Reader comments · Observer’s readers’ editor says ‘it was wrong’ to publish transphobic slurs · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Observer’s readers’ editor says ‘it was wrong’ to publish transphobic slurs

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. So will they be using Burchill and Moore again? Or is this just one of those empty, insincere “apologies” where nothing will change?

    1. theotherone 18 Jan 2013, 6:40pm

      i give it a month or so

    2. sorry accidentally reported instead of thumb up :-( PN really needs an undo button or bigger up and down buttons in mobile view

    3. This was hardly an apology at all, just his regrets. What I find particularly disturbing is the comments about clause 12 of the PCC code. Effectively if clause 12 is only about individuals and not oppressed groups en mass, then well over 50% of hate speech is still allowed and affectively there is no protection for racism, sexism, trans and homophobis and ridiculing the disabled (Mr spigot anybody?). Pretty disgusting and I forsee masses of groups having to go for long, interrupting protests for as many years as it takes!

    4. bobbleobble 19 Jan 2013, 4:12pm

      Moore had a column in there yesterday moaning about how she’s been victimised and that this whole thing was an attack on her free speech.

      1. She has and it was. This article is about Burchill. See the difference……………



        1. theotherone 19 Jan 2013, 9:29pm

          and the issue is about both and about the wider media

        2. Moore has done less than Burchill but is still very clearly a crap bigot. If there one thing I can’t stand it’s people who should no better and are bigots. Its usually because they have sold out – she getting something from somewhere.

          1. It is not all you have lost. Most of your grammar is gone.

        3. See the original post that these people are replying to? It says “So will they be using Burchill and Moore again?”

          You also have another post, a mere 8 hours old, where you are clearly confused who this article is about. You’re a strange one for a troll.

        4. There was no attack on her free speech. There were people taking issue with what she said, and more such people as she said more and more insulting things.

          See the difference?

      2. That is pretty ridiculous considering her twitter posts where she made it abundantly clear that she didn’t care about “this fucking lopping bits of your body,” which is yet another way she described trans women.

        People were pretty polite compared to her replies. But she is the one victimized? Right.

  2. The Daily Telegraph website are still enjoying whipping up hatred by reproducing the article.

    1. I keep sticking up arguments there if I can.

  3. I don’t see why gay people should be supporting homophobic and misogynistic trans activists. Trans activists have opposed marriage equality and have harassed and intimidated lesbians. It was the harassment of a particular lesbian which led to this article being published. We need to take another look at who concocted the concept of LGBT and why gay people should be automatically equated with transsexuals and crossdressers, the vast majority of whom identify as heterosexual.

    1. theotherone 18 Jan 2013, 8:29pm

      i’ve opposed marriage equality and intimidated lesbians? better tell my lesbian partner.

    2. Oliver, look at the title: LGBT.This is an inclussive community, sweetie. The last letter ‘T’ includes transgender people.

    3. Some gay people have opposed equal marriage, Oliver….

      I’m a lesbian and I’ve never felt threatened or intimidated by trans people. There are bad apples in EVERY group of people, but that doesn’t mean we should assume all people from a particular group are ‘bad’. If someone met one nasty gay man (presuming you’re male and gay) you wouldn’t want them to then label ALL gay men as nasty, would you?

      Judge people as individuals on how they act.

      I can understand why the ‘T’ is in LGBT. Trans people have a bl**dy hard time of it from what I’ve seen.

    4. I’ve honestly never come across a trans person who was homophobic, misogynistic or opposed to marriage equality. Can you name any?

      1. The trans who, despite being asked not to, caused trouble at this women-only festival sound pretty appallingly misogynistic:

        1. …Wow. Ok, while one of those women sounds like she was being pretty rude, that whole article has a tone of “Waah, we excluded women from a women’s festival and somehow they took offense to that!”

          When you’re calling transwomen “men,” and telling them that because they were born with penises they’re not cool enough to hang with the “real” women at the women’s festival, you’re pretty much denying their entire identity and dictating to them who they really are. Are you really surprised that that pisses them off? If you can’t express your own feminine nature without belittling, excluding, and othering someone else, the problem is you.

          Did they react well to being excluded? No. Is it an understandable reaction? Hell yes.

    5. Don’t bother Oliver, you don’t stand a chance here. This is not a debate, it is a witch hunt. The hunt is being carried out by people who are normally the hunted. They are enjoying the turn around.

    6. Hannah Rossiter 20 Jan 2013, 7:35am

      A great number of transpeople identify as gay, lesbian and bisexual. Many see marriage equality as opportunity to protect their marriages and as an opportunity to marry the people they love.

  4. Adele Paul 18 Jan 2013, 8:31pm

    They did not CAUSE offence. Offence was taken. None was intended.

    1. theotherone 18 Jan 2013, 8:58pm

      yup because calling people names is a way to make friends

    2. vversatile 19 Jan 2013, 1:21am

      Nonsense – The piece was written to be as offensive as possible

      1. You know that do you? How much offence should someone take before being offensive back?

  5. GLBT, as I call it (I cannot bear the politically correct insistence that the L comes first) are a diverse community. We are held together by the very thin thread of being thought of as the same by the straight majority. I find that Gay, Lesbien and Trans people have differing experiences and, as a rule, very different mind sets. I have no innate understanding of what it feels like to be Bi.
    But we are surely united in our condemnation of the vile sentiments offered by all three “feminist” columnists as a result of the protests against the original piece, although we are clearly divided on whether that piece was actually offensive.
    Thanks, Lynne Feathrrsone, for speaking up.

    1. Why is putting the L first ‘politically correct’ any more than putting the G, T or B first would be? Is the BLT ‘PC gone mad’ ?

      1. Yum Yum, Bacon, Lettuce & Tomato. ;-)

        Cal, If you are going to whinge about the order of letters wouldn’t BGLT as the order in which they appear in the alphabet be more agreeable to you?

        1. I’m a bit of an anarchist myself. How about TGLB?

          1. Oh. TGLB and Q or i or something, it’s anew bit I don’t quite understand.

        2. Mel-Anne O'Marr 20 Jan 2013, 4:51am

          Only as long as it’s veggie ‘bacon’.

    2. I seem to remember a time when it was most common to say ‘Gay people’ to cover those who were same sex oriented. Gay women then asked not to be included under this umbrella and ‘Gays and Lesbians’ became the common term. It was then considered too male orientated to put ‘Gay’ first so we ended up with the rather cumbersome term Lesbians and Gay men (not even ‘Lesbians and Gays’ would do because Lesbians were gay too). This then translated into present acronym/initialism. At the time this ordering was implemented there were (and still are) a much greater number of Gay men than Gay women. Gay men had a higher profile with the public and this is perhaps why Lesbian feminists pressed for the current form. That is what I mean by political correctness.

      1. I honestly don’t think LGBT is politically correctness, Cal. For me, at least, it’s easier to say that way (but that could just be because I’ve grown up in the UK). I don’t see it as a hierarchy at all. Until you mentioned this I’d never even noticed that lesbian ‘come first’. All are equal, I feel. Also, it’s just convention in the UK eg ‘Ladies and gentleman’ is just the accepted form not implying women are best or anything.

        (as an aside, I often call myself ‘gay’ rather than ‘lesbian’. I think it must be because, sadly, I associate ‘lesbian’ as a term of abuse at school)

        1. Thanks for your reply, Iris. I think it is unlikely that the feminist agenda at the time would have argued the ‘Ladies first’ angle. There were lots of challenges (quite rightly, I suppose) to offering a lady your seat, holding open doors, and to terms such as chairman and even manhole, mankind etc.
          I absolutely agree that all are equal. What I said above about the evolution of the form, I believe to be true. It’s not a big deal. More important things to worry about.

          1. Very true, Cal – lots more to worry about. I only mentioned the UK-ness of LGBT as my girlfriend is from the US and it had sounded strange to her ears here to begin with. That being said, I haven’t the faintest idea which part of the world you’re in, so excuse me if you’re in the UK too :D

            Your description of the evolution was interesting to read as I’d known nothing but LGBT so wasn’t aware of those changes :)

        2. Ladies were never women, they were the wives of Lords.

          1. Ladies are women too :D My point was that putting ‘ladies’ before ‘gentlemen’ didn’t convey anything, and, of course, the phrase ‘ladies and gentlemen’ is used to address any mixed sex audience now (unless I’ve been in much posher company than I thought :D )

          2. de Villiers 19 Jan 2013, 11:39pm

            Mesdames et messieurs.

            Ladies and gentlemen.

            The order is the same as in French.

        3. Ladies are indeed the wives of titled people but also a courteous alternative to ‘women’. In much the same way as ‘men’ is prefixed by ‘gentle’ in polite society. I am a Londoner though born in Ireland. I lived in the US as a young child but have been in the UK long enough to have followed the evolution of internal GLBT politics from the early 70s. You say putting Ladies before Gentlemen didn’t convey anything. I disagree. It was a courtesy, just like offering your seat to the fairer (or weaker, as it was often described) sex. The same in other cultures, as de Villiers suggests. But the politics within the “LGBT” world is quite different.
          I am being marked down for my account. I would welcome any informed opinion to put me on the right track if I am mistaken.

          1. So it’s just sexism then, putting the little ladies first?

      2. If you believe that lesbians should be second to gay men then your merely reinforcing misogyny. As a lesbian I would actually prefer to have nothing to do with this taxonomy. This newspaper is for gay men. Even the word pink has been ppropriated. Last years Pride showed an absence of lesbians. If gay men wish to maintain a seperation thats fine but don’t plead discrimination and use lesbians as and when it suits you.

    3. I always understood it was LGBT in the UK and that GLBT was the US form.

    4. I think fighting over the ordering of a group of letters is ridiculous, especially when the topic of the discussion here trans people, the T, always comes last. (I’m not complaining about that.)

      It doesn’t matter what order it comes in — people know what you’re talking about. (Except if the T comes first. TLGB would probably look confusing to people and cause a stir, even though it’s just reverse alphabetical order. Silly.)

      BGLT, BLGT, LGBT, LBGT, GLBT, GBLT, whatever. It’s still the same group of people, and the fish we have to fry are much larger.

      Oh yes, and phonetically, putting all of the letters that end in EE together ELL GEE BEE TEE sounds a little easier.

      We could make the official default to put the letters associated with you in front. TBLG anyone?

      1. Its not the same group of people its moved from gay to all sorts

  6. Transexualism is officially classed as a mental disorder under The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)
    It’s sufferers should be helped with Psychological treatment as withall mental disorders.
    To illustrate. A madman thinks he is a tiger. Do we undertake operations to accomodate his mental illness or do we treat him psychoolgically?

    1. How about a simple minded idiot thinks he’s a genius. Many very intelligent, very hard working people have done a huge amount of expensive research to work out what to do, and you totally ignorant think you know better!

    2. The actual disorder is “gender dysphoria,” which is the term in current usage — if I recall correctly, the DSM has been or is being revised to reflect this. The two are not the same.

    3. Fortunately, transsexuality is fairly well understood medically. It is a congenital neurological intersex condition, which puts it more in the medical rather than psychological heading.

      It is entirely possible for someone to be born with a female brain. Usually those people are also born with vaginas, but that is not always the case, hence transsexual women. (The same goes for men, but the other way around.)

      There is a large amount of medical evidence showing this to be the case too. There is not evidence of “a madman” thinking “he is a tiger.” Or at least, there is not evidence of them actually being part tiger. (Except Tiger Woods of course.)

      You should at least try to understand the topic you’re commenting on. You’ve made it exceedingly obvious that you did not bother to do even the most basic of research.

  7. Most worrying was the rubbish about how clause 12 doesn’t apply. If they are right then racist, sexist, homo and trans phobic, and anti-disabled comments are allowed to be printed in papers, as long as they are aimed at a group rather than an individuals. That means people have been hoodwinked by the govt after Levinson and masses of very expensive and disruptive protests are going to be required for a long time to come!

  8. You could never get a more detailed and considered back down from any newspaper in the world.
    But surprise surprise, it is not good enough.


    Because they are dealing with extremists. Extremists are never satisfied, least of all when they get their way. It just infuriates them.

    Just think of the CofE and gay marriage, it is simple no at any price.

    1. theotherone 19 Jan 2013, 9:31pm

      oh go away witless

      1. Why? Do you just want people on here who agree with you? I am starting to see why Moore lost it.

        Having a “discussion” with extremists is like banging your head against a brick wall.

        You know you have won the actual argument when people just tell you to go away.

        1. theotherone 20 Jan 2013, 3:39pm

          moore lost it because her privileged status as a great left wing feminist was challenged if you think any criticism is bad then you have no place getting involved in a debate

    2. You’re just making stuff up now. Who says their apology was not good enough? In this article and all the comments the only person I can find that suggests that is you! Are you saying that all the trans women who were offended by Birchills article were extremists? That would be almost all of them.

      1. First, I have only ever defended Moore so not sure what you are talking about.

        Second some clips from above, the only ones that address the apology…….

        “just one of those empty, insincere “apologies” where nothing will change?”

        “This was hardly an apology at all,”

        “Most worrying was the rubbish about how clause 12 doesn’t apply”

        Your point being Gwen? You really should read what you comment on first.

        1. Then why are you commenting on a Pink News article about Burchill’s transphobic piece being pulled?
          The quote was “Or is this just one of those empty insincere ‘apologies’ where nothing will change? ” You quoted that out of context.
          The other two comments are from the one other person to express misgivings about the apology.
          From this you extrapolate that the trans women upset by Burchill’s article ( which is the article being referred to here and the one for which the apology was offered) are a bunch of extremists who will never be satisfied.
          My point is that your position on this is completely incorrect and in saying this I am being very polite.

          1. theotherone 20 Jan 2013, 3:44pm

            if this results in the guardian changing it’s editorial policy to transpeople then i’ll be more than happy and offer them my support i’m just concerned that we’ve been here before and nothing’s changed. hopefully this time it will be different.

            i must be an extremist for thinking that god knows moore called me one when i asked her to not reduce transpeople’s bodies to a pathology.

        2. You’re posting in the wrong comments section if you think you’re defending Moore. This is about Julie Burchill.

          And that is evidence enough of how clueless you are today. The extremist here appears to be you. You’re so extreme you don’t even bother to look at what you’re replying to while making extreme generalizations about whole groups of people you likely do not understand. (As you don’t even understand the article, that seems most likely.)

    3. It’s not enough to who? Try providing a source or something. Because after an apology, trans people tend to be quite forgiving. (So long as that apology is for real, and a real apology is one where you don’t set things up for the same thing to happen again in the future…)

      And I say that as a trans person who is not upset with the newspaper.

      I should also point out there were a lot of trans people in the comments of Burchill’s article asking for it to be kept up as an example to everyone of how not to behave.

      But I guess you would rather spread false accusations. An extremist like you is “never satisfied” though, right?

  9. I’m really not surprised that this was printed in The Guardian. The opinion articles are written in a manner to cause offence. They are unmoderated and uncensored.
    This newspaper really needs to be regulated. They’re not responsible enough to be self edited.

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.