(An interesting, helpful and well-written piece of writing here gives anyone falling behind on terminology a quick update.)
I haven't posted in altogether too long a time, it is true. But in all honesty, I haven't ever told myself that I had to post on here with alarming regularity; merely if things became of an interest to me, or if I found subjects which I felt passionately about. Sadly, though this post does come from a place of passion, it is an angry passion and not one of happiness. But I digress.
To just quickly get you up to date if you haven't heard of Julie Burchill, she is a writer for The Observer/The Guardian, and she has written about a lot of various topics. A lot of them ridiculously homophobic and anti-feminist. Here is a link to an actual article she wrote back in 2001. The article is called 'Gender bending', and I warn you now for trigger warnings of a transphobic nature within the article; this particular gem made me feel physically ill that she was allowed to have this trash published.
Julie Burchill also penned the novel Sugar Rush, which you might have heard of. Set in Brighton, it tells the story of a young girl struggling with her sexuality, before realising her own lesbianism. Cue a lot of drama and sex. It was a huge hit at the time, in England at least. Think of a crappier skins, with one ginger lesbian as the focal point.
As most of you will already no doubt be aware of, earlier today an article was published on The Guardian's website. The article in question was not published through The Guardian, but rather through its sister paper, The Observer. The article is by Burchill, entitled, "Transsexuals should cut it out". Trust me, the pun isn't lost on me, I'm merely not fucking laughing.
The original article, if you wish to read it, is right here.
If you don't want to read it, and to be honest I can't possibly blame you for saving yourself that particular delight, then here is a quick breakdown of a few points touched upon within the article which truly riled me. Now, this post is in no way a full breakdown of the article. I am not a professional, merely a 21 year old queer individual with a soapbox to stand on and a free evening with a desire to distract myself from other things.
Julie Burchill's article perhaps began in honest and loyal motivations; she was clearly frustrated and angry that her friend (Suzanne Moore) had become a spitting post for something which she said in an essay. The essay itself was published in Waterstones' new anthology collection, Red, which is a worrying fact I will contemplate another day. However Suzanne Moore took her indignation and upset too far, and then Julie Burchill took that indignation and fucking ran to Canada with it.
The result is a disgusting piece of trash writing, which is an unsubtle piece of hate speech towards the trans* community as a whole, but particularly focused upon those women who have struggled to become the people they were meant to be born as.
When speaking of her friend's apparent persecution, Julie Burchill refers to her friend as 'a woman of such style and substance', and laments that Suzanne Moore 'should be driven from her chosen mode of time-wasting by a bunch of dicks in chicks' clothing'.
Now, I did warn you for triggers, and I apologise if you read on regardless and now feel ill. I know that I did when I first read that. This statement, sadly, is merely the tip of a disgusting iceberg.
It seems that Julie doesn't seem to register that those in the trans* community who happen to be mtf (male-to-female transitioning), or anything else on the spectrum of what is out there which makes people comfortable and happy, are people too.
'(I know that's a wrong word, but having recently discovered that their lot describe born women as 'Cis' – sounds like syph, cyst, cistern; all nasty stuff – they're lucky I'm not calling them shemales. Or shims.)'
This blatant disregard for the use of proper, polite terminology is what baffles me perhaps the most. Julie Burchill is aware of what she is doing; she even points out that she is aware she is using impolite and unpleasant words to describe human beings. And yet she seems not to care. Why? Because she is deemed to be 'cis', something she has decided is a dirty word.
Now Julie, I hate to point this out to you, but if you'd simply googled the damn word, you'd have discovered that 'cis' is an abbreviation of cis-gender. To be cisgender is where an individual's self-perception of their gender matches their sex. And yes, Julie, you are cisgender. You are in the lucky position of having been born into the right body that matches your mind. Your sexuality has nothing to do with your sex, remember, so no one is telling you that you're straight. But you are a woman, both in your mind and in your body, and you are such without any outside help.
Cisgender is not a dirty word. I will repeat this fact until it sinks in. I have a great many friends who are proud to label themselves as cis, just as a great number identify as trans* or otherwise.
C'mon Julie, do your fucking research, make this a little bit more difficult for me.
The final quote I'm going to put here, lest Julie Burchill ever delete the offending article and pretend it never happened, is perhaps the worst of the bunch. It speaks for itself, but I will still get on my soapbox, as I am one to do.
'To have your cock cut off and then plead special privileges as women – above natural-born women, who don't know the meaning of suffering, apparently – is a bit like the old definition of chutzpah: the boy who killed his parents and then asked the jury for clemency on the grounds he was an orphan.'
There are many things wrong with this quote, from the use of the words 'special privileges', to the lamentable connection between 'chutzpah' and the trans* community. But what I am mostly hurting over right now is the term 'natural-born women'.
There is a rule, among human beings, and it is that we try our hardest not to create 'them' and 'us' situations. Those situations only lead to problems, to segregation and upset. And yet Julie seems determined to segregate women into two categories.
It needs to be drilled into Julie Burchill's skull now, and quickly, that the fact that she was lucky enough to be born cisgendered does not give her superpowers. It also does not mean that someone in the trans* community has privileges either (unless those by 'privileges' Burchill actually means being discriminated against for the rest of their lives).
Nobody is above anybody else. No woman is superior, no matter her personal background, and certainly not simply because she had the luck to be born cisgender.
There is much more I could say, but it has been a long day as it is and this post has taken me too long to write. If you would like to make a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission, as I have already done, you can do so here. If you would like to complain to the editor directly, you can find his professional contact information right here.
Other than that, I thank you for reading.
It is interesting to note that the Observer readers' editor has already taken the article into inquiry. The issue is apparently is hand, and we will be hearing a response in due course. I have still emailed him, and still launched a complaint with the PCC. We shall see.
Take care, everyone. xo
No comments:
Post a Comment