Interesting. GC language buried in a Guardian article

[theDudesmummy]

In para 14 of this article about a Trump rally. Spot the casual voicing of of the truth, which in fact absolutely jumped out at me. In the Guardian. Calling a man a man, whatever next.

Did the Guardian let this through by mistake? On purpose? Is it OK to "misgender" people if you are writing an anti-Trump article and you are repeating what Trump has said? (The words are not in quotes though, so that doesn't stand up).

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/may/01/trump-michigan-rally-new-york?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

"Trump also used the speech to press his case against Biden on inflation, promise to bring car industry jobs to Michigan at the expense of China, condemn “leftwing gender ideology” regarding men’s access to women’s bathrooms and sports, and repeat his lie that the 2020 election was stolen. He called on his base to make sure that his win in 2024 is “too big to rig”."

That looks like it was missed by the papers gender police! I wonder if the writer meant to say the quiet bit out loud?

I think it's written that way for clarity. (The offending paragraph is below.) It would have been clunky if it had been worded '... regarding transwomen's access to women's bathrooms and sports' or even '...regarding the access of transwomen to women's bathrooms and sports'.

Either that, or Trump did say "men".

'Trump also used the speech to press his case against Biden on inflation, promise to bring car industry jobs to Michigan at the expense of China, condemn “leftwing gender ideology” regarding men’s access to women’s bathrooms and sports, and repeat his lie that the 2020 election was stolen. He called on his base to make sure that his win in 2024 is “too big to rig.”'

"Leftwing gender ideology" was in quotes, but calling men men wasn't, implying an agreement by the writer that the men being referred to are in fact men. I don't know this journalist, this is from the US edition of the Guardian, I wonder whether he did this on purpose?

What a world it is where I get excited by seeing men referred to as men in the newspaper! It's like the Telegraph from yesterday telling us that the NHS believes that sex is biological. When Newspeak has become the norm...

Trump said "men." (The linked tweet has a video clip.)

x.com/atrupar/status/1785794062659813671?s=61&t=3wYru9P_J0h74BXKFXAfmw

So is the writer telling us:

1. Men is the correct term for the men trying to get into women's spaces; or
2. Trump is "misgendering" such people, which is further proof that he is a bad man?

The lack of quotation marks would suggest the former, but this could be poor editing and not be the writer's intention at all.

Did you go to the tweet?

Trump said "men". Not "transwomen", or any other noun. The writer is simply representing what Trump stated. Yes, he didn't use quotation marks around "men", but it is implied in the paragraph that it is a repetition of Trump's own words. It is not a sneaky comment of the Guaurdian's.

This is something you could have confirmed yourself with a little research, but a suppose that wouldn't make a juicy thread, would it?
women",

@NefertitiV What are you on about? I got it that he was using the word Trump used. I was just wondering why the Guardian allowed a sentence to stand which said that it was men who were trying to get into women's spaces and not "women". Given their history on the issue.

I don't get your point or angle at all. Not a "juicy" thread, just pointing out a little indication, buried deep in an article about something else, that perhaps the weather vane is slowly shifting. Even in the Guardian.

I'm not certain why you're attempting to make into something that it isn't. The journalist was accurate in their reporting - they didn't use words Trump didn't say.

The journalist wasn't entirely accurate though. If they were, 'men's access to women's bathrooms' would also have been in quotation marks. Punctuation matters.

At the end of that clip he says 'they actually signed it'. What have they signed? Has Biden signed something that says he's going to let men into women's bathrooms and locker rooms like Trump says?

I think it's written that way for clarity. (The offending paragraph is below.) It would have been clunky if it had been worded '... regarding transwomen's access to women's bathrooms and sports' or even '...regarding the access of transwomen to women's bathrooms and sports'.

It's rarely bothered the Guardian before to choose clarity over strictly pandering to the ideology.

I agree with you OP.

Yes, they accurately reported what Trump said, without comment. The Guardian seems to agree that what Biden wants to do is let men into women's spaces. It's good to see such clarity from The Guardian.

If they disagreed that it was men that Biden's policy referred to, they would have put quotes round "men" as well as "leftwing gender ideology".

Agree with you OP.

If Trump had said something racist I don't think the Guardian would have let it through without redacting the offensive term or making it very clear it wasn't the Guardian's view.

Supposedly the Guardian are of the view that calling transwomen "men" is akin to racism, being a Nazi, inciting genocide etc. So it's surprising that they allowed a straight quote, especially as it's such a revealing one.

They probably still think there's mileage in the assertion "Trump believes transwomen are men, therefore transwomen must be women" although that's a depressing indication of their view of their reader's intelligence. Or maybe this shit still holds in America?

Anyway OP, you have commited the crime of noticing patterns which is verboten against special males and I'm sure there'll be more posts dismissing you as silly.

I read it as a classic Freudian Slip - otherwise known as a 'Parapraxis' (new word just discovered!)

I agree. If the journalist meant to be referring to Trump's actual words, he would have used punctuation such as:

'Men's' access to women's bathrooms.
Or
'Men's access to women's bathrooms'.
To highlight, despite not directly quoting, that these were Trump's words not the journalist's.

I find it fascinating how the truth always has a habit of seeping out. Especially when someone is busy looking in another direction.

@NefertitiV exactly my point. They reported what Trump said (I know exactly what he said) and assumed that the terminology was correct, rather than clarifying it with quotations (which would indicate that this was the terminology he used but we at the Guardian don't agree it is correct). That was my precise point, I found this, unless done by accident through poor editing, to be very refreshing from this particular news source. I have no idea what your angle is or why you think anything about this is "juicy".

And when you say "the journalist was accurate in his reporting", YES, that is exactly what I am saying. He accurately reported that Trump said there was a movement advocating for men to be allowed into women's spaces. I am assuming you are not acquainted with the Guardian's history of their reporting on this subject, which has hitherto not involved a lot of accuracy in their labelling of who is a man and who is a woman.

I'm finding this amusing. You're backtracking. The Guardian reports something correctly; you find fault and post a thread about it. If they had changed "men" to "transwomen" that would have annoyed you more, wouldn't it?

This is the question you asked in your OP:

Did the Guardian let this through by mistake? On purpose? Is it OK to "misgender" people if you are writing an anti-Trump article and you are repeating what Trump has said? (The words are not in quotes though, so that doesn't stand up).

You were wondering if there was deliberation by the journalist involved. There was no " misgendering" by the journalist, either. It all came from Trump's mouth.

@NefertitiV You are completely misunderstanding what I am saying, and I am not "backtracking" in any way. I do not know where you are getting that from.

Once again: The Guardian reported (accurately both in reflecting what Trump actually said and in what the reality of the situation is) that Trump said that MEN are trying to get into women's spaces. Usually, up to this point, the Guardian would have either clarified that Trump was talking about transwomen because that is the terminology that the Guardian uses for this group of people, or put the word "men" in inverted commas to indicate that this was Trump's word for this group but not theirs. They did neither, they just used the word men for men, as everyone should but which they often don't. This would be very unremarkable at other times or even in other publications. Here, it really stands out, even in the 14th paragraph of an article ostensibly about something completely different to the gender debate.

I am pointing out that the Guardian appears to be signalling a shift towards reality, which is welcome (if not either an editing/punctuation mistake, or a deliberate attempt to label Trump as having used the "wrong" word, which is also possible).

No backtrack, nothing "juicy", just pointing out that if the Guardian of all outlets is starting to label reality correctly then there is some hope...

Other viewpoints are of course available. But mine has not changed nor have I "backtracked", and my observation is a coherent observation even if you disagree with it (not quite sure what you are disagreeing with however).

Good catch OP, it is a significant shift.

My only hesitation on celebrating this is that the article positions Trump as a raving nutjob (I'm not a Trump fan, so enjoyed this aspect, as I'm sure will many Guardian readers). Therefore implicitly suggesting that it's ridiculous to stop men accessing women's spaces.

Jesus this is like pulling teeth.

The lack of quote marks is what's giving rise to the OPs question.

You must be aware of various uses of symbols when writing, you used enough yourself, above.

@BonfireLady yes, its that old dilemma about having some views in common with the raving nutjobs of course!

To be honest, the Guardian didn't get nicknamed 'The Grauniad' for nothing so I think there's every chance this is down to sloppy editing. But it's still entertaining watching the reaction to your question op and, as you say, what a world!

(Deleted as wrong location)