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?

What do you consider to be the typical behaviours of a woman,

The evidence in terms of consumer, employment & life choices begs to differ in terms of average gendered behaviours. And if you think it doesn't you are as deluded as those that claim sex differences don't exist.

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.

Is that what women do too? 'mimic' 'stereotypes' of women when they enjoy expressing feminine aesthetics? Same with butch women. Are they 'mimicking' what a man 'should be' because they 'secretly' want to be one? Or is that simply an organic personality choice by those with feminine/masculine inclinations? Its not different for trans.

Iv’e noticed one of the blind spots for GC ideology is a tendency to attribute everything they have a problem with to the patriarchy. Just because sexist/misogynistic expectations do exist doesn't mean they are the cause for all behaviours.

I think you are missing the point. Nobody objects to men displaying “typically” feminine behaviour. If Kevin wants to wear fishnets and platform heels in Tesco (which, by the way, nobody imagines is any kind of organic expression of personality except perhaps Kevin, and probably not even Kevin) then he shall. But it doesn’t augment his “womanhood” to do so.

"This confusion was a conscious contruction of post modernist theories which postulated that you could revolutionise society through the manipulation of language. That we could be anything we wanted to be through altering the social meaning of words."

This comment shows a profound misunderstanding of what post modernism is which is basically a critique of how narrative is exploited by the powerful …so the opposite of what you are claiming. And in any case, the fact 'trans' is a word that distinguishes females at birth from males doesn't in any way conflate the two.

"An adult male, a man is free ( in our society, anyway) to express all of his potential - within the bounds of social rules of behaviour - as is a woman. We can do this without having to so self consciously role play opposite sex 'performances' - but we are also free to do that should we like ( within certain social constraints)"

The fact that you consider organic personality inclinations/preferences as a 'performance' is more a reflection of your own rigid expectations of conformity rather than any credible analysis of human behaviour. That you seriously believe there's no biological naturally occurring autonomy that drives preferences is quite the tell.

But I suggest that denying the reality of biological sex and the consequences of it is a fool's game. To a large extent we are our bodies; we are our circumstances. We are not all 'free spiritual beings' or 'souls' floating around in a world of dense and restrictive matter looking for a place to call home. We are all born into a certain set of conditions which shape our experience. We didn't 'choose' any of them.

Sex Matters, and it matters to women, especially......which is why we have developed certain protections and safeguards. You cannot change your sex...though as you intimate....our sex does determine and shape our life experiences and choices...no matter how much we long to be transcendent beings with no restriction.

Noone is denying the reality of biological sex. If trans people did they wouldn’t need to go to the extent to change their bodies medically. What you are attempting to do here is conflate this strawman with conflicting rights. Again as mentioned upthread, groups experiencing conflicting rights isn't a licence to deny their existence nor is there an inability to manage them.

Noone is denying the reality of biological sex. If trans people did they wouldn’t need to go to the extent to change their bodies medically.

You are quite quite wrong. Many many people are denying the reality of biological sex - it’s the new “science”.

Go and read TransUK Reddit for a few days.

Fact. Transwomen are adults who were born male
Fact. An adult human male is called a man
Fact. Human beings cannot change sex.
Fact. Transwomen are men.

These are the objective facts about Transwomen.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk

I so want the laugh reaction back 😂

Are you suggesting that male violence SHOULDN'T disqualify men from entering women's single sex spaces (leaving aside the fact that transwomen are just as likely to be violent offenders as other men for now)?

There's this word called 'trans' that we use to distinguish the two. Hope that helps.

So wait... trans is an umbrella and now woman is also an umbrella?
Is man an umbrella too?
If so, I feel that transwomen should sit under the man umbrella.

Ok. The word umbrella has now lost all meaning to me.

As mentioned upthread, there's no evidence that trans women share male pattern violence because:

A. Incarceration/reporting is not the same as offending & we don't know offending rates.
B. trans people are statistically too insignificant to make any meaningful conclusions
C. group dynamics matter (straight/gay/poor/wealthy/ young old)

In terms of typical gendered behaviours, the indisputable evidence is in consumer, employment, life & special interest choices.

What behaviours?
I mean specifically.

All you seem to have is violence and it's a fact well evidenced that transwomen display the same violent behaviour as other men not the same as women.
So... what else have you got?

"Is that what women do too? 'mimic' 'stereotypes' of women when they enjoy expressing feminine aesthetics?"

YES!!!

That is exactly what becoming "a woman" is for many female people! It's a constant stream of a million tiny decisions in a million moments whether to play "woman" and be acceptable or challenge stereotypes and make a social interaction harder, till eventually you don't know what is accommodation and what is you.

That's what we mean when we talk about socialisation. Not pretending to be someone else, but that the pretending changes who you are.

You don't seem to understand how words come into being which is by social usage. Whilst I appreciate your point about words needing to have utility that's not necessarily always aligned with how natural human categorisation works which is via associations hence trans women being 'classed' as women because of the association to common behaviours.

Just because categorisations come with challenges in efficiently dividing resources & addressing competing rights that doesn't mean its impossible to achieve particularly given human sophistication in dealing with much more complex problems.

What bizarrely eugenicist view. We don't tend to accept the existence of groups based on their societal convenience unless we are nazis who rejected & exterminated gays, disabled, mentally ill & socialists for the same reason.

Again, competing interests don't render managing them impossible.

Again, you're entitled to your opinion even if its saturated in perverse police bias.

In that case, why do you require that the word you want to use to label "people of either sex expressing social stereotypes associated with women" has to be the exact word that previously meant "adult human female", and only that word will do?

Surely if you genuinely believed that "We don't tend to accept the existence of groups based on their societal convenience" you would accept that the overlapping groups of "people of either sex expressing social stereotypes associated with women" and "adult human female" are both valid, and should have different names so that we can speak clearly about the different needs and rights of each group?

Go and read TransUK Reddit for a few days.

My mistake, you are right but not quite in the way you think given sex isn't binary but bi modal.

No. I'm only suggesting male violence shouldn't disqualify trans women in toilets. But I'm willing to concede that hospitals, DV hostels & prisons require a more nuanced approach.

Gendered inclinations that are reflected in consumerist, employment, special interest & life choices.

If you are proposing an improved system, then you need to describe it. What are these gendered inclinations, and which groups are they assigned to?

It very much reminds me of the kinds of things Screwtape advised around making it difficult for people to focus on truth but instead turning their attention to what is modern or on trend or progressive.

He also pointed out that modern people are used to thinking a whole host of contradictory things, and so another one doesn't really raise an eyebrow. That was mid 20th century so it's been normal for over a generation now.

This comment reminds me of anti feminist men who claim feminism is an expression of man envy rather than rooted in organic inclinations/preferences.

It's a kind 'monkey see monkey do' perverse view point that conservatives tend to need to believe to justify their aversion to non conformity. They will also assert gayness is a result of social 'grooming' rather than an organic gravitation to modelling. Yes there's an element of 'learning' but people mistake that for 'mimicry' rather than an authentic connection with what is before them. Same with contagion theory where the 'missing link' of connection is skipped over.

When it comes to fashion choices, its the same. Imitation is inextricably linked to connection & just because that happens to align with patriarchal expectations doesn't change that.

So if I am naturally inclined to spend my money on beads, feathers and buckskins, have a special interest in spending my weekends on vision quests and sweat lodges, and choose to go to work in a casino on a tribal reservation, that makes me in fact a Native American and the actual Native Americans just have to suck it up and give me tribal privileges?

Ok so sex is bimodal, is it?

Some bodies produce sperm, some produce eggs, and some produce spergs? And Speggs?

That you think so explains much of what you have posted, and why.

@Aisha176 Are you still typing or maybe you haven't properly thought this through?