How to fool the Guardian reader

If they could at least manage to talk about it honestly that would be a start.

First sentence of Libby Brooks’s article on a survey of attitudes toward trans people:

The British public are not bitterly polarised over trans equality, according to new research, which found a majority agreed schools should talk to pupils about transgender issues and that one in four knows a trans person personally.

But “equality” has nothing to do with it. Nobody wants trans people to be “unequal” in some never-specified way. The well is poisoned in the title and the very first sentence, and of course goes on being poisoned throughout.

Thought to be the most in-depth UK study to date of public attitudes to what has become a notoriously toxic discourse in politics and on social media, the report from More in Common identifies a radically different attitude among ordinary people, who approach issues of gender identity from a position of compassion and fairness, often informed by their own relationships with trans people.

Radically different from what? Notoriously toxic in what way? She doesn’t say, but she does then imply that we – feminist women critical of trans ideology – oppose compassion and fairness. Poison poison poison that well.

More than 5,000 people surveyed for the thinktank did not see trans issues as a big divide in Britain today, with rows about JK Rowling or the Keira Bell case barely mentioned in focus group discussions held across Scotland, England and Wales. However, people did feel strongly that trans women should not compete against cis women in professional sporting events.

In other words they think what we think, but we stand accused of opposing equality, being toxic, and opposing compassion and fairness. Talk about manipulative…

Writing in the Guardian, More in Common’s UK director, Luke Tryl, said the research had uncovered little interest in “the latest ‘gotcha’ trend of posing questions to senior politicians about whether or not women can have penises”.

Aw yeah hahaha why would anyone ask a stupid gotcha question like that, apart from women who don’t want to be forced to pretend men are women in all circumstances and locations.

Polling showed wide support for openness in education. In contrast to the advice last month of the attorney general, Suella Braverman, that schools do not have to accommodate pupils who want to change gender, there is also broad agreement that schools should support young people exploring their identity.

There it is again. Libby Brooks apparently cannot help doing this manipulative translation everywhere. Changing gender is not the same thing as exploring identity. Disguising the first as the second is reckless and destructive. Of course young people should be free to “explore their identity”; trying to change your sex is a much more drastic endeavor. She said “change gender” but that’s another manipulation.

But the interviews also revealed some concerns about medical treatments for young people who were questioning their gender identity, with the majority believing physical interventions towards transition should not start before the age of 18. While almost half of the public are comfortable with the idea that someone should be able to take hormone blockers under the age of 18, they are much less likely to say the same about cross-sex hormones, and a significant minority believe that gender reassignment surgery should only be available to those aged 21 and over.

That of course is because “the public” has been told for years that hormone blockers are harmless and fully reversible, which is not true. Manipulation everywhere.

12 Responses to “How to fool the Guardian reader”