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 not a woman.

This sort of response is why TRA’s hate this board so much.

I must admit, I do find all the hand-wringing about the Guardian a bit strange. I thought everyone knew how biased it has always been (well since the '80s anyway), same as all the other newspapers. If people are only just waking up to that fact, then that may be because the Guardian has always reflected/formed their worldview, and so they believed they were reading 'the truth'.

‘If’

Yes. But we can with homicide, with a 90% detection rate. We know who did it and whether they are male or female. Witt a near 100% homicide reporting rate we can know who was killed and whether they are male or female. Then the maths is easy.

Knowing the rates for trans is harder because of contested definitions. I would argue this is a prime example of the thing the Guardian claimed, ie consensus on labelling things is necessary for proper policy debate.

Lol! Men who claim they are women wrongly think they have some womanly essence, but their continued male-pattern behaviour shows they are completely deluded on this, as in every other false claim.

But how anyone would know they were born male? I was assigned female at birth... Someone else could be assigned male at birth.

But this doesn't mean that I actually am female or that someone else actually is male.

There is literally no difference between someone who is AFAB and someone who is AMAB other than what is written on the birth register following a genital inspection.

So as long as Aisha is with me and supports me as the transwoman that I now know I am, then I'm 100% with Aisha on this definition of what it means to be a transwoman.

Edited for punctuation and (ironically) accuracy.

To paraphrase Don McLean “They weren’t listening then, they’re not listening now”

You don't seem to understand that you're being horrifically sexist.

Being a woman has no 'typical behaviours'. Why? Because women aren't a monolith of femininity and each one has their own likes, dislikes, aspirations, hobbies, e.t.c. Women don't conform to the same neat little box, you can't be 'more' or 'less' womanly than another.

And when a TIM 'transitions', what do you think he does? He follows gendered stereotypes, and claims that makes him a woman. Because he thinks being a woman means following such stereotypes.

Now, some homework. What do you consider to be the typical behaviours of a woman, and what's your excuse for that not being misogynistic?

Yes, and “trans women” are at least the same as other men in that regard, so how is it helpful to your fanciful claim?

Yep. Labour have done it too before. It’s a deliberate tactic.

I think Aisha176's posts are different from 'the usual'.
There's a different tactic going on - it seems to centre around avoiding the meaning of words, shifting the focus, and then arguing on the basis of what they have defined.

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.

TWAW has been more than a slogan, any opposition to the claim that transwomen are women, 100% women, was regarded as hate-fuelled transphobia, but Aisha says it's just a 'vague statement'.

And all those TWAW activtists didn't really mean it when they said they had to be regarded, in the law, in medicine, in language, in every way as women?

This is playing around with very recent verifiable facts - the TWAW demands are on record for all to see.

So Aisha shifts the meaning of TWAW from an at times aggressive and violent social movement to 'a vague statement', and presents that as an argument.

I could go on. I've been looking at the way trans supporters use language for a few years now, it's fascinating to track the different 'eras' in which words like 'woman' 'trans' 'gender' 'marginalised' 'essence' 'rights' etc etc bob around like corks in a squally sea.

BTW Aisha - if you 'come under the umbrella hood' of someone when they haven't invited you to, you are not welcome, you have no right to be there, and they are perfectly entitled to tell you to feck off from under their umbrella ella ella, and get one of their own.

I’d actually be interested to see a genderist answer to that, IME they normally deflect or flounce before they have to give a list of terrible sexist stereotypes.

Well, based purely on what I've read on this board, 'real women':

• Are less violent than men, and unlikely to initiate physical violence with others.

• Have been socialised to be less argumentative and try and please others more.

• Tend to not be attracted to bisexual men as they like their husbands/boyfriends to be macho and dominant and knowing a man has been with another man ruins that.

• Are quite private, especially about their bodies and bodily functions and it's important they keep those away from men.

• Are less sexually driven than men and definitely don't like 'weird" sex or kinks - generally much more into nice normal sex and cuddles.

• Are very liberal when young as they've been told to 'be kind' but become much more conservative as they get older and are likely to become pretty right wing as menopause hits.

• Are intensely bonded with their children, far more than any man could be, and motherhood is a really primary drive.

No idea if that's actually statistically true of all women, but that's what I've read on this board recently about 'women' or 'real women' or 'most women'. So apparently there is a strong sense here of what constitutes a woman.

When this is worked through, it turns out that I’m not a woman

You were weren’t assigned female at birth. Your biological sex was determined at conception, observed at birth and recorded on your birth certificate.

It seems that some people are not seeing the message behind Bonfire’s posts. She’s been posting here for a very long time.

And this is where all the trouble begins. We need facts more than values when considering if something is true.

“Lesbians offend at higher rates than gay men. See where this is going?”

By your definition, the group “Lesbians” incorporates a great many straight, perverted men. I expect they skew the figures quite significantly.

And again, how would that apply to the men calling themselves “trans women”?

She’s parodying TRAs to make a point.

Absolutely.

Sorry if that’s meant for me. I don’t hold this all in my head and have to take things at face value.

You are confusing what have come to be known as 'gender stereotypes' and expressions with the actual and measurable reality of biological sex - which is the same the world over and throughout all of human history.

I suggest this confusion arises from the teachings of people such as Judith Butler, who suggested that there was effectively no truth other than the truth of what you feel. That sex itself was a performance.

Your unconscious mind doesn't determine your sex. I'm really uncertain how you came to this conclusion?

We are hard wired to note physical and biological characteristics as being male or female - just like all other creatures. Wearing clothing that has been socially coded as opposite sex cannot disgsuise these instinctive recognitions at the level of biology. We are all capable of recognising when someone is role playing 'opposite sex' .

Don't be daft!

Even if all this is true, and I wouldn’t dispute much of it, adopting these behaviours do not a woman make if someone is not actually female to start with. How could it?