Reader comments · Daily Telegraph republishes Julie Burchill’s ‘transphobic’ column removed by the Observer · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Daily Telegraph republishes Julie Burchill’s ‘transphobic’ column removed by the Observer

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. . . . am now just waiting for Bindel to co-sign and write it for G3 magazine . . .

  2. Another Hannah 14 Jan 2013, 11:37pm

    it is bullying and it is hate speech so I am waiting for a proper decent prosecution to follow. it isn’t even factually accurate about it’s bigotry.

  3. Helen Wilson 14 Jan 2013, 11:37pm

    I felt removing the article once published was self defeating, as keeping it up only hurt Birchill after the initial hate crime of an article had been committed to print. Let face it nobody would want to hire someone who writes that!

    It will be interesting to see how the Met police respond to complaints about the article as it clearly falls within the latest guidelines the CPS submitted on hate speech online so she should be charged.

    She absolutely is free to say what she wants… but she must take responsibility for those words when they constitute hate speech.

    1. Hodge Podge 15 Jan 2013, 11:46am

      “Let face it nobody would want to hire someone who writes that!”

      Well except the Observer and the Telegraph…

  4. Time for mass protests? ACTION NEEDED BY EVERYONE reading this

  5. Kevin Williams 15 Jan 2013, 12:27am

    She seems like such a nice person. Not! I’m actually disgusted by what she’s apparently said about her family and stuff. Something not quite right about this woman.

    1. She wants a penis

      1. Don’t be daft she will cut it off and be more feminist than you!

  6. Dennis Velco 15 Jan 2013, 1:10am

    Thanks for this article and your reporting. What you do is appreciated.

    I posted it to my LGBT Group on LinkedIn with over 17,000 global members to spur members to read your article and to make comment. I also scooped it at Scoop.It on my LGBT Times news mashup.

    Link to group >>

    All LGBT+ and community allies…. please come join me and 17,000+ of your soon to be great connections on LinkedIn. The member base represents 80% of the world’s countries.

    It’s core value is – Visibility can lead to awareness which can lead to equality. Come stand with us and increase our visibility on the globe’s largest professional networking site. Be a professional who just happens to be LGBT – or a welcomed community ally.

  7. Cardinal Capone 15 Jan 2013, 1:54am

    I used to think Toby Young was quite cool after seeing his adventures in New York. Gone off him now. But at least the offending article has found its way to its true home.

  8. The Telegraph is my favourite paper. This is just about freedom of speech and anti-press regulation (anti-Leveson), rather than the Telegraph supporting what she is saying. It’s a vulgar column written by a vulgar woman, but there we are.

    1. Gay Tory scum. Is that how you justify your self hatred?

      Swap trans for black Muslim or woman and re read that rant she is a bigot. The telegraph and young are enjoying the chance to let trans people know they are not welcome. You should consider suicide

      1. Suggesting suicide to a seventeen year old boy whom you believe has problems with self hatred… Because he reads the Telegraph? Charming.

        I don’t hate myself for goodness sake, I just prefer the Telegraph to other papers, and yes I do support the tories. It’s clear that this woman is a bigot, but the Telegraph did not republish this because they support what she is saying, a day or so earlier there was a column which basically spoke all about how dreadful and ridiculous this woman and her writing is.

        1. So telegraph is using trans community to attack Leveson, this is exactly why we need regulated press. Keep digging telegraph

          1. Claiming to be liberal, then censoring what people say for fear that some people will be offended. It’s just absurd. Condemn why they are saying and make them suffer the consequences, certainly, but actually stopping people from saying things because people are offended? It’s just the epitome of leftie PC hypocritical nonsense.

          2. Hypocrisy was usually associated with married gay Tories

        2. Antinous, James! Is a vile creature who thinks everyone either hates themselves, or is hated by someone, or everyone, else. Mostly, he’s wrong. Ignore the troll.

          1. Ah. Well thank you for telling me haha.

  9. PatrioticVoices 15 Jan 2013, 4:13am

    More bullying from the publications involved in the media wars our nation is in. I wonder when the first amendment will be observed?

    1. We don’t have a ‘first amendment’ in the United Kingdom…….

    2. Whose nation do you refer to?

  10. Love the pic of washed up whale attached to the story

    1. Hey, hang on, now, two wrongs don’t make a right. Fat shaming is a blight on our society, just like transphobia – you insult me when you make a comment like that.

  11. Spanner1960 15 Jan 2013, 9:08am

    Burchill always was a nasty piece of work.
    She should go back to her Greenham Common grow-your-own-yoghurt brigade.

    1. I think youll find she hates the Greenham Common type. If we had more Greenham common types we wouldnt be sat here discussing hatred in newspapers!

  12. Peter & Michael 15 Jan 2013, 9:10am

    This is so wrong to do and smears a community with hate speech which should not be allowed in any news publication. Apologise now DT !.

    1. Has anyone else noticed tht the mainstream media are ignring this story, but screeching away at the discrimination case at BA ?

  13. This has all got way out of hand. It is debatable whether what Suzanne Moore said in the first place (remember that) was even transphobic at all. Her article wasn’t even about trans people. She made a reference to the “perfect female figure” being like a Brazilian Trans woman. The “perfect figure” would be trans wouldn’t it, if it had been made to an ideal?

    Most women don’t have the ideal figure. That is what she meant. The other two joined the debate when SM was hysterically attacked and abused by trans extremists on twitter, from what I can see.

    All the jouralistic abuse was against the individuals who attacked SM not all trans people.

    I have not commented on any of this until now and I have made a point of reading all the articles first.

    Even a commenter here who dared to say that the Telegraph re-printed the story because it had been suppressed by the Guardian was abused in the most disgusting way and told to commit suicide. He was just supporting freedom of speech.

    1. Let’s get some sanity into this debate please?

    2. You can’t just precision-aim bigotry. It’s a dirty bomb: you use transphobic hate speech against someone, you use it against all transsexual people. This escalation is entirely Burchill’s own fault, and freedom of speech is a convenient lie used to excuse “acceptable” bigotry. See if either of these papers would publish such overt racism, for instance.

      1. So the way people on here refer to the WBC is really aimed at all religious people is it? Or just at a particular group.

        Dirty Bomb? Complete rubbish.

        1. If they’re using slurs about Christians in general then, yes, they are.

          That said, criticising someone’s beliefs isn’t remotely on the same level as bullying people for something that is intrinsic to them. It’s the same difference between people coming to blows over political views and people mocking those with special needs. It’s vulgar and hateful.

          1. Well there’s plenty of general slurs about Christians here!

          2. de Villiers 17 Jan 2013, 5:31pm

            > That said, criticising someone’s beliefs isn’t remotely on the same level as bullying people for something that is intrinsic to them.

            I do not agree. Freedom of conscience is precious.

    3. “Most women don’t have the ideal figure. That is what she meant”

      No, she was saying that women were miserable, pathetic creatures who beat themselves up about never being able to attain some ideal body – that of a “Brazilian transexual’. Firstly, that’s untrue. Most women aren’t miserable nor are they setting up some ideal body image they can never attain. So her comments were offensive to women. Then – and this is my reading and that of all those I’ve been able to talk to about the original article – she chose a ‘ridiculous’ example of the supposed ideal body that women aim for, and to convey how ‘ridiculous’ that was she used “Brazilian transexual”, which is insulting to transexual people anyway & doubly so because she carefully specified “Brazilian”.

      If she had wanted to make her (untrue) point that women were pathetic, sad and self-hating, she could have written that very easily with no reference to transexuals at all. Her later comments seemed to show she was indeed transphobic.

      1. How do you know she “carefully” specified Brazilian? What a ridiculous thing to say.

        Whether her point about women is true or not is a matter of opinion and she is entitled to hers without receiving abuse as a result of voicing it.

        It is you that called the Brazilian trans body ridiculous not her, so you are putting words in her mouth to prove your point.

        Can I remind everyone that the article was actually about how women and children are suffering most in the austerity.

        1. Because if you were writing about a transexual you’d automatically think *Brazilian* transexual, would you??

          Yes, she’s entitled to her opinion about women, but she could quite easily have written it in a way that didn’t offend transwomen – or indeed cis women who aren’t as miserable as she seems to think we all are. There are plenty of articles about women’s bodies (eg in women’s mags) yet none of those feel the need to refer to Brazilian transexuals.

          When called out on what she wrote, instead of saying “No, you misunderstood” or “I didn’t mean it in a pejorative way” or simply “Sorry – that came across badly” she launched into transphobic attacks. Even if she encountered abusive comments on Twitter she didn’t need to start abusing her critics like that. Nor is all this talk of a “trans cabal” helpful.

          (Genuine) thanks for your reminder about what the article was about. More people would have remembered that if she’d not resorted to unnecessary remarks and the later abuse…

    4. If you read all about it then you would know that most of the outrage was as a response to Moore’s transphobic tweets as she responded to criticism of her poor choice of analogies. The journalistic abuse was against all transsexuals. There was no qualification there at all. And it was hate speech pure and simple. To top it off it was rubbish journalism, unworthy of being printed.
      If it was any other minority other than transsexuals we wouldn’t even be discussing this.

    5. Considering Brazil’s enormous amount of hate crime and violent abuse towards trans people, I think Suzanne Moore knew what she was writing. She can claim ignorance all she likes, but her original comment is rooted in ignorance. And, if an actual trans person says they find something offensive, who is she to say it’s actually not offensive? She’s got no idea of what it is like to be a trans person.

      In any case, it was originally politely pointed out to her that maybe she should rethink her wording. After that, she got aggressive and so did others. And even if you think those responders were too aggressive, the whole argument highlights exactly how much discrimination trans people face all the time.

  14. Spanner- You are so right about Julie Birchell.

    I remember in the 80’s when she had a column in The Mail on Sunday-she wrote quite a scurrilous and personal attack on Ian Mckellan.

    It was just plain nasty.

  15. Can’t believe I didn’t see this one coming. Toby Young is a smug, hateful little bigot. Bashing transsexuals, getting one over the Guardian, and presenting himself as a PC-loathing bastion of freedom of speech (the hypocrite would never have re-printed a white supremacist article), all in one go. I guess I should have seen it coming.

    It goes without saying that both he and the vast, vast majority of the Telegraph’s readership agree with Burchill, too.

    1. I hope you’re reading this Antionas. Telegraph reader are scum

      1. I wouldn’t have put it quite so strongly, but things don’t happen in a vacuum and the Telegraph does cater to a socially conservative, traditionally (centre-?) right wing audience. Not exactly the sort who take kindly to the LGBT crowd.

  16. On his website he quotes ”
    I’m shocked by the decision of the Observer to remove Julie Burchill’s controversial article about transexuals from its website. Whatever you think of its politics, the Observer is a paper with a great liberal tradition. For it to muzzle one of its own journalists – albeit a freelance contributor – on the grounds that some people on the Left found her views distasteful is a betrayal of everything the paper is supposed to stand for. ” For a paper with such a “liberal tradition” to print such an illiberal piece of hatebile surely betrays this “liberal tradition”.

  17. Jock S. Trap 15 Jan 2013, 10:12am

    Toby Young and the Telegraph should be shamed of themselves for deliberately promoting discrimination.

    There actions have serious consequences and how many people now face being bullied and worst thanks to the direct, disgusting actions promoted by Toby Young, Julie Birchill and the Daily Telegraph.

    It’s just not right and anyone should have the right to challenge through the courts anyone who promotes these kind of bullying tactics.


  18. I wonder if she got paid again for this piece? Those lobster and Bolly lunches don’t pay for themselves.

  19. The column is hate speech. I hope that the telegraph (as well as the observer and Burchill) are shown by the PCC that they are not clever by republishing Burchill’s vile hateful article that demonises an already vulnerable minority of people. Toby Young is shameful.

  20. Adele Paul 15 Jan 2013, 1:37pm

    Freedom of speech. No offence intended. And how infuriating to have a reason to respect Toby Young. Who knew?

    1. I wonder if you’d be applauding freedom of speech if it was saying how awful gay people are, or lesbians, or women? That would be fun wouldnt it. Foolish comment.

  21. The most vile hate speech, incluidng anti-gay and misogynistic rants violent threats, can be found on trans blogs. Most gay people mindlessly toss about the term “LGBT” as if it is an uncontroversial description of reality. It isn’t. “Transgender” was never attached to gays, lesbians and bisexuals prior to a few years ago.

    And with good reason. The vast majority fo Ts are straight. Many are virulently homophobic, opposing gay equality and openly admitting that the only reason they support “LGBT” is to access the money and political capital of gay people.

    I support Ms. Bindel and hope that we start educating ourselves about the disastrous consequences of linking gay civil rights with the demands of thuggish “transgender” activists.

    1. I laughed. The T’s have been there since Stonewall, and I have never noticed any overall trend of them being bigots. On the contrary, being fellow “undesirables”, a lot of them tend to be pretty clued up on minority issues.

      1. The T’s were gay and they were transvestites

    2. Don’t talk such crap. I get the feeling this “many” you talk about comes to a sum of about one or two bad apples. I’ll thank you not to tar us all with that brush.

      As it happens, the vast majority of Ts I know, myself included, are gay. I think overall it’s around 50/50, but unlike yourself I’m not going to make any claims that I can’t back up. One thing I could be pretty sure of though is that for every homophobic transperson, there’s a transphobic gay. Point is, we’ve all got enough of a fight on our hands from the outside LGBT community, I think it’s probably best that we don’t start savaging each other.

    3. I would very much like to see the academic studies you’ve got, proving that “[transsexuals] are virulently homophobic, opposing gay equality”. As long as the data attesting to these mysterious homophobic transsexuals cannot be produced, what you write can be dismissed as defamation. This is especially true when considering studies into the sexual orientation of transsexuals such as Bentler, 1976 and Leavitt & Berger, 1990 – which prove that there is a huge amount of bisexuality and homosexuality amongst trans people.

      For the record, I am actually trans myself and am ambivalent as to whether trans issues should be conflated with LGB issues (that is, I see valid points on both sides of the debate). Nevertheless, I find it highly unfair of you to write what you did about us, accusing us of homophobia. The trans community is politically one of the biggest allies the gay community has got, and the latter should accordingly display a bit more solidarity.

      1. we who are gay don’t need academic studies we have experienced this ourselves

        1. But if you have no evidence to prove that a substantial number of gay people have had homophobic abuse from trans people, how can we take your word as anything other than hearsay?

  22. Absolutely delicious, hilarious irony in these bitchy remarks. Feminists should be able to take the same kind of hysterical indignation they ladle out whenever someone so much as farts in a way that sounds misogynistic. Somewhere someone is writing a great work of queer theory about this dust-up. It should remind us all of the liberating power of camp and drag in this insufferably sanctimonious era of gay marriage and digital-Maoist feeding frenzies.

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.