This unpleasant piece of literary vomit apeared in today's Observer:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...e-transsexuals
Discuss.
Printable View
This unpleasant piece of literary vomit apeared in today's Observer:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...e-transsexuals
Discuss.
brilliant article. nasty, offensive and worth reading. I laughed out loud.
" a gaggle of transsexuals telling Suzanne Moore how to write looks a lot like how I'd imagine the Black and White Minstrels telling Usain Bolt how to run would look. That rude and ridic."
Brilliant. More newspapers should print offensive articles. Freedom of speech innit
Appalling article I think. Well-written but without much of a point to make except that transsexuals should not have special rights as feminists or even be treated with respect. Heavy on the use of insulting language, references to castration, and outright bigotry.
Freedom of speech is not about publishing everything offensive to prove that the concept of free speech is alive and well. It's about protecting ideas that have merit despite the fact that they are unpopular or offend some. The right to print trash doesn't equal an imperative to do so.
When people write for the sole purpose of being outrageous it usually means they don't have much of an idea to express and so they dispense with all subtlety to at least win attention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Took my breath away when I read it in The Observer, but will be worth checking the reader response next Sunday - The Observer is essentially left of centre, so I would hope its readers will respond accordingly to Burchill's rant. And she is a determined controversialist anyway.
That said, Suzanne Moore's comment about every woman wanting the ideal body - that of a Brazilian transsexual - was the only mention in her article. Careless, casual and stupid, yes, but by no means an all-out attack. There's a young transsexual journalist here in the UK, Paris Lees, who often comments on transgender issues in the broadsheets and online. I'll also be interested to get her take on this.
The said Ms Lees pointed me to this.
http://http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/...r-on-the-left/
"Julie Burchill - the Bernard Manning of feminism" LMAO.
It looks hopeful that Burchill could lose her job over this, never the type to miss a passing bandwagon one of our horribly right wing government ministers has jumped to the defence of the trans community.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/gree...er-transgender
Burchill has a history of hating transgender people see this article from 2001
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...ill?CMP=twt_gu
I wonder if this hatred of transgender is common among feminist circles?
I was kinda tongue in cheek with my freedom of speech innit (taking the use of the chav language to re-inforce the view that when met with some tripe, people decry freedom of speech. I forget this forum is full of yanks and foreigners.. :P ).
I think it was an important article as usually transgender abuse comes from men who are being derogatory towards women and call them 'trannies' to abuse. Because the popular view in churlish media of a transsexual is still 'a man in a wig'. And I think she was playing on this to an extent, but Im not aware of many women journos going after the transgendered community before. Its quite odd, but at the same time I think it will open up an interesting backlash. Hopefully a lot of gorgeous women will come forward and tell her to fuck off.
@robert Louis
I agree her original comment was throw away and silly but not that offensive. But when Moore was challenged on twitter about this she responded with the same kind of vitriolic hatred that Burchill later displayed. She hereQuote:
That said, Suzanne Moore's comment about every woman wanting the ideal body - that of a Brazilian transsexual - was the only mention in her article. Careless, casual and stupid, yes, but by no means an all-out attack.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/01/11...-stop-digging/
There is certainly a school of thought in feminism that results in this hatred of Trans women, she the work of Janice Raymond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Burchill and Moore are obviously fans.
That is not an impartial account of what Suzanne Moore wrote. This is her actual piece:Quote:
Originally Posted by Getshorter
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...man?intcmp=239
I had never read anything by Julie Burchill before now, as I was only aware that her reputation seems to be based on annoying people, which is the easiest form of journalism to write, and doesn't encourage me to read. As expected, she deliberately offends, for otherwise her reputation would be undermined. Big deal. But I'd like to know how many 'working class' women take their friends off to Fredericks for lunch with 'Bolly'...volly at home with spag bog might be more likely...
Burchill has made a long and profitable career out of being offensive and controversial. She seldom has anything of substance to say but has a great glibness and facility with the type of writing which is, sadly, all too prevalent today. Once upon a time she was a rock critic for the NME but then moved into her present mode. She has worked for just about every national newspaper in the UK - bar the FT. I still recall one of her most offensive remarks many years ago was a suggestion that many young women yearn for a taste of "negroid knob." So her latest little piece of attempt to outrage is not surprising.
She is a vile attention seeker who abandonned her two children and supported the iraqi war (if I remember correctly while welcoming the fact it was done for oil).Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
The Observer disgraced itself by allowing such an article to be printed. It seems that transsexuals and (muslims maybe) are the last minorities that can be attacked in such a vitriolic way in the mainstream media.
What s ironic is that its mainly women who took issue with Moore's comments on twitter, burchill lies when she says her master was attaked by "trannies"Quote:
Originally Posted by Getshorter
I had never heard of any of these bitches before, but I understand Burchill is basically a British Ann Coulter?
Also, while I agree the "Brazilian transsexual" comment was not THAT bad, Suzanne Moore's response to being called out about it on Twitter was pretty offensive as well as the follow-up she wrote for the Guardian.
And if you want to understand why her original comment caused such outrage, you'll have to read it in the context that trans women in Brazil have one of the highest murder rates of any group of people anywhere on earth. It's appalling. Given this as well as all the other shit we face everywhere, it's hard to imagine any non-trans woman wanting to switch bodies with a Brazilian transsexual.
And even disregarding that, I don't see how a body that still has some masculine features and has had to correct many more through cosmetic surgery could possibly be considered a feminine ideal. It's pretty obvious to the women living in those bodies that they don't meet the insane standards set for women in the media no matter how hard they try.
And finally, to act like all trans women even have the type of body she was referring to is clearly absurd. I'm 5'8" (tall, but not really tall), have natural B cups, and average width hips for a woman (37"), so I guess I don't have a typical transsexual body in her (incredibly uneducated) opinion.
Call me insensitive, but when i read that in the blog i thought bullshit, and i still think it's bullshit...Why would you even put it in that particular context?Quote:
Originally Posted by sophiebendable
Unless of course, you're looking to be offended. :shrug
It'd be like me saying I hate my nose...I look like a fukkin New York Jew!
...And then someone bring up the Holocaust!
Y'know, fuck the rational arguments against it, lets go straight for the jugular! :shrug
As a trans woman, it makes complete sense to me that other trans women reading that sentence would relate it to that. Compared to many of us I'm not at a particularly high risk for violence (being white has a lot to do with it), but I still constantly think about the statistics and incidents I've heard of both from friends and in the news. The specter of violence is a constant psychological weight whenever I'm in public, on the train, walking down the street, etc. A lot of the point of hate crimes is to create this atmosphere of constant fear in the victimized group.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
So yeah, I wouldn't expect YOU to have had that association at all. The shame is that Suzanne Moore, after this was explained to her, was unable to make the connection to her own experiences as a woman who frequently writes about rape culture and show some empathy in her response.
The fact that arse augmentation is called 'The Brazilian Butt lift', and it was this particular procedure that was part of the image Suzanne wanted to convey in her imagery, then it was a reasonable descriptive device. It's not perfectly accurate, and it was a bit glib, but it didn't deserve anything like the attention it got.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
Yes, there is a high murder rate, but they also have the highest number of TS supermodels, so to concentrate on a crime statistic to stereotype Transgenders in Brazil is only half the story. Their increasing success in the fashion industry suggests that they aren't the victims as they are being presented. In fact, with that amount of exposure, they may earn themselves more acceptance than in any other country.
If any one was particularly offended by the article, it should have been for all the Transgenders in Brazil who have died injecting silicone into their body.
Of course women can have that body if they are willing to die for it.
All the more surprising therefore that a left of centre newspaper like The Observer should give her a platform for her rant. That said, the comments section on The Guardian website (shared with The Observer, its sister paper) was nigh on unanimous in condemnation of what Burchill had written, and all the posts came from men and women - that is to say, nobody self-identified as transsexual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
On the other hand, it was reprinted on The Daily Telegraph site by Toby Young, another wilful controversialist, and the comments there were just as ignorant and objectionable as you would expect from that source.
The upside is that the storm has at the very least raised awareness of the issues transsexual women and men face on an everyday basis. Hopefully that's also the last time Burchill will stain my Sunday morning reading.
She was horrid to her ex-husband Tony Parsons, He had to look after their children himself and all she did over the years was publicly slag him off whilst he moved on with his life, she likes to stir things for a reaction so this article does not surprise me.
I agree with Jericho. It was the first thing I thought when I saw it too! The Brazilian ts murder rate has nothing to do with Suzanne Moore's initial jokey comment.
The reason it is being cited is to bring an emotional weight to a weak argument.
I didn't find Suzanne Moore's follow up article to be offensive either. I can see how a person who has already decided to be offended could pick holes in it, but I understand what she is trying to say in it.
However, Julie Burchill's article is intentionally offensive! She even says at one point in brackets 'at least I'm not calling them shemales', but then goes on to use the term shemale (and shim) later on. That is undoubtedly willful.
Toby Young and Burchill were, of course, co-workers at a short lived magazine called, if I remember rightly, The New Review along with her brief gay partner Charlotte Raven. Young is and always has been another self publicist.
And I'm sorry - but it's not only the Right Wing who can be sexist, racist, transphobic and homophobic. Plenty of unreconstructed fools on the Left too.
An additional, almost depressing thought is that journalists like Julie Burchill, Suzanne Moore, Polly Toynbee, Simon Heffer, Richard Littlejohn and Joan Smith probably get £100,000 a year -possibly even more- for their 'work', which after all, is just their opinion; its not like they have engaged in absorbing research or travelled a thousand miles to interview people in trying conditions before they write their stuff. You would think in the internet age, the blog has made such comment pieces in newspapers redundant, why should I read Polly Toynbee or Julie Burchill at all? If there is an answer maybe is it because anonymous members of the public know they will be read by more people in the comments section of a newspaper than a blog? Yet most of the comments seem to be made by the same hard core of people who promote their pet gripes...I actually find Hungangels has a more diverse and entertaining range of opinion than these comments on articles....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/br...ims-oppression
Below are a couple of excerpts from the story I found interesting. I'm not sure if it provides a reason Burchill wrote the story she did but some good ideas anyhow.
Edit: just to clarify this is not just a science article but actually addresses Burchill's article and the response to it.
Could it be the Just World Hypothesis? This dates back to research by Melvin Lerner which showed that subjects asked to evaluate someone undergoing painful electric shocks (they were fake, don't worry) tended to rate the victim far less favourably if they were told their suffering would continue. If they were told they'd be rewarded in the end, people rated the victim far more favourably. The worse the victim apparently suffered, the worse the subject's opinion of them was.
What's going on there? The Just World Hypothesis states that people have an inherent belief that the world is fair and just and that people's actions and behaviour is eventually met with the appropriate consequences, i.e. "you get what you deserve." When faced with evidence that suggests that this is bollocks, most people's first response is to rationalise it in a way that allows the illusion to continue. The most obvious example of this is victim blaming.