Transsexuals should cut it out - Julie Burchill

GRMA

It's never a good idea for those who feel oppressed to start bullying others in turn

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/13/julie-burchill-suzanne-moore-transsexuals

Fairly disgraceful piece I thought, but does she have a point hidden away in there somewhere with regards to perhaps oversensitivity, or more precisely, overreactions by the "trans lobby" to perceived (or actual) slights against trans people?

Authors wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Burchill

I like some of her work, particularly where she defends the oft attacked working class

wonderfulname

That is an absolutely disgusting piece, if she has a point I certainly can't see it past the filth she's spewing, if you remove the transphobic nonsense that article would fit in a tweet.

I'm incredibly surprised that was published.

baby and crumble

Wow. What horrible vile drivel I just read. Glad to see there's an editors note on the top about the complaints. Only right.

GRMA

Her underlying point as far as I can see it is that she is annoyed at her friend being bullied off of twitter because of a thoughtless, stupid or whatever comment and that she didnt deserve such a reaction.

I wouldn't put it past her to being deliberately offensive to make a point of perspective, ie what type of thing to get up in arms about, vile stuff like she wrote rather than much lesser things like her friend was abused over

wonderfulname

GRMA wrote: »

Her underlying point as far as I can see it is that she is annoyed at her friend being bullied off of twitter because of a thoughtless, stupid or whatever comment and that she didnt deserve such a reaction.

I wouldn't put it past her to being deliberately offensive to make a point of perspective, ie what type of thing to get up in arms about, vile stuff like she wrote rather than much lesser things like her friend was abused over

Yeah, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals on intention, it's a scummy, thoughtless article regardless.

Attacking a minority as a homogeneous group because of a twitter campaign? There's no way you can reflect this well on her.

If you want to have a discussion on offence, and if people take too much, linking your premise to this is not the best way to go about it.

GRMA

I'm not trying to make her look good.

I hope any attempt by somone to say she has a valid underlying point wont be spun by people to make out that they agree with her bile

L.Jenkins

I don't want to sound crash, but she sounds like a self-entitled, better than thou kind of bitch in capital letters.

wonderfulname

GRMA wrote: »

I hope any attempt by somone to say she has a valid underlying point wont be spun by people to make out that they agree with her bile

Then why include the article? You may have noticed it's a tad emotive, and as an extreme example of your premise, can be used to discredit it very easily.

Ignoring the piece it's still pretty easy to tell you what is wrong with the claim the "trans lobby" should put up and shut up with smaller offences;

The "trans lobby", what's that again? Hang on til I check my copy of the gay agenda... You're kicking this off with the assumption this has anything to do with trans people, that the behaviour and beliefs of some trans people are relevant to others. This is just vocal people, the issue happens to be a trans one, there are vocal people in every subsection of society and for some reason we like to attribute their vocalisations to that entire subsection.

So some individuals took offence... Bad individuals! Don't feel offended! Really? That makes sense? People have every right to feel offended, and to speak up when they do, how you take that is up to you but in a one on one situation social norms generally dictate the offender apologise regardless of intent, why does this change when scaled up/ applied to the internet?

There's the implication here that trans people should put up with small examples of transphobia because somehow this will lend credance to their voice on larger ones... I would view that position as repressing and dismissing people, unfortunately it doesn't even make enough sense to me as a concept to properly argue it, but I would say nobody has ever made their lot better by ignoring it, and it would take a special perspective to fail in recognising there's a scale to these things, I've never heard anyone claim women who take issue with patronising pet names are damaging the march towards equality in pay.

I have more points but I think I should stop now.

GRMA

wonderfulname wrote: »

Then why include the article? You may have noticed it's a tad emotive, and as an extreme example of your premise, can be used to discredit it very easily.

Ignoring the piece it's still pretty easy to tell you what is wrong with the claim the "trans lobby" should put up and shut up with smaller offences;

The "trans lobby", what's that again? Hang on til I check my copy of the gay agenda... You're kicking this off with the assumption this has anything to do with trans people, that the behaviour and beliefs of some trans people are relevant to others. This is just vocal people, the issue happens to be a trans one, there are vocal people in every subsection of society and for some reason we like to attribute their vocalisations to that entire subsection.

So some individuals took offence... Bad individuals! Don't feel offended! Really? That makes sense? People have every right to feel offended, and to speak up when they do, how you take that is up to you but in a one on one situation social norms generally dictate the offender apologise regardless of intent, why does this change when scaled up/ applied to the internet?

There's the implication here that trans people should put up with small examples of transphobia because somehow this will lend credance to their voice on larger ones... I would view that position as repressing and dismissing people, unfortunately it doesn't even make enough sense to me as a concept to properly argue it, but I would say nobody has ever made their lot better by ignoring it, and it would take a special perspective to fail in recognising there's a scale to these things, I've never heard anyone claim women who take issue with patronising pet names are damaging the march towards equality in pay.

I have more points but I think I should stop now.

It's not my premise but hers. "Trans lobby" is also her language (you know what quotation marks mean yes?)

Don't you fcuking dare put words in my mouth or broadcast assumptions about me or vile implications. (your "let me check my "gay agenda" book nonsense) I never said anyone should "put up" with anything. But that reactions should be proportionate.

I think my language "disgraceful/vile" etc illustrate how I feel about the article. In your haste to get your pitchfork out you must have missed that.

I shared the article because I felt it should be highlighted (I was very surprised to read it this morning on the guardians website).

In addition to condemning it I feel there may be a valid point underneath it all, albeit put forward in a horrible way, which should be discussed

Links234

In Suzanne Moore's original article, she makes a comment about "Brazilian Transsexuals" being the ideal for female beauty, as if all and sundry revered Brazilian trans women above all other women. It was insensitive on one front, considering the amount of body-shaming trans women have to put up with simply for having transsexual bodies, but it was seriously hurtful and offensive in light of how many trans women were murdered in Brazil in the past year alone. That for from trans women being held aloft as paragons of beauty by society at large, they are reviled, being brutally assaulted, harassed and murdered.

At this point, it would've been a case of foot-in-mouth insensitivity and a simple "oops, I didn't realize!" might've cleared it up, but Suzanne responded with an angry tirade on twitter, vicious comments about trans women and before closing her twitter account said “People can just **** off really. Cut their dicks off and be more feminist than me. Good for them.”

So no, Burchill has absolutely NO valid point. None whatsoever. This was nothing more than a rant where she tried to fit in as many insults, as much triggering language, and as much slurs as possible. it's an indefensible position, and her friend Suzanne Moore was no more "bullied" off twitter than she cried "I'm taking my ball and going home!"


Quite honestly, trans people have been absolutely saints responding to this bile.

Here's a couple of good follow up articles:

An open letter to Suzanne Moore
Julie Birchill has ended up bullying the trans community

wonderfulname

GRMA wrote: »

It's not my premise but hers. "Trans lobby" is also her language (you know what quotation marks mean yes?)

Don't you fcuking dare put words in my mouth or broadcast assumptions about me or vile implications. (your "let me check my "gay agenda" book nonsense) I never said anyone should "put up" with anything. But that reactions should be proportionate.

I think my language "disgraceful/vile" etc illustrate how I feel about the article. In your haste to get your pitchfork out you must have missed that.

I shared the article because I felt it should be highlighted (I was very surprised to read it this morning on the guardians website).

In addition to condemning it I feel there may be a valid point underneath it all, albeit put forward in a horrible way, which should be discussed

Okay, I suggest you calm down and reread my post, at no point did I address you as an individual, I addressed the article, put it aside, and then addressed what you believe to be a valid point.

I never once assumed your position on the article.

GRMA

wonderfulname wrote: »

Okay, I suggest you calm down and reread my post, at no point did I address you as an individual, I addressed the article, put it aside, and then addressed what you believe to be a valid point.

I never once assumed your position on the article.

You quote me, then say you are ignoring the piece the piece and launch off on a diatribe. You talk about "my premise" then on the next line say " it's still pretty easy to tell you what is wrong with the claim the "trans lobby" should put up and shut up with smaller offences". That is putting words in my mouth.

You then continue on with "you" this, "you" that for the rest of your reply.

Forgive me for assuming you were addressing me.

Then you go on saying you would infract me for making personal comments and shoud calm down? You are the one who put words in my mouth and made this personal about me.

EDIT: Then you go and change your mind, edit your post, and I get infracted anyway. What in heavens is going on.

wonderfulname

GRMA wrote: »

You quote me, then say you are ignoring the piece the piece and launch off on a diatribe. You talk about "my premise" then on the next line say " it's still pretty easy to tell you what is wrong with the claim the "trans lobby" should put up and shut up with smaller offences". That is putting words in my mouth.

You then continue on with "you" this, "you" that for the rest of your reply.

Forgive me for assuming you were addressing me.

Then you go on saying you would infract me for making personal comments and shoud calm down? You are the one who put words in my mouth and made this personal about me.

Taken to pm, it should be noted for others if it's unclear I was employing the general use of the word "you", and I do apologise if this has caused any confusion.

Any further off topic issues with my posting should be taken to pm, or reported to my co-mods if applicable.

Lyaiera

I've been linked to an article of hers from ten years ago. This isn't out of the blue, she simply sees transgender women as typical men being men.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2001/jan/20/weekend.julieburchill

Hopefully The Guardian sees her for what she is now and denies her a platform.

Hamhide

I dont see how she can truly justify rambling on and giving out to transexuals just because of 1 or 2 trolls from twitter that just happen to be trans, or so she tells us. I didnt see any proof to be honest.she just seems like an ignorant biggot to me and maybe i'm taking a page out of her book here but being a woman doesnt give her the right to do that does it?

Vojera

What a horrible article! I'm disappointed that it was even published. For me, anyway, the fact that it was highlights how far society needs to come to really accept the trans community. I can't see the Guardian publishing a similar piece about gays (I hope I'm correct in saying that), but somehow it's okay to launch into a diatribe against trans women full of filthy and hateful language? Despicable.

I don't think it's ever correct to attack someone over twitter or whatever (highlighting a concern is okay, as is rational discussion, but threats etc are not), but I didn't see any of that discussion so I don't know what really happened. However, a writer should realise that words have power and that her words were ill-chosen. If an apology stuck in her craw, I'm sure something like "I'll take the feedback into consideration" would have diffused a lot of the anger.

Her friend has done her no favours in writing this "defence". She seems to think that being from a working class background alone lends credence to her experience as a "real woman", also implying that those with academic education or from middle-class or above can't have legitimate experiences. It smacks of "I had a hard life growing up so I can say whatever I want".

What a tool.

Madam_X

She's a professional troll. Wouldn't waste energy on her.

Annasopra

Madam_X wrote: »

She's a professional troll. Wouldn't waste energy on her.

The thing is though a good point was made in response by Roz Kaveney:

http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/13/julie-birchill-bullying-trans-community

do you think that what you've written makes it more or less likely that an elderly trans woman living on a housing estate will get jostled on the stairs by her neighbours? Or that a teen trans man will be punched in the street? It's not anger-fuelled tweets, but that provocation, done with malice by people who should know better, that is the real bullying.

fasttalkerchat

GRMA wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/13/julie-burchill-suzanne-moore-transsexuals

Fairly disgraceful piece I thought, but does she have a point hidden away in there somewhere with regards to perhaps oversensitivity, or more precisely, overreactions by the "trans lobby" to perceived (or actual) slights against trans people?

It reminded me of a debate on the radio on Thursday... it was a long drive and I could only get one channel.
Basically a journalist used the phrase "queer gags" to describe a pantomime and for hours the writer berated her while they brought on other gay and cross-dressing men. The cross-dressers then had a go at how men dressed as women in pantomime isn't cross-dressing.

It all got very silly and takes away from the real issues of discrimination.

baby and crumble

Vojera wrote: »

Her friend has done her no favours in writing this "defence". She seems to think that being from a working class background alone lends credence to her experience as a "real woman", also implying that those with academic education or from middle-class or above can't have legitimate experiences. It smacks of "I had a hard life growing up so I can say whatever I want".

She also seems to think that all trans people are educated to PhD standard, and that all PhD's are idiots who have no idea what the real world is like. Granted, a lot of people in academia don't do themselves any favours in that regard but frankly her vitriolic reaction to people she sees as more educated than she is seems a bit OTT.

She's got enough chips on her shoulder to start up her own Burdocks!

Annasopra

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

It reminded me of a debate on the radio on Thursday... it was a long drive and I could only get one channel.
Basically a journalist used the phrase "queer gags" to describe a pantomime and for hours the writer berated her while they brought on other gay and cross-dressing men. The cross-dressers then had a go at how men dressed as women in pantomime isn't cross-dressing.

It all got very silly and takes away from the real issues of discrimination.

Are you suggesting that Julie Birchalls article was just silly and taking away from the real issues of discrimination?

fasttalkerchat

mango salsa wrote: »

Are you suggesting that Julie Birchalls article was just silly and taking away from the real issues of discrimination?

I thought he article was a mental rant. In fact her article, in my opinion, was more offensive than the original tweet.

Annasopra

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I thought he article was a mental rant. In fact her article, in my opinion, was more offensive than the original tweet.

I think it's a lot more than a mental rant myself.
I thought it was a vile collection of disgusting, hurtful and offensive insults.

Links234

mango salsa wrote: »

I think it's a lot more than a mental rant myself.
I thought it was a vile collection of disgusting, hurtful and offensive insults.

To me, it was a calculated effort to incite and anger transgender people into making equally vicious comments in return so that she could say "Look, look at all the nasty things trans people have said! They're really monsters!" if the commenters bit. They didn't bite, and the whole escapade has blown up in her face. What she does is try to rely on the public's perceived ignorance of the terms she's using, either the hugely offensive slurs, or the fact that she tries to cite the term "Cis" as a slur against women, when it simply means the opposite of trans. But commenters, both trans and cis alike have seen through that and called out the piece for what it is, a vile hate screed.

Lynne Featherstone calls for Observer's Julie Burchill to be sacked following 'disgusting rant' against transsexuals

Annasopra

There's an interesting article here as well. I wouldn't agree with some of it but it gives an interesting overview

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100197903/feminists-versus-transexuals-julie-burchill-suzanne-moore-and-the-observer-spark-civil-war-on-the-left/

LegacyUser

The Guardian newspaper is probably the most politically correct newspaper in the UK. For them, above any other newspaper, to allow such an article to be published out-of-the-blue seems a bit convenient to me; some of the article's content may be regarded as a violation of the UK's laws regarding hate speech for crying out loud.

I know, I know -- a conspiracy theory -- but hear me out. It isn't totally unfounded that Julie Burchill (with the support of Suzanne Moore and the Guardian Editors) purposely intended to create the vilest, most prejudicial transphobic article imaginable in order to generate a media publicity stunt of some sorts. Transgender issues receive very little, if any, attention in the media as it is. Such a whirlwind publicity stunt may have been intended to bring transgender issues into the limelight as the controversy unfolds in the British Press.

Reading over the article again, I feel that Burchill purposely tried to strike at the heart of many of the core stereotypical misconceptions and prejudices directed towards transgender people. It seems a bit unusual that a radical feminist like Burchill would be so ignorant about transgender issues. She should at least be aware of how the phenomena of gender roles lead to the persecution and oppression of transgender people, as they have for cisgender females like herself in the past and present.

If this theory is true, and whether or not you agree with such methods, I think it's entirely inappropriate to throw transgender people around like pawns in order to achieve social and/or political objectives, with little regard to proper journalistic standards and practices. If it's not true and Burchill was actually being serious here, I think that again it is an obvious affront to journalistic standards and practices and she ought to be taken off the Guardian's payroll immediately.

Vojera

AnonOpinion wrote: »

...

I do find it pretty incredulous that the Guardian, of all papers, has been the one to publish this. I doubt even the Daily Mail would allow such a hateful rant (it tends towards the more insidious, imo).

But if they try to justify this with an "Oh, this was actually a postmodernist comment on the victimisation of women, both cis and trans" excuse, or similar, I think they'll find that no one got the joke, especially since this isn't the first pop Burchill has taken at transgender women (see the article from 10 years ago that Lyaiera linked to, where she compares transgendered women (tg men don't exist in her spectrum) to poor people who want to be rich, and implies that no amount of surgery will make her accept them as "real" women anyway).

I'll be interested to see how this unfolds and what action (if any) will be taken from it. But saying it was written to highlight tg issues is not going to wash with me.

Links234

AnonOpinion wrote: »

The Guardian newspaper is probably the most politically correct newspaper in the UK. For them, above any other newspaper, to allow such an article to be published out-of-the-blue seems a bit convenient to me; some of the article's content may be regarded as a violation of the UK's laws regarding hate speech for crying out loud.

You're acting as if this is something new for The Guardian? It is not.

The Guardian has been for years the paper with the most anti-trans views by far, and while the Daily Mail or the Sun have published sensationalist garbage whever the occaision crops up, but it has been the Guardian that has consistently provided platforms to career-transphobes like Julie Bindel, Germaine Greer and David Batty and it's all the worse for it because they can dress up their hate screeds with a degree of respectability, and cloak their venom in ways that come across as serious criticism; it is taken seriously. They've repeatedly given a platform for that venemous mouth-piece Sheila Jeffreys, who's used that platform to call for 'transgender surgery' (her words) be considered a human rights violation and made illegal.

All you're seeing here is the mask finally slipping.

Annasopra

They pulled Julie Burchills article

Vojera

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2013/jan/18/julie-burchill-pcc

The Press Complaints Commission is to investigate the article.

At the end of the article there are tonnes of links to sort of "apologist" articles, and being on my mobile I can't tell if they're from the Guardian, trying to distance themselves from the Observer, or from the Observer trying to belatedly make amends.

Either way, it doesn't change the fact that the article in question should never have been published in the first place. Reading the statement from the reader's editor, it seems that the article was given the okay by several people, none of whom raised any concerns. Sort of depressing that they apparently saw nothing wrong with it.

wonderfulname

Vojera wrote: »

Sort of depressing that they apparently saw nothing wrong with it.

It must be laziness more than anything, at one point burchill cites a term as being offensive before going on to use it later in the piece, I'd imagine that nobody really looked at it.

JupiterKid

Julie Burchill is a "shock" journalist. She has always written inflammatory pieces since her "enfant terrible" music journo days at NME in the late 1970s.

La Burchill would love nothing more than a big hoo-ha and controversy to be created around her rather nasty and venomous article.

The best thing to do is just ignore her.

Neutron_pot

Dont see what the problem is . . . It wasnt disgusting or vulgar so i dont know why it makes some people sick. I found it fair and to the point, entertaining at some points.

I think she has an honest genuine dislike for transexuals.....and if thats how she feels, who are others to put her down?

Annasopra

Neutron_pot wrote: »

Dont see what the problem is . . . It wasnt disgusting or vulgar so i dont know why it makes some people sick. I found it fair and to the point, entertaining at some points.

I think she has an honest genuine dislike for transexuals.....and if thats how she feels, who are others to put her down?

Quit the trolling