Does the guardian really not see?

[Theeyeballsinthesky]

"We work tirelessly to establish the facts – and when we get them wrong, we correct them. For democracy to survive, for society to progress, we need a shared foundation of facts. If we cannot broadly agree that the grass is green, we cannot have a conversation about what to do about the pollutants that are killing it"

https://www.theguardian.com/media/ng-interactive/2026/may/06/how-to-survive-the-information-crisis-we-once-talked-about-fake-news-now-reality-itself-feels-fake

this is a good article about the importance of facts, connection and how society might navigate the current crisis of mis and dis information

and yet Viner has written the above with clearly straight face while editing a paper that hounded out journalists who said that no one can change sex and continues to relentlessly push the TWAW/ppl especially women who don't believe are nasty bigots and to put it kindly misrepresent the law in this area

dors she reallly not see or is she just as much of a victim of all the things she points out in her article?

It’s frustrating and puzzling in Equal measure to understand this but – for them it is a fact that a trans woman is an actual woman. There is no cognitive dissonance there or if there is it’s hidden so deeply it doesn’t show its head.

They really really really believe

We're all about hypocrisy on the left atm. In fact, we're drowning in it. 🙁

No, they absolutely see. They're just pretending not to because it suits the agenda

It's a variant on this:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

where the "salary" is the readership, particularly in the US.

But to put it in more modern terms, these days there are some claims made, the truth of which is irrelevant, because making them is solely about signalling within the in-group.

In other words, people like Viner aren't particularly bothered, or not bothered enough, whether The Guardian publishes certain falsehoods.

This has been around for a while but I think the recent template is Trump. He uses this technique.

Exactly my thoughts every time that pop up message on their website appears telling me that the reporting of facts is under threat.

You seem to be confusing objective facts with subjective views. Whether trans women are women is a subjective question that's based on a value system rather than facts as in reproductive biological characteristics verses social ones.

She's a liar and a hypocrite, I'm afraid its that simple.

What? What is a transwoman?

And every time I see it I scoff and say audibly “like hell I’d trust you with the facts”

A person born male who identifies behaviourally, psychologically & culturally with the typical behaviours of women.

What are the "typical behaviours of women"?

Me too. And then “fuck off”.

Oh for the love of god.
A person born male stays male. The only thing possibly subjective is the degree of insanity that makes people post this way.

trans women are women is a thing once you've decided that the meaning of a word like "woman" (and its predecessors going back to the dawn of language) can simply be changed to mean something other than what it's meant for as long as we've had language.

That's more the work of someone working in the Ministry of Truth rather than a journalist.

So an atypical man. Which is fine, but not a good use of the word woman.

It is.

But the statement TWAW makes no logical, linguistic, or physical sense as a statement.

Trans dogs are dogs, trans amputees are amputees make exactly the same amount of sense.

Is 1+1=3 'subjective fact' too? It must be and we are doomed.

Bollocks! Trans women are 100% men because it's the literal qualification for being one

as no one can change sex then the guardian are liars

and speaking metaphorically people like you pretending the earth isn't round when it absolutely is are the bloody problem

Well quite! I'd love to know too. Is there a checklist we can tick off so we can check we're all womaning correctly?

How is that different from the “grass is green” example the Guardian used? Their point is that if we don’t have stable shared definitions we can’t tackle real problems.

That’s inconsistent with their adoption and enforcement of novel language in the arena of trans.

On average behaviours that differentiate them from men. For example, like the violence that GC women like to claim should disqualify men from using their spaces.

Fair enough. That's why the word 'trans' exists to differentiate them.

Are we sure Mumsnet doesn't hire these people? It's just the usual round and round.

As for the Guardian, I managed to get a few things into their pages. I couldn't have imagined it would turn into a paper that makes me cringe.

TWAW is a slogan so by virtue of that it's a vague statement. The sentiment clearly isn't they are identical to women rather they associate to women more than men hence they come under the umbrella hood of women.