UKC

Anyone seen this article:

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

The wildly misjudged prejudice, obscures the more sensible point she was making about the importance of solidarity amongst the oppressed.

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.

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

Jesus - reminds me of Jan Moir!

In reply to Jon Stewart:

One of the people commenting suggested that it was sub-Richard Littlejohn standard, which is pretty damning.

In reply to Tall Clare:

Steady on now! But yeah horrendously misjudged especially form someone seemingly with an understanding of social justice.

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

In reply to Kemics:

actually. No. That's pretty bigoted. I re-read it. That was silly of me.

In reply to Tall Clare:


When was that? For me she's been style over content for aaages.

In reply to Tall Clare:

I'm not saying you're wrong, more i'm just asking...

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.

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

In reply to Tall Clare:

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

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?)

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

In reply to John Rushby:
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.

In reply to Tall Clare:

Interesting, I might have a read if I get round to it.

In reply to MHutch:

Not sure what you mean, but I have no opinion either way on the size of Tony Parson's hamptons.

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

Mad ranting feminists in bitch fight with mad ranting ladyboys.

Only in the Grauniad.Doncha just luv it.....

In reply to John Rushby:

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:

Same post twice.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Pretty much sums it up.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I thought JB had written for pretty much every rag on Fleet Street (or wapping or wherever), as indeed has Suzanne Moore

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


No. It was just another offensive pop at transgender people.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

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

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...

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.

In reply to Postmanpat:

You think what you like. Implying that all transgender people are ladyboys is offensive in my book.

In reply to thin bob:
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-jul...

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.

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

Looks like they've chopped the article? 404.

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

In reply to winhill:


been replaced by a statement saying its been withdrawn. suspect you hit it when they were switching.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

+1

Casual transphobia in action.

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

Here is a good reply:

http://www.divamag.co.uk/category/comment/an-open-letter-to-suzanne-moore.a...

In reply to confusicating:

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.

In reply to Postmanpat: Careful - this getting worse than the original. We'll have a Birchill article about this thread next!

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.

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.

In reply to Postmanpat: How amusing mad obnoxious right wingers angrily denying their obvious prejudices.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

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?

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.

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

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?

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.

In reply to Gone:
This is because Moore and Burchill are ranting idiots but funnily enough nobody has picked up on my ranting idiot phobia or 'ism.

In reply to Postmanpat:

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

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?

In reply to Gone:

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.....

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

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.

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.

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 Gone:

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.

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.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
>
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

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.

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
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:

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).

In reply to Postmanpat: I knew that.

(Need emoticon to express dead pan humour.)

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.

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.

In reply to confusicating:


I say it "in a non-malicious or aggravated or nasty way" occasionally in the butchers.

In reply to BigBrother:

Oh I didn't know that meaning before. Thanks for the info, but that is a little off point.

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.

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.

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".

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...

In reply to John_Hat:
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

In reply to Postmanpat:


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?

In reply to Postmanpat:

They also broadcast documentaries on the sex trade and woman's hour, doesn't mean you should call Jenny Murray a prostitute!

In reply to Tim Chappell:
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".

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.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I've got one already thanks. Good luck with that midlife crisis of yours.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

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.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Sheesh. Get a life.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


I've got one already thanks.

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.

In reply to Gone:

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.

In reply to John_Hat:

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

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.

In reply to MHutch:

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

I was too busy with my lippy

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

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.

In reply to Postmanpat:

feel the right to bandy

kneejerk

pompous sanctimonious little pr*ck.




....So, business as usual on UKC then <sigh>

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.

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
>
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.

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.

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.

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

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

In reply to Postmanpat:

Channel 4 had a gamers show called Thumb Bandits. Edgy.

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.

In reply to winhill:

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

“It’s now very common to hear people say ‘I’m rather offended by that’, as if that gives them certain rights. It’s 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?”

In reply to Postmanpat:
My pleasure, dear sir!
For what it's worth, I imagine you as 'a filthy git in an old mood'

In reply to Tom Valentine:

>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...

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.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

My mistake for trusting Wikipedia.

In reply to confusicating:

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.

In reply to BigBrother:


fnuk fnuk!

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.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

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,


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.

In reply to Gone:

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.

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'

In reply to Tom Valentine:
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.

In reply to SARS:

Careful son or I'll pwn you