Well, this bit of vicious transphobic crap anyway. And they’ve apologised too. Let’s hope this represents a turning point for them. As many have pointed out, they have a long history of publishing garbage like this. (Thanks, Mr Jender!)
Well, this bit of vicious transphobic crap anyway. And they’ve apologised too. Let’s hope this represents a turning point for them. As many have pointed out, they have a long history of publishing garbage like this. (Thanks, Mr Jender!)
I wouldn’t call that an apology, though. They didn’t make clear what they did wrong, nor did they take responsibility for their role in letting it get published in the first place. Do they genuinely think that it was wrong to let hate speech stand in the place of journalism, or are they just sorry that people got really pissed off with the article? Has this changed their professional relationship with Burchill at all?
Also, many of us would prefer to have it kept up as an example, along with an editor’s apology.
It is indeed a poor apology.
They say that their readers’ editor will say more about the subject later, so it’s best to wait before passing judgment.
If the originial column incites to hatred and offends some trans gender people, maybe it’s a good idea to remove it.
swallerstein: By “many of us,” I meant many of us in the trans* community.
Rachel:
I agree that it’s important that people read and study Burchill’s article, but perhaps not on a website that has mass access.
It could be studied as an example of prejudice, irrationality, lack of thoughtfulness and pop psychology at its worst.
Julie Burchill seems to be one of those people who starts out on the left and then goes on to make a living bashing the left for its inevitable contradictions.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/06/activists.kingsnorthclimatecamp?INTCMP=SRCH
They always end up sooner or later, on the right, supporting the worst atrocities.
Christopher Hitchens comes to mind.