Guardian readers still being kept in ignorance.

[IvyTwines]

Their last story on Mermaids was 30th September, a report on the investigation done by a newspaper that still actually bothers to do some digging, The Telegraph. The Observer published a piece by Sonia Sodha on the 2nd but since then it's been crickets, on both Mermaids and the LSE. Many of my friends only get their 'news' from The Guardian or BBC radio. Many are parents. They don't use social media, where these issues have been trending all week, they don't read the Times, Telegraph or Mail. It is absolutely exasperating and now downright sinister how ill-informed and ignorant The Guardian is deliberately keeping its readers on a huge issue that can and in many cases will detrimentally impact a generation of children for life. It is putting its own internal, binary politics, where it deludedly thinks it's on the right side of history no matter how much evidence piles up to the contrary, above honest, factual reporting, and not for the first time. 'Facts are sacred' my arse.

Stop telling us what to think and talk and protest about. Of course women who are against gender ideology also care about women being systematically oppressed in other countries.

And if anyone makes the 'joke' about why don't they identify out their oppression, it's obviously making the point that women cannot just identify out of oppression based on our sexed bodies.

Yes OP it makes me sick that the Guardian, BBC, and also Channel 4 are ignoring this turn of events, and the rest. Makes it so much harder to convince other education professionals of how sinister the whole thing is.

“ Normal people” as you put it are allowed to be concerned about more than one thing at a time, and JB, and his brother have done rather more than “ attend a conference “

I skimmed a few of JB's blog posts. Enough to see he openly admits to being attracted to teens / age being part of his sexuality. I'm not saying he's ever offended, but he clearly never should have been in that position.

I read a number of news outlets including the Guardian. I do not feel obliged to accept or agree with everything they write about, any more than I consider MumsNet a source of intelligent conversation pieces. Nobody is being kept in the dark by anyone - everyone has their own agenda, including posters here. Intelligent people consider all information, slants and considerations, and come to their own conclusions then act accordingly. They do not follow the sheep, whether the leader of the flock is the Guardian, the Times, the Daily Mail... or MumsNet.

There will come a point when the Guardian has to stop ignoring this, because it's too big a story. Am curious as to when that point is. They are doing their damnedest at the moment to pretend it's not happening.

They did that with Cologne.

And when he did this, he made sure to use the pronoun it for the child.

Language is important. I am amazed that the people who say it's a thought-crime of the vilest sort to call a man he, will walk past advocacy that deliberately and tactically dehumanises a sexually abused child as an it.

YY.

Indeed @PurgatoryOfPotholes the cognitive dissonance used to excuse this must be literally mind shattering.

I wouldn't call next-door's Yorkshire terrier an it, even at his most yappy. Not only does this man refers to a human child that way, he serves as a trustee for a children's charity!

It was the thing I found the most jarring.

I would like to know how he got to be a trustee of the charity. I can understand exactly why it would appeal to him, but did he approach them and if so what reasons did he give for wanting to be involved or did they approach him and if so why? I’ve not seen anything about this. Is the Charity Commission asking the question?

He doesn’t even hide what he is or how he thinks. Just repulsive.

Hi ladies I've noticed some key trolls in these threads please could you show me how to mute block?

Ladies? We're all vipers here.

There is no mute block. You ignore people you don't agree with or you defeat them with the rational elegance of your argument. No short cuts.

Man went to a conference 11 years ago on paedophiles, has not been accused of anything.

Oh come now SecretTransTwitterEngineer, don't be disingenuous, that wasn't all he did, now was it? Perhaps you haven't had time to read this article yet?

reduxx.info/resigned-trans-youth-charity-trustee-authored-blog-on-minor-attraction-praised-child-porn-creators/

Teensy bit more than going to a conference 11 years ago don't you think? How could Mermaids possibly have missed that?

The Guardian has a load of trained reporters on staff, their complete silence on this issue is deafening. So much for protecting "trans kids"!

The Guardian is effectively a lobbyist / activist publication. They do some good reporting of course but are deliberately misleading in all sorts of areas if it conflicts with their agenda.

I think this is really an insidious thing.

Here in Canada the only news source that covers certain things in the National Post. Gender stuff, certain indigenous related things, even stuff like the national old age pension having new rules about ethical investment. The other major news outlets don't, especially the CBC.

And there are so many liberal people who don't read or watch any other news. And they assume that if it was real news of course they would cover it.
At a certain point I decided this was deliberate. They want to maintain a reputation for accurate reporting, so they can't put too much spin on stories. If they just don't mention the ones that don't stick to the right narrative, they can claim to be reporting properly. Because there is some subjectivity on what stories to cover, it's more difficult to pinpoint it as biased.

And people who just look to news fact checkers and such remain convinced that these outlets are giving them the news.

Appalling. I used to both subscribe and donate. I don't now - and I wrote in to tell them why.

The other papers will start to highlight this at some point.

It's nearly two weeks now, and still nothing! Yes, it's exasperating. The Guardian is a non-paywalled paper so is also the most likely to be read by a younger readership, precisely the group who are most targeted by this ideology. That means they should have even more responsibility to tell their readers the truth and keep them informed, to provide a counterbalance to the fictions and fantasies they are being fed by strangers online.

They usually report PMQs, did they say anything about Miriam's question? I've not seen anything.

Only in passing in the PMQs live-tweeted report (because they had to!).

@Whatwouldscullydo - you are not alone - I do this too. As you aptly note, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

@Whatwouldscullydo @Sistanotcista Yep, me too. I don't want to live in an echo chamber.

I read The Times, Daily (hate) Mail, BBC, occasionally the Telegraph, sometimes the Graun. I gave up on the Inde though because all they reported on was how much they hated Trump (not that I like Trump, but it gets boring after a bit!!)