Cartoon in the Morning Star

[Cwenthryth]

Kristina Harrison (prominent gender. critical transwoman, WPUK supporter) just posted this on Twitter - apparently it was published in the Morning Star.

KH wrote “This cartoon appeared in The Morning Star earlier this week @MStarOnline It is a horrific, generalised demonisation of trans people which does not belong in a civilised society, let alone a socialist newspaper. I condemn it utterly. Trans people & progressive opponents of identity politics are owed an unequivocal apology, an explanation & reassurance about what action is being taken to ensure that the line between fierce but legitimate argument and bigotry is never crossed again. Totally unacceptable. (not posting a direct link as I don’t want to facilitate any pile on against Kristina, clearly this is a sensitive personal issue for a transwoman).

Comments are supportive of KH so far. I thought it’d be a good topic for discussion here - does this ‘demonise trans people’ or does it baldly illustrate safeguarding concerns with self-ID? Is it different from the popular/accepted(?) ‘Fox identifying into the henhouse’ analogy? Hopefully we can keep things civil and respectful with no personal criticisms of Kristina.

I understand you think women should NOT be permitted to say no to men, and you would like to position that as 'disagreeing with group think'. Which is OK, there are a lot of people who think women should be subordinated to men

Definitely don't think women should be subordinated to men at all (I'd go as far as saying bollocks to that!)
that's quite a jump just because I think this cartoon was offensive to trans people and I also did a at the wording of "our little friend" just because someone disagreed.

I understand you think women should NOT be permitted to say no to men, and you would like to position that as 'disagreeing with group think'. Which is OK, there are a lot of people who think women should be subordinated to men

Important also to recognise that its also more often about women speaking up to re-establish Safeguarding intended to protect children & Vulnerable Adults.
Not sex specific.

I'm surprised and relieved to hear you say that Willis.

So are you agreeing that women are entitled and right to refuse entry to female only spaces to any *man, every man?

Even men with: dysphoria/ reissued birth certificates that now say F/ surgically or hormonally altered bodies/ an insistence that they are women / insert your own caveat?

In short, ALL men? Even the ones that you would call 'women' either with or without a prefix?

*man: adult human male

You won't get away with that, SpartaCleg

Wotcha Then engage with the discussion. Don't dismiss it with a curt "Neither do I"

But this obviously isn’t portraying trans people. The crocodile represents sexual predators using ‘transitioning’ as a means of gaining access to their victims and the pond creatures represent silly women who are so naive as to think they’re safe anywhere from sexual violence.

that's quite a jump just because I think this cartoon was offensive to trans people and I also did a hmm at the wording of "our little friend" just because someone disagreed.

WotchaTalkinBoutWillis Thu 27-Feb-20 13:43:53
"Why do you talk about people with a different opinion or viewpoint in such a way as "our new friend's head?!"
Your new friend? You mean a poster, just like everyone else?
It's totally worded to patronise and sow doubt about a poster's intentions just because they disagree with group think."

indeed

hmm indeed

You've just copied and pasted a different post and missed my point again

The talk of group think is a bit rich, considering that women on this board are generally against group think - the kind that makes people nod in agreement to silly stuff like 'some lesbians have penises' and sends coppers to bust people for thought crimes.

I get the impression that some people would find the cartoon far less offensive if the crocodile had a really really sad face and/ or a reissued reptile birth certificate saying 'newt' on it, and the newts had been properly re-educated on how newt-only spaces were horrid and exclusionary, and how newt was really a psychological mindset any animal could possess, rather than a species of its own.

I'm not sure what this says about newts' rights to be biologically classified as NOTJUSTLITTLECROCODILES.

Mx Clegicus Sorry, need a sit down after all that laughing

@Chriscam
I think this cartoon is awful. It’s not funny for a start but it’s based on a stereotype and myth
Using a rare example to demonise all transgendered women is appalling

This is the way I see it too - that it insinuates that all are like this. Which obviously isn't true but it seems to play on fears.

You've just copied and pasted a different post and missed my point again No, you keep saying "our little friend^ when what was said, and C+Pd for you was "Our new friend.

Quite different!

This is the way I see it too - that it insinuates that all are like this. All what? Men or transwomen?

Which obviously isn't true but it seems to play on fears. Fears of what? Men or transwomen?

We all know NAMALT, or even NATWALT. But single sex provision was introduced for a reason. Given the vast majority of transwomen have no surgery and maintain their sexual preferences, women, what the hell do you think is wrong with women saying"if it looks like a duck... or in this case a more toothy critter!

I'll ask you the same question I askes A N Other, who hasn't responded - how many women hurt is too many for you?

This is the way I see it too - that it insinuates that all are like this. All what? Men or transwomen?
Trans women.

Which obviously isn't true but it seems to play on fears. Fears of what? Men or transwomen?

Trans people.

OK, so transwomen... how about the rest of my post?

Do you not think there is something to be said for women remaining vigilant when any transwoman is in a single sex space - just as they would for every other man?

it insinuates that all [transwomen] are like this

Why do you think that?
And why do you think the crocodile represents anything other than just... a man?

The point of political cartoons is to insinuate things.

Most satire offends somebody.

So what?

How can the people who are offended tell that the cartoon depicts a trans identifying crocodile?

It can be read in a few ways. One is that all trans people are a threat.

This is another morning star cartoon. It could be interpreted as saying that no teachers in the UK are properly qualified. It could be deemed offensive to those with SEN. I don't remember an outcry about it.

If a satirical political cartoon doesn't make people say Ouch it's a crap political cartoon.

It is OK for people to be offended sometimes.

It has been read by some that 'all trans people are a threat'

Should political cartoons be censored because some people read it in a particular way & that way causes them offence?

Its important to have a discussion about different perspectives of course.
Of course people can interpret a political cartoon in whatever way they do & also everyone has the capacity to feel offended /angry/ frustrated /saddened etc

Should they be censored? Worth discussing. Is there a line drawn when it comes to ethnicities or disabilities and vulnerable people.