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.

It's only anti-trans if you take the alligator's word for how trans it is.

If you interpret it as lies told by a predator, what does it have to do with being trans at all? (Except for instant and automatic self-ID, I guess, but what does that have to do with being trans, really? That only has to do with validation, not the transness itself.)

If a predator pretends to be a priest to get close to choir boys, does it say anything about either priests or choir boys? No.

I just thought about it some more. If they'd drawn the crocodile wearing lipstick and a wig, I'd agree with the take that the cartoon is anti-trans.

As it is, it just strikes me as a satire on predatory men abusing self-ID, which is a thing that happens regularly and which we need to be allowed to talk about.

I can't quite figure out why my hypothetical lipstick-and-wig crocodile cartoon would cross the line for me, and this one doesn't. Just thought I'd throw it out there to see if anyone else shares my intuitions and can explain them to me!

I think the cartoonist has a duty to make it clear whether the crocodile represents a trans woman or someone who is using self Id to pose as one

It shows a predator appropriating self ID to access its prey. It demonstrates how self ID is open to abuse. It's pillorying self ID, not trans people.

It should have said “I self identify as a newt”.

Romeo I think the whole point is that nobody can tell the difference just by looking at them or asking them (because the predator would obviously lie).

I have a lot of respect for Kristina and am trying to understand the issue with the cartoon.

I read the cartoon as highlighting the danger of abusive men taking advantage of self-ID and no comment on someone like Kristina.

I think the cartoonist has a duty to make it clear whether the crocodile represents a trans woman or someone who is using self Id to pose as one

How would she do that? The wig-and-lipstick scenario would have been the wrong side of the line I agree - that would have clearly been referencing transwomen. But how would she have signified ‘this is a predator abusing self-ID to access victims’ other than.... well, what has been depicted? The whole point is that the crocodile isn’t doing anything other than saying ‘I identify’ to gain access. Hence why I don’t understand how people who are otherwise against self-ID, are reading this as anti-trans rather than anti-self-ID.

What if the crocodile was actually eating a newt? Would that have been clearer, or just interpretes as ‘all trans people’ enacting violence?

I think it's fine for transgender males to find the cartoon offensive. Maybe if they can't see a way of distinguishing between a real crocodile and a trans newt crocodile they will start to see women's problem.

It's been pulled and a public apology has been made

Agree

I can't understand why KH would be offended by this cartoon. It represents what the majority of women feel and if KH is the ally they claim to be the Offence taken is misplaced......

Maybe the hens are coming home to roost.......

Quelle surprise!

morningstaronline.co.uk/article/apology-cartoon-published-last-tuesday

Of course Twitter is having none of it - apologising for offence is not enough, clearly. Calls for the cartoonist to lose her job, saying she needs psychoilogical help and.....of course.....‘education’.

The most oppressed group ever? What about the newts?!

Why is this person being elevated above women? Why are their feelings more important?

It's been pulled and a public apology has been made

Wow. Once again, this lobby demonstrates its opposition to freedom of speech and public debate. It wants to dictate the narrative and silence anyone who suggests any downside to self ID. But imagine. Even a year ago, would the Morning Star have published this? Meek submission of the press to an agenda dictated by lobbyists? That paradigm is shifting.

Which person, Busted? Kristina Harrison?

I don’t think the apology is just because of KH’s tweet - there has been a massive pile-on the Morning Star from all the usual suspects as well.

What cartoons are acceptable which demonstrate the way sex-self id could be abused by predatory adult males to gain access into single sex spaces where girls/vulnerable women are?

-Is there going to be some sort of guidance written by trans rights activists?

The point of political cartoons is not just to be offensive but also to highlight & put sunlight where others with power may seek to obscure & mislead.

It seems clear to me that the crocodile is a man using the concept of self ID for his own purposes. I can see that this is offensive to transwomen because it is not clear that there is any way to tell them apart from this man. That could just be the point we’ve been trying to make about self ID, and it could just be the consequence of allowing Stonewall to propagate their “trans umbrella” notion- under it, people with dysphoria and predators with a cross-dressing paraphilia and a strong propensity to commit violent assault are the same. We may have made that point, so I think the blame needs to be laid at Stonewall’s door where it belongs. Feminism didn’t do this.

If this cartoon really is to be deconstructed through the lens of such personal/literal feelings, then surely any expose of hypothetical harm done by the cartoon predatory reptile abusing self id would have been centred around the 'no true trans newt' narrative?

Yes, Harrison is having smoke blown up their arse because they have felt the cartoon crossed a line and thus the MS has surrended to their hurty feelz.

I absolutely agree with R0wantrees here - "The point of political cartoons is not just to be offensive but also to highlight & put sunlight where others with power may seek to obscure & mislead."

I wasn't offended by it, and it certainly shouldn't have been pulled. To me, at least, the crocodile represents a predatory male - who can either be trans or not...

I think the lack of context made the cartoon problematic. On the face if it I can see why it could be seen as transphobic. Pulling it has done a lot of harm. It could have been the start of a good debate, but instead, again, we are not allowed to discuss women's concerns.

surely any expose of hypothetical harm done by the cartoon predatory reptile abusing self id would have been centred around the 'no true trans newt' narrative?
I get this. Why was the response not - ‘oh, that’s someone pretending to be trans, not a real trans person’? Rather than ‘how dare you say trans people are predators’? It almost seems like to me that some people are empathising with the crocodile and just peeved at being called out, tbh (not saying anyone in particular or accusing any individuals, just an impression from reading TRA Twitter).