ChatterBank1 min ago
Julie Birchill Upsets Transgenderers
// The brilliant writer Suzanne Moore and I go back a long way. I first met her when she was a young single mother living in a council flat; she took me out to interview me about my novel Ambition (re-published by Corvus Books this spring, since you ask) for dear dead City Limits magazine. "I’ve got an entertaining budget of £12.50!" she said proudly. "Sod that, we’re having lobster and champagne at Frederick’s, and I’m paying," I told her. Half a bottle of Bolly later, she looked at me with faraway eyes: "Ooo, I could get to like this…’ And so she did.
I have observed her rise to the forefront of this country’s great polemicists with a whole lot of pride – and just a tiny bit of envy. I am godmother to her three brilliant, beautiful daughters. Though we differ on certain issues we will have each others backs till the sacred cows come home.
With this in mind, I was incredulous to read that my friend was being monstered on Twitter, to the extent that she had quit it, for supposedly picking on a minority – transsexuals. Though I imagine it to be something akin to being savaged by a dead sheep, as Denis Healey had it of Geoffrey Howe, I nevertheless felt indignant that a woman of such style and substance should be driven from her chosen mode of time-wasting by a bunch of Joy-sticks in chick’s clothing.
To my mind – I have given cool-headed consideration to the matter – a gaggle of transsexuals telling Suzanne Moore how to write looks a lot like how I’d imagine the Black & White Minstrels telling Usain Bolt how to run would look. That rude and ridic.
Here’s what happened. In a book of essays called Red: The Waterstones Anthology, Suzanne contributed a piece about women’s anger. She wrote that, amongst other things, women were angry about "not having the ideal body shape – that of a Brazilian transsexual". Rather than join her in decrying the idea that every broad should aim to look like an oven-ready porn star, the very vociferous transsexual lobby and their grim groupies picked on the messenger instead.
I must say that my only experience of the trans lobby thus far was hearing about the vile way they have persecuted another of my friends, the veteran women’s rights and anti-domestic violence activist Julie Bindel, picketing events where she is speaking about such minor issues as the rape of children and the trafficking of women just because she refuses to accept that their relationship with their phantom limb is the most pressing problem that women – real and imagined – are facing right now.
Similarly, Suzanne’s original piece was about the real horror of the bigger picture – how the savagery of a few old Etonians is having real, ruinous effects on the lives of the weakest members of our society, many of whom happen to be women. The reaction of the trans lobby reminded me very much of those wretched inner-city kids who shoot another inner-city kid dead in a fast-food shop for not showing him enough ‘respect’. Ignore the real enemy – they’re strong and will need real effort and organization to fight. How much easier to lash out at those who are conveniently close to hand!
But they’d rather argue over semantics. To be fair, after having one’s nuts taken off (see what I did there?)) by endless decades in academia, it’s all most of them are fit to do. Educated beyond all common sense and honesty, it was a hoot to see the screaming-mimis accuse Suze of white feminist privilege; it may have been this which made her finally respond in the subsequent salty language she employed to answer her Twitter critics: "People can just flump off really. Cut their Joy-sticks off and be more feminist than me. Good for them."
She, the other JB and I are part of the tiny minority of women of working-class origin to make it in what used to be called Fleet Street and I think this partly contributes to the stand-off with the trannies. (I know that’s a wrong word, but having recently discovered that their lot describe born women as ‘Cis’ – sounds like syph, cyst, cis
I have observed her rise to the forefront of this country’s great polemicists with a whole lot of pride – and just a tiny bit of envy. I am godmother to her three brilliant, beautiful daughters. Though we differ on certain issues we will have each others backs till the sacred cows come home.
With this in mind, I was incredulous to read that my friend was being monstered on Twitter, to the extent that she had quit it, for supposedly picking on a minority – transsexuals. Though I imagine it to be something akin to being savaged by a dead sheep, as Denis Healey had it of Geoffrey Howe, I nevertheless felt indignant that a woman of such style and substance should be driven from her chosen mode of time-wasting by a bunch of Joy-sticks in chick’s clothing.
To my mind – I have given cool-headed consideration to the matter – a gaggle of transsexuals telling Suzanne Moore how to write looks a lot like how I’d imagine the Black & White Minstrels telling Usain Bolt how to run would look. That rude and ridic.
Here’s what happened. In a book of essays called Red: The Waterstones Anthology, Suzanne contributed a piece about women’s anger. She wrote that, amongst other things, women were angry about "not having the ideal body shape – that of a Brazilian transsexual". Rather than join her in decrying the idea that every broad should aim to look like an oven-ready porn star, the very vociferous transsexual lobby and their grim groupies picked on the messenger instead.
I must say that my only experience of the trans lobby thus far was hearing about the vile way they have persecuted another of my friends, the veteran women’s rights and anti-domestic violence activist Julie Bindel, picketing events where she is speaking about such minor issues as the rape of children and the trafficking of women just because she refuses to accept that their relationship with their phantom limb is the most pressing problem that women – real and imagined – are facing right now.
Similarly, Suzanne’s original piece was about the real horror of the bigger picture – how the savagery of a few old Etonians is having real, ruinous effects on the lives of the weakest members of our society, many of whom happen to be women. The reaction of the trans lobby reminded me very much of those wretched inner-city kids who shoot another inner-city kid dead in a fast-food shop for not showing him enough ‘respect’. Ignore the real enemy – they’re strong and will need real effort and organization to fight. How much easier to lash out at those who are conveniently close to hand!
But they’d rather argue over semantics. To be fair, after having one’s nuts taken off (see what I did there?)) by endless decades in academia, it’s all most of them are fit to do. Educated beyond all common sense and honesty, it was a hoot to see the screaming-mimis accuse Suze of white feminist privilege; it may have been this which made her finally respond in the subsequent salty language she employed to answer her Twitter critics: "People can just flump off really. Cut their Joy-sticks off and be more feminist than me. Good for them."
She, the other JB and I are part of the tiny minority of women of working-class origin to make it in what used to be called Fleet Street and I think this partly contributes to the stand-off with the trannies. (I know that’s a wrong word, but having recently discovered that their lot describe born women as ‘Cis’ – sounds like syph, cyst, cis
Answers
Juulie Burchill has carved out a seriously successful careeer by saying contentious things in print - so why the big deal now. She used to say things like (regarding the Falklands conflict) - "The Argentinians are, of course, pure filth ..." and she has casually written off entire swathes of the planet's occupants since she started in the NME all those years...
22:42 Sun 20th Jan 2013
cistern; all nasty stuff – they’re lucky I’m not calling them shemales. Or shims.) We know that everything we have, we got for ourselves. We have no family money, no safety net. And we are damned if we are going to be accused of being privileged by a bunch of bed-wetters in bad wigs.
It’s been noted before that cyberspace, though supposedly all new and shiny, is plagued by the age old boredom of men telling women not to talk, and threatening them will all kinds of nastiness if they persist in saying what they feel.
The trans lobby are now saying that it wasn’t so much the initial piece as Suzanne’s refusal to apologise when told to that "made" them drive her from Twitter. Presumably she is meant to do this in the name of solidarity and the "struggle" – though I find it very hard to imagine this mob struggling with anything apart from the English language and the concept of free speech.
To have your cock cut off and then plead special privileges as women – above natural-born women, who don’t know the meaning of suffering, apparently – is a bit like the old definition of chutzpah: the boy who killed his parents and then asked the jury for clemency on the grounds he was an orphan.
Shims, shemales, whatever you’re calling yourselves these days – don't threaten or bully we lowly natural-born women, I warn you. We may not have as many lovely big swinging Phds as you, but we’ve experienced a lifetime of PMT and sexual harassment, and many of us are now staring HRT and the menopause straight in the face – and still not flinching. Trust me, you ain’t seen nothing yet. You really won’t like us when we’re angry. //
It’s been noted before that cyberspace, though supposedly all new and shiny, is plagued by the age old boredom of men telling women not to talk, and threatening them will all kinds of nastiness if they persist in saying what they feel.
The trans lobby are now saying that it wasn’t so much the initial piece as Suzanne’s refusal to apologise when told to that "made" them drive her from Twitter. Presumably she is meant to do this in the name of solidarity and the "struggle" – though I find it very hard to imagine this mob struggling with anything apart from the English language and the concept of free speech.
To have your cock cut off and then plead special privileges as women – above natural-born women, who don’t know the meaning of suffering, apparently – is a bit like the old definition of chutzpah: the boy who killed his parents and then asked the jury for clemency on the grounds he was an orphan.
Shims, shemales, whatever you’re calling yourselves these days – don't threaten or bully we lowly natural-born women, I warn you. We may not have as many lovely big swinging Phds as you, but we’ve experienced a lifetime of PMT and sexual harassment, and many of us are now staring HRT and the menopause straight in the face – and still not flinching. Trust me, you ain’t seen nothing yet. You really won’t like us when we’re angry. //
The Press Complaints Commission is to launch an inquiry into the publication of Julie Burchill's controversial column in The Observer that caused outrage among transgender people. The commission decided to act after receiving 800 complaints..
The Observer has censored it from their website.
The Editor has apologised.
A Cabinet Minister (presumably a LibDem) has called it 'vomit'.
Is all that deserved?
The Observer has censored it from their website.
The Editor has apologised.
A Cabinet Minister (presumably a LibDem) has called it 'vomit'.
Is all that deserved?
Julie Burchill walked out on her son when he was five, leaving the boy to be brought up by his father, writer and broadcaster Tony Parsons. She did not see Robert again for more than 10 years, during which time her place in his life was replaced by his grandmother, Emma Parsons, who died from cancer earlier this year.
Horrible creature, so she is.
Horrible creature, so she is.
http://
I can't be arsed to read all that, Gromit (bit worse for wear) but she deserves anything aimed her way.
I can't be arsed to read all that, Gromit (bit worse for wear) but she deserves anything aimed her way.
I dislike her rants, including this one; but I presume they're what the Observer pay her to produce, so maybe they should admit they hired the wrong woman for their purposes.
I don't find the sight of writers bigging each other up very inspiring either. Burchill earned £300,000 a year at the Times, but she's playing the victim card because people call her privileged. Sounds pretty privileged to me.
The text is now available on a Telegraph blog, but I bet they wouldn't have published it in their newspaper. (I wonder if they've paid the Observer, who presumably still hold the copyright?)
I don't find the sight of writers bigging each other up very inspiring either. Burchill earned £300,000 a year at the Times, but she's playing the victim card because people call her privileged. Sounds pretty privileged to me.
The text is now available on a Telegraph blog, but I bet they wouldn't have published it in their newspaper. (I wonder if they've paid the Observer, who presumably still hold the copyright?)
-- answer removed --
I have to say, I found very little to disagree with in BJ Epstein's response in the HP to Burchill's ignorant piece:
http://
http://
Juulie Burchill has carved out a seriously successful careeer by saying contentious things in print - so why the big deal now. She used to say things like (regarding the Falklands conflict) - "The Argentinians are, of course, pure filth ..." and she has casually written off entire swathes of the planet's occupants since she started in the NME all those years ago.
To me, mining the Frankie Boyle seam of contoversy is pointless in terms of a career ambition, but it pays extremely well.
The best thing anyone can do is simply ignore her - if her pointless moanings ceased to sell papers, she would cease to be relavent to the wider world.
For me, she is in the same mould as Simon Heffer, Richard Littlejohn, Melanie Philips, Fiona Philips, Jimmy Young, Eamon Holmes, and so on - they all write columns for national newspapers, and I don't read any of them because they will simply wind me up.
I am in a minority it seems - hence the huge salaries these people attract - but being irritated by a proffesional opoinion-spouter is not my ldea of a good use of my time.
To me, mining the Frankie Boyle seam of contoversy is pointless in terms of a career ambition, but it pays extremely well.
The best thing anyone can do is simply ignore her - if her pointless moanings ceased to sell papers, she would cease to be relavent to the wider world.
For me, she is in the same mould as Simon Heffer, Richard Littlejohn, Melanie Philips, Fiona Philips, Jimmy Young, Eamon Holmes, and so on - they all write columns for national newspapers, and I don't read any of them because they will simply wind me up.
I am in a minority it seems - hence the huge salaries these people attract - but being irritated by a proffesional opoinion-spouter is not my ldea of a good use of my time.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.