Guardian Editorial on GRR 'There is room for compromise and generosity in these debates'

[Parisj]

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/18/the-guardian-view-on-scotlands-gender-reform-bill-understand-more-condemn-less?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Understand more condemn less. I thought it was an interesting pivot, similar to other media outlets suddenly having to debate these issues.

Thanks for sharing. I think this is a big step for the Guardian and I'm glad they've made it. Starting to turn in the right direction possibly?

I can't forget the way Hadley Freeman and Suzanne Moore were treated though and I still think Kath Viner is not a fit person to be editor.

What does "The provision of identity" mean, and what is the state's role in this provision? Genuine question because I don't understand what they mean.

It's a big step.....for the Guardian, bit too 'be kind' for me. They've not pea struck the summit yet.

it seems like a load of bollocks to me.

@JustSpeculation that was my initial reaction too. The editorial uses that as an opening axiom, but what does it mean.

i think the piece is meaningless twaddle where the writer is simply wanting to look like they are saying the right thing.

They stuck the boot in KB too.

'Marginalised, vulnerable', this year's 'thoughts and prayers'?

Not convinced- no real discussion of women's actual concerns and people abusing the system for their own benefit

Does identity provision mean that the state is there to tell us who we are? That's worrying. And a bit totalitarian.

I'm sorry, but I find that article completely disingenuous.

I look forward to what the Observer say

Irritatingly late to using their brain cells though they are, I think this is actually quite significant.

Didn't many of us start from the position of automatically believing trans rights activism? Understanding more is a bit like educating yourself. If done with integrity, awarenesses of bias and access to the truth, it does tend to lead people away from blind adherence to gender ideology.

UK law has yet to catch up with the idea that people can identify in many ways.

No one ever explains why “identities” of this nature need legal recognition. Though I like “many ways” and the (inadvertent?) implication that furries and cloudgender and transage should be legally recognised too.

I thought it was inferring that having a different identity (other than cis male, female obvs🙄) legally validated, is dependent on a democratic state (as opposed to authoritarian) and a function of a 'modern' (as opposed to out-of-touch) government.
Since it's a privilege conferred by 'democratic' and modern political systems.. by extension the conservatives (who aren't just blindly pushing through changes in the GRC) are neither modern, or democratic.

But the SNP and Labour are.

Quite a lot packed into those words.

The first line of that article "The provision of identity lies at the heart of a modern state" is complete and utter nonsense. The provision of public services. free press, balance of power etc lie at the hear of a modern state.

Identies are private matters that have no place in government.

I know Florissant

I can’t quite make out what they are trying to say at all. Apparently it contains some sort of position or opinion.

You might as well be able to identify as anything you feel passionately about and put it on your legal documents.

There are fears, which cannot be lightly dismissed, that this move would expose women-only services to men falsely claiming to be transgender.

That's the only reasonable bit in the article, the rest is more or less a hagiography of Sturgeon and criticism of the Government, along with "They should let it through." I think that by compromise, they mean: "Women, stop being mean to trans w."

I just got it! I think they literally mean “issuing identity documents.”

But it allows for a totalitarian mission creep. You could easily shift from “provision of identity” to keeping records of every shopping trip and website accessed, CCP style. Who’s to say that’s not your job, if your job is “provision of identity?”

Whereas if your job is issuing driver’s licenses, the matter is much clearer.

It’s a very sinister phrase; I wonder who coined it.

I dunno. They can be dismissed, but not lightly?

Women-only services will be exposed to men claiming to be transgender (as though this is a special pass which permits them). Doesn’t matter if the men claim it believing they are transgender or are falsely claiming to be transgender. Still men demonstrating male entitlement at the expense of women and girls.

Yes, I agree with you, EndlessTea

The main problem with the suggestion of compromise is that the gender ideologists have absolutely no desire for compromise, or intention of compromising.

Stonewall May say they want civilised debate, but the truth is that the gender ideologues have violently shut down any and all debate on the issues.

Ooh room for compromise and generosity is there?

So what are we going to do in providing services and spaces for the women who can't use a mixed sex one, irrespective of how the male concerned happens to feel or define themselves or what pieces of paper they happen to have?

Bring on the generosity and compromise for them.

The compromise was the GRA, and the compromising was all on the part of women.

Who incidentally weren't asked.

Men have pushed this far beyond breaking point and exhausted all good will with zero reciprocation.

Women are done 'compromising' . Fuck off with that now.

SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius · Today 15:00

The main problem with the suggestion of compromise is that the gender ideologists have absolutely no desire for compromise, or intention of compromising.

Yes, it's glaringly evident, but Starmer, Nandy and crew "see no ships." They only want women to compromise and capitulate.