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?

I’m in serious trouble if whether you’re male or female depends on what you do and how people see you because one day I can be dressed in a feminine way and spending time crocheting and flower arranging or playing with my puppy, and the next I can be in jeans and boots bouldering and climbing mountains. What does that make me? Non-binary? Am I actually a transwoman? Gender fluid? What?

I think lovely Bonfire's lost patience after so long posting consistently thoughtful analysis only to be disregarded time after time after time. It's making me feel a bit better about my own recent graduation to typo-filled irritation... Just wish I could kick the wordiness now.

You haven't a clue what the GC position is or more likely deliberately misreprent it because acknowledging our stated position would make you look even more batshit.
But I'll humour you. Tell us what our idea of being a woman is that goes beyond xx chromosomes. You obviously think you know so it should be a simple matter to state it.
I'm betting you can't/won't because it is a lie. Which really is all you've got.

I like to think of the transparent rain hood of womanliness beloved of my mother’s generation when perms were the thing.

This is the closest I've even come to an answer on that one, so thank you. I think, though, it's far more a description of trends on a messaging board featuring a particular demographic of women and their experiences/perceptions in a teeny-teeny-tiny, insignificant corner of the whole of time and geography.

Really not the same as a strong sense of what constitutes a woman.

We need a word for the global, universal kind, please. It's crazy, frankly, to think this can be behavioural, given the wonderful variety of humanity. To say it can be is to admit, fairly explicitly, that you're prepared to impose a set of subjective values which are impossibly limited in terms of time and place on, well, the whole of human experience.

It's a supremely naive, arrogant and above all reductive way of thinking.

Plus, like PPs say, it's your own judgement of patterns you perceive. Our observation skills are terrifying limited and biased in stuff like this. And in this context, how could you possible read every corner of every topic on the site in any case? People are already disagreeing with you.

Like Marie? says, any summary like that will likely show more about you (reading preferences, focusses, prejudices) than about the women on this site.

And it still says pretty much nada about your average 13th-century Mongolian female peasant.

Except, of course, as PP brilliantly pointed out, where that woman's biology may influence these things. We could assume she'd be fairly likely not to pick an argument with a muscly warrior, for example.

Or, at least, that most such peasants wouldn't. But even then, an individual could. Our definition of what it means to be a woman gives those individuals the freedom to, and still be a woman. Credits women with the ability to do this. To do anything at all, anywhere, ever, and still be a woman.

Our definition really is more inclusive than any other - numbers-wise, values-wise, however you paint it.

There's only one, tiny way in which it isn't: it excludes males. Cos, you know, it's a definition (definite, finite), innit?

Agree. But please don’t kick the wordiness. I’m crap at that side of things so I love it when the amazing women on here make intelligent posts.

😊There's just this clarity and crispness to some posters' longer posts that I love. I can sometimes hit it - but also sometimes get bogged down trying to catch every nuance in my irritation and determination to preempt incoming, tricksy evasion. Or in trying to get my head around something. And worse, sometimes (I hope only sometimes...) I sound preachy as a result!😅

Anyhoo...

Is it like Tinkerbell in Peter Pan?

I thought they were warning me not to subscribe. Oops, sorry...

I'd much rather tick it off so I can do it improperly. It'd be so much more fun! A woman had female reproductive characteristics at birth. A man had (drumroll) male reproductive characteristics at birth. Other than that, let's have less 'this is what you ought to do' and more 'diversity is good. So are you and tell anyone who wants you to be something else where they can go as long as what you're doing is legal and doesn't hurt anyone else.'

Managed to miss this, as I've not yet RTFT. I had been purely commenting on my own lived experience in my previous post. It's good to have a list to refer to so that I can be more objective about my transwomenhood. I'll take each one in turn:

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

Yes! This is a good start. I've heard so many other transwomen saying they feel this way too... so this bodes well... Let's keep going🤞🤞

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.

Uh oh. I don't have any fixed opinion on this other than I think machoism is tedious and I would get utterly fucked off at any dominance. I'm more of a "we're equals" kinda transgal. And I really do hope my husband is bisexual - well pansexual actually - because he's been out all day and doesn't yet know I'm a transwoman. I need to see how I get on with the rest of the list and give this more thought.

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

I think I might fail on the privacy thing. It really depends on the criteria. For example, I prefer my own cubicle for changing but don't mind the communal area, depending on the context. Also I've been known to share a loo cubicle with a (female) mate when wankered and enjoying a good conversation. But like many transwomen, I use the ladies' facilities because I know that ladies will be in there.

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

Hooray! I'm not into kink! But now I'm confused again because I've seen soooooooo many transwomen who are. Hopefully the last couple of checklist items will help me understand my authentic self.

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.

Bingo! When I was younger I used to firmly believe in live and let live above all else, for everything. For example, I used to believe that nobody should ever go to war because it was always possible to sort everything out by talking and understanding things from the other's point of view. Now I've gone much harder to the right because although I still think nobody should ever go to war, I now think that talking only solves things sometimes.

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

I am intensely bonded with my children. It's possible that this bond is greater than the one my husband feels but I really don't know how we compare this. When he gets back later and I check he's feeling pansexual enough to still be with me, I'll ask him a few extra questions to test out who loves the children more out of the two of us. Sadly, I don't know what a primary drive of motherhood is though.

Conclusion
On balance, I feel settled in my identity as a transwoman but I recognise that I don't need to have all the answers or tick all the boxes. My transwomenhood is mine alone. If my husband doesn't like it, I don't need that bigot in my life

<flounces with a dramatic spin of a skirt>

Edited for clarity.

@Aisha176 if I understand you rightly, you are saying that whether we define 'woman' by gender identity or by biological sex is a matter of personal preference?

Choosing biological sex to define women rather than gender identity is not just personal preference, it has solid advantages:

Biological sex is universal. All humans (including those with differences in sex development) have a biological sex

Biological sex is constant. Humans' biological sex remains the same throughout their lifetime. No human has ever changed from producing eggs to producing sperm (or vice versa)

Biological sex can be objectively measured. It can be deduced from appearance alone with near 100% accuracy by most casual onlookers. A scientist or doctor in possession of the full facts will be able to determine it with 100% accuracy

Gender identity has none of these advantages:

Gender identity is not universal. Many people (including me) don't have a gender identity

Gender identity is not constant. As evidenced by gender fluid people and detransitioners

Gender identity cannot be objectively measured. Because is supposedly someone's internal sense of their gender, it can't be determined by objective bystanders

Scientists use biological sex to define women and men. So do the vast majority of ordinary people. And the UK Supreme Court ruled in 2025 that it is the legal definition.

Biological sex evolved 1.2 billion years ago. Denying its reality is akin to being a flat earther. You can argue it is subjective all you like, but when humanity ceased to exist the world will keep spinning and animals will keep shagging

So, a person born male who identifies behaviourally, psychologically & culturally with the typical behaviours of people born male who identify behaviourally, psychologically & culturally with the typical behaviours of people born male who identify behaviourally, psychologically & culturally with the typical behaviours of people born male who identify behaviourally, psychologically & culturally with the typical behaviours of people born male who identify behaviourally, psychologically & culturally with the typical behaviours of people born male ...

Do you see anything a little unsatisfactory with this definition?

I have given birth twice, but have no idea whether I 'associate to women' so couldn't tell you whether I come under the umbrella hood of women.

And given that there's no such thing as "the typical behaviours of women" (Aisha should understand what I mean by this - earlier in the thread, they were very clear on the distinctions between fact and opinion, which did leave me amused by this particular quote from them), the definition really should be:

A person born male who identifies behaviourally, psychologically & culturally with [his own, or a group's, subjective perception of] the typical behaviours of women.

Which really does then expose this definition's misogynistic hall-of-mirrors character: woman is defined in the eyes of the (male) beholder.

She is made in his image.

Adam's rib, the second sex... It's misogyny in its most ancient, enduring and recognisable form.

AishaP @Aisha176 is using the classic motte-and-bailey doctrine. TWAW is just a slogan when it has to be defended, but a hard ideological position when used to advance TRA objectives. Sometimes these two positions are argued by two different tranches of TRAs, each of which claims to be oblivious to the existence of the other. ("I don't believe anyone would ever say that.") It's ok. We see what they're doing.

I imagine it like the tide: at low tide, the water only comes up to <here>, I don't know why you're worried about getting wet.

My suggestion was tongue in cheek. I think that the stage has been reached when rather than discussion, we should laugh at the ridiculousness of the situation.

The answer is that they really don't see it. It's the Rachel Dolezal case all over again. Remember that? Every time you'd ask why it's wrong for a white woman to identify as black, if she really feels that's her internal identity and she's "living as a black woman" - but it's fine for a man to do the same with womanhood, they'd just insist that transracialism was "different" to transgenderism. And if you pushed them on why, they'd get upset and insist "it just is", or call you a -phobe.

The cognitive dissonance is so huge at this point that they can't admit it's there. Not even to themselves. They're terrified to even think it.

Refering back to the OP is this the same Viner who said everything I do is influenced by my queer politics?

How can someone who says that truth is what matters say their politics are queer which fundamentally is about challenging everything that is said to be the norm?

I found this quote, or rather an alleged quote:

the Guardian maintains that it does not sack staff for their views, but it uses its editorial power to ensure that "facts" are presented through a lens that it believes protects the "vulnerable and disenfranchised"

I agree with @Aisha176 when they say that:

Whether trans women are women is a subjective [belief] that's based on a value system rather than facts...

and that this is a separate issue from that of what society should do about the fact that people exist who hold this specific subjective belief.

It's not the fact that the Guardian employs writers who hold this belief, and frame their output accordingly, that gives the lie to their claim to be scrupulous about facts and data. It's the way they deal with actual facts and data.

I don't expect them to say TWAM, any more than I expect them to sneer at transubstantiation or the existence of Ganesha. People are entitled to their metaphysical beliefs, and they are by their very nature unfalsifiable.

No, the issue is that when TRAs write about actual facts and data, they misinterpret them to fit their beliefs, or assume that if they don't fit their beliefs, transphobia must have had a hand in their creation.

Questions that would reward a scrupulous empirical approach:

Is it difficult, in more than about 0.01% of people, to determine what sex they are?

If I plug acquired gender, instead of sex, into a large data set, will it render any observed correlations more or less statistically significant?

Are TW better at sport than women?

Are PBs and cross-sex hormones safe and efficacious for children?

Do TW align with men or women in criminal propensity?

Are mixed-sex services less safe for women?

Are TW and women underrepresented or overrepresented in any sphere to the same extent or for the same reasons?

We've already got the data, and I'm not positing any specific answer to the questions – data speaks for itself.

But Guardian writers (not quite all, but most) deliberately misrepresent the data or outright lie (hence wöeful's claim that women could beat men at football FFS).

Of course I might be biased too, which is why I want to read rigorous analysis, not some made-up nonsense from a TRA who has assumed the conclusion before they even start.

No one has ever changed their sex from male to female or vice versa. It is simply impossible.
Trans women are trans women. That some people may say they believe trans women are indeed women (and I suspect very few people do actually believe it as fact) does not change the reality. They are not.
People can change the way they present to try to mimic the opposite sex with varying degrees of success, but that is all.

As long as people keep saying "transwomen are women"... they can't be.

They can only ever be women when saying this is met with a look of total and genuine bafflement.

And that's just not going to happen. Reality intrudes, because the biological categorisation is, and will remain, universally necessary in a way the proposed (imposed!) alternative doesn't.

We can't transcend what we are.

We couldn't even if a majority did want to think that way - to comprehensively reorganise our understanding of the world. In any case, though, surveys suggest, they don't. Because - see above.

So yes, people know. TWAW proves it.

Reporting isn't offending. See rape. And murder reporting doesn't include missing persons. In any case, particularly in the case of murder, the perpetrator may be suffering from some form of psychopathy, severe personality disorder/mental illness where they may under the delusion they are trans, the antichrist or under the instructions of god & not be.

Again, there's also the matter of statistical insignificance & broad group attribution.

But tell me what you think about this. Why would it be that straight men are more violent than gay men, lesbians are more violent than straight women & lesbians are more violent than straight women? Is it masculine characteristics of aggression/(disagreeability personality trait) that the more violent groups share? And what does this mean for transwomen who probably share more agreeable personality traits than disagreeable?

I suspect what drives offending is a lot more complicated than people think.