The Guardian has finally started reporting on this stuff. I'm sure there are furious conversations in the newsroom about which way the winds are blowing. They're afraid of doing the walk of shame and letting the Telegraph take over as a bastion of responsible news reporting. So...disingenuousness as usual.
They have closed comments at 15.00, but your comment is still there. Think they were probably expecting the inevitable pile on and the comments cluttered up by GC adherents. Give us an inch and we will take a mile.
The hypocrisy of the Guardian is staggering. They are happy to recognise the importance of sex in sports here: "Dr Abigail Bretzin, lead author of the new study, said it was the first to look in such detail into concussion management and outcomes in teenage footballers. “Our findings add to research showing that female athletes are at increased concussion risk compared to male athletes, and highlight the importance of sex-specific research in this field,” she said." But refuse to discuss why men shouldn't compete in women's sport.
Do any of the men out there who want to be, or purport to actually be, women, actually like women? Is it only women who don't menstruate, don't reproduce, have penises and testicles and act like babies, talk like babies and are inordinately fond of babies and young children that they like? I'd love to be able to understand. Maybe the papers will be able to find out for me?? S Vernon.
Considering that Pink News headlines on a trans woman raped by a man in men's prison vs. a woman raped by a trans woman in women's prison were "Trans inmate forced to share a cell with convicted rapist and murderer. He raped her that same night, court told" and "Inmate launches legal bid to force trans women into men's prisons after claiming she was sexually assaulted," I'm assuming that the answer to your likely-rhetorical question is "no," they really don't like women. At all. A lot of them seem to feel an equal mixture of loathing and desire, while their supporters don't see us as human at all. The only women worthy of feeling empathy for are trans women, apparently.
The woman raped in the second headline was in a psychiatric unit for vulnerable prisoners in women's prison when a male inmate who had previously murdered his cellmate with his bare hands and had a rap sheet a mile long began claiming he was trans and was moved into her cell, where he also raped her the same night. She's simply "claiming she was sexually assaulted," though; notice how she's vilified as a bigot who wants to keep poor vulnerable trans women (including dangerous rapists) out of women's prison where they belong, whereas the other headline is an extremely emotional appeal full of pity for the victim.
Fascinating that the guardian basically has shut down all commentary on issues they hold dear, even though the ethos is supposed to be one of "Comment is free, but facts are sacred". Ball seems butthurt that some authors have an outlet that supports them. What a clown.
yahoo news did this as well. In fact, anymore it is rare for any site to host comments whereas in the past they all did. I have the creepiest, weirdest feeling about what just happened to Mr. Graham Linehan. Could we have just witnessed the very moment the tide turned? Could it have happened right before our very eyes...does the Guardian have a 'trend-ometer' of some kind whereby they determine their positions, on which the needle just slid ever so slightly to the other side? Is the jig up? This is a fascinating circumstance.
I do hope so. I see some signs but with the Guardian, I'm not so sure. Isn't one of their main donors in the US a company with strong trans advocates? I read it somewhere, I'd need to look it up to be sure.
Nice to see most of the Guardian readers who commented did not support the article at all and got many likes. I think the comments closed unusually early because of that. They had not realised the strength of feeling. Glad to see also that Suzanne Moore's name cropped up. On the same paper though, and well-worth reading, is the interview with David Bell, retired Tavistock centre psychiatrist, who blew the whistle on Tavistock
They had 'not realised the strength of feeling' probably because for too long the Guardian have not allowed comments on trans-related articles, just shut their ears and gone 'LA LA LA, disagreeing is transphobic, and btw, KILL TERFS!!' to themselves. So they
couldn't gauge responses, didn't receive challenges or corrections. Cutting off the chance of feedback meant not realising years ago that the bowed-to emperor isn't clothed.
The Times, in contrast, has had a vigorous comments section on gender identity pieces since at least autumn 2017 when they announced a policy of covering it. One of Janice Turner's ground-breaking pieces was around then.
The David Bell article is in The Observer, a Sunday paper, which is owned by the same organisation but has a different editor, Paul Webster. Kath Viner edits the Guardian. It's not really obvious on the web site though. The Observer has carried a few unbiased articles on the Trans Industry but I do wonder how long Webster will be allowed to get away with it. The loss of the Guardian is a real shame, it managed to contain it's lunatic fringe (e.g. Seumas Milne) well in the past, but Gender Ideology has done for it I think. Progressive UK is peaking rapidly, but the need/desire to pander to the US Trans lobby means they can't/won't come with us. As we lose patience with it, do it will become more and more US focused. Then every broadsheet will be Right-Wing editorially, have Right-Wing ownership, or both. Byline Times better grow quickly - having said that I don't know what their Woo stance is. Part of me doesn't want to know, yet.
Indeed. The Observer is almost invisible now unless you go looking for it. You'd think that on the Sunday, they could alter their banner. It's also awful that as a woman, I get more support from a male than a female editor. Today there was yet another article on two women in the process of transitioning to men (good luck to them but we had Elliot Page three days ago). The Guardian pro trans coverage is so out of proportion with the percentage of trans people in the population that it has become a mouthpiece for trans activists therefore, I'm about to cancel my long-time subscription with them and I'll tell them why. I'm sad at leaving it but I've had enough.
Not only are men not women, but those men pretending to be women should know something: It doesnt matter how much you try to hide it with surgery and makeup, men cab look and say "Oh god it's a man in a wig" seriously, men are not fooled, men know a woman when they see one, and they know which sows ears are not silk purses
You're quite right. I was introduced to (a very pleasant) post op trans woman (musician) by 'her' woman's name and my first thought was, oh, cross-dresser. As we used to play in different pubs, we saw a similar reaction from patrons (albeit much bitchier).
It's so true. Hey thanks for posting this.. This means ... dare I say it, that for all the mistreatment and abuse and rapespeech women have received online for 15 years, when sane folks finally had got enough and left and went somewhere else, that impact was felt.
I was led to believe it was 'go away, you won't be missed'. Instead it's 'they went away, call the waahmbulance'. Wow. I'm kind of in shock. I think this is the first sign of things to come. It's definitely the first time ever I've felt this. The holdout senator in Congress in the United States poised to vote against the Equality Act, Joe Manchin, a democrat, said recently that the of those contacting him through phone or email about this legislation the ratio is a thousand opposed for every one person who supports it. For GC people are biggest obstacle is we are being led to believe that we have far fewer numbers than we actually do.
In the future, of course, the big platforms will die. The 'fediverse' a loose network of individual servers, is probably more what the internet will look like (which is great because it will be likeminded people like here on your site, clumping together, and conversely degenerate predators will clump up too...it's so stupid of them to ban the women and sane men cause we give them the ONLY legitimacy they have...but they are so self-destructive they can't not, and will only figure it out when it's too late.)
I would of course like a dramatic ax-murder of the big guys via repeal of section 230 tipping off a blood bath of legislation over their allowing and monetizing child porn. But whether they go out with a bang or a whimper, as long as they just go, and never again is any NGO allowed to ever wield this kind of power and influence over society I'll be happy. Without the internet transvestite predators would just be flashing people on street corners. The internet allowed them to run this scam as a civil rights movement. I know it's not because I was there for the real one marching for LGBT rights 30 years ago during the AIDS crisis. That's why their b.s. doesn't fly with me like it does the kids online that weren't alive then.
I know without a doubt that if the right wing in the US ever gets the political power to they will repeal section 230 and break up the social media monopolies. That will be the death knell for big social sites, which are almost passe' now among the younger generations.
I love this quote in the article: “It’s funny to think there’s so many people in tech who think that they’re just going to reinvent the media economy and they’re going to figure out some things that decades of people in media haven’t figured out,” says Roughol.
This will age me but I remember years and years ago Courtney Love railing on and on about her experience with tech guys and the collision between them and creative people where they refer to art as "content". This was back in the day when one could still be justifiably incredulous at these twisted weirdos what were taking over the world as we knew it. They need the output of creative people, which they call "content" to sell advertising. But they don't seem to understand that conviction is what drives people to create, probably because so many zero-negatives in that field don't have any.
Maybe one for substack comment as I haven’t quite figured out if Mermaids is a front for an Islamist fundamentalist group advocating for FGM, a Christian fundamentalists group advocating for homosexual conversion or a far right organisation advocating eugenics through the sterilisation of mentally disturbed children. Either way Mermaids is what happens when you allow stupid people to set up charities!
The guy wilfully misrepresents substack, telling lies about several people on there with large followings, gets called out for it, and does an 'OMG my mentions', how did he get his job, and how does he still have it?!
My comment, along with many similar, simply stating what the alleged "hate speech" consisted of ("Men aren't women, tho" in relation to the WI wishing its trans members happy Pride) was deleted and not reinstated. All very surreal!
Guardian running out of road.
Good. Despicable rag that it is
Fuckers
It's back up. They have no idea what they're doing.
Guardian HQ in panic mode :-D
The Guardian has finally started reporting on this stuff. I'm sure there are furious conversations in the newsroom about which way the winds are blowing. They're afraid of doing the walk of shame and letting the Telegraph take over as a bastion of responsible news reporting. So...disingenuousness as usual.
I find ALOT of very good articles in the telegraph. Shocked but pleased to have found an informed reliable source...🤞🏻
They have closed comments at 15.00, but your comment is still there. Think they were probably expecting the inevitable pile on and the comments cluttered up by GC adherents. Give us an inch and we will take a mile.
just remember what we take is taking back what they stole in the first place :)
I am old enough to remember everything, don't worry.
I'm old too but I forget more than I remember these days.
Ha ha! Same here! :-)
it's really creepy how much power online moderators have.
The hypocrisy of the Guardian is staggering. They are happy to recognise the importance of sex in sports here: "Dr Abigail Bretzin, lead author of the new study, said it was the first to look in such detail into concussion management and outcomes in teenage footballers. “Our findings add to research showing that female athletes are at increased concussion risk compared to male athletes, and highlight the importance of sex-specific research in this field,” she said." But refuse to discuss why men shouldn't compete in women's sport.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/apr/27/teenage-girls-face-almost-double-the-concussion-risk-of-boys-playing-football?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Your comment is visible now along with a response giving an email address for corrections.
I know. Crazy.
GrahamLinehan to
TLITB1
"I see you've already got a lot of work to do on this piece."
LOLOL.
Ha! Ha! That's good of the Guardian! I've emailed them a complaint & will post their response.
Do any of the men out there who want to be, or purport to actually be, women, actually like women? Is it only women who don't menstruate, don't reproduce, have penises and testicles and act like babies, talk like babies and are inordinately fond of babies and young children that they like? I'd love to be able to understand. Maybe the papers will be able to find out for me?? S Vernon.
Considering that Pink News headlines on a trans woman raped by a man in men's prison vs. a woman raped by a trans woman in women's prison were "Trans inmate forced to share a cell with convicted rapist and murderer. He raped her that same night, court told" and "Inmate launches legal bid to force trans women into men's prisons after claiming she was sexually assaulted," I'm assuming that the answer to your likely-rhetorical question is "no," they really don't like women. At all. A lot of them seem to feel an equal mixture of loathing and desire, while their supporters don't see us as human at all. The only women worthy of feeling empathy for are trans women, apparently.
The woman raped in the second headline was in a psychiatric unit for vulnerable prisoners in women's prison when a male inmate who had previously murdered his cellmate with his bare hands and had a rap sheet a mile long began claiming he was trans and was moved into her cell, where he also raped her the same night. She's simply "claiming she was sexually assaulted," though; notice how she's vilified as a bigot who wants to keep poor vulnerable trans women (including dangerous rapists) out of women's prison where they belong, whereas the other headline is an extremely emotional appeal full of pity for the victim.
Conclusion? They hate us.
they like girls. But of course it's necessary to define 'like'.
Fascinating that the guardian basically has shut down all commentary on issues they hold dear, even though the ethos is supposed to be one of "Comment is free, but facts are sacred". Ball seems butthurt that some authors have an outlet that supports them. What a clown.
yahoo news did this as well. In fact, anymore it is rare for any site to host comments whereas in the past they all did. I have the creepiest, weirdest feeling about what just happened to Mr. Graham Linehan. Could we have just witnessed the very moment the tide turned? Could it have happened right before our very eyes...does the Guardian have a 'trend-ometer' of some kind whereby they determine their positions, on which the needle just slid ever so slightly to the other side? Is the jig up? This is a fascinating circumstance.
I do hope so. I see some signs but with the Guardian, I'm not so sure. Isn't one of their main donors in the US a company with strong trans advocates? I read it somewhere, I'd need to look it up to be sure.
‘Read that too
Nice to see most of the Guardian readers who commented did not support the article at all and got many likes. I think the comments closed unusually early because of that. They had not realised the strength of feeling. Glad to see also that Suzanne Moore's name cropped up. On the same paper though, and well-worth reading, is the interview with David Bell, retired Tavistock centre psychiatrist, who blew the whistle on Tavistock
They had 'not realised the strength of feeling' probably because for too long the Guardian have not allowed comments on trans-related articles, just shut their ears and gone 'LA LA LA, disagreeing is transphobic, and btw, KILL TERFS!!' to themselves. So they
couldn't gauge responses, didn't receive challenges or corrections. Cutting off the chance of feedback meant not realising years ago that the bowed-to emperor isn't clothed.
The Times, in contrast, has had a vigorous comments section on gender identity pieces since at least autumn 2017 when they announced a policy of covering it. One of Janice Turner's ground-breaking pieces was around then.
The David Bell article is in The Observer, a Sunday paper, which is owned by the same organisation but has a different editor, Paul Webster. Kath Viner edits the Guardian. It's not really obvious on the web site though. The Observer has carried a few unbiased articles on the Trans Industry but I do wonder how long Webster will be allowed to get away with it. The loss of the Guardian is a real shame, it managed to contain it's lunatic fringe (e.g. Seumas Milne) well in the past, but Gender Ideology has done for it I think. Progressive UK is peaking rapidly, but the need/desire to pander to the US Trans lobby means they can't/won't come with us. As we lose patience with it, do it will become more and more US focused. Then every broadsheet will be Right-Wing editorially, have Right-Wing ownership, or both. Byline Times better grow quickly - having said that I don't know what their Woo stance is. Part of me doesn't want to know, yet.
Indeed. The Observer is almost invisible now unless you go looking for it. You'd think that on the Sunday, they could alter their banner. It's also awful that as a woman, I get more support from a male than a female editor. Today there was yet another article on two women in the process of transitioning to men (good luck to them but we had Elliot Page three days ago). The Guardian pro trans coverage is so out of proportion with the percentage of trans people in the population that it has become a mouthpiece for trans activists therefore, I'm about to cancel my long-time subscription with them and I'll tell them why. I'm sad at leaving it but I've had enough.
Also in today’s Observer: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/may/02/un-catalogues-chilling-tide-of-abuse-against-female-journalists
As far as I could see, this is about ACTUAL women, no mention of trans 👏👏👏👏
Not only are men not women, but those men pretending to be women should know something: It doesnt matter how much you try to hide it with surgery and makeup, men cab look and say "Oh god it's a man in a wig" seriously, men are not fooled, men know a woman when they see one, and they know which sows ears are not silk purses
You're quite right. I was introduced to (a very pleasant) post op trans woman (musician) by 'her' woman's name and my first thought was, oh, cross-dresser. As we used to play in different pubs, we saw a similar reaction from patrons (albeit much bitchier).
*can, not *cab
It's so true. Hey thanks for posting this.. This means ... dare I say it, that for all the mistreatment and abuse and rapespeech women have received online for 15 years, when sane folks finally had got enough and left and went somewhere else, that impact was felt.
I was led to believe it was 'go away, you won't be missed'. Instead it's 'they went away, call the waahmbulance'. Wow. I'm kind of in shock. I think this is the first sign of things to come. It's definitely the first time ever I've felt this. The holdout senator in Congress in the United States poised to vote against the Equality Act, Joe Manchin, a democrat, said recently that the of those contacting him through phone or email about this legislation the ratio is a thousand opposed for every one person who supports it. For GC people are biggest obstacle is we are being led to believe that we have far fewer numbers than we actually do.
In the future, of course, the big platforms will die. The 'fediverse' a loose network of individual servers, is probably more what the internet will look like (which is great because it will be likeminded people like here on your site, clumping together, and conversely degenerate predators will clump up too...it's so stupid of them to ban the women and sane men cause we give them the ONLY legitimacy they have...but they are so self-destructive they can't not, and will only figure it out when it's too late.)
I would of course like a dramatic ax-murder of the big guys via repeal of section 230 tipping off a blood bath of legislation over their allowing and monetizing child porn. But whether they go out with a bang or a whimper, as long as they just go, and never again is any NGO allowed to ever wield this kind of power and influence over society I'll be happy. Without the internet transvestite predators would just be flashing people on street corners. The internet allowed them to run this scam as a civil rights movement. I know it's not because I was there for the real one marching for LGBT rights 30 years ago during the AIDS crisis. That's why their b.s. doesn't fly with me like it does the kids online that weren't alive then.
I know without a doubt that if the right wing in the US ever gets the political power to they will repeal section 230 and break up the social media monopolies. That will be the death knell for big social sites, which are almost passe' now among the younger generations.
Typical lying dogs.
I love this quote in the article: “It’s funny to think there’s so many people in tech who think that they’re just going to reinvent the media economy and they’re going to figure out some things that decades of people in media haven’t figured out,” says Roughol.
This will age me but I remember years and years ago Courtney Love railing on and on about her experience with tech guys and the collision between them and creative people where they refer to art as "content". This was back in the day when one could still be justifiably incredulous at these twisted weirdos what were taking over the world as we knew it. They need the output of creative people, which they call "content" to sell advertising. But they don't seem to understand that conviction is what drives people to create, probably because so many zero-negatives in that field don't have any.
So true!! Ahh!
Maybe one for substack comment as I haven’t quite figured out if Mermaids is a front for an Islamist fundamentalist group advocating for FGM, a Christian fundamentalists group advocating for homosexual conversion or a far right organisation advocating eugenics through the sterilisation of mentally disturbed children. Either way Mermaids is what happens when you allow stupid people to set up charities!
The guy wilfully misrepresents substack, telling lies about several people on there with large followings, gets called out for it, and does an 'OMG my mentions', how did he get his job, and how does he still have it?!
My comment, along with many similar, simply stating what the alleged "hate speech" consisted of ("Men aren't women, tho" in relation to the WI wishing its trans members happy Pride) was deleted and not reinstated. All very surreal!