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?

So it sounds like you disagree with the Guardian’s premise (ie you say it doesn’t matter if we call grass different colours). It’s still inconsistent of them.
Not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?

Loving some of the replies!

I suppose “Aisha” here thinks this is all good sport putting all the regular arguments to folks who have seen it all before. Starting with im perfectly reasonable but… Im just counting down the posts until the usual ending. However in the past I found this irritating but this election Ive realised it’s terribly useful. Like going to the gym for ideas and debate. I minced all the candidates who turned up on the door step. They just haven’t had the intellectual work out and the no debate has disabled them. The most mature argument I got was “my friend is trans and they are anxious”. Im mean really - anxiety is a reason to make public policy?! One guy even came back to say he was shocked to confirm what I’d told him (cant see him lasting long in the Labour Party 🤣) So to Aisha/Aida/Cecilia whatever you call yourself this week - thank you for your service! On our side you provide the training we need to counter batshit and you simultaneously disable your side with insistence on no debate. Please do continue- you are most welcome here 😊

The Guardian said: if we can’t agree that the grass is green then we can’t handle pollution.

ie, we need common usage of words to tackle important issues.

Your view was that we can still manage rights issues even if we group different things under the same word.

Look, I hear you but you are misinterpreting the point which is not to encourage stereotypes (social expectations) rather accept the reality of average/typical behavioural associations which if you look at it from a purely feminist perspective is liberating because its essentially saying men & women are interchangeable on a behavioural level.

I think we read too much into the words 'I am a man/women' when its really 'I am more like group A behaviour rather than group B & therefore it shouldn't matter what my biological status is to be considered as such' which is consistent with feminist principles of self determination not being limited by biology.

Aside from not having autogynophilia**, I think I tick all the boxes for transwomanning correctly. Let's see:

Long hair ✅
Sometimes wears dresses ✅
Sometimes wears makeup ✅
Occasionally waxes legs ❔
Shaves armpits ✅

The only one I fall down on is my lazy leg hair habits. I remember India Willoughby talking about the importance of this and why attention to such details made India more of a woman than women like me. However, it's important to remember that not all transwomen are the same. So I'm not going to accept anyone challenging me on this point, not even India.

Thanks to educating myself when instructed to do so in allyship training, I am not going to mention my genitals as I remember these are irrelevant and simply lead to bioessentialism. I feel euphoric to have realised I was more than an ally all along and that this thread is the one that helped me understand myself better.

** Disclaimer: obviously I know not all transwomen have autogynophilia so as far as the criteria go (and hopefully also the MN talk guidelines 🤞🤞), I can let that one go. Which means.....

I am transwomanning correctly! Go me! 👏🥳💃

No one is suggesting transgenderism is about sex rather gender. Sex spaces is a separate issue which is about how we deal with the issue rather than how its defined.

How would you know for sure? Do you conduct follow up gametal after to check your accuracy?

Please do show evidence of OFFENDING rates (not incarcerations). I won't hold my breath…..

What did you think of the homicide paper I shared?

Until the revolting, virtue signalling loony fringe on the so-called left disappear, we are heading towards a Trump style future. So, fuck off Guardian and all who sail in her. You are delivering us the dystopia we feared.

The simple truth.

UK High court judge disagrees.

"Holroyde said the statistics were too low and had insufficient detail to provide a safe basis for conclusions, adding: “I can accept, at any rate for present purposes, that the unconditional introduction of a transgender woman into the general population of a women’s prison carries a statistically greater risk of sexual assault upon non-transgender prisoners than would be the case if a non-transgender woman were introduced. But that statistical conclusion takes no account of the risk assessment which the policies require.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/02/trans-women-with-sex-offence-convictions-in-female-jails-lawful-rules-judge

self determination not being limited by biology.

My self determination is not limited by [my] biology. See my post above at 10.06.

I see another thread has had shit smeared over it by the first page.

Word salad aside, biologically female people still exist, are still half of humanity and still suffer physical and social consequences because of our biological sex.

Deciding that "woman" means a social role not us doesn't change that, nor does it make a trans woman any more like us than any other man is.

All it does it take away the language we need to name ourselves and understand our personal and structural experiences of sexism, and obscure our history of who really did what to who.

Sexism which will still happen to us because of our bodies regardless of who you call "women".

So while yes, you may have the subjective view that none of the above matters, I would counter that that view is morally abhorrent, not because I have sone sort of pearl clutching about men in dresses but because it requires the unconscionable act of undefining the female half of the species as a meaningful social group, and reifying the social sexism of Gender in its place.

Nobody on this thread has checked my gametes. Not even me. I think I know what they are but I could be wrong. Science doesn't have all the answers to everything and we know scientific consensus can change, so I'm not going to be constrained by what I think they are, nor am I going to share what I think they might be. My gametes are my business and I refuse to limit myself to being defined by my gametes.

Yep! Because why it's enormous fun to pull apart the TWAW propaganda for the bazillionth the reality is, the promulgation of the TWAW nonsense by the guardian, the bbc, the arts, academia, local authorities, the civil service, the third sector and the NHS aka the lanyardocracy (of which I'm a member) is exactly the sort of behaviour that's powering the very prevalent view that these institutions are elite, out of touch and don't care about the real problems people are facing on the ground

This isn't offending rates. 'Reporting' like incarceration doesn't prove anything not to mention when you don't have accurate offending rates of the male population you don't have any way of an accurate comparison to trans women. There's also the issue of statistical irrelevance of trans people.

And on top of that different groups in the male population offend at different rates. Wealthy/white/older/gay males offend at significantly lower rates than poor/ coloured/ young/ straight males. Lesbians offend at higher rates than straight women AND Lesbians offend at higher rates than gay men. See where this is going?

Not sure where it says that but if so that's patently untrue given literally thousands of words have multiple meanings & as I said before the prefix 'trans' differentiates women from trans women.

The UK homicide reporting rate is near 100% and the detection rate (ie found out who did it) is about 90%. That’s why homicide is a good measure of what you were disputing.

You are also quite happy to talk confidently about offending rates when it suits you (see your second paragraph).

See where this is going?

Yes! After learning about my true self right here on this thread, I am going to guess that I am one of very few AFAB transwomen. If I commit a violent or sexual offense, statistically it is likely to "prove" that almost 100% of AFAB TW are dangerous.

Its irrelevant in terms of being to draw meaningful conclusions about trans violence if we can't get an accurate account of male offending which we can't for most if not all crimes & 'Male' is a very broad category that doesn't address how sub categories differ.

See where this is going?

No. Spell it out.

The Guardian, wrong about everything, all the time.
I once had a mug with that on.