The Guardian publishes a gender critical "opinion" article about arts bias.

[deadpan]

A gender-critical book at Scotland’s National Library is the latest in a long line of cancellations | Susanna Rustin | The Guardian https://share.google/qCtFERXCO1zCYDnxq

It's possibly not the first article of its type from the Guardian, but it's rare.....

Good to see, but Susanna Rustin is openly gender critical and has been for years.

Predictably, reddit aren't happy...

I was interested to see this, but I thought that Rustin was much less articulate than she usually is, and ran through the issues covered in a rather clumsy way. It made me wonder whether she was given a cumbersome brief and had difficulty writing to it. I though that perhaps the Guardian might be beginning a series of articles on the subject, with the parameters for authors having been thrashed out in some rather prickly staff meetings.

That's terribly speculative, I know. But they must see that they need to find a way of doing their job better in relation to trans issues, and any progress that they achieve is going to have to be based on confronting the same sort of LGBT staff network influence that initially prevented the National Library of Scotland from doing its job.

Glad to see it there. Long may it continue.

Any serious newspaper occasionally publishes opinion pieces that run counter to the editorial line - and keeps readers informed about the arguments and evidence advanced by all sides in an important political debate.

One of the many reasons I started to drift away from the Grauniad was that it was becoming an overtly campaigning paper. I felt as if I was being subjected to fairly heavy-handed persuasion, rather than being informed and sometimes gently nudged by the story choices or perspectives offered. That irritated me even when I more or less agreed with the angle they were pushing. Then I started to notice that it wasn't just their science coverage that was unreliable (sometimes downright misleading). Eventually I stopped looking at the website altogether.

I'm pleased the Graun’s readers get exposed to a mildly GC writer from time to time, but it's not a big deal in today’s fractured media landscape. I won't return as a reader even if the editorial team switches sides.

Archive version. https://archive.ph/Dy9Sx

I wonder if it feels clumsy because she is having to reference soooo many cases in one little article. It reads like a round-up of gender critical news in the arts over the past five years. Much of this will be new to Guardian readers because the paper simply hasn’t covered them. I wonder if they’ll ever give somebody the job of rounding up all of the criminal cases involving trans women’s violence against women and girls over the past few years… that’ll certainly be an eye-opener for the readership.

I felt as if I was being subjected to fairly heavy-handed persuasion, rather than being informed and sometimes gently nudged by the story choices or perspectives offered. That irritated me even when I more or less agreed with the angle they were pushing. I agree @NasturtiumsAreUnderrated (I also agree about nasturtiums 😁). But I have to note this has long been part of the grauns MO, and it has irritated me for decades even, as you say, when I actually agree.

It has probably got worse with the increase in US coverage though. I don't read much US journalism so i don't know how much it's a cultural thing, but as an ageing uk hack myself I am shocked by the lazy editorialising in "news reporting" by the guardians US repoters. Putting judgement and opinion into reports (eg reporting on something Trump says with the words "this disgraceful speech"), rather than either setting out the facts (eg "Trump told the senate hearing XYZ") (with evidence as to how you know) and allowing the reader to judge/applaud, or quoting someone with credentials making that judgement, is not news reporting. We had it drummed into us that this was unacceptable, the news editor would to throw it back at you for a rewrite.

It has probably got worse with the increase in US coverage though.

Yes, I do think that their commercial expansion into the US (and now Australia too) has affected the Guardian badly. It is a weird kind of Frankenstein hybrid, both in terms of style and in terms of the nuance of how each story is covered .

E.g. stories about a US news item that are clearly written for a US audience, but are flung out to a UK readership without the type of context that would normally be provided to orientate us in relation to an international story.

And of course, to the extent that coverage is influenced by clickbaity priorities, the coverage has probably been skewed a little towards the reflex preferences of younger US readers, which I imagine is part of the reason for the failures in trans coverage.

I think I understand now how loyal readers of the Manchester Guardian must have felt when it morphed into a national newspaper. It feels like 'the news from nowhere'. It lacks anchorage.

It has so much crap 'lifestyle' content, too, and its 'cultural' pages are dominated by lightly reworded press releases promoting the latest movie, book, etc.
They are still doing some great investigative journalism, which is great, but much of the rest of the paper feels like dross aimed at financing a small core of respectable content.

I actually read the “lifestyle” section as a comedy piece and imagine a hypothetical person who could possibly be living the utterly unrealistic life depicted.

Used to be my paper of choice but now it puts propaganda before facts and I don’t like brainwashing with my news.

My dh still gets the Saturday copy, and the magazine section is always full of nincompoop I've never heard of.

The editorialising in US news articles is shocking.

I think what annoys me is that the readership is already overwhelmingly anti-Trump (etc). The editorialising isn’t there to alert us to new facts or provide a useful fresh perspective, just to remind us that Guardian news is news for our tribe. That’s not what news reporting should be for.

ProfoundlyPeculiarAndWeird · Today 07:40

E.g. stories about a US news item that are clearly written for a US audience, but are flung out to a UK readership without the type of context that would normally be provided to orientate us in relation to an international story.

I've noticed that in the Mail, too. They'll have a story and only halfway down do they mention that it's in America / Brazil / Germany.

Brilliantly put @GeneralPeter ! You have exactly put your finger on it .

It’s worth remembering that the Guardian is routinely called ‘anti-trans’ in TRA circles.

I still read the Grauniad and value some of its writers. I find the mix of US and Aussie coverage quite difficult to get my head round. I certainly feel a lot older when I read it, it seems unconnected to my life a lot of the time.

Agree - I used to love it too but atm it smacks of ‘student rag’. And that’s probably an insult to university newspapers.

There was a letter from a GC woman in today's Guardian, thanking them for publishing it. A year ago, they would not have published the letter, is reality starting to hit home for them?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/15/gender-critical-women-have-a-right-to-be-heard

(For those who don't want to give them clicks):

https://archive.is/d6P4Y

Gender-critical women have a right to be heard

A reader responds to an article by Susanna Rustin on the continuing boycotts and exclusions in the arts of gender-critical voices

Thank you for publishing a measured and mature piece about the rights of people with gender-critical views to be heard (A gender-critical book at Scotland’s National Library is the latest in a long line of cancellations, 12 September). We are not horrible bigots who do not accept trans people and think they should face discrimination. But that is usually the narrative.
We are mainly women who have real and well-researched concerns about, for example, the effects of medical treatment that was being given to young people – who do not have the maturity to appreciate the life-changing outcomes of puberty blockers and irreversible surgery.

The many wider issues of concern are also complex. For example, women’s sports are physically dangerous when male-bodied opponents are allowed to compete. It is possible to live as the opposite sex from the physical body, but genetic makeup and sex characteristics cannot be changed. This is not prejudice. It is scientific fact.
People such as the philosopher Kathleen Stock, For Women Scotland group, the comedy writer Graham Linehan, and many others who have extensively researched and spoken out about these issues, have been doing so for years and have had to fight for their right to be heard. Jobs and incomes have been lost and reputations sabotaged. But they have, thankfully, kept going.
That libraries and literary festivals are being influenced by trans rights activists to censor gender-critical writers and artists is no surprise to any of us who have an interest in this issue. It is shocking. But we must all speak up or our precious rights to free speech will be further eroded.
That the Guardian has published this article by a gender-critical writer is a welcome step forward. Let us hope that recent legal wins may be the start of a more measured and honest debate outside what has become a nasty and misogynistic shouting match (and actual censorship) against those who care about young people, and the rights of women and gay people.
Name and address supplied

Well said that woman. Letters like that in the Guardian are important.