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?

Firstly, unless you can educate yourself on the difference between stereotypes & typical behaviours you won't have the ability to fully understand & engage in this conversation proficiently. Maybe you don't really want to anyway?

Secondly, as I have already mentioned, I don't make the 'rules' on appropriate language usage, society does. When a term gets picked up & widely used it becomes common parlance. Widespread usage is a result of the utility in association. So the question you seem to be asking about is why such an association to women was successfully made to maintain its usage. I suspect because there is an association in terms of typical behavioural characteristics.

I get why this upsets many women given typical behaviours can also be stereotypes (expectations) but that doesn't change the fact that the sexes share typical behaviours that are more common to one sex than the other hence associations to a particular group. However wrong or right you believe this to be, its how language works that isn't by any nefarious plan but the basic utility in associations used to classify phenomena.

You tell me what drives these choices?

What choices? If you don't describe what you mean, how can anyone have a serious conversation about it, let alone agree with it.

Please describe the gendered inclinations and what groups they are assigned to. I want to hear your point of view.

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.

Are you seriously suggesting there are no gendered differences in consumerist, employment, special interest & life choices?

Clue: I don't have to list what those inclinations are that drive those choices to prove that gendered differences in behaviour exist. The evidence of different choices existing speaks for itself.

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm waiting for you to describe what you mean. Your inability to do so is not helping your argument.

The point you are spectacularly (conveniently) missing is its not necessary I do & any precise claims as to why would be speculative anyway as opposed to the fact gendered behaviour exists by virtue of the evidence of different choices existing.

Of course you can attempt to avoid all of this by forcing a diversion to speculative claims but it won't save you.

Perhaps you could start with a summary of what 'the evidence of choices existing' means and what conclusions can be made from it? Or you could continue to refuse to answer. Your choice.

Ive already listed the different choices several times as in consumerist, employment, special interest & life choices.

You can google for a plethora of evidence proving women & men on average make different choices in these areas. That you are being obtuse about the bleedin' obvious doesn't do your credibility any favours.

Yes. You've named some vague categories. Start with consumerist. Which consumer choices? Which ones are assigned to which groups?

Rather than make people guess what you mean and go searching online for information that you may or may not agree with, it would be more helpful if you simply describe what you mean. If you can.

Seriously? I have explain to you the difference in fashion choices & other obvious categories the sexes make? What la la land are you living in?

I'm asking you to describe what you mean. You are suggesting that there is a better way to classify people. You need to be able to describe it.

The saddest part of this, is that I genuinely want to hear your opinion. It's a shame that you are either unwilling or unable to do so. If you are hoping to change people's minds then this won't help you.

Following through this sexist position that men can be considered women, and the structured reasoning thereafter by this poster, this post is objectively incorrect.

The evidence is from prison data that TW have a much higher rate of sexual offences.

As such shouldn’t be in women’s loos. Are not women and are objectively a danger to women.

the only reason single sex loos exist is because of the male habit of sexual abuse against women which appears to be more prevalent amongst this subset of males.

Sorry I can’t take you seriously while you continue to do two things simultaneously:

Seek to discredit homicide offending stats for increasingly bizarre and esoteric reasons. Someone being psychotic or whatever does not prevent their sex being accurately recorded, and homicide is the most well-documented crime type. You’ve heard an argument that offending rates are unreliable and are continuing to apply it where it really doesn’t fit.

Then turn round and make hand-wavy claims of your own based entirely in claims about relative offending rates.

This is schrodingers crime stat. All very complicated and difficult when it doesn’t suit your argument. But conclusive and unproblematic when you think it supports your argument.

"Someone being psychotic or whatever does not prevent their sex being accurately recorded, and homicide is the most well-documented crime type."

Err, this discussion is about whether the perpetrators are trans remember which by all accounts isn't recorded or recorded consistently or may not be an accurate description when reported.

You’ve heard an argument that offending rates are unreliable and are continuing to apply it where it really doesn’t fit.

Um, no. I'm making the argument that offending rates are the only accurate measure of crime rates of which WE CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE because of under reporting.

For the love of god…….

www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y0el00j75o

Ah I see where you are confused now. The trans offending/victimhood stat from the paper we are discussing is not taken from general crime stats but rather required a lot of additional research. So your argument that “but you can’t just use the crime stats for that!” is well-acknowledged. I hadn’t realised that you hadn’t realised.

But let’s go right back to where this thread started: you argued, contra the Guardian, that calling different names for things doesn’t need to obscure important policy discussions.

You then proceed to make a day’s worth of arguments about why it does.

It is impossible for trans people to have an innate attachment to a certain masculine or feminine temperament or aesthetic if, as TRAs frequently remind us, these things are not fixed but change over time and place depending on society, e.g. pink used to be associated with boys.

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.

Yes! I was assigned female at birth and I now recognise that this was wrong. 'Trans' is the word that distinguishes me from males because I'm a transwoman. And yes, this is not a conflation.

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.

Thank you ❤️ I am not 'performing' as a transwoman. I am one.

Noone is denying the reality of biological sex.

Now that I am my authentic self, I recognise that the reality of biological sex doesn't matter. Bioessentialism doesn't help anyone.

If trans people did they wouldn’t need to go to the extent to change their bodies medically.

Point of order: trans people do not need to change their bodies medically because nobody should obsess about genitals.

Again as mentioned upthread, groups experiencing conflicting rights isn't a licence to deny their existence nor is there an inability to manage them.

There were some posters on this thread who tried to deny my existence as a transwoman earlier, calling it "parody". Thank you for not doing this 🙏 The fact that you have not denied my existence means a lot.

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?

You must be very confident in these statistics, which I suspect you just made up, to say the second one twice. If you didn’t make them up, where did you get them from?

Well considering that per prison data transwomen sexually offend 5 times higher than men, that would definitely disqualify them.

Transwomen 'passing' (not that they really do) is a deception. They misrepresent themselves create a false persona. You are fooling yourself and full of cognitive dissonance if you truly genuinely believe there is a difference between transracialism and transgender.

It definitely helps. I am a transwoman. It is the word "trans" which explains how I am distinguished from women.

Wrong. The trajectory is clear across four (4) countries. The fact it's based on incarceration rates means there are many that are not getting caught, so it's even higher. But the point is they have five (5) times higher the incarceration rate PER CAPITA than other males. And they certainly don't have the same offending rates as women, do they. So your attempt at a flailing rebuttal has been long debunked.

Now make your case using the statistical evidence you have proving these men fit this ”woman” criteria.

This is why you're not convincing us, Aisha. That ongoing, often patronising, assumption that we're missing something, when instead, your replies often just skim the surface of the far more complex and nuanced point a poster's making. And we can see that.

I'm just not entirely sure whether you can see it or not.

I'm inclined to think you do on some level because of this frankly silly, avoidant sarcasm. It makes it very clear indeed that you're running scared from the point I'm making - that you won't (can't?) engage with it.

Answers like this don't help your argument.