Give 'em hell Pike! » Page 'Transsexuals should cut it out (repost of censored article by Julie Burchill)'

Transsexuals should cut it out (repost of censored article by Julie Burchill)

 

This article is by Julie Burchill, not me (Frank Fisher), and was originally posted here, before the Observer took frit at the ire directed by censorious Lefties including govt minister Lynne Featherstone, and took it down. If Ms Burchill would like me to withdraw her article from my site I shall of course do so; if the Observer would like me to, they can go piss up a rope

 

The brilliant writer Suzanne Moore and I go back a long way. I first met her when she was a young single mother living in a council flat; she took me out to interview me about my novel Ambition (republished by Corvus Books this spring, since you ask) for dear dead City Limits magazine. “I’ve got an entertaining budget of £12.50!” she said proudly. “Sod that, we’re having lobster and champagne at Frederick’s and I’m paying,” I told her. Half a bottle of Bolly later, she looked at me with faraway eyes: “Ooo, I could get to like this…” And so she did.

I have observed her rise to the forefront of this country’s great polemicists with a whole lot of pride – and just a tiny bit of envy. I am godmother to her three brilliant, beautiful daughters. Though we differ on certain issues we will have each other’s backs until the sacred cows come home.

With this in mind, I was incredulous to read that my friend was being monstered on Twitter, to the extent that she had quit it, for supposedly picking on a minority – transsexuals. Though I imagine it to be something akin to being savaged by a dead sheep, as Denis Healey had it of Geoffrey Howe, I nevertheless felt indignant that a woman of such style and substance should be driven from her chosen mode of time-wasting by a bunch of dicks in chicks’ clothing.

To my mind – I have given cool-headed consideration to the matter – a gaggle of transsexuals telling Suzanne Moore how to write looks a lot like how I’d imagine the Black and White Minstrels telling Usain Bolt how to run would look. That rude and ridic.

Here’s what happened. In a book of essays called Red: The Waterstones Anthology, Suzanne contributed a piece about women’s anger. She wrote that, among other things, women were angry about “not having the ideal body shape – that of a Brazilian transsexual”. Rather than join her in decrying the idea that every broad should aim to look like an oven-ready porn star, the very vociferous transsexual lobby and their grim groupies picked on the messenger instead.

I must say that my only experience of the trans lobby thus far was hearing about the vile way they have persecuted another of my friends, the veteran women’s rights and anti-domestic violence activist Julie Bindel – picketing events where she is speaking about such minor issues as the rape of children and the trafficking of women just because she refuses to accept that their relationship with their phantom limb is the most pressing problem that women – real and imagined – are facing right now.

Similarly, Suzanne’s original piece was about the real horror of the bigger picture – how the savagery of a few old Etonians is having real, ruinous effects on the lives of the weakest members of our society, many of whom happen to be women. The reaction of the trans lobby reminded me very much of those wretched inner-city kids who shoot another inner-city kid dead in a fast-food shop for not showing them enough “respect”. Ignore the real enemy – they’re strong and will need real effort and organisation to fight. How much easier to lash out at those who are conveniently close to hand!

But they’d rather argue over semantics. To be fair, after having one’s nuts taken off (see what I did there?) by endless decades in academia, it’s all most of them are fit to do. Educated beyond all common sense and honesty, it was a hoot to see the screaming mimis accuse Suze of white feminist privilege; it may have been this that made her finally respond in the subsequent salty language she employed to answer her Twitter critics: “People can just fuck off really. Cut their dicks off and be more feminist than me. Good for them.”

She, the other JB and I are part of the minority of women of working-class origin to make it in what used to be called Fleet Street and I think this partly contributes to the stand-off with the trannies. (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.) We know that everything we have we got for ourselves. We have no family money, no safety net. And we are damned if we are going to be accused of being privileged by a bunch of bed-wetters in bad wigs.

It’s been noted before that cyberspace, though supposedly all new and shiny, is plagued by the age-old boredom of men telling women not to talk and threatening them with all kinds of nastiness if they persist in saying what they feel.

The trans lobby is now saying that it wasn’t so much the initial piece as Suzanne’s refusal to apologise when told to that “made” them drive her from Twitter. Presumably she is meant to do this in the name of solidarity and the “struggle”, though I find it very hard to imagine this mob struggling with anything apart from the English language and the concept of free speech.

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.

Shims, shemales, whatever you’re calling yourselves these days – don’tthreaten or bully us lowly natural-born women, I warn you. We may not have as many lovely big swinging Phds as you, but we’ve experienced a lifetime of PMT and sexual harassment and many of us are now staring HRT and the menopause straight in the face – and still not flinching. Trust me, you ain’t seen nothing yet. You really won’t like us when we’re angry.

7 comments to “Transsexuals should cut it out (repost of censored article by Julie Burchill)”

  1. Dear Frank – it’s so great to see you upholding the principles of free speech. I’ve written a short article detailing how British soldiers should be tortured and shot for fighting a war against the one true God, including instructions on how to make a backpack bomb and calling for all decent Brits to try it out themselves on their local ‘lefty’ government buildings and libraries.

    Unfortunately, it was taken down and the police have even been investigating me. But I feel confident that you will reproduce it here, sticking two fingers up the political correctness brigade who wish to silence my views!

    Surely you wouldn’t be a hypocrite on this matter, Frank?

  2. To ‘a fan’: you did no such thing, of course. Because if you had that would have come under the category of what used to be called Incitement to violence in common law, and now goes by the name of ‘encouraging or assisting crime.’ But Julie Burchill having a go, in print, at the Widow Twanky lookalikes of this world in retaliation for them having a go at her friend: yep, that’s free speech. It may not be pretty, and it may offend the faint of heart, but that’s the whole point of her.

  3. The Observer was definitely wrong to take this article down, but what the editor had said earlier on, ‘This article’s spiked, Julie. I can’t believe that you, a respected journalist, decades in the game, are using your platform at this paper to spew up this kind of shit – and it IS shit, let’s be honest – at our expense. Now f*** off down the pub where your mate Richard Littlejohn’s waiting, to reflect on your behaviour, while we draw up a cartoon to fill the page.’
    Would that have been wrong?

  4. What’s this nonsense MrPikeBishop? Doing a Benny Hill. One “show” every six months (some featuring trannies)? Methinks the cif curmudgeon of old doth tinkereth too much… in lieu of moaning at folk in type.

  5. Meanwhile, who’s Julie Burchill? Was she the maid in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?

  6. Liberalism has created dfeifrent political classes of minorities who compete with each other for title of the most oppressed – and this invariably creates new forms of fascism as one group asserts itself over the other.This is of course just the kind of misunderstanding of liberals that conservatives always have. In part it is projection because that’s what THEY do always look for the other they’re blaming for problems that needs to be kept in their place. In reality, this isn’t what ends up happening. If anything, competing liberal interest groups are more cognizant that any group trying to pick on someone as the enemy is generally going to come after them, next, which is why there will never be any solidarity between, say African Americans or Latinos with conservatives when it comes to cracking down on gays.But it is just like a British conservative to fantasize that defy single liberal movement is just the second coming of the French Revolution followed by the Reign of Terror.

  7. This does look promising. I’ll keep coming back for more.

Leave a comment

XHTML - You can use:<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>