/ Julie Burchill, Suzanne Moore and Transexuals

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 14 Jan 2013
Anyone seen this article:

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

The wildly misjudged prejudice, obscures the more sensible point she was making about the importance of solidarity amongst the oppressed.
Tall Clare - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

I read the article yesterday afer seeing some very scathing tweets about it. I'm glad to see the Reader's Editor is getting involved, following the complaints to the Met and the PCC about hate speech.

I seem to recall that Burchill used to be edgy and inspiring.
Jon Stewart - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

Jesus - reminds me of Jan Moir!
Tall Clare - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:

One of the people commenting suggested that it was sub-Richard Littlejohn standard, which is pretty damning.
Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Tall Clare:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
>
> One of the people commenting suggested that it was sub-Richard Littlejohn standard, which is pretty damning.

Steady on now! But yeah horrendously misjudged especially form someone seemingly with an understanding of social justice.
Kemics - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

I don't have a huge problem with this other than it seems like extremely sloppy journalism, closer to playgroud politics. Essentially - "stop being mean to my friend because you're a bunch smelly heads". Seems glaringly unprofessional rather than bigoted.

Though the feud between (hardline) feminists and transgender is a weird one. I completely agree with both sides...even though they seem mutually exclusive. A bit like general relatively vs quantum mechanics
Kemics - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Kemics:

actually. No. That's pretty bigoted. I re-read it. That was silly of me.
Timmd on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Tall Clare:
> (In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf)
>

> I seem to recall that Burchill used to be edgy and inspiring.

When was that? For me she's been style over content for aaages.
Timmd on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Tall Clare:

I'm not saying you're wrong, more i'm just asking...
Tall Clare - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:

Back in the seventies, when she and Tony Parsons used to write for the music press in the Punk/New Wave era. She was provocative back then.
Chris the Tall - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Tall Clare:
I find it odd how she always bring class into the argument, as if she believes that being working class justifies her rants
toad - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Tall Clare:
> (In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf)
>
> I seem to recall that Burchill used to be edgy and inspiring.

I've never got on with Burchill's writing - and she seems to change her opinions to suit her paymaster - Polemicist for hire, perhaps? I suspect she may part with GMG over this, though- it was a pretty nasty piece of writing, whatever her motive

Tall Clare - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to toad:

I think people are more willing to forgive younger people their bile - there's a feeling that with age should come wisdom (i.e. knowing when to shut up?)
Neil Pratt - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Tall Clare:

Maybe she's just succumbed to the general drift to the right that seems to afflict many commentators as they get older - I still remember Melanie Phillips excoriating the 90s Conservative government in a Guardian article for actively shredding the social ties of British society. Now she's writing whack job stuff for the Mail!
Cú Chullain - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Tall Clare:

I think these days the only thing important to Julie Burchill is Julie Burchill. The more online clicks she attracts the better, irrespective of quality of content.
John Rushby - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

Christ, Burchill is tedious.


She seems to follow the same pattern

1) get freelance contract

2) write a few mildly provacative pieces refrencing Tony Parson's knob and Cherie Blair - increase the click throughs

3) get pissed

4) Knock out some hate piece that says more about her own self loathing than her erstwhile target( such as the time she did a piece in the Indy calling Sandi toksvig is a kunt)

5) Flail around in the aftermath with a 120 bottle of Bolly in her hand wailing about how working class she is and how it's everybody's fault but her own

6) Get sacked

f*ck me, the woman has had more clubs than Frank Worthington.

John Rushby - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

Christ, Burchill is tedious.


She seems to follow the same pattern

1) get freelance contract

2) write a few mildly provacative pieces refrencing Tony Parson's knob and Cherie Blair - increase the click throughs

3) get pissed

4) Knock out some hate piece that says more about her own self loathing than her erstwhile target( such as the time she did a piece in the Indy calling Sandi Toksvig a kunt)

5) Flail around in the aftermath with a 120 bottle of Bolly in her hand wailing about how working class she is and how it's everybody's fault but her own

6) Get sacked

f*ck me, the woman has had more clubs than Frank Worthington.

Tim Chappell - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

Reading Burchill's article is like looking at a freeze-frame from late on in a drunken fight in a restaurant. Everyone in the fight is contorted with incoherent rage, everyone in it looks repulsive and ridiculous, and no one who's not in the fight can see what on earth is supposed to be the point of any of it.

I know a few transsexuals and t-girls; well enough to know the difference between a transsexual and a t-girl, which seems to be more than Burchill can manage.
MHutch - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to John Rushby:
> (In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf)
>
> She seems to follow the same pattern
>
You can talk!

But yes, Julie Burchill is just about the last person you'd want weighing in on your behalf if you were having a twitter scrap with some vociferous types.
Timmd on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Tall Clare:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> Back in the seventies, when she and Tony Parsons used to write for the music press in the Punk/New Wave era. She was provocative back then.

Interesting, I might have a read if I get round to it.
ads.ukclimbing.com
John Rushby - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to MHutch:

Not sure what you mean, but I have no opinion either way on the size of Tony Parson's hamptons.
Postmanpat on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

Mad ranting feminists in bitch fight with mad ranting ladyboys.

Only in the Grauniad.Doncha just luv it.....:-)
dissonance - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to John Rushby:
> (In reply to MHutch)
>
> Not sure what you mean

i think he means the double post.

the article seems a success. No one is paying attention to Suzanne Moore now.

In reply to John Rushby:
> (In reply to MHutch)
>
> Not sure what you mean,

Same post twice.
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf)
>
> Mad ranting feminists in bitch fight with mad ranting ladyboys.

Pretty much sums it up.
toad - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf)

>
> Only in the Grauniad.Doncha just luv it.....:-)

I thought JB had written for pretty much every rag on Fleet Street (or wapping or wherever), as indeed has Suzanne Moore
Tim Chappell - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Submit to Gravity:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
> Pretty much sums it up.


No. It was just another offensive pop at transgender people.
Postmanpat on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to Submit to Gravity)
> [...]
>
>
> No. It was just another offensive pop at transgender people.

Nah, it was an offensive pop at mad ranting people.

thin bob on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
It's also in the Torygraph & Indecisive...at least this woman isn't ranty
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/13/julie-birchill-bullying-trans-community?INTCMP=S...

both suzanne moore & julie burchill (along with melanie phillips) seems to exemplify the 'you get more right wing as you get older', but with a nasty twist.

I read the Moore article, thought it was stupid & snide; Burchill is a toxic professional troll, IMHO. They both made things worse (perhaps deliberately). I really fail to see why, unless it's self-publicity/ego.
Tim Chappell - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:

You think what you like. Implying that all transgender people are ladyboys is offensive in my book.
Postmanpat on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to thin bob:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> It's also in the Torygraph & Indecisive...at least this woman isn't ranty
>
So they did! :-)

"The Suzanne Moore-Julie Burchill uproar shows how utterly bonkers parts of the radical Left are at the moment"

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100198042/the-suzanne-moore-julie-burchill-uproar-shows-...

Almost as newsworthy as the recent storm in a teacup over some nutty feminist suggesting all men leave a feminist seminar. From the CIF response you'd have thought the US had nuked Iran or David Cameron had been found eating dead babies.


winhill - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

Looks like they've chopped the article? 404.
Tim Chappell - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to winhill:

It's probably time Burchill was put out to pasture. I can just see her on a bench in some shabby suburban park, nursing a bottle of British cooking sherry, muttering malignly to herself and trying to make eye-contact with passers-by.

I imagine she'd be very happy there :-)
dissonance - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to winhill:

> Looks like they've chopped the article? 404.

been replaced by a statement saying its been withdrawn. suspect you hit it when they were switching.
confusicating on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

+1

Casual transphobia in action.
confusicating on 14 Jan 2013
Postmanpat on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to confusicating:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>
> +1
>
> Casual transphobia in action.

My fxxking arse. There's always some on here who'll get on their faux offended pompous high horse. You need to check the meaning of phobia and for that matter of ladyboy. You may have a phobia of ladyboys but frankly I don't even have a view.

This, by the way, is a bit of casual self righteous wankphobia.
MG - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Postmanpat: Careful - this getting worse than the original. We'll have a Birchill article about this thread next!
Jon Stewart - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:

I don't think you've got a particularly good point there.

Calling transsexuals 'ladyboys' comes across very similarly to calling gays 'poofs', which if you know exactly who you're speaking to and how they'll interpret it might be fine, but generally comes across as obnoxious.

However literally you choose to interpret the term 'transphobia', you generally sound like an arsehole if you use a bit of derogatory slang to refer to someone's race/sexual orientation/gender etc.
MHutch - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to John Rushby:
> (In reply to MHutch)
>
> Not sure what you mean, but I have no opinion either way on the size of Tony Parson's hamptons.

It is amusing me that you thought, even for a second, that I was accusing you of being the Julie Burchill of UKC...

More like Liz Jones. :)

ads.ukclimbing.com
Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Postmanpat: How amusing mad obnoxious right wingers angrily denying their obvious prejudices.
Postmanpat on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> I don't think you've got a particularly good point there.
>

Neither do I. I think it's a crap point actually but I'm genuinely bemused about what's wrong with being called a ladyboy. My understanding is its common term for a,usually Asian, transexual or transgender "bloke". Is there something wrong with being one of these?
syv_k - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:

Irrelevant, because Transphobia does not mean phobia of ladyboys. So if English had a word called "transism" instead like racism instead of homophobia, would you call it transism? Would the behaviour be OK by you, or offensive?

In social media, some people will indeed always get offended, both because some people overreact and because people have traumatic experiences that leave open sores. The original problem was that Suzanne Moore made a throwaway comment about the attractiveness of "Brazilian transsexuals". SHe didn't know, but others had recently been at a Transgender Day of Remembrance for those murdered over the last year. More than half the names read out were from Brazil, for some reason. So some of these people told her this. I expect some were stressed and not polite. She could either have said "ok I know now" or privately decided they were overreacting and blocked them. Instead she started flinging insults at the entire transsexual community (not just those who contacted her) and going on about "dicks lopped off" and "cabals". She got more and more offensive to an entire group and then flounced off Twitter and asked her friend Burchill to continue the tirade. When someone has gone so far to escape the male sex, accusing them of being men is about the most painful insult you can give. Nasty, nasty stuff, and the editor should be ashamed of giving Burchill's stuff column space, as it just makes trans people's day to day lives more miserable.
Postmanpat on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
> (In reply to Postmanpat) How amusing mad obnoxious right wingers angrily denying their obvious prejudices.

Yes, a fair cop. I spend many anguished hours cursing the existence of transsexuals .
Are you some sort of brain dead speak your prejudice machine?
syv_k - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:

ladyboys are seen as blokes (and often fetishised sexually), whereas trans women are women who had the accident of being assigned male at birth.
Postmanpat on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to syv_k:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> Irrelevant, because Transphobia does not mean phobia of ladyboys. So if English had a word called "transism" instead like racism instead of homophobia, would you call it transism? Would the behaviour be OK by you, or offensive?
>
>
This is because Moore and Burchill are ranting idiots but funnily enough nobody has picked up on my ranting idiot phobia or 'ism.
Tall Clare - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:

If you had a genuine 'ranting idiot' phobia then surely you wouldn't be on UKC? :-)

Jon Stewart - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:

I think it's to do with the term ladyboys being associated with Thai sex-workers - not a particularly accurate or flattering way to describe transsexuals. A bit like, because you're right wing, calling you an inbred horse-faced Etonian. A term which is fine for some people, but one which you might not feel comfortable with?
Postmanpat on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to syv_k:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> ladyboys are seen as blokes (and often fetishised sexually), whereas trans women are women who had the accident of being assigned male at birth.

Well you live and learn. I'll have to reexamine my prejudices and make sure I direct my hatred at the right people.
Right, having reexamined my prejudices it's people who get artificially offended on the Internet
on behalf of others and then make themselves feel good by throwing around insults that I hate. Maybe I have a phobia of them.....
Tall Clare - on 14 Jan 2013
If anyone missed it/is interested, there are a lot of interesting posts in this thread from late last year on transphobia: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=528592
Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Postmanpat: You must be a deeply conflicted person trying to reconcile your own phobia of ranting with your seemingly insatiable desire to spout such a wide range of offensive nonsense.
Rob Exile Ward on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell: I don't have a terribly strong view about this particular article but lots of people have had a pop at JB in the past and FWIW I think that many, many times she is spot on with her analysis and attempts to puncture hypocrisy, self deception and mediocrity.

She has been, and probably still is, an extraordinary talent. Methinks some people do protest too much.
Tall Clare - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

This one really wasn't one of her notable successes. I can't recall the Graun pulling any of her other articles, which says something about this one.
In reply to syv_k:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> ladyboys are seen as blokes (and often fetishised sexually), whereas trans women are women who had the accident of being assigned male at birth.

I have a slight issue with people for whom being part of a minority, working with a minority, thinking about the issues of a certain minority etc, have such a prescriptive vocabulary (presumably endlessly debated) which they expect everyone else to be immediately attuned to. The reality is that most people have many more things on their mind than the precise language they should use in relation to minorities.

The, when two people who live in this world start arguing, in terms which need the nuanced understanding of the vocabulary to comprehend, it does come across as vaguely amusing to the neutral onlooker.
Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Postmanpat: How do you leave the house in the morning with all these phobias you have, two developed on this thread alone!

Its odd that a man who has developed so many phobias is so deriding of the easily offended. Ironic.
Postmanpat on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> I think it's to do with the term ladyboys being associated with Thai sex-workers - not a particularly accurate or flattering way to describe transsexuals. A bit like, because you're right wing, calling you an inbred horse-faced Etonian. A term which is fine for some people, but one which you might not feel comfortable with?
>
Well, Jon, I'm no expert on these teminologies but my impression has not been that the term ladyboy necessarily implied sex workers and checking it just now it doesn't seem to. It seems to be simply a slang term for males on their way to be females.

I think chateau wotsisname and his mates have a repressed discomfort with these people which they take out on us more mature and open minded people :)
Jon Stewart - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Submit to Gravity:

I know what you're saying, but if it's not that difficult to avoid saying 'paki' and 'faggot', then it seems fair to extend the same kind of courtesy to everyone.
Postmanpat on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
> (In reply to Postmanpat) How do you leave the house in the morning with all these phobias you have, two developed on this thread alone!
>
How can I leave the house when I live in terror of all these people different to me? Generally I stay in a darkened room spewing forth vitriol at evil doers, foreigners, and women.
Haven't you noticed?
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to Submit to Gravity)
>
> I know what you're saying, but if it's not that difficult to avoid saying 'paki' and 'faggot', then it seems fair to extend the same kind of courtesy to everyone.

Indeed, if you know the rules. When I was reading the stuff posted by Confusicating a while back, I really was struck by how finely-debated and nuanced the language was (as well as how good it is for your grammar to be a transsexual, all the pronouns and stuff).
Rob Exile Ward on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Postmanpat: I knew that.

(Need emoticon to express dead pan humour.)
syv_k - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm not saying that ladyboy necessarily implies sex worker, it just seems to be the word that's usually used for those phwoor - eww - would you - wouldn't you discussions about pre operative trans women and sexual attraction. A bit like the way most women get their hackles up and get suspicious when someone starts talking about "skirt".

I don't see it as a huge burden for people to look up the right word when discovering something new. It's a lot more excusable for random people to get things wrong without malice in private discussions than it is for newspaper columnists who have spent years writing about feminism and gender to pick intentionally inflammatory language - and of course, if all you read about is "ladyboys" in the papers, the average reader won't know better. But the newspaper writer should behave more responsibly.
confusicating on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Submit to Gravity:

But the great thing is that once you know you can pass things on to others. And people forgive you for using words they don't like, as long as they aren't used in malice.

E.g. when was the last time you heard someone say Faggot in a non-malicious or aggravated or nasty way? I personally only hear it when people are using it as a put-down.

BigBrother - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to confusicating:

> E.g. when was the last time you heard someone say Faggot in a non-malicious or aggravated or nasty way? I personally only hear it when people are using it as a put-down.

I say it "in a non-malicious or aggravated or nasty way" occasionally in the butchers.
confusicating on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to BigBrother:

Oh I didn't know that meaning before. Thanks for the info, but that is a little off point.
Ramblin dave - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Submit to Gravity:
> (In reply to syv_k)
> [...]
>
> I have a slight issue with people for whom being part of a minority, working with a minority, thinking about the issues of a certain minority etc, have such a prescriptive vocabulary (presumably endlessly debated) which they expect everyone else to be immediately attuned to.

I kind of agree with this, but I haven't spent that much time thinking about trans issues and I could spot fairly easily that "ladyboys" is about as sensitive and balanced a word for transexuals as "arse-bandits" is for gays.
syv_k - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to BigBrother:

At school I got roped into playing bassoon in the orchestra. Lots of forty bar rests where I would doze off, followed by a bit of "Pom Pom Parp" and then another rest. Now most of the orchestra were unaware of the German word for bassoon until we were rehearsing some German language composer and I was doing my usual daydreaming trick when the intro arrived and the teacher conducting suddenly pointed her baton at me and yelled "FAGGOTT!" whereupon the entire orchestra, being a roomful of teenagers after all, cracked up so badly that everyone had to put their instruments down to let out the laughs.
Postmanpat on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Ramblin dave:
> (In reply to Submit to Gravity)
> [...]
>
> I kind of agree with this, but I haven't spent that much time thinking about trans issues and I could spot fairly easily that "ladyboys" is about as sensitive and balanced a word for transexuals as "arse-bandits" is for gays.

Except that it is not.

The bbc, arbiter of political correctness, screened a documentary entitled, I believe, "Ladyboys" (of Bangkok)", I don't recall them screening one entitled "arse-bandits".
John_Hat - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:

Can see both points of view here.

For what its worth, I know quite a number of t-girls and transsexuals, and agree that describing them as "ladyboys" would be generally regarded as insulting.

However, you didn't know that, which is hardly your fault. But now you do know and can say "fair enough, thanks for the information, I'll stop trying to self-justify and modify my language in this regard in the future".

Even I'm a little confused about the specific motivations of ladyboys, but whilst Trans or T-people are people who feel uncomfortable in their originally assigned gender enough to either change it totally or change their appearance temporarily to as near as they can get to fully encompassing their desired (wrong word, its stronger than that but) gender, ladyboys appear to be aiming for the middle - neither male nor female and making a point of not assigning themselves to either gender.

To use a (very) bad analogy, but which might translate to someone who doesn't have personal experience, accusing a transsexual of being a ladyboy is somewhat like talking to an individual who has spent their whole life supporting Rangers whilst living in a primarily Celtic area, being beaten up regularly, having cr@p put through their letter-box, being shouted at on the street, but, because they love the game and their team they put up with a life of abuse. You then accuse them of not liking football...
Postmanpat on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to John_Hat:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> Can see both points of view here.
>
>
> However, you didn't know that, which is hardly your fault. But now you do know and can say "fair enough, thanks for the information, I'll stop trying to self-justify and modify my language in this regard in the future".
>
Were a transexual person to express offence I would gladly do just that.

I have to say I was slightly surprised it was the terminology rather than the content of my post that got a reaction. I'd have thought that being described as "mad" and "ranting" was more abusive but perhaps mad ranters are not in a minority :-)
Tim Chappell - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to John_Hat)
> [...]
> Were a transexual person to express offence I would gladly do just that.
>


Maybe a transsexual person has already expressed offence, on this thread, and you just haven't noticed.

It's a small point, but if you want to use the word "ladyboy" you might as well understand that, while not necessarily offensive, the group it applies to is not coextensive either with transgender people, or with transsexual people.

The fact that some ladyboys are sex workers is also relevant to why it's offensive to equate ladyboys with transgender people. Thinking it's all right to call all transgender people "ladyboys" is a bit like thinking that it's all right to call all women "tarts".

All clear now?
The New NickB - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to Ramblin dave)
> [...]
>
> Except that it is not.
>
> The bbc, arbiter of political correctness, screened a documentary entitled, I believe, "Ladyboys" (of Bangkok)", I don't recall them screening one entitled "arse-bandits".

They also broadcast documentaries on the sex trade and woman's hour, doesn't mean you should call Jenny Murray a prostitute!
Postmanpat on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
Thinking it's all right to call all transgender people "ladyboys" is a bit like thinking that it's all right to call all women "tarts".
>
> All clear now?

Lets even it up then: Mad ranting feminist tarts in bitch fight with mad ranting transgender people

Everybody can now jump up and down and be equally offended.

Happy now?

Here's a clue. The whole pathetic spat is a storm in a teacup in which both "sides"-see the language used-are being idiotic.

Idiotic, incidentally, is meant to be an offensive to those involved as is "tarts" and "mad" and "ranting" but not, of course, to actual "idiots", "tarts" or "mad" people.

All clear now?

Sheesh. Get a life.



Tim Chappell - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:

I've got one already thanks. Good luck with that midlife crisis of yours.
Postmanpat on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> I've got one already thanks. Good luck with that midlife crisis of yours.

You of course should apologise to the ladyboy community for implying that there is something wrong with being a ladyboy or being called a ladyboy. Or is it just etymologial imprecision that you find so offensive?

PS.It's now a late midlife crisis and thanks for for the good wishes.I may need them.

Tim Chappell - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:


Sheesh. Get a life.
Postmanpat on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
>
> Sheesh. Get a life.


I've got one already thanks. :-)

John_Hat - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:

I kind of think you're being needessly irate here.

You've obviously not got a lot of experience with transgender, T-girl, and other trans people. That's not a problem, people who fit into these categories are relatively rare, there's no reason you should have experience.

So several folk on the thread, who do have said experience, say "erm Postmanpat, see what you are saying here, but your terminology could be significantly improved less you may cause offence in the future"

You then go bananas. I'm not quite sure why.
Tom V - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to syv_k:

Very interested in your suggestion about looking up the right word. I have made a few incursions into online dictionaries as a result to try to sort it out in my mind and it does seem very confusing topic.

It doesn't help when words which were once frowned on are re-evaluated and given the thumbs up by those who formulate the "rules".

For instance, my understanding is that it is now acceptable to refer to homosexuals as "queers". Plus ca change, as they say.
Postmanpat on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to John_Hat:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
>
> So several folk on the thread, who do have said experience, say "erm Postmanpat, see what you are saying here, but your terminology could be significantly improved less you may cause offence in the future"
>
> You then go bananas. I'm not quite sure why.

Actually, they told me I was "transphobic". But of course you're right. I was irate about something completely different and decided to let rip on here :-)

Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Postmanpat: It's nice that when you get irate about things in life you have a compelling urge to persist in using a potentially offensive term about people you seemingly know nothing about.
ads.ukclimbing.com
John Rushby - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to MHutch:
> (In reply to John Rushby)
> [...]
>
> It is amusing me that you thought, even for a second, that I was accusing you of being the Julie Burchill of UKC...
>
> More like Liz Jones. :)

Ha ha - I hadn't noticed I'd double posted.

I was too busy with my lippy
Postmanpat on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
> (In reply to Postmanpat) It's nice that when you get irate about things in life you have a compelling urge to persist in using a potentially offensive term about people you seemingly know nothing about.

It's nice to know that from you huge moral and intellectual height you feel the right to bandy about ludicrous and hackneyed kneejerk terms of abuse about people you know nothing about. Splinters and eyes come to mind.
Here's one: pompous sanctimonious little pr*ck.

Tim Chappell - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf)
> [...]
>
> from you huge moral and intellectual height

feel the right to bandy

kneejerk

pompous sanctimonious little pr*ck.




....So, business as usual on UKC then <sigh>
Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Postmanpat: Your trying to do that thing i did higher up, there is no irony here though and your just spouting mild abuse. Boring.
Postmanpat on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
> (In reply to Postmanpat) Your trying to do that thing i did higher up,
>
What, talk bollxcks? I'm not "trying" anything. I'm spouting mild abuse to describe what you are coming across as. Now get back in your box.
Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Postmanpat: Is that necessary? It should be obvious to any other reader how I come across. I'll leave your words to speak for themselves, i don't think they need further narration.
thin bob on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf: CdB and PP: c'mon, play nice, kiss & make up, now. You've both had a pop at each other.
Postmanpat on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
> (In reply to Postmanpat) Is that necessary? It should be obvious to any other reader how I come across. >

But not apparently to you. Just to clarify, I'm an old git in a filthy mood
which the other old gits on here have probably recognised.

But I'm sure your lovely young chap really so apologies for my outburst (although it was fun) and I'll leave you to it.

PS.Thin Bob-thx

winhill - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to Ramblin dave)
>
> The bbc, arbiter of political correctness, screened a documentary entitled, I believe, "Ladyboys" (of Bangkok)", I don't recall them screening one entitled "arse-bandits".

Channel 4 had a gamers show called Thumb Bandits. Edgy.
winhill - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

Has anyone seen the threats that Moore was alleged to have received?

On the New Statesman thing someone tells her to go jump in a threshing machine, which although a bit weird and probably american, hardly constitutes a death threat.

You'd have thought that Burchill would say what had transpired.
Siward on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to winhill:

I think this Independent article http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/julie-burchill-should-be-free-to-offend-8451861.html has the right approach myself. which concludes by quoting Stepehn Fry speaking at the Hay Festival a while ago:

Its now very common to hear people say Im rather offended by that, as if that gives them certain rights. Its actually no more than a whine. I find that offensive. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. I am offended by that. Well so f**king what?
thin bob on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
My pleasure, dear sir!
For what it's worth, I imagine you as 'a filthy git in an old mood' ;-)
Jon Stewart - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Tom V:
> (In reply to syv_k)

>
> It doesn't help when words which were once frowned on are re-evaluated and given the thumbs up by those who formulate the "rules".
>
>For instance, my understanding is that it is now acceptable to refer to homosexuals as "queers". Plus ca change, as they say.

Well you could try that one out, but don't be too surprised if not everyone agrees with that particular internet rulebook and you get asked to "fck off, cnt" or something similar. What screechy activists might call themselves tends not to tally with what a lot of people like to be referred to as by strangers...
confusicating on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Siward:

But should the hate that she spouts be given a platform to thousands of readers? No. It is a privilege to be published by such a magazine.

I agree about offence, and that it is basically your problem if your are offended. But I don't think it's offence here - it's anger, upset and disbelief.

So although it doesn't really matter if someone is offended or not a reasonable human being doesn't want to be a dick towards people.
Tom V - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:

My mistake for trusting Wikipedia.
BigBrother - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to confusicating:
> (In reply to BigBrother)
>
> Oh I didn't know that meaning before.

Not surprising really as they are less common now than they used to be which is a shame as they are very nice if you can get good ones. I don't have them all the time but every so often I really enjoy the taste of eating a faggot.

Tim Chappell - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to BigBrother:


fnuk fnuk!
Tom V - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to BigBrother:

I had some deep fried ones in Bridgnorth last year and really liked them so I'm all in favour of dunking them in boiling oil.
syv_k - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to Tom V:
> (In reply to syv_k)
>
> Very interested in your suggestion about looking up the right word. I have made a few incursions into online dictionaries as a result to try to sort it out in my mind and it does seem very confusing topic.

You are looking in the wrong place - a style guide is what you want, not a dictionary. There are transgender style manuals, glossaries, etc produced by trans groups to help the media, but the journalists concerned either don't read them or ignore them,

> It doesn't help when words which were once frowned on are re-evaluated and given the thumbs up by those who formulate the "rules".

People will often try and reclaim words to take the sting out of them, its a natural human tendency, but generally such reclaimed words should only be used within a community because otherwise it may not be clear whether someone means them in the old or the new sense.

FWIW, the trans climbers I know have felt thoroughly attacked in the media in the last few days despite not going out and picking on any group themselves, so it's probably best if they don't feel compelled to defend themselves on this thread as well.
Tom V - on 15 Jan 2013
In reply to syv_k:
> (In reply to Tom V)
> [...]
>
> You are looking in the wrong place - a style guide is what you want, not a dictionary.

Absolutely not. If my previous transgressions have only been a matter of outmoded style, then I don't give a f*ck.

If, on the other hand, I have used the English language in its generally accepted usage in a way which causes offence, then I am sorry for any offence that I have caused.
ads.ukclimbing.com
SARS on 16 Jan 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:

He he PP. You have just been pwned by the UKC collective - you''ll probably need to look up the meaning of 'pwned' ;)
Tom V - on 16 Jan 2013
In reply to Tom V:
On second thoughts, you are probably right about a style guide because it is probably more of an issue of style/fashion/fad than correctness.
Postmanpat on 16 Jan 2013
In reply to SARS:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> He he PP. You have just been pwned by the UKC collective - you''ll probably need to look up the meaning of 'pwned' ;)

Careful son or I'll pwn you :)

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.