Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Guardian columnist Suzanne Moore attacks PinkNews

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Hopefully-her mentioning Pink News in her tweets and (hopefullly) in print- will lead to far more “hits”-and increased circulation for yourselves.

    1. Yes, Pink News’s cynical ploy to stir the pot and attract web hits on the back of this furore seems to have worked and Moore has played her part perfectly.

  2. Cardinal Capone 17 Jan 2013, 2:03pm

    I still think in that photo she looks like the lovely Janet Street-Porter in a bad wig.

    1. lol, what is wrong with her though seriously? I think someone needs to buy her a Rampant Rabbit or something…

  3. Remind me: what did she say that was “offensive”?

    Apparently, she said that women felt a pressure to look like “Brazilian transsexuals”. I took this as shorthand for a tanned, plucked and sculpted body which some parts of the media seem to think is the norm.

    What is there to disagree with? Are you saying women should aspire to body types which are only possible through surgery?

    Or are you really going with the notion that because a Brazilian transwoman later got shot, she has blood on her hands?

    Suzanne Moore is an ally of LGBT people who has been writing progressive stuff for years. Why would you want to vilify her in this way? Get over yourselves.

    1. bobbleobble 17 Jan 2013, 2:23pm

      Actually, it was what happened on Twitter after that which really got her into trouble. She was tweeted by someone who objected to her using transsexuals as a cheap punchline. Moore came back with a tirade which was pretty offensive towards transsexuals and it was that which got her into hot water rather than the initial comment in the article. Of course Julie Birchill wading in with both feet didn’t help.

      1. Absolutely right. So the Pink News story suggesting she’d apologised for her original article was inaccurate. No wonder she’s pissed off.

        1. Pissed off cos the story makes her out to be a better person than she is? Yeah, I was confused about that

        2. Cathy Butler 17 Jan 2013, 2:57pm

          She did apologize, later: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/01/14/guardian-columnist-suzanne-moore-apologises-for-brazilian-transsexual-remark/. And now she’s unapologizing again. I don’t blame you for not being able to keep up.

    2. finally someone with some common sense on here ,I could not agree more , The level of offence and hysteria Ms Moores original comment appears to have caused is ridiculous and like she points out …there are bigger fish to fry at the minute . People who were offended should think long and hard about who are real enemies are !

      1. Its her refusal to apologise, and the way she responded when pressed to that’s the main problem

    3. Her original piece was quite good, apart from the brazilian trans reference. It started with a non-trans (this is important, non-trans) feminist who praised the article and then questioned the brazilian trans reference as inappropriate. This triggered a strong transphobic rant from Moore, which in turn triggered a vehement response from the trans community. And then it moved on to Burchills piece which, if you take the hate speech out, actually seems to have very little content remaining.

      The problem with the Brazilian trans reference is that, on average, 2 are murdered every 5 days just for being trans. I think that is a rather odd role model for women futilely pursuing a false and artificial standard of beauty imposed by the fashion industry. In fact, in making the reference, she is holding up brazilian trans people as objects of ridicule and therefore be seen as fair game for violence…something that happens very often.

      .Mainly though, it was what happened afterwards.

      1. Objects of ridicule? Really?

        Using “Brazilian” in the context of media portrayals of women doesn’t make me think of Brazilian people. It makes me think of further example of media-driven pressure on women to modify their bodies, in this case waxing them for purely aesthetic reasons.

        Do journalists’ attempts to be playful with words pass the world by?

        1. CorpusMurando 18 Jan 2013, 7:25am

          You completely glossed over her transphobic rant, along with Burchill’s racist reference to minstrel shows. No surprises here.

  4. Moore: How dare that “Brazilian Transsexual[sic]” get killed during my transphobic rant! Where are my lawyers? I am going to sue!

    1. Pathetic response. Very childish

      1. The most recommended comment on the article. I guess that tells us where you stand. lol.

  5. Isn’t it weird how people who look nice can be so mean? It’s like Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmenijead (I know I spelt his last name wrong but I am drunk and I can’t be bothered to check). He has such a nice face yet he is a total prick.

  6. Jock S. Trap 17 Jan 2013, 2:14pm

    It’s a very sad fact that ‘supposed’ intelligent people/journalists are having to be told of the offensive material they write and the facts used to back them up with.

    Will they learn? I doubt it, just scream their continued ignorance I suspect.

    1. Please explain what was offensive, with specific reference to Moore’s original article.

      1. Nice Try, it was the transphobic twitter rant after a NON-TRANS woman called out Moore on the article that caused the problem. And I suspect you knew this.

        1. So you agree that the manufactured rage on this site, claiming it was the original piece that was at fault, was (to use the technical term) bollocks.

          Pink News has done its reputation for accurate reporting a lot of harm over this. I am disappointed.

          1. Oh please stop trolling you m0ron. People are angry about her transphobic rant on Twitter:
            ‘this fucking lopping bits off your body’
            ‘Some people can just fuck off really. Cut their dicks off and be more feminist than me.’

      2. Steve,
        There have been many comments on these pages giving the opinion that while her original comment about Brazilian transsexuals may have been insensitive, it was the subsequent venom with which she dealt with complaints that has caused the real row. Don’t feign ignorance.

  7. That There Other David 17 Jan 2013, 2:20pm

    Oh Suzanne…….

    For the moment you need to back off going on the attack and let the furore dissipate. Using your real name on the Internet means you need to be extremely careful about what you write. If you say something bad, or even just express yourself badly, it NEVER disappears.

  8. bobbleobble 17 Jan 2013, 2:25pm

    People should have a look at her article on the Guardian today and consider this attack on Pink News in light of her defence of freedom of the press there. Talk about hypocrite!

  9. Sorry Pink News, I think you’re totally in the wrong here. I don’t recall you ever reporting the death of a trans person from Brazil before and to do so in a very short article, half of which was devoted to rehashing the Suzanne Moore issue from last week, seems simply like trying to reignite a drama which had been finally been put to bed.

    1. Cathy Butler 17 Jan 2013, 3:42pm

      If the whole furore means that the murder of Brazilian trans women has finally been deemed newsworthy, then I would say that’s a good thing.

      1. Trashing somebody else is OK then? I’m with you Ben, I think everyone on this thread has completely lost it.

        1. Staircase2 17 Jan 2013, 8:40pm

          Pink News has been losing it for quite some time now

          Moore and Burchill’s later rants were completely unacceptable

          I agree however that to talk of Brazilian Transexuals being the epitome of female beauty is not in itself transphobic.

          Pink News has become the gay arm of tabloid journalism of late which is a sad shame given the sterling work it has previously done over the years.

          It’s as if the rabid nature of the commentators has finally overtaken the editorial team too

  10. For those who don’t know, the Guardian published an article by Moore today whining about how her critics on Twitter have given her such a hard time, invoking freedom of speech… so this is priceless.

  11. Suzanne Moore is a vile person.

  12. If she can mention Brazilian trans women, then this article can surely mention her. If she feels hurt, so what? She didn’t consider anyone’s feelings when she wrote her original article.

  13. Cathy Butler 17 Jan 2013, 2:41pm

    Your article was entirely responsible. I can’t imagine that any Fleet St journalist would have omitted to mention the context of the current controversy – to have done so would have been bizarre and arguably unprofessional.

    I scratch my head at the double standards in play, which mean when Burchill pours a bucketful of bile onto the heads of all trans people she gets a queue of columnists lining up to say that people who feel offended should grow a thicker skin (the latest being Ms Moore in today’s Guardian), but when you run a relevant and factual story she starts talking about calling the lawyers (and she may be passing it off as a “joke” now, but what she was writing yesterday suggests otherwise).

  14. Alex MacDonald 17 Jan 2013, 2:41pm

    Has Suzanne Moore had a breakdown or something?

    1. Staircase2 17 Jan 2013, 8:42pm

      There goes that tired old cliche of blaming ‘mental health’ issues on anyone who has a contrary view

      The woman’s rants were out of order. Her original article wasn’t (as far as I’ve seen).

  15. thelostdot 17 Jan 2013, 2:43pm

    You are right to connect the two. if this dim wit is going to try to say that being a Brazilian TS is a highly desirable thing, then it is dishonest to condemn somebody for showing you the truth of her idiotic assertion. Brazilian transsexauls have it so great this is what their lives are like. The truth, which Moore would like to hide in preference for the lies she tries to pedal.

  16. PinkPolitico 17 Jan 2013, 2:44pm

    If that barely coherent Twitter rant is the best she can do, then it would be best for all concerned if she permanently stayed away from all public discourse.

    She is only embarrassing herself now.

  17. I’m confused about what she’s contesting. The only claim the original article made about her was that shed apologised :/ I do think describing the death as “in the context of” the row is kinda poor though, given how soon after the comment it happened and how any effect that particular comment could have on transphobic violence would be indirect (although Birchills defence of her is clearly directly inciting violence). Unless there’s some indication that the killing is directly related to this row?

    I do think the article was right to make the link, but it should have been to put the media row in the context of violence against Brazilian trans women with this incident as the latest example, and to put the killing in the context of the general media attitude to trans people with the latest row only referred to as an example of the continuing institution of media cissexism and transmisogyny

  18. “her use of the term was deemed offensive by many because of the appalling fact that so many trans people in Brazil are murdered each year”

    I thought the majority of people were offended by her refusal to apologise?

    On a side note, I seem to recall her only mention of Brazilian trans people was saying that too many women aspire to have their bodies. I’m not even sure how this and your points are related.

    Seriously though, can we just stop talking about Suzanne Moore? This has gone beyond making a point and descended into giving her free publicity, and I’m fairly sure she knows it.

    1. Most people have absolutely no idea why they’re supposed to be offended. But they got the memo telling them that they were supposed to be.

      Exhibit A is this thread.

    2. “I thought the majority of people were offended by her refusal to apologise?”

      I’d say most people were offended by the transphobic language she used instead of apologizing rather than by the fact she refused to apologize itself.

  19. Scott, your reporting was entirely appropriate.

  20. Timon Goode 17 Jan 2013, 3:01pm

    The link made by Pink News is entirely legitimate. And if Moore is genuinely stung by the pain of reality hitting home then she should reflect deeply on the state of the world rather than put her energies into frivolous litigation and egocentric publicity.

  21. I don’t know if she’s really a bigot or not but I’m absolutely CERTAIN that she’s one of the most unprofessional journalists/columnists that I’ve seen in a long time. I don’t trust a person who makes her living with words who can’t express her anger and frustration without going to the vulgar gutters of the English language.

  22. All the articles I have read on this controversy are overwhelmingly full of people expressing disgust at Moore and solidarity with the trans community, followed by a multitude of rude replies from those who are trans correcting people’s terminology. As if the blundering supporter is Moore v2.0.

    Being transsexual is entirely normal, but it comprises a tiny section of the LGBT spectrum, which is itself a fairly small segment of society that is continually trying to educate the majority of society with a message of general respect firstly, details second…..so as to not intimidate them.

    You really do need to more politely excuse people for not quite knowing what is a faux pas in terms of the linguistics surrounding this.

    I think this issue puts off a lot of people from commenting in any shape or form in support of the trans community, which is sad when positive public commentary on the topic is so rare.

    1. Max, perhaps you could also try to be more forgiving of those trans people’s rudeness.

      I will freely admit that a lot of trans folks get up in arms about minor issues around what you should and should not say. But, generally, it is because so many trans people have no patience left to be polite and friendly toward people who are being offensive (intentionally or not). I don’t excuse some of the behavior I’ve seen online, from both sides, but I do understand the feelings behind it.

      Imagine for a moment that you had to deal with offensive language directed toward you or your community all of the time. Imagine that you had to deal with offensive language directed at you, in person, all of the time. Imagine that most mentions of your community in the mainstream media were written to be anywhere from mildly offensive to absolutely horrifyingly offensive to your community.

      1. If the internet had existed in the early days of the gay rights movement, I’m sure that you would have seen many complaints about angry gays being rude to people just trying to help them. Widely-hated minorities tend to be angry.

        My only advice on dealing with this is to try to educate yourself. If you’re not sure what terms are appropriate, try googling it first. If a trans person tells you you’ve said something wrong, don’t get defensive, just say “I’m sorry”, remember not to do it again, and maybe ask what other terms would be more appropriate.

        1. ‘Imagine.’ Thank you, C. Using one’s imagination before opening one’s gob does help in these situations.

  23. What a c*nt. I hope she gets sacked.

  24. I am staggered that this woman is working for the “Grauniad”….a newspaper that I remember fondly as being short on literate typesetters, but long on content and style. Now the Editor appears to be using a reporter whose grasp of phraseology and sentence construction would make her a candidate for the cleaning staff at the “Sun”.

    She clearly spends far too much time twittering!

  25. Quite right to mention her. PN does not report of every trans murder. This one was reported in the context of the current furore. I can’t see what grounds she would have for suing.

  26. Note to Ms Moore: When in a hole. Stop Digging

    1. Note to mcshaney: When using a cliché which thousands of others have used in the same context. Don’t bother.

  27. Suzanne Moore clearly has nothing better to do.
    Maybe she could brush her hair or something? That image is terrible Pink News

  28. David Gerard 17 Jan 2013, 4:24pm

    You’re being so mean to the poor defenceless nationally syndicated newspaper columnist. WHAT ABOUT THE COLUMNISTS? Please, think of the columnists!

  29. Everyone is entitled to be ugly, but she abuses the privilege.

    1. Carol Uren 17 Jan 2013, 7:03pm

      Please let’s not descend into name calling based on appearance, she cannot help the way that she looks – any more than a trans person can help being trans or a gay person can help being gay.
      To criticize her for her looks is totally unfair and we should be concentrating on the illogical and incomprehensible hate that she has for anybody who is trans.

      1. Great Carol apart from the fact that I have seen no evidence for the fact that she hates anyone.

        What I am witnessing on Pink News is quite shameful.

  30. soapbubblequeen 17 Jan 2013, 5:58pm

    Unfortunately, I used to quite like reading her column in The Observer now and then But she has really done herself no favours here at all, has she? She should have kept quiet, particularly after the furore that arose after Burchill’s piece defending her, for which I think she should be sacked or at the very least suspended for a few months. I have no sympathy for her as she sounds a pig-headed and egocentric. Why don’t they just both apologize publicly? Surely, they must realize they have offended the trans community. Burchill certainly overstepped the mark.

  31. “I referred to Suzanne Moore in yesterday’s article about the killing of Cecilia Marahouse because her death should be viewed in the context of the media row..”
    This is pretty appalling. A human being’s death is only to be seen in contexts of media rows in another continent? I don’t believe for one moment that Pink News give a toss about this death, they care only about keeping a local row brewing.

    1. The death can be viewed in this context, and of course that doesn’t exclude the context of her family’s loss. There’s no ‘only’ in this quotation. I don’t see why Pink News writers wouldn’t care about Celilia Marahouse’s dreadful murder. The ‘row’ has repercussions beyond ‘local’. It should be publicised and discussed.

      1. There may not be an “only” but there is a “should.” What on earth gives a Pink News editor the right to tell his readers what context a news story should be views in? It is the height of arrogance, made all the worse in that it is transparently a rather grubby attempt to keep the Moore story going & gain hits.

  32. I cannot believe how many people on this forum have joined the throng at the hanging. The tiny number of people with the opposing view here who have voiced it seriously and politely have all had their views quashed.

    Talk about freedom of speech? It doesn’t exist here.

    Frightening that so many people from a minority group that are normally the victim of the crowd can turn into just what they despise. A baying thoughtless mob.

    1. CorpusMurando 18 Jan 2013, 7:22am

      Ugh — so many people still don’t understand freedom of speech, do they? Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from criticism. If you have trouble making that distinction then, well, there isn’t much hope for any of you (namely, Staircase2, Joe Smoe, and witless).

      1. Freedom from criticism is fine. But why are all the opposing views faded out? That is censorship pure and simple.

        1. Gosh golly, twitless. ‘Censorship pure and simple’? Darn it! All this time, I’ve been using one mouse click on ‘show comment’ to see what was written in poorly rated messages.

          Yeah, censorship…

          Anyone who wants to read a ‘faded’ comment still can. All it takes is simple finger movement.

          Any person with the physical ability can make an easy gesture to read your comments.

          Trust me on this. I’m making a simple finger movement in your direction right now. It’s dead easy.

          1. So why fade em out? So we don’t frighten the horses?

          2. You fade them out because a lot of people want to participate in online discussions but can only stand so much bigotry, or need to steel themselves before dealing with it. It is for the mental well-being of those people. But Pink News wants its own community to decide when something is bad enough to warrant deleting, or should be let to stand with a buffer to protect the sensitive. It is a good system.

      2. Excuse me, I have not written a single thing about “freedom of speech”.

  33. Staircase2 17 Jan 2013, 8:51pm

    Well said, twitless

    That’s actually how baying mobs are formed though…

    It’s always people who are fearful of someone/some group of ‘other’ which generally turns into a generalised fear of thinking itself…

    These comment boards are usually awash with that level of knee jerkery

    1. I’m glad a few people are beginning to see this. I am always a mixture of appalled & amused by the mentality of rage, victim complexes & special pleadibg that litters the Pink News forums.

  34. Pink News, give it a rest. I don’t for one minute think that Moore is a bigot, nor do I think her comments were that distasteful or offensive (a view I am perfectly entitled to hold). Making such a fuss about such a minor “issue” undermines LGBT people when they come to tackle the bigger problems around bullying and prejudice; it just makes us look petulant and hysterical.

    1. You know Sanity, when people write “funny” and offensive comments about you, you know what happens? People repeat them in the street to you, because if a respected journalist says it ok to use that language, then it’s ok to use that language yer big pufter! You see what I did there? I made assumptions about your gender and your sexuality in a mocking way, not nice is it. Sorry if I offended anyone, but I was trying to make a point, sticks and stone may break bones, but name calling can hurt too.

    2. She actually outed herself pretty explicitly as a transmisogynist bigot in her twitter rant.

  35. You know Ms Moore they don’t. ALL have balls at Pink News…Some have p***ies! :)

    What a stupid woman she is! Doesn’t she think PN wasn’t ready for just this kind of reaction from her?!

  36. friday jones 17 Jan 2013, 10:58pm

    Do you people really believe that Ms Moore’s original “Brazilian Transsexual” comment was alluding to anything she considers actual beauty? I believe she was actually using the term as a cautionary example of the type of human body that she feels is most artificially constructed for the heterosexual male gaze.

    Far from complimentary, it was a deadly insult to any of the following: Trans men; Lesbian trans women; Feminist trans women; and of course Brazilian trans women.

  37. Perhaps Ms Moore can show some contriteness for her crimes towards transsexuals by giving up her well-paid column in The Mail on Sunday?

    1. Erm, or contrition even…

  38. So much for her “apology” the other day. Hate to tell you “I told you so” – but not enough not to do it.

  39. One has to wonder what happened to her to make her such an angry person. She needs lots of therapy, not a lawyer.

  40. So many readers seem so desperately surprised/naive/slow [delete as appropriate] that some of the arrogant leftie luvvies from the Guardian who have waxed lyrical about LGBT matters when it has suited them for point-scoring or party political reasons, are not actually interested in these matters at all and have nothing but condescension or diffidence when any of their views come back to bite them.

  41. I agree that language used in the wake of Suzanne Moore’s original article (particularly in July Burchill’s inflamatory and offensive rant ) has often been deeply unpleasant and transphobic. However I think it is clear that the “Brazilian transexual” comment, was in itself fairly innocuous, and born out of ignorance rather than any sort of hatred. The paranoid notion that Moore intentionally sought to make reference to the tragic number of transgender murders in Brazil each year is frankly ludicrous! As a result I believe it is totally irrelevant and innapropriate to reference the journalist in an article about one such murder!
    Ironically, It seems the aforementioned comment and deluge of ensuing articles and opinions has opened the issue of transphobia up to more discussion than ever before. Hopefully we as a society will take heed and transgender rights will move out of its sadly embryonic phase.

    1. Quite true. I thought her reference to Brazilian Transexuals was simply thoughtless and perhaps ignorant of their continued plight. However her subsequent tweets stated she had problems with anything trans and referred to trans women having their dicks cut off. It’s those tweets that most trans women are having difficulty with and her initial refusal despite what I can only describe as a gentle rebuke to acknowledge the issue at all. I was ambivalent myself until I saw those tweets. Now I’m not.

  42. Misogyny @ the Pink no surprise but at least keep it gay!

  43. CaptainAwesome 21 Jan 2013, 12:26am

    You guys need to man up. She is a big supporter of the LGBT community and their rights.

    You are all just bloody pathetic

    1. Trans women should man up lol? She is definitely not a supporter of the T.

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.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all