Apologies for my late post, with Christmas and coursework
deadlines and internships (visit moonproject.co.uk if you want to help me out!) I’ve been bowled over with work. I just wanted to squeeze in a post
about the recent controversy with The Observer.
Yesterday, Sunday columnist Julie Birchill wrote a horribly transphobic article in an attempt to defend a fellow writer Suzanne Moore. Moore said in an article for The New Statesman that women were too often expected to look like "a Brazilian transsexual". Of course, the Twitter world attacked Moore, who instead of humbly apologising for being transphobic (and not acknowledging the high murder rate of Brazilian transexuals), ended the argument with “People can just fuck off really. Cut their dicks off and be more feminist than me. Good for them”.
The article by Burchill did nothing but make things worse as
she launched an a vitriolic attack on transsexuals, calling them “screaming
mimis”, “dicks in chicks' clothing”, “shims” and “shemales”. She also compared their attack to black-and-white
minstrels telling Usain Bolt how to run. My personal favourite was how she made the bizarre assumption that all trans people are middle class and highly educated. I'm pretty sure it is possible to be trans and not be rolling in money.
Anyway, I am going to leave it unsaid how offensive the article is. Burchill's vitriolic attack is clear to see, and fortunately most are opposed to it. What I want to talk about it The Observer's decision to remove the piece.
The decision has split some people. Those who think they should have left it are mixed. Some are claiming she has freedom of speech, which is a touchy subject. Many people mix "freedom of speech" with "being an asshat". Just because someone is free to express their opinions, that doesn't mean they can be as offensive as they want. Also many people have double standards when it comes to freedom of speech. If the article was a racist, homophobic, sexist diatribe people would be less eager to cry "freedom of speech".
Some feel the article should remain as to continue the debate. However, the article brings down the whole topic of debate, and to continue it there is to validate Burchill's arguments. This debate can be carried out elsewhere in a more intellectual way than simply spewing hateful slurs against transgender people.
I feel the article was rightly removed by the editor. To leave such a hateful piece up would be completely unprofessional. If the article remains then so do the insults. Her belittling of the struggles of transgender people cuts right to the hearts of many, and so by deleting the piece, The Observer can cut the level of affected. If people are curious they most likely will find the article re-published somewhere (many readers said they'd saved the article for such a scenario).
Finally, if the article had remained, an apology from The Observer would not seem legitimate, by letting it remain that would qualify it as a valid piece of journalism, and also not register its offensiveness. What they needed to do was cut ties from it as soon as possible. They can't disassociate with it entirely, but by removing it they make the statement that they should not tolerate such bullying.
Some feel the article should remain as to continue the debate. However, the article brings down the whole topic of debate, and to continue it there is to validate Burchill's arguments. This debate can be carried out elsewhere in a more intellectual way than simply spewing hateful slurs against transgender people.
I feel the article was rightly removed by the editor. To leave such a hateful piece up would be completely unprofessional. If the article remains then so do the insults. Her belittling of the struggles of transgender people cuts right to the hearts of many, and so by deleting the piece, The Observer can cut the level of affected. If people are curious they most likely will find the article re-published somewhere (many readers said they'd saved the article for such a scenario).
Finally, if the article had remained, an apology from The Observer would not seem legitimate, by letting it remain that would qualify it as a valid piece of journalism, and also not register its offensiveness. What they needed to do was cut ties from it as soon as possible. They can't disassociate with it entirely, but by removing it they make the statement that they should not tolerate such bullying.
What do you think? Should the article have been left up? Leave a comment below!
No comments:
Post a Comment