PCC rules against the criminalization of Trans-Critical feminist Julie Burchill

Burchill, taking no shit and loving it.
Burchill, taking no shit- and loving it!

The Press Complaints Commission has issued its ruling following an inquiry into the Julie Burchill article.  Transgenders called for the criminalization and censorship of Burchill when she described trans activists who use threats of rape and murder against feminists as “bedwetters in bad wigs”. The title of the article “Transsexuals should cut it out” referred to the ubiquitous harassment, violent threats, and bullying against feminists by transgender activists. You can read her censored article in full HERE.
The Ruling:

Commission’s decision in the case of

Two Complainants v The Observer / The Daily Telegraph


The complainants were concerned about a comment article which responded to criticism of another columnist on social networking sites. The article had first been published by The Observer. Following The Observer’s decision to remove the article from its website, it had been republished on the website of The Daily Telegraph. The Commission received over 800 complaints about the article, which it investigated in correspondence with two lead complainants, one for each newspaper.
The complainants considered that the article contained a number of prejudicial and pejorative references to transgender people in breach of Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. They also raised concerns under Clause 1 (Accuracy) that language used by the columnist was inaccurate as well as offensive, and, furthermore that the article misleadingly suggested that the term “cis-gendered” was insulting. Additionally, concerns had been raised that the repeated use of terms of offence had breached Clause 4 (Harassment) of the Code.
The Commission first considered the complaints, framed under Clause 12, that the article had contained a number of remarks about transgender people that were pejorative and discriminatory. It noted that the Observer had accepted that these remarks were offensive, and that it had made the decision to remove the article on the basis that the language used fell outside the scope of what it considered reasonable; however, the Observer denied a breach of Clause 12 because the article had not made reference to any specific individual. Clause 12 states that newspapers “must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability”. However, the clause does not cover references to groups or categories of people. The language used in the article did not refer to any identifiable individual, but to transgender people generally. While the Commission acknowledged the depth of the complainants’ concerns about the terminology used, in the absence of reference to a particular individual, there was no breach of Clause 12.
The Commission also considered the complaint under the terms of Clause 1, which states that “the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures”. Complainants had suggested that the terms used in the article to refer to transgender people were inaccurate or misleading. Whilst the Commission acknowledged this concern, it was clear from the tone of the article that these terms were being used to express an opinion. Whilst many people had found this opinion deeply distasteful and upsetting, the columnist was entitled to express her views under the terms of Clause 1(iii), so long as the statements were clearly distinguished from fact. The same was true in relation to the columnist’s assertion that the term “cis-gendered” is offensive. Viewed in the context of the article as a whole, particularly in light of the fact that the article had been deliberately identified as a comment piece, this was clearly distinguishable as an expression of her opinion about the term rather than a statement of fact about how it is perceived more broadly. This did not constitute a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article, for the purposes of Clause 1(i), and neither was there any significant inaccuracy requiring correction under the terms of Clause 1(ii). There was no breach of Clause 1.
The Commission turned to consider those concerns raised under Clause 4, which states that “journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit”. It made clear, however, that the publication of a single comment piece was not conduct which would engage the terms of Clause 4. There was no breach of the Code.
The Commission acknowledged that the complainants found much of the article offensive. Nonetheless, the terms of the Editors’ Code of Practice do not address issues of taste and offence. The Code is designed to address the potentially competing rights of freedom of expression and other rights of individuals, such as privacy. Newspapers and magazines have editorial freedom to publish what they consider to be appropriate provided that the rights of individuals – enshrined in the terms of the Code which specifically defines and protects these rights – are not compromised.  It could not, therefore, comment on this aspect of the complaint further.
Too bad, bedwetters.
[bolding by me-GM]

63 thoughts on “PCC rules against the criminalization of Trans-Critical feminist Julie Burchill

  1. It was extremely obvious that Julie Burchill had written nothing actionable. She had simply been fairly impolite about a particular group of people in an opinion piece, which there is actually no law against. Those who reported JB to the police were laughable clowns. Those who reported JB to the PCC had a valid complaint if they felt that way, but the PCC’s decision is no surprise whatsoever. I actually, funnily enough, that JB had been unnecessarily rude for what it was worth, but overall rudeness was all it was. It was simply JB being, well, rather blunt. As a lesbian I constantly have to listen to people politely and not so politely pointing out the supposed flaws in my “lifestyle”and it’s not inspired to call me the emergency services yet.

  2. Reblogged this on oopster74.wordpress.com and commented:
    And if the article had been titled “Paki’s should cut it out”, or “Nigger’s should cut it out”, she’d have been arrested already.

      1. If it said ‘Tories should cut it out’ or ‘scientologists should cut it out’ there would be no problem, though. The argument is whether transsexuals are a race, a gender, or a self-defining group. If the last, then it is available to you to argue with their self-definition.

  3. Good to hear this. You don’t say what your source is though.
    It’s still important to watch news on press freedom in the UK, though, because the Leveson report published last November suggested replacing the PCC with a new body that won’t be regulated by journalists as the PCC is, but legally regulated. That might create problems for the freedom of feminists in journalism – and bloggers based in the UK – to criticise the trans nonsense, and more broadly for investigative journalism and websites.
    Remember that Lynne Featherstone, LibDem government minister, had called foro Julie Burchill to be sacked. Also, LibDem and Labour MPs were far less supportive of the campaign to reform Section 5 of the Public Order Act to remove the offence of ‘insulting’ someone by the use of language. That campaign was thankfully won late last year.

    1. Agree.
      Men, (including the genderist variety) and agents of the institutions of male power will never ever stop their efforts to gag and silence speech from women. And they will likely win.
      We must fight back. All of us. Speak and speak and speak.

    2. Legally reducing women to a cluster of offensive oppressive stereotypes and the promotion of highly offensive (quoting E Hungerford) “Sex-Based Personality Theory” – will NEVER BE considered “hate speech”. Nevah evah evah. There is no such thing as hate speech against women. Ever. Women are the only class of humans excluded from all hate crime provisions.

    1. This is interesting: Trans Media Watch states that “Many individuals can be identified as trans by members of the public”.
      How can a trans person be identified by the public? They can’t.
      What is the difference between a drag queen and trans? Their private belief about themselves.
      A guy in a playboy bunny outfit on halloween could be trans- or not. There is no way to know.
      There is no way for objective bystanders to identify the subjective personal beliefs of an individual passing on the street.

      1. Perhaps, easily enough, the general public recognizes men as men…and therefore recognizes trans as men when they see them. Whether they accord any level of deference to the manner in which those men present themselves is up to the individual.
        The only thing missing in the TMW series of tweets is the one where they encourage all the other men to hold their breath and stomp their feet like a toddler having a tantrum until they get their way since, after all, men are accustomed to getting their own way and just cannot stand it when they are told, basically, to piss off.

      2. Surely from their POV they’re saying you can tell trans* women (or drag queens, for that matter – I get what you’re saying) from actual women. The drag queens don’t care, but the trans* will complain and deny until the end of the earth (I guess that’s how you tell those two groups apart :))
        Bottom line, they don’t pass. Hard truth, many of them never will no matter what they wear. And the lobby is trying to make it forbidden to notice that they don’t pass in a million years – no, we’re supposed to pretend we don’t notice, and treat them like women, to protect their feelings.

      3. “…the trans* will complain and deny until the end of the earth (I guess that’s how you tell those two groups apart)…”

      4. Can’t believe the hate on this blog. The hypocrisy is astounding. “Transwomen are the new Taliban.” What? How can you possibly be serious?
        There appears to be a lot of denial that transgenderism even exists as an actual entity, medical diagnosis and source of profound trauma for those individuals who experience gender dysphoria.
        Can you not see that you saying that being trans is a choice/or delusion/state of mind, is no different at all from someone else claiming that sexual orientation is a choice?

  4. You can call women bedwetters in bad wigs, he/she’s, shims, etc. whatever you want- shout it from the rooftops all the livelong day- even though women are NOT posting death threats and rape threats, you can call us any fucking thing you want and it will never be a hatecrime. You can tell us that there is a “personality” that females have, a distinctly laydee brain: not a hate crime! It’s all “science that’s yet to be proven”. LMAO.
    There are no newspaper stories about a woman having slurs and rude comments yelled at her from the rape-enabled (males) from across the street. This is only news if it happens to males/transwomen. Males being subjected to female treatment- even if those males are “transwomen”- is news, and a hate crime. Lack of female deference to males is news. In every country in the world. A rude clerk or cashier is newsworthy: if she is a woman and a male/transwoman felt disrespected. Transwomen are the new Taliban.

      1. Molly, you seem to be missing the point. If not for the way the programming of our culture has shaped these girls (the only thing more infallible than a male is a male athlete), they wouldn’t be threatening this victim. Please also note that the recipient of the threats is NOT a male. Anyone threatening someone else is wrong, but it seems women are the targets a disproportionate amount of the time.

  5. Damn straight, Gallus. It is high drama and the end of the world if you disagree with the trans woman brigade. They can say anything they want about women, speak FOR us, claim to be more truly women than we are, threaten us — oh, and that’s all okay.
    I had a 6’5 trans woman stand over me once in a bar/restaurant and loudly demand that I ‘admit’ she was a more of a real woman than I was. I’d just been sitting at a table with some friends, male and female, gay and straight. We were all minding our own business and talking amongst ourselves, and out of nowhere up comes this HUGE person standing over me and demanding I say this. Being much younger and easier to intimidate, I just kinda weakly nodded and agreed until she moved on. No idea to this day why she singled me out. Total WTF.
    I think many of them really do hate us. Certainly most of the ones I’ve run across online do. I’ve heard a few express that they deeply resent women born with female hormones and chromosomes because we didn’t work for it or deserve it. That we exist at all is considered triggering and othering and offensive on its face.

    1. Right? I should have titled this post: ‘Government decides not to prosecute woman for “disrespecting” rape and death threat men’.
      HOLY SHIT.

      1. As much as it galls me personally to go the “oh, I’m a woman and I feel threatened” route, it occurs to me this is a viable approach to use every time they act threatening. Report it, publicize it, and take legal action if there’s sufficient grounds. Lather, rinse, repeat. Call them out as the misogynists they are. Play all those cards, even if they seem beneath you.
        I usually try to stare down people over threats and act like they don’t scare me one bit. Lots of times, they actually don’t. Like, is that the best you can do, chickenshit? I’ve always felt it was kind of disempowering to back down over stuff like that.
        But anymore I’ve decided to point out the bad behavior and how it shouldn’t be tolerated from anyone, no matter what their background is. Point out the facts of what they’re doing, and they’ve got no defense. They indict themselves.
        I don’t care if you’ve got the saddest sob story in the world — if you’re threatening to rape women or you’re showing up with your dick hanging out in a shower room with 14-year-old girls, 99% of people ain’t having much sympathy for you. It’s all a matter of making sure the unadorned “just the facts” stories get out there so people can see for themselves. There are people I know who don’t realize this is happening, and fact after fact after fact is the way to help them understand.

      2. I think you might be on to something. If someone puts a threat of violence in writing they are opening themselves up to legal action. It takes a lot of courage to stand up to kind of behavior. Standing up to bullies is the only way to stop them.

  6. It must be difficult for trans to accept that there are some male run institutions who aren’t going to roll over for them. They’ve been getting their own way on everything for so long.
    The PCC would have looked very stupid censuring on “bedwetters in bad wigs”.

  7. The attitude you cite from Trans Media Watch is exactly what I expected, namely that the trans bullies who bullied Moore, Burchill, Bindel, et al. do not live according to either the spirit or the letter of UK law on speech. As the Reform Section 5 campaign was successful, they are in fact even further away from that spirit and letter. The law only penalises offensive speech (subdivided into categories) when it is directed against identifiable individuals (this surely has an analogy with the UK Data Protection Act in some ways).
    If the trans activists were to win their appeal against the PCC, this would set a very dangerous legal precedent for all freedom of speech in the UK. What might happen is that journalists and bloggers would follow the lead of Paul Staines aka Guido Fawkes and host their sites in the US, where the First Amendment protects them more, and eventually leave. I for one find it significant that very few of the trans-critical activists have websites of their own, and first noticed a long time ago that there was no email contact address on Janice Raymond’s departmental website. Surely we know why…

  8. Gallus,
    Julie Bindel was interviewed on this BBC Radio 4 programme on the disagreements between transgenders and feminists a few nights ago. You can listen to it on iPlayer for the next few days.
    The programme is incredibly biased towards trans and genderqueer, and the only critic interviewed is Bindel, who comes out well, reasonable, and brave enough to say plainly that as a teenager bullied for not being a typical girl, she could nowadays risk being put on the hormone treatment the NHS now allows.
    She also tells of a time when she worked for some sort of voluntary service in England near a district with a lot of women caught in prostitution, and how a pre-op MTF came into the room, sat down, spread his legs, and proceeded to be verbally abusive to the women. She pointed out that the law meant that the manager of the place couldn’t do anything to get the MTF to leave, as he was classified as a ‘woman’. She dishes out the dirt on MTFs who are in prison for violence against women.
    Lastly, the programme presenter made a big thing of how it’s lawyers and policymakers who are pushing the gender thing, the ‘sex spectrum’ idea, and did the classic thing of mixing up transgender with intesex conditions.
    Nobody critical of the trans movement apart from Julie Bindel was interviewed, even though there are highly skilled and competent psychotherapists and psychiatrists who would be able to speak to this issue. There is a media blackout in the UK on criticising trans and standing up for females, which is why defending Julie Burchill is so important.

    1. I heard it. Bindel does well. She always does when not edited in mid-stream as Paris Lees did in his shitty video. The rest of it was surprisingly awful. I say surprisingly because the piece centered around the very issues it then skirted.
      We can expect more of these exact same framings in mainstream pieces in months and years to come as the trans trend impacts more public policy and the every day lives of us all. Women who do public comments for such pieces should study this programme as an object lesson.
      Next time Julie and I share a pint (:P) I will advise her to tighten up her comments into 20 second soundbites that start and end with the impact of conflating sex with gender on the lives of those who are female sexed. SEX SEX SEX.
      You only get a few sentences to explain the entire conundrum succinctly to a casual listener. Shit has to be tight. We should hold a workshop somewhere on this. Each sentence should be as effective as possible. Each sentence should be a clear concise memorable phrase- carefully crafted. “Our side”: the side of women, will only get a few sentences in these pieces and women should work on getting those comments as clear and tight and simple and repeatable as possible to combat the rest of the piece which will be entirely geared to erasing sex and conflating sex and gender in the public mind. This is 101 shit and we need to remember that.

      1. That’s what I’ve been realizing. Over the last few months, I’ve seen a dozen or so short, really clear posts on tumblr like that. Brilliant suggestion to make a collection of them.
        I always reblog them, so I’ll comb my archive for them.

      2. A good example would be E Hungerford’s phrase “Sex-Based Personality Theory”. Only four words that make very clear one of the issues to a casual reader/listener. Concise. Precise. Memorable. Repeatable.

  9. oddly you seem rather silent on the death of lucy meadows – the mtf teacher outed and demonised by the press and driven to suicide.
    can i expect you to comment on this?

    1. People have the right to end their own lives. Who are you to try to take away her agency? Who are you, the Pope?

    2. Nobody is “driven” to suicide. It is just as much a choice as deciding to change name and wear a dress non-standard and demand kids and their parents ignore you are a male.

    3. I don’t think I’ve ever heard any other oppressed group claim they’re being driven to suicide when someone simply disagrees or says something that feels hurtful. If the trans were as oppressed as they claim, they wouldn’t have so many people bowing and scraping, putting “protection” laws in place for their benefit, or repeating their suicide threats and propaganda.

    4. Are you serious? Mr. Upton, should follow from Burchill . The PCC Burchill finding shows that at lest there is some sanity left and I expect the next big thing in their minds—Mr. Littlejohn turns out similar. The press has a responsibility to report and to express honest opinions and to question and critique social trends and to not succumb to the Stalinist tactics. Any notion of freedom of thought that is not in concert with the Trans ideology meets with virulent attempts at silencing, bullying, threatening and shaming.
      Burchill is brave and so too I think Littlejohn.
      “Get real.”
      If Mr. Upton took his life I will go out on a limb and say perhaps he had a mental illness, maybe he realized he had been duped and used. Sadly he did not realize this prior to having his penis removed.
      But back to Littlejohn and the article. Did Upton have a legal right to return to his job, where he was openly and warmly received and where he also upset young children who had to endure confusion? Yes. In fact it was the children and parents that had no rights. As Littlejohn pointed out. And journalists have rights and the duty to critique openly and in ways that questioned the transgender narrative. Sorry boys it is a free society. And that’s not monstering any more than Mr. Upton monstered the children by being Miss Meadows. Or how Mr. Upton’s death is being used by TG—now that is monstering. You guys might as well jerk off over the corpse—same thing.
      If it was suicide now those children’s confusion is perhaps cleared up—transgender is a mental illness. As responsible parents will explain. Does anyone seriously think that parents are going to blame a 250-word newspaper article for a man’s death? The trans can claim a martyr and a new victim but every parent and every child who were not “hateful bigots” and who were accepting will realize (if they had any doubts prior) that there is no such thing as a woman being trapped in a mans body. So Upton in life and death is used and in very much the same way, he in turn used his students and the whole school to play out his fantasy life—to prove (the delusion) what, he was “a woman trapped in a male body,” Well that didn’t work out so well, did it? The “benefit of the doubt” having already been extended will now move pass mildly skeptical into realizing the whole movement is made up of a bunch of dangerous threatening men. Calling for Littlejohns job is just an extension of the delusion and has no basis in reality. And are more threats.
      The absurdity that the “press” drove anyone to suicide is grabbing at straws. Playing the desperate victim works maybe, just maybe pre surgery—we are going to kill ourselves if we don’t get a blind pouch to call a mangina. It certainly does not work post. And the fact is SRS has little effect on the suicide rate. And the public will realize this. I would dial back a notch guys before people realize that all the state money going for the blind pouch could cover granny’s hip replacement better. Common sense dictates that the blame and high drama victim only works in small doses and not for a group of men that continually harass women, threaten them.
      Factually speaking, (and I know anything trans hates facts) by and large oppressed groups have never threatened or committed suicide—the Jews in the concentration camps did not (oh sorry but they were really oppressed, the blacks in the South not, oops again, not a good example, more real oppression, woman, my bad, okay I am not getting anywhere with analogy). Cults commit suicide—Hale bop, Jonestown. Mentally ill commit suicide. Twitter this: Quick boys game change.
      Hurray, good fellow Littlejohn has as much right to write and publish, as Mr. Upton had to return to his job with children and be called Miss Meadows—(I am seeing a field filled with pretty flowers and Queen Anne’s lace). I would suggest that perhaps a therapist might have had a role to play. Or in fact the whole “trans” narrative kills people—its believers who realize they have been suckered and there is no such thing as a female brain trapped in a mans body and would have been better off just sticking to cross dressing. You are either born a woman or you are not—end of story.
      So keep denying people the right to proper mental help, keep making it political because women, the mothers of those school children are, relieved it was his life he took rather than the kids. Suicide is violence and from where we women stand we would rather see it turned inward than out ward because we are generally the victims. And hon as a woman I can promise it crossed every mothers mind: thank god Mr. Upton did not arrive at the school fully armed and take out those little six year bigots in the name of fighting “transphobia” or arrive at the newspapers offices and do it. Thank god it was Mr. Upton and not a room of six year olds—thank god that it was suicide he turned his narcissistic rage inward and not outward. Because when the trans scream and howl suicide woman think homicide—can that penetrate the thick male brain?
      So Littlejohn was right. As sad as Mr. Upton’s death is to his family and as upseating to the students and faculty that offered all their support this will begin to bring home the message to each and everyone in that school and community that did embrace “Miss Meddows” this is a mental illness. The parents and children are not going to blame a journalist. And the points Littlejohn made are only proven true. This man should not have been charged with teaching children. He was unstable—proof positive. A good outcome is that those parents and children, bought the fairy tale have repositioned themselves. Now and forever into their futures they know, every time they see or hear about anything Trans—it is a mental illness. Characterized by hysteria and victimization.
      Keep trying to silence writers, journalist, women, anyone that questions because at this point, calling for Littlejohns job, calling to silence the press, only reaffirms the nature of the illness as narcissistic rage. The transgender movement wants to make fetish and cross-dressing into something big and grand and poignant.
      The lesson boys and girls is that mental illness is serious. Women, journalists and children are not going to step aside or bow down to men who have a driving obsessional sexual fantasy. Please note for the future: the threats of suicide hold no sway. The act just proves the point.
      Many women know: Trans=Death. We just hope it is only their own death and they don’t take anyone else with them.

      1. Well not just that, but think of the effect on the kids in the classroom.
        I mean, would he have said to girl who played with trucks ‘you’re male now’? Would he have told boys who liked playing with dolls ‘you’re female now’?
        Not to mention, considering how he’s re-enforcing gender stereotypes (with his name change, with his sex change – after all, who better to take care of small children than women?- probably with his dress/etc.), how confused would the kids have gotten?
        I don’t think it would be a very healthy environment for the kids.

  10. I think Julie looks like a trannie!
    Hey Gallus. Why don’t you sink your teeth into someone like Bailey Jay. There’s lots of stuff there. Won transsexual performer of the year twice. Not to mention her podradio with over 100 episodes making fun of biological females. It would ALMOST be a little like picking on someone your own size for a change. 😉

      1. This is SUCH a fabulous portrait of her. Fantastic shot.
        Also: jailhouse outfit? Methinks “Ann” has been wanking while watching too many old Cellblock H reruns. Sir.

  11. And I have always liked Julie Burchill, especially when she told off Camille Paglia. It was not “politically correct” but who the fuck cares.

  12. Hmm. I thought someone would mention ‘Lucy Meadows’, who was really Nathan Upton. Oh look – ‘Jane Fae’, who looks suspiciously like an MTF Gallus blogged about recently, popped up in the Guardian report on ‘Lucy Meadows’. More evidence of the trans lobby attacking the British press and freedom of speech.
    Gallus, I only posted this on here as a response. Please remove it from this thread if you don’t consider it to be in the right place.

    1. Leave any comment wherever you want. We all do. That being said, this is perfectly placed on a post about transgender efforts to curtail freedom of speech.
      Nathan Upton was the primary school teacher who – as is his right in the UK- decided to change his legal sex marker from male (which he was) to “female” under Gender Identity laws. Upton was a believer in “Sex-Based Personality Theory” or Transgenderism. Such people believe that males and females are defined by adherence to cultural stereotypes, not biological sex, and that males and females should be treated differently based on such stereotypes. To put a fine point on it, Transgenderists believe that objective human sexual reproduction is secondary to subjective “sex-based personality”.
      They believe for example that child-brides, and sex-slavery, are based on the (according to them) biologically based personality traits of females, not their sex. This may seem an outrageous, and even offensive claim to those of us who are not transgender but that is their belief. One of the platforms of the transgender political movement is that stereotypes- not actual sex- should define males and females. This seems counter-intuitive to most of the public who recognize that those of the female sex have long been oppressed based on sex. Most of the public also recognize that sex-based stereotypes are rooted in, or based upon, sex -based oppression of females as a class, by males a a class.
      Transgender beliefs, as counter-reality as they may seem to most, are (like religion) legally protected beliefs. One might even say that most governments (all male) support and promote sexism including transgenderism. Following the belief in innate, biological sex-based personality, is the belief that discordance between personality and sex is a defect and disability, requiring drastic cosmetic hormone and surgical intervention.
      Men and women under all governments have a protected right to believe that stereotypes based on human reproduction (sexism) is innate, and that individuals who don’t conform to sexism have a birth defect that should be treated by medicine and surgeries in attempt to cosmetically change the appearance of their biology to match their personality.
      The way primary school teacher Upton’s transgender belief system (and his government Equality Act right to enact those beliefs) played out is that he would come to his job wearing stereotypically female clothing and that the children who were his students would be required to refer to Mr. Upton with female pronouns (“She”, and “Miss”) , and a new stereotypically female name: “Lucy Meadows”. A letter was sent out to parents informing them of the change. Various media social commenters weighed in on the situation, some supportive of Upton’s use of his government-supported Equality Act rights, some not.
      Presumably Upton showed up at his job, as planned, in stereotypically female garb and presumably students referred to him as required with the female pronoun “she” and used his new name for two months. He then apparently left work on leave. We don’t know much about what happened subsequent to his return to school wearing stereotypical female garb and his leave of absence because it has not been reported. What we do know is that he was found dead at his home last week under circumstances police have called “not suspicious”. According to Pink News, the Trans Media Watch is claiming Upton committed suicide.
      Notoriously “yellow” journalist Jane Fae (his last subject, another transgender male Michelle O’Toole claimed Fae misrepresented and “made a liar” out of him and forced Fae’s editor to change title and text of his article) claims to have obtained personal emails from Upton. Fae reports, and supports, the transgender response to Upton’s death as “baying for the blood” of the media: non-believers or objectivists who write about transgender beliefs in the media. http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/03/press-regulation-freedom-speech-and-death-lucy-meadows
      Fae claims that Upton emailed other trans seeking support. Quote: “Last night, I was given access to emails from Lucy Meadows to a member of the trans community, seeking help back in January.” Fae then declines to report whether help was given, a significant omission. Huge fucking “What?”
      Did Upton as Trans Media Watch claims and as many many trans bloggers claim, commit suicide? Did he overdose on alcohol or drugs? Did he have a heart attack? We don’t yet know. What we know is that he adopted his “female” name and transgender Equality Act right to female pronoun use from his students. And took a leave of absence weeks later.
      Did he change his mind? Did his trans community abandon him?
      This whole thing reminds me of David Burgess. Burgess was a world-famous civil rights attorney. He was also a transgenderist, and adopted a “female” persona (sexist stereotyped appearance) as a sexual hobbyist. He was a man whose enjoyed crossdressing sexually. He worked as David but had a part-time “female” persona. Although he had no financial need, he worked part-time as a prostitute because it was pleasurable for him to sexually perform a role (prostitute) he saw as female. It was “affirming” to his transgender beliefs. It was a sexual hobby.
      One day he was horrifically gruesomely murdered by a woman who flung him onto the tracks in front of a speeding subway train. Transgender journalists “bayed for blood”. Trans activists called for the prosecution of feminist Julie Bindel an accessory to murder because she had critiqued transgenderist sex-based personality theory and the medico-gender industry in comment pieces. Lisa Harney at the premiere trans website at the time -named “Questioning Transphobia” (in response to a feminist site named “Questioning Transgender”) ran the headline “Cis Woman Murders Woman”. UK feminist website the F-Word ran “Cis-Woman charged with murder after Kings Cross station Death”. Both posts still stand, unretracted, uncorrected.
      When it came out that the “woman” who flung David onto the subway tracks was another “transwoman” no retractions were issued. The original posts still stand, and are still quoted. One trans bro flinging another brutally under a train, no problem. Monica “fishy” Roberts at transgriot posted to complain about the fact that David’s murderer (now “identifying as” male again) was arrested with his beard unshaved, which undermined his cross-sex appearance. Transgenders have a right to “dress” before arrest for murder Roberts claimed.
      Same thing with Mike Penner. He was a sportswriter who committed suicide months after publicly declaring transgenderist beliefs and adopting his “Christine Daniels” persona. Trans Activists blamed the media for his suicide but it later came to light that Penner had changed his mind and decided to “detransition”. He was horribly shunned by all his trans support system- horrifically trashed by many who are the leaders of the trans politic now. He was rejected by the entire trans community for changing his mind, and smeared, abandoned, for changing his mind. Then suicide.
      What happened to schoolteacher Nathan Upton? Did he change his mind and reach out for help as Penner did? Did his trans support system turn their back on him? Did he cry for help and it never came? We don’t yet know. What we do know is that the trans-politic is “baying for blood” of journalists that covered his story. Just like they “bayed for blood” when Burgess and Penner died, even though in both those cases it was transgenderists rather than “the media” or “feminists” or “non-believers” who was “to blame”.
      Men like Jane Fae and Lisa Harney don’t really give a flying fuck why Upton killed himself. They don’t care that he is dead. Not a bit. It’s all fucking anti-woman grist for them. It’s all about pressuring the media not to cover stories about genderist beliefs. It’s all about threatening and blaming and censoring non-believers. At any cost.
      Rest In Peace Nathan. Fuck the Liars.

      1. Wow Gallus I have just found that F-Word piece saying a “cis woman” was charged with murder re David / Sonia Burgess and you’re right it is still up and comments are closed so that you can’t point out it’s bullshit! The guy who did it doesn’t even have the “gender identity” of a woman anymore. Basically, a man. But we knew that. This is basically propaganda. I suppose they really wanted it to be true. Imagine their horror and disappointment when yep a male – and yep, a male who had adopted a trans persona (now abandoned it seems) – turned out to be behind the violence. What a shocker, we didn’t see that coming, etc.
        I read posts at the time with activists hysterical that Burgess was being “misgendered” ignoring the fact that he chose to switch between his male and female names and particularly elected to be “David” professionally (the law rather than the other work on the side) – not really a glass-ceiling busting option open to actual women.
        I must say RIP to both of these individuals though who I fear are having their lives, deaths and choices used to fight other people’s battles. Given Nathan / Lucy had not enjoyed press attention you think people would take this on board and stop using the death as an arguing chip on Twitter and elsewhere. I note Gallus that you didn’t write a piece; someone raised this death with you and asked for a response. If people really respected Lucy Meadows I imagine they’d quietly send flowers to the funeral, not pontificate online about how awful the Daily Mail and feminists are and finding new things to shout transphobia about.

      2. “…ran the headline “Cis Woman Murders Woman” ”
        That just about sums it up, doesn’t it? We “cis” women, who are born with uteri, vulvas, breasts, and the ability to get pregnant, are impostors compared to the “real” transwomen,
        Why are we the ones who are singled out as Other, and denied the ability to say loud and proud what we are: true biological adult human females?
        But no, lipstick and high heels make you a real woman because you say so, and XX chromosomes are transphobic.

      3. Agree this comment should be a post.
        I also agree with doublevez, I am concerned about the impact on the children who were dragged into this fiasco. If I were a parent of a child in that school, I would be livid. Adults need to keep their psychological issues in the adult world, not throw it up all over the plates of small, frightened children and force the children to humor their delusions and cope with their oversized adult emotions and sexual turmoils. It was a violation for the children to be asked to participate in the gender pretend games. While I have compassion for Nathan and sadness that he felt the need to take his life, it was also the responsibility of him and his supervisors to keep his mental illness from traumatizing the children in his charge. In this, they badly failed–and the press cannot be blamed for THAT.
        One child in the initial coverage expressed to his father fear that his “brain might change” when he grew up, as the “brain differences” explanation gave him the impression that your brain could just switch genders randomly as you aged. Terrifying for a young child, not something he should have been forced to deal with especially since it’s entirely bullshit to start with.

      4. While you may or may not have already done this, you should make an entire page for news articles that have gotten the facts wrong in regards to trans-violence. It’d be a good way to illustrate what’s ACTUALLY happening with the violence.

      5. How about this: He was a mentally ill individual who focused on “transition” as the solution to his problems. When the (mis)treatments did not help and even exacerbated his problems, he killed himself.
        Why is this so hard for these people to accept? Never mind–that’s a rhetorical question.

    2. Andie McGrath
      why not doorstep littlejohn @4 greenoak place cockfosters rd en4 0jb – his home address?
      Follow Post · Yesterday at 3:07pm
      Christopher John Bird, Imogen Power, James Jago and 4 others like this.
      Cydoni Trusste Cause you don’t want to accidentally turn a bully into a victim.
      Yesterday at 3:09pm · 10
      Andie McGrath pfft
      Yesterday at 3:09pm · 2
      Natacha Kennedy He actually lives in Florida. This is probably just a pied-a-terre or a different Littlejohn entirely…?
      Yesterday at 3:11pm · 2
      Andie McGrath yeah? current voters roll and directorship etc for him and wife there though – more about press coverage etc. also dacre’s is down in kent
      Yesterday at 3:13pm
      Natacha Kennedy Hmmmm interesting. I think he spends most of his time in Florida tho, and if he isn’t there right now I bet he is on a plane going in that direction, that is if he has any sense.
      Yesterday at 3:15pm · 3
      Andie McGrath haha – true!
      Yesterday at 3:16pm
      Natacha Kennedy might come in useful in the near future however, for a demo
      Yesterday at 3:16pm · 1
      Cydoni Trusste I assume you ‘pfft’ me because you think I’m viewing him as a victim? No matter how you paint it, appearing as a large number outside someone’s house in protest does not make us look like the peaceful group. I’ve never known something good that started with the words ‘doorstep his house’, regardless of motives.
      Yesterday at 3:16pm · 5
      Andie McGrath and we can always send them love letters, fanmail etc
      Yesterday at 3:28pm
      Marci Hawkins We don’t appear as a peaceful group? Good. If they can mock a woman they prob helped to kill, they’re fair game.
      23 hours ago · 2
      Thia Jones they might get woken in the night by people in vehicles with sirens and blue flashing lights…
      22 hours ago
      Thia Jones …they may get visited by…. oh, I don’t know, all sorts of people calling for all manner of purposes
      22 hours ago
      Jessi Lloyd Honestly, I don’t think there’s any excuse for bullying another human being. No matter how much of a vile douchebag he is, I’m not going to stoop to outright harassment.
      22 hours ago via mobile · 5
      Natacha Kennedy I think it is worth remembering that this page is going to be read by journalists and if there is any suggestion of a threat to harass anyone the DM will jump on it, it will be their ‘get out of jail free’ card. Just like Suzanne Moore, Burchill & the TERFs, we need to not allow the DM to escape from its culpability in this way. They would love to get off the hook by claiming victim status. Don’t let that happen! He is very unlikely to be there anyway, since his main residence is Florida.
      13 hours ago via mobile · 10
      Michelle-Louise Burrows Very true, Natacha. What I suggest is that EVERY single one of us – and I mean EVERY single one – writes to the Daily Mail and the PCC expressing our disgust over what happened to Lucy. In our ranks, we have some very intelligent, very articulate and very internet savvy people who can really go to town on this. Standing outside Littlejohn’s house hollering will achieve precisely NOTHING and will get the Daily Heil off the hook.
      13 hours ago · 4
      Paula Pandora Allen we have a name for the “parent” who caused all this crap.. will be released later with some other “tasty” details.. soon as our “diggers” have dug..
      13 hours ago
      Andie McGrath you don’t think it’d make him think twice about the kind of articles he writes? make the mail and other papers reconsider their doorstepping antics if they think someone may do the same to them? i have no idea whether it would or not – but i’m happy to give it a shot
      13 hours ago
      Paula Pandora Allen Lets just say.. the person who FIRST went to the press is named in this article.. wonder if you can work out which one it is….
      [ Tonight a friend who answered the door at Nathan’s terraced home in Accrington refused to comment.
      Cops found his body after an emergency call.
      An inquest has been opened and adjourned but the cause of death has not been revealed.
      Dad of three Wayne Cowie said: “I was shocked when I found out what had happened. My son came home yesterday and said that Miss Meadows had died.
      “We still don’t know anything really and no one knows why or how. It was upsetting for the kids. I have no idea why he has done it.”]
      http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4854084/Sex-change-fury-primary-teacher-kills-himself-after-return.html (direct to Sun link – sorry)
      The Scum has learned absolutely nothing from these events. They’re still misgendering Lucy, and harassing people at her home.
      13 hours ago
      Theresa Heath-Ellul I agree that we shouldn’t do anything that would allow the DM to shout ‘angry trans cabal’ and that this page should primarily be about discussing the vigil. I also think it’s a great idea to all write to the DM – do others think this should be a group letter or individual ones?
      12 hours ago · 2
      Jules Bristow I think individual ones are more likely to make an impact in terms of numbers. Also I think sharing personal addresses is a bad idea, apart from the ethics of it it’s against Facebook’s terms of service and if anyone reports this post – not unlikely as this event is being widely shared so a lot of people who may not support it will be seeing it – it could get this page shut down.
      12 hours ago · 2
      Theresa Heath-Ellul Andie, as posting this address could get the page shut down would you mind if we take it down? I don’t want to be seen to be censoring anyone but I think it’s important for the sake of the event.
      11 hours ago
      Andie McGrath go for it
      11 hours ago · Edited · 1
      Andie McGrath but if it matters it is in the public realm
      11 hours ago
      PJ Crittenden I don’t have time to go up there myself right now. But I do have time to put a dog turd in the post.
      10 hours ago
      Theresa Heath-Ellul Hm, I think I’d have to delete the whole thread – Andie could you just take the address bit out? Thank you x
      10 hours ago
      Andie McGrath can’t, you’ll have to delete it
      10 hours ago
      Natacha Kennedy Yes, Theresa Heath-Ellul I suggest you delete the entire thread.
      5 hours ago · 3
      Theresa Heath-Ellul Ok I’ll do it as soon as I get home, can’t work out how to do it for my phone x
      4 hours ago via mobile
      Dee Stuart Please let us not stoop to the sort of behaviour exhibited by the Daily Mail or by Littlejohn, especially not on this page as it’s dedicated to the vigil in memory of Lucy Meadows. Write to the DM or Littlejohn by all means. A group letter would merely serve to confirm in their warped minds that there is a trans cabal and the sheer quantity would show people’s feelings are strong. However, I don’t doubt for a minute that Littlejohn is deleting any email he receives the moment he perceives it as contradicting his opinion. Possibly better to write longhand and send it to the DM.
      4 hours ago · Edited
      Andie McGrath have to admit i am disappointed, i was looking forward to going round asking his neighbours “so what’s it like living next to one of *them*?”, “them?!” “yeah, you know – daily mail writers”
      4 hours ago
      Dee Stuart He probably lives amongst like-minded people Andie.
      4 hours ago
      Dee Stuart Please Tony xx
      4 hours ago · 1

  13. Gallus has such patience. Once again there can be no discussion without “but women threaten too” (nowhere near the death threats that men give and act on. Like less that one percent when compared to men?) And then how dare we discuss our oppression without the order to discuss a man killing himself? The topic and this entire blog is really about is how women do not count compared to men, but it continues.
    Just say no and the threats begin. I will not stay quiet when seeing yet another woman (as I sadly saw yet again last night) virtually bow her head and genuflect, dutifully saying “transwoman” instead of “woman-hating fetishizing, caricaturizing female impersonator.” Keep saying no to being told how to submissively name these men.
    Gallus, you coined the perfect phrase to sum it all up: “Transwomen are the new Taliban.”

  14. I cringed throughout the Radio 4 program as it is rife with contradictions. One person says that having a penis and calling oneself a woman subverts the notion of woman but paradoxically trying to maintain the sex binary of male/female. Also the constant misuse of the word ‘gender’ drove me up the wall. There is a difference between sex (body) and gender (culture) and that trans people (not all) maintain all difference as gender while advocating for a relocation of the somatic references (male/female), this simply plays both sides of the argument. For instance, several of the interlocutors maintain there are only two sexes–male and female–while conterminously arguing that their gender ‘has always been x’. This is a very problematic and even sexist posture to take since if one ‘has always been’ something else and it necessitates surgical and hormonal intervention, then one was never that x, but has simply maintained an emotional and psychological connection to the idea of x. I think this is an important distinction to make. If I grow up lip synching Whitney Houston songs and begin to identify with her music to an extreme, am I Whitney or am I a Whitney fanatic?
    More problematic is the researcher from Cambridge who not only gives zero proof for her theories (whilst I am aware of studies which demonstrate that gender is completely social), but resorts to sexism in her descriptions of gender roles. Hearing her talk about boys being ‘naturally’ attracted to trucks is absurd. She has not pointed to one blind study and indeed this would be impossible to do given ethics rules (ie. one would really have to deal with children who have zero contact with other adults or children and clearly this would be completely unethical, not to mention illegal). In fact, her argument only proves how social gender is because the mere fact that boys would be attracted to a truck IS in and of itself a social fact, not a genetic disposition. Trucks, just like barbie dolls, are social artifacts. Then she goes on to discuss the grey areas of sex after falling into the typical binary patterns for reading sex.
    I think the BBC could have done better to ask for proof of how gender is biological and then to cast serious light on other studies which demonstrate that gender is social. And the entire piece jumps from ‘gender as binary’ to ‘gender as fluid’. This would have been fine if there were more voices in the mix such the many heterosexuals who think of gender as fluid as men and women today are more and more comfortable with this fluidity or parents who do not wish to identify the sex of their child due to social prejudice. It seemed that the BBC was interested in raising an issue and then patting it back down instead of repeating the age old sexism of boys like snails and girls like pink things. How reductive, how boring, and how terribly sexist–for both men and women!
    Lastly, the use of ‘cis’ is highly offensive to me. If transgendered people feel that using such a eugenical term does them justice, then I lose complete sympathy for their plight. This reminds me of people who in the 1970s used the word ‘coloured’ to refer to people of African origin and thought they sounded progressive. They didn’t–they sounded racist.

Comments are closed.