The Guardian censoring comments

[RoyalCorgi]

In the days when the Guardian used to allow comments on articles about the trans issue, a lot of us had the experience of having our entirely polite comments deleted.

Then they stopped allowing comments on trans stuff - except when they mention trans stuff in their live politics blog, which is always open to comments.

Someone on Twitter took screenshots of comments earlier this week on the Scottish bill that were subsequently deleted by Guardian mods. They are all perfectly polite, reasonable, gender-critical comments. But comments offensively accusing gc people of being funded by the Christian right etc were allowed to stand.

They really are beyond hope.

twitter.com/Orlando__Gloom/status/1606280311989338112

Not surprised, that's what my inbox looks like this afternoon (and no, the comments I left were not nasty in the slightest). Of course, all the pro-trans ones were left up - even though they were blatant lies in some cases. But replying with actual stats and facts is futile, because they just get deleted again.

There's a purposeful reason why TRA's make up a significant amount of people with power in tech, whether it's OpenWeb** (sinister company) who monitor the Metro comments or the overrepresented amount of TRA's in Mod positions on the Reddit forums.

Have the power = control the narrative (or at least suppress the opposite side.)

**OpenWeb's statement on their website:

There’s a crisis of toxicity online. The social platforms meant to bring us together are pushing us apart. It doesn’t have to be this way. We create trusted spaces for quality conversations that move our society forward, improving how and where we talk to each other online. We’re building an open, healthier web.

As always, shocking but not surprising.

Even the mildest criticism of gender ideology is ruthlessly deleted by the Guardian moderator's. Misogynistic slurs are untouched.

I've never encountered it with any other issue.

Metro is very gender woo

It's cultural Marxism innit?

There was quite heavy moderating but they left my comment about Barbie Kardashian alone. It's not a total censor (not defending it, just pointing out they don't delete everything)

Back when I used to avidly read the Guardian, I always assumed the comments were mostly right wing men trolling left wing women because the misogyny was off the scale. How naive I was!

How does this square with the court cases about the protection given to holding and expressing gc beliefs. IANAL, and it probably wouldn't fly, but would anyone who has had a reasonable comment deleted be willing to complain to the regulator?

The Times comments used to be great with lots of active debate on all kinds of topics including the trans debate.
Now they’ve brought in a rule that says you have to use your full name. Fine if you’re John Smith but less so if you’ve an unusual or unique name or are in a profession that makes public comments difficult (e.g. teaching, civil service etc.).
Women will also have a tough time if recognisable.
I’m all for transparency but the Times already know who we are as it’s on our billing details.

Will be a long time before the graun comes back to planet earth. My commenting privilege was withdrawn, when I challenged it they said it was because of my GC "rants". Yeah, like saying men cannot become women is such literal violence. I have fucking had it with this tin foil hat bollocks.

Not the same thing, but I have had several comments at the New York Times rejected when all they contained were links to studies and an explanation how those studies related to the topic under discussion. No obscenities, slurs, hate language or anything similar. So a factual contribution (which others could have challenged in the debate) was not allowed.

I found it interesting as I have been singing from the same political psalm book as the NYT most of my life.

Now they’ve brought in a rule that says you have to use your full name.

Can you use a name that sounds like a real name? I mean say you’d been posting under the user name ‘abracadabra’ but changed it to ‘Hazel Wilkinson’?

Andante57, I subscribe and I am going to ask them about this.

They have the billing name and details so I assume they can check the screen name against the billing details.

No wonder Hadley left.

You've clearly never tried to comment about antisemitism or anything involving Israel or Jews then.

Don't fool yourself though anyone that this is just how they behave on trans issues.

Years ago before they closed commenting on "feminist" articles, it was the same. You'd get these articles by Laura Bates where she essentially polled her Twitter followers, and people in the comments would query the conclusions she drew from it, or disagree in totally polite terms, and it was all deleted as misogyny. (And it's worth keeping this in mind when you see some, admittedly unpleasant, men today who think that the trans stuff is just what feminism has been doing all along. This is NOT a new playbook for progressive papers like The Guardian.)

I have been told they do the same on several other issues I'm less familiar with, and I am inclined to believe it.

Exactly. This is so fucking dishonest from the Guardian. I wonder what the old-timers of the Women's Page would think if they saw it now.

The only small upside is, I feel quite content in blithely ignoring their begging letters! 😀

Yes, I often wonder what Jill Tweedie would say about it all. It was the Guardian women's page, back in the 70s, that introduced me to feminism.

Mind you, Polly Toynbee is fully aboard the trans train, so who knows?

Polly Toynbee is no Jill Tweedie, thoughbut!

And, of course, a woman editor.
But as the animals looked, from Sturgeon to Viner to Toynbee to Rayner to Nandy... 😛

^The Times comments used to be great with lots of active debate on all kinds of topics including the trans debate.
Now they’ve brought in a rule that says you have to use your full name. Fine if you’re John Smith but less so if you’ve an unusual or unique name ^

This will fall harder on women who have ethnic minority backgrounds and will be more likely to have fewer namesake on this country to provide plausible deniability.

And, in general, what if you want to comment about your experience of an abusive partner? Now there's your name in black and white for him to use against you.

There are arguments in favour of real name; people say awful stuff, as we all know, but this will punish many.

"There's never been a documented case of transphobia"

Like I don't know how stupid you have to be to post such a thing, perhaps people like that should be beaten to the ground then have their head and chest kicked repeatedly like I have and see if they're a little bothered by that? How about a good stabbing like that poor trans guy got earlier in the year..or getting shot like the two trans people at Club Q?

Same shit as when people used to say there's no such thing as homophobia. Now they're calling LGBTQ ppl groomers.

Also, polite bigotry is still bigotry. Honestly, I have a tiny bit more respect for gender critical activists who are upfront with their hate of trans people than those who pretend that they don't.

History shows that censorship works really well 🙄

They can keep pretending everybody is onboard with this stuff but it doesn’t stop people from thinking their thoughts. They just tend to send it underground instead.