JULIE BINDEL: This gender ideology is nothing less than a crime against a generation

[SamW98]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12905027/amp/gender-ideology-crime-against-generation-julie-bindel.html

She’s absolutely spot on. I’m sure there’ll be a backlash but most people will completely agree.

The DM has many faults but it does seem to be the one MSM outlet that’s shining a light on the madness of gender ideology .

Just thought the same. An example of another thread detailed by "but it's <buttergasp> IN THE MAIL"

Pass the smelling salts. Call the village elders

It is, but it's been discussed on here many times before. You could start your own thread if you want to discuss that.

It’s worth noting how much the centre left is for men not women and is captured by TRA ideology

I dread to think of a media entirely captured - where would we see pro women views?

NZ springs to mind, but a new gov at least is changing direction

Yeah, they aren't going to stop with the "you're right-wing baddies" nonsense.

What else do they have?

I’m sorry I’m clearly not explaining myself properly.

No, this is not aimed at the Guardian readers. But its existence, and the language it uses, feeds the TRA narrative that the GC position is inherently right wing and therefore bad. There will be tweets from the usual suspects. This is why the Guardian has got itself into the mess it’s in.

Quite. TRAs can hold up signs saying things like "Decapitate Terfs" and that's fine and they're still considered by many to be the "most vulnerable" group of people in the country.

At the same time, we're expected to police our language in case we are thought to be a little bit right wing and/or be thinking about voting Tory (as quite a lot of people did at the last few elections which is why we have a Tory government).

You could have Fidel Castro, Trotsky, Lenin, Jeremy Corbyn, stood in front of Thatcher-hating miners on a picket line encircled by the People’s Liberation Army all saying “trans women are men!” and TRAs would still claim being GC is “right wing”. Everyone knows it’s nonsense. So it’s still not clear why anyone should give a fuck.

because some things aren't reported in other papers?

What's your beef with the article? care to refute her points?

It is an excellent article by Julie and the more sunlight, the better.
The comments are a good vox pop.
As for 'right' wing...

Journalists concerned about the effect of this poisonous ideology on vulnerable children have two choices. Publish in right-wing papers (Telegraph, Times, Mail) or not publish at all. You seem to think the lesser evil is to not publish at all. I disagree. This needs to be seen. And right-wing parents care about their children just as much as left-wing parents do.

Yes, large sections of the media, and the left of centre of society, are in howling denial over these issues. Its been like that for quite some time now. Sunk costs fallacy gets more, not less, relevant as time wears on and the omissions and false accusations pile up. (Cologne, Wi Spa, are two issues that spring to mind where the Guardian have failed women horribly).

On the bright side, five or six years back no bugger would publish anything on the subject at all. So, at least it's in the Mail. Most widely read UK paper, and a largely female readership.

No, I don’t.

I just do not think adopting the DM language is helpful.

that was my criticism of the article too. But it is a small one compared to the general thrust of the article, which as pp have pointed out, has been written by someone who have been researching and highlighting the abuse of children for a long time now.

Would be interested to see what Owen Jones would say. (well not really since we know what he'd say, most likely)

@IrresponsiblyCertainAboutSexualDimorphism

The use of these terms is polarising

Yes, possibly, but I would think the debate is already very polarised and I would suggest that the rhetoric may be useful in terms of fighting for moral position.

The "GC" side is going to be framed a certain way by opponents (as hateful bigots); and I think it can be fair and useful to frame the "gender ideology" side in various ways if it's capturing a truth about them.

It’s not the DM’s language. It’s Julie Bindel’s language. Have you ever heard her speak, or read her tweets, or previous articles?! She just doesn’t truck any nonsense. Do gooders is tame. Try “trans taliban” or “queer ISIS.”

The main people who take issue with her using terms like these are people like Owen Jones and IW. They should not be appeased.

I'm not happy about giving the Mail clicks given all the absolute tripe they have on their site, which is in no way empowering to women at all. It drives a lot of the "this is what a stereotypical woman is" that a lot of trans women aim for - so not good.

However. They do have articles by writers making good solid sensible points using facts and research, and they should be encouraged to carry on doing that. And for that reason I WILL always click a link to those articles. Because it shows them that people want to read it.

In the same vein, i will usually need an archive link to the divisive tripe the Grauniad prints - unless it is to a similar well researched, well argued and based-in-facts article. They do occasionally have them.

I literally don't care if people "think" I'm RW. I am a socialist to my bones so that gives me a giggle. But i do worry that a polarising belief that to be GC (or as i prefer 2nd Wave Feminist) is RW means that other people who are not yet informed, have not been peaked and have no idea what's going on out there, don't listen - then yes, it would be useful not to use some of the "dog whistle" phrases that the TRAs jump all over. Guessing that is more down to the sub-ed than the writer?

Is the fact that only the DM will publish this kind of article not worthy of discussion?

I note the change of direction from worrying about tone and language to 'only the DM'.

Once again, I'd really like to get back to the content of the article. What on earth can be going on in the heads of these adults? I can understand how parents/carers/teachers of teenagers get caught up in this but when they're 3 and 4 years old?

If teachers, social workers, the police and the medical profession are all Stonewalled up to the eyeballs, it does seem a very uphill struggle to provide good balanced help to the children and teenagers involved.

Which is why we need a LOT more reporting in a LOT more places. I think The Times is pretty good on this? Albeit behind a paywall (which is, of course, the huge advantage the Grauniad has, and may be one reason they won't have one)

OK, so you're happy with the article and most of what JB has written, but you object to two specific phrases used. Why make so many posts dwelling on this rather than commenting on your agreement with the rest of the article?

You said yourself that "do gooder" is used by many people of all political persuasions about many different people whose actions they disagree with, and that it's not inherently right wing.

The other phrase you objected to is "right on". This is often used against so-called progressives by people who are more socially conservative, but not necessarily right wing.

Adopting DM language when writing for the DM seems appropriate to me. It will appeal to their readers. She would have written a different article for the Telegraph or Times - or the Guardian if they'd let her.

As recently noted, the Times has gone largely quiet on these issues. A specific journalist/editor was suggested as having had an impact, but also the apparent decision to get behind Labour for the next election.

The Times used to be good on this but has gone a bit tumbleweeds lately. Probably because they're clearly backing Labour now (eg the splash today that Labour will magically create nurseries in schools with no detail on where the space will even come from, let alone the staff or money) and this issue is a bit inconvenient in that regard.

As to the article, personally I thought it was something of a rehash of others' work. Specifically Nikki da Costa and Michael Biggs in May 2022. When the Times had much more of an interest in this:

Gender referrals for children three times higher in Blackpool

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/af2b20b2-d868-11ec-bb99-1bcd45646516?shareToken=f672912bb6e73734c90c3b1baa28691f

I agree that appeasement is not appropriate here, Mumsnet is full of erudite women who would be able to cite historical failures of this strategy, maybe there were successes, the historians and politicians could probably analyse those too.

We are a diverse range of thinking women from many backgrounds, but we have managed to agree on at least this one issue.

The strategy of discounting news from the mail reminds me of court dramas where prosecution tries to discredit a witness. How about we use our eyes and look at the evidence.

I think a lot of the snobbery over newspapers isn't about journalistic standards; but simply over the punditry and political values being expressed.

So it's not liked that there are popular newspapers that say something different to the acceptable middle class left/liberal perspective, and which may "lead the stupid astray"; when these are value questions which need to be examined and debated and argued for, and tabloid punditry is just a part of that.

Safeguarding doesn't give two hoots which paper something is published in, as long as it's published tbh

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/may/30/ukcrime.childprotection

Bindel on CSA in Blackpool. 2008.

Back when the Guardian was still a paper with morals.