220
The Guardian gets a dedicated Europe Edition
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
220 points (97.4% liked)
Europe
8332 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'm not aware of the situation - are the journalists transphobic or the commenters?
The journalists. The Guardian has been shockingly bad when it comes to transphobia, to the point where the writers for the US edition has publicly criticized the UK edition.
That's weird. Is it a conscious, coordinated decision or is it a case of several writers being transphobic?
It seems to be both conscious and coordinate and does fit into the overall climate of the UK in general being quite openly transphobic (yes, that's a generalization, I know).
Just look at some of the crap that J. K. Rowling sprouts which doesn't seem to reduce her darling status.
There is an "official" editorial: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/17/the-guardian-view-on-the-gender-recognition-act-where-rights-collide
What the fuck, trans people are 4x as likely to be victims of violent crimes and twice as likely to be victims of sexual violence than cis people, that’s a terrible fucking law
Given it's position as a mostly progressive/liberal paper their line on transgender topics is weirdly backwards. And it's not just commenters. It does match the overall atmosphere in the UK in general, but it's extremely jarring when looking at it from the outside.
And so that it's not just a "I told you so":
Thanks for that. It is odd how these radical feminist views have gone so far that they loop back around to the far right. And yes it's surprising that the Guardian is giving them a platform. I wonder why it does? Is it just the paper has always supported feminism, but the feminists that write their articles have become more radicalised over time?
I really don't understand how these radical feminists think that transgender rights are somehow eroding women's rights. Every trans person I know just wants to get on with their lives, they don't have some agenda. If you wrote an article about how gay rights are causing some issue it would be considered right-wing. So why is it different for trans rights? Crazy
From what I can tell, they don't have "a line". They are generally supportive of trans right and folks and they also acknowledge that there is debate over how some vulnerable women would still like spaces free both from men and from women who transitioned and were previously men. This is a difficult subject and I don't think the paper is transphobic to carry the discussion. It's what happens when the rights of two vulnerable communities collide.
Feel free to have that opinion.
Is their opinion incorrect? I'd be interested to hear a counterpoint.
No.
I'm not going to "debate you bro". Build your own opinion, read the articles I linked, try to find an argument.
Try to find good faith. Then maybe there can be a conversation.
What OP described is exactly how TERFs phrase their fight against trans people in public. I'm not going to engage with those arguments, because they either come from ignorance (which I'm not energetic enough to combat today) or from a place of bad faith "discussions".
Oof. Wasn't asking for a debate, simply asked your perspective.
You know I'm not "HeartyBeast", right?
I think my position on that was made clear enough by my original post and my reply.
You might have been asking in entirely good faith, but the issue is that this "oh, can you please explain your point of view to me" approach is so extremely frequently presented in bad faith and costs so much energy from those who care about topics like this.
Ok. Your first linked article is taking issue with the Guardian for saying "If a lesbian only desires same-sex dates that’s not bigotry, it’s her right".
Your position is that you disagree with the Guardian here?
They actually have a lot more positive articles for trans rights (by headlines, I didn’t read them all) than I realized, but they also write stuff that is just so insulting. The constant “just because we have the belief that sex might still be relevant” is downplaying things a really disingenuous level.
While the article talks about lesbians, it mentions that this is all backed up legally, because the UK doesn’t allow trans women (I wonder if they allow trans men who’ve undergone medical transition) to access rape services, but they don’t criticize that or mention that trans people are twice as likely to be victims of sex crimes as cis people are.
They take a hard look at mermaids, which they should, mermaids seems sketchy. They don’t, however, address that LGB Alliance wants to set up a helpline for children (except to mention they need money, because of the evil trans maniacs). What happens when a confused trans kid calls them?
Additionally, calling a binder medically unsafe is a stretch. If you wear one that’s too small 24 hours a day, ignoring any feeling of over compression, it can fuck you up. Otherwise, they can be as safe as things like 10 cm heels, which children aren’t restricted from buying, afaik
Many thanks for your reply. I'm a Guardian subscriber so I have a vested interest in knowing they have an appropriate stance on this.
I haven't noticed a transphobic attitude in their journalism (International edition). Not to say it doesn't exist, but I haven't yet encountered it.
I would be a bit hesitant about forming an opinion based on "opinion" pieces, in the Guardian or any publication. They're as worthless as the bytes they're printed on, and in the main rambling and painful to read. My take on opinion pieces (in any paper) is that they're not necessarily representative of the views of the publication, and are frequently more negatively emotive than what an actual article would be.
Thank you for your reply, it is appreciated.
And your position is that I have to materially agree with every single sentence in any content that I link to to explain a situation?
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but it seems you're a debate-me-bro after all.
I wanted to know your perspective, and you told me to read the articles as they contained your perspective.
If you'd rather give me your perspective on HeartyBeast's comment than make me guess by playing 20 questions, it would really help things. I would much prefer that.
If you don't agree with the article, then why tell me to read them to get your perspective 😖
I'm doing my best based on the information you've given me.
I read the articles you linked, and that was the conclusion I drew. I'm not sure its helpful to accuse me of reaching them through either 'ignorance' or 'bad faith'. I have empathy for the difficulties of the trans community, but I also have empathy for women who have suffered abuse.
I'm honestly not sure how to square that circle yet. But I don't think shutting down a conversation with 'the paper is transphobic, full stop' is great.
With your self-righteous attitude and allergy to contradiction you are literally proving the arguments of the far right. You are part of the reason the left cannot win elections any more. You are not helping anyone or anything.
There are rumours that the editor, Kath Viner, is a TERF, though she hasn’t made her own views clear. The Guardian has given columns to a lot of professional anti-trans commentators, such as Hadley Freeman, Julie Bindel and Suzanne Moore.
For casual readers, please observe the nasty nature of these personal attacks, and please note that the viewpoint of the person expressing them is NOT shared by everyone on the left.