Disgraceful lies and hyperbole from the guardian

[mardirousse]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/oct/21/washington-anti-trans-sports-genital-exams. I'm appalled at the Guardian. To claim that protecting the female category for school sports will require girls to undergo genital checks is disgraceful. What pediatrician doesn't know the sex of their patients?

It's the US arm of the Guardian. Absolutely par for the course on these issues.

All they do is lie

I don't read The Guardian, and it is behind a paywall so I often don't even read the articles that are linked to here.
This time I put into Skip the Paywall and read it in full.

It's the very antithesis of what journalism should be.
I can accept that media outlets adopt positions; I could accept if The Guardian took the position that trans-IDing boys should be allowed to participate in girls' sports and made an argument for that. I wouldn't agree with it, but I don't expect every news outlet to only say things I agree with.

But what they have published is just a screed of one-sided, easily-disproved hyperbole and lies, as the thread title says.

The most obvious being that genital inspections are not how sports organisation test the eligibility of men and women. We all know - and so, undoubtedly do the writer and The Guardian editors - that a simple cheek swab is all that's needed.

The nastiest part is
She added that any policy that puts girls through intrusive medical procedures “opens up a can of worms” given the horrific crimes of Larry Nassar, an ex-USA Gymnastics doctor who was convicted in 2023 of sexually abusing girls for decades.
associating people who support girls' sports being solely for girls with a vile serial child abuser like Nassar.

That seems to be a trans-ally trope - we've had a few posters on this board who have responded to concerns about safeguarding by accusing GC women of having a 'dodgy' interest in children's genitals.

There isn't even a token few lines given to the other side of the argument - not even a hint of objective reporting.

Well, they should be very glad that a simple sex verification test using nothing more invasive than a cheek swab already exists, and that efforts are being made to make this well established test cheaper and readily available. Anomalous results from such tests can be dealt with discreetly and fairly, and may even trigger appropriate investigation, treatment, information and counselling fir athletes with previously undiagnosed differences in sex development at an earlier stage. This would be much better than similar tests being performed on athletes at high level, under the eye of the media and public.

A genital exam would be invasive and inappropriate, and even more so when you consider the only reason girls might have to undergo one in these circumstances is because of the behavior of the male individuals, men and boys who have identity issues and demand the rite to compete unfairly in sex segregated sports. Males who won't consider the rights, boundaries and needs of the very people they claim to identify with.

I am also curious why the guardian has never expressed the same level of outrage over the drug testing regimes for high level national and international athletes that involve witnessed urination before drug testing? These also involve girls and young women and as a process are equally intrusive.

You can easily read Guardian articles by typing theguardian.com into your browser. I have the UK Guardian app which grants me access to about 30 stories per month but the .com version is always available - how daft is that?

Anyway, what a one sided article. Aren't they supposed to cover both sides? No mention of the girls who walked off the cross country team when a boy joined up.

Same shit, different day.
My takeaway is that in the halcyon days of radio silence and enforced cancel culture, TRAs and their useful idiots in impolite society didn't have to talk at length.
Now that they do, where they have to justify positions and actions, as we see in this article, they're more and more shown to be hyperbolic and extravagant.
Can anyone remind us what the standard sex test was up until the late 90s when it was stopped?
Genital tests? No, a simple cheek swab, good for life.

The Guardian has always been dreadful at science and this is no exception. A rigorous journalist would include an explainer about the significance of hormone measurements and dna tests versus anatomical observations, the implications for girls with DSDs, and the reason why a birth certificate isn't enough.

In the UK, anyone under eighteen can prove their biological sex with an original birth certificate. Why is the US different? Guardian can't be bothered to find out.

It's this incurious attitude to facts, so typical of gender identity believers, that is exercising the OP over on the 'motivated reasoning' thread.

In Washington State, where this is proposed, minors have been able to amend their birth certificates to reflect their claimed "gender identity" since 2018!
However, even with that, the cheek swab would rarely be needed.
Pediatricians know the sex of their patients. They can fill in a form with honesty and certainty. If there is any doubt, an original birth certificate can be requested. If that's not forthcoming, a cheek swab can then be offered.
And we all know it is only the parents of male children who wish their gentle little darlings to play as girls who will have changed their children's pediatrician, lost or be unwilling to provide, their original birth certificates.
These are the ones who will then whinge about how invasive the cheek swab is.

Edit for clarity

In Washington State, where this is proposed, minors have been able to amend their birth certificates to reflect their claimed "gender identity" since 2018!

😱

I suppose the Guardian thinks this is a great thing/hardly worth mentioning/sex is nobody else's business anyway 🙄

Completely addled. C P Scott spinning in grave no doubt.

I didn’t know the Guardian was behind a paywall - when did that start? It usually just pops up with a begging plea that you can just close. Or is this a US thing and not the same as the UK Guardian?

You are correct. The Guardian isn't behind a paywall it just has increasingly more irritating pop-ups begging you to subscribe.

Off topic but I was really surprised by exactly how invasive the urine drugs tests are! I mean I suppose you get used to it but it's not nice. It's a fair point that anyone playing at professional level will be very used to some level of genital nudity anyway.

I think a lot of the extreme reporters who didn't gain traction in the UK have gone for the Australian and US markets. They all get paid to stir up the divisions.

This and the increasingly sparse evidence for wild claims is why I stopped reading it when the whole Trans debate was happening over here. I actually did think it was behind a paywall as I haven't bothered to click through everything asking me to sell my soul.

I'm not in the UK, and both the UK and US Guardian require me to either accept all cookies [thanks but no thanks] or subscribe.
Frankly, I don't feel I'm missing much.😏
I use Skip the Paywall on the rare occasions I want to read one of their articles.

This is a link to what is proposed

https://www.sos.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/IL26-638%20Explanatory%20Statement.pdf?ref=thehighlinejournal.com

"Students who want to participate in interschool sports teams or individual events that are designated for female students only would have to provide a form that verifies the student’s “biological sex.” That form must be signed by the student’s personal health care provider. The verification would have to be based on the student’s reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels."

I think it is a bit vague. Presumably the suggestion is that 'reproductive anatomy' means 'genital checks', which as we know, are beside the point.

An initial cheek swabs seems to be the way to go - is there a reason why this wouldn't be suggested?

Or are they just saying that a doctor can be expected to know their patient's sex for various reasons and that this is sufficient at this stage?

There's an enraging stupidity about all of this - isn't there always?

In any normal society, a birth certificate would suffice to prove someone's sex. But trans activists demanded the right to lie on their birth certificate.

Now when an organisation needs to prove someone's sex, they can't rely on the birth certificate, they have to find another way. And then trans activists shriek about how "invasive" the tests to prove sex are. These people are utterly pathetic.

My theory for the origin of the genital inspection lie is that it that it stems from the tests to distinguish CAIS athletes (who can compete in female events currently) from PAIS athletes ( who cannot compete in female categories)

There is something called the Quigley Scale that in part considers the appearance of genitals in determining whether someone has CAIS or PAIS.

They've taken a test that would only be used for DSD athletes who had failed the SRY screening and tried to say that it would be applied to all girls/women 99.9% of whom would pass the SRY screening

But why would that be relevant to sport? It's not the genitals that give the male advantage.

Is it a measure of receptiveness to testosterone?

Yes

Sex testing is part of checking gender. They literally measure clitoral length.

Used to happen all the time, and since transphobes kicked up a stink about women like Lin Yu-ting (who has passed these humiliating tests to the sound of no apologies whatsoever from the idiots who called her a man who likes punching women) it's very much back.

Just one more way transphobia harms all women. Thanks for that.

"Sex testing is part of checking gender."

What? That makes no sense.

How would they 'check' gender?

It sounds much more likely that it would be a way of diagnosing a specific DSD, which is not the same thing at all.

I thought "gender" was supposed to be a purely social construct and internal to the individual?

What can clitoral (or penis) length have to do with a social construct?

In any case, sports governing bodies are only interested in whether people wanting to compete in women's events are eligible to do so, not what "gender" they are - if such a thing really even exists

ie that they don't have a Y chromosome and therefore have had no innate advantages conferred via testosterone

A buccal swab confirms that in approaching 100% of cases without needing to measure clitoral length!