Guardian Hadley Freeman - discussion from Daily Naps

Luke and David and Harry, etc, I agree that opinions about the "trans issue" should not be silenced. Maybe you can clarify this point for me, as I can't. In Mick Hartley's report on his blog on 2nd November where he talks about Hadley Freeman

he says,

"In 2020, 338 members of The Guardian staff signed a letter to editor Viner criticising the paper’s “repeated decision to publish anti-trans views,” which they said had “cemented our reputation as a publication hostile to trans rights and trans employees”."

He doesn't actually say so, but IMHO this was a (dishonest) attack on Suzanne Moore who had written an article a few days before

which the signatories to the letter took offence at. It appears (to me) that this was the basis for their claim that the paper was hostile to trans rights.

My own take on this is that whoever wrote the letter together with a few key opinion formers whose names were at the top then circulated it for endorsement and thus created a groupthink where social pressure meant that everyone must sign it. Effectively the unspoken assumption would have been that not signing it meant that you were a transphobic bigot. I have seen (first hand) that dynamic in action on other topics.

However, Hadley Freeman's recent letter to Viner says,

""I have repeatedly suggested to multiple section editors", writes Freeman, that they commission an investigation into the trans children's charity Mermaids. "But to no avail, either because of the editors' ideological beliefs or - more likely - their fear of the reaction in the office."

My problem is if the Guardian has been publishing a lot of anti--trans views (as claimed in the 2020 letter), then why would Hadley Freeman be prevented from writing an investigatory and potentially critical article about the pro-gender change organisation Mermaids? Surely they would welcome it? It does not make sense to me.

In summary, on the Guardian, I think it is unsure how to proceed on this issue and Hadley Freeman is probably right. The Guardian is not alone, though, as political parties are also unclear. The SNP has adopted a line which has aligned it with the more extreme trans lobby (in my opinion). The Labour Party has been unwilling to tackle the issue for fear of saying something which might alienate the absolutist pro-trans lobby. Recently, Starmer seems to have fallen foul of that.

Other points (not about the Guardian)

Irrespective of that point, I have admired the work of the group of women who have been resisting the demands of some of the extremists in the trans movement who appear to want to expunge the biological identity of women altogether, (including by changing the meaning of words in the language). For the record, I have no problems about those who change their gender having made a decision on the basis of all the evidence, etc. But I do have a problem with a group which seeks to deny the biological identity of women and all the rights which they have struggled to accumulate through decades of struggle. This group and various followers have adopted absolutist tactics which regard any deviation from the ideological purity to which they adhere as evidence of transphobia. Some of them then carry out campaighs against the individuals who express different views or more modulated views than they hold. The most notable example is J K Rowling who is subjected to constant vilification and threat, etc.

I have found no evidence that JK Rowling is transphobic, but the lack of evidence has no effect on the extremists who attack her.

Apart from the lack of rationality and extremism of this debate which concerns me I am also very concerned about the way that children are being treated. From my reading of the evidence in the public domain, such as it is, it does seem to me that there are real grounds for concern about the way that young children and adolescents are being counselled and then medicated. Such medication is not reversible as it is claimed. Also that certain organisations such as Mermaids appear to be pursuing an ideological objective which is potentially at odds with the best interests of a child. At the same time, a number of organisations who have the responsibility for children have been given information which has not been approved by the relevant authorities. They have been implementing this in schools and elsewhere. I can see no proper oversight and research going on.

On the medical front, I did notice a piece of research from Austraiia recently which showed that a minority of children who have the hormone treatment suffer from permanent osteoporosis.