Suzanne Moore/Julie Burchill Transsexual Guardian Twitter Row

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Ok first of apology's if "Transsexual" is not the correct term but after reading these articles I'm fairly confused what the correct term is, and I'm not meaning to be offensive by it so in the words of Stephen fry.

"It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?'"

Now on to the reason for this post, you may or may not be aware of this row that has erupted, here's 3 articles in order of release covering it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/09/dont-care-if-born-woman

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/01/11/guardian-columnist-suzanne-moore-leaves-twitter-following-transphobic-row/

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

Now I'm not trying to open up a discussion on the Semantics of transgender people and all that entails as we will be here forever.

But what I would say is, I do find it outrageous that a national newspaper such as the Guardian has allowed not the publication of their views but some of the phrases and frankly near slurs that were allowed in the articles, much of the language that was used was very clearly designed to be inflammatory and allot of it does seem to be someone with an expansive vocabulary trolling.

My next point would be, everybody has a right of speech, those with veiws you agree with, disagree with, disagree with very strongly and even those you find offensive. Everybody, even if its from a Left wing standpoint restricting, right wing veiws, if you restrict freedom of speech that's a form of fascism whether you like it or not, which ultimately leads down a dark road. At the initial stage it seems like this was just somebody using a term of phrase which others disagreed with (and now has become much much more) which this particular group of people have reacted to in a violently verbal way and forced her from twitter (effectively impeding her freedom of speech and thus her human rights) I saw on my own twitter people telling her and her supporters that they wanted to "slit your throat and watch you die".

My final point is under law we should accept everyone as best we can with "tolerance" tolerance is not acceptance, it is not understanding, its just treating everyone the same regardless of your views and unless asked or engaged in discussion keeping them to yourselves.

I myself have my own opinion of transgender people, am I going to voice it? no because its none of my ****ing business what other people choose to do with their lives. But what I do feel is happening to an extent here is people demanding to be accepted (which they should be as equal human beings) but beyond that it feels like people trying to get approval for their life, which I don't feel anybody has the right to demand, we all have our own views whether you agree with them or not and tbh why are they seeking that approval, if someone outside of the people I care about disagrees with my life, they can take a hike.

So to summarize do you agree with me that:
1. Its unbelievable for a respected news paper to allow some of the phrases used to be printed, but if it was written in a more respectable way, it would have been an okay format for them to present their views.

2. The verbally violent reaction is just as unjust and is actually impeding on their human rights the community feels were offended, by taking away their free speech.

3. We all have a right to tolerance of our way of life and choices, including acceptance as an equal human being, but we don't have the right to demand acceptance to the extent of approval of our life choices.

Tolerance is fake. And it's condescending, and patronizing. How do you "tolerate" a human being? We're not actions, we're we're not behaviors, we're not things. I don't do the tolerance thing. Some things are wrong and should be treated as such. Like, it is wrong to be anti-trans. And it is wrong to be transphobic. That's not debatable.

Anyway, to get to my point, what we're seeing is pretty simple. Non cis-gender persons, and really, LGBTQ persons in general, are tired of being disrespected and are lashing back and what's starting to happen is an us vs them militant attitude. Battle lines are being drawn, and people who are not on the pro-gay/trans side are being condemned harshly. A lot of straight people feel they're being preached to, put down, being made into bullies, and therefore THEY become hurt themselves or become hostile. So it's basically two sides of the coin where people are hurt, annoyed and upset and in that they say things that are mean, rude and out of order.

Honestly, I'm surprised it hasn't happened earlier. I would have gone crazy a long while ago if I were a transwoman and had to deal with people who so clearly don't get it, didn't care to get it, and took offense when called out for not getting it, on a DAILY basis. At least as a gay man I can have a couple days where I can just, exist. Trans persons aren't allowed it. These, what some would say, small things, may not seem offensive to a person who isn't transgender but that's the point, you're not transgender. It's not a small thing ultimately to feel as if you're humanity is being questioned and not respected.

Let's see... the original article was printed in The New Statesman so I can guarantee that not one person in ten thousand who is now raging about it actually read the article in its original context. The fact that a columnist uses some punchy language in an article for the NS is hardly news. I don't think this is a 'trans cabal' at work so much as it's just the Internet Mob in action again.

(Note: the NS is not a newspaper, it's an opinion heavy periodical, like the Economist except more obviously political. The Guardian piece was a response to the shit storm, not the cause of it, so I feel the newspaper is entirely free of any 'blame' that's to be handed out, if there is any.)

Remember the "I website on the internet guy?" The one that became an overnight hate figure for half the bloody internet after one story on Penny Arcade? I can't even remember his name now, let alone whatever it was he did that was apparently so despicable, other than get on the wrong side of an influential website. That was the Mob, and so is this.

There's no need for a cabal to manage this sort of thing - just throw some quotes up on a site or two where it's likely to cause offence and the Mob will spring into action, and once that starts then any chance of an intelligent discussion is gone, drowned in a sea of ill-informed and partisan rage that accomplishes absolutely nothing.

101flyboy:
Tolerance is fake. And it's condescending, and patronizing. How do you "tolerate" a human being? We're not actions, we're we're not behaviors, we're not things. I don't do the tolerance thing. Some things are wrong and should be treated as such. Like, it is wrong to be anti-trans. And it is wrong to be transphobic. That's not debatable.

Mmmm. What's that line about tolerance, that all it means is that you haven't gone out of your way to harm someone yet?

...

Anyhoo, while it's all very well and good to say you aren't interested in what people you don't care about think of you...what if there are lots of them and what they think of you affects how they (for example) vote? They you are going to have to start caring about them. We all live in a society where we have to get along with various other people, if a large enough proportion takes a dislike to a demographic you are in, you can't sit back and ignore it.

That third article...... The original comment[1] by the original author does not seem that offensive but the third article? The Guardian should be ashamed of itself for hiring her, let alone publishing the article. Just reading some of the things she wrote like "dicks in chicks' clothing" as if its not to obvious what she is saying, why else use the word dicks to describe someone she felt was behaving poorly instead of anyone out of dozens of other words and other comments like "bunch of bed-wetters in bad wigs" and "To have your cock cut off and then plead special privileges as women - above natural-born women" are fugging awful.

I am not personally offended but a newspaper with any shred of decency should not be publishing shit like that, yes I do mean shit the people at the Guardians editing team are bad and should feel bad.

[1] I am not TG so I cannot really say after all

thaluikhain:

Mmmm. What's that line about tolerance, that all it means is that you haven't gone out of your way to harm someone yet?

...

Anyhoo, while it's all very well and good to say you aren't interested in what people you don't care about think of you...what if there are lots of them and what they think of you affects how they (for example) vote? They you are going to have to start caring about them. We all live in a society where we have to get along with various other people, if a large enough proportion takes a dislike to a demographic you are in, you can't sit back and ignore it.

I said I didn't understand the pursuit of approval, everybody should vigorously pursue acceptance as an equal human being if it is denied to them. But I don't think anyone has the right to demand "you must approve of my way of life" whether they hold those opposing views through ignorance, difference in ideology's, ethics or educated concerns. Just like everybody's life choices are their own, are each persons beliefs not their own?

One of the things I find more and more puzzling is the gradual shift over the last 50 years that freedom of speech used to be the corner stone of left wing views hand in hand with acceptance and now today freedom loving people more than often have to rely on strong right wing public individuals to protect peoples right to free speech, which create's more than a bit of a quandary when you disagree with allot of their views.

101flyboy:
Tolerance is fake. And it's condescending, and patronizing. How do you "tolerate" a human being? We're not actions, we're we're not behaviors, we're not things. I don't do the tolerance thing. Some things are wrong and should be treated as such. Like, it is wrong to be anti-trans. And it is wrong to be transphobic. That's not debatable.

I wouldn't say its as simple as that. I'll admit if someone I was friends with turned to me and said "I tolerate the choices you make in your life" I would feel like I'd taken a bit of a kick in the teeth. But the fact is on the planet, there is every conceivable view out there somewhere and just like Transgender people have the right to live their life un-molested does everybody else not. If somebody wants to buy a plot of land living alone with their family in isolation believing anyone who wears shoes is the devil and only eating earthworms, it may be crazy but if they whole heartedly want to live like that is that not their right? I think thats what tolerance is, there are so so many clashing belief systems that they will clash. Tolerance in my view is trying to get different groups of people who don't agree with each other to live in the same space without harm or persecution aimed at one another.

In relation to the anti-trans, transphobic stuff. In this case I don't think its as clear cut these people are not saying they hate trans-genderpeople (although they are defiantly saying some nasty stuff). These two women do seem to have an infatuation with trying to be offensive whilst getting their point across, but one of their points seems to be that they disagree with transgender women arguing with them on feminist issues. Which is a very delicate issue and to some extent an individual one.

At the core asking yourself do you feel a member of the opposite sex who feels they are not in the appropriate body, who has surgery to change to your gender has the right to put their view point in as an equal, on issues that will directly affect you. Which I can sympathize with both sides. If this was along racial lines I think there would be violent resistance.

J Tyran:

I am not personally offended but a newspaper with any shred of decency should not be publishing shit like that, yes I do mean shit the people at the Guardians editing team are bad and should feel bad.

Yer that's what I thought, I'm not really sure how they can get away with publishing such aggressive language directed at a minority group. Before she deleted her twitter some of the stuff that was said on there was pretty bad as well.

thaluikhain:

101flyboy:
Tolerance is fake. And it's condescending, and patronizing. How do you "tolerate" a human being? We're not actions, we're we're not behaviors, we're not things. I don't do the tolerance thing. Some things are wrong and should be treated as such. Like, it is wrong to be anti-trans. And it is wrong to be transphobic. That's not debatable.

Mmmm. What's that line about tolerance, that all it means is that you haven't gone out of your way to harm someone yet?

...

Anyhoo, while it's all very well and good to say you aren't interested in what people you don't care about think of you...what if there are lots of them and what they think of you affects how they (for example) vote? They you are going to have to start caring about them. We all live in a society where we have to get along with various other people, if a large enough proportion takes a dislike to a demographic you are in, you can't sit back and ignore it.

The quote is that tolerance is resisting the urge to slap someone upside the head. So yeah, that's more or less what I consider tolerance being. The hostility, division and discomfort is still there and obvious.

Your second paragraph is very true. At least in this case, there is simply too much homophobia/transphobia to outright ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist. That's harmful. The best thing to do is hit it head on. With that said, no-one should allow what a stupid bigot thinks actually damage their own psyche.

Jedi-Hunter4:

101flyboy:
Tolerance is fake. And it's condescending, and patronizing. How do you "tolerate" a human being? We're not actions, we're we're not behaviors, we're not things. I don't do the tolerance thing. Some things are wrong and should be treated as such. Like, it is wrong to be anti-trans. And it is wrong to be transphobic. That's not debatable.

I wouldn't say its as simple as that. I'll admit if someone I was friends with turned to me and said "I tolerate the choices you make in your life" I would feel like I'd taken a bit of a kick in the teeth. But the fact is on the planet, there is every conceivable view out there somewhere and just like Transgender people have the right to live their life un-molested does everybody else not. If somebody wants to buy a plot of land living alone with their family in isolation believing anyone who wears shoes is the devil and only eating earthworms, it may be crazy but if they whole heartedly want to live like that is that not their right? I think thats what tolerance is, there are so so many clashing belief systems that they will clash. Tolerance in my view is trying to get different groups of people who don't agree with each other to live in the same space without harm or persecution aimed at one another.

In relation to the anti-trans, transphobic stuff. In this case I don't think its as clear cut these people are not saying they hate trans-genderpeople (although they are defiantly saying some nasty stuff). These two women do seem to have an infatuation with trying to be offensive whilst getting their point across, but one of their points seems to be that they disagree with transgender women arguing with them on feminist issues. Which is a very delicate issue and to some extent an individual one.

At the core asking yourself do you feel a member of the opposite sex who feels they are not in the appropriate body, who has surgery to change to your gender has the right to put their view point in as an equal, on issues that will directly affect you. Which I can sympathize with both sides. If this was along racial lines I think there would be violent resistance.

I don't consider what you explained tolerance, I consider that basic decency, following the law. You're not attacking trans persons physically, OK, you don't find the necessary need to do it, you're not violent minded. You're not criminal minded. You understand people have the right to do as they wish, that's more like, you can't avoid people doing what they're going to do. You're not going to obsess with it. But you also do NOT associate with trans persons. You do NOT tolerate them in their presence, you make negative looks, you avoid them if you can, you utter expletives under your breath. You have a clear discomfort, borderline hostility. Or you make a negative comment, regarding how you don't accept transgender individuals if the subject comes up.

None of that is tolerance. Tolerance to me is more or less ignoring something completely that you find bad. Thing is most people don't do that and their biases undoubtedly become exposed.

As for these cis-women in question, they are anti-trans. That is beyond clear, IMO. The entire "you're not a real woman" mentality is transphobic. It's a direct attack on transwomen and their identity. And it was intentional. They didn't go to "I agree wholeheartedly with the transgender movement however.......", nope, they went DIRECTLY to insults. That should say enough. They aren't here for understanding, they're rejecting transwomen from their tribe. Transgendered women do have to deal with the same shit as women on top of being fem. Being born a man physically doesn't change that. A woman who has had the surgery or presents herself as a woman has the same exact issues as all women in regards to misogyny. It doesn't really even make sense to say otherwise.

101flyboy:
I don't consider what you explained tolerance, I consider that basic decency, following the law. You're not attacking trans persons physically, OK, you don't find the necessary need to do it, you're not violent minded. You're not criminal minded. You understand people have the right to do as they wish, that's more like, you can't avoid people doing what they're going to do. You're not going to obsess with it. But you also do NOT associate with trans persons. You do NOT tolerate them in their presence, you make negative looks, you avoid them if you can, you utter expletives under your breath. You have a clear discomfort, borderline hostility. Or you make a negative comment, regarding how you don't accept transgender individuals if the subject comes up.

None of that is tolerance. Tolerance to me is more or less ignoring something completely that you find bad. Thing is most people don't do that and their biases undoubtedly become exposed.

As for these cis-women in question, they are anti-trans. That is beyond clear, IMO. The entire "you're not a real woman" mentality is transphobic. It's a direct attack on transwomen and their identity. And it was intentional. They didn't go to "I agree wholeheartedly with the transgender movement however.......", nope, they went DIRECTLY to insults. That should say enough. They aren't here for understanding, they're rejecting transwomen from their tribe. Transgendered women do have to deal with the same shit as women on top of being fem. Being born a man physically doesn't change that. A woman who has had the surgery or presents herself as a woman has the same exact issues as all women in regards to misogyny. It doesn't really even make sense to say otherwise.

I hope the use of the word "you" in that whole first paragraph was adopting a persona else your making some considerable leaps around my own charter, but hopefully its just the style you choose to write it.

Tolerance can be defined as "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."

I'll put it like this, I am a strait male. I couldn't care less about anyone's sexuality, I don't care what anyone wants to be with as long as its a consenting adult, I've had people of varing sexuality's as friends it's a non-issue, I care equally little what people want to do with their body's. I recognize transgender people are living their lives as the opposite sex and again I couldn't really care, what ever floats your boat. However for me when I'm looking for a partner I would not consider it the same, I would like to have biological children when I'm done burning up my 20's on what I want to do and for my personal sexuality its not the same.

Thats the sole reason I can empathize with some women seeing a difference. I wouldn't white wash these women as transphobic, too many times people are branded for life as this or that. their defiantly total tools spouting transphobic abuse, but in response to death threats to the original article which I think was unintentional. It doesn't make it okay. If they were doing it to a racial community it would of never been allowed to print and if it had there would be some sort of legal action. Theres is no point in me arguing these womens veiws for me anyway, their not my own, was only trying to go into their veiw point and see if there was any merit, as the only way to effectively counter an argument with logic is to understand it, I think your right there is an issue growing, I'm not really informed enough or a member of either group in all honesty to be able to tackle it though.

Out of interest what does " cis-women" stand for/mean

I don't see anything wrong with her comment. In the context of what was written, the original article the upheaval is about describes a number of things women are angry about, including their body image.

There's not really anything offensive about using a metaphor in the form of 'Brazillian transsexual' is there? If any of you have ever seens transsexuals you'll know that they're ussually exageratedly feminine, more female than many many women. Transvestites (meaning, still a man) even more so, they do so in a way so overblown it's a bit of a running joke. Ridiculously high heels which are impractical are often refered to as 'transvesite's shoes' for instance.

Not to mention I don't get what on earth is wrong with counting 'women' as both women and transsexuals. Are they not then? Yeah, very touchy subject for crossdressing men, but hello, deal with it? Not some writers' problem if you're not even started yet or halfway through and by all definitions still a man.

From what I can tell it looks as if some rather militant annoying individuals are attacking Moore for not being as horribly politically correct as they are. How dare they use words like 'transphobic row' for something that's little more than their own hypocritical outrage? The nerve of equating such overblown political correctness to genuine outrage...

This is a row about intolerance alright. A row about politicall correct hypocrites attacking someone who happened to use a term that the politically correct wish to have branded as heretical.


It's something I've noticed before. Wannabe-transsexuals are often hardcore intolerant about any dissenting opinions. For them, tolerance only works in one direction, and that's the one of their own ideas needing to be tolerated.

In contrast, those that genuinely are born in the wrong body, ussually became transsexual are some of the earliest possible ages and now are 'just a woman' are the ones who care least about this.

I think it's probably some kind of anxiety about their gender, or lack of one, or confusion about one, which they vent in the form of lashing out intolerantly at others. At least, I can think of no other explanation of why the wannabes and the failed cases are so militant, while the clearest cases of 'born in the wrong body' don't seem all that militant about it. That Kaveney character certainly seems to confirm to that rule considering her masculine facial features and history of radical feminism, and now joining the bandwagon of fake outrage.

Freedom of Speech is not a human right.

I am not surprised by the Guardian's actions. It's not a respected news paper in my eyes.

"under law we should accept everyone"-err... You mean law against discrimination? You do realize that it doesn't have much to do with say me not accepting another person and rejecting him/her because of X, right? I can't be sued for that, can I?

What is "demanding acceptance"? I know some people said in the past that they couldn't stand people who were openly gay and flaunting it, to which they were called homophobic. Does this mean that you side with the people that can't stand openly gay individuals that "flaunt their gayness" on this issue? What about white supremacists not wanting to live near blacks or have blacks in their town because don't like them? What if a black person moved into their town just to spite them?

TheIronRuler:
Freedom of Speech is not a human right.

yes it is........

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/human-rights/the-human-rights-act/what-the-rights-mean/article-10-freedom-of-expression.php

EDIT:

Its also very clearly defined as a human right in UK Statute as well as European

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents

101flyboy:
None of that is tolerance. Tolerance to me is more or less ignoring something completely that you find bad. Thing is most people don't do that and their biases undoubtedly become exposed.

That doesn't make sense to me, at least not in the context of "tolerance is resisting the urge to slap someone upside the head." Refraining from slapping someone is a good thing, but you shouldn't just leave it at that. You calmly explain why you think they shouldn't do (thing), they explain why they think they should, and if the two of you can't reconcile the situation you go your separate ways (and hope for something that will change the status quo.) Tolerance is a neutral ground where the parties in question hold themselves in check to try and work something out. Yes, there are people who think that "tolerance" involves maintaining a facade of cheerfulness and/or acceptance, but those people are doing it wrong.

Jedi-Hunter4:

TheIronRuler:
Freedom of Speech is not a human right.

yes it is........

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/human-rights/the-human-rights-act/what-the-rights-mean/article-10-freedom-of-expression.php

EDIT:

Its also very clearly defined as a human right in UK Statute as well as European

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents

.
Freedom of speech is not a human right no matter how loud the EU screams at us. I have seen the EU's list of "human rights". It's beyond wishful thinking. Reading the whole charter makes the USA the world's largest violator of human rights in the world - its own citizens.

TheIronRuler:

Jedi-Hunter4:

TheIronRuler:
Freedom of Speech is not a human right.

yes it is........

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/human-rights/the-human-rights-act/what-the-rights-mean/article-10-freedom-of-expression.php

EDIT:

Its also very clearly defined as a human right in UK Statute as well as European

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents

.
Freedom of speech is not a human right no matter how loud the EU screams at us. I have seen the EU's list of "human rights". It's beyond wishful thinking. Reading the whole charter makes the USA the world's largest violator of human rights in the world - its own citizens.

I strongly believe in freedom of speech and its one of the few things in the Human Rights act I think they got right with it so you can jump on a bus on your Larry with that. Also you do understand that EU law does not cover the US right? I'm fairly sure the USA cannot be held accountable for not following EU statute.....

Whether you like it or not if you live in the majority of the country's in Europe it most defiantly is a human right, its not just because you disagree with it, that's not how the law works. And in the UK its protected by EU and UK law.

You should be thankful for it, do you know how strongly regulated the internet would become if the government did not hold back the security forces with laws like that, we wouldn't be having a conversation about whether a law is just or not.

Jedi-Hunter4:

TheIronRuler:

Jedi-Hunter4:

yes it is........

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/human-rights/the-human-rights-act/what-the-rights-mean/article-10-freedom-of-expression.php

EDIT:

Its also very clearly defined as a human right in UK Statute as well as European

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents

.
Freedom of speech is not a human right no matter how loud the EU screams at us. I have seen the EU's list of "human rights". It's beyond wishful thinking. Reading the whole charter makes the USA the world's largest violator of human rights in the world - its own citizens.

I strongly believe in freedom of speech and its one of the few things in the Human Rights act I think they got right with it so you can jump on a bus on your Larry with that. Also you do understand that EU law does not cover the US right? I'm fairly sure the USA cannot be held accountable for not following EU statute.....

Whether you like it or not if you live in the majority of the country's in Europe it most defiantly is a human right, its not just because you disagree with it, that's not how the law works. And in the UK its protected by EU and UK law.

You should be thankful for it, do you know how strongly regulated the internet would become if the government did not hold back the security forces with laws like that, we wouldn't be having a conversation about whether a law is just or not.

.
I don't care. Freedom of Speech may be a "human right" in the EU, but not elsewhere. You shouldn't just say that freedom of speech is a human right. Freedom of speech is a right given to a citizen by a state, and that 'right' can be restricted or completely stripped away. The problem with completely stripping it away is that you need mechanism to deal with people who talk, and those mechanisms cross the line and go against basic human rights.

Man, I love watching a good fight. Where's the popcorn?

I find it quite fascinating that feminists and transsexuals, who you think would be natural born allies in the face of the bad ol' status quo of moustache-twirling straight white middle-class males, are frequently at each others throats.

One quote from the first article pretty much sums it up for me:

The radical fluidity of gender vaporised. Some trans people appeared to reinforce every gender stereotype going. To say this, though, is apparently controversial.

A lot of transpeople, in expressing their "true" selves (and which they're surely welcome to do, it's a free world) certainly do seem to strengthen the same gender stereotypes that feminists are busily trying to erode. I can understand why; if your hands are big and your jawline is square, you have to doll yourself up all the more to pass as female (and vice versa). Perhaps that's the source of the fem/trans friction? Feminists are proactively taking gender roles in one direction, transpeople are reactively taking them in the other.

And for what it's worth, I think whoever quote-mined that initial "Brazilian transsexual" comment was deliberately trying to start a fight. Surely the intended context was that most women can't hope to look like a surgically-enhanced caricature of botox'd, tanned, F-cupped femininity?

I think you're both a little right there. IronRuler is right that it's not a human right as traditionally defined by the UN. That shouldn't be much of a discussion point as the UN is a useless paper tiger that you need North Korean-like practises to get criticised by in regards to human rights.

While at the same time the European Union has indeed agreed on freedom of speech being a human right (confusingly, they used that term) and the European Court has ruled to uphold that on several occasions. Any member states trying to stop or censor expressions will need an ironclad reason for it.


But in the context of this fake outrage by politically correct peeps, I don't see a legal side to the story. One can't even remotely hold anything against Moore for bumping into politically correct people, and any action taken against her would be ruled illegal.

Punishable expressions that were upheld in national and European courts in the past (like Hans Jürgen Witz for example) were ussually along the lines of holocaust denial and such far-fetched stuff that had nothing to do with opinion or expression. Offending a bunch of very sensitive people doesn't even come close to it.

In this case: Moore is free to say as she likes. Nothing in those columns, nor that of Birch, comes even remotely close to being grieving in the legal definition.

Batou667:
A lot of transpeople, in expressing their "true" selves (and which they're surely welcome to do, it's a free world) certainly do seem to strengthen the same gender stereotypes that feminists are busily trying to erode. I can understand why; if your hands are big and your jawline is square, you have to doll yourself up all the more to pass as female (and vice versa). Perhaps that's the source of the fem/trans friction? Feminists are proactively taking gender roles in one direction, transpeople are reactively taking them in the other.

And for what it's worth, I think whoever quote-mined that initial "Brazilian transsexual" comment was deliberately trying to start a fight. Surely the intended context was that most women can't hope to look like a surgically-enhanced caricature of botox'd, tanned, F-cupped femininity?

This sums it up nicely if you ask me.

TheIronRuler:

I don't care. Freedom of Speech may be a "human right" in the EU, but not elsewhere. You shouldn't just say that freedom of speech is a human right. Freedom of speech is a right given to a citizen by a state, and that 'right' can be restricted or completely stripped away. The problem with completely stripping it away is that you need mechanism to deal with people who talk, and those mechanisms cross the line and go against basic human rights.

Where I live its a human right, deal with it! Freedom of speech is my human right protected by the British and European Government and means I can say what I like when I like (as long as its not hate speech, in-sighting violence or slander).

Also the article I was referring to was in a British newspaper so it comes under EU and UK law. So I think I more than in the right to refer to it as a Human right.

Seriously are you a fascist or something "Freedom of speech is a right given to a citizen by a state" the government is there to serve and protect the people, voted in by the people, not the other way round. "and that 'right' can be restricted or completely stripped away." I would really like to see them strip it away, that's the day there's rioting in every city in the country, I know i'll be there.

Once you take away peoples human right to free speech you start down a road that leads to a narrowing of ideas, segregation, persecution, fear and hate. If you really think that restricting peoples right to free speech is a good idea you need to read up on your WW2 history and see where it leads. Once you take away peoples open forum to discuss and explain you take away the entire medium by which understanding of minority ideals are speared, leading to a system ripe for exploitation.

Restricting freedom of speech may start with "you can't say this, you cant say that" but it spreads.

Blablahb:

Batou667:
A lot of transpeople, in expressing their "true" selves (and which they're surely welcome to do, it's a free world) certainly do seem to strengthen the same gender stereotypes that feminists are busily trying to erode. I can understand why; if your hands are big and your jawline is square, you have to doll yourself up all the more to pass as female (and vice versa). Perhaps that's the source of the fem/trans friction? Feminists are proactively taking gender roles in one direction, transpeople are reactively taking them in the other.

And for what it's worth, I think whoever quote-mined that initial "Brazilian transsexual" comment was deliberately trying to start a fight. Surely the intended context was that most women can't hope to look like a surgically-enhanced caricature of botox'd, tanned, F-cupped femininity?

This sums it up nicely if you ask me.

Yer I agree, got a little side tracked with other discussions. lol

Jedi-Hunter4:

TheIronRuler:

I don't care. Freedom of Speech may be a "human right" in the EU, but not elsewhere. You shouldn't just say that freedom of speech is a human right. Freedom of speech is a right given to a citizen by a state, and that 'right' can be restricted or completely stripped away. The problem with completely stripping it away is that you need mechanism to deal with people who talk, and those mechanisms cross the line and go against basic human rights.

Where I live its a human right, deal with it! Freedom of speech is my human right protected by the British and European Government and means I can say what I like when I like (as long as its not hate speech, in-sighting violence or slander).

Also the article I was referring to was in a British newspaper so it comes under EU and UK law. So I think I more than in the right to refer to it as a Human right.

Seriously are you a fascist or something "Freedom of speech is a right given to a citizen by a state" the government is there to serve and protect the people, voted in by the people, not the other way round. "and that 'right' can be restricted or completely stripped away." I would really like to see them strip it away, that's the day there's rioting in every city in the country, I know i'll be there.

Once you take away peoples human right to free speech you start down a road that leads to a narrowing of ideas, segregation, persecution, fear and hate. If you really think that restricting peoples right to free speech is a good idea you need to read up on your WW2 history and see where it leads. Once you take away peoples open forum to discuss and explain you take away the entire medium by which understanding of minority ideals are speared, leading to a system ripe for exploitation.

Restricting freedom of speech may start with "you can't say this, you cant say that" but it spreads.

A good thing for you to learn is that, people don't have rights, period. Human rights are a social construct, part of a social contract, that are enforced by society. They're a form of social currency like any other law. It's part of a give and take. All rights are given to citizens from the state and all authority of the state is given to it by citizens. Even if just by the citizens being duped or terrorized into giving that authority up. Freedom of speech is no different.

If revoking the right to free speech worries you, and it probably should, it's because you're losing part of that contract that benefits the people (such as yourself) immensely, and getting nothing in return.

But you're not owed that right by anybody, nor are you owed it by virtue of being born. You and society earned it the same way as everything else is earned, through diplomacy, economy, trickery, bribery and force of arms. What is and isn't considered a right is entirely dependent on what that society and it's might says it is.

Batou667:
Man, I love watching a good fight. Where's the popcorn?

I find it quite fascinating that feminists and transsexuals, who you think would be natural born allies in the face of the bad ol' status quo of moustache-twirling straight white middle-class males, are frequently at each others throats.

One quote from the first article pretty much sums it up for me:

The radical fluidity of gender vaporised. Some trans people appeared to reinforce every gender stereotype going. To say this, though, is apparently controversial.

A lot of transpeople, in expressing their "true" selves (and which they're surely welcome to do, it's a free world) certainly do seem to strengthen the same gender stereotypes that feminists are busily trying to erode. I can understand why; if your hands are big and your jawline is square, you have to doll yourself up all the more to pass as female (and vice versa). Perhaps that's the source of the fem/trans friction? Feminists are proactively taking gender roles in one direction, transpeople are reactively taking them in the other.

And for what it's worth, I think whoever quote-mined that initial "Brazilian transsexual" comment was deliberately trying to start a fight. Surely the intended context was that most women can't hope to look like a surgically-enhanced caricature of botox'd, tanned, F-cupped femininity?

Transpeople and feminists shouldn't be enemies any more than gay people and bisexuals should be, even if it does happen all the time. There's no inherent disconnect or conflict between the two that force them to fight, other than people are stupid and can be mutually bigoted towards people who they should have common ties to (see: biphobia in gay communities).

Few female feminists (or male feminists for that matter) dispute their gender identity. Yes, there might be gender fluid or genderqueer feminists, but there's nothing about feminism that forces you to not be cisgendered. They merely dispute their gender roles, especially those that place one gender socially and economically under the other.

When feminists dislike transpeople for those transpeople expressing their gender identity they are mistaking gender identity for gender role, which is a common mistake, and one people shouldn't make.

It's, again, to draw a parallel to the schism between bisexuals and the gay community, it's like when gay people claim that bisexual people only have opposite sex relationships to 'hide' their sexuality and that damages their movement, when it does no such thing.

Transwomen don't typically want to adopt restrictive disadvantageous social roles, any more than most women do. Transmen don't adopt a male identity to escape female social roles. It's a completely different thing going on.

A feminist woman that wears comfortable clothes, wants to be an equal partner to their lover in sex, wants equal pay at work, and doesn't want to be talked down to, still identifies as female. Even if they shed old gender roles.

Batou667:
Surely the intended context was that most women can't hope to look like a surgically-enhanced caricature of botox'd, tanned, F-cupped femininity?

The idea that it's "not attainable" to women is laughable. For fuck's sake, if it's obtainable by male bodied people, then how the hell is it not attainable to women? Every single thing you have described can be obtained through surgery or cosmetic treatment. For some, it won't even be required. Amazingly, some women out there have naturally darker skin (hence Brazil, where much of the population is mixed race). Some women do have large breasts. Some women do have big lips.

It's not any more "unobtainable" than any other variation on the human body shape, and significantly more obtainable than some because it can be surgically created on just about anyone. It's being described in these terms not because it's "unobtainable", but because it's a body type which the author does not like or feels is unpleasant and "fake looking", and what terms do we use to signify this. We describe these people as looking like "transexuals", because of course being "transexual" is the ultimate fake.

It wasn't a line motivated by genuine hatred, but it was a stupid line which was, in context, highly offensive. It was transphobic, it was also borderline racist.

Also, because this bugs me,

"Gender, we thought, was a performance"

I guess if your only ambition is to be columnist, we can't expect you to actually learn anything in college. But this is so wrong a first year undergraduate could point it out. How the fuck these people get paid for writing is beyond me.

Blablahb:
If any of you have ever seens transsexuals you'll know that they're ussually exageratedly feminine, more female than many many women.

All this tells me is that you've probably seen a lot more transpeople than you think you have.

TheIronRuler:
I don't care. Freedom of Speech may be a "human right" in the EU, but not elsewhere. You shouldn't just say that freedom of speech is a human right. Freedom of speech is a right given to a citizen by a state, and that 'right' can be restricted or completely stripped away. The problem with completely stripping it away is that you need mechanism to deal with people who talk, and those mechanisms cross the line and go against basic human rights.

So freedom of speech isn't a fundamental human right because the state can take it away (or more accurately, try and suppress venues for free speech and punish those who exercise non-state approved speech), but mechanisms put in place to prevent people from utilizing their right to free speech would violate human rights?

That is completely ridiculous. If you believe that the ability of the state to try and suppress a right means it isn't a basic human right then there is no such thing as a basic human right since all can be suppressed by government if it wants to try hard enough.

But the problem with that line of thinking is that the state doesn't grant rights. It simply chooses whether or not to defend and protect them on behalf of its citizens. And the right to speech is one of the most fundamental rights we have since the majority of us are capable of speaking and no one can stop us from opening our mouths to say what we will if we want to. They can certainly punish us for it afterwards, but that doesn't mean that speech isn't a right.

Jedi-Hunter4:
One of the things I find more and more puzzling is the gradual shift over the last 50 years that freedom of speech used to be the corner stone of left wing views hand in hand with acceptance and now today freedom loving people more than often have to rely on strong right wing public individuals to protect peoples right to free speech, which create's more than a bit of a quandary when you disagree with allot of their views.

What? The right wing protecting freedom of speech? Where do you live? In my country it's almost impossible to hold a peaceful demonstration for indiginous people's rights without it being broken up by the police. When the police attacked the Muslim protesters last year because of a few distasteful signs, no right-winger jumped to their defense saying people are entitled to voice their frustrations, and that a few offensive placards among a few hundred protesters isn't a reason to indiscriminately set dogs on people.

But it's true that bigoted and hateful language against minorities from media personalities will always be vehemently defended. So thanks right wing, for protecting my freedoms.

evilthecat:
All this tells me is that you've probably seen a lot more transpeople than you think you have.

Ussually there's a pretty sharp divide between the masculine ones and the ones you have trouble telling it about. There's a big difference between a woman whose jawline is a bit off, and a man in women's clothes who dresses like it's a slutwalk every day. Kind of don't care about the technicalities under those clothes, because the difference in styling is clear as day, and it has to come from somewhere.

Don't really care where it's coming from either, but if someone observes that difference like all of us, uses it as a metaphor, and then gets attacked by some crazy militant people, that's just wrong.

101flyboy:
Tolerance is fake. And it's condescending, and patronizing. How do you "tolerate" a human being? We're not actions, we're we're not behaviors, we're not things. I don't do the tolerance thing. Some things are wrong and should be treated as such. Like, it is wrong to be anti-trans. And it is wrong to be transphobic. That's not debatable.

According to who? To beat an old drum, I'm a Jew and if people want to hate Jews I have no issue with that. All that I ask is that they don't deny me housing, employment, the ability to seek an education and the same options to take out a loan as a gentile. Why should people be forced to like Jews? I don't have to like them and they should not be forced to like me or Jews in general.

101flyboy:

It's not a small thing ultimately to feel as if you're humanity is being questioned and not respected.

Their humanity? No, the fact that they had surgery and expect to be treated as a women when they were born male and the fact that they have X and Y chromosome are being questioned.

Jedi-Hunter4:

Where I live its a human right, deal with it! Freedom of speech is my human right protected by the British and European Government and means I can say what I like when I like (as long as its not hate speech, in-sighting violence or slander).

Thats nice, but its not universally recognized as a human right and as such, it is narrow minded of you to declare otherwise just because your country views it a human right. My country feels that you have the right to own guns, but you don't see me ignoring the laws of other countries and declaring the ownership of firearms a universal human right.

Jedi-Hunter4:

Seriously are you a fascist or something "Freedom of speech is a right given to a citizen by a state" the government is there to serve and protect the people, voted in by the people, not the other way round. "and that 'right' can be restricted or completely stripped away." I would really like to see them strip it away, that's the day there's rioting in every city in the country, I know i'll be there.

He's not a fascist, he's just doesn't have a Eurocentric view of the world and assume that because West Europeans feel a certain way about freedom of speech, then everybody else in the world should feel the same way. Perhaps you should do the same thing and realize that the world doesn't revolve around Western Europe.

Blablahb:
Kind of don't care about the technicalities under those clothes, because the difference in styling is clear as day, and it has to come from somewhere.

Yes, it's called "drag".

It's one very particular style used by some MtF transgendered people (generally not transexuals). It's also pretty much the only style of MtF transgendered dress which is really noticable in comparison with the heterosexual population. It's kind of meant to be silly and exaggerated, and the people who do it are generally comfortable with it being interpreted in that way.

If she had said "Brazilian drag queen" that would have been less offensive as it would have been technically correct. In fact, I would go so far as to say that is probably what she meant. However, she didn't say that did she?

I used to cross dress a fair bit, so I know damn well how easy it is to pass for a woman. Admittedly, I have a body type which a lot of MtF transgendered folk don't have, but I've managed it for hours on end without hormone therapy, without surgery, without voice coaching or padding. I also watched a couple of my friends go into role and ultimately transition, and yeah, one went through some horrible phases of dressing and looking completely inappropriate but if you've ever seen young teenage girls trying to dress themselves you'll realize it really wasn't that strange. Nowadays, you simply would not know. None of her close friends know, even those who see her every day. The other. Fucking seamless, knew what to do from day one. Has never stood out since.

It's not difficult to cross dress convincingly, and anyone who claims that they just "know" is deluding themselves. Having spotted drag queens or people dressing unconvincingly does not mean you have some intuitive sense regarding trans people.

Incidentally, a "transexual" is a term for someone who feels that they are medically of the wrong sex, that actually they have a "woman's brain in a man's body". This is as opposed to a "transgender" person who feels that the way they are socially interpreted is wrong or makes them unhappy. Obviously, the difference between these terms is not really relevant to most people, which is why some use them interchangeably or simply use "trans" instead.

Batou667:
I find it quite fascinating that feminists and transsexuals, who you think would be natural born allies in the face of the bad ol' status quo of moustache-twirling straight white middle-class males, are frequently at each others throats.

No such thing as natural allies against the status quo, though people like to pretend there is when they want someone to support them.

Jedi-Hunter4:
Out of interest what does " cis-women" stand for/mean

Ciswomen, as opposed to transwomen.

Rome divided Gaul into Cisalpine Gaul (Gaul this side of the Alps) and Transalpine Gaul (Gaul the other side of the Alps). It's the same thing, but with gender instead of mountains, a ciswoman is a woman who has stayed on her side of the gender divide, a transwoman is one who has moved other (that is, was born physically male).

evilthecat:
It's one very particular style used by some MtF transgendered people (generally not transexuals). It's also pretty much the only style of MtF transgendered dress which is really noticable in comparison with the heterosexual population.

I guess that explains the women with extremely short hair, tough looks and small triangles as earrings on only one side. ^_^

Or in other words: Aren't you forgetting each gender and sexual identity has its own style? Others you can ussually tell apart are masculine lesbians and feminine gay men. The fluids tend to be a dead giveaway as well even if they have no distinctive style of dressing.

evilthecat:
If she had said "Brazilian drag queen" that would have been less offensive as it would have been technically correct. However, she didn't say that did she?

And I think anyone who makes a fuss over that really needs to get a life. They know damn well what she meant.

And that's also part of what this is about. Some people who aren't the gender they want, take offense to that term Moore used because they're projecting their dissatisfaction by lashing out. They need to man up and resolve their problems, not flame others. ^_^

evilthecat:
It's not difficult to cross dress convincingly, and anyone who claims that they just "know" is deluding themselves.

Facial features never fail for any post-puberty case and aren't dependant on dress either.

Site maintenance ate my last post, so I'll keep this brief.

Blablahb:
I guess that explains the women with extremely short hair, tough looks and small triangles as earrings on only one side. ^_^

Do you mean butches, or transmen?

I'd be careful before you start simplifying the world too far.

Blablahb:
And I think anyone who makes a fuss over that really needs to get a life. They know damn well what she meant.

No, they don't.

In fact, since she has yet to clarify or apologise, I am only supposing that's what she meant. It may well be that she meant to say "transexuals", it may well be that she considers it a simple statement of fact to point out that transexuals are all fake, plastic and grotesque, and her self-confessed lack of malice merely ammounts to some statement that transpeople should be "comfortable" with the fact that they look like revolting fakes because they chose to be stupid and try to change their sex.

It's as valid an interpretation as any.

Blablahb:
They need to man up and resolve their problems, not flame others. ^_^

What's your opinion on Edward Said again, Blab?

Blablahb:
Facial features never fail for any post-puberty case and aren't dependant on dress either.

Let me repeat myself.

"Anyone who claims that they just "know" is deluding themselves."

Jedi-Hunter4:

TheIronRuler:

I don't care. Freedom of Speech may be a "human right" in the EU, but not elsewhere. You shouldn't just say that freedom of speech is a human right. Freedom of speech is a right given to a citizen by a state, and that 'right' can be restricted or completely stripped away. The problem with completely stripping it away is that you need mechanism to deal with people who talk, and those mechanisms cross the line and go against basic human rights.

Where I live its a human right, deal with it! Freedom of speech is my human right protected by the British and European Government and means I can say what I like when I like (as long as its not hate speech, in-sighting violence or slander).

Also the article I was referring to was in a British newspaper so it comes under EU and UK law. So I think I more than in the right to refer to it as a Human right.

Seriously are you a fascist or something "Freedom of speech is a right given to a citizen by a state" the government is there to serve and protect the people, voted in by the people, not the other way round. "and that 'right' can be restricted or completely stripped away." I would really like to see them strip it away, that's the day there's rioting in every city in the country, I know i'll be there.

Once you take away peoples human right to free speech you start down a road that leads to a narrowing of ideas, segregation, persecution, fear and hate. If you really think that restricting peoples right to free speech is a good idea you need to read up on your WW2 history and see where it leads. Once you take away peoples open forum to discuss and explain you take away the entire medium by which understanding of minority ideals are speared, leading to a system ripe for exploitation.

Restricting freedom of speech may start with "you can't say this, you cant say that" but it spreads.

.
Fine, then calling free speech a human right in this case (since it's within the UK) is valid. Still, I wouldn't call Free speech a human right. Remember that not any country grants that right to its people, and many restrict it in certain ways.
.

Vivi22:

TheIronRuler:
I don't care. Freedom of Speech may be a "human right" in the EU, but not elsewhere. You shouldn't just say that freedom of speech is a human right. Freedom of speech is a right given to a citizen by a state, and that 'right' can be restricted or completely stripped away. The problem with completely stripping it away is that you need mechanism to deal with people who talk, and those mechanisms cross the line and go against basic human rights.

So freedom of speech isn't a fundamental human right because the state can take it away (or more accurately, try and suppress venues for free speech and punish those who exercise non-state approved speech), but mechanisms put in place to prevent people from utilizing their right to free speech would violate human rights?

That is completely ridiculous. If you believe that the ability of the state to try and suppress a right means it isn't a basic human right then there is no such thing as a basic human right since all can be suppressed by government if it wants to try hard enough.

But the problem with that line of thinking is that the state doesn't grant rights. It simply chooses whether or not to defend and protect them on behalf of its citizens. And the right to speech is one of the most fundamental rights we have since the majority of us are capable of speaking and no one can stop us from opening our mouths to say what we will if we want to. They can certainly punish us for it afterwards, but that doesn't mean that speech isn't a right.

.
There's "natural rights", "endowed by a creator". Life, Liberty and Estate, by John Locke.
There's the 'New World Order' Atlantic Charter, cementing the anti-colonialist movement post WW2 and that "all people had a right to self-determination".
I don't see the EU charter of human rights to be of much significance compared to these examples.

Jedi-Hunter4:

TheIronRuler:

I don't care. Freedom of Speech may be a "human right" in the EU, but not elsewhere. You shouldn't just say that freedom of speech is a human right. Freedom of speech is a right given to a citizen by a state, and that 'right' can be restricted or completely stripped away. The problem with completely stripping it away is that you need mechanism to deal with people who talk, and those mechanisms cross the line and go against basic human rights.

If you really think that restricting peoples right to free speech is a good idea you need to read up on your WW2 history and see where it leads.

Dude, one of the reasons the Nazis were able to take power was because Weimar Germany had such a liberal approach to freedom of expression. If it had been more restrictive it could have prevented them from becoming anything more than a fringe movement.

I think it is weird as hell, but hey, we tell ourselves we live in a free country.

Honestly, people who get offended by this and make a deal out of it are hiding something from themselves.
They don't bother you, so why would you bother them?
I guess it's normal to find it hard to understand why someone would do that, but to go out and publicly "fight" against them. They're compensating.

Isn't this just a case of bitchy woman upset that confused men are stealing their "victimhood" status?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked