IN THE event that coronavirus results in the mass cancellation of sporting fixtures, where else can the public be entertained by a clash of warring tribes? Fight fans might wish to spectate at the internecine conflict at the Guardian, where trans-troopers and gender-critical feminists are engaged in a sororal squabble for supremacy.
Last week the simmering hostilities boiled over when the Guardian ran an opinion piece by Suzanne Moore, who was labelled a TERF (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist) as far back as 2013 when she, in her own words, ‘used the throwaway line that the desired body for women is that of a Brazilian transsexual’.
Writing in support of her friend, and being ever the diplomat, Julie Burchill then used her Observer column to taunt Moore’s trans critics for being ‘screaming mimis’, ‘bed-wetters in bad wigs’ and ‘dicks in chicks’ clothing’.
Unsurprisingly, Burchill’s Billingsgatery stoked rather than extinguished that particular fire and became her valedictory appearance in the Observer. No similar job-ending epithets appeared in last week’s Guardian; nonetheless, Suzanne Moore’s message, headlined ‘Women must have the right to organise. We will not be silenced’, proved just as provocative to other Guardianistas.
Equally amusing was 338 Guardian staff signing a letter to the editor which included: ‘We feel it is critical that the Guardian do more to become a safe and welcoming workplace for trans and non-binary people. We are also disappointed in the Guardian’s repeated decision to publish anti-trans views . . . the pattern of publishing transphobic content has interfered with our work and cemented our reputation as a publication hostile to trans rights and trans employees.’
Yes, at least 338 staffers seriously believe the Guardian has become ‘transphobic’ and is insufficiently right-on. In this Leftist la-la land, a ‘safe and welcoming workplace’ means never having to hear or read an opinion which differs from your own.
That was not the only open letter sent last week to the Guardian. Almost 3,000 ‘signed’ an on-line petition which complained that the editor has published an ‘ongoing and extensive series of articles . . . claiming that women are being “silenced” and that men are being invited into women-only spaces’. It also contained the inevitable: ‘We believe that trans-women are women who experience the same gender-based discrimination, harassment, and abuse as cis-women (and more) and are our sisters.’
A separate missive to the editor, signed by ‘more than 200 feminists’ including some current parliamentarians, stated: ‘We reject the argument put forward in a column by Suzanne Moore . . . in which she implies that advocating for trans rights poses a threat to cisgender women . . . Both trans people and cisgender women are discriminated against because of their gender.’
This strop also made the bold assertion: ‘Moore’s column does not represent the views of the public, nor is it representative of the views of most women.’ A word of advice to those ‘200+ feminists’: by repeatedly referring to everyday woman as ‘cisgender’, you assuredly do not talk their language nor do you speak on their behalf.
What did Suzanne Moore, who ‘self-identifies as a woman who won’t go down quietly’, write that so upset the pro-trans tribe? Presumably it was her reiteration of scientific fact: ‘We have gone through the looking-glass and are being told that sex is a construct. It is said that sex is merely assigned at birth, rather than being a material fact – actually, though . . . Sex is not a feeling. Female is a biological classification.’
The full text of the article can be read here.
We on the Right who refuse to parrot the mantra that ‘trans-women are women’ generally do so for the straightforward reason that it is a biological lie. However, the Lefties who resist trans tyranny, such as Suzanne Moore, tend to do so due to their strand of feminist philosophy. Moore’s article certainly makes plain that she and we remain on opposing sides.
She feels ‘huge sadness when I look at the fragmentation of the [Leftist] landscape, where endless fighting, cancellations and no-platformings have obscured our understanding of who the real enemies are’. For Moore and her fellow feminists, the ‘real enemies’ are, of course, men – or at least those unidentified members of the ‘patriarchy’, that amorphous power structure which supposedly perpetuates male privilege and enslaves women, yet oddly seems to benefit remarkably few men.
Certainly, it is not clear how the grandes dames who write for the Guardian are oppressed by this hypothetical hierarchy. Nonetheless, Suzanne Moore asserts that an erosion of women’s single-sex rights and spaces will ‘trap people in boxes which benefit the patriarchy . . . there is nothing the patriarchy fears more than women who no longer rely on male authority’. And to hammer home her already unsubtle message, Moore’s unavailing attempt to establish camaraderie with the trans lobby was: ‘The common enemy here is the patriarchy, remember?’
Rest assured, Suzanne, we will not forget. Nonetheless, social conservatives will continue to oppose trans totalitarianism and defend the rights of all biological women – even misandrist matrons who pontificate in the pages of the Guardian.