-
Article in Spectator Online – UK
Here’s a small exapmle of where our media is being allowed to go. Yes, this is the Spectator Online – UK, but peope read it, & the attitudes will flow through.
December 31, 2011
Interesting read. I do hope everybody is truly offended, as I am
-
6 Replies
-
The article is pretty much littered with factual inaccuracies and is offensive by any means because of the opinions stated therein. To me, this is not many degrees off hate speech. Some people seem to think that this is OK, because there should be no restriction on what is published. I’m of the view that this is a perfect example of negative media portrayal – not only is there a quesiton about what was the writer thinking, but why the editor lets this diatribe through – they must be really desperate for copy. Not publishing this “opinion” piece only hides the truth that some people have no idea what issues there are associated with the trans experience and existence. Hence my advocating only positive media portrayals only.
-
What is offensive is a very interesting and complicated topic. For me the TV ad was not particularly offensive. But then I am looking at it from one fairly liberal crossdresser’s perspective. Others on the TG spectrum(can I say that without offending anyone) may find it offensive.
The article quoted by Christina however, was absolutely horrific in its depiction of transgendered people. I can’t imagine how someone could write something like this that vilifies and misrepresents our already misunderstood group in the community. Even as a piece of satire it goes way beyond what for me is acceptable. How could the editor allow this to be published?
I should try to respond on all occasions with love for all our fellow humans. If I voice my offence at either the TV ad or the newspaper article, what happens if someone else finds my opinion offensive? The test that I would like to apply on whether something is offensive or not is:
”Is any person or group of people being threatened with harm, mistreatment, discrimination, ridicule or persecution for just being who they are”.
If the answer is yes then it is imperative that we should all voice our concerns and endeavour to generate greater understanding and tolerance. -
The newspaper article is a prime example where an attempt at satire ( he CAN’T have been serious shirley!!) goes over the line. To me, where satire is acceptable is where someone satirizes themselves or their own group but this attempt at humour is too close to an attack to be funny. I can see the irony hidden in the article but those who are inclined to hate may not
Also, for people who have struggled for basic acknowledgement of their rights to a different expression of self, irony can also easily be read as attack. It takes a robust and hearty “self ” to be able to accept pisstaking directed at you and your issues and not everyone is able to just brush it off as fun.
I am sure that Grayson Perry is big enough to look after himself but there have been too many assaults , suicides and murders of our TG fellows to see making fun of such things as acceptable. The journalist would no doubt argue that the laws he refers to are “PC ” gone mad”!
It is fine line as many have said and therefore my request that folk be free to see and feel things as they will without censure or accusations of being some form of party pooper if they feel slighted. -
I don’t see anything remotely satirical in the Spectator article. The author has a history of unashamedly bigoted criticisms of the gay & TG community
-
Mr Liddle seems to make light or tries tenuously to make a joke of murdering people, particularly those who do not conform to his very blinkered version of normality. He is one of the 1980s breed of UK journalists who received notoriety in British papers such as ‘The Sun’ and ‘News of the World’ by polarising their readers (The Sun and it’s oft used expression ‘Loony Left’ is a classic example of that type of polarising). Not what you would or could describe as being either good or factual journalism and it is that type of attitude which breeds hatred and violence.
How he is still writing that type of thinly veiled divisive tripe in the 21st century is a poor indictment on journalism.
I read the article and actually felt some pity for the bigoted, inflexible fool.
-
About The Spectator, according to Wikipedia (and we know how reliable that is, don’t we?):
Quote:Editorship of The Spectator has often been part of a route to high office in the Conservative Party; past editors include Iain Macleod, Ian Gilmour and Nigel Lawson, all of whom became cabinet ministers.Probably says it all (probably not likely to be the most trans supportive publication in the English speaking world – but hey, that’s just me making an unverified assumption).
