to think Julie Burchill went too far in this article?(1000 Posts)
It all started with an article by Suzanne Moore in which she mentioned Brazillian transsexuals - as a throwaway comment.This got picked on by some vocal memebers of the trans community and led to a Twitter storm. Suzanne Moore then left Twitter.
So Julie Burchill then waded in to defend her friend and launch the kind of attack on transsexuals that you wouldn't even find in the Daily Mail.
There's no way the paper would publish such an attack on other minority groups but transsexuals are ok?
I think the whole thing has gone too far.
I agree she went too far, and she was simply being insulting for the sake of it. I really, really doubt she thought she was being helpful - if anything she's added fuel to the fire for Moore.
I don't think it's true papers never publish shite about minority groups - they do, all the time. It doesn't make this one any more ok, naturally.
I do not understand why JB is still writing.
As surely as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west,I will dislike and/disagree with Julie Burchill.
I think she went too far, however, I can't see what was that wrong with what Moore originally said.
She was deliberately goading. It doesn't make her wrong.
I thought Moore's original article was fine too. And her explanation of it subsequently. Not so much her twitter response, but then, by then she was in the middle of a shitstorm.
So why did twitter go mad over moores article? I don't get it.
Its such a pathetic and cynical attempt to whip people up into a frenzy and get lots of people clilcking on the web page and commenting etc, etc. I still fail to understand why a reference to 'Brazilian trannsexuals' is so appalling - apparently it is because lots of Brazillian transnsexuals are murdered but as SM said, she wasn't referring to that but the protype 'uber female' with long legs and nice bottom.
so all that is happening is that people are playing top trumps with their oppression while the Daily Mail readers laugh.
JB was deliberately offensive and moronic, but that has been her style for at least 20 years, so anyone who is 'outraged' by her is just falling right into the hole she is digging for you.
Because sometimes empty vessels make the most noise. It wasn't a large number of people, it was a concerted effort to attack her from an organised few.
I don't either, but (thank god), I'm not on twitter.
I think Burchill is bullying, in that article, which is exactly what she is insisting other people mustn't do. It doesn't come across as if she particularly cares about SM's position on transsexuality - she's much more interested in showing off about her connections, using lots of rude words, and shoehorning everything into a great class war debate.
She is not a stupid woman and she must know that what she's doing is detrimental and is only going to result in yet more backlash against radical feminism, yet more people thinking that radical feminists must all be transphobic. And the net result will be an even worse situation for women who're already finding sources of support are being taken away from them.
Oh,don't see the issue with what Moore said either. I was somewhat baffled when it was all kicking off on twitter a few days ago. Asked someone who was being very vocal about it what the issue was and was tweeted back "fuck off you spakka" because obviously using that word totally fine.
What does spakka mean?
I've never even heard that.
I do think some people get very vocal for reasons that don't quite hold up. I have people on my facebook at the moment who are talking out of their arses about this. It is a bit depressing. Someone has just held up Caitlin Moran as an example Suzanne Moore should follow.
I think SM made an innocent throwaway comment. The reaction to it was way OTT by a small but vocal minority. But Julie Burchills article is just awful.
I can't even read the twitter one. Maybe this is why I don't get on with twitter.
I can see why people would be upset about her reference to Brazil given that bit of history. It does sound as if she was genuinely ignorant rather than malicious, though.
LRD it's a disablist term,not sure where it comes from. Like when teenagers call each other retard,I've heard it in that context.
LRD spakka is a short name for 'spastic'. I haven't heard it since kids called each other a 'spakka' in the playground in the 1970s!
Oh, right. That's depressing. Thanks for explaining, avis.
The one thing I do pick out of Burchill's article, which if I'm understanding that twitter link correctly (I'm really not sure I am, I find it really difficult to follow), is this issue about terminology. I think it's fair enough to say if you don't want to be called 'cis'. If that's the sort of thing that commentator meant when they talked about 'language policing' (or was it still the 'Brazil' bit?), then I think that was out of line really.
Thank you for the links.
Hmm, it's a shame all the many interesting points in moores article including the body pressure have been lost. I can see why she and burchill have been annoyed. It's a wilful misinterpretation of what she meant, with a whiff of 'our experience is more important than yours'
LRD it's shorthand for the disabilist term "spastic".
I think JB is just striding about, showing off here (again). And I agree that Moore's comments seem to stem from ignorance rather than malice, but it was also a strange example to pluck out of thin air, wasn't it?
Could I ask you LRD what your criticism of Caitlin Moran is, please? Am not disagreeing with you, just genuinely curious and would value your opinion.
I still don't get the outrage re ref to Brazillian trannsexuals. Someone on the comments section said it was akin to calling fashion models 'Auschwitz survivors' and that was equally disgraceful. I don't get that. It is making a point in florid language.
SM wasn't making any reference to people being murdered and to criticise her for ignorance over this issue seems counterproductive. I wasn't aware of rates of murder of Brazillian transsexuals - I am sure there are lots of awful tragic oppressions of which I am currently unaware, having only 24 hours in a day to read all about it. I would have thought it far more helpful to point something out in a non aggressive tone, particularly as SM is not exactly David Cameron and is much more likely to be advocating for the oppressed as against them.
So I think the response to SM was pathetic. But equally the JB article. How does anyone think this is helping raise awareness or compassion one jot for anyone?
lizzie - oh, sorry, yes, that wasn't clear.
Well, the issue was that someone claimed Suzanne Moore should really learn from Moran, because Moran has form for using offensive terminology and then apologizing nicely - because Moran used 'tranny' in her first edition of her book, then apologized.
However, more recently, Moran was really, really fucking rude when someone suggested she didn't pay much attention to feminism amongst women of colour. She basically said she didn't care therefore it didn't matter to her - and she wasn't very gracious about it.
So she's not, IMO, a brilliant example of how you should behave if someone calls you out for making a misguided comment about another group of people.
That's all it was.
I don't think it's a strange example. She might have said,body of a Israeli supermodel, legs of a lady boy, breasts of a... Run out of examples - it was a succinct way of saying fantastic looks unobtainable to most women...
This thread is not accepting new messages.
Please login first.