(no subject)
Enough.
The ongoing dramatics at the Guardian, courtesy of 2 senior columnists, have got to stop. Last week Suzanne Moore ignited the furore when her essay in The New Statesman included a line where the ideal womens' body is that of "Brazillian transexual". After receiving negative tweets and abuse from Twitter, she wrote a column in the Guardian's Comment Is Free section with the title " I don't care if you were born a woman or became one". That post also attracted negative comments, leading her good friend and colleague Julie Burchill to write an article published in the Observer - same company, different editorial team - that eventually becomes the subject into an inquiry by the editor. A minister calls for both Burchill and the Observer editor to be sacked for the offensive article, and the online version is taken offline. This being the internet, you can still find the tweets and article online.
Reading the "I don't care if..." article, I was irritated. What was Moore attempting to do? By writing that she knew a few "transsexuals" (purposely using that term instead of transgenders), mentioning their botched surgeries, and then snidely remarking how "some trans people appeared to reinforce every gender stereotype going", it was obvious this was no attempt at an apology or understanding her position. Rather it was angry Moore getting back at people who criticises her AND trans people in an article that was weakly tied to her shallow plea that we should be furious with what the Tories/Capitalism are doing to society instead turning on each other.
Thanks to a posting by a Below The Line (BTL) commentators at Comment Is Free, you can read her twitter exchanges here.
This is when it made sense for me. She says she doesn't care if a person is cis or not (my words, not hers as she challenges the term) but yet makes derogatory remarks about trans people. It dawned on me that Moore actually looks down on trans women, and sees them as inferior to cis women. And this, reminded me of the conversations I had with my good friend S on feminism - and how the movement is actually an inclusive group that POC and LGBTQ people feel uncomfortable working alongside. Moore states she " wanted to say again that feminism is not a white, middle-class concern: look at Sierra Leone, Egypt, India", but fails to explain what she means. Is she implying that there are no feminist groups in these countries? Or that feminism can assist the unenlightened countries she named? Yes, she admits her white privilege, yet doesn't care enough to change her ways.
Burchill was worse. Enraged by all these people criticising her friend, she goes off in an abusive article which some have likened to hate speech. I wouldn't go that far, but it is indeed offensive, threatening, and shameful. Burchill too, looks down on trans women. She's just more open about it:
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.
If you'd like to read the rest of this charming fuck-you, it's available at a blog on the Telegraph's website. The Observer editor apologised for running the article and took down the article from the site, hence it being hosted elsewhere.
You'd think all this would have Moore thinking twice about commenting on this episode, but nope, "It saddens me that supporting freedom makes me an opponent of equality". Boo-fucking-hoo. It's another whingefest about how people have been attacking Burchill and herself, and includes the notion that free speech guarantees she can be insulting to people because she's "free-thinking". Just because you can be an arsehole doesn't mean you have to be. There's such a thing as responsibility and compassion for others, y'know *rolls eyes*. Moore seems to think her critics are waiting for her to apologise, so they can claim a point for tyranny instead of liberty. Come off it, the issue isn't free speech, it's that Moore refuses to learn from this experience and see she's being prejudiced.
Sadly, this sort of behaviour exists amongst those who are expected to be allies. It's hard to get anyone so entrenched in their belief to see beyond themselves especially when confronted with their prejudices, and I doubt Moore will be an exception.
The ongoing dramatics at the Guardian, courtesy of 2 senior columnists, have got to stop. Last week Suzanne Moore ignited the furore when her essay in The New Statesman included a line where the ideal womens' body is that of "Brazillian transexual". After receiving negative tweets and abuse from Twitter, she wrote a column in the Guardian's Comment Is Free section with the title " I don't care if you were born a woman or became one". That post also attracted negative comments, leading her good friend and colleague Julie Burchill to write an article published in the Observer - same company, different editorial team - that eventually becomes the subject into an inquiry by the editor. A minister calls for both Burchill and the Observer editor to be sacked for the offensive article, and the online version is taken offline. This being the internet, you can still find the tweets and article online.
Reading the "I don't care if..." article, I was irritated. What was Moore attempting to do? By writing that she knew a few "transsexuals" (purposely using that term instead of transgenders), mentioning their botched surgeries, and then snidely remarking how "some trans people appeared to reinforce every gender stereotype going", it was obvious this was no attempt at an apology or understanding her position. Rather it was angry Moore getting back at people who criticises her AND trans people in an article that was weakly tied to her shallow plea that we should be furious with what the Tories/Capitalism are doing to society instead turning on each other.
Thanks to a posting by a Below The Line (BTL) commentators at Comment Is Free, you can read her twitter exchanges here.
This is when it made sense for me. She says she doesn't care if a person is cis or not (my words, not hers as she challenges the term) but yet makes derogatory remarks about trans people. It dawned on me that Moore actually looks down on trans women, and sees them as inferior to cis women. And this, reminded me of the conversations I had with my good friend S on feminism - and how the movement is actually an inclusive group that POC and LGBTQ people feel uncomfortable working alongside. Moore states she " wanted to say again that feminism is not a white, middle-class concern: look at Sierra Leone, Egypt, India", but fails to explain what she means. Is she implying that there are no feminist groups in these countries? Or that feminism can assist the unenlightened countries she named? Yes, she admits her white privilege, yet doesn't care enough to change her ways.
Burchill was worse. Enraged by all these people criticising her friend, she goes off in an abusive article which some have likened to hate speech. I wouldn't go that far, but it is indeed offensive, threatening, and shameful. Burchill too, looks down on trans women. She's just more open about it:
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.
If you'd like to read the rest of this charming fuck-you, it's available at a blog on the Telegraph's website. The Observer editor apologised for running the article and took down the article from the site, hence it being hosted elsewhere.
You'd think all this would have Moore thinking twice about commenting on this episode, but nope, "It saddens me that supporting freedom makes me an opponent of equality". Boo-fucking-hoo. It's another whingefest about how people have been attacking Burchill and herself, and includes the notion that free speech guarantees she can be insulting to people because she's "free-thinking". Just because you can be an arsehole doesn't mean you have to be. There's such a thing as responsibility and compassion for others, y'know *rolls eyes*. Moore seems to think her critics are waiting for her to apologise, so they can claim a point for tyranny instead of liberty. Come off it, the issue isn't free speech, it's that Moore refuses to learn from this experience and see she's being prejudiced.
Sadly, this sort of behaviour exists amongst those who are expected to be allies. It's hard to get anyone so entrenched in their belief to see beyond themselves especially when confronted with their prejudices, and I doubt Moore will be an exception.