LEXIE CANNES STATE OF TRANS — A former columnist for the UK’s Guardian newspaper unleashed a transphobic rant directed at trans women in the form of a response to an article written by a UK trans activist in Vice Magazine.
Julie Burchill, a writer who has recently gained a bit of notoriety for her hate pieces on trans women, posted this response [excerpted] in the magazine’s comment section following Paris Lee’s article:
“Paris, you like it because you ARE still a YOUNG GAY BOY. And that’s what YOUNG GAY BOYS LIKE! Bless! . . .
What price the genital mutilation of a 7 year old brown-skinned girl child when THE MOST IMPORANT THING IN THE WORLD is big white blokes having their cocks cut off . . .
Delude yourselves all you like, but in the way you lot harass born women, your bully boy side always shines through. And no amount of lipstick and plastic tits can cover that up.”
Reports say the comments have since been removed by Burchill.
——-
Rather than deciphering what Burchill is saying here, I’ll just bring home the point that if Burchill is trying to make academic arguments for her views, she has pretty much failed here. This ad hominem rant (and previous others) voids the validity of her arguments. If she has an actual point to make, it’ll have to be made by someone else as I don’t care to wade through transphobic muck and neither should you.
Sources: Gay News Network and Pink News (UK)
I’d post the Vice link here but I got bombarded with junk video I could not get to stop at the site.
———–
You, too, can have your heart tugged by Lexie Cannes — an award-winning feature film about a transgender woman who is stalked, solves a mystery, saves a lost soul and finds love. Get it here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0963781332
LEXIE CANNES STATE OF TRANS is associated with Wipe Out Transphobia: http://www.wipeouttransphobia.com/
Read Lexie Cannes in The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/courtney-odonnell/
Categories: Transgender, Transsexual, Trans, Transphobia, exploitation, dehumanizing, violence, hate
LEXIE CANNES STATE OF TRANS 
Her wrath against the M2F transsexual population, shows what psychology already knows about her. That is to say that she’s overcompensating because beneath it all, she’s a self hating closeted ‘bloke’ too.
The organizer of LOKI (Lesbians of OH/KI/IN) kicked me out of the Meetup group because it was for lesbians. I told her my legal name was Linda (Court date to finalize it was 3/10/14!), I live and work as Linda, and gender identity differs from sexual preference. I said I hoped to get all my surgeries this year, but that didn’t matter either. I asked her but she didn’t say that she was a radfem who thinks some aren’t women enough. I didn’t tell her what I told an organizer of an LGBT Meetup. I fit three of those categories!
Lexie
I’m intrigued by the “billy” aspect of her comments. Since I haven’t read her full reply and don’t recall Paris’s article, I’m at a loss to understand that feeling she’s voicing. It might help our cause to understand how we pose a threat to cisgender women. Perhaps it is as simple as insisting we are women too. If that’s the case, nothing can be gained, but if it’s a more subtle threat then maybe we can recognize the implied threat and alter our approach.
Bully, not billy. Damned spellcheckers! 😀
Oh yea, Julie Burchill… we also have untreated sewage on some beaches in the UK too, but we’re trying to clean up our act. Sorry rest of the world, we’ll get there eventually…
Burchill presents an “either/or” argument and therefore logically fallacious: “Either we care about a “7 year old brown skin girl-child” (interestingly racist description there) or we care about “big white blokes having their cocks cut off.” (In her words: “the most important thing in the world.”) Neither is more important than the other. Neither is less important than the other. BOTH are important issues (although the latter argument as presented is a rather confusing combination of begging the question, exaggerated evidence, and distorted emotional appeal arguments) and NEITHER issue eliminates the other as a viable consideration. These are examples of the kinds of arguments conservatives employ to win the debate at all costs. (Winning, to a conservative mind-set, is all that matters. Whether the claim and the arguments supporting it are valid is irrelevant)
If we are to deal with these claims and the logically fallacious arguments supporting them, it would be wise to read up on basic logic and analysis. A good way to start would be on the Net. Google: “fallacious arguments” and study them carefully. The ad hominem argument is the most popular among conservatives, of course. Attacking the person rather than the claim or the argument that supports it is the easiest method of discrediting an opponent. Regrettably, when demonstrated that it is indeed a personal attack rather than a refutation of the argument, most conservatives will usually reply: “So what?” and continue with the attack. As I understand it, that was Burchill’s response.
Still, we have to arm ourselves with the best techniques available. Study logic and analysis! Above all, stop and think carefully about what our opponents may say and how they say it. I have yet to encounter a claim from ANY conservative writer which is supported by anything resembling a logical argument, but it’s always best to know the shape and meaning of an argument before responding.