Burchill, Moore and Transphobia, a sitcom where no-one laughs

A piece about the relatively recent transphobic tirades of Suzanne Moore and Julie Burchill.

If you are any kind of internetado of a progressive bent, then you probably heard about the stoush between Suzanne Moore, a UK columnist, her friend and ally Julie Burchill and the transgender community.

It really came to widespread attention with Julie Burchill's 'defence' of Moore, but that's really a bit like walking into the cinema in the third act, so let's start at the beginning.

So, Suzanne Moore has this article put in The New Statesman, and though a broad strokes article on ager being useful to combat a myriad of injustices against women, it is actually quite a good read. I don't mean it in a surprised or condescending way, I had simply never heard of Moore prior to the ensuing shitfight, and found her article a rather thorough rallying call. However, despite the generally good tone of the article, for one reader at least, one phrase stood out like the proverbial dog's bollocks.

"We are angry with ourselves for not being happier, not being loved properly and not having the ideal body shape – that of a Brazilian transsexual."

Now, I can see what she's getting at here, and I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt. I get that people make throwaway comments, and don't think them through, and I think this was one such instance. So, I'm going to assume she meant to say this in the vein of;

"Women are expected to all look like supermodels."

not

"niggerspickfagdykebitchretard." (apologies for that cluster of bigoted verbiage)

See, some battles are still being fought. Moore is a feminist. That battle is still being fought and has been, possibly, since time immemorial. Some battles are new. Ableist bigotry as a battleground is new, as referenced by the fact that most people don't know what 'ableist' means. Still, a lot of people will still call an annoying person a 'retard' and think nothing of it. Transphobia is new, at least newer than misogyny and sexism as a socio-political battleground. The down side of this newness is that these bigotries are not as ingrained in the mind of the general public.

We recognise racist or sexist slurs as garish bigotries, unfit for serious, possibly any, conversation. But we still say 'retarded' or 'shemale' without batting an eyelid, even though it's pretty much as bad as saying 'bitch' or 'nigger'.

I'm willing to give Moore the benefit of the doubt, that her 'Brazilian Transsexual' comment was simply off the cuff and not thought out.

Indeed, when a reader asks Moore, via Twitter, about the comment, the tone of the commenter seems to infer an assumed oversight.

The comment from @jonanamary is actually praising the article but picking out one element that gave her pause, and asking for a rationale as to why it was included.

Now there's three ways you could handle this;

1) The afterthought approach: "Oh yes, you're right. It was intended as a throwaway comment, it didn't even occur to me it would be offensive, sorry, I'll bear it in mind for next time."

2) The conciliatory approach: "You're absolutely right. I should have known better, I apologise unreservedly to transgender mena and women, and their supporters who may have been offfended by this. It certainly wasn't my intention to ridicule or demonise any marginalised gender identity."

3) The fuck you and the horse you rode in on approach: The response(s) she actually made.

Which is essentially to say "It's your problem, not mine. Fuck off if you don't like it, and besides, all them people are freaky and weird and I don't like them."

So, essentially this is the sort of gaffe created by someone who doesn't yet seem to get how social media works, and how it'll bite your ass as soon as look at you. The 'fuck off' response is not going to make this go away, if anything Moore has seen a small fire and then thrown kerosene on it.

Anyway, feel free to read the rest of the exchange. It's rather unpleasant. Still, the story moves on from here. We haven't yet got to the Swiftian subtlety of Julie Burchill yet.

So, in brave response to the deluge of vile attack from those dirty, evil women with penises savaging her fine and upstanding friend, Burchill commented on the event. Instead of being a bit Gandhi about it, she decided to be a bit Samuel L. Jackson about it, and shoot at every motherfucker she laid her motherfucking eyes on.

Her article, taken down by The Observer, is reprinted here at that bastion of journalistic integrity The Telegraph. In the meantime, here's a few edited highlights;

Needless to say the tone goes beyond resentful into petty cruelty. 'The other JB' that Burchill refers to is Julie Bindel, who has her own history of transphobia, a criticism of which can be seen here.

Since Burchill's response was published it's been taken down, a government Minister has called for the editor to be sacked, 87% of respondents in a poll found her piece to be offensive, and a rather nice response put Burchill's piece in the context of dehumanising bigotry.

Now, as a personage of the testicular persuasion, I feel uncomfortable weighing in on a stoush between feminists and transgender folk and advocates. But because I'm the biggest idiot in the world I'm going to anyway.

No-one's claiming that Moore, Burchill and Bindel aren't terrifically insightful feminists, that they haven't fought long, hard and well for awareness and action on a variety of issues that affect women. That is good stuff, top shelf shit to admire and applaud. This doesn't, however make their views on any other kind of struggle particularly evolved, especially trans rights.

I tend to find with progressively minded people, you'll go one of two ways - focus on one aspect to the exclusion of many others, or try and take in as much as possible. I personally like to think I'm always learning. Last year was the first year I even noticed that there was an International Day of Transgender Remembrance, to remember those who have died from transphobic violence, and last year was thus the year I started to try and learn more about the social politics of transgenderism. 

I don't have a swag of trans friends, two in this country, one I know online. But, at least knowing some trans folk, I at least have an inkling of what they go through. I may never understand the drive to transition, but I don't need to. My comprehension is not necessary, but my support is. It costs us nothing to reach out to people who need love and/or support and give it to them. It costs nothing, but gives us a lot back in the way of insight.

I still muddle on terminology - is someone a trans man/woman, transgender or transgendered - but that has more to do with me being an old bastard and out of the loop with what the young folk are up to. I don't see transgenderism as particularly threatening. If someone who was biologically born male, transitions to female and is attracted to women, men or both, it's none of my damn business. I don't want to obsess over who they date and why, or how they choose to identify themselves. Gender and sexuality are confusing. There are a hundred labels we could choose to adopt (don't believe me?).

If we want to call ourselves progressive, then what we're really saying is that we are against injustice, inequality and oppression. We can focus on one issue, or we can focus on one hundred. If the Moores, Burchills and Bindels of the world draw ire for this sort of vilification against trans folk, it's justified. Pain is pain, hate is hate, oppression is oppression. No-one's pain is 'worth' more than another's, no hate is more forgivable. The horror of a woman being stoned death for 'adultery' (ie being raped) is just as loathsome a crime as a trans woman being beaten to death by a gang of young thugs, revolted by a 'freak'. We can sit around and split hairs about whose suffering is more valid, or we can all agree that these are horrors sprung from the worst and most base instincts of the human species. And that they need to stop, and that those who fight them need support.

Moore could have offered a 'mea culpa'. Even if not heartfelt, it would have defused the issue. Burchill could have been less loathsome and more tactful in her defence of Moore, but neither of those possibilities occurred. Instead they stooped to the same level as those who use terms like 'man-hater' or 'feminazi'. If you think terms like that are revolting, then maybe try not to say things like 'chicks with dicks'.

I had contacted one of my trans friends to offer some insight into being trans - no bigotry becomes quite so real as it does when you speak to someone affected by it - but she is busy scraping by trying to live in the US. If she does offer an insight, I'll edit and update this piece. You, me, we could all learn something from a brief stroll in another's shoes.