The guardian would be shit even without the transphobia - it is the main source of toxic neoliberal centrist propaganda in England. It relentlessly sabotaged the possibility of a labour government that could have *at least lessened* some of the hardships inflicted on trans people, migrants, disabled people and benefits users by Tory austerity. Many of its articles are indistinguishable in ideology from the Sun or Telegraph.
We don't want an empty apology or inclusion in its pages - we have seen what it does with attempts to engage in the open letter signed by over 100 published next to thoughtless individual hate screeds in a 'both sides' piece.
There's an underlying assumption (from the guardian's demographic of a particular section of the cis, white middle and upper classes) that, we'd expect this from the Telegraph, we'd definitely expect this from the Sun, but how could the lovely guardian betray us? This is the insidious function of the guardian and why we must in particular resist its grasps at maintaining relevancy.
People who may read the Sun are tbh much less invested in building an identity around a newspaper, and can consume the information more critically than self described guardian readers. The assumption is the inverse, because of elitism and snobbery.
The guardian doesn't make legitimate profits and is propped up by wealthy patrons despite its claims of 'independence'. It retains reach by getting engagement on its online platform, by us sharing it even in outrage. It would be nothing without its readership, and it is good to question the intentions of those who think it is worthwhile existing at all. We can't fix a broken system, because it isn't broken - just like the capitalist model it is invested in, the guardian is working just as it wants to.