Reader comments · Guardian Writer Julie Burchill defends Suzanne Moore saying she was ‘monstered’ by ‘chicks with dicks’ on Twitter · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Guardian Writer Julie Burchill defends Suzanne Moore saying she was ‘monstered’ by ‘chicks with dicks’ on Twitter

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. @PinkNews are you endorsing what Birchill wrote in the observer this morning?

    I hope not…

    1. Benjamin Cohen 13 Jan 2013, 6:04pm

      We are obviously not endorsing it

    2. Erm,had to look at this article again to see why anyone would consider it an endorsement. None the wiser.

    3. What a stupid comment. Pink news is a LGBT news service; why would they support this?

      1. They have in the past not been very clear in their articles involving trans* women. For example not stating that ‘lady-boy’ is not an acceptable term to use for a trans* woman. Though this article clearly condemns Burchill’s comments.

  2. Just more hate speech from the luvvie-dom face of published “feminists”.

    The don’t represent me, nor are they my ally (lesbian white cisgendered…I should be their bread and butter). I am embarrassed by any association with them and would very much hope that the reconsider WHO the speak for.

    Because many of us who have friends or family who are trans, or plain old disapprove of the denigration of a subset of people with the least power and the hardest of lives, don’t want anything to do with what looks so much like faux-intelluctual grunting of trolls on the off chance of provoking more information for the next “help help I’m a victim” article.

    1. I will happily declare myself a feminist, but this stuff? That is NOT feminism! No wonder so many people think it’s PMSing women screaming and burning their bras while eating chocolate.

      I don’t understand how you can treat people so poorly. Especially when, as a women, she will have felt discrimination at some point in her life. Why carry on that cycle and do it to others?

    2. Don’t be silly after all you have ‘cis privilege’ why should a feminist help you! Realy getting irritated by this hyprocrisy. I mean this is really queer…I can use that word can I not I mean in the vernacular

    3. I don’t know if by “they” you mean those two women, or feminists who are not trans, but please don’t lump all [cis]feminist women in with this horror show from the Guardian. I take exception. I am hetero. I am a women. I am also female. I acknowledge my challenges are different, but less pronounced on a societal level. Yet, I *am* an ally, regardless of your opinion. I am here reading, and outraged as you are. I have challenges as well. Openly and proudly calling myself a feminist makes me the target of some blow-hard, every time. Not staying silent for my own sake or others, meets a flamewar every time. But when I’m not doing it for me, I’m doing it for you. Fighting cis and heteronorms is important to me too. It’s as important to me as making people who don’t share my challenges understand what those are. So please don’t knock all feminist writers. It just makes it more difficult for all of us. You can’t fight phobia with phobia. Well, you can try. But you won’t win anything.

  3. It really is one of the most appalling things I’ve ever read in a national newspaper. A shameful vomiting of hate, insults and bigotry. That the Observer could publish this calls their judgement into question. I’ve already written to complain to them. If you substitute the “trans” for any racial group it would probably find itself being raised in Parliament.

    1. Not to mention that the use of “monster” as a verb is awful use of the language, I’d have rejected the article on that alone!

  4. postopgirl 13 Jan 2013, 5:21pm

    Suzanne Moore was not ‘monstered’ by transsexuals, those she is accusing were just responding to Suzanne Moore’s her comments against us, Daily Mail and other newspapers often have in transitioning people.

    1. Does suzane moore speak for the entire transitioning demographic?

      1. Where did anyone say that she did. The point is that she’s speaking AGAINST them.

        1. eeek that was a typo. what i meant to ask was does suzanne moore speak for the entire ANTI-transitioning demographic which is a horse of a different colour. ( i was tired when i typed that on my teeny tiny android phone which has a keyboard no bigger than a custard cream) the point i was trying to make was that yes there have been articles that set out to paint changing sex in a negative way IE scaremongering about nhs resources and describing young people transitioning as if it was a passing fad comparable to a brief spell of vegan-ism. it doesn’t help the conversation to lump moore’s article in with these and file them all under trans haters. there are varying degrees of misinformation and ignorance out there and people need to be a bit more selective about when to have a frank and open dialogue to try and push things forward and when to take someone up on bigotry. but it does no ones cause any good to descend into a mud slinging reading match.

          1. that being said Burchill can go take a long piss on an electric fence

  5. I have to say when I read about the use of “Brazilian transsexual” I was a bit confused about quite why it garnered the response it did. I was quite ignorant to the specific plight of the Brazilian transgendered community, and when I did come to find out about it, questioned whether the author knew herself. Upon finding out about her Twitter comments though, she lost all sympathy. She ended up making completely outrageous and unquestionably transphobic comments.

    This woman (I’ve never heard of her) is even worse. Utterly repugnant remarks, I can’t help but think of the “1 million moms” movement in the US and the bile they spew. Shocking.

    I confess I’ve never been particularly clued on transgender issues. I’m not transgender, or an activist, and I have no trans friends. However, as a (what I consider!) decent human being, I can see vile phrases like “chop your cock off” for what they are: Ignorant and deliberately provocative remarks that should be ignored. I hope others do too.

    1. J. Whitehead 14 Jan 2013, 1:39am

      I agree with the overwhelming majority of your post – but I do think it important to recognise that Moore’s most incendiary and offensive comments were written after she was inundated with rude and personal tweets.

      We’ve all done and said things in fits of passion that we’ve subsequently come to regret. Unfortunately, without any “cooling-off period”, the Internet allows such throwaway comments to come to international attention. She has written some nuanced and insightful comments on the subject in the past, and I suggest we remember those when thinking of her angry outbursts.

    2. It is true that many trans people face discrimination and danger. But is this what defines them? I say no, any more than Gay-bashing defines Gay men. I did not find the original comment ‘Brazilian Transexual’ in the context it was used to be offensive. It read as more of a compliment. No joke was made about murder or abuse of any kind. Women make jokes about Gay men having good bodies. It’s a generalization but does it cause offense – even though Gay people are facing the death penalty in some countrie?. I can only imagine that “Brazilian” was used because there are so many beautiful trans women there. However, the subsequent response from the 3 journalists has been vile and has, ironically, justified the initial over-sensitive reaction from some in the trans community.

    3. Im confused transexual means someone who changes sex and transgender means someone who changes gender so Suzanne Moore was talking about transexuals how does this relate to transgender issues?

  6. Jennie Kermode 13 Jan 2013, 5:39pm

    This isn’t a freedom of speech issue. It would be perfectly possible for a journalist to defend Ms Moore and discuss perceived bullying without using hateful language or making threats. Ms Burchill’s spite has no place in a national newspaper, least of all one that purports to stand up for vulnerable minority groups.

  7. Oddly enough, the original article by Suzanne Moore which sparked the storm, appeared in The Guardian’s Comment is Free webpage almost two years’ ago:

    At the time, when I posted a message on the thread saying that I thought the way that Brazilian transsexuals were referenced was transphobic the message was swiftly deleted by the Guardian’s moderators. I often wonder whether this was at the behest of Suzanne Moore herself. The likes of Burchill, Bindel and Moore don’t seem to cope very well with dissent, do they?

    1. well after the NHS is decimated evryone will have to seek a cosmetic surgeon for the OP and guess what it will be the same demographic that can afford it!

  8. Christine Burns MBE 13 Jan 2013, 5:45pm

    OK I read this twice just to be sure… Pink News quotes at length (salaciously, in fact) from Burchill and Moore … and not a single quote from a trans person. Does nobody think that is a little remiss?

    1. Hodge Podge 13 Jan 2013, 5:48pm

      And the Guardian hasn’t published an article from a trans writer throughout this disagreement…

    2. Absolutely, Christine. I thought I must have missed a quote somewhere, but no.

    3. essexgirlbecky 13 Jan 2013, 6:02pm

      I can’t think of a better way of burying somebody than by exposing them for their lunatic views. This article in no way comes across as sympathetic of Burchill and I’m quite happy to see her condemned by her own words. I think most of us have said as much as we care to about Moore.

    4. i am not trans. don’t know anyone trans. in fact, i haven’t a clue what the issue was beyond the unforgivable slur against Brazilian people whose sexuality differs from mine in some way the two writers despise for some reason.

      it does not matter what the issue, was, or what the provocation might have been. the unabashed cruel rancid rabid vitriol expressed is beyond unforgivable and it is inconceivable that the Guardian could allow it on their pages.

      It is about Twitter exchanges. They could have fought it out among themselves on Twitter. If some transexuals were rude or abusive on Twitter, that is not the end of time. It was a personal matter. Not news.

      But the vitriol against all sexual minorities is cruel. It is that kind of hate mongering that kills.

      1. how many sexual minorities are there? I seem to have lost count of the taxonomy please remind me

  9. Krissie Pearse 13 Jan 2013, 5:53pm

    I find it almost hard to believe that this, the supposed media for the LGBT community, at a time when gay, bi, lesbian, trans and straight people everywhere are condemning this hate screed, would offer it any semblance of validation at all.

    Seriously, Pink news – what are you playing at? … or has a certain cabal of ‘close friends’ seized the reigns here too?

    1. no just normal lesbians and gays ….the Pink Cabal ….sounds sexy doesn’t it?

  10. I still think suzanne moor’s origonal comment didnt command the amount of vitriol that was thrown her way i think the trans folk in the lgbt community have bigger fish to fry and the vile imitation of journalism by birchill should give a clue and some perspective

    1. Sarah Brown 13 Jan 2013, 9:56pm

      It didn’t. That’s a misrepresentation. The vitriol on twitter was in response to her posting transphobic rants AFTERWARDS.

      1. After what? How did it get from the original article containg the two words “brazilian transexual” to suzane moor retaliating with an offensive comment. this whole debate could have avoided with some calm conversation instead of a finger wagging contest about who is more misemformed.

    2. I agree that there are plenty of people in the trans community that respond to ignorant comments with vicious hate too, and I won’t stand for it. It doesn’t help anyone. I know Julie Bindel has gotten lots of hate and misogyny directed at her and that any attempts at dialogue, according to herself at least, has been met with hostility. However she has said some very mean things in the past, but responding to bigotry with more bigotry is not helping. I know it’s a cliché, but why can’t everyone just play nice?

  11. Left wing bigots.

  12. Julie Burchill’s an inverted snob with a penchant for casual viciousness disguised as social comment, but this is low even for her.

    This “oppression Olympics” nonsense is always mean-spirited and pointless.

    But a glance at the rates of physical and sexual violence against trans women should satisfy even the most self-pitying narcissist that trans women face vicious hatred which cis women like me, who have “experienced a lifetime of PMT and sexual harassment and … are now staring HRT and the menopause straight in the face”, can barely imagine.

    If you believe in social justice, you should support equality for trans people.

    And if you can’t see that hatred of trans identities often stems from misogyny, you’re not as smart as you think you are.

    In my version of feminism, women cis and trans stick together against oppression. Ms Burchill and her “more oppressed than thou” pals should have left this sort of mean girl bullying behind when they finished school.

    1. This is absolutely hilarious. The unholy alliance of minorities, who have nothing in common with each other whatsoever apart from an envy and hatred of heterosexual, white men, turning on each other like the vicious little bullies they always were, while accusing everyone else of bullying, political correctness, being too easily offended and “Oppression Olympics Nonsense”!

      It doesn’t get any better than this. You all sound EXACTLY like the Daily Mail readers you’re always trying to belittle. To be honest though, there’s a grain of truth come out from all of this, which is the reality of the self-serving Hierarchy of Victimood and the fact that ALL the terminally-offended minorities need to stop this childish and self-indulgent wallowing in their own victimhood.

      1. …Says the straight white male who whines about how the nasty little minorities are stealing all his rights and getting ‘special privileges’ which only exist in his head.

        An envy of heterosexual white men?? Paranoid much? I don’t envy you because I’m quite happy as a gay woman – so much so that I don’t feel the need to troll straight or male websites…. I find it bizarre that you post here so much moaning about injustices that don’t exist.

        1. But the point about stealing rights and getting special privileges IS true, and is demonstrated perfectly by this little fallout within the Hierarchy of Victimhood. I mean, whose side do you take in a situation like this? Do entitled white women and lesbians with their own newspaper columns outrank transexuals, and therefore deserve more protection? Is hate speech allowed if the target group finishes behind you in the Oppression Olympics?

          You have to love the irony. Feminists who have made careers out of whining about bullying, oppression and hate speech against minority groups, now in big trouble for bullying, oppression and hate speech against a minority group, all because of a fight to decide who was the biggest victim. It’s both pathetic and hilarious.

          Talk about being hoisted by your own petards! We’ve always said this is exactly what would happen if it wasn’t for heterosexual white men, and I have to say it feels good to be right all the time.

          1. Caligula you have no idea….just stop talking now and go back to your life of privlege mate.

          2. How is it a life of privilege?

          3. “But the point about stealing rights and getting special privileges IS true”

            No, it is NOT!! We’ve been over this before, but let me say it again, protection from discrimination is NOT a ‘special privilege’ (you previously referred to the Christian B and B case). Everyone is equally protected from discrimination, Christians too. You’ve yet to name a ‘special privilege’ LGBT people get. The reason? We don’t get any! (and anyway you later contradicted your argument by claiming that straight white males were privileged and so they should be because they were the majority).

            Hate speech is wrong whoever it comes from, OK? It’s not about ‘victimhood’. The original article insulted both cis women and transwomen and the comments she made then, and particularly after, are offensive and absolutely uncalled for. If she had any point to make, she could have made it without abuse, but she didn’t, and her later comments were UNBELIEVABLY offensive to transwomen.

          4. It’s not a “fight to decide who’s the bigest victim”, it’s a sad reflection of the fact that a few people who could claim to have been disadvantaged and discriminated before, then choose to discriminate against others.

            “..and I have to say it feels good to be right all the time.”

            I actually feel sorry for you, Caligula. You’ve posted here before under a different name, I think, but your words are just the same. No idea if you’re a joking troll or someone with self-esteem issues, but either way I do feel sorry for you. Happy people neither feel the need to troll gay websites nor to attempt to boost their own self-esteem by having a go at others.

          5. Julie Burchill has been writing hate speech against men for years and gotten away with it. That’s fairly typical of the Guardian and Observer. In fact, it’s not just men, but whites too. The only reason she’s now being held to account is because she crossed the line and attacked one of the protected groups, whereas hate speech against white males is apparently fine.

            That must be the white male privilege thing I keep hearing about. Anyway, just because people like Lloyd are jealous of the privilege they assume I have, it doesn’t mean I’m not just as entitled as you to protection from hate speech.

            And just to clarify, I said that white, heterosexual males don’t have privilege in today’s society, but that they should, so there’s no contradiction. It’s our right.

          6. I’ve never posted here under another name, for what it’s worth, but as I’ve said before, I wouldn’t even be here if it wasn’t for the fact that homosexuals are increasingly trying to impose their way of life and way of thinking on the majority, while securing even more rights, privileges and protection for themselves.

            If they just kept it behind closed doors, I wouldn’t even give it a moment’s thought, and definitely wouldn’t waste time and energy posting on gay websites. There’d simply be no reason for it.

          7. I’m no fan of Burchill so I don’t often read what she writes, but if she’s written something similarly offensive about men or white men then that’s wrong too. There is no group it’s ‘OK’ to subject to disgusting abuse.

            “I wouldn’t even be here if it wasn’t for the fact that homosexuals are increasingly trying to impose their way of life and way of thinking on the majority”

            But we’re not!! By our ‘way of life’, I presume you mean being attracted to people of the same sex? Well, I have no desire to impose that on anyone! Seriously, no gay person wants everyone else to be gay too – that’s just a weird thing for you to say! It kind of disturbe me and makes me smile at the same time because it’s so strange. People can be straight, gay or bisexual and that’s great. We’re all different. The only thing LGBT people DO want is to be treated the same – ie equally. Just like men and women too – different but equal.

          8. ‘Keep it behind closed doors’?? I’m not sure what you mean by that but I have a suspicion you mean gay people should erase themselves, be invisible. Why? Only the insecure would care so much about other people’s sexuality/existence.

            If you simply mean shows of affection, then the same rules should apply to both straight and gay couples.

            I’m quite happy being aware of straight people every day of my life. I have no desire for them to erase their existence just because they’re not exactly like me. Again the same goes for men.

            Really, WHY are you so bothered by LGBT people? We’re not trying to ‘make you like us’, we’re not trying to say you can’t be straight, white and male – so, seriously, what is your problem? I honestly don’t get it. If we all had equality, you’d still get on with your life and we’d all get on with ours. You say there can’t be true equality because there’ll alawys be a majority, but we can still have equal rights in law. Why do you have an issue with that?

        2. It’s about trying to tell the majority what words they can or can’t use in case some minority gets offended, or needing more gay presenters on TV and radio (as if they weren’t overrepresented already), or more gays in government, or promoting homosexuality in schools, expecting the tax payer to pay for gay clubs, gay pride parades, and so on. Just go about your business like a normal person and don’t bring your sexuality up all the time, and it’s not an issue to me.

          And speaking of trolling, if i really wanted to troll, I’d pose as a gay black man or an Asian feminist lesbian, and use the issue of “white privilege” and different levels of victimhood to play everyone off against each other. It’s so easy. Like I said, it’s an unholy alliance, so it’s always amusing when “women of colour” attack feminism as being too white and middle class, or when gay white men argue with black men about who is the most oppressed.

          Thankfully, that kind of thing is beneath me.

          1. The hierarchy of trolling styles, eh? If you could only hear yourself, little boots.

          2. “It’s about trying to tell the majority what words they can or can’t use in case some minority gets offended”

            I don’t know anyone who thought the original article and the comments on Twitter afterwards and by Burchill here was OK. You don’t have to be trans to see how disgustingly offensive the comments were. It’s not about one’s gender or sexuality, it’s about recognising abuse aimed at another human being. And it wasn’t a ‘non p-c’ word that was used, it was a torrent of rabid abuse.

            “Just go about your business like a normal person and don’t bring your sexuality up all the time, and it’s not an issue to me”.

            But that’s exactly what the vast majority of LGBT people already do! It’s the bullies and homophobes who draw attention to us by verbally or physically abusing us when we ARE simply going about our normal business eg shopping, using public transport, etc etc. If there wasn’t any abuse or attacks, you’d never hear about us, but the abuse is the fault of the abusers not us.

          3. “Thankfully, that kind of thing is beneath me.”

            Yet you claim to be oppressed because you’re a straight white male…

            (and I’ve yet to hear anyone I know trying to ‘beat’ others in the oppression olympics or whatever you called it. It’s not a game, it’s real life, and if somebody suffers as abuse most decent people sympathise and don’t whinge about how they’re more oppressed. The only person I see doing that here is you with all your talk of ‘special privileges’ that don’t exist)

    2. AMEN!

      i am not in any way personally involved with any kind of trans person.

      but the degree of vitriol expressed was beyond shocking. it was just plain old fashioned sick. reminds me of the KKK or something out of the white supremacist movement in the USA, islamphobia, anti-semitism, psychotic, irrational, and the kind of hate speech that kills.

    3. Oh so femnism is now the preserve of only ‘women’ trans and cis thanx for updating me on the movement . When did this policy pass? At what meeting and who was there? How many people were trans/cis? Who were voted onto the committee and how many were trans/cis? Also can you pop Your manifesto into the post for me and address it to Peter Tatchelll. Yours sincerely….

  13. Don’t know the true meaning of suffering… in a world where 1 in 12 trans-women will become murder victims and around 1/3 of trans people attempt suicide, I hardly think she has a leg to stand on from where she’s sat comfortably from behind a computer while trans people, particularly in Central America and Asia, face hate, abuse and have their lives threatened on a daily basis. Disgusting. People who write hate speeches and slurrs such as these do not deserve to be in a job.

    1. In the US it’s more like 50% including trans guys who are less likely to commit suicide than transgirls. Almost three quarters of trans peeps are unable to get a job because of their gender identity. Most trans people rely on sex work to pay for food, housing and their treatments that are not covered by American insurance companies.
      It’s absolutely disgusting and appalling that there are humans beings that say they are against misogyny and yet proceed to be transmisogynist. Also cis doesn’t come from cyst, it comes from being the opposite of trans. >>>>>>:(

  14. A disgusting and vicious attack from Burchill. I couldn’t believe the venom when I read it. How insecure is this woman?

    I hope she’s censured for writing such a vile, hate-filled rant.

    1. You know for once, I actually agree with you.

  15. I’m going to write to this paper and complain. I think we all should as well.

    1. A complaint about this article can be made here:
      The infringement is ‘hate speech’ and clause is ’12 – Discrimination’.

      1. Also:
        Accuracy – misuse of the prefix cis- (it’s from the latin meaning on the same side of.) and treating the trans* community as if it’s all women.
        Harassment – The final paragraph is intimidation

        1. Cis in Latin refers to the same side as Rome ….best complain to the Pope you might get closer to the problem

  16. I think the most glaringly ridiculous point I noticed her repeating throughout the article was that trans surgery is somehow a flippant decision and a simplistic act.

    She kept talking about dicks being cut off like you keep it in your handbag to re-attach at some point when you feel like victimising women, as if all male-born individuals have that as a default attack-mode.

    She completely trivialised what is a traumatic yet liberating act, by resting upon arguments about the menstruation and misogyny experienced by those who were born female-sexed. It really isn’t relevant in the context of her defense of Moore.

    1. Firstly, surgery is optional, and a personal decision that really is no ones business. Women who have faced harassment, as she claims, should know better than to sexualise and objectify their opponents in this way. What’s between someone’s legs is entirely their own and their partners business.

      She is of course also completely ignorant of what the surgery entails. It is a reconstruction, not an amputation. Male organs grow from the same base as the female ones, and they are not that different in build-up.

  17. Report her A complaint about this article can be made here:
    The infringement is ‘hate speech’ and clause is ’12 – Discrimination’.

    1. Also:
      Accuracy – misuse of the prefix cis- (it’s from the latin meaning on the same side of.) and treating the trans* community as if it’s all women.
      Harassment – The final paragraph is intimidation

  18. Goes to show that if you poke a bigot, the filth starts to run. She speaks as if she represents cis women, but she don’t. I’m a trans woman, and most of my friends are cis women. This is not how normal people behave.

    The term “cis” exists because there is a need to differentiate it from “trans”, but it is not more an insult than it is to be called “heterosexual” as opposed to “homosexual”. That comment is simply absurd. The prefixes are commonly used in science, as is hetero/homo.

  19. Horrifying. This woman really gives feminists a bad name. I guess she’s so used to playing the victim card that she can’t accept that in comparison to other people’s life experiences she’s in the privileged majority and when confronted she responds in the most hideous way possible showing the ugly face of heterocentrism. When this issue started I thought that the response to Suzanne Moore’s column was excessive but this! What a pitiful display! I couldn’t believe what I was reading. I have never done this before but I’ll be complaining to the Press Complaints Commission.

  20. Burchill is a Fat ugly Gcunt – another great example of bigoted bitches posing as journalists

    1. Staircase2 14 Jan 2013, 3:13pm

      And you’re endulging in exactly the same kind of ‘let’s fight bigotry with bigotry’ that she does.

      What you said is unacceptable in the same way that most of what they say is…

  21. But if you look at the original comment, it’s very complimentary, and holds one particular nationality of transsexual to be the epitome of female desirability. I still don’t understand why this would cause offence:

    “[Women] are angry with ourselves for not being happier, not being loved properly and not having the ideal body shape – that of a Brazilian transsexual.”

    1. Well, it depends how you read it, doesn’t it? Most (cis) women I know read it as an attack on both cis women and transwomen a) because she was suggesting that women are all miserable, insecure creatures forever hankering after some body that they can never have, which isn’t true; and b) the way she used “Brazilian transexual” implied that she saw them as some ridiculous form of female body. The whole way she wrote that sentence suggested that she was thinking ‘now, what’s the most daft body women can aim for’. And why write Brazilian at all? The whole thing was bizarre – but sadly illuminated by her later viciously transphobic comments, where it became clear that she had an issue with transexual people.

    2. Adam, over the course of many many years I have observed that transexuals can be, though not in every single case, very touchy and very sensitive. Personally I think it has something to do with their naturally feeling on edge when in public, due to the general surprise, if not shock, that people show when they realise the person sitting opposite them on the train or bus is a transexual.

  22. Kay Arnold 14 Jan 2013, 6:19pm

    I thought this sort of ranting and raving about transsexuals was exclusive of either 3d world countries or the U.S.. I am saddened to find out my the country of my ancestors is rife with this kind of diatribe. I don’t understand the hate, anger and malice about transsexuals-did someone pass out anger/stupid pills while I wasn’t looking?

  23. Glen Hague 14 Jan 2013, 7:32pm

    Julie Burchill is and always been homophobic and heterosexist. Yes she claims she has a lot of gay friends – I know racists with black friends – but woe betide any of those gay pals should they happen to get uppity and actually assume they are equal to heterosexuals!
    Her attitude to transsexuals is much the same as anti gay marriage people
    – I.e. how dare you assume you are a real woman like me, you’re just a poor imitation. She’s a bigot, pure and simple, and I just hope her gay “friends” realise this…….

  24. Mister Fister 14 Jan 2013, 9:24pm

    Burchill has made a living out of being vile so it’s no surprise to read that she’s still at it. She acts and writes like an imature teenager making puerile, outlandish and outrageous comments in order to shock. It’s about time she grew up or, even better, simply went away.

  25. I’ve never liked the woman. What a hideous article.

  26. Common sense 15 Jan 2013, 8:36am

    Julie Burchill has a long record of crass vulgarity and her inflamatatory piece in this context is totally unwelcome.

    But please please please do not turn this into a war on feminism. You all have more to gain from solidarity than enmity.

    1. frankly that person’s remarks had nothing whatsoever to do with feminism. it was pure unabashed unapologetic irrational hatred. who could imagine such vitriol has anything to do with anything but personal psychological problems.

      the mystery is how it was allowed to get into print.

  27. I was horrified at the unabashed, unapologetic hate. Even more amazed at the just plain ignorance. Cruel, merciless, unfeeling, and the kind of rhetoric literally that kills.

    the woman has deep seated psychological problems but there is no conceivable excuse for the newspaper to allow this kind of rancid rabid hate mongering to appear in its pages.

    nobody deserves it.

    from reading her comments several times i come away with very little if any idea what the issue was. “Brazilian Transvestite” is deeply insulting on the face of it. Just bringing up that idea is unforgivably uncaring [ínsensitive’ hardly begins to cover it]. All i come away with is deep seated hate along with profoundly uninformed ignorance.

    a writer on women’s issues so misinformed should not be writing on women’s issues period. but that kind of literally ignorant personal abuse has no semblance in any form to journalism.

    1. killer rhetoric!

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.