Further talk of a transphobic nature.

Since the last post became so long, I decided to make another tonight, rather than merely editing the previous night's post with further links.

Firstly is a link to an article in The Observer, which details how Julie Burchill's previous article has been removed due to its disgusting and hateful nature. You can read that here if you want, but suffice to say it is short, to the point, and yet not as apologetic as I would personally have liked.

On a poll on The Independent's website, 90% of voters thought her article was in bad taste. That number isn't high enough for my liking, but it seems to have done the job as people are now taking notice at the very least.

Obviously there has also been cries for Julie Burchill to have her freelance duties towards The Observer removed. I have yet to see any evidence to suggest that this could actually happen, but I have to admit it wouldn't be a sad day if it were to come to pass.

Amongst the good and victorious is sadly another link, to a less pleasant article. This particular number is from The Independent, and was written by Terence Blacker. The article is entitled "The world has gone mad if Julie Burchill can’t stir things up and cause offence", and you can find it online here.

The article itself is better written than Burchill's attempt, but as you can probably guess from the title, isn't exactly in favour of the anger she's received. In short, the article tries to approach the subject from the mindset of a man telling a woman to stop crying because she's only making herself into a nuisance by doing so. The words 'sensitivity police' are used, and that's never a good sign.

I do suggest you read the article, it is still worth noting it could be triggering for transphobic reasons, but on the whole it is less vomit-worthy than what Burchill had to say. A particular quote which I would like to comment upon I shall leave here; I think it pretty much sums up what the entire article has to say on the matter.

'Burchill used her usual knockabout, head-butting prose to make a fair argument: that the transgendered should not demand special privileges over those who were born as women  – the “cisgendered” as they are described in the increasingly complex vocabulary of the gender studies phrase book.'

Here is what I would like to say to you, Blacker.

1. An argument which is not well constructed, well written, and balanced is not a 'fair argument'. Burchill's argument was less such and more a ill-advised and defensive rant.

2. No transgendered person demands a special privilege. In fact, all the trans* community want, I'm sure, is to be treated as equal to each of your cisgendered members of society who have had the luck to be born into a sex you feel suits your mind.

3. Let's get rid of your quotation marks around the word cisgendered, eh? It's not a pretend word we've made up to mock you all, and it isn't merely a word from some kind of gender phrase book you seem to think exists. It is a word which has a purpose and definition, just like any other.

I think I'll stop there.

Take care. xo