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?

That you are being obtuse about the bleedin' obvious doesn't do your credibility any favours.

Well, quite. I don't like to be that rude myself, but can usually rely on just quoting something back at someone. Which says a lot.

I mean... I'm just going to choose one word to address here (I'll be down to dismantling a single letter in my next post 😂)...

Employment.

Are you serious? Given the degree to which the decisions women have to make, and career progression, are even now influenced by their biology? And the prejudices that shape our choices even now? And the limitations on women's access to education and the job market across millennia?

30 or so years we've enjoyed of so-called, let's-pretend, not-really "equal" opportunity in these respects (because they're not there yet - not even close)... and we get Aisha reducing them to behavioural inclinations.

Aisha, your view is frighteningly individualistic, divorced from a reality you can't accept because it doesn't serve your needs.

(Again, though, it's precisely the evidence we need that we need or our words).

Perfect.

Exactly that. When you say you don't believe people are born in the wrong bodies or can change sex, somewhere a trans person stops existing. I think you have to clap your hands and say you do believe to fix it.

Excited to see bi-modal graphs make a comeback😍

Yes as I clarified earlier on the thread, and then got told off for using the bigoted term “parody” 😂

PPS I’m an old hand at the trans trans thing. It used to be very funny to debate this with genderists on old Twitter. Before they all decamped to Bluesky.

Clapping demonstrates an inclination to be kind but true kindness is about so much more.

Only sex realists believe that clapping is enough to stop trans people being erased. True allies give 💰💰💰💰💰

It doesn't have to be big amounts of money. Anything helps. My Crowdfunder will be up soon (and hopefully in the Guardian 🤞🤞) so you can start small, helping to stop this senseless erasure by supporting just one person like me. Even a donation as small as £100 helps.

I feel confident that Kath Viner recognises why it's important to stop this erasure too. #GuardianFacts

I shouldn’t have assumed otherwise! I need to adjust my parody antenna - it is clearly out of whack 😆

I think this was a wise intervention, irony doesn't always come across without incident in online discussions, and Bfl's sustained and clever irony is probably even more at risk!

Bfl. = bluff. 😃

To quote your good self: "Imitation is inextricably linked to connection". If you believe that, then the cases are indeed equivalent.

However, a "connection" (whatever that's supposed to mean) is not, in either case, a valid passport to appropriation and intrusion.

The existence of butch women proves that women can have a range of inborn preferences, some common among women, some not, and still be women. (Or are you going to socially transition them against their will?)

If nine out of ten dogs don't mind getting wet, but nine out of ten cats hate it, and Peter the pug also really hates it, that doesn't make him either an actual cat or a social-fiction cat. He's just one of a minority of dogs.

@BonfireLady you are on a roll 😝❤️

As already posted Viner has categorically said everything she does is influenced by her queer politics, and her transing of the Guardian happened long before anything financial reliance of US readers.

It's a shame that yet another thread has veered off into what is said on many threads over and over again because the hijackers always managed to find someone who helps them hijack a thread.

Not that I care that much about the Guardian, but given its history and the fact if was the first paper to have a women's page written by a feminist, it is a reflection of how the morally superior soft left liberals of the UK succumbed to trans activism.

In fact, hard to believe, but whilst Mary Stott edited the women's page she helped by giving readers a voice set up the Housewive's Register and later the Pre-school Playgroups Association.

And it was the later 1 o'clock clubs that helped local women set up what became early Women's Liberation Groups.

ie that was a time when (a bit like mumsnet now?) editors didn't censor their readers (users) but allowed them to talk or connect with each other.

Wait, what?! Godwin's Law has kicked in 😂

Who am I literally genociding, and how? I didn't say trans-identifying males don't exist, I just said they're not female. Neither are they unicorns, or bicycles. Pointing out this fact doesn't make them stop existing

I was intrigued enough to look into whether suppressing cultural practices (as the Chinese do in Tibet) could be genocide. After all, if an ethnic group is not obviously genetically distinct, destroying everything that makes them culturally distinct will make them 'disappear'.

Anyway, it isn't. Genocide requires that people actually be injured, killed, or sterilised, or have their children taken away from them, none of which is happening to trans people.

Suppressing cultural practices can be a crime against humanity, though, so maybe that's what we're all about?

But no. Some countries make 'being trans' illegal, and that definitely seems like discrimination as to protected belief and (psychological) disability. But not us. We formally recognise trans people and protect them from discrimination.

So what's with the 'existence' trope?

It's hard to know what to say in reply to that definition when some forms of sterilisation are apparently 'gender affirning care'.

Did we get an answer on a list of those typical woman behaviours?

How about what constitutes a masculine temperament/aesthetic?

Hmm thought not.

Shame, I was looking forward to finding out what category I belong to.

I agree. That's the Guardian I remember, and was proud to call myself a reader of. It was going downhill before Viner (Sarah Tisdall?), but under her, it became positively toxic.

You are probably right. I think Viner was a bit later.

But what also happened, as I remember being told it was worth it (as I wasn't a regular Guardian reader) was that I should join in commenting on line.

Seriously it makes mumsnet look like a haven of sanity (and I say that as someone who has had a go at MNHQ a few time) and fairness.

Many of us naively commented as feminists putting forward are view point, and not only did we get scolded by men, but as likely as not our posts deleted, and this was before TWs took over the agenda.

The Guardian not allowing women to voice their own opinions and experiences.

It put me off using social media for ages.

And yes, probably with Viner's appointment (the Board must have been aware of her views) it did become toxic. As too many of the women journalists found out.

I think you have just proved that fully paid up terfs are the most marginalised and oppressed in society and must be deferred to in all things. But it's hard to be sure, given that most words now mean something quite different from what they meant last century when I was young(ish). Someone has built a tower of Babel in the heart of the UK and no-one can understand any more what anyone else says.

For sure. I've said before that although the Graun has taken a few pragmatic steps back lately (and there are still a few decent journalists there, to be fair), nothing much will change while Viner is in charge. Whether she's a true believer or not (I tend to think yes).

False equivalence AKA apples & oranges. A native American is not born with an innate preference for their culture. They maybe raised in one & may form an attachment but their socially constructed classification depends on them being part of that culture by blood. A trans man much like a butch woman has an inborn inclination towards a masculine temperament/aesthetic. Their social classification depends on a different set of criteria.

I'd not noticed the best example of selective bias yet in the above.

• Blood? "Valid".
• Chromosomes, gamates, skeletal structure etc. (and blood)? Nope. All outweighed.

Yeah, so, about that "false equivalence apples-and-oranges" thing...

Maybe because erythrocytes don't have chromosomes? Or something like that.

Transgenderist belief is transmitted by indoctrination, not genetically.

(I'm not denying the prior existence of people who wished, for their own reasons, to disguise themselves as the opposite sex. But the idea that they are in some meaningful sense, the opposite sex, and must be treated accordingly, both scientifically and legally, is a twenty-first century invention. It's push-back against this idea that is mischaracterised as denial of existence.)

I think there was a list a while back, based on perceptions of posters on this board - I recall 'having macho husbands' and 'being right wing' as LOL standouts😂, but in fairness , I think there was a list.
Sorry I don't have time to go back and look for it - grrrrrrr that it's not possible to search threads😒