"In 2018, the UK newsroom published a transphobic attack on trans rights as a paper editorial." Do you not think this is a LITTLE bit exaggerated? It's crazy that this is how you would try to present a fairly innocuous and balanced editorial. I say that as a trans person.

Expand full comment

And now we get to play "Trans bootlicker, or TERF LARPer?"

Expand full comment

Honestly, don't you get how using this stupid jargon is counter-productive?

Expand full comment

I really really get why it would be addictive to hate so much. But you're spoiling your own life.

Expand full comment

Did you read it? That Guardian 2018 article is filled with toxic dog whistles and "just asking questions" calls to exclude trans people from their preferred gender and from spaces matching that gender.

From the article:

"Any new law must not give violent or controlling male prisoners a new opportunity to dominate women by changing gender and transferring to a female prison"

See the shift between "women" and *females*? Notice how the same is not done with males? The presumption trans women are *males* is all over this piece. The only difference between the Guardian piece and something out of the Daily Wire is that the Guardian is more subtle about it.

Let's keep going:

"Women’s oppression by men has a physical basis, and to deny the relevance of biology when considering sexual inequality is a mistake."

And then this:

"Women’s concerns about sharing dormitories or changing rooms with “male-bodied” people must be taken seriously. These are not just questions of safety but of dignity and fairness."

Trans or not, if you think is balanced, you need to read more pro-trans rights material, cause Pink News doesn't do this.

Expand full comment

And, of course, we have TERFs trying to nitpick and pretend that censorship is fine as long as they're doing it. You people are always pretending to be the good guys, but regularly side with neo-Nazis. You had that fact exposed, so you whinged and whined until you got your own way, like the over-entitled babies you always have been.

Expand full comment

You seem to have missed out where Gleeson was offered the opportunity to update the article with information about the WiSpa case but refused to as Gleeson stated "“I explained that I was very wary of feeding into an agenda which twins trans women with sex predators". So Gleeson was unwilling to update the article to present the material facts of the case which then led the Guardian to remove the part that Gleeson refused to correct.

You also seem to have a very poor grasp of Equality Act law as it operates in England, Wales, and Scotland. If you want to write about this topic with any authority then maybe you should acquaint yourself with how rights and legal protections work in our country (where the UK Guardan is based).

In the UK, males and females have rights and protections under the protected characteristic of "sex" and trans people have protections under the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment". The law (as it stands) recognises that in some situations there will be conflicts between people with these characteristics and makes provisions for different parties.

All the Guardian editorial did was recognise that in certain circumstances, there are conflicts between womens' rights (based on their sex) and trans womens' rights (based on their gender reassignment characteristic) and argued that there should be equal attention paid to both groups' needs.

Your framing of womens' rights as being "anti-trans" demonstrates your male-centred approach. If you think that women having rights and protections in law is "anti-trans" then maybe you are anti-female? And your doxxing of an employee's email where she stood up for women's rights and framing of it as a bad thing just shows us your misoginy.

In any case British people are not buying into the US gender religion. We are more skeptical of the concept of gendered souls and we already afford better legal protections to women and trans people than you do in the US.

Do better Eoin

Expand full comment

Point of correction on your interpretation of the Equality Act: Trans people are also protected under the category of sex in their acquired sex (see AEA vs EHCR). The judge, in refusing the judicial review, was of the view that Parliament intended that trans people be treated as the opposite sex to their birth sex. The argument brought by the AEA sought to redefine the guidance to the Act in the way you have interpreted in your reply, and the judge found the argument to be an "obvious absurdity".

Furthermore, the Act specifically includes protection, e.g. from harassment, if a person is perceived to have a characteristic that they do not actually have, e.g. a person suffers harassment for being trans if they are perceived to be trans when in fact they are not trans. In this regard, all people can benefit from some of the protections for gender reassignment, even if they are not trans.

A trans woman is afforded protection under the protected characteristic of sex as a woman, and under the category of gender reassignment as a trans person. These protections are not mutually exclusive but additive. A trans woman is both a woman (sex) and trans (gender reassignment).

The Act has an exemption, where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, that would allow, on a case by case basis and where alternative services are provided, to exclude trans people from a specific single-sex service. The bar is set extremely high, and it cannot be used as a blanket exemption to exclude all trans women from using a service for women. This exemption is in the basis of gender reassignment, not sex. A trans woman's sex is female under the intent, definitions and guidance of the Act (again, refer to AEA vs EHRC). Had the Act included a sex-based exemption intended to exclude only trans women, it would have to be on the basis of their acquired (female) sex and would inadvertently exclude all people who were female from single-sex services for women. This would be an obvious absurdity, hence the exemption is on the basis of gender reassignment.

There is no recognition of sex based rights, which means different rights based on sex, as this would be contrary to the aim of the Equality Act to treat all people equally. Indeed, it was sex-based rights that the suffragettes opposed, because men had the sex-based right to vote but women did not. Sex-based rights are anathema to equality as they would legitimise sex-based discrimination by providing a mechanism to grant rights to one sex that were denied to another.

Expand full comment

Careful, you can't use facts against TERFs, they'll get triggered!

Expand full comment

Gender religion” is transphobic claptrap. TERF island needs to reassess its bigotry, yesterday. Do better transphobes.

Expand full comment

Apart from all the other distortions in this piece, I don't think you understand what Susanna Rustin's job is: as a leader writer, she expresses the policy of the paper as a whole, and of the editor in particular. Have you ever actually worked on a newspaper? The idea that some one off freelance contributor like Gleeson can tell the British editorial staff that they "need to own up to their own mistake (ie disagreeing with her) and change course" is absolutely fucking ludicrous.

Expand full comment

Is this a weird admission that the entire paper is transphobic?

Expand full comment

There's no free speech in the UK. A law student was investigated, and accused of transphobia for saying that women have vaginas and are physically weaker than men.


It's the new anti-Semitism. The Guardian dumped Nathan Robinson and the Labor party dumped Corbyn and now Ken Loach. And Owen Jones approves the purge.


But 8 year olds are taught that boys can have periods.


Because apparently you can't teach that boys can wear skirts or that girls can be masculine. So they need medication, to change their body chemistry.

Diane Ehrensaft Benioff Children's Hospital


"How to tell if babies are trans."


And there will be calls for me to be censored for my "violence"

Expand full comment

Kinda weird that calling out transphobes on their b.s. is "the new anti-Semitism", given that you lot side with neo-Nazis.


Expand full comment

I've never heard of her. I'm sure some people are anti-trans on principle. No one I know is. But I'm just not going to take Caitlyn Jenner's defense of the Texas abortion ban as the opinion of a woman, as opposed to a human being with the same rights as all of us. https://www.thedailybeast.com/caitlyn-jenner-says-shes-pro-choice-but-also-supports-texas-abortion-ban

Her understanding of women's experience is limited: https://tinyurl.com/jwsnpe8k

And I still want to know why Rachel McKinnon is any less misogynist than an incel. https://tinyurl.com/3k2bbe86 It's my understanding that lesbians prefer pussy to penis. And it's interesting that I've never heard of a transman furious that a biological man won't have sex them him.

Follow the links before you respond.

Expand full comment

I have never met a trans person who is furious that anyone wont have sex with them, rather trans people are usually upset at people degrading them or denying their gender identity. It is very possible to turn a trans person down without doing that, that's not usually what TERFs and other varieties of transphobe tend to do though. They add mockery and denialism to their rejection.

Expand full comment

And of course, this one random ass tweet with no way to comform validity is literally meaningless. Trying to use that to prove anything is just really dumb.

Expand full comment

Have you tried drying your eyes, crybaby?

Expand full comment

I'm not crying. I'm laughing. https://tinyurl.com/3k2bbe86

Expand full comment

Click the link. Do you agree with Rachel McKinnon (now Veronica Ivy)? Yes or no.

Expand full comment

As someone who sides with critics of Butler on trans issues, I actually would have preferred to have nothing edited. In terms of your piece, using the term "transphobia" so recklessly is hyperbolic, at best, and probably counter to your objective as far those outside of the "choir" are concerned.

Expand full comment

Kathleen Stock: "Can biological males be lesbians?"

Back to you, Eoin


Expand full comment

Trans women who are attracted exclusively to women are lesbians definitionally, because trans women are women and they like other women. Trans men who are attracted to exclusively men are also gay because trans men are men. There was no purpose in the use "biological males" instead of saying trans women other than to signal to transphobes that you agree with them and to fear monger about a group that already faces a massively disproportionate level of violence and discrimination.

Expand full comment

Rachel McKinnon, trans athlete and philosophy professor, says lesbians who like vagina and not penis are transphobes. McKinnon's the equivalent of an incel.

I'm tired of misogyny

Expand full comment