"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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
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.
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.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/student-investigated-for-saying-women-must-have-vaginas-3tnl0f9wb
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.
https://electronicintifada.net/content/how-owen-jones-justifies-labours-purge-socialists/33831
But 8 year olds are taught that boys can have periods.
https://www.scotsman.com/education/primary-school-teach-children-boys-can-have-periods-too-1424847
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
https://www.ucsfbenioffchildrens.org/providers/diane-ehrensaft
"How to tell if babies are trans."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7KBZeRC1RI
And there will be calls for me to be censored for my "violence"
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.
Kathleen Stock: "Can biological males be lesbians?"
Back to you, Eoin
https://www.thearticle.com/can-biological-males-be-lesbians