talcum powder is white.

Not here to argue whether individual posters find this racist or not as there's really no need to use it .

If you feel you're working in a toxic environment, or that you don't feel supported by your employers, is it any surprise that they'd leave? It'd be the same anywhere so not sure why everyone seems to be scoffing at them.

I understand they're freelancers, so not employed by the Guardian, have had very little published by them and have quite possibly never set foot in the place.

@GoodJanetBadJanet

Yes, of course. But stomping off in a huff because your employer has published something from time to time with which you don't agree (because it refers to biological facts, it is a very careful article) is not really a great look. I mean, doesn't journalism rely on freedom of expression?

I understand they're freelancers, so not employed by the Guardian, have had very little published by them and have quite possibly never set foot in the place.

Even if that is the case and they are freelancers, you can still feel unsupported and against odds with their stance on certain issues and feel uncomfortable working for them.
Would it still be the same response from people if the freelancers felt they couldn't work for some who had homophobic or racist views?

Most of the other major newspapers of similar type are far less likely to be what these two journalists would define as supportive of their ideology, i.e., all the alternative environments they would deem as even more toxic. So it's an interesting tactic if that's what it is, to attack the Guardian.

It's insulting to Malcolm X, talcum powder is white.
Er...... I'd have thought the fact it's insulting is more likely because it seems to mock and trivialise the civil rights movement.

You seem to have also missed the point that the article they're complaining about wasn't even published in the Guardian, but in the Observer.

That's how I see it. Obviously there is an element that is mocking his white privilege and contrasting that with Malcolm X's black oppression, but the last I heard mocking privileged white people who are doing bad things isn't racist.

Being a white Brit I can honestly say that racism against white Brits is not a particularly big issue.

• When the only “toxicity” they can refer to was an article published in 2004;
• when the political campaign of one of them to be allowed to falsify a child’s birth certificate has had acres of publicity & sympathy from the Guardian;
• when it’s clear as crystal that their real objection was to an opinion piece in the Observer saying maybe lesbians shouldn’t be coerced into sex; and
• when their demand is that nobody else but the priesthood should be allowed to write about matters that affect all of us - even who we’re allowed to be attracted to! -

I say - cool. Find some other job.

This.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

It's a racist dogwhistle

Now Owen has finished being emotional about Neighbours and is discussing Mr Bean.

Maybe after that he will get onto his ex colleagues' principled leave-taking.

OK that's beyond the pale. Change whatever laws you like, but I will not, I repeat will not sleep with a Tory! Oh no, hang on there was that guy in 1993, but in my defence he did appear to identify as a Labour voter.

Although, actually, being a Labour voter doesn't do it for me these days either

"It's insulting to Malcolm X, talcum powder is white.

Not here to argue whether individual posters find this racist or not as there's really no need to use it"

"Er...... I'd have thought the fact it's insulting is more likely because it seems to mock and trivialise the civil rights movement."

I am VERY interested to know whether it is racist or not. I don;t perceive it as so, but would certainly stop using it if I thought it was.

I note that some people saying it is racist is no more convincing than some saying it isn't.

Surely "Talcum" refers to OJ, not Malcolm X? Sure the whole point is to contrast the genuine oppression black americans faced with the false oppression that the white equivalent (in his own mind, there can be no white equivalent to the black civil rights movement's leaders.) Talcum is clearly mocking a privileged white person who pretends to be some sort of civil rights hero.

It is not mocking the civil rights movement, it's mocking a privilege white guy who positions himself as some sort of equivalent of Malcolm X when he's really, REALLY not.

AH ha! Fooled you. I am actually a male cat called Cuthbert!🙀😹😺

Dog whistles are a dog whistle.

This.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

It's a racist dogwhistle

Ah yes, apologies, seems we're in agreement there then 🙂

@GoodJanetBadJanet

But it's not the case that the examples were necessarily transphobic, so it is hard to compare to "being racist" or "being homophobic" isn't it?

I mean isn't that the point? The article didn't say "let's all hate trans people", it tried to explain that some people might choose not to sleep with those people who have the opposite genitals to that which they prefer and said that is fine and that in the view of the author, people who think otherwise are in the wrong. I mean, is it racist to discuss what you think is bad behaviour by a minority proportion of a particular group, if it is clear that they don't represent the entirety of that group? Do you just have to give people who you think behave badly a free pass if they are in a minority?

And the stompers didn't actually explain what it was that they objected to - was it the principle of the article, was it the suggestion that there are trans people who might pressure lesbians into sex (the article didn't say this was representative of the entire trans community) at all. What was it?

And yes, Talcum x is racist and should not be used

Quite happy to refer to him as TOJ.

"It's a racist dogwhistle"

Not trying to be funny, just trying to understand. What EXACTLY is a racist dogwhistle in your view, and what EXACTLY makes this a racist dogwhistle.

"And yes, Talcum x is racist and should not be used"

Why?

I am white, anti-racist, left-wing, middle-class and liberally-minded. Mocking a privileged white middle class man for behaving like his "struggles" against horrific injustices [like trans people being asked to use the single sex spaces built for them] make him the next Mandela or Ghandi or MLK is really not racist in my view.

Unless you regard it as racist against white people or a particular white person, but I think that's a stretch.

It's not racist.

It's taking the piss out of Owen because he imagines himself as a great leader like Malcom X.

Talcum X I won't use it because I didn't think of it.

I think it measures and shows up LOJ's self-perceived 'battle against oppression' and view of himself as a leader in that fight against a truly great man. I think LOJ suffers, badly, in the comparison. Actually, I'd argue the case against using it is that he's not worthy. Not remotely.