Open Democracy seems to have a branch (or perhaps it’s a rib) called open Democracy 50.50. Its Twitter explains it as

Feminist investigative journalism & frontline reporting. We are #TrackingtheBacklash against women’s & LGBTIQ rights – and challenging exclusion in the media.

So it’s not feminist journalism at all then. Feminism is for women, end of story. There is no law that says feminism has to dilute itself by adding LGB rights, let alone LGBTIQ rights, at least one of which negates women’s rights.

I did a post on trans-identifying Natacha Kennedy’s “journalism” yesterday. This one –

But look, three days earlier they promoted a similar attack on feminism.

Women who say men are not women are “punching down” according to Jess O’Thomson [sic] who writes a lot for the Trans Safety Network. They is no kind of feminist.

O’Thomson is much exercised by the fact that women are sometimes allowed to say that men are not women.

…‘gender criticals’ have sought to rely on the Equality Act 2010 to obtain discrimination protection for clearly anti-trans conduct. For example, in Forstater, it was argued that the Equality Act 2010 should protect Maya Forstater’s right to call Pips Bunce a “part-time crossdresser”. In Allison Bailey’s case, it was argued that the same should apply to a tweet calling a trans woman “male-bodied”, and suggesting that they “ran workshops with the sole aim of coaching heterosexual men who identify as lesbians on how they can coerce young lesbians into having sex with them.”

O’Thomson thinks we should not have any right to say that trans women are male-bodied or that a man who sometimes wears a dress is a part-time crossdresser. This is “open democracy”?

Bailey claimed that this terrible and transphobic accusation was a simple expression of her ‘gender critical’ beliefs. Most concerningly, in the judgment, it was uncritically accepted that the acronym ‘TERF’ (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist) amounted to a “slur” on the same level as racial slur ‘P***’, which was printed in the judgment uncensored.

But our virtuous O’Thomson damn well does censor it, thus leaving me with the headache of figuring out what the hell “P***” might be. I got there in the end: Paki. Thank god for censorship so that no one will know what you’re even trying to talk about.

I suppose that’s pretty typical for the level of intellectual discussion from the virtuous O’Thomsons of the world. Slurs are a form of magic, so that the appearance of the whole word, no matter how meta, how labeled in advance as a slur, how distanced with quotation marks, is every bit as racist and evil as saying it with intent.

That doesn’t apply to “Karen” though.