Guardian gets it right

[lanadelgrey]

Succinct and a firm full stop to the endless toilet debates:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/01/ehrc-ruling-trans-peoples-access-to-toilets-protecting-single-sex-spaces

Ferrets , reverse ones, surely...

I tried to read one of the responses and their arguments make no sense at all.

The Alexandra Parmar-Lee article is linked along side it. Maybe Rustin was asked to do a sort of right-to-reply.

Hmm the Guardian still with the pronouns, I see. Well, there's still a way to go.

This from the same poster:

The code confirms that there is no legal way to open a single-sex service to people of the other sex, even if they are trans." Terfs once again saying that nobody is allowed to advocate for changing the law.

No one is saying that they cannot advocate to change the law, yes they can but instead of trying to do it on the sly as they have before they are required to do it openly, with full public awareness, giving coherent arguments and evidence.

Genuinely insane that they say "its the law" as if they're reciting some kind of ancient text that was sent by god and not a court ruling by a bunch of old out of touch judges.

This is hilarious as if they weren't repeatedly shouting It's against the law to refuse transwomen entry into every and all single sex spaces for women. Funny how when it is their own made up version of the law we all have it rammed down our throats but when the Law is stated unequivocally as it is and always was you musn't mention the Law.

I am wondering who is using the shared brain cell amongst those posters, clearly not this one.

There will be a counter opinion piece later this week, I expect.

This was published where??? What's going on today? First James Murray on R4, now this? What next?

repeal and replace not repeal and leave a big hole.

I don't think people should get too excited that the Guardian is changing course. Susanna Rustin is pretty much a lone GC voice at the Guardian. They do occasionally publish articles from her on this topic, but it will be back to the usual emotive, manipulative tosh again after this.

Hilarious though that Reddit thinks the Guardian is stuffed full of terfs. Lucy Mangan is a massive terf according to Reddit 🤔

Seems the tide has finally turned and the rats are leaving the sinking ship in a reverse ferret motion......

While I am skeptical of how Reform might handle the process of straightening this all out, you are absolutely correct that we had laws covering pretty much all of the stuff contained in the EA '10 which worked fairly well.

What the EA '10 has done by consolidating those other Acts is to deny nuance around exactly what rights we are willing to offer each of the applicable characteristics.

For example there are both mutable and immutable characteristics, some permanent some not.

I'd particularly like to see the characteristic of "belief" reformed. It is nuts that trust in verifiable facts is treated weight as superstitions. It would be nice to have a "truth is a defence" condition where right conflict, i.e. there is in some circumstances a heirachy of protection.

That's very unfair.

Susanna Rustin has been GC from the very beginning and has written in support of women's rights for years.

It can't have been easy staying and fighting the good fight with Owen Jones and the TRA lot on staff.

"Attacks on the exclusionary nature of such spaces by the trans rights movement are a key reason why gender-critical feminism exists." This is an obvious paradox. How can there be trans exclusionary spaces if the movement for trans exclusionary spaces came from people being upset about trans exclusionary spaces?

I genuinely cannot untangle the logic of that last sentence. Well, I say logic, but...

(ETA it's from the Reddit thread commenting on SR's piece)

I don't see that there's anything unfair here. I was referring to the Guardian's relentless attempts to obscure, twist, and generally mangle everything related to our fight for women's rights into "trans are the most hated and delicate minority ever in the history of the world. Ever." Now that we are "allowed" to talk about reality again, the Guardian publishes this.

I was surprised that the article was published, even more so that (as far as I know) it hasn't been retracted. And so soon after the guidance was published. And even then, one previous poster has noted that the Guardian will "both sides" it in the coming days with an article from a different viewpoint. Fair enough. Different viewpoints are what the Guardian should have been publishing all this time.

I don't know Susanna Rustin personally. I said nothing about her. I was noting that it was the Guardian publishing the article, as were other posters. I don't think "fair" comes into it, really.

I read the Reddit responses and left wondering what planet do these bat-shit crazy fantasists live on? What would deter them from busting women's spaces? Maybe a notice on women's loos saying "please leave your penis at the door before entering" as a reminder they are men.

Sorry, it's so absurd it's now laughable.. What is it with Reddit and trans muppets? They swarm all over that place like ants. I never try to debate with them because I would get an immediate ban from the gate-keepers...which of course is what they rely on as they are so vulnerable dontcha know.

And this is why they are losing ground, because "no debate" not only doesn't work, but leaves you less capable of arguing logically when it's necessary. I do feel the GC side has really done a LOT more homework on this, which is partly why its arguments stack up (the other reason is that they're TRUE).

this is a very good point. No debate leaves you entirely defenceless

I on the other hand, after 2 years of this have a pretty good argument for every point TRAs have

They’ll probably retract it tomorrow with a fulsome apology to those offended by realism.

Susanna Rustin has published a few gc articles in the Guardian previously. So it's not hugely surprising. Amongst the ocean of transactivist garbage, they occasionally display their famed even-handedness by generously allowing Susanna to write a sensible piece.

I imagine they published it because at the end it asks for responses to it. So just shit stirring.

Except I now see she is "Social affairs leader writer for the Guardian"!

In which case why is so much of the Guardian coverage anti GC perspective.

Will wait to see if this is the start of the tide turning, or just a token.

Edited to add: I know see that the segment is called Opinion: Transgender. So presumably a response to the recent emotive Guardian article about TW facing segregation!!

Lots of other posters expressed surprise as well. Some pointed out that the author is GC. That's all good.

My point was that the Guardian has not exactly been a bastion of truth and unbiased journalism of late, and most people seem to have understood my post to be about that. Honestly, it's nothing personal against Susanna Rustin. I wasn't even thinking about her when I posted one line about the Guardian.

Usually avoid it but I'll give them a click for this.