It is March 2020. For several months now I have been trying to write something — anything — about the so-called “trans debate” in my Guardian column. But if I ever slip a line in about female experience belonging to people with female bodies, and the significance of this, it is always subbed out. It is disappeared. Somehow, this very idea is being blocked, not explicitly, but it certainly isn’t being published. My editors say things like: “It didn’t really add to the argument”, or it is a “distraction” from the argument.
Distraction has always been a triggering word for me. In a good way. My PhD supervisor told me I was “a woman of too many distractions”. This was because I was venturing into journalism, frustrated by the dead language of academia. She also asked me whether having a grant made any difference. It turns out that my distractions were paying the rent, as they have been ever since.
Even though I’d been writing for them for decades, editors consistently try to steer me towards “lifestyle” subjects for my column. One even suggests that I shouldn’t touch politics at all. And yet I won the Orwell Prize for political journalism the year before. This was for articles on Brexit and war remembrance, among other things.
Maybe they were steering me away from certain subjects because they thought they were dealing with some mad old bint, or maybe they were scared and had been indoctrinated into the cult of righteousness that the Guardian embodies. At its best, the paper deserves to see itself as a beacon of the Left, but lately it has been hard to define what the Left consists of beyond smug affirmation. During the Corbyn years the paper had a difficult job to do: support Labour but to be honest about Corbyn and his cronies’ monstrous failings.
Of course, not every editor is nervous; but the anxiety around certain issues remains tangible. It has often been this way and none of this is new to me. Bad columns don’t come from bad opinions, they come from a lack of conviction. Readers know that instinctively, so to steer writers away from what they want to write about is a strange thing for an editor to do.
But, then, journalism has been in a strange place lately, unsure of itself and what it should be doing and giving itself away for free. A case of low self-esteem one might say, but not in my paper which makes journalists redundant even as it pays moderators to delete comments calling me a cunt under one of my columns about Scottish independence. Have I got issues? More than enough to go round.
My relationship with the paper has always been slightly odd, I guess.
Now, six months on, I have resigned. And I am still trying to work out why I have been treated so appallingly.
My hurt is obviously minuscule compared to so much of what has happened in the world. It’s a flesh wound and I shouldn’t make a fuss. But, do I look like a doormat with Welcome written on it?
There were no such upset letters organised regarding the various hot Tory takes about difficult subjects that we sometimes publish. Seumas Milne even reprinted a sermon by Osama Bin Laden. What about that? Not a word. So what did I do that was so terrible? I stepped outside the orthodoxy.
Perhaps I need to put my denunciation into a larger context. At the end of the year one reflects, right?
When I was first at the paper, in the 1990s, there were no women on the Comment pages. My column featured in the “Women’s pages”, which was seen as Features. The editor at the time, Peter Preston, took me out for an awkward lunch after I won Columnist of the Year at the British Press Awards and said: “It must be nice to be a lady columnist. You can write about painting your toenails.”
I had been meaning to raise the idea of an actual pay rise, but I had no idea how to do it. I don’t understand middle-class people and money (not that Preston was middle class but certainly his environment was totally bourgeois). So when he asked if there was anything he could do to make me happier, I just blurted out: “Give me more money.”
Preston’s power lay in silence. He had, after all, spent time in an iron lung. His ability to not speak was quite something, and I admired his refusal to make others comfortable. In one way. But I may as well have just farted loudly. I had made some awful faux pas: asking to be paid the same as men who were not as good as me. That was the end of the meal.
The thing is, I had found out I was being paid less than half what my male counterparts were earning. So I got an agent. She wore very short skirts and had a way of rattling her BMW keys that seemed to unnerve men. The one and only time Preston ever called me was to frantically beg — no uncomfortable silences — that he would never have to see her again. Result.
Another part of not knowing my place was that I also asked to be moved from the Women’s pages to the Comment pages. They offered a Monday slot which would mean I had to work on Sundays. As the only woman in the section, and single parent to boot, I asked them if they had ever heard of equal opportunities. Again I was not only unclubbable but unspeakable. No movement was possible. Madly, I suggested that Hugo Young be moved. I didn’t even realise he was Jesus in the hierarchy, floating above us all.
Watch Suzanne Moore’s interview with UnHerd’s LockdownTV:
The truth was, and remains that I never fitted in at the Guardian. The personal becomes political at the moment you never feel clean enough. I was always somehow inappropriate. As the anthropologist Mary Douglas said, dirt is “matter out of place”. Matter out of place. I know this feeling. I would describe it as an essential part of my political formation, this knowledge that I could scrub myself raw and it would never be enough.
Back then, I was in the office a bit, but was never given my own desk and grew bored hearing conversations about cricket and having various guys yell the names of Oxbridge colleges that I hadn’t been to at me. Telling them that I had been to a polytechnic was information some of them basically couldn’t compute.
The only people who were nice to me were Will Hutton and Richard Gott, who I was very fond of, although it turned out he had taken “red gold” from the KGB and he had to resign. A shame really, but not unfamiliar to me as I had worked at Marxism Today, which it turns out had similar “funding issues”. Let’s not go there now. I liked Richard because he would tell me fabulous stories about finding Che Guevara’s body one day and the next talk about a great Spanish fashion designer. The politics guys were dull, living on Planet Westminster. Plus ça change.
Listen to Suzanne Moore’s interview with UnHerd’s LockdownTV:
Leaving home
Fickle power-crazed harpie that I was, though, I got poached. I love that word. Off I went to The Independent, enticed by Andrew Marr’s exciting vision of having no news on the front page. Also there was no question that I wouldn’t be on the Comment page. It was great working there, I loved it, though it was all to go tits up.
The relevance of this? This was my original sin. No one leaves The Guardian. I had left the cult.
It was to get worse, as when I left the Independent, I went to TheMail on Sunday. The Indy was collapsing and The Mail on Sunday offered me a bit more money and many more readers. I thought it would be interesting to talk to the people who would decide the future of the country and I was bored with preaching to the converted.
Plus, there was the challenge of doing a tabloid column. This is much harder than long rambling pieces: The Times’s Matthew Parris told me so, bless him. The great and the good told me again that I was making a terrible mistake and I would lose my voice. This was another denunciation of sorts. Once again I was in the headmistress’ office chewing gum and telling my teachers I didn’t need them. I left school at 16 because rules did not interest me. Reading did.
This new idea, though, of talking to floating voters appealed. Politically. The very idea! And yet they were the ones deciding who was in power. They are now the ones the Left still despises while needing to win over. The Left could not and still cannot represent those whose “false consciousness” stops them from seeing the true and rightful path.
I cannot say how much I despise this way of thinking, having grown up in a Tory-voting working-class household. Don’t ask me to hate those I love in the name of socialism.
Mind you, clearly at one point I did think just like this. I wanted them all executed and joined the Workers Revolutionary Party in this hope.
Then I grew up. Not much, it must be said.
Now I was at TheMail on Sunday I was no longer pure. The dark side had claimed me. This was utter bollocks but it’s the way so much of the Left thinks, in binary terms. Electoral politics, which could be about persuasion, instead becomes a series of war games.
The Marxist philosopher Eric Hobsbawm, of all people, thought it a good idea for me to talk to “Middle England”. Middle England is a fantasy in my book. An imagined community. Still, my contract said I could write what I liked and that was honored. Anyway, I presumed it was a temporary job, like all jobs in journalism. I didn’t even start hackery till I was 30. I had a life before that. Thank god.
I lasted for several years at the Mail on Sunday, although I hankered to write longer pieces, which I did elsewhere. The lesson I learned was that I could get through to the paper’s readers on almost every social issue except immigration, where I could make no headway. This was to become key to so much of what has followed since. Facts are not feelings.
As I live in North London, when I moved to the Mail on Sunday, most people I knew who had read me regularly in the Guardian or the Indy thought I had just died. Actually I had gone from a readership of 300,000 to two million. Some of us didn’t need the arrival of social media to know about bubbles. Some of us couldn’t see a bubble without wanting to burst it. It’s a class thing.
At one point I was writing columns for both the Mail on Sunday and the Guardian (somehow, neither audience noticed) and eventually a new editor arrived at the former and wanted changes. That was fair enough, so I recommitted to the Guardian.
Back to the nest
Back among the righteous. Now, in the North London playground, other parents would talk to me — I became a “Guardian Writer” again. Resurrected somehow, absolved, I was more and more aware of the conservatism that was rising, politically and culturally.
We were being enveloped in beigeness. Especially women. When I had taken my older children to school in the late 1980s and 1990s, we had all just dropped them off and hurried to work. By 2010, mothers hung around the playground: “Lattes or pilates?” They didn’t have jobs, and made cushions. They had husbands, dogs and camper vans. Violin lessons were a thing and no one seemed to notice that the school had been ethnically cleansed. This was the work of property prices. They thought David Cameron seemed nice. This is, it’s true, a class issue, and something that’s particularly noticeable in my corner of North London. But there was definitely a wider move in modern conservatism to push women back into the home.
The electoral coalition that had brought Labour to power was collapsing. I didn’t find this out from Planet Westminster — for all my sins, I met and lunched Cameron — but from the playground. He will be prime minister I told the pol guys at the Mail. They put this down revoltingly to me fancying him. How could a woman know such things otherwise?
During my time at the Mail on Sunday there was no politician to whom we did not have access. They knew they needed that paper’s support. I have dined with every Right-wing bogeyman and every Labour bore you can imagine.
Going back to TheGuardian brought another challenge. What should I be doing? I would describe my approach as: lobbing in some Molotov cocktails, some cultural analysis and some jokes. Not to buy into groupthink and in the end . . . entertainment. People should want to read what you write. I know this is verboten: actual pleasure. I chose not to go into the office. I still did not belong, having strayed from the true and rightful path.
Some debates had remained the same, some had changed. The Labour Party seemed to be imploding. Again. So I returned to my real passion: cultural politics and good old-fashioned feminism.
“I have even less fucks to give than I did before.”
Seeing Red
In 2012, I contributed to an anthology of essays edited by the great poet and journalist Cathy Galvin. The theme was red. My piece was about the need for female anger and it was called “Seeing Red”. Feminism had become way too polite and we were going backwards. Fast.
The essay was about how and why women should be angry. I quoted the Liberian Nobel Peace Prize winner Leymah Gbowee: “Anger is like water; the shape it takes comes from the container you put it in.” Let it flow, I said. How little I knew.
The book came and went and the following year 2013 my essay was reprinted in the New Statesman. It contained this line: “We are angry with ourselves for not being happier, not being loved properly and not having the ideal body shape — that of a Brazilian transsexual.”
That was wrong — in that it was of its time. Now it’s a different body shape: the Kardashian ribless tits and ass. But hey, let’s roll with the times.
Suddenly I was inundated with tweets about the murder rate of Brazilian transsexuals which is appallingly high. Many of them are forced into sex work (I prefer the term prostitution but the new feminism likes to pretend all jobs are equal when they clearly are not. “Phoebe got four A-stars but hopes to become a sex worker” is not something you hear often.) But it’s true I had carelessly used a certain phrase to talk about the then fashionable shape for women; slim hips and big breasts. Indeed, transsexual models did appear on catwalks.
While I was trying to emphasise the impossibility of the ideals for women, maybe I had been thoughtless. I hadn’t actually killed anyone. Yet the backlash that hit me, online and offline, was like nothing else. And you have to understand I have been threatened in the past by the fascist group Combat 18 for my columns — on multiculturalism, immigration, being pro-choice and in favour of gay rights… My crimes, back then, were “nigger-loving”, “paki-loving”, and “whore”. Sometimes they called me a “Jew”. I had panic buttons installed in my house. I would get phone calls at home with threats saying they knew I had kids so they wouldn’t kill me, just disable me. As ever I just got on with it. What else can you do?
But this time around, after the Red piece, the abuse was from the Left. It was a taste of what would happen in Labour a few years later with anti-Semitism.
When the big row over anti-Semitism happened, it was strangely no surprise; it had all just finally risen to the surface. I had spent enough time on the far-Left to know how the righteous thought. And it’s not so different from the far-Right. In the name of rights for Palestinians, this most elemental racism was once more permissible. A giant conspiracy theory that places itself on the moral high ground was not discouraged by the Labour leadership. It disgusts me.
Yet the abuse I got over the trans issue was different, and worse than anything that had come before. Social media was beginning to flex its muscles. It was a mindfuck. Twitter was full of people telling me how they were going to rape me, decapitate me, ejaculate inside my head, burn me. This was all somehow to do with the Brazilian transsexual remark. The police came round but they didn’t really get Twitter. They said things like: “Don’t email them back, love”. The worst threats were from people who knew where I lived and said that they would give my then 11-year-old a good fisting.
The sewer was opening, a torrent of women-hatred was pouring out, no one seemed to be able to control it. (Was this helping trans people? Was it coming from them? Mostly I think not.) I made the mistake of losing my temper and insulted my antagonists back. I would not be lectured on feminism or womanhood.
There was a new word. TERF. It posed as an acronym — trans exclusionary radical feminist — but it was used as a slur. On this row went. The label “transphobe” may as well have been tattooed on my forehead. My own history and activism was irrelevant: my years with Act Up, campaigning around Section 28, my lifelong commitment to campaigning for abortion. Nada!
I watched woman after woman denounced as a TERF. Attempted suicides of young trans people were the fault of women like me. The murder of trans people by men was somehow refracted onto feminists. Masculinity is never the problem, you see. Masculinity sets the rules. Women are always the other, the outsiders. Yet suicidal ideation is a growing issue for all young people — I studied counselling and psychotherapy for two years at this time — and suicide rates for young women are rising, too.
The Right Side of History
Why did I speak up? I have no hatred or fear of trans folk. As a feminist, I would argue that gender is socially constructed, and it can be reconstructed.
Under the professions of radicalism and the vitriol and stupidity, though, I was witnessing a new conservatism, the revenge of gender stereotypes. Pink and blue. Girl toys and boy toys. The female role models, such as Sam Cameron and Kate Middleton, were mute. Nostalgia was everywhere dressed up as irony.
During the Aids crisis, I was involved in queer politics, where difference was argued over endlessly. But we were on the same side against a straight world that hated homosexuality and women who wanted equality. Then that world fragmented. The queer alliance was fragile and the theories began to be more important than the practice. When academia moves in, activism moves out.
At the same time, women were getting ahead in the workplace by imitating men and pretending that children didn’t interfere with their wage slavery, now defined as “having it all”. Some act to pull off. I tried and failed. I had three children and worked the entire time. In my entire life, I have had eight weeks’ maternity leave.
Gender roles were becoming more fixed even as gay rights campaigners won the “victory” of gay marriage. I agreed with David Cameron that this was a basically conservative move and it cost nothing, and made people feel somehow that they were a bit modern. Gay rights and feminist campaigners were no longer the natural allies they had once been.
Looking back, I see that by the late Eighties and early Nineties, I had already picked up on something that perturbed me. A denial of female biology, of our ability to name and define our experience. Some of this came from certain strands of postmodern theory where objective reality gives way only to multiple subjectivities. A kind of gender tourism became possible. Everyone could be everything. A new kind of feminism came into being, one in which flesh and blood women and our desires became somehow a bit dull. Feminism without women. Grow a child inside you and push it out of your body and tell me this is a construct. (NB: no one has to have children.)
I believe quite simply bodies exist. I have been there when babies are born. And been there when people die. I know what happens when bodies no longer work…what shall we call my view? Materialism?
As trans ideology came into being, to question this was to question trans people’s “right to exist” — how is that even possible? They obviously exist! — when really we were questioning the ways in which we think about gender and oppression and how complex this all is.
It remains so. Yet somehow morality had entered the debate. To be good — ie, modern — one didn’t interrogate the new trans orthodoxy. Sex was no longer binary, but a spectrum, and people didn’t need to change their bodies to claim a new identity. All this was none of your business, and had no effect on your life.
I disagreed. By 2018, the atmosphere was poisonous. A fellow columnist at The Guardian replied to a message I sent about being civil at the Christmas do with: “You’ve prompted the most sickening transphobia, for which you have never apologised, you called islamophobia a myth and you publicly abuse leftwingers.” This person went on to say that I felt insecure “because a new generation of younger leftists have caught the public mood”. I didn’t even understand the accusation of Islamophobia. More broadly, I understood that the possibility of a left-wing government was exciting, but unlike half the paper, I didn’t believe that Corbyn had actually won in 2017. I also didn’t like the macho, bullying culture around him propped up by writers at my place of work.
I complained to my editor about this person at the time but was told that as neither of us were on staff, nothing official could be done. Really?
So there we have it. Here comes the “new generation”: the new Left, same as the old Left. Full of misogyny, utter pricks and those with the emotional intelligence of whelks. Misogyny in the name of socialism. Again.
Ladies who Lurch
Around this time I was in Armenia covering a story on foetal sex selection. Women were aborting female fetuses as they wanted boys. The UN population fund was doing fantastic work there, knowing that as fertility rates drop, sex selection becomes ever more prevalent. This world was a long, long way from those people who think sex is just a matter of personal choice. Foetal scans at 12 weeks mean generations of girls go “missing”. In rural Armenia I visited class rooms of 27 little boys and 5 girls, while at home I was told sex is simply “assigned at birth”.
Other women were now starting to be disturbed by the idea of transwomen with working male genitalia in womens spaces. The idea of the predatory trans person is not one I am particularly invested in, really. We are talking about a tiny percentage of a tiny percentage of the population. I am not that bothered about toilets or changing rooms. My youth was spent in gay clubs and with wonderful trans people who looked after me in New Orleans. Refuges, though? Prisons? Surely that can be sorted out and it has to be.
No, what I most didn’t and don’t like is the erasing of female bodies and female voices and female experience and our ability to name it.
What I care about fundamentally is the right of women to meet in single sex spaces and assert themselves as a class, a sex class — one that is oppressed by a patriarchal system. By men, even sometimes the good ones. As for the bad ones, they are the ones who rape and kill trans folk, too.
Feminism has to be able to talk about bodies. Many of the advances women have made in my lifetime — reproductive rights, more choice over how we give birth, discussions of menstruation and menopause — depend on biology, the biology we were now told was irrelevant.
When I walked past the Woman’s Place meeting in Brighton at the Labour Party conference last year, people were banging on the windows. More TERF-hunters. It hardly affected me, I was in a blur of distress about anti-Semitism, and a friend of mine who was dying. Her lung and bone cancer was missed and she had been told to do more yoga. Bodies fail us all in the end.
What sort of people would stop other people meeting, though? What good did it do the cause of trans people, some of whom were present at the event? Why can feminists not organise?
The moral climate had shifted from “trans rights are something we need to discuss and we must support trans people in all the ways we can” to a denial that such rights may at certain points compete with women’s rights. Friends were under threat, no-platformed in schools and universities if they questioned what had become a fixed set of beliefs.
Women who said that they were subject to threats of violence were told they had to suck it up. Any discussion of trans rights had now mutated into a denial of the existence of trans people and therefore actual violence.
Debate became murder
So while I and many others were receiving vile threats, we were somehow also responsible for the awful violence that is meted out to trans people. Social media blurred the conversation: very few trans people are murdered in Britain (around one a year) but the American stats are worse, so these are the ones used. In Britain at least two women a week are killed — estimated at 3.5 during lockdown — but women are never a marginalised group. We have it all!
In the States, trans healthcare is not free, either. So when American feminists tell us we are “behind” on trans rights, it rankles somewhat. Get your own house in order. We live in a country where abortion is free and legal and where health care for trans people, though not perfect, is free; and we have maternity leave. Neither country is perfect.
Various people who had not been there for the fight around Section 28 told us this was a re-run of that era, with trans folk being described as paedophiles and predators in the place of gay men. (As ever, lesbians were somehow invisible. Except the ones who wanted to transition.) This is revisionism. No one was being asked to give up anything for Section 28 to be dropped.
Gay people have chosen how they were to be referred to. In the trans debate, however, women were not consulted about their terms of reference. They are “Cis”. And “Cis” women are higher up the privilege ladder than trans women. We had become the oppressors — a subset of men.
Then came the rise of “non-binary”. Phew! Finally! By any definition of non-binary, this is what I am. The knowledge that since I was a tiny child my inner and outer selves did not match in any way. Knowingly, I upped the signifiers of femininity to be able to use the power of my mind. This was what I got in trouble with Germaine Greer for: hair, heels, tits. To me, just my drag. Presumably it is the same for everyone.
The Bad Column
Which brings us to March 2020. Eventually, I was allowed by a great editor to write about how gender critical women wanted to assert their basic rights. A professor of working-class history at Oxford, Selina Todd, was disinvited from an event. I noted, referring to this incident, that it is women again, never men, who were losing jobs, incomes and public platforms if they spoke up. Many of them were emailing me: not on one side or another, but generally worried. I wrote that I believed biological sex to be real and that it’s not transphobic to understand basic science. To my mind the column was fairly mild.
It was published. The next thing I know there are loads of people on social media thanking me for saying what needed to be said. And then another lot: the “die in a ditch terf” lot, amazingly telling me to die in a ditch. Again.
Seven years of this sort of abuse now, and no one from the Guardian had ever spoken to me about it. I just carried on. Do they care? Why should they? They should care, if they truly want more “diversity” in journalism, but that’s a lie which liberals tell themselves. How can you bring on working-class writers if you damn them for not knowing the codes upon which the media runs? If you won’t tolerate the heresies of outsiders? If — gasp — they haven’t been to Oxbridge?
In the new orthodoxy, where do I fit in? What is my place in the tickbox set of Left beliefs? I was Brexity, though I voted Remain. I want independence for Scotland and a united Ireland. I want England to be England. I don’t believe in the monarchy or the UK. I think biological sex is real… I have never hidden any of these views.
My experience is that I have been censored more by the Left than the Right and it gives me no pleasure to say that. Laziness of thought is my big fear, this unthinking adherence to some simplistic orthodoxy. There are values and there is experience and there are people. Complicated fuckers, all of us. The Guardian. Labour-supporting except for its Lib Dem blip in 2010. Endlessly “good”. Yeah; right.
I was discussed at “conference”, the newspaper morning meeting open to all: editorial, digital, advertising, everyone. (It looks like equality, but some people sit on the floor and others get seats, let’s put it that way.) I never go in to the office, or attend conference, but it was reported that a trans woman developer, who had already resigned some weeks earlier, resigned again that morning, because my words, my column, had made her feel unsafe. According to the news story: “the column was ‘the straw that broke the camel’s back,’ the trans employee said, following a series of pieces that pitted trans people against women and against women’s rights.”
Apparently, my fellow columnist Hadley Freeman defended me and I am grateful for that. It appeared to be an extremely upsetting incident for all concerned. I am sorry that it happened. No one will believe that, but I am.
The Letter
Then came the letter to the editor, expressing dismay about the Guardian being a publication “hostile to trans rights and trans employees”, since three trans people had apparently resigned in the last year. This was news to me. Although I wasn’t named in the letter, it was very clearly a response to my column. Three hundred and thirty-eight people signed it.
The letter to the editor. Credit: Buzzfeed
Not one of them had the decency to pick up the phone to me. Should The Guardian be a welcoming place for trans people to work in? Yes of course it bloody well should. Should it be a place where we discuss complicated issues? Again yes.
The letter made it clear to me that it wasn’t just social media activists who wanted me out of the paper. My fellow staff were gunning for me: time to hand over my job to the young Corbyn crew who spend their lives slagging off the mainstream media but cannot wait to be part of it. Could they write a good sentence? Say something from the heart? Does that matter? Apparently not, they simply think the right things.
The letter was then leaked to Buzzfeed and then the names were made public. I was devastated to find people who I like and had worked with had done this. In 30 years of journalism I have often disagreed with people and had stand-up rows with them but no one has ever done something so underhand as to try and get someone fired because of one column.
I listed the names of my denouncers on Twitter. I read one of them saying I doxxed them, not the case as the names were already in the public domain. I wrote a distraught and emotional letter to the people who I knew, asking how could they do this? What kind of victory had they achieved?
I felt fucking awful. Well, how would you feel if 338 colleagues basically bullied you? But off I went to Amsterdam to do a mushroom retreat because life goes on.
Mistakenly, I thought my editors would stand up for me because that was my experience at other papers; or they might issue a public statement. They didn’t. There was some internal email, and I hear it was discussed at the Scott Trust, which governs the paper. What this means I genuinely have no idea. Nor do I understand what editorial independence means any more. Do they? Not in my book.
This to me was utter cowardice. Shouldn’t you stand by your writers? But on this issue the Guardian has run scared. I suspect this is partly because of GuardianUS sensitivities and, partly because the paper receives sponsorship from the Open Society foundation, which promotes trans rights.
This also might explain some of the utter gender gobbledegook we run about how HRT has taught someone to cry and all categories are porous. Whatever.
As a feminist, I have limited interest in all this, in the holes in which other people do or do not wish to put their bits. Sorry it’s rather dull. I am with Foucault in that I don’t believe sexuality is the essential soul or truth of an individual. My concern with this issue is only to do with the rights of women and the welfare of children.
So much of the discussion is about trans women, but the unhappiness of teenage girls must concern us. We have known since 2017 — earlier in fact — that there has been a huge uptick in female teenagers wanting to transition. Presenting to the Tavistock with self harm, eating disorders or suicidal ideation, these girls may end up on puberty-blocking hormones and then go on to have surgery. And for some of them that indeed may be the right thing to do. For others though, it clearly isn’t and to question that is not anything phobic, it is to care.
Why, as feminists, can we not talk about this epidemic of young women who cannot bear their bodies and the thought of what is happening to them: breasts, periods, unwanted sexual attention, the works? Why can you not be a young butch lesbian these days?
In an ideal world, feelings of masculinity or femininity could be achieved without surgery or hormones that may cause infertility. We are far from such a world and I respect the decisions of adults who go through this long, difficult process in often impossible circumstances. Brave, brave people.
My argument to my newspaper, though, has always been if we don’t have this discussion then the Right will, and indeed that has been the case. The Spectator and the Times have covered stories we haven’t, and I have had to write what I wanted to in the Telegraph. Investigative journalism means going into no-go areas. Why can’t we? The liberal Left looks not virtuous but naïve.
Less sexy subjects such as the appalling low rate for rape convictions, the Covid pandemic causing women to lose jobs and be forced back into the home, the complete lack of childcare… all of these things fall by the wayside when the main discussions of feminism appear to be by men telling us men can just say they’re women and if we say otherwise we deserve all the rape threats we get.
There is no actual interrogation of gender and I say this as someone who has written about and studied this subject for decades. There is a simply a belief system.
The Witches They Cannot Burn
For such thoughts, I have been denounced, alongside bigger and better people such as JK Rowling. The words “compassion” and “kindness” are often used by trans activists. Can we all just not be kinder? Well, yes … I never have and never would be unkind to someone because of their gender identity. I reserve the right not to kowtow to certain blokes, though. What I would like is some kindness towards women, some empathy towards our fears and our concerns, but I don’t see much of that. What have you done for us lately?
Since my denouncement, I have received nothing but support from all sorts of people in private, including many at the paper who are now afraid for their jobs. I didn’t stop writing, I carried on. “Don’t mention the war, Suzanne.” It felt quite schizophrenic, the split between the groundswell of women who are thinking along the same lines as me and the lack of support from the institution I work for.
The censorship continues and I cannot abide it. Every day another woman loses her job and a witch-burning occurs on Twitter. My fear is not about trans people but an ideology that means the erasure of women — not just the word, but of our ability to name and describe our experience. We are now cervix-havers, birthing parents, people who menstruate. On Amnesty’s latest posters to support the women’s strike in Poland, the literal translation from Polish for the thousands of women who were protesting the awful tightening of abortion laws was: “I stand with people in Poland”. Which people? Women forced to give birth on a plastic sheet to a dead baby with foetal defects? Say it.
Nor do I buy the idea that all of this is a purely generational issue. In part it is, sure, but it can at times be an issue of unfettered misogyny and a failure to understand that many women’s rights are fairly recent and always contested.
The Left — well, I guess I mean the Labour Party with its mad insistence on conformity — just stopped listening. As the Corbyn project collapsed, the cultural battle around trans issues became a proxy war of insane proportions. The Labour leadership contenders were ordered to sign a pledge which called Woman’s Place a “hate group”. With the exception of Keir Starmer, they did. “Transphobe” was now a slur to throw at anyone who didn’t keep the faith. You lose the electorate so what happens. Do you reflect?
No, apparently armed with misread Gramsci and a smidgeon of Chomsky you decide you will redefine common sense without persuading people to your side. Calling everyone unconvinced by your politics racist homophobes as an electoral strategy never sat well with me. Call me precious. The utter failure of the People’s Vote told us that, surely? The haute Remain position consisted mostly of telling Leave voters they were idiots.
Likewise, alienating women who are lifelong Labour supporters, because of their refusal to sign away what they feel to be their hard-won rights, is a performative gesture that I am unconvinced provides any actual “wins” for anyone.
Yet this one tiny issue has somehow come to dominate every debate now on feminism. It’s boring. Something has got terribly skewed here. Something has been lost and I am lost in it.
There is obviously bigger and more important stuff to deal with than the issue of the liberation of women. There always is. My hurt at being ejected from cults I never belonged in anyway is not self-pity. That dissolves the moment I have the freedom to speak my truth.
The things I want to talk about — the deep unhappiness of women, the suffocating girdle of masculinity, the ever growing and bleak inequalities, the falling fertility rates which will mean girls don’t get to be born, rape as a war crime, FGM — these things are hard enough to do anyway. To understand that women’s bodies are used and abused however we might feel about them is not a comfortable place to be. Our relationship with our bodies is not straightforward. I am sure it’s the same for many men.
Now that I have personally transitioned — my uterus no longer works, my estrogen has dropped — I have even less fucks to give than I did before. You can denounce me as much as you like but you cannot deny my life’s work of living somehow inside this female body. You cannot tell me it’s not real. It’s as real as it gets.
This, then, is a story about a woman journalist who “made it”, who never thought it would be easy.
This is a story about a feminist who started to see things going backwards and wanted to tell the world. This is not a story about trans people at all. Really it isn’t. It’s a story about not belonging. Not knowing my place.
Sure I understand the clichéd trajectory that as one grows older, one moves from Left to Right. Actually, I would say in my case this is not so: class politics becomes ever more pertinent to me, not less. In these fearful reactionary times, I will not be fearful and I will not be reactionary, but I will centre women and children and the possibility of freedom, as I always have, at the heart of my work.
The consequences of this have been tough in a tough year. The support both within and without the paper for which I write has been huge and I am grateful for it. I remain flame-retardant.
All this is then just a little story about being given a warning to shut up. And refusing to. I have had a lifetime of such warnings. Class will out. This is just something I wanted to tell you about a woman saying no. And the ways we say no.
That’s all it is. That’s the rub.
That’s all it takes sometimes.
Listen to Suzanne Moore’s interview with UnHerd’s LockdownTV:
Suzanne Moore is an award-winning columnist and journalist. She won the Orwell Prize in 2019.
It doesn’t matter if you are left or right wing or if you have no wing at all. If we believe in freedom of speech and thought we must fight the cancell culture wherever we find it.
3 million female children face the possibility of F.G.M. annually because of the biological reality of being female. It is more than their feelings that are hurt.
Who is standing up for the mutilated males ?One thing is certain is that it won’t be a feminist.Most appear to only care only for their own gender, as this article seems to aptly demonstrate.
Women (feminists) stand up for other women and girls because for too long, no one else (ie. men) has done that. Men have “only cared for their own gender” for eons. That’s why it’s called a patriarchy. It’s funny how that’s conveniently ignored when women take action to support each other.
Guardian writers only stand up for other middle class women and girls. They typically employ cleaners, to scrub the floors with a worn out toothbrush at £1 a day. When they stand up for the truly downtrodden, I will revise my opinion of The Guardian and its readers.
And that’s women’s problem because? The fact that the vast majority of wars are caused by men against men (though realistically, women always suffer too from war, even if they haven’t always done the fighting) doesn’t negate the fact that for centuries men as a class have only ever put their own interests first.
Have we? Really? Men aren’t a class though, we’re a gender/sex just as women are. Upper class women benefitted from the privileges afforded to them just as upper class men did.
Men as a biological class. And of COURSE men haven’t historically put themselves first, that’s why men and women got the vote at the same time isn’t it? And even before regular people were allowed the vote, upper class women could vote alongside upper class men couldn’t they? She said sarcastically.
Millions of men, mainly the ones who were putting their lives on the line got the vote, along with women who fitted a certain criteria, not long after WW1 ended. It was less than 10 years that all women were given the vote.
Actually I believe property owning women did at one point have the vote. They were written out of it sometime in the 19th century. And universal male suffrage in the U.K. was achieved by men and women at the same time – with a voting age difference rectified shortly after. Prior to that, some, but not all, men could vote. The achievement of universal suffrage was a drawn out process, and initially the emphasis was on giving ordinary working people a voice.
Only later did the emphasis shift to female suffrage, and this was strongly linked to temperance and social purity movements. Based on a Victorian belief in female moral superiority it was felt that the female vote would allow male behaviour to be curbed.
Are you really that niaive? Upper class women also suffered for their husband’s and fathers’ privilege. They were effectively sold off like prize heifers to consolidate fortunes, bring privilege and keep hold of assets. Upper class women are also at risk from male violence and even today do not share in all of their male equivalent’s privilege.
Marx recognised that women constituted an oppressed sex class in their own right. Until recently, women couldn’t vote, own property or even sign credit agreements. In civilised England, they could be raped by their husbands until 1991 and, as Suzanne Moore correctly states, the number of rapists who are brought to justice is at an all time low. Women also earn less, do not have equal representation in any area apart from as victims of sexual and domestic abuse where they are greatly over represented.
Men were also sold off like cattle to wed women, they were expected to go off and fight and die in wars, they were also expected to shoulder the burden of carrying the household. And now men are still expected to fight in distant wars, protect people and all for nothing. Furthermore, a man who is raped by a woman cannot even see his assailant brought to justice because of the law.
I never said women aren’t bothered by men’s issues. It’s disingenuous to think that feminists don’t care about child abuse concerning boys, domestic abuse against men, and so forth. My point about war was that men cause wars. Men cause wars against men. It’s not the women doing it. So you can’t say it’s a problem caused by women. Women are allowed to be angry about injustices imposed on us by men as a biological sex class without the cries of ‘but what about men????’
“Men cause wars”? In a statistical sense that’s true, but only because most heads of government have been male. I see no evidence that female leaders haven’t caused wars too: Catherine the Great fought several, as did Isabella of Spain. Indeed, between about 1500 and 1918 women leaders were 27% MORE likely to wage wars than male ones. In modern times, Mrs Ghandi and Mrs Thatcher both fought wars. Female leaders are not all like Jacinda Ardern. More’s the pity, some might say.
Wasn’t talking about the war issue. I was referring to your previous comment re why women may not like International Men’s Day. And I don’t think it’s disingenuous to think feminists don’t care about abuse issues that face boys and men, I’ve seen women dismiss these concerns. I’ve seen female writers say. ‘Why should we care that men are killing themselves at ever increasing rates? Women try to commit suicide more.” I agree women should be able to be angry about the injustices imposed on them without some bloke coming in and going. ‘what about men.’ But I also think then that men should be able to have spaces where they can discuss their issues, without a woman saying. ‘but every day is men’s day.’ when that is not the case. As a man I can tell you that with a straight face.
Women are very much concerned about issues that bother men. We do care about the plight of male victims. It’s disingenuous to say that we are not. But, at the same time, women should be allowed to talk about injustices we face from men without being told ‘think about the men too!’
Of course you should be able to talk about the injustices you face without some moron coming out and wanting to think about men too. It would be nice if that was reciprocated when men wished to talk about our issues. And I’d say some women do care, not all, but some.
You’ve literally just made it about men with your ‘it would be nice if women did that too’ comment. I don’t know what articles you’re reading, but I personally don’t read a whole lot of articles about male suicides or male cancers with a bunch of women in the comments whining about how they’re not being centred.
My apologies. And, it’s not articles, it’s more on social media, such as during International Men’s Day, it’s in conversations that one has on said social media on any issue. Indeed, on International Men’s Day I did have a rather aggravating conversation in this regard. But you’re right, this a article about women’s issues. So, I’ll butt out.
I think, to be honest, the principle reason you might have had women expressing their consternation to you about International Men’s Day is because to many women, especially those of us paid less for working the same job at the same hours, and being worried about access to abortion and not getting attacked just for leaving our front doors, every day feels like International Men’s Day.
This is not to say men do not suffer. They do. And they deserve to be heard. But understand that the oppressor’s cries can sound different to the ears of the oppressed.
Men are not oppressors. Nor do women get paid less than men for the same work. Women earn less than men because they work fewer hours. This has been studied to death. I recommend you read the Harvard study on this issue.
And how many such articles about issues affecting men are there compared to ones about women? The only time men get a hearing is when they respond to articles about women, who then complain about men having their say.
Hypothetical – there’s an archery sub/reddit. It’s been put together because there”s a disparate group of people who are into archery and they want to talk about archery, bows, arrows, fletching etc. It’s a public group and someone new joins. They’re not an archer, they’re into rugger and want to talk about rugger. The archers say “but this group was made to talk about archery, we don’t want to talk about rugger or goalposts or what makes the best balls, we want to talk about archery, not rugger”. The rugger player says “that’s not very inclusive, rugger’s a sport too, you really ought to take rugger into account and include it in your discussions about archery, rugger’s important too”.
This is honestly a good analogy for how it feels to be a woman on the internet commenting on something about women. Every. Single. Time. There will always be at least one man inserting himself into discussions of FGM or abortion or how many women are killed each year by their male partners and asking why we selfish women don’t care about men. It’s exhausting.
I have heard that one should never argue with a Roman Catholic or a feminist because they will never let go. It’s a fanatical thing. Remember that the vast majority of women are pleasant and reasonable. Feminists are generally unpleasant, unreasonable obsessives.
So are you suggesting men are not as concerned about the plight of female victims? Where does the notion of women and children first in dire situations come from. Why is it socially unacceptable for a man to hit a woman but not the other way round? Women get all manner of concessions unavailable to men. Women not allowed to talk about injustices they face from men? That subject fills half the pages of women’s magazines and half their comedy routines. The occasional what about men too comment is because by comparison it barely gets a look in. I suspect a ratio of 10 to 1 would be an underestimate in the ratio of women’s issues to men’s issues, largely because men who raise them are looked down on from both sides.
Nobody should be hitting anybody, regardless of gender. Men should not hit women and women shouldn’t hit men. If men hitting women is taken more seriously by society as a whole it’s because, in general, a man’s physical strength advantage is likely to pose more of a danger to the woman. Women and children first comes from a similar place, ie an acknowledgement that the physical advantages men generally have over women enables men to have more of a fighting chance at surviving dangerous situations.
Women’s “issues” are not always but often:a) frivolous (as in, by any historical standard ludicrously petty)b) highly selective (rape by some shades of men are ok)c) imaginary (college rape cases claimed as higher than wartime Republic of the Congo) d) incoherent (treat me the same but it’s sexist if you don’t make it easier for me) e) evil (“family” courts, abortion for convenience)That, is just a small selection of why some women’s issue BOTHER men – and women of good will and sanity.
But that has to be true, simply because most national leaders have been men. Women leaders have actually been MORE prone to starting wars, and substantially so. It might not pan out like that if 50% of national leaders were women, but it might.
The fact that men have historically started more wars than women is true; the implication that this is because they are inherently more LIKELY to cause them, given leadership, goes well beyond the facts. Men have started more social programmes, such as universal education, free healthcare, etc, than women, but that doesn’t mean they are in any sense more compassionate or socially-minded than women. It just means they had the power.
The point about men starting more wars is that it is men that men should look to to blame for that particular cause of their suffering. So instead of men coming into comments sections and crying ‘what about the men? We suffer too’ about topics related to women and our oppression, perhaps they should direct that question towards their fellow men.
Also, I’m just not convinced that, given an equal playing field, women would be shown to be equally as warmongering as men, and certainly not more so. The ease with which many men resort to physical violence when they don’t get their own way attests to that.
“The ease with which many men resort to physical violence when they don’t get their own way attests to that.”
That is not because men are worse or more mean but is because men can make more of an impact that way than a woman can, typically. Woman instead, and teens are famous for this, more commonly are bitchy, mean etc while men just thump and then get on with their lives.
Both sexes have their good and bad points but the modern feminist agenda is based around 2 points “Women are just like men” and ‘All men are bastards’. Most feminists can’t decide which is the one they believe; both are probably true in their way but rather a negative way to look at humanity.
Yes I have. Ever heard of women having to fight for our right to vote, our right to bodily autonomy, the right not to be asked what we were wearing when we are attacked?
Do try to grow up and see people as people. We are ALL individuals with a range of opinions, beliefs, strengths and weaknesses. Don’t just live in your own silo and hate the other silo.
This is such an unhelpful argument. Feminists don’t hate men, and of course we recognise that most men are good people. But even good people can benefit from a system (in this case patriarchy) that works for them at the expense of others.
Wow, a woman with an opinion must be an unhappy spinster with a thousand cats. What a wit you are Aaron! How original! Men dying is very much something that feminists find sad and tragic. But by and large, men die at the hands of other men, not women. It is generally not women attacking and killing men.
And that’s women’s problem because? Because reasonable women love their sons and spouses. most wars were brought about by men because it was mainly women in charge. Where women are in charge, they are just the same. Look at Hilary Clinton and Margaret Thatcher.
No women’s right cause has succeeded or won democratic rights without enrolling support from the other half of the species. That is, there were enough men who did care, who took on many of the problems facing women as “their” problem as well – they did not just manifest caring about their own “tribe” of males.
Now your view is that the problems that males face in our society are none of your interest, you care only about women and men should care only about men? Or did I misinterpret?
From my first encounter with (2nd wave) feminism, I got that there were two threads: one with aims of true equal partnership with men versus the confining and damaging sex roles oppressing both, and one with a female vs male energy, primarily about moving women’s power and benefits upward, period (not aiming for equality per se, just to maximize power). I’ve been a lifelong supporter of the former. That side – moving towards real equaliy and parternship in a win/win vision of future relations – seems to be losing influence in current feminism.
There’s less of the reciprocal partnership (“thanks for supporting our battle, we will also support yours”), and more of a “you owe us because we are bigger victims, so there’s not need for reciprocality and alliance, this is now an adversarial relationship and you have to let us win or we will call you names”. That is, it’s an attempt to invert the win/lose dynamics, not a movement towards a truly more equally empowered society with payoffs for both (ie: a win/win which benefits both sides).
Why do I prefer social contracts empowered by mutual benefits? Because I think they can be more stable and harmonious, and foster more empathetic connections – than those based on seeking to win by shaming opponents, which will explode in your faces someday.
Use of the term “patriarchy” is almost always a signifier of an emptiness of argument. Yours is not in the category of comments where the term adds something.
Women cannot cope without men for very long. I’d be interested to see you cope if your roof fell in, or your car breaks down, or you need an operation, or there’s a power cut, or an invasion by a hostile nation etc etc. Just take a look around you and you will see that your home and almost everything in it, the road you live on, shops you get your food from, the food itself, almost all your material world was made, grown and delivered to you by MEN. A bit of gratitude would not go amiss.
I never said that men deserve no gratitude for what they do. Women also do those jobs you mention, but that’s by the by. We should still be able to criticise injustice that we face, without being told to be ‘grateful’. Have you never criticised the government? There’s much you should be thankful for with the government too, it doesn’t mean you can’t criticise aspects of it you feel are unjust.
You’ve several times in this thread said that men as a whole class never ever put women’s needs first. As Claire D points out, that ignores the fact you are absolutely surrounded at every moment by the products of generations of men’s labouring to provide for their wives, sisters, mothers, aunts and daughters. Additionally, in the aeons-long view of the “Patriarchy” conception, does a few decades difference between the majority of men getting the vote, and women getting the vote mean all that much? In other words, from a slightly more elongated perspective, the majority of men were politically disenfranchised just as much as women. Of course those decades of difference are still an insult to women, especially given how hard their struggle for enfranchisment was, but I feel a bit of perspective wouldn’t go amiss.
If you were a woman, maybe you would feel differently. When fighting for the right to be counted as people,citizens, human beings, then yes, decades do count. If you were denied the vote tomorrow but reassured that it won’t be forever, only a few decades, but that the other 50% of the human population can still vote, I suspect you’d be feeling unhappy about that. Women are entitled to talk about oppression from men, such as FGM, trafficking, domestic abuse and so on. That does not mean we aren’t aware of everything men have done and do to make our lives comfortable! Have you honestly never complained about the government? The government does a lot for you too but you have every right to criticise its negative aspects. That doesn’t mean you’re not grateful for free education, healthcare, or the right to vote, does it?
I’m sure I would feel differently yes. But the same goes if you were a man. Of course you’re entitled to talk about oppression from men (I hope you’ve noticed that such talk has been a consistent and ever growing part of Western culture for well over 150+ years now). But it’s the one-sidedness of some of the arguments that’s bothersome to many men (and many women, I’m increasingly aware). For example: I feel sure any non-superficial investigation of practices like FGM will likely show that they are insisted upon and carried out as much and often more by the women of those societies. Another example is the enormous taboo around the subject of women who are domestically violent: yes I know about the women-being-killed statistics and they are shocking, but this doesn’t make battered and humiliated men an ok thing. Trafficking of women: no argument there however, a terrible and I suppose I agree essentially Patriarchal crime.
I replied to this earlier but it seems to have vanished for some reason. A quick summary of my reply! Yes, I would feel differently as a woman I reckon, but the same goes for yourself if you were a man.
And of course you’re entitled to complain about oppression from men; are you forgetting that such commentary has been an ever growing part of Western culture for 150+ years! But it’s the one-sidedness of a lotof the arguments that is bothersome to men (and to an increasing number of women too, it seems). For example: I feel sure that a non-superficial investigation of FGM and similar practices will often show they are promulgated and defended as much or more by the women of those societies.
Domestic violence is another one sided argument as there’s a huge taboo (in society and in journalism: the subject is always relegated to niche websites and support groups) on talking about women who are violent to their partners. Yes, I’m aware of the shocking statistics on femicide, but that doesn’t make battered and humiliated men an ok or negligible thing.
On sex trafficking of women there is of course no arguing however: a horrendous and, I agree, essentially Patriarchal crime.
You can criticise whatever you like, we live in one of the safest, most free countries in the world, you might as well make the most of it. But, you owe it to yourself to make sure that what you are criticising is worth the time and effort, and is it reasonable ? Does it not strike you as odd that where you see oppression and injustice the majority of British women, particularly aged 30+, do not ? Does that fact not make you wonder if perhaps you are mistaken and overeacting, brainwashed by feminist propaganda ?
Two women a week are killed by men in the UK. Many women around the world have no access to abortion, even in cases of rape. More women attempt suicide than men, but men are more ‘successful’ in their attempts because they statistically choose more lethal, violent methods more likely to result in death.
It is also not feminism’s fault if men who don’t want to listen to the realities of patriarchy switch off when the word is mentioned. A lot of climate change deniers switch off when global warming is mentioned too. It doesn’t mean it isn’t real.
Stop the appeal to patriarchy and shift to the elite and people with power. Patriarchy makes one’s mind numb for the first three seconds before one can listen again, at the very mildest of responses.
The fact that 2 women a week are killed by men is utterly irrelevant to the argument. Women are only a third as likely to be the victim of murder, or and half as likely to be a victim of other violent crime. And, when women are the perpetrators, they get lighter sentences.
It really isn’t irrelevant. The fact is very simple: men kill men. Men kill women. Women are generally not at risk from other women. Nor are men generally at risk from women. Men are the perpetrators of the vast majority of violence in this world. How about you go after other men for this rather than try to shame women who speak up about feeling unsafe? Could it possibly be because you find it easier to shout down women?
Women who have opinions have faced this exact sexist criticism for decades now. It isn’t original in the least, other than possibly that spelling of ‘expensive’.
Did you have an oppressive or smothering mother? I’ve never read such vitriol against women in all my life…I can’t believe that you actually believe women have it better than men, or that surface statistics mean anything in effect. You clearly see every woman as some “stock” figure, likely an authority figure from childhood, and this kind of simplistic thinking prevents you from considering the nuance of lived experience. You sound exactly like Keith Rainere, and look where he ended up…consider what you might be projecting based on the actions of one of two people in your life.
Complete nonsense. Men have been sacrificing themselves for centuries to provide for women and children. 97% of all industrial acidents happen to men, because men are the expendable gender.
How about all the dead soldiers, miners, workers in highly dangerous places suporting their families in the past? Is it really plausible that goodness and altruism are only found among women? I doubt it.
Men have “only cared for their own gender” for eons.
Is that really true though? And saying that’s why it’s called patriarchy is begging the question.
I think it differs a great deal between cultures. I think in the past it was completely trumped by social class (upper class men cared far more for upper class women than they did for working class men), and in the U.K. I think it is fair to say that more care has always been directed at women – hence the legislation post industrial revolution aimed at protecting women and the greater sense of horror if something happens to women.
You’re surely not saying that feminism should centre men, are you? Really? Nothing at all is stopping men from organising against circumcision if they wish to. Fill your boots. 🙄 But the trans issue – which is what SM’s piece springs from – is not about that. And do check the difference between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ – it’s a useful distinction.
Why does every discussion of female-related issues have to result in some whiny man crying ‘but…but…what about the MEN?!’ You don’t see women bombarding discussions of testicular cancer with demands that breast cancer be discussed too.
Because of the unconscious sexism of Suzanne’s article, probably. It’s not just hetersexual women who’ve been relabelled as “cis”, nor is it just women who’ve lost jobs (Jordan Petersen).
Also, did you not notice how, throughout the article, Suzanne is constantly comparing and equating the Left’s hate with masculinity – still the go-to benchmark for oppression on planet Guardian? If you write from the premise that gender bullies are as bad as and part of the same general evil as men, you should expect to get pulled up on it.
Why should women always have to talk about how a problem that affects us also adversely affects men? If men are also angry about how this is affecting them, then nobody is stopping them from writing an article of their own.
That’s true. But what is interesting is the low societal interest in issues which negatively affect men – in marked contrast to those that affect women. No one really wants to hear about male workplace deaths, for example. I think some men feel that feminism has contributed to this by suggesting that women’s lives are hard, while men have the life of Reilly.
Women moan about their problems a heck of alot more than men do. (Come on, we all know it to be so.) And yes, on some ‘men’s issues’, there is usually a feminist poster bitching that that this isn’t worth discussing becuase women are so much worse off in general. Case in point: Julie Bindell of our very own unherd.com…
Because they are trying to right the balance and show that there are societal practices which harm men but which are rarely spoken of or made little of. They are challenging a female victim, male perpetrator narrative. And just why is it that FGM has such a high profile and MGM not?
Both FGM and MGM are vile and wrong, of course they are. I think to be honest the main reason FGM receives more attention is because not only does it, in most forms it takes, essentially scar the woman for life and leave her with excruciating pain in a way that male circumcision does not, but also because male circumcision is often for religious purposes, (which can be an untouchable area for many) whereas FGM is usually because the woman is considered an object which must be kept pure so that she can be sold off to the highest bidder when she is older. Feminists consider both bad, but it’s surely understandable that they focus more so on FGM.
Thanks for such a reasonable reply. It’s always hard to untangle the real reasons behind religious and cultural practices, and of course many of them carry on simply because they are traditional, custom or relate to a sense of identity – whatever their origins.
Part of the acceptance of mgm is because circumcision has been part of western tradition (especially in the US) FGM has not. In the US it was rather quaintly considered to discourage masturbation! The equivalent for girls was to put caustic soda on the c******s! And eating corn flakes apparently helped too (I’m not joking!).
And unlike some I don’t particularly see why feminists should focus on male issues. I don’t think they should deny them though, or thwart attempts to deal with them or portray society as more anti female and pro male than it actually is. Thanks again.
Ian, what do you mean by ‘mutilated males’? If you are referring to routine infant circumcision, I think you’d find that most of us are against all genital mutilation.
Thanks Pearl. I just wish it were mentioned as often as FGM.
My main gripe actually is that so many special interest groups seem only to outwardly care about their own members interests – while constantly seeming to forget that “equality” includes others …
However, fgm, especially type 3, is a very, very different thing from mgm. I honestly don’t understand why women campaigning against fgm are vilified for not including mgm. Why can’t men campaign?
Of the four generally recognised forms of FGM, I think it would be fair to say that one is less damaging than mgm, one is arguable (but in my view worse), and two are clearly worse. I believe (but don’t know) that the mildest form of FGM is the one most common in the U.K.
But it’s not a competition. We should not be mutilating children’s genitals.
Dude… read your comment again and then examine what “special interest” means.
You wanna discuss and fight men’s issues… YOU do it. You don’t get to shit on other people’s arguments because they fail to address what YOU want to talk about…
I think this is a simplistic defense — I mean, no one can be everything to everyone, and if you (as in collective, human “you”, not you personally) care so much about a particular issue then it is your responsibility to create a space for it. The problem comes when another person attempts to thwart attention away from your space / hijack your space. If a person wishes that MGM were mentioned as often as FGM, then that person could do something about this without it infringing on the FGM space.
Of course a special interest group is primarily concerned with its own members’ interests…we are human beings, and we will obviously feel most passionately about issues that connect to our personal experience. But, if people separately develop platforms dedicated to subjects that they are personally passionate about, share personal stories, etc., then it becomes possible to engage in empathetic exchange and join forces.
f**k that. NTMC is a gross violation of bodily autonomy and consent, usually instigated by cultural or religious practice. It’s mutilation of a child to make the parents feel better.
Well, one things for certain, men don’t seem to give a damn until they can use it to derail women struggling for their rights. It was a man (John Money https://en.wikipedia.org/wi… who help kick start this whole shitstorm, by using a botched circumcision (done by a man, in the name of a male led religion) to play god with his surgical skills.
Goodness knows. I was circumcised as an infant and it has never been a problem for me – it was simply the done thing in my social class 65 years ago (I’m not Jewish). It’s a very far cry indeed from the true horrors of FGM.
Imagine that. Feminists don’t matter and their thoughts, arguments and analysis should be discarded out of hand because, they should really be talking about men…
Your comment fails the Bechdel test… spectacularly.
Mutilated males? I think the difference here is that the mutilation of males happens because that is what they have chosen for themselves whereas little girls around the world (in Africa especially) have it forced on them.
I see from your profile that this is your first time commenting on an article on Unherd, I hope that you and the many other first timers this article has attracted will continue to add to the lively debates that take place here on a wide range of subjects. In particular there is a dearth of female voices and intelligently articulated points of view are always most welcome.
No diversity in Guardian BTL for sure. Not because a diversity of posters does not exist, but because Banning is the instant response of any poster not shouting out the echo chamber song.
In the US, I am getting overloaded by call outs every five seconds appealing to “Democracy.” The word is starting to lose…something…in that strange way of saying a word too often affects one’s sense of it.
I never got a welcome when I first started commenting on UnHerd. I’m obviously not nice enough and too challenging – both of which qualities I undoubtedly possess.
I wonder what he means by ‘intelligently articulated articulated points of view’?
Maybe they are comments he agrees with. The real test is recommending a comment that you disagree with because you think it’s well argued.
As a matter of fact, I have upticked Shona’s comment along with the rest because I agree with it.
“…recommending a comment you disagree with because you think it’s well argued” would require a kind of polite detachment from the full force of the discussion effectively reducing it to a genteel game where it doesn’t really matter who is wrong or right as long as the game is played well.
Discussions about politics or religion will always evoke strong emotions and it is difficult to tolerate those who emphatically oppose your beliefs. A generation of young activists have decided that tolerance of opposing views is an intellectual nicety they can do without ““ hence “cancel culture”.
By “intelligently articulated points of view” perhaps Crossley is hinting at disapproval of its opposite: the jeering, sneering and heckling behaviour of the troll.
For the record, I sometimes upvote comments I disagree with, because they are well-argued. The immediate battle in some comment section is an insigificant part of the whole war. And a good argument from the opposite side helps me too, even if it doesn’t change my mind. It helps me focus on the core of the opposing argument.
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with cancel culture, no-one is saying people should be arrested. You’re getting confused with freedom from consequence.
“Freedom of speech has nothing to do with cancel culture” That must take years and years of loony indoctrination to come up with some thing as bad as that.
Are you American, by any chance? I often find the First Amendment drastically limits the way US citizens understand freedom of speech, which is not at all limited to state action…
There is a kind of poetical truth in what Mark says – and SM is perhaps just as dogmatic as the people now going for her. But like you I would like to know if she has actually herself been involved in cancelling anybody or closing down debate. I suspect probably not.
Hard not to feel that many trans movement tactics were taken from the feminist handbook – and clearly used to pretty deadly effect.
I fault her for working at the Guardian — a me hive of scum and villainy — but I’m going to need attribution that she actively worked to get people fired for espousing mere views with which she disagreed.
Sorry, but is this the same Suzanne Moore who wrote an article for the Guardian on why hating men as a group was morally acceptable, published by a paper that positions itself as fighting sexism?
Oh, and double standards. They’re definitely against those. So is Moore, apparently, telling us here that she “never has, or ever will, be unkind to anyone because of their gender identity”.
I guess someone else wrote that piece on why it’s ethical to hate men.
Or consider Suzanne claim that women ought to be able to enjoy “single sex spaces”. Where were you when men’s single sex spaces were claimed to be sexist and exclusionary? As usual, it’s one rule for feminists, another for men.
This kind of self-contradictory self-righteousness is evident in much of Moore’s journalism. In this very article, for example, informs us that “as a feminist, I argue that gender is a social construct”, but then later claims “a kind of gender tourism became possible. Anyone could be anything” in disputing the notion that gender is a choice.
But you can’t have it both ways Suzanne: if gender is a “social construct” rather than, say, an evolutionary one, then indeed anyone can be anything.
But they can’t, because gender is not a social construct. The psychological differences between men and women, like the physical ones, are the result of different evolutionary pressures governing reproductive success.
But if that is true, then much of modern feminism complaining about the “patriarchy” is simply misdirected misunderstanding of the role biology has played, and continues to play, in how human affairs are regulated. The “patriarchy” is shorthand for innate differences. Men no more oppress women than women oppress men. We are synmbiotically wired into each other through 250,000 years of differential mate selection.
As for your road to Damascus conversion in finally grasping that cancel culture is at root anti-democratic, this is the culture that feminism created. And in spite of your protestations to the contrary, it is men more than women who suffers from its effects.
So sorry, Suzanne, for not being more sympathetic, but your complaints remind me of Robspierre in the back of the tumbrel on the way to the chop whining about the tragic consequences of radical fervor, while remaining blind to your own role in that predictable end.
You and your feminist ilk brought this on yourselves.
Bravo?She tried to shield the ethnicity of the perpetrators in Rotherham by laying the blame on ALL men..more or less.
Mike Bates
3 years ago
A regular Guardian reader through the 80’s & 90’s I now see it not as a newspaper but just an activist mag. It’s full of ill thought through one sided “latest fashion” left propaganda. Gone are the days of some balance & some logical analysis. It’s just something you’d read now to affirm an ideological & dogmatic view. It’s not journalism at all.
I don’t disagree, the Guardian has lost it. But tell me where I don’t find simplistic dogma. It’s all over this site too, just a different flavour. Repeat after me : Everybody on the left hates democracy. Our culture is being destroyed. It was better in the olden days.
Make no mistake! “everybody on the left hates democracy. our culture is being destroyed. it was better in the old days” may be dogmas, but they may very well be just …observations! Just taking note of the (perceived) reality.
Have commented elsewhere that I bought the print version quite recently. Rather than just choosing specific articles online, you obviously have to go through it page by page. And what amazed me was how achingly posh and patrician it was. Has the Guardian always been like this? and if not, when did it change?
I used to read it years ago, it was always achingly posh and patrician. In fairness to the Guardian this is somethin in common with all Broadsheets. I suppose a lot of writers come from that background.
I used to work for it and it had that feel, but in the actual workforce were a lot of more ordinary down to Earth types…these days (I don’t work it so have no special insight) more and ,ore of the media has succumbed to the idea that impartiality is impossible so partiality is the way to go and nowhere has gone down that route more than the Guardian and now it is where it is.
The NYT may kill it off one day, or CNN, because the one thing the internet has made clear it is the monopolist’s friend and can’t abide multiple provision of a service…and it’s headed to video…the future’s grim, the future’s snapchat……?
My exact same sentiments. They lock themselves up in an ivory tower, guarded by moderators who remove comments that may displease those who’ve suddenly turned pro-monarchy because they probably got an invitation to a C-listed royal wedding.
Ed Cameron
3 years ago
Brilliant! Power, rage, intelligence and a rollicking good read. Thank god for Suzanne and UnHerd.
You’re like the right wing evangelical who said he didn’t need to read a certain book or article to know it was Satan’s work. I like to know who or what I’m against. There’s no excuse or moral high ground in ignorance.
“Because in another country you’d be a Trump redneck” Because I wouldn’t bother to read an article from a Guardian hack? You need to calibrate your insults to suit your target, Simon.
“In another country you’d be a Trump redneck” Would I? Because I ignore an article by a Guardian hack? You need to refine your insults to match your target, Simon.
It was basically one long b***h about how hard done by she was. I’ll summarise for the TL:DR crowd: “Waaah, people were mean to me at work” “Waaah, I was hoist by my own petard”
Suzanne Moore, much as she wants to portray herself as the poor blameless victim of an intolerant, activist lynch-mob, has been at the fore of denouncing people herself.
So before you offer her too much sympathy spare some for those she has denounced in the past.
In true Guardian fashion, her approach has been predicated on a massive and wholly unjustifiable double standard.
“…she’s always rubbed up against met liberals.” She worked for met liberals, and she worked with met liberals. Working class, indeed. She should be ashamed of what she did.
So brave, so strong! Yes, a tour de force of an intellectual powerhouse! I am sure this article would have happened without having her leftwing colleagues eating her alive. Such compassion and self awareness in the comments below!
What’s that? Time to go? Awwww!
alice.timmons
3 years ago
I started my working life in 1973 as a trainee journalist on a local newspaper I carry tons of bulging baggage full of stories from the front in the war to be recognised as a worthy human being. I teally didn’t think I’d still be fighting nearly 50 years later, and I’m bloody tired. That’s what rings out to me in this article: the exhaustion, the weariness and the oh-God-just-make-it-stopness of the forever embattled woman. Love the writing while hating its reality.
Would you not agree that Ms Moore misses out on one big factor at play in the recent trans-terf wars? The role of feminist organisations, thinkers and writers who are very much at the forefront of these new orthodoxies and driving the cancellation of other women? Intersectional feminism?
Ms Moore subtly places the blame for the current trans virulence on gay activists and men – women are playing a big role in this, let’s be honest.
Men are often unwilling to admit that they have been abused by their wives because of social stigma. The studies indicate that 38-45% of domestic violence injuries are inflicted by women on men, usually when the man is asleep, using a weapon.
Good point. Trans thinking clearly emerged out of feminist thinking on gender – in particular via Judith Butler. And trans people were used to support the argument that gender is a social construct. Some clearly didn’t see in advance the way their own thinking would lead. At the time, no doubt it all looked like useful ideology in support of the feminist cause. But ideologies have a habit of taking on a life of their own.
Shame your comment just led to a repeat of unrelated arguments. Disheartening.
I have a strong feeling that would create too much cognitive dissonance for some of Ms Moore’s fans.
Sidney Falco
3 years ago
There is nothing duller than lefties, who have spent their entire lives skewering and ostracising people they felt weren’t right on enough, suddenly whining when they fall foul of the latest left-wing orthodoxy.
I agree, but anyone who is being bullied by the cancel culture should be supported by those who believe in free speech and rational debate. And be honest; doesn’t part of you thoroughly enjoy the biter being bit.
The problem with supporting them is that they’re not interested in free speech and they still despise you anyway. They just fell off their ideological high-wire after a lifetime of abusing other people for disagreeing with them. Do you honestly think you could have a sane conversation with Moore about any of the hobby horses she trots out in this essay without her “cancelling” you if you didn’t agree with everything she said? JK Rowling is a perfect example, reinventing the sexual preference and race of various of her characters according to the latest headlines in the Guardian – to great public fanfare and adulation on twitter – then tripping up over the latest trend and being heaped on the bonfire. I wouldn’t waste my time on them if I were you.
I would be embarrassed to have asked that question. Are you twelve years old?
Iliya Kuryakin
3 years ago
Moore’s lack of self awareness is extraordinary. “When I walked past the Woman’s Place meeting in Brighton at the Labour Party conference last year, people were banging on the windows… It hardly affected me,”. Well, yeah, first they came for the TERFs and I did nothing.
Moore is a nasty, smug, self righteous, middle class leftie who has found herself on the receiving end of the bile she has dished out to others. Remember her tweet when finding out Jordan Peterson was in rehab, having taken medication to deal with severe depression after learning his wife had been diagnosed with a terminal illness: ‘Hello Editor types. Jordan Peterson holed up in rehab in Russia. F*** me gently with a chainsaw”¦ let me do that story. Come on!’
Nothing, but that doesn’t mean one should feel any sympathy for Moore.
Nick Wright
3 years ago
Battles to be the greater victim rage on. I’ll admit that I only read half of the article. Even with nothing to do at 4am (other than sit with a newborn on my chest) I couldn’t find the will to continue with this egotistical nonsense. It strikes me that Suzanne has been a flag-bearer for a generation of journalists being paid to share myopic views of the world based on their own personal grievances. Ironically, it seems that her attempts to enter the trans debate as a woman have led to the backlash that I might receive for commenting on any of her articles as a man: the perverse logic she’s helped to foster, which has become commonplace, has come back to bite her.
Yes, to some extent this is a case of the biter bit. But Suzanne has always been a more lively presence, and expressed a more diverse range of views, than most leftie commentators. She is, at least, capable of thought, which is very rare in these circles.
Thank goodness for the right to hold a difference of opinion. There was so much within that article that resonated with me. I found it to be thorough, honest and to the point. There have been many times that I have totally disagreed with SM but this is not one of those occasions. Thank You SM & Unheard.
I agree in part but the dangers/issues that women/girls/females are facing in the current TRA trend/climate; slurs, threats, intimation, eradication should be a concern to us all. You should fully appreciate the amazing ability and realness of the female body as it due to the aforementioned that you hold the newborn to your chest… You should be against the narrative of conflating gender with sex. This isn’t a moment of nar na na nar na…
Interesting that you think that only males are trans, ignoring the 4000%+ increase in teenage girls transitioning. Also interesting that you think males transitioning has no impact on females.
faridahaque
3 years ago
My offspring has ushered me into the Unherd fold. And I’m very thankful for it! Finally civilized interaction. I walked away from the tyranny of social media a while ago. Suzanne Moore is an impressive presence in her field. I respect decades of dedication and passion, the conviction of her work. She was treated with utter shabbiness by the Guardian. Hopefully she’s in a less toxic and treacherous environment now. More power to you Suzanne!
David Lawler
3 years ago
Did you speak out Suzanne, when the Guardian smeared the Rotherham girls as “islamaphobes”?
Of course she didn’t, there is no sisterhood between middle class, left wing women and working class women, or children. If it were only working class women and children at risk from trans ‘women’, she wouldn’t be speaking out now. If it were only working class girls at risk of chemical mutilation of their bodies from hormones on prescription it would not be a matter of interest.
I really don’t know why every conservative publication feels it needs to give a voice to this mad, lefty harridan. Just because the loony left have jilted her doesn’t mean she has anything to offer the rest of us.
I would forgive Suzanne almost anything for the sentence where Peter Preston allegedly (he’s not alive to defend himself) told her that she could now write about painting her toenails. Was not the G lecturing the rest of us, even way back then, about the countless crimes and evils of male chauvinism?
Do you have evidence that the Guardian called the girls Islamophobic? Obviously you can’t prove that a woman rooted in the working class didn’t object as you can’t prove a negative. Did she join in such abuse?
Is that true? I thought the Guardian just ignored stories that conflicted with its agenda. I would love to see a link to that story, though I imagine they’ve deleted it by now.
It banned me from their comments section for posting to many facts and truths. It silences wrongthink, even scientific papers that go against the narrative they are pushing. “Comment is free” indeed.
Same experience I’ve had with the Guardian. I linked to a scientific paper on detransitioning and found myself banned. I was pretty naive back then and wasn’t aware of a Leftist agenda.
Al-Guardian first castigated the (far right) people who revealed the emerging stories about sex-grooming gangs in Rotherham as Islamophobes and vile racists and then studiously ignored the story until it couldnt be buried any longer. Very few of its writers dare address this ongoing catastrophe. I cannot recall Ms Moore’s columns on it*. Even in this very long essay, where you finds time to inform us of her concern for female erasure in rural Armenia she doesnt address the grooming of thousands of girls in her own country because the perps are just “men”, rather than a particular category of men motivated by an ideology even worse than transactivism. That’s too close to the skin.
Update: * I searched and found some of Ms Moore’s articles where she dismisses the ethnicity issue as a red herring. https://www.theguardian.com…
Clare Haven
3 years ago
I’m afraid, having really tried, that I’m struggling to find genuine sympathy for Suzanne Moore here.
I think, reading this cascade of verbiage that ranges sentence by sentence between common sense and downright bat-shit nonsense, that I just feel pity for someone that has spent their entire life mired in this miserable, naval gazing world of genderism and left-wing spoiled-child politics and Guardian snobbery.
What a terrible waste of time and effort.
And by the way, Melanie Phillips could have told you this about the Guardian decades ago Suzanne, as could many of its more perspicacious readers who abandoned it long, long before you realised there was anything amiss.
son.lyme.mail
3 years ago
We don’t always concur but I have never found you less than interesting and entertaining – the twin pillars upon which good journalism was founded. On the bright side, at least now you get the column inches to write such a brilliant article. You are a thinker Suzanne, and a carer, and that was always going to cause trouble. Keep on kicking mate.
Caroline Galwey
3 years ago
Terminology! If a lone Cabinet minister shouts and bangs things in an office full of unsackable civil servants, it’s ‘bullying’. If 300 Guardian employees pile onto a lone journalist demanding her censure or sacking, it’s righteous.
Alex Mitchell
3 years ago
While I am glad that the author has had her eyes opened and moved away from this toxic environment, because that kind of abuse is always inexcusable, I am getting a little bit bored of the “I was on the left until they turned on me” articles. I try not to indulge in schadenfreude about it as it’s not helpful in the greater scheme of things, but it is hard.
Ok, I was generalising a bit as to types of articles. She has just left the peak left-leaning newspaper in her country due to the way erstwhile allies treated her, which as a career journalist would appear to be pretty fundamental. She may still be on the left but, in my view, it still fits the stereotype of the articles I’m referring to. In this instance actually (and other similar.ones) I think it’s more that the organizations have moved further left, leaving even traditionally quite hard leftists without a home. Although as others have pointed out, I’m not sure moving leftward is the correct terminology anymore.
That’s your take on this? That she’s no longer left? You have read to the end and understand it to be saying that? And not about freedom of speech, the toxic response to her work from the trans agenda, the way women writers are threatened, the difficulty women now have to meet, discuss and campaign as a sex?
It’s not a comment on this article, hence my deliberate inclusion of the inexcusable nature of the abuse. But the fact that I have seen several similar ‘turned on by colleagues’ articles arising out of the left recently, all of which indicate the toxic nature of compliance to their orthodoxy, but which none of them seem to see until it hits them.
Take it you didn’t bother to read the actual article… SM is still on the left.
Mike Boosh
3 years ago
So, she voiced the “wrong” opinion and got attacked by leftist maniacs? Welcome to the 21st century. Now let’s get an article from David Starkey.
Kiran Grimm
3 years ago
Denounced! …but wait ““ wasn’t Suzanne Moore a great denouncer herself ““ usually of men.
Haven’t those relentless campaigners for all varieties of underdog actually laid the foundations for the cancel culture which they are now intimidated by?
A new generation of campaigners, the social media lynch mob, have taken moral indignation to the next level. Why waste time and energy arguing with people you “know” are wrong ““ just declare yourself offended on behalf of the underdog and shut them down.
Brian Robinson
3 years ago
Ohmygod this is just so magnificent, so needed saying. I subscribe to the Guardian but have been so disappointed in its position on things Suzanne describes so wonderfully and on a number of other issues too. Great writing from the heart and from the head. Thanks so much. And good luck for wherever you go and wherever you write next.
I cancelled my subscription recently. One has to hope that the Owen Jones fan club do more than live in an echo chamber and actually replace the funding that large numbers of adult human females are now withdrawing…
I wonder how Owen”s Patreon is doing? He whines about equality but offers “exclusive voting power” to people who pay. The irony. https://www.patreon.com/owe…
I gave up on it’s failure to recognise that Scottish Independence was and is a profoundly progressive movement. The Guardian missed the biggest most progressive thing to happen in the UK in decades.
I went back after the referendum to excoriate them but gave it up as a bad job. I just click past the begging things. Now Suzanne has gone that’s one fewer person who sees Scotland right at Graun Towers.
Though we have our own problems with the SNP gone cold on Independence but red hot on GRA. The new Hate Crime bill Section 2 reads like a TRA’s wet dream. If it passes without more safeguards you will charged for stating truths. Your children will be urged to report what you said at home. Your have friends round and one of them might denounce you.
We have lived in that world, some have. I’ve known people who grew up in East Germany, in Russia, in China. Woke is a religion with a high priesthood and a heretic burning fetish. I wouldn’t put it passed them to actually bring literal burnings back. Rhetoric has a nasty way of becoming reality. Nobody took the Nazis seriously enough, remember.
When I see woke stuff written by young women it makes me want to cry.
Daniel Björkman
3 years ago
In 2012, I contributed to an anthology of essays edited by the great poet and journalist Cathy Galvin. The theme was red. My piece was about the need for female anger and it was called “Seeing Red”. Feminism had become way too polite and we were going backwards. Fast.
See, I know this is not the point of the article, but I’m honestly astonished that anyone could have thought, in 2012, that feminism was being too nice. 2011 was the first year I was informed that all men needed to be treated like rapists until proven otherwise (precisely how we could prove our non-rapist-ness was never specified), and that felt like the natural conclusion to what had been building for at least ten years at that point. Ever since I started getting into feminism in my early twenties, there always seemed to be an assumption that niceness was a sinister patriarchal trap and that being a ruthless sociopath was the ideal for men and women alike.
I guess it’s true that I hung out in spaces where feminists talked to other feminists (or yelled at the occasional non-feminist who showed up), and that the tone might have been different in the places where the political rubber met the road. But still, feminism? Too nice? Where and when, exactly?
As such, while I am not entirely unsympathetic to the plight of feminists being bullied by trans activists, I can’t help but feel a bit of schadenfreude too. Sucks, doesn’t it, when people accuse you of horrible things just because you used the wrong word or felt the wrong thing?
Is this an example of how feminists care about issues affecting men too, so men shouldn’t complain about women not caring while simultaneously demanding that men always support them?
I have a PVG certificate for working with children and young people. PVG’s are the Scottish criminal record checks. The children and young people one is the hardest to get I’m reliably informed.
it doesn’t prove I’m not a rapist, I’m not, but it lessens the chances that I might be. I got it to aid my work as a science tutor. It’s on my profiles so people can see I’ve been checked.
It cost me 50 quid. I’ve had full time job interviews out of having it. I just applied for another one which requires successful candidates to get one. I’m ahead of the curve.
Maybe it’s having three sisters, maybe raising two daughters but I understand a lot of the fears women have. Even before lockdown I gave women as much space as possible and reasonable in the street because of this. I generally walk quietly but will scuff my feet when coming up behind a woman so as not to scare her.
I don’t catcall or whistle and never have. It would be good if there were more men like me but it seems to be an uphill struggle sometimes when it shouldn’t be. It’s just common courtesy and respect for others.
So you have a piece of paper that says that you’re not a rapist. Great. If you told a feminist that, do you think that that would get you off the hook? Because I’m doubtful, frankly.
I generally walk quietly but will scuff my feet when coming up behind a woman so as not to scare her.
Maybe we should all wear little bells around our necks? That way women would know to flee in terror before we came into sight.
I don’t catcall or whistle and never have. It would be good if there were more men like me but it seems to be an uphill struggle sometimes when it shouldn’t be. It’s just common courtesy and respect for others.
Well, there we can agree. I have no patience for men who act like louts.
I prefer to be around nice people, yes. I’m funny like that.
But hey, I’m not the king of the world. We can have meanness as the norm instead, if that’s what more people prefer. How would you say that that standard is working out for women?
Feminism used to interpret the word nice through it’s older/other meaning of small, and that was rejected, women were not going to get anywhere by making themselves small, competing with men was necessary. We needed to take up our share of space. It’s now morphed into checking our privilege in order to be nice or smaller in modern feminism.
I am honestly confused about where you think I said anything of the sort. I’m not the one who’s outspokenly anti-niceness.
Steve Edwards
3 years ago
“I noted, referring to this incident, that it is women again, never men, who were losing jobs, incomes and public platforms if they spoke up. “ What about Alastair Stewart, Brian Leach, Christian Webb, Danny Baker, David Starkey, Felix Ngole, Gareth Roberts, Jake Hepple, Martin Shipton, Nick Buckley (happily re-instated), Nigel Farage, Noah Carl, Paul Embery, Richard Page, Roger Scruton, Stuart Peters, Tim Hunt, Toby Young, Greg Clarke? And these are only the well known people. How many others, male and female who have no power or influence have suffered under the current torrent of intolerance? We formed the Labour Party and the trades unions to stop the powerful arbitrarily removing the livelihoods of workers.
Artemisia Vulgaris
3 years ago
” Less sexy subjects such as the appalling low rate for rape convictions, the Covid pandemic causing women to lose jobs and be forced back into the home, the complete lack of childcare”¦ all of these things fall by the wayside when the main discussions of feminism appear to be by men telling us men can just say they’re women and if we say otherwise we deserve all the rape threats we get.”
Because even the worst false-accusation alarmists claim that they are something like three percent of total accusations?
I don’t share the apparently axiomatic belief that the low rate of rape convictions is some kind of proof of institutionalised misogyny, because I think a far more likely explanation is that it’s a difficult crime to prove, especially since sexuality is inherently primal and uncivilised in a way that few other things are. But people who complain about false rape accusations are really reaching for a way to make themselves out to be the real victims.
So the alarmists have pulled higher numbers out of their asses since the last time I checked. Yes, that tends to happen.
And before you accuse me of being some sort of feminist bogeyman, I have seen the same happen with rape statistics. Scary numbers only ever get bigger the more people talk about them.
“So the alarmists have pulled higher numbers out of their asses since the last time I checked.” Then you need to check again. I am not here to do your research, but check Lisak’s work – as just one example – where 6% of accusations were demonstrably false, to a very high standard of research and evidence.
Could you post links to the studies which claim this please, as my internet searches have only come up with this: “Research for the Home Office suggests that only 4% of cases of sexual violence reported to the UK police are found or suspected to be false. Studies carried out in Europe and in the US indicate rates of between 2% and 6%.” Borne out by several other British studies. Thanks.
If you believe in the jury system, all not guilty verdicts are by definition false accusations. Of course, the truth is surely far messier and neither you nor I can possibly see the full picture. I am neither victim nor perpetrator, simply calling out what I believe are double standards.
Agreed there should be total outcry re-false accusations however, on this occasion that isn’t a pressing issue in relation to the article. It bares no relevance to the topic in hand.
ellenjmoorenb
3 years ago
The working class always did have more guts. It’s where I’m from and I’m proud of you Suzanne. Keep seeing red. xo
I bought the print version for the first time in ages a few weeks ago. It’s different from reading the online version as you get to see all the articles in there on every single page. And one thing that I had never realised after doing this was just how posh the Guardian is. Achingly posh. Was it always like that?
Yes. I remember an amusing incident from some years ago. An interested person started tracking the social background of Guardian journalists. He couldn’t find any that were not public school educated. He asked the Guardian whether it employed anybody who wasn’t public school. To give credit when it is due, it (I hope) saw the joke and offered up its one state educated writer – The cricket correspondent. Well, the cricket correspondent needed to know what he was talking about.
Graham Campbell
3 years ago
Suzanne Moore is entitled to sympathy and support from all who believe in free speech. However, she identifies herself clearly as a feminist, and I would like feminists to think about the possibility that they have helped create this toxic political environment.
Yes, do. We feminists would love to know from Graham how we have been doing feminism all wrong, and how feminism is actually causing violence, threats of violence and the poisonous ban on debating our own rights. I’m running out of eye rolls, sorry.
By focusing solely on identity politics, all of the oxygen has been sucked out of the room for discussing the wholesale war on working class people. It’s perfectly ok for large corporations to offshore manufacturing jobs if they have the correct number of women on their board. It’s ok for educational attainment for white boys to plummet as long as more women attend useless degree courses at former polytechnics. It’s perfectly ok to tax working people out of a job if a big enough benefit cheque is sent to unemployed single mothers (men can make do on a pittance or live on the street).
Working class white men are not living the high life based on the “patriarchal system”. They’re as excluded and exploited as much as anyone. A very small minority of mainly straight, white, upper middle class men do quite well for themselves, but that’s not most men. For them, it’s an epidemic of suicide, loneliness and stagnation. Men are far more likely to be the victims of violent crime in the UK. Men are 10 times more likely to die on the job than women in the UK. Stop spitefully and simplistically blaming all men for problems in society.
Well I’ve just outlined “how” in my comment above. The whole feminist argument of men oppressing women for millenia and the beastly patriarchy ruling the roost is a distortion of history and reality. Feminist’s angry, aggressive divisiveness was highly likely to develop into some men, albeit out of their confusion in the liberal/feminist world they find themselves in, being angry and aggressive back.
There’s a mix of truth and fiction in those assertions. Of course patriarchal societies have been the predominant structure for millennia. Women were second class citizens and/or property. They still are in some places. Equality has usually come after a fight, rather than being given up willing by men. It seems unfair to berate feminists for over-stepping the mark on the grounds that it might p:ss men off.
” patriarchal society” is a description used in anthropology. The feminist idea of ‘the patriarchy’ as ongoing conspiracy theory is quite different, it is a weapon used by feminists for power, it is to induce guilt in men, preferably followed by them stepping aside. Women were not “second class citizens”, that is a modern opinion, not a fact. Equality is nonsense, men and women are not equal, can never be equal, we are different and complement each other. Chasing the fantasy of equality is directly responsible for the trans issue.
You banned Gentleman’s Clubs and are now annoyed that men found a way into Women’s clubs
Richard Lyon
3 years ago
But there was definitely a wider move in modern conservatism to push women back into the home.
I’m aware that, in those countries that have embraced feminism most fully and in which women’s choices are governed by availability rather than necessity, more women choose home over work than in Britain.
But how does Patriarchal Oppression “push a woman into a home”, exactly? Is it like pushing a cat into a sack? Pushing a sock into a drawer? Pushing toothpaste into a tube? Pushing an ideological narrative into a counterfactual dataset?
And were the Pilates aficionados demanding their oppressive spouses release them from domestic captivity so they too could pull on their knickers in the dark and battle into a London office in the rain?
More details, please – this was the most gripping part of the tale, and has left quite a cliffhanger.
This is the problem from speaking from personal experience. You move from a northern terrace to somewhere posh where a pretty women with 3 GCSEs doesn’t have to work in a call center, and you think the world has changed.
Dave H
3 years ago
maybe I had been thoughtless. I hadn’t actually killed anyone
If you had killed someone, rest assured, you would have been provided with sympathy and the Guardianistas would have found a way to blame everyone else. But you committed a worse crime, you thought wrong, you strayed outside of the orthodoxy and as a result are just the worst.
I haven’t always agreed with what you had to say over at the Gruan, but I have enjoyed your writing. Not just on issues like Brexit and the butting up of trans rights against women’s rights, but on many subjects. What you have to say about the attitudes on display by the guardian is unlikely to be a surprise to many here.
We can only hope that such folks bubble themselves into an ever tighter corner and eventually remove themselves from any relevance to mainstream culture whatsoever.
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Most of us ‘resigned’ from the Guardian some years ago, Suzanne. Welcome to the club.
lynn_masseydavis
3 years ago
Like you I fought section 28, volunteered in the AIDS crisis, was denied jobs and Ph.D. scholarship in the ’80s because of en engagement ring! I was sacked twice in the 1990’s for pregnancy. I am not transphobic I just want sex based rights to be recognised and vulnerable natal women to be protected. I hate being referred to as CIS because to me it is the same as Mrs – describing me relative to a person born with Male privilege. Feminism has a long way to go internationally as well as domestically. I don’t give a flying f#@k about what people call themselves, whether they want to use women’s changing and toilets. I do care if the exhibition ist in them demands access to open women’s changing whilst in possession of a p***s and self ID has so much potential for abuse. But it is the misinformation which out Trumps Trumpism in its blatant lies used by activists which is then used to justify silencing women which leaves me dumbfounded. Right wing ideology from the Catholic Church historically, to the extreme TRA today is characterised by silencing the opposition on pain of death. Plus ca change…
William Murphy
3 years ago
Thanks, UnHerd, for publishing this riotously sad, funny and revealing article. I love the bit about Open Space giving money to the Grauniad and how that might have influenced policy on trans issues. Crickey, a few bad decisions on investing their huge endowment and the G is seeking funding from anyone.
Every time I read the G, I get the earnest long message telling me that I have read the site 1,837 (and counting) times this year and how the G is free from the malign influence of billionaire owners. So cough up a donation, you tight fisted SOB. It plainly is not only billionaires who can exert a malign influence.
But, of course, it is not only money that can exert a malign influence. Crackpot ideologies can be far more brutal and intolerant than any wealthy manipulator. You do not need a single penny in incentives to gang up on a dissident. In fact, your lack of filthy lucre shows how pure and holy your motives are. As per my favourite Marxist grouplet in Reading. Back in the 1980s, they were so pure and holy that they subdivided into two tinier grouplets with memberships of 13 and 7.
Nick Whitehouse
3 years ago
I am going to tell you something that many people commenting on this site do not appear to understand and may indeed shock you. I am writing in a broad sense, covering the majority of people. The human species has two types male and female. Historically they had different functions, but were complimentary to ensure the survival of the race. The survival depended on food, shelter, security and having children. In a hunter gatherer society, obviously the women had the children, and being more dexterous did the gathering. The men who were physically stronger did the hunting, shelter and security. Once society moved on to farming, there was little change in roles, except for hunting becoming less important. This was true until very recently (in historical terms) – even with the advent of the industrial revolution many jobs required hard manual labour. So not much change, even security was still suited to the physically stronger and, of course, only females can have babies.
This complimentary system has lasted for 10,000s of thousand of years – at what a success it has been for the human species.
Which brings us to the last 50 or so years. Nowadays machines have negated the importance of the physical strong and modern medicine has negated the importance of motherhood as most babies now survive.
So, if we are to survive the vast changes in our society, we have to work out a new modus operandi, and blaming each other. I believe this can only be done by recognising the benefits of the two sexes and working as a complimentary team.
I’m guessing you mean *stop* blaming each other, and thank you so much for your common sense.
Claire D
3 years ago
Typical feminist mess-up. I had’nt heard of Suzanne Moore until earlier this year, so I have no idea what her columns were like, though she’s obviously a feminist, which is a distorted view of humanity I think. However, I share her view that a man cannot be a woman (or vice versa) no matter what has been done surgically or otherwise, and I support her right to speak out.
BUT, trans activism has developed out of feminism, feminists like Moore have been arguing for years that ‘gender roles’ (a theory which began in the 50s) are a social construction, they’ve pushed and pushed that until society has, to some extent, bought it.
Logically, IF gender role theory is true (biologically and psychologically it is not), but IF it is held to be true by society, then words like man and woman are just labels, words we associate certain sets of distinguishing markers with (this is what feminists have been saying for years), then why should’nt someone assert they are the opposite sex ?
Feminists have only themselves to blame. Unfortunately ordinary women, men and especially troubled children, are having to deal with the fall out as well. What a mess.
No, it’s not feminism where these ideas come from. Nothing at all to do with it, although some shades of feminism have fallen in with it. The trans agenda comes from postmodernism and queer theory, which downplays materialism (biology, reality) and elevates the subjective (perception, social and cultural constructs). The trans agenda holds that ‘gender’ (social, cultural, confected, mutable, feelings) always trumps sex (material, tangible). So anyone who feels like a woman can be be one.
It is feminists like Suzanne who are pointing out that this has risks for the protection of women’s sex based rights, their reproductive rights, their rights to discuss and organise as a sex class. It is also a safeguarding threat to children.
I agree with some of the points that you make, but certainly not your denial of feminist responsibility at the beginning – promptly followed it has to be said, by an admission that it IS true but it was that bunch of feminists ‘over there what did it’. That’s not good enough.
Post-modernism and queer theory are indeed partly to blame for the trans situation but so, most definitely, is feminism.
You cannot argue for equality on the one hand, accusing people of the completely false concept of ‘sexism’ (at the same time as being ‘sexist’), and then start complaining that society is getting too equal for your liking, women are special and must be protected, that is irrational.
Now I don’t have a problem with irrationality, there’d be no art or spiritual experience without it, but it is not acceptable in a political argument.
This is not surprising, Feminism was always about competing with men, having developed out of the Industrial Revolution with women gradually becoming more valuable to the state outside the home than in it, and the increasing pressures being put on them, it’s enough to drive anyone nuts.
And let’s not forget the prominent part played by the feminist Harriet Harman in drafting the Equality Act 2010 with it’s appalling Hate Crime and Protected Characteristics legislation, which has paved the way for the Identity Politics we are now dealing with.
a man cannot be a woman (or vice versa) no matter what has been done surgically or otherwise
I don’t think that’s a fair way to put it. It’s not about a man being or becoming a woman; it’s about a woman having been born into an outwardly male body. (Or vice versa.) Not possible, you say? How do you know?
I recently came upon this autobiographical account (link) by a transgender woman of her early life and experiences. I defy you to read her heartfelt and heart-rending tale and not be moved. (Parts I and II are sufficient ” the rest is mostly about her career.) It has nothing to do with some abstract gender role theory; in fact, she directly contradicts the idea that gender is some kind of social construct ” the piece is all about the immutability of her visceral experience of being in the wrong kind of body. I found it quite illuminating.
Jonathan Smith
3 years ago
“The Guardian is a sanctimonious club of zealots” ~ Melanie Phillips 2006
The entwining fates of two notorious, self-indulgent hackettes does not make the Guardian ‘a sanctimonious club of zealots’. They took the Guardian’s shilling knowing full well what it was. And if they didn’t know, then they’re either too stupid or uninformed to be hackettes.
Kevin Ryan
3 years ago
Jesus, that was a long slog. Do they not have editors at Unherd? Pretty depressing read though, 338 colleagues all without the balls (no joke intended) to stand up for someone who questions the party line on transexual rights. And the threats to her kids are inconceivable.
Depressing also the part about Labour candidates being pressured into signing a transex manifesto, (though presumably Moore’s happy with the antisemitism one that protects the state of Israel from criticism).
But I take issue with this “What I care about fundamentally is the right of women to meet in single sex spaces and assert themselves as a class, a sex class ” one that is oppressed by a patriarchal system.”.
Isn’t that yet more identity politics? She’s just drawing the lines in a different place. “Boo hoo they kicked me out for discrimination against trans, when everybody knows that men are the real bastards”. I feel like that the heart of it. The Left’s collapse into a snake eating it’s own tail.
Gail Marie
3 years ago
I no longer feel able to express thoughts or a personal opinion on trans matters as if it’s anyway critical you are seen as a transphobe, yet people like me were supporting trans people long before it became trendy. Questions like “why is it MtF which make up the the loudest and most demanding of activists? Are met with abuse not a fair discussion. Is it possible that there is still that “male” entitlement with some MtF? Why is it that it’s mainly female orientated areas that are the ones to change yet male areas are rarely mentioned or expected to make concessions? I rarely hear from FtM making demands. Why is it acceptable to keep all your male privilege and then claim female rights too? We can’t discuss if the male/female brain is actually affected? We aren’t allowed to discuss the downsides without being accused of being a transphobe or a TERF, yet I have known 5 people who have fully transationed and only 1 is happy and well adjusted the others all have mental health issues, as the reality doesn’t/hasn’t lived up to their expectations. It’s heart breaking as if we could ask the questions without being jumped on then maybe society will have a better understanding.
Perhaps ask trans people why they are angry? Perhaps they will explain. Perhaps Rowling and others are not asking innocent questions as many think. Perhaps they are being disingenuous?
Is it possible that there is still that “male” entitlement with some MtF?
Perhaps… and maybe that’s not a bad thing. Unlike FtMs, they have the experience of moving down a step (or more) in terms of how they are treated. There is hardly anyone with more direct experience of the difference between how society treats men and women, and more motivated to speak up about it. Seems like their activism could actually benefit cis women.
Andrew D
3 years ago
Blimey. And these are the people who sit in judgement on Priti Patel?!
Vivek Rajkhowa
3 years ago
An interesting article, I think Suzanne is wrong on the monarchy, about the union, but on this she’s right. And she raises an interesting point once more. Why are so many girls wanting to become men? What is it that is leading them to become a group that modern feminism reviles so much? And consequently, what is causing them to realise their mistake? Until that is addressed, I do not think we will see the end of this debate.
I read an article a while ago about a chap who wanted to study this very issue. He was a gay man who had worked in transgender counselling and was very concerned about the huge surge in youngsters seeking to transition. Of course, no academic institution would touch such research; so the question will never be answered.
It seems a large proportion of young women who seek to ‘change sex’ are victims of abuse and/or suffer from eating disorders etc; so it seems clear to me there is a problem. Which is why it is of such concern that any debate is shut-down.
mike otter
3 years ago
I’ve always been a fan of Ms Moore’s writing style and wit though outgrew her tiresome worldview by my mid 20s. So i was happy to read this very long piece. However i can’t help gloating at her fate – holier than thou puritan sacked in purity spiral for not being pure enough!! What’s the matter Moore – ? this is what you said you wanted.
When has she ever advocated getting people deprived of livelihoods & having their young children threatened with “a good fisting” for daring to disagree with her.
Its implicit in the hate filled leftism that characterises her work. Her hatred of ordinary working poeple cannot be satisfied by simply asking them to change. It must be expressed by online threats, economic violence by the state/DSS etc and ultimately by the mob violence which is a necessary feature of leftism. So she has had a dose of her own medicine on the verbal/psychological front and she didn’t like it.
I’ve just been pointed in the direction of Moore’s defence of the rape gangs in Rotherham etc. This is a step too far IMO. There is no excuse for playing politics with victims of rape or other violent crime. Moore is no better than those who threatened her or her kids. In fact she is worse as she has the public’s ear through her access to the mass media so shold know better. https://www.theguardian.com…
Depnds how you define bitchy. My words are lifted from J Jonah Jamieson in the Marvel comics ( not the films). There is an awful lot to b***h about with Ms Moore but her hypocracy and cant is more serious than that. It deserves a plain and factual rebuttal. If you want something to b***h about her post punk bag lady chic will do just fine, dahling.
davidjacksmith3
3 years ago
Defund The Thought Police.
acarterno34
3 years ago
You are still trying to work out why you have been treated so appallingly?
Simple.
You have been cancelled for not having the correct views.
I’m surprised you don’t realise this as such treatment by intolerant liberals is common, routine and well-publicised.
Mark Shelly
3 years ago
“cult of righteousness that the Guardian embodies”, a cult which Ms Moore fully embraced when her values aligned with those of her peers. Remember this is a woman whose entire personality has been conditioned by second-wave feminism and has never deviated, like a zombie, from that stance. Remember her hit-pieces on Ched Evans that continued even after he was cleared? Here she continues to whine about herself, using terms that most people grow out off by 21 (reactionary – oh dear) and the usual pro-female dribble. Ms Moore contributed to the unthinking, rigid and often fake news telling of ‘The Guardian’ and moans when it turns on her. Live with the Loony Left, be prepared to get shot down by them when you disagree. But she can’t see that.
Social justice activism has morphed from genuine moral concerns to collective bullying if you do not agree with the “new moral thinking”. Step a millimetre across their “Red Lines” and for that transgression expect to lose your job and/or face public humiliation. There is no space for freedom of speech and no right to debate. This is fascism in any language and is destroying not uniting this country. I’m sick of terms like left and right surely we should be ruled by common sense not common purpose.
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
And I am still trying to work out why I have been treated so appallingly. Are you really? This movie has played before; the ending doesn’t change just because you’re playing the familiar part in it. What’s curious is how feminism ignores the existential threat that womanhood itself faces from the trans crowd. If being a woman is no longer a biological reality but instead, a social construct, than being female has no real meaning. It becomes no more than an emotion.
I reckon it could be half as long and still matter about the same amount. Much of it seems to be whining that she doesn’t fit in with her work colleagues and boasting that she didn’t go into the office
The trouble with feminism is that it overlooks the class struggle. I’m working class and I dont personally know of a single toxic working class male. We’re all too busy just trying to provide a home *in concert, not competition with our female partners* for ourselves and our children. It seems to me that the educated classes are the main proponents of anti male sentiment.
That isn’t the discussion here Mark. This is about women and our experiences with oppression. There doesn’t always need to be a man piping up with ‘what about how mean women are to men????’
The trouble with feminism, like every other activism, is that it has no end game, no point at which victory can be claimed. For the most part, the goals of the first feminists have been achieved. There is no career field from which women are barred. They can choose to be moms or not, and either option is okay. Instead of being secretaries and teachers, they are CEOs and principals. Yet, you’d never know that from the current wave who see an ongoing patriarchal dystopia.
Geoff Allen
3 years ago
It’s funny- but occasionally the Guardian sends requests for financial contributions as part of their article updates. Maybe instead of begging for money to keep a crap paper going they can sack some of the 338 people who falsely claim to be journalists.
Hugh Oxford
3 years ago
You know the patriarchy has arrived when a man can declare himself to be a woman, the law backs him up. and anyone who objects gets prosecuted.
Jon Redman
3 years ago
My sympathy with Suzanne’s position is limited by the fact that she has spent her writing career vilifying people who didn’t agree with her view of the world. She’s now being vilified by people even further to the Left than she is – i.e. experiencing a taste of what the Left routinely hands out to everyone who disagrees with it.
And it is wholly about the Left. You don’t get the Right insisting that there is only one way to look at the world – theirs – and if you don’t share it you deserve hatred. Only the Left does that.
A few months back, a group of reliably liberal people wrote a letter decrying cancel culture. You’d have thought they had set babies on fire based on the backlash from the wokerati.
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
It is terrible that Guardian (and NY times) can not tolerate other opinions – from the left. The good news is that technology has made it possible to ignore papers like Guardian or NY Times. What WE (people that support freedom of speech – including freedom to offend) need are new digital publishing “houses” to develop proper investigative journalism. The proper response to Guardian/NYT should be journalistic competence not “triggering articles”.
I believe it was Douglas Murray that said a big part of the divisiveness we’re witnessing stems from the problem that rather than two sides arguing over a set of facts and thus risk being forced to defend those arguments, each side has adopted their own facts to suit their own truth. If you read the Guardian/NYT you will get the facts from their side. It’s a useful exercise if you want to keep current on the latest Leftist views but a contrary factual dismantling of those views will simply be ignored and dismissed as ‘fake news’ by their ideological adherents and true believers.
To some extent Ms. Moore’s article speaks to that. There’s a certain level of “Stop! – go back! – it’s a trap!” useful caution but the reaction seems mainly to be either “lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas” or “traitor!”
Joe Blow
3 years ago
Any decent human has to feel sympathy with Moore and that she has been badly mistreated. Yet, she seems still completely clueless as to her part in pushing the agenda that created this ghastly situation.
In the Telegraph today, she is quoted extensively still bleating about how all this affects women. See, it doesn’t matter when men are affected…
To paraphrase that oft cited line… first they came for… and when they came for Moore, nobody was left to speak up. It is incredibly hard not to feel shadenfreude.
Chris Eaton
3 years ago
I wonder when she was supporting all those left wing causes that do nothing but tear down societies where she thought it was all going to end? I think has found out, but hasn’t really learned the lesson.
So, I read this long, rambling essay from a ‘wordsmith’, voluntarily embedded in the topsy-turvy world of identity politics, more specifically, gender politics, and I wonder what all the fuss is about. It appears to me, as a sinner and barbarian in all things identity, that joining these garderene swine as a young sow, treading, feasting and rolling in the fetid mud of these simple, possessed creatures, that it was duty bound to come back to haunt you when you became a crippled old sow, swaying unsteadily in that same mud, your teats dragging beneath you. You just got trampled. That’s it. Nothing more and nothing less. And it is hilarious to witness.
I could go on, about your savage and deeply personal attacks on many people in the public eye, about the inanity and exquisite irony of your winning an Orwell award whilst writing for the Guardian. But I can’t be arsed. Live well and live happily.
Richard Marriott
3 years ago
Well Suzanne, I will defend your right to say and publish whatever you like, even though on politics I doubt we would agree. Liberals are no longer liberals I am afraid, they are new fascists, where wrong thought is not permitted.
neilyboy.forsythe
3 years ago
Summary:- The politics of grievance have become all encompassing, to the point where I, of all people am now considered an oppressor. I wanted them to stay focused on my own personal, preferred, traditional grievances in which I could continue to solely present myself in the prized role of victim.
Charlotte Anstey
3 years ago
This article was a pleasure to read: carefully rooted in personal history, political identity and growth, and emotional experience. You Suzanne felt real, committed, thoughtful and protective of your core concerns and values. I stand with you on the importance of women holding our space and talking together. The aggression and bullying character of some people in the pro trans debate is damaging and utterly unacceptable. That you have been targeted in this way must be hard to bare: I hope you get help to support you it sounds traumatic in many respects. Standing with you sister
Ian Barton
3 years ago
It’s hard to offer the sympathy that the author appears to crave, when the article appears to lack the remotest concern for any male of the species.
Yes. What about the men? Men are being left out of all this! 1500 words on how women are being silenced and threatened and not one word! Jeez. Soooooooo unfair [squeezes out an angry tear].
I would have at least a tiny bit of sympathy for Suzanne.
First for making me laugh out loud.
Secondly, for revealing some of the dirt inside the pure and holy Grauniad, even if her account may or may not grotesquely biased.
Thirdly, for revealing some of the deranged hatred spewed on line and mostly concealed by moderators. The stuff on religious websites is no worse, but less well concealed. Try saying anything disobliging about Mother Teresa….
Andy Duncan
3 years ago
Thank you very much indeed for sharing this experience. As one who has also transitioned to a hormone suppressed condition (prostate cancer medication) I also give very many fewer fucks than once upon a time, and look back on a life spent challenging deep assumptions with a degree of nostalgia. There was once a time when it was possible to talk to political enemies or those with very different opinions without such rancour and discursive violence. I no longer believe that the distinction left/right makes any sense whatever though. We have authority exercised at the behest of particular capitalist interests and protected by soothing neoliberal ideologies and we have reactions to this – largely populist. Two opposing shades of right. If it were possible to build a mass movement of compassion I would be on the barricades. But in this climate ….
I think if we sent up a Reaper drone and bombed Twitter into a smoking crater, the temperature would go down remarkably quickly. It’s conditioned people into seeing politics as the equivalent of an addictive shoot ’em up video game.
Kevin Thomas
3 years ago
I agree with the basic sentiment. It is obvious to all but our ruling class that a man cannot just say the magic words and become a woman, and vice versa. Also that a worrying amount of today’s left wing “activists”, particularly it seems the LGBT ones, seem to have severe mental health issues. But where did identity politics come from? Who has promoted it for decades and helped it reach the insane level of power it has now? Now it’s mutated into something you don’t like and you are the victim. This is like reading a piece by Dr Frankenstein complaining that his monster is rampaging through the countryside and someone needs to do something.
me2olive
3 years ago
This is an excellent article, Suzanne has really done a fantastic job in articulating some of the complex issues touched on here. I hope I see this reprinted or otherwise covered in a more mainstream forum, it deserves to be.
In particular, the US/UK disparity mentioned here I think explains a lot of the hostility I’ve seen online directed at so-called “TERFs”. Many social media celebrities in the US will, even with the best will in the world, continue to write and respond as if the US and its social and legal situation is the only one that exists in the world. I saw Rowling attacked so many times for somehow tacitly supporting systemic failures in US healthcare provision (and lack thereof) and a discriminatory legal system, which are a world away from the actual issues she was raising.
I look forward to reading more of your columns in the future Suzanne, whatever the subject.
(Sorry for the double post, Disqus is being stupid about me having a pre-existing account on another site, as usual)
100sander1967
3 years ago
Ms. Moore has spent her Iife on the Ieft side of the poIticaI spectrum, and yet, when she says something that is no Ionger “aIIowabIe” she quickIy Iearns that the Ieft…is fuII of viIe peopIe.
She hasn’t reaIIy Iearned much that wasn’t aIready known however, as the “trans” peopIe who are the most vioIent and hatefuI aIways seem to be “womyn” who were born as men.
Ms. Moore has experienced the worst men have to offer, from ignorance, bIindess, and condescension, but now her view of them has been confirmed.
Men can be reaI pricks…..even when they don’t have them any more.
Gregory Sims
3 years ago
An overly long, unstructured, undisciplined rant/rave, desperately in need of a good editor(ess). Almost impossible to believe, on the strength of this chaotic, self-indulgent piece, that the authoress is such an experienced journalist. That said, I’m completely sympathetic to Moore’s rejection of the Guardianista gender-race-Maoists. It is astonishing, though, that it took a personal, direct attack for Moore finally to realise The Guardian (at least in its online form) had long since abandoned journalism worthy of the name.
I live in Oz and am not aware of Ms Moore’s history, so I may be wrong here (apologies if so) but I imagine as a Guardianista she has done her best to cancel others. Certainly the other mentioned cancelee, JK Rowling, had been an enthusiastic practitioner of the art. So for these good folk it is their Pastor Niemöller moment. Finally they came for me…
But neither Rowling or Moore have been ‘cancelled’. They both have huge readerships. You don’t see much in the way of people who actually know what being trans is with this amount of power to speak. Just, as some of the comments here, uninformed opinion and in Moore’s case a seeming justification of her somewhat dubious statements on these issues. Not once does she consider that, if so many people considered her behaviour so objectionable that they wanted her to leave, maybe she should question her own behaviour. I know I would.
Nicholas Taylor
3 years ago
I tend to agree with Mark Twain. Take 32 minutes to write 2 pages, rather than 2 minutes to write 32 pages. Write as though you are settling the matter for posterity, not just sounding off, and also recognise that not every reader will understand the context.
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
I always enjoyed Trans People on Top Of The Pops back in the 70s, but I don’t think they should be allowed to take part in women’s sports, or to be incarcerated in women’s prisons.
Recommend the following NYT article that sharply criticises cancel culture by the black feminist activist Loretta Ross: What if Instead of Calling People Out, We Called Them In Prof. Loretta J. Ross is combating cancel culture with a popular class at Smith College
ard10027
3 years ago
Your comments were “disappeared”, where they, Suzanne? Well, welcome to the consequences of leftist ideology.
David Johnson
3 years ago
Even if I agree with you on the issue at hand, Ms Moore (freedom of speech), you must also concede that you are merely being confronted with the predictable consequences of the identitarian, intersectionalist orthodoxy, which you and your hypermoralistic, grievance-seeking colleagues on the Guardian and the Independent are imposing on an increasingly sceptical (majority of) society. You wanted woke? Well now you’ve got your woke, Ms Moore. Congratulations! Fun being branded a “Nazi bigot”, for merely speaking a patent truth, isn’t it? And amusingly, snowflakery and the wokeness cult which you Ms Moore have hitherto espoused so vociferously (your contempt of white men and of anyone to the right of Corbyn is surely an incontestable matter of record) are now being hoisted on their own intolerant and illiberal petards – an inevitable consequence of re-casting racial, ethnic, religious or gender-based minorities as victims (of white racism/sexism), which are now fiercely vying with each other for legitimation and recognition – as you Ms Moore can now attest to. Consequently, whatever solidarity there was in our once liberal society – be it for feminists, gays or members of ethnic or religious minorities or communities – has now been eroded in the struggle for the supremacy of each particularist cause. And at long last, people are now starting to scrutinize the ethical credentials of those (your fellow Leftists hacks) presuming to continually stand in moral judgement over the British public, and remarking on the deeply embedded illiberalism, intolerance and outright bigotry they discover. No offense intended, of course. So forgive the unalloyed Schadenfreude informing this comment, but it is a little ironic that in order to find a platform, you are now writing in a genuinely liberal journal read largely by the very section of society whom you regularly excoriate and brand as “deplorables” in your Guardian columns – the hated white cis-heteronormative male. To put it mildly Ms Moore, I have very little sympathy for you. You are the architect of your own predicament. Either way, the days of recoiling in shame and horror when bombarded with scatter-gun accusations of misogyny, racism, transphobia and Islamophobia for merely speaking an inconvenient truth are gone. At least for me.
Diana Durham
3 years ago
It seems that this is a case of ‘First they came for..’ makes me think of the quote by Churchill (whose statue they came for): ‘Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last.’
Steve White
3 years ago
Classical liberalism would say that the truth exists outside of our opinions. So, if we were to be classically liberal we should not be a liberal or a conservative or moderate so as to look to be on that side no matter what. That’s simply tribalism. It is our responsibility to be open to and look for the truth and to agree with it and embrace it, even promoting it. It seems however that classical liberalism is dead.
Today personal-bias rules over what one wants to argue is true. This lady simply wants old liberal tribalism (within which she flourished) to come back, but instead it’s being replaced by a new liberal tribalism that considers her opinions to be unorthodox. Look at the way she spoke of her pro-abortion views in Poland, yet I’ll bet if she were paid 10,000 euros to write an article that is anti-abortion, she could find a different way to look at it, however she wrote what she really thought here in her thesis. She elevated what supported her biases.
So, if a conservative person could see the abortion issue from a totally different set of facts, and in a totally different light, who’s right? Whoever can write best, or whoever has the biggest voice? The thing is that it’s been her selective picking of facts she wants to elevate to serve to advance a specific agenda that she finds morally superior that has laid the ground work for the even further left people that have cancelled her, and are replacing her.
Rather than learn a lesson and say that it is wrong to just promote half truths or anecdotal stories as part of an agenda, perhaps we should return to classical liberalism and agree that the truth stands outside of us, we should seek it, agree with it and promote it even if it doesn’t support a bias that I might favor, because the truth is bigger than me. Just a thought, perhaps it’s too romantic and archaic.
I will say that listening to someone like the feminist icon Camille Paglia, to me she is a classical liberal. She’s even admitted the point I just made, that she was part of the problem.
Annie Ryan
3 years ago
I like what Suzanne Moore has written; it is a slow, thoughtful portrayal of a journalistic life lived with convictions and beliefs unswayed by a sea of political correctness, cancel culture and patriarchy. As a woman in my mid 50s I feel muted by the absence of debate about anything difficult or meaningful. I feel as though I must just quietly accept the changes that are taking place in society. Incrementally I too am becoming beige; there is for me no platform to air my thoughts about all sorts of issues, unless of course my thoughts aired are entirely inoffensive and reasonable. The oxygen of debate has been cut off. Todays discussions are a world away from the discussions in my sociology A level classes of the early 80s. I am ever mindful that I am raising my 12 year old child to be accepting of everybody and everything, teaching them to err on the side of neutral, inoffensive and unchallenging; even when I know that means that parts of who they are is being erased. If my child is as I was and still am albeit less vocal now, I feel they will find their place in the world very difficult to navigate. Less a letter with 338 signatures and more a life of exclusion.
“As a woman in my mid 50s I feel muted by the absence of debate about anything difficult or meaningful.”
As a man in my late 60s I feel exactly the same. The absence of reasoned debate about almost anything is not just sad but frightening. In the past it was states that tried to muzzle debate e.g. Nazi Germany. Now it is minority groups with an axe to grind using social media to stigmatise people who either don’t agree with them or simply raise issues about what they are saying. This has reached its height with the antisemitism expressed by the far left, and also with the experience that Suzanne Moore and JK Rowling have written about.
Why people feel unsafe when someone expresses a view that they don’t agree with is beyond me. Honest and open rational debate is a cornerstone of a free society. Without it we will end up like China.
Karen Lindquist
3 years ago
I think you’ve covered every aspect of this perfectly. I’m on the American side of the pond and have been an outspoken woman formerly of the leftist activist community, organizing and writing for much of my life to stop corporate power, and to promote the rights of people everywhere. And now it’s come to this. Hindsight, it took me decades to fully see the misogyny of the left. It was a heartbreaking discovery to realize how deeply despised and resented women are as a class based on our biological bodies. Much like you, I operate in the realm of a male dominated world: the trades. I am a contractor and was born and raised in a blue collar, working class family. Another thing the left has little respect for. Here around Boston, you find the Democrats are increasingly pandering to the PC babies. No one wants to discuss how big pharma and a ha full of American billionaires is pushing an agenda to fast track kids to self mutilation. It both erases women and homosexuals in the end, as bodies and preferences are no longer relevant. I am eternally grateful for women like you who have not bowed to the lords and masters who wish for us to be silenced and complicit in our erasure. Thank you.
We all know on a long enough timeline this absurdity is unsustainable. The lawsuits from young adults against the doctors and people who pushed them to mutilate themselves, rendering them sterile and forever scarred, are starting here. And we all know, in crybaby America, the lawsuits determine the landscape. We are in for a wild ride. But I will forever hold tight to the women who own themselves and speak truth to power. Us witches gotta stand united!
Elise Davies
3 years ago
“My experience is that I have been censored more by the Left than the Right and it gives me no pleasure to say that. Laziness of thought is my big fear, this unthinking adherence to some simplistic orthodoxy.” When did you eventually come to realise this Suzanne? Was it just after you’d paid off your mortgage?
My awareness of politics goes back to the late sixties, and in my experience it has always been the left who have shouted down/de-platformed/cancelled, going back to Enoch Powell. The late Bernard Levin compiled a list of 106 events that had been cancelled because of thuggery, and in every case the howlers were on the left. Even when the howlees were leftists, the culprits were never young Tories or EDL, but those even more left!
You obviously haven’t been in a meeting where NF thugs have physically attacked the audience or where we had to barricade the doors against sectarian thugs. Or where you have been dragged out by the hair by Labour Party stewards for daring to speak up at a Jim Callaghan meeting. Showing my age there! ðŸ˜
My understanding is that she never had a mortgage. She was literally handed ownership of a home, for free, by Camden Council around the same time that I, a working class guy from the north, had to buy my own home in London.
Sholto Douglas
3 years ago
When this woke petty Stalinism emerged in humanities faculties, we said well never mind, when they graduate they will have their noses rubbed in reality. This assumed incorrectly that the real world, outside the BBC and the public sector, would not put up with their petulance. Alas their behaviour has been met with gelatinous acquiescence by the real world. Pace staff at Penguin Books in Canada, who are weeping over publishing Jordan Peterson’s latest work. That story has not run its course yet, but the track record of corporate management suggests another surrender is coming up.
Walter Lantz
3 years ago
I have mixed feelings on this article. Ms. Moore’s story will serve as a cautionary tale for some and they will admire her for speaking out. And it certainly emphasizes the reality that big league journalism isn’t for the thin-skinned or faint-hearted. So three cheers for that.
However, the piece could have been easily entitled ‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it’ While the compunction to yell “Those dirty bastards!” after every other paragraph is totally understandable so to is the urge to roll eyes and say “Well – duh!” because much of what she relates comes as no surprise to anyone who has read Gulag Archipelago or Prague Farewell.
Martin Tuite
3 years ago
How come the accused was not invited to defend herself at the conference? Even the Nazis and Stalinist allowed this at their show trials.
How can a person resign again three weeks after having handed in their resignation? The person was no longer employed by the Guardian and so surely didn’t have a job to resign from.
Suzanne rarely appeared in the Guardian’s editorial department so why was she believed to be a threat? Had she ever threatened to physically assault trans people?
Excellent piece. Left extremists obviously only believe in free speech when people agree with them. “Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.”Lord Justice Sedley.
Suzanne rarely appeared in the Guardian’s editorial department so why was she believed to be a threat? She engaged in wrong think. Double plus bad wrong think.
Martin K
3 years ago
This is a great piece, Suzanne, and the Guardian is the poorer for no longer publishing your intelligent, incisive voice. It is extremely worrying that a form of extreme constructivism seems to be able to obliterate dissenting perspectives. It reduces diversity in the name of promoting it – surely this is just tribes shouting across a hardened boundary and no longer qualifies as debate. Thank you for your thoughtful and heartfelt pieces – and don’t let them grind you down. You don’t just have many readers – you have many fans.
stephgaunt
3 years ago
Well, this is a disappointment. I just this minute joined unheard because I had read Suzanne’s article and empathised with her views, and I thought the level of argument/debate might be higher than on other platforms. Wrong. I may as well be reading a Twitter feed. Who are all these whiny men complaining at the slightest threat to their perceived ‘rights’? By the way, I am a woman. An adult human female. Like Suzanne, I have lived in a woman’s body all my life and I refuse to have the reality of that body denied, for me and for countless other women still suffering and discriminated against because of our bodies. FGM. Abortion denial. Unnecessary death in childbirth. All real.
And how do you feel about the whiny women, including Moore, who have been complaining about their perceived lack of rights for 50 years while ignoring their own privilege?
Um, ever heard of MGM? It’s all the rage. Unnecessary death in childbirth? Real, but thanks to the efforts of men in medical science over the past century, that is, men who cared about women, the rate is down from about 600 in 100,000 deaths to 12 (US figures). Give a thought to the child dying? That’s also a good news story.
David Bell
3 years ago
For a newspaper that spends it’s time lecturing people on discrimination, bulling, etc there appears to be a lot of bulling and discrimination going on!
Plus it had (I think past tense is correct) an off shore fund which paid no tax funding it’s UK losses!
cherryowens438
3 years ago
I really am a very naive 59 year old female – I simply do not understand what is happening in our lives today with reference to sexual/trans or whatever is a la mode. My feeling though is very strongly that we must have freedom to express whatever we feel as individuals and if someone takes offence well – man up as is said – we must surely grow a much harder shell instead of feeling so offended by what ever is said. I feel lucky to be female, never wanted to be anything but female and I like to think that ‘anything goes as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else’ but we seem to be in a situation where hatred and loathing seem rampant and the loudest shout the quiet ones down but everyone should be allowed a voice. Listening and discussing is part of life and if you won’t at listen to other peoples views then you surely a selfish and narcissistic arsehole.
mick.coulter
3 years ago
I feel the author has obviously been treated unfairly and I agree with many of her positions.
But, and there’s always a but, she also appears to be delusional. The article is scattered with references such as this
“the main discussions of feminism appear to be by men telling us men can just say they’re women”
As if these radical, censorious infinity-wave feminist are evil cat-stroking men just doing their evil cat-stroking man thing. The vile threats and hollow accusations of terfdom and transphobia almost all originate from women (“people who menstruate” if you will).
You’re so stuck in your own ideological bubble, that seemingly being that men are the cause of all your ills, that you cannot see the forest for the shes. Overwhelmingly it is female / menstruators who are attacking you and of the male cohort who do so, the majority of them are from the LGBTQIA+ community, not the evil cat-stroking, business attire wearing, cishet, white, breadwinning variety
You’re unwilling to accurately identify those who are attacking you because of your own prejudiced beliefs. I’m not sure if this is a deliberate act of censorship on your behalf or if you’re just blind to it.
Regardless, it is not masculinity or the patriarchy that is your foe here. Think it is time for you to admit, that girls can be dicks too.
polidoris ghost
3 years ago
So, the intolerant turn on each other. You would need a heart of stone not to laugh. Where is Oscar when you need him?
In the Bois de Boulogne with a Brazilian transsexual.
Andy Postman
3 years ago
My working class instinct is to always go down swinging. To resign felt, to me at least, bourgeois: let them edit you, then publish your words on social media – expose the conditionality, the cleansing, the control. Let them sack you, but keep swinging and keep writing right up in their faces.
Cut through the whining and all that’s really happened is a bunch of her colleagues wrote a nasty letter about her where they didn’t even name her, and she’s quit in a huff. Compare and contrast to some poor devil who got fired from a minimum wage job at Asda for liking the wrong thing on Facebook.
Cut through the whining and all that’s really happened is a bunch of her colleagues wrote a nasty letter about her where they didn’t even name her, and she’s quit in a huff. Compare and contrast to some poor devil who got fired from a minimum wage job at Asda for liking the wrong thing on Facebook.
Janet Inglis
3 years ago
So much time left to write. I don’t understand why people waste so much time and effort worrying about what is left or right, and whether they’ll get in trouble from their tribe for saying what they believe is right. Political purity is a killer of progress and thought. Don’t stop writing.
Lee Jones
3 years ago
Brilliant! I want to say brave, but it’s not bravery it’s decency, compassion and humanity and anger at all that is not.
I rather wish I had not commented this article, but I did, and for the record I very often disagree with views held by the writer, her values, are perhaps more more akin to my own. But this does not make her a poor writer, nor does she deserve as many have commented “her comeuppance”, comeuppance for what, disagreeing with a vicious bully, because all the whingeing I have read here amounts to nothing more than having a different view from yourself (or chillingly (for civilisation) people who do agree, but appear to hate her anyway, I’m guessing most are not personal acquaintances. The constant shrieking of those people telling how to be better people and a better society seem to never value or uphold those things themselves. Probably because we know better than to engage with morally corrupt bullies and keep to ourselves, and those we admire. But I’m drunk, and you disgust me.
Conversations with yourself whilst drunk are always fraught with danger…….
Rollo Thompson
3 years ago
the left is intolerant of diversity of thought in a very sinister way, the Guardian epitomises the perversity of left wing thinking. This is a classic story of work place bullying that gets away with pretending cancel culture is not bullying. Guardian paid for readership is less than the Spectator with its liberatian view on writers articles and surely its days are numbered hopefully Moore will speak up loudly on the importance of freedom of speech and challenge hidden censorship that pervades so much of social media , the Guardian and BBC where woke group think is de riguer
Michael Dawson
3 years ago
It’s a bit like trying to be sympathetic towards Bukharin and Zinoviev and their fate during Stalin’s Terror. Yes, she’s been badly treated, but it would be nice to see some more criticism of fundamental left-wing tenets of belief, notably the over-bearing self-righteousness that means the left automatically assumes that what it wants to do is morally right and any opposition is not just wrong, but evil. Suzanne is now a victim of this mentality because what she thinks is no longer in line with the prevailing left/radical orthodoxy.
Gerard Havercroft
3 years ago
Really interesting read. I’m locked away in mountains in Brazil and only really get to use much Internet between 11PM and 6AM due to my partners need to teach online and limited data so I had only really been half following snatches of JK Rowling’s misfortunes but this whole piece was fascinating. And wonderfully written and I, as a guardian reader, wouldd say its their loss even if I don’t always like evrything Moore has to say.
aelf
3 years ago
I’ve not been paying attention recently to the hierarchy of progressive politics identity group victimhood. I gather that ‘trans’ now trumps the other ‘victim’ groups but does it rank above or below Islam? I suspect the latter but, as noted, I don’t keep up with this sort of thing.
Black, muslim trans and neurodivergent would be the trump card.
Rob Nock
3 years ago
I have some sympathy for Suzanne but as many have commented what is really depressing and clear from her article is that everything is still men’s fault. Not intolerant Lefties or even just some intolerant lefties but MEN full stop. Sure there are intolerant men but there are definitely lots of intolerant women as well. Many work for the Guardian, or used to.
Upon seeing that my daughter was assigned to read ‘Masculine Toxicity’ in her Columbia U graduate program, I told her to come talk to me for Part 2: ‘Feminine Toxicity.”
I have 3 sisters and went to a girl’s school – I understand female toxicity all too well (and I am a feminist!). It doesnt involve physical violence but social shunning – and the present cancel culture is remarkably reminiscent of a mean girls vibe. The very fact that Teen Vogue and the other women’s magazines are enthusiastic proponents of wokism tells you everything you need to know.
I don’t hear in what she has written that it is ‘still men’s fault,’ rather the still all powerful, prescriptive influence of the current political power dynamic is still heavily influenced by men. Patriarchy is how the article alludes to it, but I think it is now more insidious and undetectable than ever because we are silenced against calling it out.
It brings to mind an image of female wrestling fights, where the vast majority of those buying tickets to watch are men.
Kiran Grimm
3 years ago
And so on with the cancel culture… The minions at Random House Canada have been wailing, gnashing their teeth and generally showing how hurt and wounded they are by the decision of their employer to publish the new Jordan Peterson book.
The kids are most definitely NOT alright.
yousopar1
3 years ago
There are men and there are women, then a minority of people with mental health issues, and parents of children suffering from Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy.
T J Putnam
3 years ago
Moore is a writer who wins your respect because she is able to show how her positions are grounded, an ethical and political rigour which grows on you. You come to recognise that if you’re not initially receptive to what she says, this might well say more about you than about her. That certainly applies to those involved in the sad saga of ‘trans debate’ in the Guardian and elsewhere.
Her trajectory is perhaps the best living example of why Mrs. Thatcher didn’t want many people to have access to media and cultural studies. She is able to integrate her learning with life to produce arguments which bite deep into the experience of very large numbers of people. Imagine if this was the rule rather than the exception in political journalism.
mogball
3 years ago
Dear Suzanne I had been hoping to hear from you since the information about your leaving the Guardian started to emerge. It was disturbing but I was a bit unclear what had happened and I wasn’t sure whether or not to cancel my subscription and membership. There aren’t many publications where I can read about the UK, and in my own language, and I started to take the Guardian when I was a student, in 1961. I’m stopping now. I am so sorry and angry that you were treated like that. Good luck, don’t stop being an honest writer.
jim payne
3 years ago
What a pucka article. There is much in your political thought that I don’t agree with. That said I describe myself as a Ghengis Khan socialist. To many fat cats with obscene amounts of money who should be more philanthropic if they wriggle out of their tax liabilities. I am not a lover of the LGBT/ Trans issues that seem to be pushed down our throats these days. With life long Gay friends/relatives, I have no problem with their sexuality or life-style. Just don’t need it pushed in my face. No more than I want heterosexuals pushing themselves in my face either. But you have put many of my and most of my friends thoughts in writing. Not that many people I know actually give a damn. Sod the Twitterati they are not needed, no more than those than threatend or made you feel you had to quit your job. I have a p***s and am a man. My wife and daughters menstruate, in my eyes that makes them women. Cut my p***s off and I am still a man. You keep it up. Sense must prevail, or we are all in for a bumpy ride. Would like to see more of your thoughts in Unherd.
Christopher Chantrill
3 years ago
They used to talk about the Particle Zoo in physics. It was hard to keep the particles straight.
But it ain’t got nothing on the Ideological Identity Zoo in Lefty-land.
Ecod, as the gentle Jonas Chuzzlewit might say.
Tom Adams
3 years ago
As many have noted, someting of the biter bit there.
Liz Wills
3 years ago
Tour de force. From a similar background and life path as SM and this also feels like my story and so many left feminists. This is about class v rampant consumerist individualism. The left has lost its way. We won’t shut up. And as SM said in the infamous column I think: there are more if us than you think.
Christopher chrispalin
3 years ago
The snake has eaten its own tail.
wbfleming
3 years ago
Richard Gott. Wasn’t he the one who loftily described Kampuchea as ‘an interesting experiment’? Still, that was back in the 80s, pre-internet, so I don’t suppose we’ll ever know.
Ian Standingford
3 years ago
Too long
J A Thompson
3 years ago
Please do not give up! The many who support you are muzzled by the few who don’t! I feel powerless because I have no voice. People like you are our only hope and there are many others out there. If you can join them to start a movement against this we will all be grateful and I for one will do what I can to help.
JC McL
3 years ago
As I understand her article, Ms. Moore cares fundamentally about the right of men to meet in single sex spaces and assert themselves as a class, a sex class ” one that is oppressed by a “woke” system. Good on her! It’s about time! May she write long, and prosper!
Paul pmr
3 years ago
“Like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children.” Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793
EJ Winston
3 years ago
A lot of words but absolutely zero self-reflection. Even continues slander people within this very article without any appreciation of the irony of her situation. She really is the most massive t**d.
Susan Gilchrist
3 years ago
Thank you Suzanne! I started my life as a 17 year old in journalism. I never reached your giddy heights but I am so sad and angry that so little has changed! I should point out that I am now 73 so I have been through most of the stages of feminism. The trans debate and the cancel culture make me despair.
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
The Right used to dictate ”The Political Culture” Now its The left and their ‘Diversity obsession” vacuous echo chamber of the Guardian, The metro, financial Times, the times observer etc..shows how out of Touch Our declining sales newspapers are?.
You’d have to go a long way back- possibly as far as the 19th century – to find a point where the Right dictated the political culture – or at least the socio-political culture – in the media and across all arms of the state.
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
I have read countless columns by Suzanne Moore over the years. I suppose she has been a little more interesting/entertaining than many columnists, but I don’t really remember a striking turn of phrase or anything that has made me think, or prompted me to change my mind on any issue. Indeed, the only information I can really recall is that Camden Council literally gave her a home to own – she didn’t have to pay a penny.
I have now watched the whole of the interview with Freddy Gray and I am struck by the fact that she is barely coherent and, it would seem, somewhat inarticulate. I say this not from the point of view of someone who had a good education or went to a posh university. I went to a bog standard comp in the middle of nowhere and did not attend university. I am simply beginning to wonder why we are making such a fuss about someone of no particular distinction or originality deciding to resign from an organ of no distinction whatsoever, merely for having an opinion that is shared by, one would suppose, 99% of the population.
As an addendum I have just visited the Guardian site for the first time since the day after the last general election – but only to read about Maradonna.
Suzanne must know, but as a regular Guardian reader – though not a Guardianista – I am amazed to read that the staff are all Jeremy Corbyn supporters. It seemed to me that the Guardian has played a major role – more influential than the Tory press – in kicking Corbyn to political death. I offer no opinion upon whether he deserved it or not – most Unherd readers probably think he did – but I am literally flabbergasted by Suzanne’s revelations and even more suspicious of the media in general than I was before I read what she has to say.
Exactly. Journalist Jonathan Cook has written many words on their anti Corbyn campaign and on their silence on Julian Assange. Mind you, the workers don’t decide editorial policy.
Terry M
3 years ago
The patriarchy. Bunk.
You want to see male privilege, visit the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington DC. 58,300 names of men who died in the war. 8 names of women. There’s your male privilege. The privilege to get drafted and die in a pointless war.
Women hide behind the term patriarchy as a way to rationalize their failures. They claim that men run the world. How many households are run by men? Precious few.
I feel sorry for this poor woman who rocked the boat and got burned. But she was burned by her own cult of the religion of victimization. The guillotine was not used only for the aristocracy.
Forgotten also is a vast number of those men did not even have the right to vote, the voting age only coming down from 21 to 18 in 1971 as a result of protest. Men fighting for voting rights! Fancy that.
James Wardle
3 years ago
Dearest Suzanne
First let me start by saying how sorry I am that you experienced the level of bullying you describe here. Bullying is loathsome, a pack mentality sometimes and it is why I went into HR.
It is hard to believe we are here, a journalist bullied and a smear campaign to boot, just for exercising a right to free speech, to express views in an article, to open up discussion and debate about trans issues et al (I’m assuming as I didn’t read the article).
No one deserves to be bullied in that way and I am shocked that so many in the Guardian signed that letter but did not have the balls (or perhaps that should be v%gina, as Betty White says, they can take a real pounding!) to discuss their concerns.
What is really interesting is you mention cult. It’s a different situation, but there are paralells. I grew up within a toxic family as the black sheep aka scapegoat with a narcissistic father at its blackened heart. These families are cults too, but eventually I stuck my head above the parapet to say, this family is FUBAR, this is not a normal familynand any relationship has to be equals, w/o bullying, which of course, they didn’t accept.
It takes courage to stand up for your beliefs, to not accept the status quo and ultimately, like ancient times, if you didn’t conform within your tribe, out you go into the wilderness.
It is a hard pill to swallow as it feels at times, I’m guessing you’ve had moments like I did perhaps, when you have thought the costs were too great and it wasn’t worth it. Occasionally, I did get a bit overwhelmed by a sense of loss of my entire network (you write very candidly about your darkest moments).
But you did the right thing. I did. The fact that 300 guardian workers did that to you is the irony, because it shows a press that lost any modicum of traditional journalism, based on the highest standards and principles. You fall into the latter, and what you set out in your article which kicked it off, must have needed saying. Because as a woman, trans activism means that trans women (who were men before transition), now actively protest feminist conferences because some women are rightly concerned about sharing amenities or institutions like prison (one issue of several), because anyone can say I’m no longer identifying as male. So it’s almost men wanting to transition and be equal with CIS women, but discussion by those women about their safety concerns and the impact on womanhood, means these women are literally bashed out o existence. And yet they never said you are not allowed to be trans or make threats against them. Just expressed concern.
From my perspective, I am gay, but given the average sex act lasts 6 minutes, it is not an identity for me, it’s just about what sex I theoretically sleep with(5 years single by choice). There is much more to me than that and I don’t engage with LGBT nor am I proud of parades where children get to feed dog treats to fetishists pretending to be dogs on all fours.
There was a report on BBC about a survey that said 50% of muslims in UK don’t have a problem with violence against people like me. i’ve posted about it and said by all means, challenge the stats, but I am a British citizen, I have the right to state I have a problem with I slam and the. Muslim community if half of them think that is ok. I do not take issue with individual muslims and treat them as I would want to be treated, with utmost respect. No-one ever comments or responds because these people, like your guardian ex colleagues have tied themselves up in knots. If you accuse me of Islamaphobia, then by definition, you are homophobic. Anyone else would be tarred and feathered, yet no one ever likes, upvotes downvotes, comments. Literally nothing.
That’s the opposite end, in terms of what you experienced.
It’s fun to mess with virtue signalling SJW’s!
But seriously, you have something to say and you should be able to say it, to open up debate.
It’s a difficult path but when you look at JC himself, protestant Martyrs, standing up to Nazism, Madiba, whatever principle, whatever creed, however large or small, it’s a tough and often lonely road. But the alternative is to become a person you are not…like the 300 plus.
Your story is shocking and I’m so glad that you are are telling it here. God bless you if that’s your thing, may the force or universe be with you if not.
Thank you and take care.
James W, Lancs.
David Fitzsimons
3 years ago
Frankly the action your ex-Guardian colleagues took against you is a disgrace.
People are unwilling to listen to the position of others never mind countenance that there might be something to learn from others, if only to understand why someone holds a different opinion. This also causes resentment and stops people from changing opinion.
I do get confused though. For example, you would appear to think that sex selective abortion is not right (I’d agree). But your ex-Guardian colleague and Unherd colleague Sarah Ditum thinks that it is a woman’s right. To the uninitiated, today’s ideologies are all tangled up and appear inconsistent and modish.
“unlike half the paper, I didn’t believe that Corbyn had actually won in 2017. I also didn’t like the macho, bullying culture around him propped up by writers at my place of work.” Who are these people? Not that she would know as she “never goes into the office”
Yep. I know Guardian readers who cannot conceive of political discussion at all without dancing round the maypole that is Corbyn in the middle.
Andrew Baldwin
3 years ago
Bravo, Suzanne Moore! When I read this piece, I was worried that the great Larry Elliott, the Guardian journo who has done so much to keep housing bubbles as part of the public discussion in the UK, might have been one of Suzanne’s 338 colleagues who let her down by signing the open letter attacking her. I was relieved to find out that he was not.
bootsyjam
3 years ago
No sympathy whatsoever. She was happy to stand by as those same people who are now lining up against her would do the same to others. She probably joined in a few times. Or said nothing. Because remember-silence is violence. And now this has happened to her all of a sudden it’s a terrible thing? You reap what you sow. So reap it.
Actually, borrowing and printing funds a great deal of all the free stuff. That’s why we are two trillion in debt. Ultimately, of course, the borrowing and printing is not free either.
cormac.q
3 years ago
I had given up reading you and many others at the Guardian who seemed to have missed the huge challenges facing us; which, despite it’s failings Corbyn had attempted to address in moving the Labour Party from a facsimile of the Tory Party, to something approximating a party of progressive politics. Particularly around the economic debate. However I agree about the experience of women in the patriarchy being airbrushed out (again). It seems that sometimes the patriarchy is just being reshaped to double down on women in the current discussions on identity. As you say there is a material physical experience that women have that I as a man will never have.
andywaincardiff
3 years ago
This is an excellent article, thank you. I’ve been finding myself increasingly confused by the conflicts in trans ideology, with the logical and semantic contradictions that come up.
Like you I don’t want anybody to live in fear and the solutions are clearly much more nuanced than the dogma would have us believe.
Thank you for writing this article and giving me more to think about.
Mark Bates
3 years ago
The freedom of speech is the freedom of opinion, expression and the freedom of ideas – all of which may not be agreed upon by some people.
The ‘Cancel Culture’ seek to curtail the freedom of speech. You are not truly free if only one idea is the agreed format.
John Alyson
3 years ago
A very insightful article. I am sympathetic with Suzanne Moore but still cannot help feel that this is very much a revolution eating its own. And even in that ongoing cultural revolution, within which Suzanne has been an active participant, she has never been that sympathetic to those who have suffered from being on the wrong side of the arguments to which she has adhered.
What do you men by a revolution? The one that started in the 60s?
John Brown
3 years ago
Person feathers her nest in foul flock.
Foul flock turns on said person who then cries ‘foul’.
Said person”now enlightened”is granted shelter and expression in the very tribe, she once disparaged.
Maybe I’m being unfair. Discuss.
stephensjpriest
3 years ago
Dear Unherd FROM PETER HITCHENS
I beg and urge you to write to your MP, and to get your friends, neighbours, colleagues and family to join you. Numbers are crucial, as you will see. On your computer, please find writetothem com . This will direct your letter to your MP in easy steps. Then write, briefly, politely, acidly.
Say only this: ‘If on Tuesday you vote to destroy the jobs and livelihoods of others, do not expect to keep your own. When the reckoning comes for this, there will be no such thing as a safe seat. Scottish Labour MPs once thought their seats were safe. Look what happened to them.’
Do not worry about any reply you receive or do not receive.
These boobies mostly cannot reason. But they can count. And if enough such emails arrive, they will at last grasp what they have done, and fear for their majorities as they should. This is pretty much the only lawful means of resistance we still have. If you do not use it now, to the full, when are you going to do so? And if lawful protest is ignored, what do people think is going to happen when the P45s and the bankruptcies spread like a great puce blot across the country through the miserable winter months, and next spring brings no real release?
I have already written to my MP, something I have never done before. Always remember to include your name and address. If you don’t, they use it as excuse not to read or respond to your email.
michaelgjames
3 years ago
This is awful, truly saddening. I haven’t always agreed with what Suzanne Moore has written, but that was sort of why I read the Guardian in the first place. As a wishy-washy (Oxbridge educated white male) liberal I always considered the Guardian to be not only my natural paper, but one which might actually teach me something. Now it’s become this temple of preening self-righteousness.
Tom Callaghan
3 years ago
I have no brief for Suzanne Moore, but I do believe that the Guardian is not so different to Daily Mail. Both are screech sheets, though with different perspectives. I’m banned from commenting on Guardian comments threads even though was against Brexit and am repelled by Johnson administration….
Peter Evans
3 years ago
Suzanne has my support. Cancel culture is fascist.
Cave Artist
3 years ago
Where is Camille Paglia when you need her?
w.pyesmith
3 years ago
In many groups in society there are bullies. They are people who call you names of abuse and are threatening and demeaning of you when you dare to have a different view to theirs. They are uttlerly intolerant. Nothing to do with the issue, although it appears that it is. A minority of people but they make alot of “noise”.
Ben
3 years ago
Time to take up a hobby Suzanne. Pottery or painting. A great deal more therapeutic too.
Ignore the the infantile remarks from some. Keep writing. I’m sure there will be many wanting to read your stuff.
quirk.jon
3 years ago
Thank you Suzanne for your integrity, great writing style and your courage in both talking truth to power and the “un-afraidness” you continuously show when going against the grain.
In an increasingly conforming world it takes courage to be “the one without the tattoo”, to be the one who boldly asks the little/big questions like, why?
I grew up on the Grauniad, but barely give it a glance these days; even its old quirky spelling pre-Wapping no longer even nods to a wry chuckle.
Just “fush ‘n chups” fodder, as a kiwi friend would say.
Matthew Wilson
3 years ago
The Labour leadership contenders were ordered to sign a pledge which called Woman’s Place a “hate group”. With the exception of Keir Starmer, they did.
Including Jess Phillips?
Ian Barton
3 years ago
Unpleasant as the letter is, the suggestion of being “bullied by the 338 signatories” seems somewhat absurd.
Aren’t journalists supposed to have some sense of proportion.
It might be better to avoid sympathy-seeking “clickbait” if you want to generate support.
Stephen Tye
3 years ago
The biter, bit. Tough.
Wulvis Perveravsson
3 years ago
As Ferris Bueller quite rightly put it; “Isms, in my opinion, are not good.”
Michael North
3 years ago
I didn’t get halfway through the above. Another victim of lefty cannibalism – how sad.
elspeth mcveigh
3 years ago
Thank you Suzanne Moore. Thank you for your words and saying it how it is.
Jonathan Andrews
3 years ago
Your writing is honest and interesting and I wish you well
Lydia R
3 years ago
The Alphabet People and their spats with feminists are of even less relevance now when people are struggling with job losses and keeping a roof over their heads.
It is just another facet of the evil of woke which will end up with everyone either to scared to express an opinion or everyone at everyone else’s throats. I therefore see wokedom as being like a cancer that is spreading untreated due to COVID and is the social equivalent ticking time bomb.
Johan Grönwall
3 years ago
The identity politics revolution has reached the end of its terror stage and it is now all the Robespierres turn to visit Mme Guillotine. This is wonderful news. Hopefully soon this malady will be gone.
If only that were so. Methinks the fever still rages. The snowflakes are melting down over Penguin publishing Jordan Peterson. And over at Estee Lauder make-up company, over a hundred employees wanted Leonard Lauder to kick his brother Ronald out of the company when he offered up some complimentary words about Trump. Rather cheeky that as the two brothers own the $89 Billion company together. Do these triggered folks realize that names were probably taken and that they’ll soon be out of a job or not promoted. All rather cheeky that. No matter, professors in Sociology Departments across the USA are cheering their legions on….over the cliff.
The identitarian ideology is too deeply embedded in the humanities – the contagion has spread from the sociology/anthropology nexus to even STEM – and it is still making its way across the globe via academia and media activists; it has even reached peak yet. What I foresee is a huge mainstream swing rightwards when the ordinary people finally wake up to its absurdities.
I think most ordinary, useful, people woke up to the Woke absurdities some time ago. The problem is that most of the media and all the structures of authority are fully Woke, and determined to crush all reason, along with all useful people.
e.booth
3 years ago
It is very sad that a paper that was once a beacon of free thinking should attempt to mute its writers.
I can’t say how, but I know there is a lot of backstabbing between editorial staff at this paper. Don’t call me naive for calling it out; of course, journalism is competitive and The Guardian is seen as a really top place to publish your work.
But if ethics matter, they could be fairer in the way they manage contributors. Imagine being invited to participate in an open project to share specialist information, with the incentive to be able to pitch articles for publication in The Guardian, only to see not one, but two of your ideas written up by Guardian writers and published as if it were all their own work, without a single word of credit and not even an email to say ‘nice idea, we have done it ourselves’. I feel we were cheated into volunteering to enhance their editorial output quite cynically.
Not happy. And good luck, Suzanne.
Lydia R
3 years ago
The Guardian along with the Labour Party has killed itself by entering US Culture Wars from their campuses. It should be fairly obvious that this provokes backlashes especially among working class people. As for the biological sex, you only have to step outside your front door and see that manual labour is entirely done by men. In all the years I’ve been employing people to repair things in the house, not a single one of them has been a woman. Even after 40 years of feminism.
Gregory Sims
3 years ago
As a (former?) rabid, intransigent Marxist and as a card-carrying radical feminist, Ms Moore is no doubt familiar with the expression “the revolution eats its own children”. We seem to have a classic instance of the phenomenon here.
As Marie Antoinette would say, let them eat eachother!
cognitronz
3 years ago
The culture war is lost, the only way for it to end is for the kids to wise up as they grow older. In the mean time, distance yourself from anyone 30 and under. Let them indulge in their ideological orgy. Hopefully, paying off their six figure student loan will re-awaken some of them if it’s not canceled like everything else in this world.
Kiran Grimm
3 years ago
Has The Orwell prize gone the way of the other coveted prizes ““ ie. recognition for helping to propogate the Left-liberal world view above all else? A recent recipient has been shown to have passed off invention as truth.
Yes, all these prizes exist nowadays for no other reason than to reward woke etc. That said, I am currently reading recent Booker winner ‘Milkman’ by Anna Burns and it’s a work of near genius, despite the Booker being one of the purest examples of virtue signalling wokeness.
I guess the book ticked all the right boxes – written by a woman from the Celtic fringe, anti-English, written in a style that might be described as ‘experimental’ etc – but just happened to be one of the very few good books awarded the Booker.
David Stanley
3 years ago
I have great sympathy with you, Suzanne. I think you have been treated appallingly for stating completely reasonable opinions and uncontestable facts. However, I do take issue with some of the things you have said.
First of all, this idea that rape conviction rates are low compared to other crimes. This is a myth that was pushed by feminists for years (see the Guardian article below). Now that the CPS has committed itself to the goal of raising the conviction rates it is now being targeted by feminists for the low number of actual convictions (see the Guardian article below). The politicization of this issue serves no useful purpose. It is merely designed to exaggerate the perceived levels of female victimhood.
The other issue I have is with the statement below:
I noted, referring to this incident, that it is women again, never men, who were losing jobs, incomes and public platforms if they spoke up.
This is so absurd that it’s hard to know where to start. So many men have lost their jobs in recent years for saying the wrong thing, making a joke, using the wrong term, etc, etc. It’s a regular occurrence to see a middle aged white man (usually referred to as a dinosaur) getting sacked for some minor example of wrong think. Most men now know to keep well out of these issues. Hence you’ll find very few men willing to publicly support you.
Dave M
3 years ago
In which Suzanne Moore finally proves the need for a good sub-editor
Jo Ford
3 years ago
I came off Twitter because I couldn’t stand the abusive toxicity of ‘debate’.Everybody shouting nobody listening. I am glad you have left The Guardian now- they don’t deserve you frankly. I have religiously read your columns for years now and not once have I seen a hateful comment made about the trans community. It’s utter madness. I truly hope you find a new media outlet because I have always found your writing wise, truthful and very thought provoking.
James N
3 years ago
“these girls may end up on puberty-blocking hormones and then go on to have surgery. And for some of them that indeed may be the right thing to do.”
Let’s be real. You only say this because you’ve been emotionally battered by unhealthy people who’ve got you doubting your own worth, compassion and security. The right thing to do is NOT for scalpel-sculptors to pretend the endocrine system is an irrelevant vestigial appendage. Nor is it “compassionate” to ignore the horrible statistical outcomes of a “successful” sanctioned mutilation (cancer, depression & suicide rates).
This is the exact opposite of compassion, and it is antitherapeutic. “You don’t love yourself? Arbitrarily-chosen surface-indicators of femininity and gobs of pills will fix that!” Shall we start treating schizophrenics with the same “compassion”? “I hear the devil too!” Anorexics? “You ARE fat!” The suicidal? “Death WILL be a relief!” The ONLY suffering the media is trying to prevent is their own, the pain of being labeled “trans-phobic” by over-amplified social media chihuahuas. If “journalists” gave a damn about the lives of the mentally ill they’d start interviewing endocrinologists and psychologists, not social media activists, politicians and other statistics-deniers.
(Great article tho)
Paul Savage
3 years ago
Shock news. The Guardian is staffed by self righteous cry bullies.
Margaret Tudeau-Clayton
3 years ago
I’m new to Unherd and joined it after reading this piece. No doubt the conversation is over, but I wanted to say to Suzanne that I fully endorse her case. She might be intersted to know that in France where I live JK Rowling got a lot of support from feminists. The orthodoxy she describes has not yet taken hold, thank goodness.
Margaret Tudeau-Clayton
3 years ago
PS I was disappointed to see only three women on the Unherd team. Couldn’t you do something about that?
n/a
3 years ago
A few things I noticed: The disdain for the term “Cis” (as well as the quotation marks and capitalisation). This is simply, the opposite of trans. I don’t really see what Moore’s issue is here- nobody has made cis women “a subset of men”, simple by stating that trans people face more oppression than cis people. The question “Why can you not be a young butch lesbian these days?” You can- I was, myself, not all that long ago. There is a difference between presenting in a masculine way, and experiencing gender dysphoria and wanting to transition. Trans men are not ‘butch lesbians’, they are men. Lastly, if the apparent ‘domination’ of trans rights discussion is “too boring” for you, the you are very lucky not to be personally affected by the trans suicide, murder victim, homelessness and hate crime victim rates. Lucky you, to be so blind to the the pain and suffering of our trans friends, who will read this and realise that their struggle is once again being diminished by somebody who has the nerve to call themself a feminist.
That’s all, thanks
anniloebig
3 years ago
There definitely has been misognystic hostility towards feminist like JK Rowling and Moore herself, and I agree that it’s not exactly useful for the Left, or any wing for that matter, to just abuse writers that raise concerns about trans discourse.
However, it’s frustrating that we don’t focus on how to make feminism more inclusive to a variety of female experiences instead of pitting trans women and cis women against each other. It’s just as disingenous for the Left to disregard trans-exclusive feminists’ concerns about gender violence as it is for those feminists to put the blame on trans women, when I assumed it was crystal clear that it is violent masculinity and patriarchy that we’re really up against: a system that both those doing the harm and those harmed are victims of. Also, I don’t see how trans activists talking about their issues in any way minimises issues around for example abortion, health, FGM, or gender equality?
I also find their refusal to use the term “cis women” quite confusing – isn’t this term much better than using menstruation or the ability to have children as criteria for “real/biological” women when not all cis women can have children for example? I doubt that feminists who are critical of the trans discourse would like to exclude those women who don’t fit the norm from their own feminist category of women? Anyways, I do think it’s useful to read and hear about these opinions and take them seriously, but it’ll do no good if there’s no desire to sympathise with both sides.
Diana
3 years ago
Before unsubscribing to the Guardian six months ago due to no longer being able to stomach its “smug affirmation and self righteousness”, I hung in there for an enternity due solely to Suzanne Moore’s writing – my thinking being that she somehow represented the ‘true’ nature of the Guardian.How wrong could I be?
Good on you Suzanne for standing up for what is right and honest and for your decades of brilliant and unflinching commentary.
crediniente
3 years ago
I’m in the US and only found out about all this when that bald guy called out how wrong this was that your cowardly colleagues all went off the cliff hand in hand against you…I can’t remember his name but he was eloquent in his defense of you. I enjoyed every word of this, it’s beautiful and lovely writing, and it’s clear you are called for much greater things than that silly newspaper. Like a book. A great big heavy, hundreds of pages book talking about this stuff, each paragaph in this becomes a chapter. JK Rowling just did a nine hundred page book. I know how boring and profoundly irritating these topics are, as someone expounded that the slur ‘terf’ stands for ‘tired of explaining reality to fuckwits’.I never claimed terfdom but I’ve been beknighted by the crazy corpse-rape threateners called trans-rights activists (misogynists) on social media. But if you ever do write it I’ll be there to read it, and anything else you write. You are an exquisite writer, on the right side of history, and time will bear this out.
Hmm…being forced to disappear up your own leftist arse by your own intolerant leftist acquaintances..clearly not something that was enjoyed by the writer.
Tim Wright
3 years ago
Well written, Suzanne, an excellent article. Good luck in your next venture. I support you all the way.
thehynd
3 years ago
Well said. Women’s hard won rights are on the line. The attempted erasure of female identity to satisfy a patriarchal misogyny wearing new clothes.
I totally support Suzanne Moore’s right to put these views forward, and commend her courage in doing so.
Anna Gee
3 years ago
Bravo Suzanne! You’ve been an unwavering source of light in this sorry mess. I wish you all the success in the world.
Ruth Learner
3 years ago
Hail Suzanne – brave, honest, lucid and compassionate. f**k the Guardian and its wet lifestyle/politics bullshit… it has long ceased to be relevant. Absolutes are for children and dictators ““ reality is nuanced and of many shades. Butch lesbians, cross-dressing straights – what the f**k ever has been happening for centuries, but nobody is going to tell me how as a woman I should feel and behave – especially not some zealous arsehole trying to groom my teen kid into their dangerous righteous cult.
support
3 years ago
From a fellow polytechnic graduate I say well done for elbowing your way into the land of the Oxbridge entitled, I was also unaware of the problem of gender selection, so it was worth the read just for that (but nor only for that).
Annette Lawson
3 years ago
Brava Suzanne Moore! Thank you for this – your own history and your brave decisions. Language has been changed against us; we are not, it seems entitled to name ourselves; we have to deny science and our lived, daily experience in these, our female bodies, and much else that you describe. And, as far as I know, no-one ‘hates’ trans people, (especially in our case, trans women) but they were men and perhaps some of that male experience lasts on as an entitlement to tell women, born women, what they may or may not do. But then, there are the transexuals, the trans women who know and accept they are not ‘real’ women as in biologically female but still are women every day in the way they live their lives. The problem, as you so well express it, is that we, women, are not allowed our own spaces nor are we allowed to battle as we have for years for level playing fields – literally in the case of women’s sports. Why not? I have only one explanation – it is a form of misogyny. Over and over again we now read reports to the UN or the EU or to our own Government talking only of ‘people’, ‘children’, the ‘disabled’, ‘the elderly’, Black and ethic minorities”, and so on as if there were no sex differences, no boys or girls, no women or men within these categories whose education, whose health, whose working lives, whose private lives remain different and unequal.
corey.james.soper
3 years ago
It’s a curious form of silence, Suzanne, when your words are in multiple national newspapers today and you are trending on Twitter.
The first step on your long and tedious journey to being another reactionary spreading hatred and playing the victim – the Hopkins-Fox pipelines yawns before you, and you’re leaping gleefully into it.
See you on Parler.
Simon Adams
3 years ago
Wow – an article about the extreme left getting more extreme and fissile, results in a load of comments here with men and women treated as if they are two homogenise groups that are all “good” or “bad”.
Doesn’t anyone realise that this “identity” stuff is basically injecting the tribal nature of humans with steroids, so that society tears itself apart. This is the Marxist way, destroy the structures of society so you can replace them with your own untested one. The new ‘fairer’ model always sounds great, but never works, and usually end in genocide and mass poverty.
Our modern society is basically a lab full of rats in a great big post modernist university experiment….
Doesn’t anyone realise that this “identity” stuff is basically injecting the tribal nature of humans with steroids, so that society tears itself apart. many of us have pointed to the toxin of identity politics for a long time. It’s why there is a modicum of sympathy when it starts infecting people on the left.
Well I believe that Hadley Freeman, for one, was one of those laid off in the recent round of Guardian lay-offs. Not that Hadley Freeman has ever written anything useful or interesting, at least not while I was still visiting the Guardian site.
Jonathan da Silva
3 years ago
“The Labour leadership contenders were ordered to sign a pledge which called Woman’s Place a “hate group”. With the exception of Keir Starmer, they did. “Transphobe” was now a slur to throw at anyone who didn’t keep the faith.”
I recall asking a friend if they asked any Labour contenders for the economic philosophy/thoughts after all we’ve had despite all the EU, North Sea Oil, Financialisation, Globalisation, Reform etc etc all supported by Labour and Conservative and Coalition Govts since 1980 40 years of slowing economic growth. Of increasing inequality etc. Yet no but they all had to give views on trans rights!
It’s why those of us in the centre feel homeless stuck between gut Socialists and the centre right of Lib Dems and Noo Labourite loons. Oddly in a corrupt and idiotic sense likes of Cummings maybe even the racist nut ball Bannon were more centrist than self styled extremists who call themselves moderate [very accurate description given what their extreme policies have done]. It’s why I give up on them all. They offer nothing and thus fall into strictures of conformity around alien and ephemeral ideas to most of the population and then refuse to argue or discuss to make them less alien and blame people for their views.
Lerryns Hernandez
3 years ago
Chapeau! It is not the first time and it will not be the last time that you have received this kind of “support” from your colleagues and the media. Free thinkers have never fit into this world and for this reason they are free. Keep standing. Keep thinking, but above all, keep saying.
emmamaysmith3
3 years ago
I feel sorry for Suzanne, caught in the intersection between the culture of the modern left and the current debates around trans people. I believe that trans issues can be discussed openly and productively. However, I’m not certain the modern left is a faithful participant in any debate.
With issues around bodies – whether male, female, trans, non-trans, whatever – my thought always turns to science. It won’t be long, maybe in the next few decades, until sex is a choice. Biology won’t withstand the march of science. Debates we have today will be outdated, irrelevant. I ask myself, what will I think then? Will a trans women who menstruates, who becomes pregnant, who mothers her children, be different from any other woman?
We should be careful about policing lines which one day simply won’t exist.
John Jones
3 years ago
Is this the same Suzanne Moore who wrote the column explaining why it’s morally acceptable to hate men as a group, now complaining because cancel culture, a culture in which she happily swam for years when it protected her and feminists like her for years, has finally come for her?
A bit late in the day for a road to Damascus conversion, isn’t it Suzanne? That “cult of righteousness” that you rightfully condemn was created by feminists like you fifty years ago as a moral high ground from which to disparage men, all the while complaining about sexism.
And of course double standards.
Just not your own.
But never mind the hypocrisy of feminist demanding equal treatment while simultaneously hiding behind the politically correct barricades taking potshots at men based on their gender. Let’s discuss another feminist hypocrisy evident in Moore’s column: the belief that gender is simultaneously a “social construct” but somehow also an innate predisposition. Moore states that ” as a feminist, I would argue that gender is a social construct. And as a social construct, it can be reconstructed.”
But then not long after, you claim”a new kind of gender tourism became possible. Everyone could be anything.”
Do I really need to point out the obvious self-contradiction implicit in these two statements? If gender really were a “social construct”, then gender tourism would actually be possible.
But feminists like Moore find themselves trapped in a paradox of their own making, forced to face a basic fallacy inherent in their ideology. Gender is not a social construct. It is as innate as sex, because if the term means anything, it means the psychological predispositions of each sex that maximize their reproductive success. It is an evolutionary, not a social construct.
That means that Moore- and feminism as an ideology- is caught on the horns of a dilemma of their own making. You cannot simultaneously claim that gender is somehow a social construct, and can therefore be deconstructed in defense of feminist claims of gender oppression, and that it is also unchangeable when it comes to defending women’s spaces on the grounds that men can’t become women. These are two sides of the same coin.
Sorry Suzanne, but I don’t have much sympathy for feminists who are now whining about cancel culture, not after years spent trying to “mansplain” why your own hypocrisy has become so offensive.
Christopher Barclay
3 years ago
Many (but not all) feminists rejected the scientific evidence of differences between the biological sexes. They supported the creation of the idea that there is one and only one politically correct view on any subject. They built their institutional power bases in academia. Now this has all turned and bitten them in the butt. The science that supports the idea of biological sex is rejected. There is only one permitted view on transgenderism and every other view is transphobic hate crime. There are now other, more powerful institutional power bases. It would hard not to laugh if there weren’t so many innocent victims.
Trishia A
3 years ago
Excellent assessment of the whole situation of where all has gone wrong. With one exception, this naïve belief that the new ones are worse than the old ones. The erasure of the female sex was always the intent, from the outset, and people need to open their eyes.
polidoris ghost
3 years ago
“The Guardian journalist Suzanne Moore tweeted gleefully: ‘Hello Editor types. Jordan Peterson holed up in rehab in Russia. F*** me gently with a chainsaw”¦ let me do that story. Come on!’
Yup, the great Suzanne Moore in all her squalor.
Neil Papadeli
3 years ago
“FEWER fucks to give.” Dammit.
Thanks Suzanne, both barrels! As a previous regular reader of the Guardian – enjoying, but certainly not always agreeing with, your pieces – I rarely visit it these days. Well, for Grace Dent essentially. Much of the rest of it is dross. Half the ‘reporting’ is from Twitter, clickbait headlines, dog whistle articles, treatment of the ideologically unclean etc.. You’re well out of it. Good luck to you.
Ted Ditchburn
3 years ago
It does seem as if the left has simply given up on the odl Class Struggle thing and moved over into *any other struggle thing* and now old-style left wingers like Ms Moore are getting exactly the same treatment the left have handed out to Evile Tories, Vile Conservative scum and so on, that’s been going on for years.
In respect of the actual topic that’s blown up in front her, the whole trans thing, most blokes who I know wouldn’t go within a 100 miles of commenting about, especially if, like Ms Moore, not entirely convinced by every aspect of the arguments put forward around it all.
Joanna Grochowicz
3 years ago
Yes! Yes! Yes! Thank you Suzanne.
shiroemakabe
3 years ago
As I read this and pity this poor reporter and the idiocy of the 338 people who are so out of touch as to actually believe the Guardian has “cemented” a transphobic reputation, I am also struck with an understanding of why she was singled out in such a way. Some of her rhetoric is insanely transphobic. I’m sure she means well but there are a few things she needs to learn.
For example, I realize that the outspoken “trans women are women” activists have mainstream media claiming that all one has to do to be transgender is “feel” like the opposite sex. I am transgender (haven’t changed all my profiles yet…) and live in a place in the US that is famous for its LBGQT activity and activism. I know not only from my own experiences but from hearing other people discuss theirs that for a vast majority of transgender people, gender dysphoria is not an “emotional” type of feeling, but such a strong physical frustration it can be actually physically painful. I do realize that in the UK there are broader laws and attitudes and that all a person has to do to be considered “trans” is claim they are trans, but for feminists to also fall for that line of thinking as well as project it onto all transgender people is simply adding to the conflict. In fact, most transgender people are more than accepting that even after surgery they will not be their preferred sex in any biological sense. They accept this in the same way that women accept that those silicon implants are not exactly the same as natural breasts. It’s a discomfort in one’s own skin that is physically distressing. Imagine having a canker sore that never, ever goes away… for some people that’s parts of their bodies and for others it’s the whole thing. Don’t let the hype of the zealots speak for all of us.
Secondly, the choice of “transitioning” to describe menopause is needlessly confrontational. Menopause is nowhere near the level of hormonal change transitioning is, and that is despite the great amount of change it does have on the body. I have also been through menopause, as I didn’t start transitioning (or even put together that I was trans) until my 40’s, and can offer an experienced comparison of the two from not only my point of view but the massive difference in quantifiable hormone levels as a result of being on testosterone. Certainly menopause is a transition in the sense of moving from one phase of reproduction to another, but it is so vastly different from the act of virilization or feminization that there is little room for comparison and the deliberate choice of this word was meant to provoke the very kinds of strawmen represented in my first point. I should mention for full disclosure that I’ve always had high T anyway, a little more than twice what girls and women should have and enough to convince the Olympic Committee that I was doping (not that I’ve ever tried out for the Olympics – HA! – but comparable to women who’ve had to go through this recently). Even so, this is still 1/5-1/10th of the amount men have, and the comparison of achieving male range testosterone levels to menopause is a serious and deliberate misrepresentation of facts. That applies even more when it comes to male-to-female transition, as a whole soup of hormones are required to feminize.
Lastly, a bit of perspective on trans minors: if transgender had been something openly discussed when I was a teenager the way it is today, I would have realized when I was 15 that I wanted to virilize, and perhaps even before that. However, I grew up in the 80s, the daughter of staunch Reagan Republicans, and didn’t even know transgender existed until my mid-20s. From there, I was misled into a lot of the same ideas as Suzanne Moore as to what transgender meant by an alleged “trans woman” who is exactly what Ms. Moore objects to – a guy who “felt” female and felt like that gave him permission to invade female spaces. Seeing his obviously bad behavior gave me the wrong impression of what transgender people were about, even as I followed figures like Chaz Bono, Buck Angel, and eventually Zeke Smith. Even as the conversation grew more national, it took me a few more years from the damage this guy did, this “trans woman” who proves Ms. Moore’s point, to realize that thoughts and urges I’d had since I was 4 probably meant that I was transgender. But again, a lot of those ideas are thoughts I’ve had since I was young and had consolidated enough by 15 to take on what male identity a C-cup girl in 1990 could take.
I am also a mother, and let’s face it that had I transitioned as a teen, I would not have been able to give birth on my own and would have had to adopt one of the millions of children that need homes in order to be a parent. The idea of “trans women are women” certainly attacks that aspect of my life from the opposite side, somehow negating my motherhood as “dead” because of virilization, and I do have a problem with that. And again, I grew up in the 80s, was a teen and young adult in the 90s, and lived as a girl who didn’t even know the word transgender, so I’ve had all those “female” experiences Ms. Moore mentions. However, given the amount of conditioning I was given about the importance of giving birth alongside this “trans woman’s” bad example, I don’t think I was really informed about – well, anything regarding these thoughts and accompanying physical sensations. So I would have to commit to the idea that if I were 15 today I’d be seeking HRT, regardless of what it would have done to my reproductive system.
With all of that said, I can’t argue that the sensationalism of transitioning at this point in time has swept a certain type of parent to project transgenderism onto their children (especially boys), as well as enabled the phenomenon of teenaged girls with alleged ROGD. Foundations like Mermaids are definitely imposing transgenderism on many children who are simply learning their identities as is psychologically healthy. I know enough vulnerable, “female-like” straight men to believe that if we left everyone alone to form their own worldview without even parental influence, we’d find we have a lot more people are transgender than we think, but not all of them are the ones who think they are transgender now. But right now, some forces are in a rush to judge for it and others against it rather than taking a balanced view. Ms. Moore’s view is too far against if it prohibits young people from exploring HRT as an option at all, especially in cases where parental interference prevents or confuses it. All kids should be made aware it exists and allowed to explore it for themselves… BUT it should not be forced down their throats the way some parents and some government agencies (e.g. schools and the NHS in the UK) are currently doing.
However, true solutions won’t come as long as no one is willing to concede ground on their points or listen to those of us who aren’t “trans women are women” zealots. Being deliberately confrontational only stirs the hornet’s nest and validates their ideas of persecution. Instead of relegating everything to “male/female,” we’re collectively going to have to accept that there needs to be space for someone who is not quite either and stop using reproduction as our main guideline for what to expect from people. That’s NOT going to happen if people like Ms. Moore are silenced any more than it can happen if the Mermaids/legally enforced pronouns/”trans women are women” crowd continues to get its way. Dialogue must be open, not shut down.
So shame on the Guardian and its 338 idiots for condemning, rather than discussing. At least Ms. Moore seems open to reasonable discussion on the topic. I don’t have to agree with everything she says to think that, regardless of what the zealots say.
Lyn Griffiths
3 years ago
I so know where you are coming from and to say I have not read the full length of your article but will later this evening and I know it will keep me interested and mulling over your words for the next week no doubt. But on what I have read, I can only sense as no one will speak openly and if they do tend to code their words to follow the norm and what they feel not aired so not to be judged. Which quietly amuses me. But to think the retrending in the freedom of speech, I began to notice started in the 80s. With the obligatory two fingers held high up by both hands to tell me, my thoughts were not PC. Again to amuse me and so to blame my outspoken but mostly thoughtful words on most occasions due to my birth sign, Scorpio. So here’s to say I will read and digest your words and maybe we could start a new trend. “Let’s say how it is”, without judgement, but to air views and come to an agreement that we do not always agree with each other and to know that’s how it is, and to add equally surprise ourselves when we do. Not fall out and it always in my experience lead to bad feelings which we can all live without.
Jonathan Story
3 years ago
Imagine that causing offense was punishable in 1930s NS Germany. Here is what I wrote, in the Völkischebeobachter letter column, Dear Editor, There is abundant evidence from your columns that the Minister for Propaganda, Herr Goebbels is ready to lie, and it is also clear for everyone with eyes in their head, ears to hear and a brain to think, that he considers that the bigger the lie, the more credible the assertion becomes. I can imagine him saying that if you lie often enough, the lie becomes a truth. yours sincerely, JS. P.S. This is a false address in case the thought police decide to follow-up.
Kirk B
3 years ago
She confessed to working at Marxism Today and apparently learned not much thereafter. Wake me when the gender wars are over.
Bullying from low level staffers was a non-event; but being censored is certainly a real motive to move on.
I read once that Goering said whenever he heard The Guardian mentioned he reached for his Luger. Probably a myth but a good one.
Carl Goulding
3 years ago
A bit strange that the authoress didn’t just resign when the writing was on the wall.
Charlotte Eagar
3 years ago
Rang very true to me. I used to work for the Observer – owned by the Guardian – in the early ’90’s and it felt incredibly sexist. And very keen on people fitting in to the right demographics – which were male and middle class.
Mark S
3 years ago
The Guardian is two completely distinct, and completely contradictory, propositions. One, a political activist’s blogroll which in many cases is now more aggressive and intolerant than the Daily Mail (The Daily Nazi as it’s known to Guardian readers). Two, a fabulous culture and leisure magazine with some of the best photo essays, book reviews, cookery, culture and homeware articles you can find anywhere on the web. No one takes the paper seriously but the magazine features are superb. It is quite bizarre.
Jorge Espinha
3 years ago
Absolute gold!
ben.toth
3 years ago
The only reason to read the Guardian, now and during the recent past when Suzanne was there, was to see where a particular brand of non-thought was taking it. David Gerber was right to refuse to write for the Guardian, so long as Suzanne, Jonathan and co were churning out low rent stuff on Corbyn’s so called anti-semitism, settling old political scores no doubt. A brave newspaper would have tried to counter the assault on Corbyn from the right. The Guardian merely added to it, and censored people who tried to challenge the line which Suzanne repeats here. As to the issue which led to her resignation, a passing reference to Foucault inspires no confidence. I long for a decent, funny, enquiring, left of centre daily newspaper. I would cheerfully pay for it. Sadly, the Guardian, with or without Suzanne Moore, is not it. Like all the old media it has been swallowed up in Seymour’s twittering machine, which makes the sort of incident she describes inevitable. It’s an unfortunate event. But perhaps it will enable her to reflect on the bullying mob, of which she was part, that did for Corbyn.
Beth Adelman
3 years ago
Reading through the comments. it’s astonishing to me how many people can read about someone’s genuine pain and respond with, “They had it coming.” Is compassion reserved only for those who we agree with, or those who have lived what we define as an exemplary life?
Julia Moore
3 years ago
Love this article. Fearless, brave hearted and coming from a clear and independent mind. “My hurt at being ejected from cults I never belonged in anyway is not self-pity. That dissolves the moment I have the freedom to speak my truth.” Deep respect to you Suzanne Moore, for going where so many others fear to tread. The Guardian (indeed most mainstream media) has gone down the tube into a cess pit of utter censored (in one way or another) mind numbing crap. The last good thing they did was the Cambridge Analytica story… I wonder if that kind of reporting is just over now?
gilstra
3 years ago
Although not surprised given the turn the Guardian has taken over the last five years or so, I am deeply disturbed by what I read above. The formerly highly-respected Guardian has become little more than a self-opiniated lifestyle magazine for those who believe in the new orthodoxy. Very briefly: As a gay man, I do not identify with a group known as LGBTQI+, or whatever iteration currently serves their craven needs. I find it alienating and non-inclusive. Two: The Guardian’s explicit ‘message’ that trans is good was exposed for the shite it is by their dropping Caitlyn Jenner, their figurehead of trans people for whatever reason, like a hot potato when it turned out the old tranny was a vocal Trump supporter. Three: I’m also disappointed to see Owen Jones among those who signed that offending letter. Himself a victim of violence, he should know better that to throw an esteemed colleague under the bus. I’d like to say to Suzanne that she has my full support and thank you for speaking out against this new culture of bullying by people who usually are the first to speak out about other people’s perceived bullying.
Peter Krijgsman
3 years ago
Sad to read that about The Guardian. I have noticed the shrill tone lately in some corners of the publication. A bit like the petition sites: a failure to prioritise causes, with the result that all causes become lost.
sean
3 years ago
Wow, fascinating read. Thank you Suzanne for taking the time to account this for the rest of us. Cancel culture has definitely become a debacle and your account helps to elucidate how and why it’s happening
Simon Coulthard
3 years ago
It’s striking that hardly any of the comments here are about Suzanne and what she went through. It’s just men and women arguing about who’s got it worse
mexican weeping bamboo
2 years ago
I really appreciate this wonderful post that you have provided for us. I assure this would be beneficial for most of the people.
fishing
2 years ago
I wanted to thank you for this great read!! I definitely enjoying every little bit of it I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you post.
Shane Murphy
1 year ago
What bothers me most is this civil war amongst those who should know better is pointless and self defeating. No real trans activist would threaten to rape a woman, that is the actions of a supporter of the patriarchy. No real feminist would try to oppress anyone who is transgender for exactly the same reason that is the actions of supporting the patriarchy. Each when empowered is not threatened by the other but enhanced by the others freedom, the same goes for gay men etc.. The Right and the Patriarchy behind it uses division as the main tool to maintain control as we see in the current risible “debates” (monologues are not debates) that feature the attacks of the pseudo woke vs the pseudo feminists. These shouting matches aid no one barring the old white straight male bastards who rule the western world. Turn your sights back at the 1% where it rightfully belongs for no real change can occur until they are overthrown.
Andrew Boughton
6 months ago
The Guardian is on the front foot of the British Inquisition.
Loo
3 years ago
Brilliant writing Suzanne. You are an inspiration.
Chinese Bear
3 years ago
This really is British feminism in a nutshell: narcissistic, self-pitying and self-serving.
Chinese Bear
3 years ago
While I agree, of course, that the trans issue is complexed, nuanced and not binary (!), I am also worried by the emphasis placed by Suzanne Moore, Julie Bindel and other ‘radical feminists’ on ‘biology’. It reminds me of the homophobic emphasis on ‘nature’ that I can recall a few decades ago as a gay man: homosexuality is ‘unnatural’; men are ‘naturally’ attracted to women, etc. I haven’t heard this for some time but it seems as if ‘nature’ has resurfaced as ‘biology’?
Also, there is an alarming affinity with some of the rhetoric of the far right. ‘Racial science’, after all, was predicated on alleged biological differences between ‘races’. Furthermore, the obsession with ‘women’s spaces’ is somewhat redolent of the ‘protect our women’ mentality that has been used to justify lynchings and race riots. Religious fundamentalists also believe that ‘biological’ sex, among other characteristics (sometimes including ‘race’) is divinely ordained. Far right parties in Europe (including the UK) now routinely use feminist rhetoric to justify targeting non-white immigrants, including the ‘threat’ to ‘white women’ and the ‘patriarchal’ nature of some Black and Islamic cultures.
I recognise that there are emotional and physiological differences between men and women. I approve of those differences and don’t want to see them erased. This is why it is a good thing to have all-male and all-female clubs, sports and single sex ‘spaces’ generally for men as much as for women. This is completely compatible with accepting that a small number of people are transgender or non-binary and should have full human rights.
Finally, let’s examine the ‘women’s spaces’ argument by applying it to lesbianism. Several straight women I know have had traumatic experience with lesbians, including sexual assault, in the context of sport, school or university. In one case, a lady who is now long dead gave me a vivid description of an experience she had in the (then) Women’s Air Force: ‘I had to beat her off with a clothes brush’. Yet (fortunately) nobody is arguing that lesbians should be denied access to women’s shelters or sports clubs because they ‘might’ be ‘sexual predators’.
And your point is? I’m sorry, but I can’t relate it to anything I have said. In fact I stated quite clearly that differences between men and women were real and needed to be taken into account. My point was that ‘biology’ should not be a cover word for bigotry and hysteria.
Smalltime J
3 years ago
I think that it’s right for newspapers to publish articles like SM’s. But the Guardian did publish it so what’s the issue? I also think that SM’s colleagues at the guardian were entitled to let their views be known to the editor. The letter didn’t call for SM to be sacked and there’s no way of reading it like that. If they had wanted to name her and call for her to be sacked then they would have done so. It certainly wasn’t bullying (unlike the twitter abuse which is obviously heinous). Personally I feel that releasing the names of the signatories, most of whom have no public profile at all, was intentionally aggressive and intended to expose them to similar twitter abuse. SM has a right to express her view on a controversial topic, and she a better platform than the vast majority of people to do so, but she doesn’t have a right to have everyone else in the world agree with her.
Why? Guardian staff aren’t allowed to have a view on Guardian editorial policy? They weren’t calling for any consequences for SM, they were complaining about the decision to publish. It’s possible to disagree with someone, possible to think that someone’s views shouldn’t have been published, without bullying them. I don’t actually agree with the letter’s implication (that the article shouldn’t have been published) but I don’t see how disagreeing with someone is the same as bullying them.
steve taylor
3 years ago
I read as far as, “my lifelong commitment to campaigning for abortion”. I do hope, as you are being slowly hoisted by your own petard, that you are not looking for sympathy and understanding.
smartindc
3 years ago
I have to say, after reading this thought -provoking article, I was interested to see what people had to say about the problematic issue of Feminism and trans women. The comments are full of the same old Men’s Rights assholes storming in and complaining about how feminists don’t care about men. Its so boring and untrue. I guess there is no moderation here.
Richard Crook
3 years ago
Tragic, tragic woman. Can I call her a woman?
Patrick White
3 years ago
Moore and her ilk are wannabe men, and have done their utmost to violate the spaces and ‘privileges’ of their imaginary male oppressors.
Well, dear wimmin… now it’s your turn.
The karma is beautiful enough to be symphonic.
Ken Jackson
3 years ago
What Suzanne Moore can’t seem to comprehend, is that she’s very much a part of the problem – being an ‘early adopter’ of the woke, cancel culture, when it was known as PC. Now the revolution is eating it’s own, she runs to the ‘enemy’ – as she would have regarded them – in the Mail and Spectator. It also has nothing to do with being a woman – the result would have been the same for a man who ‘transgressed’.
Peter Dunn
3 years ago
As youve made a living from condemnation&platitudes Suzanne…perhaps its someone elses turn.
Peter KE
3 years ago
You are just a woke who got it slightly wrong and can now be bullied by woke thugs. Poor article.
andrewgmooney
3 years ago
The desperation, the sly covert fulmination, the delciousness of this brazen attempt to offload unresolved cognitive dissonance on to an uncaring world: haven’t laughed so much since Suzanne ‘blocked’ me on Twitter during one of her many hissy fit prissy twit tweet meltdowns. Why? 🤔 For daring to challenge her lazy misanthropic misandry posing as intellectual 90s firebrand when in reality she’s now a cast-off post-modernist prop and trope bag lady way past her journalistic sell-by date. Is there anything sadder than the sight of post-punk, post-menopausal North London privilege posing as victim hoodie poster gurl for career failure? A hair-trigger censor herself yet with the audacity to fume at being cancelled by the cancerous cultural landscape she co-created? It couldn’t have happened to a more worthy target 🎯 and i applaud the smug snowflakes certainties arraigned against her by her ‘enemies’ because karma really is a b***h and she keeps receipts. So do I, including the screen grab of this daft eejity attempt at a crushing parting snide snipe at me before flouncing off to hit the block button and the caps lock 🔒 to attempt to silence those of us who do not accept that public figures can expect to dish it out but evade taking it in blowback and who simply laugh 😂 out loud at execrably 🎠performative peevish whining such as we read in this unintentionally comedic masterpiece of grandiose self-pity. And yes, Suzanne, I’m a far more accomplished writer than you could ever be with your desperado advertising of some PhD redundancies…😎 Best wishes…wooosh! Andymooney666
As an accomplished writer, you surely have taken on the concept of organizing thoughts with the use of paragraphs?
Her privilege was hard won,, having left school at age 16. I did not understand what you meant by advertising PhD redundancies, yet I will admit I only glanced through your wall of accomplished writer words.
Petra Godesa
3 years ago
Amazing read!! Painful to read tho, since the reality that she describes is right here, right now, but people still choose to hate the messenger. The patriarchal mentality is harming the whole planet, women AND men, but somehow there is always a woman blamed and hated at the end when she openly defies the ideology … It’s not a pleasant thing to face your own bulls*, but has to be done. I think she is doing it pretty well, that’s why so many people can’t stand her!
‘The patriarchal mentality’: surely that is a statement of hatred. Somewhat like anti-Semites blaming ‘the Jewish mentality’ or white nationalists blaming ‘the Negro [sic] mentality’.
I’m far from alone in being tired of people who blame others (men, immigrants, gays, Muslims, ‘the global elite’,etc.) for their own problems, anxieties and personal shortcomings.
So where do people’s ‘own problems … personal shortcomings’ and responsibility for them end, and the responsibility of an unfair system begin? Surely that’s the whole dilemma of politics, and your statement strays dangerously close to victim-blaming.
Actually, the victim mentality is dangerous and allows evasion of responsibility. It is characteristic of fascist movements, whether ostensibly ‘left winger ‘right wing’: think of the ‘stab in the back theories’ of the German right, in the post-WW1 era, which paved the way for the rise of National Socialism. Today, we have (sections of) the ‘white working class’ blaming immigrants, ‘Europe’, etc. for their problems rather than, for example, the high rate of family breakdown, substance abuse and lack of respect for education in their communities. As a gay man, I have come across the victim mentality quite often. Section 28 in the 1980s was blamed on ‘the Tories’, ‘straight oppression’, etc.,etc., whereas really it was a reaction against far left Councils and gay (or actually more often lesbian) activists overreaching themselves. I was opposed to Section 28, of course, but on the grounds that it was unworkable and regressive, rather than on grounds of hysterical ‘victimhood’.
Elizabeth Knight
3 years ago
When I start my big, dirty, oily, inky broadsheet, you will have the front page. And the middle ones. And if you know anything about sport, you can have them too. Honestly, you’re a diamond. X
Jos Haynes
3 years ago
The comments here are as boring and as self-obsessed as the article. Clearly, there are a lot of people without a life.
matthew.smith.7319
3 years ago
I suggest the hideous orange overcoat and gold boots combination should be enough to facilitate you leaving the country, let alone that fiasco of a newspaper.
Patrick White
3 years ago
My only take-away from this article is that Suzanne Moore resents a tiny portion of men enjoying the special privileges that women do, despite the fact that these men have an all-consuming need to be female which well surpasses hers, by the look of her.
Just add a third toilet in shopping malls, and leave the trannies alone, Suzanne. They’re really not bothering you.
c.m.dickson
3 years ago
I just wish there were more writers and commentators who would turn the focus back onto how the Patriarchy has so easily managed to turn trans people and feminists against each other while actual predatory cis male aggressors continue to kill and maim women, trans women, trans men, non binaries and children. It’s pretty clever to divide and conquer when we should be united to fight them.
Who exactly is running this campaign and how? Seriously, let’s say I have an agenda to divide and conquer etc…do I look in the Yellow Pages for Misogynists ‘R Us ?
Men mostly kill men. Check out the BBCs first 100 murder convictions of 2020. Half of the women killed by men seem to be mothers killed by their schizophrenic sons. And men mostly do it because they are stronger, not eviller.
siobhankane
3 years ago
Thank you Suzanne, for this, for all you do. Brilliantly put. Sending so much solidarity with you.
Lydia R
3 years ago
I think the people with cervix etc terminology is to keep trans men happy who may still have their female parts. I actually know a trans man. It’s not used to implicate trans women can give birth or menstruate.
The change of language and social norms to placate a tiny,tiny fraction of humanity is too much.
lili court
3 years ago
You say you want to talk about
“the deep unhappiness of women, the suffocating girdle of masculinity, the ever growing and bleak inequalities, the falling fertility rates which will mean girls don’t get to be born, rape as a war crime, FGM” etc
So talk about them!
If you feel that the debate is being dominated by “the trans issue”, why do you focus on it so much yourself?
Do you seriously think that just because trans people exist, it’s somehow impossible for women to speak and write about these topics?
I am a woman and a feminist. How am I being stopped from talking about my miscarriages, abortions, maternity leave, menstruation, sexuality, etc? I might be silenced by the voices of misogynistic men – but what are trans people doing to limit my rights?
I do not think that you deserve the hate mail etc. No one deserves that. But I also don’t understand why you are so fixated on this topic, or why it is so hard for you and other feminists of your generation to act in solidarity with trans people, who are one of the most oppressed minorities. You behave as if they are stealing something from you, just by being themselves.
Total nonsense. Suzanne is perfectly prepared to act in solidarity with trans people, but not to look on as activists enable misogynistic violence and medical experiments on children. It isn’t her who’s ‘fixated’ on the topic, it’s the activists who will not let the mildest, most reasonable querying of their agenda pass without torrents of abuse and attempts to get people sacked.
Essentially you are asking Moore to shut up about transactivism. Slow clap for your feminism.
Transactivism is interfering with science – biological denialism exists.
Transactivism is interfering with single sex (aka safe women spaces – toilets, rape refuges, women’s prisons)
Transactivism is interfering with language – attacking gendered languages like spanish, introducing nonsensical neologisms like Filipinx, being dogmatic about pronouns, erasing words like women,mothers, pregnant or menstruating females.
Transactivism is interfering with historical records- deadnaming is considered a terrible crime and brand new identities are being created with complete erasure of old identities.
Transctivism is interfering with women’s sport – the issue is greater than testosterone levels.
Transactivism is interfering with some children’s gender confusion – and pushing for transition ( with no real data on the longterm medical effects) without question.
I am female and feminist too. I support the existence of trans people and their right to liberty and happiness but I can see these issues as problematic and worthy of discussion. Why can’t you?
It’s as though you have missed the point of the essay, she has tried to write about these things, but they are being ‘edited out.’ She isn’t saying it’s just about the individuals in the trans community; she is saying that this is another area where many woman no longer get to speak their truth, where woman’s and men’s voices are being edited out and silenced if they speak against the current political climate.
pshields
3 years ago
Bitter? Chip on shoulder? When 338 colleagues complain … does it not make you think that maybe they are right?
when they complain that “only women get pregnant” or its equivalent is radical? No, it makes me think they are mired in group think.
Chinese Bear
3 years ago
All this (and some of the comments even more than the article) confirms and reinforces my impression that there is now a close affinity between (overwhelmingly white) radical feminism and the far right. All the far right tropes are there:
hidden, ‘predatory’ enemies (in this case men as a ‘class’, but also more familiar far right targets such as trans women, ‘Muslims’ as a whole, ‘the left’);
an obsession with ‘the (implicitly white) working class;
a preference for subjective ‘experience’ and ‘feelings’ over rational thought;
an obsession with ‘biology’ and ‘nature’;
strong influences from the New Age and ‘wellness’ movements
Where does radical feminism end and Q-Anon/anti-vaxx begin?
I would turn this round and say that the identitarian left has moved so far from any kind of connection with real life that for them, all the varied mountain peaks of what normal people on any part of the political spectrum used to think have merged into one single range of ‘far right’.
The reason why the comments here reinforce that impression is because the readership here seems to be predominantly right wing. Naturally, they’re going to read and interpret the essay with reference to their own beliefs. That’s their choice, not the author’s. When Lankford quoted Rowling earlier this year to support employment discrimination in the US it certainly wasn’t because the two of them were on the same page, in fact Rowling’s politics would be diametrically opposed to such a thing.
Andrew Harvey
3 years ago
Are white people allowed to use the N word these days? If you were previously cancelled for being a transphobe, you’ll certainly be cancelled as a racist now.
Christoff Youngman
3 years ago
The Guardian is trash but hearing that people there disliked Moore because of her vile transphobic views makes me respect them more
“Phobic” does not mean views other than your own. There is nothing phobic in saying that only women get pregnant or have periods. Once upon a time, we treated that as going without saying. Today, saying it somehow radical. But nice job revealing yourself.
Main Edition
US
FR
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIt doesn’t matter if you are left or right wing or if you have no wing at all. If we believe in freedom of speech and thought we must fight the cancell culture wherever we find it.
3 million female children face the possibility of F.G.M. annually because of the biological reality of being female. It is more than their feelings that are hurt.
Bravo Suzanne Moore.
Who is standing up for the mutilated males ?One thing is certain is that it won’t be a feminist.Most appear to only care only for their own gender, as this article seems to aptly demonstrate.
Whine on.
Women (feminists) stand up for other women and girls because for too long, no one else (ie. men) has done that.
Men have “only cared for their own gender” for eons. That’s why it’s called a patriarchy. It’s funny how that’s conveniently ignored when women take action to support each other.
Guardian writers only stand up for other middle class women and girls.
They typically employ cleaners, to scrub the floors with a worn out toothbrush at £1 a day.
When they stand up for the truly downtrodden, I will revise my opinion of The Guardian and its readers.
Except men haven’t cared about other men, hence why men continue to constantly die in droves.
And that’s women’s problem because?
The fact that the vast majority of wars are caused by men against men (though realistically, women always suffer too from war, even if they haven’t always done the fighting) doesn’t negate the fact that for centuries men as a class have only ever put their own interests first.
Have we? Really? Men aren’t a class though, we’re a gender/sex just as women are. Upper class women benefitted from the privileges afforded to them just as upper class men did.
Males are a sex class. I’m talking biology, not sociology here.
Men are a sex class, not a social class.
Men as a biological class.
And of COURSE men haven’t historically put themselves first, that’s why men and women got the vote at the same time isn’t it? And even before regular people were allowed the vote, upper class women could vote alongside upper class men couldn’t they?
She said sarcastically.
Yes, because working class men had the vote hundreds of years before working class women, didn’t they, he says, sarcastically.
They had it decades before working class women, or any woman, come to that.
Some of them, but not all. It’s been estimated that the majority of men fighting in the First World War did not have the vote.
Blah, blah, blah WAR. What about deaths on city streets?
Millions of men, mainly the ones who were putting their lives on the line got the vote, along with women who fitted a certain criteria, not long after WW1 ended. It was less than 10 years that all women were given the vote.
And? How and why would that bother you now, unless you are reflexively neurotic?
There’s no such thing as a “biological class”.
Actually I believe property owning women did at one point have the vote. They were written out of it sometime in the 19th century. And universal male suffrage in the U.K. was achieved by men and women at the same time – with a voting age difference rectified shortly after. Prior to that, some, but not all, men could vote. The achievement of universal suffrage was a drawn out process, and initially the emphasis was on giving ordinary working people a voice.
Only later did the emphasis shift to female suffrage, and this was strongly linked to temperance and social purity movements. Based on a Victorian belief in female moral superiority it was felt that the female vote would allow male behaviour to be curbed.
Are you really that niaive? Upper class women also suffered for their husband’s and fathers’ privilege. They were effectively sold off like prize heifers to consolidate fortunes, bring privilege and keep hold of assets. Upper class women are also at risk from male violence and even today do not share in all of their male equivalent’s privilege.
Marx recognised that women constituted an oppressed sex class in their own right. Until recently, women couldn’t vote, own property or even sign credit agreements. In civilised England, they could be raped by their husbands until 1991 and, as Suzanne Moore correctly states, the number of rapists who are brought to justice is at an all time low. Women also earn less, do not have equal representation in any area apart from as victims of sexual and domestic abuse where they are greatly over represented.
Good article Suzanne
Men were also sold off like cattle to wed women, they were expected to go off and fight and die in wars, they were also expected to shoulder the burden of carrying the household. And now men are still expected to fight in distant wars, protect people and all for nothing. Furthermore, a man who is raped by a woman cannot even see his assailant brought to justice because of the law.
Also, by the same token why should women’s issues bother men?
I never said women aren’t bothered by men’s issues. It’s disingenuous to think that feminists don’t care about child abuse concerning boys, domestic abuse against men, and so forth. My point about war was that men cause wars. Men cause wars against men. It’s not the women doing it. So you can’t say it’s a problem caused by women. Women are allowed to be angry about injustices imposed on us by men as a biological sex class without the cries of ‘but what about men????’
“Men cause wars”? In a statistical sense that’s true, but only because most heads of government have been male. I see no evidence that female leaders haven’t caused wars too: Catherine the Great fought several, as did Isabella of Spain. Indeed, between about 1500 and 1918 women leaders were 27% MORE likely to wage wars than male ones. In modern times, Mrs Ghandi and Mrs Thatcher both fought wars. Female leaders are not all like Jacinda Ardern. More’s the pity, some might say.
Wasn’t talking about the war issue. I was referring to your previous comment re why women may not like International Men’s Day. And I don’t think it’s disingenuous to think feminists don’t care about abuse issues that face boys and men, I’ve seen women dismiss these concerns. I’ve seen female writers say. ‘Why should we care that men are killing themselves at ever increasing rates? Women try to commit suicide more.” I agree women should be able to be angry about the injustices imposed on them without some bloke coming in and going. ‘what about men.’ But I also think then that men should be able to have spaces where they can discuss their issues, without a woman saying. ‘but every day is men’s day.’ when that is not the case. As a man I can tell you that with a straight face.
You wouldn’t dare generalise about black people the way you do about men. The sexism and racism of the Left is always a joy to behold.
Women are very much concerned about issues that bother men. We do care about the plight of male victims. It’s disingenuous to say that we are not. But, at the same time, women should be allowed to talk about injustices we face from men without being told ‘think about the men too!’
Of course you should be able to talk about the injustices you face without some moron coming out and wanting to think about men too. It would be nice if that was reciprocated when men wished to talk about our issues. And I’d say some women do care, not all, but some.
You’ve literally just made it about men with your ‘it would be nice if women did that too’ comment. I don’t know what articles you’re reading, but I personally don’t read a whole lot of articles about male suicides or male cancers with a bunch of women in the comments whining about how they’re not being centred.
My apologies. And, it’s not articles, it’s more on social media, such as during International Men’s Day, it’s in conversations that one has on said social media on any issue. Indeed, on International Men’s Day I did have a rather aggravating conversation in this regard. But you’re right, this a article about women’s issues. So, I’ll butt out.
I think, to be honest, the principle reason you might have had women expressing their consternation to you about International Men’s Day is because to many women, especially those of us paid less for working the same job at the same hours, and being worried about access to abortion and not getting attacked just for leaving our front doors, every day feels like International Men’s Day.
This is not to say men do not suffer. They do. And they deserve to be heard. But understand that the oppressor’s cries can sound different to the ears of the oppressed.
Fair enough, I will be sure to remember this the next time I start thinking my life isn’t that great. Puts it into perspective.
You are an intelligent guy Vivek!
Fair enough.
Men are not oppressors. Nor do women get paid less than men for the same work. Women earn less than men because they work fewer hours. This has been studied to death. I recommend you read the Harvard study on this issue.
And how many such articles about issues affecting men are there compared to ones about women?
The only time men get a hearing is when they respond to articles about women, who then complain about men having their say.
Hypothetical – there’s an archery sub/reddit. It’s been put together because there”s a disparate group of people who are into archery and they want to talk about archery, bows, arrows, fletching etc. It’s a public group and someone new joins. They’re not an archer, they’re into rugger and want to talk about rugger. The archers say “but this group was made to talk about archery, we don’t want to talk about rugger or goalposts or what makes the best balls, we want to talk about archery, not rugger”. The rugger player says “that’s not very inclusive, rugger’s a sport too, you really ought to take rugger into account and include it in your discussions about archery, rugger’s important too”.
This is honestly a good analogy for how it feels to be a woman on the internet commenting on something about women. Every. Single. Time. There will always be at least one man inserting himself into discussions of FGM or abortion or how many women are killed each year by their male partners and asking why we selfish women don’t care about men. It’s exhausting.
I have heard that one should never argue with a Roman Catholic or a feminist because they will never let go. It’s a fanatical thing. Remember that the vast majority of women are pleasant and reasonable. Feminists are generally unpleasant, unreasonable obsessives.
So are you suggesting men are not as concerned about the plight of female victims? Where does the notion of women and children first in dire situations come from. Why is it socially unacceptable for a man to hit a woman but not the other way round? Women get all manner of concessions unavailable to men. Women not allowed to talk about injustices they face from men? That subject fills half the pages of women’s magazines and half their comedy routines. The occasional what about men too comment is because by comparison it barely gets a look in. I suspect a ratio of 10 to 1 would be an underestimate in the ratio of women’s issues to men’s issues, largely because men who raise them are looked down on from both sides.
Nobody should be hitting anybody, regardless of gender. Men should not hit women and women shouldn’t hit men. If men hitting women is taken more seriously by society as a whole it’s because, in general, a man’s physical strength advantage is likely to pose more of a danger to the woman. Women and children first comes from a similar place, ie an acknowledgement that the physical advantages men generally have over women enables men to have more of a fighting chance at surviving dangerous situations.
So demonstrating that men are especially concerned about the plight of female victims for good reasons.
Women’s “issues” are not always but often:a) frivolous (as in, by any historical standard ludicrously petty)b) highly selective (rape by some shades of men are ok)c) imaginary (college rape cases claimed as higher than wartime Republic of the Congo) d) incoherent (treat me the same but it’s sexist if you don’t make it easier for me) e) evil (“family” courts, abortion for convenience)That, is just a small selection of why some women’s issue BOTHER men – and women of good will and sanity.
But that has to be true, simply because most national leaders have been men. Women leaders have actually been MORE prone to starting wars, and substantially so. It might not pan out like that if 50% of national leaders were women, but it might.
The fact that men have historically started more wars than women is true; the implication that this is because they are inherently more LIKELY to cause them, given leadership, goes well beyond the facts. Men have started more social programmes, such as universal education, free healthcare, etc, than women, but that doesn’t mean they are in any sense more compassionate or socially-minded than women. It just means they had the power.
The point about men starting more wars is that it is men that men should look to to blame for that particular cause of their suffering. So instead of men coming into comments sections and crying ‘what about the men? We suffer too’ about topics related to women and our oppression, perhaps they should direct that question towards their fellow men.
Also, I’m just not convinced that, given an equal playing field, women would be shown to be equally as warmongering as men, and certainly not more so. The ease with which many men resort to physical violence when they don’t get their own way attests to that.
“The ease with which many men resort to physical violence when they don’t get their own way attests to that.”
That is not because men are worse or more mean but is because men can make more of an impact that way than a woman can, typically. Woman instead, and teens are famous for this, more commonly are bitchy, mean etc while men just thump and then get on with their lives.
Both sexes have their good and bad points but the modern feminist agenda is based around 2 points “Women are just like men” and ‘All men are bastards’. Most feminists can’t decide which is the one they believe; both are probably true in their way but rather a negative way to look at humanity.
Well then, since men commit disproportionally more crimes and especially rape, why are they allowed to be literally anywhere?
Ever heard of “women and children first” Jane.
Yes I have. Ever heard of women having to fight for our right to vote, our right to bodily autonomy, the right not to be asked what we were wearing when we are attacked?
Do try to grow up and see people as people. We are ALL individuals with a range of opinions, beliefs, strengths and weaknesses. Don’t just live in your own silo and hate the other silo.
This is such an unhelpful argument. Feminists don’t hate men, and of course we recognise that most men are good people. But even good people can benefit from a system (in this case patriarchy) that works for them at the expense of others.
“Women always suffer too from war”? Men DIE from war. In their millions. Cheered on by women.
Women also die. I don’t personally know of any women who cheer at the prospect of war.
I thought we were in this together…. Apparently men dying isn’t women’s problem. Bizarre. You married Jane or is it just you and the cats?
Wow, a woman with an opinion must be an unhappy spinster with a thousand cats. What a wit you are Aaron! How original! Men dying is very much something that feminists find sad and tragic. But by and large, men die at the hands of other men, not women. It is generally not women attacking and killing men.
46 women convicted of killing men year ending 2018 – most recent figures available from the ONS.
And that’s women’s problem because?
Because reasonable women love their sons and spouses.
most wars were brought about by men because it was mainly women in charge. Where women are in charge, they are just the same. Look at Hilary Clinton and Margaret Thatcher.
“And that’s women’s problem because?”
No women’s right cause has succeeded or won democratic rights without enrolling support from the other half of the species. That is, there were enough men who did care, who took on many of the problems facing women as “their” problem as well – they did not just manifest caring about their own “tribe” of males.
Now your view is that the problems that males face in our society are none of your interest, you care only about women and men should care only about men? Or did I misinterpret?
From my first encounter with (2nd wave) feminism, I got that there were two threads: one with aims of true equal partnership with men versus the confining and damaging sex roles oppressing both, and one with a female vs male energy, primarily about moving women’s power and benefits upward, period (not aiming for equality per se, just to maximize power). I’ve been a lifelong supporter of the former. That side – moving towards real equaliy and parternship in a win/win vision of future relations – seems to be losing influence in current feminism.
There’s less of the reciprocal partnership (“thanks for supporting our battle, we will also support yours”), and more of a “you owe us because we are bigger victims, so there’s not need for reciprocality and alliance, this is now an adversarial relationship and you have to let us win or we will call you names”. That is, it’s an attempt to invert the win/lose dynamics, not a movement towards a truly more equally empowered society with payoffs for both (ie: a win/win which benefits both sides).
Why do I prefer social contracts empowered by mutual benefits? Because I think they can be more stable and harmonious, and foster more empathetic connections – than those based on seeking to win by shaming opponents, which will explode in your faces someday.
Use of the term “patriarchy” is almost always a signifier of an emptiness of argument. Yours is not in the category of comments where the term adds something.
Oh good. A man has arrived to tell us ladies about the reality of our oppression. How did we ever cope before you?
Women cannot cope without men for very long. I’d be interested to see you cope if your roof fell in, or your car breaks down, or you need an operation, or there’s a power cut, or an invasion by a hostile nation etc etc.
Just take a look around you and you will see that your home and almost everything in it, the road you live on, shops you get your food from, the food itself, almost all your material world was made, grown and delivered to you by MEN.
A bit of gratitude would not go amiss.
or if there’s a spider in the house.
That can work both ways.
I never said that men deserve no gratitude for what they do.
Women also do those jobs you mention, but that’s by the by. We should still be able to criticise injustice that we face, without being told to be ‘grateful’. Have you never criticised the government? There’s much you should be thankful for with the government too, it doesn’t mean you can’t criticise aspects of it you feel are unjust.
This was in moderation for 4 days.
No longer relevant, so scrapped.
You’ve several times in this thread said that men as a whole class never ever put women’s needs first. As Claire D points out, that ignores the fact you are absolutely surrounded at every moment by the products of generations of men’s labouring to provide for their wives, sisters, mothers, aunts and daughters. Additionally, in the aeons-long view of the “Patriarchy” conception, does a few decades difference between the majority of men getting the vote, and women getting the vote mean all that much? In other words, from a slightly more elongated perspective, the majority of men were politically disenfranchised just as much as women. Of course those decades of difference are still an insult to women, especially given how hard their struggle for enfranchisment was, but I feel a bit of perspective wouldn’t go amiss.
If you were a woman, maybe you would feel differently. When fighting for the right to be counted as people,citizens, human beings, then yes, decades do count. If you were denied the vote tomorrow but reassured that it won’t be forever, only a few decades, but that the other 50% of the human population can still vote, I suspect you’d be feeling unhappy about that.
Women are entitled to talk about oppression from men, such as FGM, trafficking, domestic abuse and so on. That does not mean we aren’t aware of everything men have done and do to make our lives comfortable! Have you honestly never complained about the government? The government does a lot for you too but you have every right to criticise its negative aspects. That doesn’t mean you’re not grateful for free education, healthcare, or the right to vote, does it?
I’m sure I would feel differently yes. But the same goes if you were a man. Of course you’re entitled to talk about oppression from men (I hope you’ve noticed that such talk has been a consistent and ever growing part of Western culture for well over 150+ years now). But it’s the one-sidedness of some of the arguments that’s bothersome to many men (and many women, I’m increasingly aware). For example: I feel sure any non-superficial investigation of practices like FGM will likely show that they are insisted upon and carried out as much and often more by the women of those societies. Another example is the enormous taboo around the subject of women who are domestically violent: yes I know about the women-being-killed statistics and they are shocking, but this doesn’t make battered and humiliated men an ok thing. Trafficking of women: no argument there however, a terrible and I suppose I agree essentially Patriarchal crime.
I replied to this earlier but it seems to have vanished for some reason. A quick summary of my reply! Yes, I would feel differently as a woman I reckon, but the same goes for yourself if you were a man.
And of course you’re entitled to complain about oppression from men; are you forgetting that such commentary has been an ever growing part of Western culture for 150+ years! But it’s the one-sidedness of a lotof the arguments that is bothersome to men (and to an increasing number of women too, it seems). For example: I feel sure that a non-superficial investigation of FGM and similar practices will often show they are promulgated and defended as much or more by the women
of those societies.
Domestic violence is another one sided argument as there’s a huge taboo (in society and in journalism: the subject
is always relegated to niche websites and support groups) on talking about women who are violent to their partners. Yes, I’m aware of the shocking statistics on femicide, but that doesn’t make battered and humiliated men an ok or negligible thing.
On sex trafficking of women there is of course no arguing however: a horrendous and, I agree, essentially Patriarchal crime.
The government is transitory and composed of a mix of people.
That you feel so unjustly treated by men specifically suggests that you are neurotic.
FGM is rarely opression by men. Mostly it is opression by other women.
You can criticise whatever you like, we live in one of the safest, most free countries in the world, you might as well make the most of it.
But, you owe it to yourself to make sure that what you are criticising is worth the time and effort, and is it reasonable ?
Does it not strike you as odd that where you see oppression and injustice the majority of British women, particularly aged 30+, do not ?
Does that fact not make you wonder if perhaps you are mistaken and overeacting, brainwashed by feminist propaganda ?
You don’t face any injustice. You have a downer on life, and have sought out ‘literature’ that confirms your worldview.
Are you stuck in 1952? Here, I’ll try to pull you back to this time period…Claire? Grab my hand! Come on now!
Two women a week are killed by men in the UK. Many women around the world have no access to abortion, even in cases of rape. More women attempt suicide than men, but men are more ‘successful’ in their attempts because they statistically choose more lethal, violent methods more likely to result in death.
It is also not feminism’s fault if men who don’t want to listen to the realities of patriarchy switch off when the word is mentioned. A lot of climate change deniers switch off when global warming is mentioned too. It doesn’t mean it isn’t real.
Stop the appeal to patriarchy and shift to the elite and people with power. Patriarchy makes one’s mind numb for the first three seconds before one can listen again, at the very mildest of responses.
The fact that 2 women a week are killed by men is utterly irrelevant to the argument. Women are only a third as likely to be the victim of murder, or and half as likely to be a victim of other violent crime. And, when women are the perpetrators, they get lighter sentences.
Do try to keep up.
It really isn’t irrelevant. The fact is very simple: men kill men. Men kill women. Women are generally not at risk from other women. Nor are men generally at risk from women. Men are the perpetrators of the vast majority of violence in this world. How about you go after other men for this rather than try to shame women who speak up about feeling unsafe? Could it possibly be because you find it easier to shout down women?
You’re not being shouted down when someone presents you with a counter-argument.
Women who have opinions have faced this exact sexist criticism for decades now. It isn’t original in the least, other than possibly that spelling of ‘expensive’.
Did you have an oppressive or smothering mother? I’ve never read such vitriol against women in all my life…I can’t believe that you actually believe women have it better than men, or that surface statistics mean anything in effect. You clearly see every woman as some “stock” figure, likely an authority figure from childhood, and this kind of simplistic thinking prevents you from considering the nuance of lived experience. You sound exactly like Keith Rainere, and look where he ended up…consider what you might be projecting based on the actions of one of two people in your life.
That you have failed to respond to my points (which were specific data items), and instead engaged in an ad hominem ‘argument’ speaks volumes…
My, my…2 replies *and* a reply to one of my unrelated comments for a different article? My “amateurish” babble seems to have struck a nerve.
Haven’t got the hang of this “grown up discussion” thing, have you?
Complete nonsense. Men have been sacrificing themselves for centuries to provide for women and children. 97% of all industrial acidents happen to men, because men are the expendable gender.
How about all the dead soldiers, miners, workers in highly dangerous places suporting their families in the past? Is it really plausible that goodness and altruism are only found among women? I doubt it.
That isn’t what she is saying.
False. Men often stand up for women even when they need not or even should not. There’s even a term for it: white knighting.
Is that really true though? And saying that’s why it’s called patriarchy is begging the question.
I think it differs a great deal between cultures. I think in the past it was completely trumped by social class (upper class men cared far more for upper class women than they did for working class men), and in the U.K. I think it is fair to say that more care has always been directed at women – hence the legislation post industrial revolution aimed at protecting women and the greater sense of horror if something happens to women.
You’re surely not saying that feminism should centre men, are you? Really? Nothing at all is stopping men from organising against circumcision if they wish to. Fill your boots. 🙄 But the trans issue – which is what SM’s piece springs from – is not about that. And do check the difference between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ – it’s a useful distinction.
Why does every discussion of female-related issues have to result in some whiny man crying ‘but…but…what about the MEN?!’
You don’t see women bombarding discussions of testicular cancer with demands that breast cancer be discussed too.
Yes they do. We had Jess Phillips laughing at male suicide and at the thought of a minister for men.
Yes but she’s not a nice person.
Because of the unconscious sexism of Suzanne’s article, probably. It’s not just hetersexual women who’ve been relabelled as “cis”, nor is it just women who’ve lost jobs (Jordan Petersen).
Also, did you not notice how, throughout the article, Suzanne is constantly comparing and equating the Left’s hate with masculinity – still the go-to benchmark for oppression on planet Guardian? If you write from the premise that gender bullies are as bad as and part of the same general evil as men, you should expect to get pulled up on it.
Why should women always have to talk about how a problem that affects us also adversely affects men? If men are also angry about how this is affecting them, then nobody is stopping them from writing an article of their own.
That’s true. But what is interesting is the low societal interest in issues which negatively affect men – in marked contrast to those that affect women. No one really wants to hear about male workplace deaths, for example. I think some men feel that feminism has contributed to this by suggesting that women’s lives are hard, while men have the life of Reilly.
Women moan about their problems a heck of alot more than men do. (Come on, we all know it to be so.) And yes, on some ‘men’s issues’, there is usually a feminist poster bitching that that this isn’t worth discussing becuase women are so much worse off in general. Case in point: Julie Bindell of our very own unherd.com…
Yes you do….
Because they are trying to right the balance and show that there are societal practices which harm men but which are rarely spoken of or made little of. They are challenging a female victim, male perpetrator narrative. And just why is it that FGM has such a high profile and MGM not?
Both FGM and MGM are vile and wrong, of course they are. I think to be honest the main reason FGM receives more attention is because not only does it, in most forms it takes, essentially scar the woman for life and leave her with excruciating pain in a way that male circumcision does not, but also because male circumcision is often for religious purposes, (which can be an untouchable area for many) whereas FGM is usually because the woman is considered an object which must be kept pure so that she can be sold off to the highest bidder when she is older. Feminists consider both bad, but it’s surely understandable that they focus more so on FGM.
Thanks for such a reasonable reply. It’s always hard to untangle the real reasons behind religious and cultural practices, and of course many of them carry on simply because they are traditional, custom or relate to a sense of identity – whatever their origins.
Part of the acceptance of mgm is because circumcision has been part of western tradition (especially in the US) FGM has not. In the US it was rather quaintly considered to discourage masturbation! The equivalent for girls was to put caustic soda on the c******s! And eating corn flakes apparently helped too (I’m not joking!).
And unlike some I don’t particularly see why feminists should focus on male issues. I don’t think they should deny them though, or thwart attempts to deal with them or portray society as more anti female and pro male than it actually is. Thanks again.
And FGM for the most part is organised&carried out by …women.
There are many groups that fight against circumcision. I often post articles on this subject. Here is one for you.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go….
Ian, what do you mean by ‘mutilated males’? If you are referring to routine infant circumcision, I think you’d find that most of us are against all genital mutilation.
Thanks Pearl. I just wish it were mentioned as often as FGM.
My main gripe actually is that so many special interest groups seem only to outwardly care about their own members interests – while constantly seeming to forget that “equality” includes others …
However, fgm, especially type 3, is a very, very different thing from mgm. I honestly don’t understand why women campaigning against fgm are vilified for not including mgm. Why can’t men campaign?
….
Hopefully you didn’t see my comment as suggesting you are vile in any way – my brain doesn’t work that way.
Your question is a good one, and the answer to it may be the same as the reason men don’t go to doctors as frequently.
I’d like to see an informed Post addressing your question.
Maybe my post is campaigning of a sort- but just amateurish.
Hopefully you didn’t see my comment as suggesting you are vile in any way – my brain doesn’t work that way.
Your question is a good one, and the answer to it may be the same as the reason men don’t go to doctors as frequently.
I’d like to see an informed Post addressing your question.
Maybe my post is campaigning of a sort – but just amateurish
Of the four generally recognised forms of FGM, I think it would be fair to say that one is less damaging than mgm, one is arguable (but in my view worse), and two are clearly worse. I believe (but don’t know) that the mildest form of FGM is the one most common in the U.K.
But it’s not a competition. We should not be mutilating children’s genitals.
Dude… read your comment again and then examine what “special interest” means.
You wanna discuss and fight men’s issues… YOU do it. You don’t get to shit on other people’s arguments because they fail to address what YOU want to talk about…
That’s just so incredibly daft.
I think this is a simplistic defense — I mean, no one can be everything to everyone, and if you (as in collective, human “you”, not you personally) care so much about a particular issue then it is your responsibility to create a space for it. The problem comes when another person attempts to thwart attention away from your space / hijack your space. If a person wishes that MGM were mentioned as often as FGM, then that person could do something about this without it infringing on the FGM space.
Of course a special interest group is primarily concerned with its own members’ interests…we are human beings, and we will obviously feel most passionately about issues that connect to our personal experience. But, if people separately develop platforms dedicated to subjects that they are personally passionate about, share personal stories, etc., then it becomes possible to engage in empathetic exchange and join forces.
Thanks for the thoughtful response, the vast majority of which I agree with.
I’d still like to see more groups make the additional effort to briefly demonstrate sympathy with others more often.
I’m pretty sure that would be win-win.
Thank you for this thoughtful reply, as well — and yes, that would be a win-win.
offerderati cause. Nothing wrong with circumcision of males.
Why is that 7882 ?
If I may call you that ….
f**k that. NTMC is a gross violation of bodily autonomy and consent, usually instigated by cultural or religious practice. It’s mutilation of a child to make the parents feel better.
Well, one things for certain, men don’t seem to give a damn until they can use it to derail women struggling for their rights. It was a man (John Money https://en.wikipedia.org/wi… who help kick start this whole shitstorm, by using a botched circumcision (done by a man, in the name of a male led religion) to play god with his surgical skills.
What is a mutilated male?
Goodness knows. I was circumcised as an infant and it has never been a problem for me – it was simply the done thing in my social class 65 years ago (I’m not Jewish). It’s a very far cry indeed from the true horrors of FGM.
Well so long as you don’t remember the event, that’s fine.
Shall we put FGM on the clock sooner for small girls?
Imagine that.
Feminists don’t matter and their thoughts, arguments and analysis should be discarded out of hand because, they should really be talking about men…
Your comment fails the Bechdel test… spectacularly.
Mutilated males? I think the difference here is that the mutilation of males happens because that is what they have chosen for themselves whereas little girls around the world (in Africa especially) have it forced on them.
Hi Shona
I see from your profile that this is your first time commenting on an article on Unherd, I hope that you and the many other first timers this article has attracted will continue to add to the lively debates that take place here on a wide range of subjects. In particular there is a dearth of female voices and intelligently articulated points of view are always most welcome.
Doubt I’ll be subscribing when the time comes. Not enough diversity of views I’m afraid, especially in these BTL comments.
You never get diversity in BTL comments. Only a certain type of rage motivates anyone to move their fingers over a keyboard
No diversity in Guardian BTL for sure. Not because a diversity of posters does not exist, but because Banning is the instant response of any poster not shouting out the echo chamber song.
Yes – and they have the temerity to claim that “Comment is Free”!
Jeez, I’m sorry I’m not diverse enough for you. Better get back to the Guardian…
What’s BTL?
Beyond the limit, below the line, between the lines, buy to let.
IWTT (I wondered that too).
Below the line – comments made after the main article.
Can we stop calling it ‘diversity’ ffs..weve had enough of that word.
‘Difference of opinion’ was sufficient since literacy began..
In the US, I am getting overloaded by call outs every five seconds appealing to “Democracy.” The word is starting to lose…something…in that strange way of saying a word too often affects one’s sense of it.
Good grief, Stephen Crossley! Have you given yourself the job of UnHerd’s receptionist? What next ““ a welcome-pack of goodies for nice newcomers?
I never got a welcome when I first started commenting on UnHerd. I’m obviously not nice enough and too challenging – both of which qualities I undoubtedly possess.
I wonder what he means by ‘intelligently articulated articulated points of view’?
Maybe they are comments he agrees with. The real test is recommending a comment that you disagree with because you think it’s well argued.
As a matter of fact, I have upticked Shona’s comment along with the rest because I agree with it.
“…recommending a comment you disagree with because you think it’s well argued” would require a kind of polite detachment from the full force of the discussion effectively reducing it to a genteel game where it doesn’t really matter who is wrong or right as long as the game is played well.
Discussions about politics or religion will always evoke strong emotions and it is difficult to tolerate those who emphatically oppose your beliefs. A generation of young activists have decided that tolerance of opposing views is an intellectual nicety they can do without ““ hence “cancel culture”.
By “intelligently articulated points of view” perhaps Crossley is hinting at disapproval of its opposite: the jeering, sneering and heckling behaviour of the troll.
For the record, I sometimes upvote comments I disagree with, because they are well-argued. The immediate battle in some comment section is an insigificant part of the whole war. And a good argument from the opposite side helps me too, even if it doesn’t change my mind. It helps me focus on the core of the opposing argument.
No. She reflects his opinions and so he advocates for her. Fair enough.
You didn’t get your welcome pack?
ha ha
Thats a 1st in chat-up lines..
You’re a bit creepy.
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with cancel culture, no-one is saying people should be arrested. You’re getting confused with freedom from consequence.
“Freedom of speech has nothing to do with cancel culture” That must take years and years of loony indoctrination to come up with some thing as bad as that.
No they are saying they should be sacked, and the law allows for this.
In the early thirties the Nastis were only coming for the Jews’ jobs after all.
“In vain the gods battle against stupidity.” Goethe.
Are you American, by any chance? I often find the First Amendment drastically limits the way US citizens understand freedom of speech, which is not at all limited to state action…
“Step right up ladies and gentleman, see the amazing troll!”
Ms Moore supported ‘cancel culture’ until it came for her.
quite.
They came for the Gentleman’s clubs first. The rot started there.
Hoisted on her own virtue-signalling wokeist petard.
Such exquisite irony.
Evidence? I’m unaware of her doing any such thing. I’ve never seen her try to get people deprived of livelihood or subjected to assaults.
There is a kind of poetical truth in what Mark says – and SM is perhaps just as dogmatic as the people now going for her. But like you I would like to know if she has actually herself been involved in cancelling anybody or closing down debate. I suspect probably not.
Hard not to feel that many trans movement tactics were taken from the feminist handbook – and clearly used to pretty deadly effect.
hahaha! It really isn’t worth the retort. Evidence my arse. Just pick a column, daft lass, any column.
Did she?
I fault her for working at the Guardian — a me hive of scum and villainy — but I’m going to need attribution that she actively worked to get people fired for espousing mere views with which she disagreed.
Indeed, otherwise she couldn’t have worked for the Guardian at all in the first place. No sympathy for her.
‘Brava’ is grammatically correct – and presumably more in tune with ‘biology’ as well.
Brav# is the appropriate gender-neutral term.
(that I’ve just invented)
LOL.
Most Latinos reject ‘Latin#’, needless to say.
Sorry, but is this the same Suzanne Moore who wrote an article for the Guardian on why hating men as a group was morally acceptable, published by a paper that positions itself as fighting sexism?
Oh, and double standards. They’re definitely against those. So is Moore, apparently, telling us here that she “never has, or ever will, be unkind to anyone because of their gender identity”.
I guess someone else wrote that piece on why it’s ethical to hate men.
Or consider Suzanne claim that women ought to be able to enjoy “single sex spaces”. Where were you when men’s single sex spaces were claimed to be sexist and exclusionary?
As usual, it’s one rule for feminists, another for men.
This kind of self-contradictory self-righteousness is evident in much of Moore’s journalism. In this very article, for example, informs us that “as a feminist, I argue that gender is a social construct”, but then later claims “a kind of gender tourism became possible. Anyone could be anything” in disputing the notion that gender is a choice.
But you can’t have it both ways Suzanne: if gender is a “social construct” rather than, say, an evolutionary one, then indeed anyone can be anything.
But they can’t, because gender is not a social construct. The psychological differences between men and women, like the physical ones, are the result of different evolutionary pressures governing reproductive success.
But if that is true, then much of modern feminism complaining about the “patriarchy” is simply misdirected misunderstanding of the role biology has played, and continues to play, in how human affairs are regulated. The “patriarchy” is shorthand for innate differences. Men no more oppress women than women oppress men. We are synmbiotically wired into each other through 250,000 years of differential mate selection.
As for your road to Damascus conversion in finally grasping that cancel culture is at root anti-democratic, this is the culture that feminism created. And in spite of your protestations to the contrary, it is men more than women who suffers from its effects.
So sorry, Suzanne, for not being more sympathetic, but your complaints remind me of Robspierre in the back of the tumbrel on the way to the chop whining about the tragic consequences of radical fervor, while remaining blind to your own role in that predictable end.
You and your feminist ilk brought this on yourselves.
I don’t think this writer is being ‘cancelled’ whatever that really means. Otherwise I wouldn’t have been able to read this.
Bravo?She tried to shield the ethnicity of the perpetrators in Rotherham by laying the blame on ALL men..more or less.
A regular Guardian reader through the 80’s & 90’s I now see it not as a newspaper but just an activist mag. It’s full of ill thought through one sided “latest fashion” left propaganda. Gone are the days of some balance & some logical analysis. It’s just something you’d read now to affirm an ideological & dogmatic view. It’s not journalism at all.
I don’t disagree, the Guardian has lost it. But tell me where I don’t find simplistic dogma. It’s all over this site too, just a different flavour. Repeat after me : Everybody on the left hates democracy. Our culture is being destroyed. It was better in the olden days.
11
Make no mistake! “everybody on the left hates democracy. our culture is being destroyed. it was better in the old days” may be dogmas, but they may very well be just …observations! Just taking note of the (perceived) reality.
Rather like the BBC, it’s go-to broadcasting sister (brother? self-identifying sibling??)
Have commented elsewhere that I bought the print version quite recently. Rather than just choosing specific articles online, you obviously have to go through it page by page. And what amazed me was how achingly posh and patrician it was. Has the Guardian always been like this? and if not, when did it change?
I used to read it years ago, it was always achingly posh and patrician. In fairness to the Guardian this is somethin in common with all Broadsheets. I suppose a lot of writers come from that background.
I used to work for it and it had that feel, but in the actual workforce were a lot of more ordinary down to Earth types…these days (I don’t work it so have no special insight) more and ,ore of the media has succumbed to the idea that impartiality is impossible so partiality is the way to go and nowhere has gone down that route more than the Guardian and now it is where it is.
The NYT may kill it off one day, or CNN, because the one thing the internet has made clear it is the monopolist’s friend and can’t abide multiple provision of a service…and it’s headed to video…the future’s grim, the future’s snapchat……?
My exact same sentiments. They lock themselves up in an ivory tower, guarded by moderators who remove comments that may displease those who’ve suddenly turned pro-monarchy because they probably got an invitation to a C-listed royal wedding.
Brilliant! Power, rage, intelligence and a rollicking good read. Thank god for Suzanne and UnHerd.
Moore is a metropolitan liberal who received a dose of her own medicine.
Like Robespierre, she dies on her own guillotine.
You just validated her entire essay.
I didn’t bother to read it.
You’re like the right wing evangelical who said he didn’t need to read a certain book or article to know it was Satan’s work. I like to know who or what I’m against. There’s no excuse or moral high ground in ignorance.
Pompous ass.
I’m old left as it happens – You know, the real thing.
How wonderfully pompous.I’m old left as it happens – You know, the real thing.
“I didn’t bother to read it”. All I need to know about you is in that sentence. In another country you’d be a Trump redneck
“Because in another country you’d be a Trump redneck”
Because I wouldn’t bother to read an article from a Guardian hack?
You need to calibrate your insults to suit your target, Simon.
“In another country you’d be a Trump redneck”
Would I?
Because I ignore an article by a Guardian hack?
You need to refine your insults to match your target, Simon.
That remark says a lot more about you than it does about him.
Ouch, you go man! Calling people trump supporters is an instant win! Redneck – hilarious! Really put polidoris in his place.
Pot calling the kettle black?? Whatever “old” left means, or does it just mean old (like I am!)
It doesn’t mean self-serving, metropolitan, middle class, fake left.
Hopes that helps, David
As one cleric said of The Satanic Verses (which he hadn’t read) “I don’t need to wade into a sewer to know that it is dirty” (I may have paraphrased).
Poor comparison.
I have read enough of the Guardian over the years to know that is indeed, a sewer.
I’ve ploughed through it but, lordy, it’s self-indulgent.
Tell me if I was unfair.
I will take it from you!
I read to the end, but christ it was hard work. You didn’t miss much.
It was over long. 25 mins according to the estimates. I get that she’s angry though.
No it’s not. It’s angry.
If it’s an example of her journalism, one sympathises with her poor sub-editors
I was in wind-up mode.
Well done you. I didn’t make it to the end.
That was clear.
It was basically one long b***h about how hard done by she was.
I’ll summarise for the TL:DR crowd:
“Waaah, people were mean to me at work”
“Waaah, I was hoist by my own petard”
Everyone else: 😀 😀 😀
LOL! Best post!
Ellen,
Suzanne Moore, much as she wants to portray herself as the poor blameless victim of an intolerant, activist lynch-mob, has been at the fore of denouncing people herself.
So before you offer her too much sympathy spare some for those she has denounced in the past.
In true Guardian fashion, her approach has been predicated on a massive and wholly unjustifiable double standard.
Ellen, how so? By not agreeing or sympathising enough?
Nice try… but no.
It was a hysterical puff piece about her native superiority and credentials, as indicated by the title itself.
She’s from a working class background. As is clear in the article she’s always rubbed up against met liberals.
“…she’s always rubbed up against met liberals.”
She worked for met liberals, and she worked with met liberals.
Working class, indeed. She should be ashamed of what she did.
Agree…
So brave, so strong! Yes, a tour de force of an intellectual powerhouse! I am sure this article would have happened without having her leftwing colleagues eating her alive. Such compassion and self awareness in the comments below!
What’s that? Time to go? Awwww!
I started my working life in 1973 as a trainee journalist on a local newspaper
I carry tons of bulging baggage full of stories from the front in the war to be recognised as a worthy human being. I teally didn’t think I’d still be fighting nearly 50 years later, and I’m bloody tired. That’s what rings out to me in this article: the exhaustion, the weariness and the oh-God-just-make-it-stopness of the forever embattled woman. Love the writing while hating its reality.
Would you not agree that Ms Moore misses out on one big factor at play in the recent trans-terf wars? The role of feminist organisations, thinkers and writers who are very much at the forefront of these new orthodoxies and driving the cancellation of other women? Intersectional feminism?
Ms Moore subtly places the blame for the current trans virulence on gay activists and men – women are playing a big role in this, let’s be honest.
What role do women play in male violence?
That’s not what I wrote and I do not engage with bad faith actors or those with poor reading skills.
Probably the same role men play in female violence.
50% of DV is instigated by women against their male partners and against children. 38-45% of those injured in DV are men.
What are the injuries? How many men die?
According to the ONS, year ending March 2018, 96 men were killed in DV incidents, 46 of the killers were women.
Men are often unwilling to admit that they have been abused by their wives because of social stigma. The studies indicate that 38-45% of domestic violence injuries are inflicted by women on men, usually when the man is asleep, using a weapon.
Good point. Trans thinking clearly emerged out of feminist thinking on gender – in particular via Judith Butler. And trans people were used to support the argument that gender is a social construct. Some clearly didn’t see in advance the way their own thinking would lead. At the time, no doubt it all looked like useful ideology in support of the feminist cause. But ideologies have a habit of taking on a life of their own.
Shame your comment just led to a repeat of unrelated arguments. Disheartening.
I have a strong feeling that would create too much cognitive dissonance for some of Ms Moore’s fans.
There is nothing duller than lefties, who have spent their entire lives skewering and ostracising people they felt weren’t right on enough, suddenly whining when they fall foul of the latest left-wing orthodoxy.
I agree, but anyone who is being bullied by the cancel culture should be supported by those who believe in free speech and rational debate. And be honest; doesn’t part of you thoroughly enjoy the biter being bit.
The problem with supporting them is that they’re not interested in free speech and they still despise you anyway.
They just fell off their ideological high-wire after a lifetime of abusing other people for disagreeing with them.
Do you honestly think you could have a sane conversation with Moore about any of the hobby horses she trots out in this essay without her “cancelling” you if you didn’t agree with everything she said?
JK Rowling is a perfect example, reinventing the sexual preference and race of various of her characters according to the latest headlines in the Guardian – to great public fanfare and adulation on twitter – then tripping up over the latest trend and being heaped on the bonfire.
I wouldn’t waste my time on them if I were you.
Evidence of what you accuse JKR of?
Dumbledore suddenly gay. One of the other characters suddenly black. Fawning adulation. Then the abyss.
Where did Rowling previously state that those characters were straight or white?
I would be embarrassed to have asked that question. Are you twelve years old?
Moore’s lack of self awareness is extraordinary. “When I walked past the Woman’s Place meeting in Brighton at the Labour Party conference last year, people were banging on the windows… It hardly affected me,”. Well, yeah, first they came for the TERFs and I did nothing.
Moore is a nasty, smug, self righteous, middle class leftie who has found herself on the receiving end of the bile she has dished out to others. Remember her tweet when finding out Jordan Peterson was in rehab, having taken medication to deal with severe depression after learning his wife had been diagnosed with a terminal illness: ‘Hello Editor types. Jordan Peterson holed up in rehab in Russia. F*** me gently with a chainsaw”¦ let me do that story. Come on!’
You reap what you sow Suzanne.
The way the left jumped on Peterson’s illness was despicable… But completely true to form. The hypocrisy of these people…
And glorifying in Assange’s imprisonment.
So that makes her treatment by the Guardian’s kangaroo court and vile abuse by fanatics right?
Nothing, but that doesn’t mean one should feel any sympathy for Moore.
Battles to be the greater victim rage on. I’ll admit that I only read half of the article. Even with nothing to do at 4am (other than sit with a newborn on my chest) I couldn’t find the will to continue with this egotistical nonsense.
It strikes me that Suzanne has been a flag-bearer for a generation of journalists being paid to share myopic views of the world based on their own personal grievances.
Ironically, it seems that her attempts to enter the trans debate as a woman have led to the backlash that I might receive for commenting on any of her articles as a man: the perverse logic she’s helped to foster, which has become commonplace, has come back to bite her.
Yes, to some extent this is a case of the biter bit. But Suzanne has always been a more lively presence, and expressed a more diverse range of views, than most leftie commentators. She is, at least, capable of thought, which is very rare in these circles.
I agree. At least the views are the author’s own.
I don’t understand what you mean about ‘attempts to enter the trans debate’ does this mean she hasn’t?
I thought one of the points of the article was that she wasn’t allowed to debate it.
Perhaps you should read a) the whole article, and b) it more carefully, before you decide to comment
If you can stay awake long enough to finish it. Rambling verbosity seems to be a required qualification to write on Unheard?
Thank goodness for the right to hold a difference of opinion. There was so much within that article that resonated with me. I found it to be thorough, honest and to the point. There have been many times that I have totally disagreed with SM but this is not one of those occasions. Thank You SM & Unheard.
I agree in part but the dangers/issues that women/girls/females are facing in the current TRA trend/climate; slurs, threats, intimation, eradication should be a concern to us all. You should fully appreciate the amazing ability and realness of the female body as it due to the aforementioned that you hold the newborn to your chest… You should be against the narrative of conflating gender with sex. This isn’t a moment of nar na na nar na…
Nar na nar na? Aha, a left wing intellectual, eh?
Good post bro.
Interesting that you think that only males are trans, ignoring the 4000%+ increase in teenage girls transitioning. Also interesting that you think males transitioning has no impact on females.
My offspring has ushered me into the Unherd fold. And I’m very thankful for it! Finally civilized interaction. I walked away from the tyranny of social media a while ago.
Suzanne Moore is an impressive presence in her field. I respect decades of dedication and passion, the conviction of her work. She was treated with utter shabbiness by the Guardian. Hopefully she’s in a less toxic and treacherous environment now. More power to you Suzanne!
Did you speak out Suzanne, when the Guardian smeared the Rotherham girls as “islamaphobes”?
Of course she didn’t, there is no sisterhood between middle class, left wing women and working class women, or children. If it were only working class women and children at risk from trans ‘women’, she wouldn’t be speaking out now. If it were only working class girls at risk of chemical mutilation of their bodies from hormones on prescription it would not be a matter of interest.
I really don’t know why every conservative publication feels it needs to give a voice to this mad, lefty harridan. Just because the loony left have jilted her doesn’t mean she has anything to offer the rest of us.
You’re the person who wrote, “Most young, male murderers are drug abusers possessed by the Devil”, aren’t you?
I would forgive Suzanne almost anything for the sentence where Peter Preston allegedly (he’s not alive to defend himself) told her that she could now write about painting her toenails. Was not the G lecturing the rest of us, even way back then, about the countless crimes and evils of male chauvinism?
Miaow.
Do you have evidence that the Guardian called the
girls Islamophobic? Obviously you can’t prove that a woman rooted in the working class didn’t object as you can’t prove a negative. Did she join in such abuse?
“Just because the loony left have jilted her doesn’t mean she has anything to offer the rest of us.”
Alison you have made my morning with that comment – genuinely laughed – thanks
Is that true? I thought the Guardian just ignored stories that conflicted with its agenda. I would love to see a link to that story, though I imagine they’ve deleted it by now.
It banned me from their comments section for posting to many facts and truths. It silences wrongthink, even scientific papers that go against the narrative they are pushing. “Comment is free” indeed.
Interesting. What was the topic under discussion that they didn’t appreciate your contribution to?
They now seem to have stopped comments altogether on anything where somebody might dispute their narrative.
Yes, I’ve noticed this too.
Same experience I’ve had with the Guardian. I linked to a scientific paper on detransitioning and found myself banned. I was pretty naive back then and wasn’t aware of a Leftist agenda.
Al-Guardian first castigated the (far right) people who revealed the emerging stories about sex-grooming gangs in Rotherham as Islamophobes and vile racists and then studiously ignored the story until it couldnt be buried any longer. Very few of its writers dare address this ongoing catastrophe. I cannot recall Ms Moore’s columns on it*. Even in this very long essay, where you finds time to inform us of her concern for female erasure in rural Armenia she doesnt address the grooming of thousands of girls in her own country because the perps are just “men”, rather than a particular category of men motivated by an ideology even worse than transactivism. That’s too close to the skin.
Update: * I searched and found some of Ms Moore’s articles where she dismisses the ethnicity issue as a red herring.
https://www.theguardian.com…
I’m afraid, having really tried, that I’m struggling to find genuine sympathy for Suzanne Moore here.
I think, reading this cascade of verbiage that ranges sentence by sentence between common sense and downright bat-shit nonsense, that I just feel pity for someone that has spent their entire life mired in this miserable, naval gazing world of genderism and left-wing spoiled-child politics and Guardian snobbery.
What a terrible waste of time and effort.
And by the way, Melanie Phillips could have told you this about the Guardian decades ago Suzanne, as could many of its more perspicacious readers who abandoned it long, long before you realised there was anything amiss.
We don’t always concur but I have never found you less than interesting and entertaining – the twin pillars upon which good journalism was founded. On the bright side, at least now you get the column inches to write such a brilliant article. You are a thinker Suzanne, and a carer, and that was always going to cause trouble. Keep on kicking mate.
Terminology! If a lone Cabinet minister shouts and bangs things in an office full of unsackable civil servants, it’s ‘bullying’. If 300 Guardian employees pile onto a lone journalist demanding her censure or sacking, it’s righteous.
While I am glad that the author has had her eyes opened and moved away from this toxic environment, because that kind of abuse is always inexcusable, I am getting a little bit bored of the “I was on the left until they turned on me” articles. I try not to indulge in schadenfreude about it as it’s not helpful in the greater scheme of things, but it is hard.
She’s still on the left. Read the article.
Ok, I was generalising a bit as to types of articles. She has just left the peak left-leaning newspaper in her country due to the way erstwhile allies treated her, which as a career journalist would appear to be pretty fundamental. She may still be on the left but, in my view, it still fits the stereotype of the articles I’m referring to. In this instance actually (and other similar.ones) I think it’s more that the organizations have moved further left, leaving even traditionally quite hard leftists without a home. Although as others have pointed out, I’m not sure moving leftward is the correct terminology anymore.
That’s your take on this? That she’s no longer left? You have read to the end and understand it to be saying that? And not about freedom of speech, the toxic response to her work from the trans agenda, the way women writers are threatened, the difficulty women now have to meet, discuss and campaign as a sex?
Exactly. And so many here sounding off have failed to grasp this about the article.
It’s not a comment on this article, hence my deliberate inclusion of the inexcusable nature of the abuse. But the fact that I have seen several similar ‘turned on by colleagues’ articles arising out of the left recently, all of which indicate the toxic nature of compliance to their orthodoxy, but which none of them seem to see until it hits them.
Take it you didn’t bother to read the actual article… SM is still on the left.
So, she voiced the “wrong” opinion and got attacked by leftist maniacs? Welcome to the 21st century. Now let’s get an article from David Starkey.
Denounced!
…but wait ““ wasn’t Suzanne Moore a great denouncer herself ““ usually of men.
Haven’t those relentless campaigners for all varieties of underdog actually laid the foundations for the cancel culture which they are now intimidated by?
A new generation of campaigners, the social media lynch mob, have taken moral indignation to the next level. Why waste time and energy arguing with people you “know” are wrong ““ just declare yourself offended on behalf of the underdog and shut them down.
Ohmygod this is just so magnificent, so needed saying. I subscribe to the Guardian but have been so disappointed in its position on things Suzanne describes so wonderfully and on a number of other issues too. Great writing from the heart and from the head. Thanks so much. And good luck for wherever you go and wherever you write next.
I cancelled my subscription recently. One has to hope that the Owen Jones fan club do more than live in an echo chamber and actually replace the funding that large numbers of adult human females are now withdrawing…
I wonder how Owen”s Patreon is doing? He whines about equality but offers “exclusive voting power” to people who pay. The irony. https://www.patreon.com/owe…
Maybe it is time for you to reconsider whether you should subscribe to the Guardian.
I gave up on it’s failure to recognise that Scottish Independence was and is a profoundly progressive movement. The Guardian missed the biggest most progressive thing to happen in the UK in decades.
I went back after the referendum to excoriate them but gave it up as a bad job. I just click past the begging things. Now Suzanne has gone that’s one fewer person who sees Scotland right at Graun Towers.
Though we have our own problems with the SNP gone cold on Independence but red hot on GRA. The new Hate Crime bill Section 2 reads like a TRA’s wet dream. If it passes without more safeguards you will charged for stating truths. Your children will be urged to report what you said at home. Your have friends round and one of them might denounce you.
We have lived in that world, some have. I’ve known people who grew up in East Germany, in Russia, in China. Woke is a religion with a high priesthood and a heretic burning fetish. I wouldn’t put it passed them to actually bring literal burnings back. Rhetoric has a nasty way of becoming reality. Nobody took the Nazis seriously enough, remember.
When I see woke stuff written by young women it makes me want to cry.
See, I know this is not the point of the article, but I’m honestly astonished that anyone could have thought, in 2012, that feminism was being too nice. 2011 was the first year I was informed that all men needed to be treated like rapists until proven otherwise (precisely how we could prove our non-rapist-ness was never specified), and that felt like the natural conclusion to what had been building for at least ten years at that point. Ever since I started getting into feminism in my early twenties, there always seemed to be an assumption that niceness was a sinister patriarchal trap and that being a ruthless sociopath was the ideal for men and women alike.
I guess it’s true that I hung out in spaces where feminists talked to other feminists (or yelled at the occasional non-feminist who showed up), and that the tone might have been different in the places where the political rubber met the road. But still, feminism? Too nice? Where and when, exactly?
As such, while I am not entirely unsympathetic to the plight of feminists being bullied by trans activists, I can’t help but feel a bit of schadenfreude too. Sucks, doesn’t it, when people accuse you of horrible things just because you used the wrong word or felt the wrong thing?
You poor, poor boy…
Impressive rebuttal.. “no, my {sex/sexual orientation/race/religion/politics} is more oppressed than yours, so shut up”. Nice.
Is this an example of how feminists care about issues affecting men too, so men shouldn’t complain about women not caring while simultaneously demanding that men always support them?
I have a PVG certificate for working with children and young people. PVG’s are the Scottish criminal record checks. The children and young people one is the hardest to get I’m reliably informed.
it doesn’t prove I’m not a rapist, I’m not, but it lessens the chances that I might be. I got it to aid my work as a science tutor. It’s on my profiles so people can see I’ve been checked.
It cost me 50 quid. I’ve had full time job interviews out of having it. I just applied for another one which requires successful candidates to get one. I’m ahead of the curve.
Maybe it’s having three sisters, maybe raising two daughters but I understand a lot of the fears women have. Even before lockdown I gave women as much space as possible and reasonable in the street because of this. I generally walk quietly but will scuff my feet when coming up behind a woman so as not to scare her.
I don’t catcall or whistle and never have. It would be good if there were more men like me but it seems to be an uphill struggle sometimes when it shouldn’t be. It’s just common courtesy and respect for others.
So you have a piece of paper that says that you’re not a rapist. Great. If you told a feminist that, do you think that that would get you off the hook? Because I’m doubtful, frankly.
Maybe we should all wear little bells around our necks? That way women would know to flee in terror before we came into sight.
Well, there we can agree. I have no patience for men who act like louts.
Do you are totally happy with “rape you with a barbed wire wrapped baseball bat” as political criticism?
I think he proves the point by implying that radical feminist = sociopath and therefore nice feminists are preferred.
I prefer to be around nice people, yes. I’m funny like that.
But hey, I’m not the king of the world. We can have meanness as the norm instead, if that’s what more people prefer. How would you say that that standard is working out for women?
Feminism used to interpret the word nice through it’s older/other meaning of small, and that was rejected, women were not going to get anywhere by making themselves small, competing with men was necessary. We needed to take up our share of space. It’s now morphed into checking our privilege in order to be nice or smaller in modern feminism.
I am honestly confused about where you think I said anything of the sort. I’m not the one who’s outspokenly anti-niceness.
“I noted, referring to this incident, that it is women again, never men, who were losing jobs, incomes and public platforms if they spoke up. “
What about Alastair Stewart, Brian Leach, Christian Webb, Danny Baker, David Starkey, Felix Ngole, Gareth Roberts, Jake Hepple, Martin Shipton, Nick Buckley (happily re-instated), Nigel Farage, Noah Carl, Paul Embery, Richard Page, Roger Scruton, Stuart Peters, Tim Hunt, Toby Young, Greg Clarke? And these are only the well known people. How many others, male and female who have no power or influence have suffered under the current torrent of intolerance? We formed the Labour Party and the trades unions to stop the powerful arbitrarily removing the livelihoods of workers.
” Less sexy subjects such as the appalling low rate for rape convictions, the Covid pandemic causing women to lose jobs and be forced back into the home, the complete lack of childcare”¦ all of these things fall by the wayside when the main discussions of feminism appear to be by men telling us men can just say they’re women and if we say otherwise we deserve all the rape threats we get.”
Magnificent, brilliant, inspiring Suzanne Moore!
Yes, the appalling low rate for rape convictions. Maybe we should have female only juries, or convict on a quota system?
Why no outrage for the appalling rate of false accusations?
Because even the worst false-accusation alarmists claim that they are something like three percent of total accusations?
I don’t share the apparently axiomatic belief that the low rate of rape convictions is some kind of proof of institutionalised misogyny, because I think a far more likely explanation is that it’s a difficult crime to prove, especially since sexuality is inherently primal and uncivilised in a way that few other things are. But people who complain about false rape accusations are really reaching for a way to make themselves out to be the real victims.
False accusations are not remotely as low as 3%. Several studies put the range at 8% to 20%.
So the alarmists have pulled higher numbers out of their asses since the last time I checked. Yes, that tends to happen.
And before you accuse me of being some sort of feminist bogeyman, I have seen the same happen with rape statistics. Scary numbers only ever get bigger the more people talk about them.
“So the alarmists have pulled higher numbers out of their asses since the last time I checked.”
Then you need to check again. I am not here to do your research, but check Lisak’s work – as just one example – where 6% of accusations were demonstrably false, to a very high standard of research and evidence.
Could you post links to the studies which claim this please, as my internet searches have only come up with this:
“Research for the Home Office suggests that only 4% of cases of sexual violence reported to the UK police are found or suspected to be false. Studies carried out in Europe and in the US indicate rates of between 2% and 6%.” Borne out by several other British studies. Thanks.
If you believe in the jury system, all not guilty verdicts are by definition false accusations. Of course, the truth is surely far messier and neither you nor I can possibly see the full picture. I am neither victim nor perpetrator, simply calling out what I believe are double standards.
Whatabouterry of the first water.
Agreed there should be total outcry re-false accusations however, on this occasion that isn’t a pressing issue in relation to the article. It bares no relevance to the topic in hand.
The working class always did have more guts. It’s where I’m from and I’m proud of you Suzanne. Keep seeing red. xo
Working class girl spent twenty rears writing for a middle class, fake left rag.
She should be ashamed.
Says the person that won’t read articles but is still able to pronounce on them.
That is indeed what I say.
I gave up reading the Guardian a long time ago.
I have no intention of going back – It’s a rag.
I bought the print version for the first time in ages a few weeks ago. It’s different from reading the online version as you get to see all the articles in there on every single page. And one thing that I had never realised after doing this was just how posh the Guardian is. Achingly posh. Was it always like that?
Yes.
I remember an amusing incident from some years ago.
An interested person started tracking the social background of Guardian journalists. He couldn’t find any that were not public school educated.
He asked the Guardian whether it employed anybody who wasn’t public school.
To give credit when it is due, it (I hope) saw the joke and offered up its one state educated writer – The cricket correspondent. Well, the cricket correspondent needed to know what he was talking about.
Suzanne Moore is entitled to sympathy and support from all who believe in free speech. However, she identifies herself clearly as a feminist, and I would like feminists to think about the possibility that they have helped create this toxic political environment.
Do go on …
Yes, do. We feminists would love to know from Graham how we have been doing feminism all wrong, and how feminism is actually causing violence, threats of violence and the poisonous ban on debating our own rights.
I’m running out of eye rolls, sorry.
Ok, I’ll tell you how.
By focusing solely on identity politics, all of the oxygen has been sucked out of the room for discussing the wholesale war on working class people. It’s perfectly ok for large corporations to offshore manufacturing jobs if they have the correct number of women on their board. It’s ok for educational attainment for white boys to plummet as long as more women attend useless degree courses at former polytechnics. It’s perfectly ok to tax working people out of a job if a big enough benefit cheque is sent to unemployed single mothers (men can make do on a pittance or live on the street).
Working class white men are not living the high life based on the “patriarchal system”. They’re as excluded and exploited as much as anyone. A very small minority of mainly straight, white, upper middle class men do quite well for themselves, but that’s not most men. For them, it’s an epidemic of suicide, loneliness and stagnation. Men are far more likely to be the victims of violent crime in the UK. Men are 10 times more likely to die on the job than women in the UK. Stop spitefully and simplistically blaming all men for problems in society.
Brilliant response. I hope Heather W learned something.
Well I’ve just outlined “how” in my comment above. The whole feminist argument of men oppressing women for millenia and the beastly patriarchy ruling the roost is a distortion of history and reality. Feminist’s angry, aggressive divisiveness was highly likely to develop into some men, albeit out of their confusion in the liberal/feminist world they find themselves in, being angry and aggressive back.
There’s a mix of truth and fiction in those assertions. Of course patriarchal societies have been the predominant structure for millennia. Women were second class citizens and/or property. They still are in some places. Equality has usually come after a fight, rather than being given up willing by men. It seems unfair to berate feminists for over-stepping the mark on the grounds that it might p:ss men off.
” patriarchal society” is a description used in anthropology. The feminist idea of ‘the patriarchy’ as ongoing conspiracy theory is quite different, it is a weapon used by feminists for power, it is to induce guilt in men, preferably followed by them stepping aside.
Women were not “second class citizens”, that is a modern opinion, not a fact.
Equality is nonsense, men and women are not equal, can never be equal, we are different and complement each other. Chasing the fantasy of equality is directly responsible for the trans issue.
You banned Gentleman’s Clubs and are now annoyed that men found a way into Women’s clubs
I’m aware that, in those countries that have embraced feminism most fully and in which women’s choices are governed by availability rather than necessity, more women choose home over work than in Britain.
But how does Patriarchal Oppression “push a woman into a home”, exactly? Is it like pushing a cat into a sack? Pushing a sock into a drawer? Pushing toothpaste into a tube? Pushing an ideological narrative into a counterfactual dataset?
And were the Pilates aficionados demanding their oppressive spouses release them from domestic captivity so they too could pull on their knickers in the dark and battle into a London office in the rain?
More details, please – this was the most gripping part of the tale, and has left quite a cliffhanger.
This is the problem from speaking from personal experience. You move from a northern terrace to somewhere posh where a pretty women with 3 GCSEs doesn’t have to work in a call center, and you think the world has changed.
If you had killed someone, rest assured, you would have been provided with sympathy and the Guardianistas would have found a way to blame everyone else. But you committed a worse crime, you thought wrong, you strayed outside of the orthodoxy and as a result are just the worst.
I haven’t always agreed with what you had to say over at the Gruan, but I have enjoyed your writing. Not just on issues like Brexit and the butting up of trans rights against women’s rights, but on many subjects. What you have to say about the attitudes on display by the guardian is unlikely to be a surprise to many here.
We can only hope that such folks bubble themselves into an ever tighter corner and eventually remove themselves from any relevance to mainstream culture whatsoever.
Most of us ‘resigned’ from the Guardian some years ago, Suzanne. Welcome to the club.
Like you I fought section 28, volunteered in the AIDS crisis, was denied jobs and Ph.D. scholarship in the ’80s because of en engagement ring! I was sacked twice in the 1990’s for pregnancy. I am not transphobic I just want sex based rights to be recognised and vulnerable natal women to be protected. I hate being referred to as CIS because to me it is the same as Mrs – describing me relative to a person born with Male privilege. Feminism has a long way to go internationally as well as domestically. I don’t give a flying f#@k about what people call themselves, whether they want to use women’s changing and toilets. I do care if the exhibition ist in them demands access to open women’s changing whilst in possession of a p***s and self ID has so much potential for abuse.
But it is the misinformation which out Trumps Trumpism in its blatant lies used by activists which is then used to justify silencing women which leaves me dumbfounded. Right wing ideology from the Catholic Church historically, to the extreme TRA today is characterised by silencing the opposition on pain of death. Plus ca change…
Thanks, UnHerd, for publishing this riotously sad, funny and revealing article. I love the bit about Open Space giving money to the Grauniad and how that might have influenced policy on trans issues. Crickey, a few bad decisions on investing their huge endowment and the G is seeking funding from anyone.
Every time I read the G, I get the earnest long message telling me that I have read the site 1,837 (and counting) times this year and how the G is free from the malign influence of billionaire owners. So cough up a donation, you tight fisted SOB. It plainly is not only billionaires who can exert a malign influence.
But, of course, it is not only money that can exert a malign influence. Crackpot ideologies can be far more brutal and intolerant than any wealthy manipulator. You do not need a single penny in incentives to gang up on a dissident. In fact, your lack of filthy lucre shows how pure and holy your motives are. As per my favourite Marxist grouplet in Reading. Back in the 1980s, they were so pure and holy that they subdivided into two tinier grouplets with memberships of 13 and 7.
I am going to tell you something that many people commenting on this site do not appear to understand and may indeed shock you. I am writing in a broad sense, covering the majority of people.
The human species has two types male and female. Historically they had different functions, but were complimentary to ensure the survival of the race. The survival depended on food, shelter, security and having children.
In a hunter gatherer society, obviously the women had the children, and being more dexterous did the gathering. The men who were physically stronger did the hunting, shelter and security.
Once society moved on to farming, there was little change in roles, except for hunting becoming less important.
This was true until very recently (in historical terms) – even with the advent of the industrial revolution many jobs required hard manual labour. So not much change, even security was still suited to the physically stronger and, of course, only females can have babies.
This complimentary system has lasted for 10,000s of thousand of years – at what a success it has been for the human species.
Which brings us to the last 50 or so years. Nowadays machines have negated the importance of the physical strong and modern medicine has negated the importance of motherhood as most babies now survive.
So, if we are to survive the vast changes in our society, we have to work out a new modus operandi, and blaming each other. I believe this can only be done by recognising the benefits of the two sexes and working as a complimentary team.
I’m guessing you mean *stop* blaming each other, and thank you so much for your common sense.
Typical feminist mess-up.
I had’nt heard of Suzanne Moore until earlier this year, so I have no idea what her columns were like, though she’s obviously a feminist, which is a distorted view of humanity I think. However, I share her view that a man cannot be a woman (or vice versa) no matter what has been done surgically or otherwise, and I support her right to speak out.
BUT, trans activism has developed out of feminism, feminists like Moore have been arguing for years that ‘gender roles’ (a theory which began in the 50s) are a social construction, they’ve pushed and pushed that until society has, to some extent, bought it.
Logically, IF gender role theory is true (biologically and psychologically it is not), but IF it is held to be true by society, then words like man and woman are just labels, words we associate certain sets of distinguishing markers with (this is what feminists have been saying for years), then why should’nt someone assert they are the opposite sex ?
Feminists have only themselves to blame. Unfortunately ordinary women, men and especially troubled children, are having to deal with the fall out as well.
What a mess.
No, it’s not feminism where these ideas come from. Nothing at all to do with it, although some shades of feminism have fallen in with it. The trans agenda comes from postmodernism and queer theory, which downplays materialism (biology, reality) and elevates the subjective (perception, social and cultural constructs). The trans agenda holds that ‘gender’ (social, cultural, confected, mutable, feelings) always trumps sex (material, tangible). So anyone who feels like a woman can be be one.
It is feminists like Suzanne who are pointing out that this has risks for the protection of women’s sex based rights, their reproductive rights, their rights to discuss and organise as a sex class. It is also a safeguarding threat to children.
I agree with some of the points that you make, but certainly not your denial of feminist responsibility at the beginning – promptly followed it has to be said, by an admission that it IS true but it was that bunch of feminists ‘over there what did it’. That’s not good enough.
Post-modernism and queer theory are indeed partly to blame for the trans situation but so, most definitely, is feminism.
You cannot argue for equality on the one hand, accusing people of the completely false concept of ‘sexism’ (at the same time as being ‘sexist’), and then start complaining that society is getting too equal for your liking, women are special and must be protected, that is irrational.
Now I don’t have a problem with irrationality, there’d be no art or spiritual experience without it, but it is not acceptable in a political argument.
This is not surprising, Feminism was always about competing with men, having developed out of the Industrial Revolution with women gradually becoming more valuable to the state outside the home than in it, and the increasing pressures being put on them, it’s enough to drive anyone nuts.
And let’s not forget the prominent part played by the feminist Harriet Harman in drafting the Equality Act 2010 with it’s appalling Hate Crime and Protected Characteristics legislation, which has paved the way for the Identity Politics we are now dealing with.
I don’t think that’s a fair way to put it. It’s not about a man being or becoming a woman; it’s about a woman having been born into an outwardly male body. (Or vice versa.) Not possible, you say? How do you know?
I recently came upon this autobiographical account (link) by a transgender woman of her early life and experiences. I defy you to read her heartfelt and heart-rending tale and not be moved. (Parts I and II are sufficient ” the rest is mostly about her career.) It has nothing to do with some abstract gender role theory; in fact, she directly contradicts the idea that gender is some kind of social construct ” the piece is all about the immutability of her visceral experience of being in the wrong kind of body. I found it quite illuminating.
“The Guardian is a sanctimonious club of zealots” ~ Melanie Phillips 2006
She was also forced out for wrong think.
The entwining fates of two notorious, self-indulgent hackettes does not make the Guardian ‘a sanctimonious club of zealots’. They took the Guardian’s shilling knowing full well what it was. And if they didn’t know, then they’re either too stupid or uninformed to be hackettes.
Jesus, that was a long slog. Do they not have editors at Unherd?
Pretty depressing read though, 338 colleagues all without the balls (no joke intended) to stand up for someone who questions the party line on transexual rights. And the threats to her kids are inconceivable.
Depressing also the part about Labour candidates being pressured into signing a transex manifesto, (though presumably Moore’s happy with the antisemitism one that protects the state of Israel from criticism).
But I take issue with this “What I care about fundamentally is the right of women to meet in single sex spaces and assert themselves as a class, a sex class ” one that is oppressed by a patriarchal system.”.
Isn’t that yet more identity politics? She’s just drawing the lines in a different place. “Boo hoo they kicked me out for discrimination against trans, when everybody knows that men are the real bastards”. I feel like that the heart of it. The Left’s collapse into a snake eating it’s own tail.
I no longer feel able to express thoughts or a personal opinion on trans matters as if it’s anyway critical you are seen as a transphobe, yet people like me were supporting trans people long before it became trendy.
Questions like “why is it MtF which make up the the loudest and most demanding of activists? Are met with abuse not a fair discussion. Is it possible that there is still that “male” entitlement with some MtF?
Why is it that it’s mainly female orientated areas that are the ones to change yet male areas are rarely mentioned or expected to make concessions? I rarely hear from FtM making demands.
Why is it acceptable to keep all your male privilege and then claim female rights too?
We can’t discuss if the male/female brain is actually affected? We aren’t allowed to discuss the downsides without being accused of being a transphobe or a TERF, yet I have known 5 people who have fully transationed and only 1 is happy and well adjusted the others all have mental health issues, as the reality doesn’t/hasn’t lived up to their expectations. It’s heart breaking as if we could ask the questions without being jumped on then maybe society will have a better understanding.
Perhaps ask trans people why they are angry? Perhaps they will explain. Perhaps Rowling and others are not asking innocent questions as many think. Perhaps they are being disingenuous?
Perhaps… and maybe that’s not a bad thing. Unlike FtMs, they have the experience of moving down a step (or more) in terms of how they are treated. There is hardly anyone with more direct experience of the difference between how society treats men and women, and more motivated to speak up about it. Seems like their activism could actually benefit cis women.
Blimey. And these are the people who sit in judgement on Priti Patel?!
An interesting article, I think Suzanne is wrong on the monarchy, about the union, but on this she’s right. And she raises an interesting point once more. Why are so many girls wanting to become men? What is it that is leading them to become a group that modern feminism reviles so much? And consequently, what is causing them to realise their mistake? Until that is addressed, I do not think we will see the end of this debate.
And why are so many men wanting to become women, despite being told on a daily basis how miserable and oppressed they are?
This, it’s a strange world.
Perhaps it’s because, as women, they can get lucrative column-writing gigs in which to express how miserable and oppressed they are.
I read an article a while ago about a chap who wanted to study this very issue. He was a gay man who had worked in transgender counselling and was very concerned about the huge surge in youngsters seeking to transition. Of course, no academic institution would touch such research; so the question will never be answered.
A shame, I think it would make a very interesting read
It seems a large proportion of young women who seek to ‘change sex’ are victims of abuse and/or suffer from eating disorders etc; so it seems clear to me there is a problem. Which is why it is of such concern that any debate is shut-down.
I’ve always been a fan of Ms Moore’s writing style and wit though outgrew her tiresome
worldview by my mid 20s. So i was happy to read this very long piece. However i can’t help gloating at her fate – holier than thou puritan sacked in purity spiral for not being pure enough!! What’s the matter Moore – ? this is what you said you wanted.
Yes. She danced with the devil for a long time and eventually she came a cropper.
I agree with you on all points except her writing style which to me reads like the ravings of an insomniac.
I thought she presented her case very well. Excellent piece of writing.
I have to agree. A stream of unconscious drivel.
When has she ever advocated getting people deprived of livelihoods & having their young children threatened with “a good fisting” for daring to disagree with her.
Its implicit in the hate filled leftism that characterises her work. Her hatred of ordinary working poeple cannot be satisfied by simply asking them to change. It must be expressed by online threats, economic violence by the state/DSS etc and ultimately by the mob violence which is a necessary feature of leftism. So she has had a dose of her own medicine on the verbal/psychological front and she didn’t like it.
I’ve just been pointed in the direction of Moore’s defence of the rape gangs in Rotherham etc. This is a step too far IMO. There is no excuse for playing politics with victims of rape or other violent crime. Moore is no better than those who threatened her or her kids. In fact she is worse as she has the public’s ear through her access to the mass media so shold know better. https://www.theguardian.com…
Your bitchy comment says a lot about you.
Depnds how you define bitchy. My words are lifted from J Jonah Jamieson in the Marvel comics ( not the films). There is an awful lot to b***h about with Ms Moore but her hypocracy and cant is more serious than that. It deserves a plain and factual rebuttal. If you want something to b***h about her post punk bag lady chic will do just fine, dahling.
Defund The Thought Police.
You are still trying to work out why you have been treated so appallingly?
Simple.
You have been cancelled for not having the correct views.
I’m surprised you don’t realise this as such treatment by intolerant liberals is common, routine and well-publicised.
“cult of righteousness that the Guardian embodies”, a cult which Ms Moore fully embraced when her values aligned with those of her peers. Remember this is a woman whose entire personality has been conditioned by second-wave feminism and has never deviated, like a zombie, from that stance. Remember her hit-pieces on Ched Evans that continued even after he was cleared? Here she continues to whine about herself, using terms that most people grow out off by 21 (reactionary – oh dear) and the usual pro-female dribble. Ms Moore contributed to the unthinking, rigid and often fake news telling of ‘The Guardian’ and moans when it turns on her. Live with the Loony Left, be prepared to get shot down by them when you disagree. But she can’t see that.
“If you don’t like my principles, I have others”
Social justice activism has morphed from genuine moral concerns to collective bullying if you do not agree with the “new moral thinking”. Step a millimetre across their “Red Lines” and for that transgression expect to lose your job and/or face public humiliation. There is no space for freedom of speech and no right to debate. This is fascism in any language and is destroying not uniting this country.
I’m sick of terms like left and right surely we should be ruled by common sense not common purpose.
And I am still trying to work out why I have been treated so appallingly.
Are you really? This movie has played before; the ending doesn’t change just because you’re playing the familiar part in it. What’s curious is how feminism ignores the existential threat that womanhood itself faces from the trans crowd. If being a woman is no longer a biological reality but instead, a social construct, than being female has no real meaning. It becomes no more than an emotion.
Every word of this matters.
I reckon it could be half as long and still matter about the same amount. Much of it seems to be whining that she doesn’t fit in with her work colleagues and boasting that she didn’t go into the office
Give her her due though, she’s probably come to both rely on and mistrust editors.
Whining lefty harpie defenestrated by whining lefty harpies for not being an extreme whining lefty harpie.
You rarely get what you want
You sometimes get what you need
But you always get what you deserve
Exactly.
The trouble with feminism is that it overlooks the class struggle. I’m working class and I dont personally know of a single toxic working class male. We’re all too busy just trying to provide a home *in concert, not competition with our female partners* for ourselves and our children. It seems to me that the educated classes are the main proponents of anti male sentiment.
With respect, men are not the best judges of what constitutes toxic masculinity.
And women are not the best judges of what constitutes toxic femininity.
That isn’t the discussion here Mark.
This is about women and our experiences with oppression. There doesn’t always need to be a man piping up with ‘what about how mean women are to men????’
Women have always been the best judges of what should be under discussion at any one time. No wonder so many men are switching to their side.
I think that was an example of toxic femininity
A woman stating her opinion is toxic to you?
wtf is toxic femininity?
It’s unlikely you’ll get an answer to that one Andy.
OK. I do trust by your logic then, that men are well placed to judge toxic femininity.
The trouble with feminism, like every other activism, is that it has no end game, no point at which victory can be claimed. For the most part, the goals of the first feminists have been achieved. There is no career field from which women are barred. They can choose to be moms or not, and either option is okay. Instead of being secretaries and teachers, they are CEOs and principals. Yet, you’d never know that from the current wave who see an ongoing patriarchal dystopia.
It’s funny- but occasionally the Guardian sends requests for financial contributions as part of their article updates. Maybe instead of begging for money to keep a crap paper going they can sack some of the 338 people who falsely claim to be journalists.
You know the patriarchy has arrived when a man can declare himself to be a woman, the law backs him up. and anyone who objects gets prosecuted.
My sympathy with Suzanne’s position is limited by the fact that she has spent her writing career vilifying people who didn’t agree with her view of the world. She’s now being vilified by people even further to the Left than she is – i.e. experiencing a taste of what the Left routinely hands out to everyone who disagrees with it.
And it is wholly about the Left. You don’t get the Right insisting that there is only one way to look at the world – theirs – and if you don’t share it you deserve hatred. Only the Left does that.
A few months back, a group of reliably liberal people wrote a letter decrying cancel culture. You’d have thought they had set babies on fire based on the backlash from the wokerati.
It is terrible that Guardian (and NY times) can not tolerate other opinions – from the left.
The good news is that technology has made it possible to ignore papers like Guardian or NY Times. What WE (people that support freedom of speech – including freedom to offend) need are new digital publishing “houses” to develop proper investigative journalism. The proper response to Guardian/NYT should be journalistic competence not “triggering articles”.
Dude, come on. Twitter is never going to spend a dime on investigative journalism.
Twitter is a platform – I don’t expect it to do investigative journalism.
and as a platform, I do not expect it to function as a the censor of the public square.
I believe it was Douglas Murray that said a big part of the divisiveness we’re witnessing stems from the problem that rather than two sides arguing over a set of facts and thus risk being forced to defend those arguments, each side has adopted their own facts to suit their own truth.
If you read the Guardian/NYT you will get the facts from their side.
It’s a useful exercise if you want to keep current on the latest Leftist views but a contrary factual dismantling of those views will simply be ignored and dismissed as ‘fake news’ by their ideological adherents and true believers.
To some extent Ms. Moore’s article speaks to that.
There’s a certain level of “Stop! – go back! – it’s a trap!” useful caution but the reaction seems mainly to be either “lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas” or “traitor!”
Any decent human has to feel sympathy with Moore and that she has been badly mistreated. Yet, she seems still completely clueless as to her part in pushing the agenda that created this ghastly situation.
In the Telegraph today, she is quoted extensively still bleating about how all this affects women. See, it doesn’t matter when men are affected…
To paraphrase that oft cited line… first they came for… and when they came for Moore, nobody was left to speak up. It is incredibly hard not to feel shadenfreude.
I wonder when she was supporting all those left wing causes that do nothing but tear down societies where she thought it was all going to end? I think has found out, but hasn’t really learned the lesson.
Her lack of insight is shocking.
So, I read this long, rambling essay from a ‘wordsmith’, voluntarily embedded in the topsy-turvy world of identity politics, more specifically, gender politics, and I wonder what all the fuss is about. It appears to me, as a sinner and barbarian in all things identity, that joining these garderene swine as a young sow, treading, feasting and rolling in the fetid mud of these simple, possessed creatures, that it was duty bound to come back to haunt you when you became a crippled old sow, swaying unsteadily in that same mud, your teats dragging beneath you. You just got trampled. That’s it. Nothing more and nothing less. And it is hilarious to witness.
I could go on, about your savage and deeply personal attacks on many people in the public eye, about the inanity and exquisite irony of your winning an Orwell award whilst writing for the Guardian. But I can’t be arsed. Live well and live happily.
Well Suzanne, I will defend your right to say and publish whatever you like, even though on politics I doubt we would agree. Liberals are no longer liberals I am afraid, they are new fascists, where wrong thought is not permitted.
Summary:-
The politics of grievance have become all encompassing, to the point where I, of all people am now considered an oppressor. I wanted them to stay focused on my own personal, preferred, traditional grievances in which I could continue to solely present myself in the prized role of victim.
This article was a pleasure to read: carefully rooted in personal history, political identity and growth, and emotional experience. You Suzanne felt real, committed, thoughtful and protective of your core concerns and values. I stand with you on the importance of women holding our space and talking together.
The aggression and bullying character of some people in the pro trans debate is damaging and utterly unacceptable. That you have been targeted in this way must be hard to bare: I hope you get help to support you it sounds traumatic in many respects.
Standing with you sister
It’s hard to offer the sympathy that the author appears to crave, when the article appears to lack the remotest concern for any male of the species.
Equality doesn’t seem to have crossed her mind.
Yes. What about the men? Men are being left out of all this! 1500 words on how women are being silenced and threatened and not one word! Jeez. Soooooooo unfair [squeezes out an angry tear].
I would have at least a tiny bit of sympathy for Suzanne.
First for making me laugh out loud.
Secondly, for revealing some of the dirt inside the pure and holy Grauniad, even if her account may or may not grotesquely biased.
Thirdly, for revealing some of the deranged hatred spewed on line and mostly concealed by moderators. The stuff on religious websites is no worse, but less well concealed. Try saying anything disobliging about Mother Teresa….
Thank you very much indeed for sharing this experience. As one who has also transitioned to a hormone suppressed condition (prostate cancer medication) I also give very many fewer fucks than once upon a time, and look back on a life spent challenging deep assumptions with a degree of nostalgia. There was once a time when it was possible to talk to political enemies or those with very different opinions without such rancour and discursive violence. I no longer believe that the distinction left/right makes any sense whatever though. We have authority exercised at the behest of particular capitalist interests and protected by soothing neoliberal ideologies and we have reactions to this – largely populist. Two opposing shades of right. If it were possible to build a mass movement of compassion I would be on the barricades. But in this climate ….
I think if we sent up a Reaper drone and bombed Twitter into a smoking crater, the temperature would go down remarkably quickly. It’s conditioned people into seeing politics as the equivalent of an addictive shoot ’em up video game.
I agree with the basic sentiment. It is obvious to all but our ruling class that a man cannot just say the magic words and become a woman, and vice versa. Also that a worrying amount of today’s left wing “activists”, particularly it seems the LGBT ones, seem to have severe mental health issues. But where did identity politics come from? Who has promoted it for decades and helped it reach the insane level of power it has now? Now it’s mutated into something you don’t like and you are the victim. This is like reading a piece by Dr Frankenstein complaining that his monster is rampaging through the countryside and someone needs to do something.
This is an excellent article, Suzanne has really done a fantastic job in articulating some of the complex issues touched on here. I hope I see this reprinted or otherwise covered in a more mainstream forum, it deserves to be.
In particular, the US/UK disparity mentioned here I think explains a lot of the hostility I’ve seen online directed at so-called “TERFs”. Many social media celebrities in the US will, even with the best will in the world, continue to write and respond as if the US and its social and legal situation is the only one that exists in the world. I saw Rowling attacked so many times for somehow tacitly supporting systemic failures in US healthcare provision (and lack thereof) and a discriminatory legal system, which are a world away from the actual issues she was raising.
I look forward to reading more of your columns in the future Suzanne, whatever the subject.
(Sorry for the double post, Disqus is being stupid about me having a pre-existing account on another site, as usual)
Ms. Moore has spent her Iife on the Ieft side of the poIticaI spectrum, and yet, when she says something that is no Ionger “aIIowabIe” she quickIy Iearns that the Ieft…is fuII of viIe peopIe.
She hasn’t reaIIy Iearned much that wasn’t aIready known however, as the “trans” peopIe who are the most vioIent and hatefuI aIways seem to be “womyn” who were born as men.
Ms. Moore has experienced the worst men have to offer, from ignorance, bIindess, and condescension, but now her view of them has been confirmed.
Men can be reaI pricks…..even when they don’t have them any more.
An overly long, unstructured, undisciplined rant/rave, desperately in need of a good editor(ess). Almost impossible to believe, on the strength of this chaotic, self-indulgent piece, that the authoress is such an experienced journalist. That said, I’m completely sympathetic to Moore’s rejection of the Guardianista gender-race-Maoists. It is astonishing, though, that it took a personal, direct attack for Moore finally to realise The Guardian (at least in its online form) had long since abandoned journalism worthy of the name.
I live in Oz and am not aware of Ms Moore’s history, so I may be wrong here (apologies if so) but I imagine as a Guardianista she has done her best to cancel others. Certainly the other mentioned cancelee, JK Rowling, had been an enthusiastic practitioner of the art. So for these good folk it is their Pastor Niemöller moment. Finally they came for me…
But neither Rowling or Moore have been ‘cancelled’. They both have huge readerships. You don’t see much in the way of people who actually know what being trans is with this amount of power to speak. Just, as some of the comments here, uninformed opinion and in Moore’s case a seeming justification of her somewhat dubious statements on these issues. Not once does she consider that, if so many people considered her behaviour so objectionable that they wanted her to leave, maybe she should question her own behaviour. I know I would.
I tend to agree with Mark Twain. Take 32 minutes to write 2 pages, rather than 2 minutes to write 32 pages. Write as though you are settling the matter for posterity, not just sounding off, and also recognise that not every reader will understand the context.
I always enjoyed Trans People on Top Of The Pops back in the 70s, but I don’t think they should be allowed to take part in women’s sports, or to be incarcerated in women’s prisons.
They were trans!! Noooooo
Is that a terrible pun on Pan’s people or are we talking Bowie and Ronson here?
🙂
Recommend the following NYT article that sharply criticises cancel culture by the black feminist activist Loretta Ross:
What if Instead of Calling People Out, We Called Them In
Prof. Loretta J. Ross is combating cancel culture with a popular class at Smith College
Your comments were “disappeared”, where they, Suzanne? Well, welcome to the consequences of leftist ideology.
Even if I agree with you on the issue at hand, Ms Moore (freedom of speech), you must also concede that you are merely being confronted with the predictable
consequences of the identitarian, intersectionalist orthodoxy, which you
and your hypermoralistic, grievance-seeking colleagues on the Guardian
and the Independent are imposing on an increasingly sceptical (majority of)
society.
You wanted woke? Well now you’ve got your woke, Ms Moore. Congratulations!
Fun being branded a “Nazi bigot”, for merely speaking a patent truth, isn’t it?
And amusingly, snowflakery and the wokeness cult which you Ms Moore have
hitherto espoused so vociferously (your contempt of white men and of
anyone to the right of Corbyn is surely an incontestable matter of
record) are now being hoisted on their own intolerant and illiberal
petards – an inevitable consequence of re-casting racial, ethnic,
religious or gender-based minorities as victims (of white
racism/sexism), which are now fiercely vying with each other for
legitimation and recognition – as you Ms Moore can now attest to.
Consequently, whatever solidarity there was in our once liberal society – be it for
feminists, gays or members of ethnic or religious minorities or
communities – has now been eroded in the struggle for the supremacy of
each particularist cause.
And at long last, people are now starting to scrutinize the ethical credentials of those (your fellow Leftists hacks) presuming to continually stand in moral judgement over the
British public, and remarking on the deeply embedded illiberalism,
intolerance and outright bigotry they discover. No offense intended, of
course.
So forgive the unalloyed Schadenfreude informing this comment, but it is a little ironic that in order to find a platform, you are now writing in a genuinely liberal journal read largely by the very section of society whom you regularly excoriate and brand as “deplorables” in your Guardian columns – the hated white cis-heteronormative male.
To put it mildly Ms Moore, I have very little sympathy for you. You are the architect of your own predicament.
Either way, the days of recoiling in shame and horror when bombarded with
scatter-gun accusations of misogyny, racism, transphobia and
Islamophobia for merely speaking an inconvenient truth are gone.
At least for me.
It seems that this is a case of ‘First they came for..’
makes me think of the quote by Churchill (whose statue they came for):
‘Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last.’
Classical liberalism would say that the truth exists outside of our opinions. So, if we were to be classically liberal we should not be a liberal or a conservative or moderate so as to look to be on that side no matter what. That’s simply tribalism. It is our responsibility to be open to and look for the truth and to agree with it and embrace it, even promoting it. It seems however that classical liberalism is dead.
Today personal-bias rules over what one wants to argue is true. This lady simply wants old liberal tribalism (within which she flourished) to come back, but instead it’s being replaced by a new liberal tribalism that considers her opinions to be unorthodox. Look at the way she spoke of her pro-abortion views in Poland, yet I’ll bet if she were paid 10,000 euros to write an article that is anti-abortion, she could find a different way to look at it, however she wrote what she really thought here in her thesis. She elevated what supported her biases.
So, if a conservative person could see the abortion issue from a totally different set of facts, and in a totally different light, who’s right? Whoever can write best, or whoever has the biggest voice? The thing is that it’s been her selective picking of facts she wants to elevate to serve to advance a specific agenda that she finds morally superior that has laid the ground work for the even further left people that have cancelled her, and are replacing her.
Rather than learn a lesson and say that it is wrong to just promote half truths or anecdotal stories as part of an agenda, perhaps we should return to classical liberalism and agree that the truth stands outside of us, we should seek it, agree with it and promote it even if it doesn’t support a bias that I might favor, because the truth is bigger than me. Just a thought, perhaps it’s too romantic and archaic.
I will say that listening to someone like the feminist icon Camille Paglia, to me she is a classical liberal. She’s even admitted the point I just made, that she was part of the problem.
I like what Suzanne Moore has written; it is a slow, thoughtful portrayal of a journalistic life lived with convictions and beliefs unswayed by a sea of political correctness, cancel culture and patriarchy.
As a woman in my mid 50s I feel muted by the absence of debate about anything difficult or meaningful. I feel as though I must just quietly accept the changes that are taking place in society. Incrementally I too am becoming beige; there is for me no platform to air my thoughts about all sorts of issues, unless of course my thoughts aired are entirely inoffensive and reasonable. The oxygen of debate has been cut off. Todays discussions are a world away from the discussions in my sociology A level classes of the early 80s.
I am ever mindful that I am raising my 12 year old child to be accepting of everybody and everything, teaching them to err on the side of neutral, inoffensive and unchallenging; even when I know that means that parts of who they are is being erased.
If my child is as I was and still am albeit less vocal now, I feel they will find their place in the world very difficult to navigate. Less a letter with 338 signatures and more a life of
exclusion.
“As a woman in my mid 50s I feel muted by the absence of debate about anything difficult or meaningful.”
As a man in my late 60s I feel exactly the same. The absence of reasoned debate about almost anything is not just sad but frightening. In the past it was states that tried to muzzle debate e.g. Nazi Germany. Now it is minority groups with an axe to grind using social media to stigmatise people who either don’t agree with them or simply raise issues about what they are saying. This has reached its height with the antisemitism expressed by the far left, and also with the experience that Suzanne Moore and JK Rowling have written about.
Why people feel unsafe when someone expresses a view that they don’t agree with is beyond me. Honest and open rational debate is a cornerstone of a free society. Without it we will end up like China.
I think you’ve covered every aspect of this perfectly. I’m on the American side of the pond and have been an outspoken woman formerly of the leftist activist community, organizing and writing for much of my life to stop corporate power, and to promote the rights of people everywhere. And now it’s come to this.
Hindsight, it took me decades to fully see the misogyny of the left. It was a heartbreaking discovery to realize how deeply despised and resented women are as a class based on our biological bodies.
Much like you, I operate in the realm of a male dominated world: the trades. I am a contractor and was born and raised in a blue collar, working class family. Another thing the left has little respect for.
Here around Boston, you find the Democrats are increasingly pandering to the PC babies. No one wants to discuss how big pharma and a ha full of American billionaires is pushing an agenda to fast track kids to self mutilation. It both erases women and homosexuals in the end, as bodies and preferences are no longer relevant.
I am eternally grateful for women like you who have not bowed to the lords and masters who wish for us to be silenced and complicit in our erasure. Thank you.
We all know on a long enough timeline this absurdity is unsustainable. The lawsuits from young adults against the doctors and people who pushed them to mutilate themselves, rendering them sterile and forever scarred, are starting here. And we all know, in crybaby America, the lawsuits determine the landscape.
We are in for a wild ride. But I will forever hold tight to the women who own themselves and speak truth to power. Us witches gotta stand united!
“My experience is that I have been censored more by the Left than the Right and it gives me no pleasure to say that. Laziness of thought is my big fear, this unthinking adherence to some simplistic orthodoxy.”
When did you eventually come to realise this Suzanne? Was it just after you’d paid off your mortgage?
My awareness of politics goes back to the late sixties, and in my experience it has always been the left who have shouted down/de-platformed/cancelled, going back to Enoch Powell. The late Bernard Levin compiled a list of 106 events that had been cancelled because of thuggery, and in every case the howlers were on the left. Even when the howlees were leftists, the culprits were never young Tories or EDL, but those even more left!
You obviously haven’t been in a meeting where NF thugs have physically attacked the audience or where we had to barricade the doors against sectarian thugs. Or where you have been dragged out by the hair by Labour Party stewards for daring to speak up at a Jim Callaghan meeting. Showing my age there! ðŸ˜
My understanding is that she never had a mortgage. She was literally handed ownership of a home, for free, by Camden Council around the same time that I, a working class guy from the north, had to buy my own home in London.
When this woke petty Stalinism emerged in humanities faculties, we said well never mind, when they graduate they will have their noses rubbed in reality. This assumed incorrectly that the real world, outside the BBC and the public sector, would not put up with their petulance. Alas their behaviour has been met with gelatinous acquiescence by the real world. Pace staff at Penguin Books in Canada, who are weeping over publishing Jordan Peterson’s latest work. That story has not run its course yet, but the track record of corporate management suggests another surrender is coming up.
I have mixed feelings on this article.
Ms. Moore’s story will serve as a cautionary tale for some and they will admire her for speaking out.
And it certainly emphasizes the reality that big league journalism isn’t for the thin-skinned or faint-hearted.
So three cheers for that.
However, the piece could have been easily entitled ‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it’
While the compunction to yell “Those dirty bastards!” after every other paragraph is totally understandable so to is the urge to roll eyes and say “Well – duh!” because much of what she relates comes as no surprise to anyone who has read Gulag Archipelago or Prague Farewell.
How come the accused was not invited to defend herself at the conference? Even the Nazis and Stalinist allowed this at their show trials.
How can a person resign again three weeks after having handed in their resignation? The person was no longer employed by the Guardian and so surely didn’t have a job to resign from.
Suzanne rarely appeared in the Guardian’s editorial department so why was she believed to be a threat? Had she ever threatened to physically assault trans people?
Excellent piece. Left extremists obviously only believe in free speech when people agree with them.
“Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.”Lord Justice Sedley.
Suzanne rarely appeared in the Guardian’s editorial department so why was she believed to be a threat?
She engaged in wrong think. Double plus bad wrong think.
This is a great piece, Suzanne, and the Guardian is the poorer for no longer publishing your intelligent, incisive voice. It is extremely worrying that a form of extreme constructivism seems to be able to obliterate dissenting perspectives. It reduces diversity in the name of promoting it – surely this is just tribes shouting across a hardened boundary and no longer qualifies as debate. Thank you for your thoughtful and heartfelt pieces – and don’t let them grind you down. You don’t just have many readers – you have many fans.
Well, this is a disappointment. I just this minute joined unheard because I had read Suzanne’s article and empathised with her views, and I thought the level of argument/debate might be higher than on other platforms. Wrong. I may as well be reading a Twitter feed. Who are all these whiny men complaining at the slightest threat to their perceived ‘rights’? By the way, I am a woman. An adult human female. Like Suzanne, I have lived in a woman’s body all my life and I refuse to have the reality of that body denied, for me and for countless other women still suffering and discriminated against because of our bodies. FGM. Abortion denial. Unnecessary death in childbirth. All real.
And how do you feel about the whiny women, including Moore, who have been complaining about their perceived lack of rights for 50 years while ignoring their own privilege?
Um, ever heard of MGM? It’s all the rage. Unnecessary death in childbirth? Real, but thanks to the efforts of men in medical science over the past century, that is, men who cared about women, the rate is down from about 600 in 100,000 deaths to 12 (US figures). Give a thought to the child dying? That’s also a good news story.
For a newspaper that spends it’s time lecturing people on discrimination, bulling, etc there appears to be a lot of bulling and discrimination going on!
That’s because talk is, and ever was, cheap.
The Guardian loses money every day, it can’t afford to lose its influential American support as well.
Plus it had (I think past tense is correct) an off shore fund which paid no tax funding it’s UK losses!
I really am a very naive 59 year old female – I simply do not understand what is happening in our lives today with reference to sexual/trans or whatever is a la mode. My feeling though is very strongly that we must have freedom to express whatever we feel as individuals and if someone takes offence well – man up as is said – we must surely grow a much harder shell instead of feeling so offended by what ever is said. I feel lucky to be female, never wanted to be anything but female and I like to think that ‘anything goes as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else’ but we seem to be in a situation where hatred and loathing seem rampant and the loudest shout the quiet ones down but everyone should be allowed a voice. Listening and discussing is part of life and if you won’t at listen to other peoples views then you surely a selfish and narcissistic arsehole.
I feel the author has obviously been treated unfairly and I agree with many of her positions.
But, and there’s always a but, she also appears to be delusional. The article is scattered with references such as this
“the main discussions of feminism appear to be by men telling us men can just say they’re women”
As if these radical, censorious infinity-wave feminist are evil cat-stroking men just doing their evil cat-stroking man thing. The vile threats and hollow accusations of terfdom and transphobia almost all originate from women (“people who menstruate” if you will).
You’re so stuck in your own ideological bubble, that seemingly being that men are the cause of all your ills, that you cannot see the forest for the shes. Overwhelmingly it is female / menstruators who are attacking you and of the male cohort who do so, the majority of them are from the LGBTQIA+ community, not the evil cat-stroking, business attire wearing, cishet, white, breadwinning variety
You’re unwilling to accurately identify those who are attacking you because of your own prejudiced beliefs. I’m not sure if this is a deliberate act of censorship on your behalf or if you’re just blind to it.
Regardless, it is not masculinity or the patriarchy that is your foe here. Think it is time for you to admit, that girls can be dicks too.
So, the intolerant turn on each other.
You would need a heart of stone not to laugh.
Where is Oscar when you need him?
you have a heart of stone if you do laugh, dear
Yes, poor little guardianista.
“Where is Oscar when you need him?”
In the Bois de Boulogne with a Brazilian transsexual.
My working class instinct is to always go down swinging. To resign felt, to me at least, bourgeois: let them edit you, then publish your words on social media – expose the conditionality, the cleansing, the control. Let them sack you, but keep swinging and keep writing right up in their faces.
Cut through the whining and all that’s really happened is a bunch of her colleagues wrote a nasty letter about her where they didn’t even name her, and she’s quit in a huff. Compare and contrast to some poor devil who got fired from a minimum wage job at Asda for liking the wrong thing on Facebook.
Cut through the whining and all that’s really happened is a bunch of her colleagues wrote a nasty letter about her where they didn’t even name her, and she’s quit in a huff. Compare and contrast to some poor devil who got fired from a minimum wage job at Asda for liking the wrong thing on Facebook.
So much time left to write.
I don’t understand why people waste so much time and effort worrying about what is left or right, and whether they’ll get in trouble from their tribe for saying what they believe is right.
Political purity is a killer of progress and thought.
Don’t stop writing.
Brilliant! I want to say brave, but it’s not bravery it’s decency, compassion and humanity and anger at all that is not.
I rather wish I had not commented this article, but I did, and for the record I very often disagree with views held by the writer, her values, are perhaps more more akin to my own. But this does not make her a poor writer, nor does she deserve as many have commented “her comeuppance”, comeuppance for what, disagreeing with a vicious bully, because all the whingeing I have read here amounts to nothing more than having a different view from yourself (or chillingly (for civilisation) people who do agree, but appear to hate her anyway, I’m guessing most are not personal acquaintances. The constant shrieking of those people telling how to be better people and a better society seem to never value or uphold those things themselves. Probably because we know better than to engage with morally corrupt bullies and keep to ourselves, and those we admire. But I’m drunk, and you disgust me.
You don’t all disgust me of course, I’m not quite that drunk,
Conversations with yourself whilst drunk are always fraught with danger…….
the left is intolerant of diversity of thought in a very sinister way, the Guardian epitomises the perversity of left wing thinking. This is a classic story of work place bullying that gets away with pretending cancel culture is not bullying. Guardian paid for readership is less than the Spectator with its liberatian view on writers articles and surely its days are numbered hopefully Moore will speak up loudly on the importance of freedom of speech and challenge hidden censorship that pervades so much of social media , the Guardian and BBC where woke group think is de riguer
It’s a bit like trying to be sympathetic towards Bukharin and Zinoviev and their fate during Stalin’s Terror. Yes, she’s been badly treated, but it would be nice to see some more criticism of fundamental left-wing tenets of belief, notably the over-bearing self-righteousness that means the left automatically assumes that what it wants to do is morally right and any opposition is not just wrong, but evil. Suzanne is now a victim of this mentality because what she thinks is no longer in line with the prevailing left/radical orthodoxy.
Really interesting read. I’m locked away in mountains in Brazil and only really get to use much Internet between 11PM and 6AM due to my partners need to teach online and limited data so I had only really been half following snatches of JK Rowling’s misfortunes but this whole piece was fascinating. And wonderfully written and I, as a guardian reader, wouldd say its their loss even if I don’t always like evrything Moore has to say.
I’ve not been paying attention recently to the hierarchy of progressive politics identity group victimhood. I gather that ‘trans’ now trumps the other ‘victim’ groups but does it rank above or below Islam? I suspect the latter but, as noted, I don’t keep up with this sort of thing.
It ranks number one in the hierarchy.
Surely number one in the hierarchy would be the trans muslims who comprise most of the Iranian national women’s football team.
Black, muslim trans and neurodivergent would be the trump card.
I have some sympathy for Suzanne but as many have commented what is really depressing and clear from her article is that everything is still men’s fault. Not intolerant Lefties or even just some intolerant lefties but MEN full stop. Sure there are intolerant men but there are definitely lots of intolerant women as well. Many work for the Guardian, or used to.
Upon seeing that my daughter was assigned to read ‘Masculine Toxicity’ in her Columbia U graduate program, I told her to come talk to me for Part 2: ‘Feminine Toxicity.”
I have 3 sisters and went to a girl’s school – I understand female toxicity all too well (and I am a feminist!). It doesnt involve physical violence but social shunning – and the present cancel culture is remarkably reminiscent of a mean girls vibe. The very fact that Teen Vogue and the other women’s magazines are enthusiastic proponents of wokism tells you everything you need to know.
I don’t hear in what she has written that it is ‘still men’s fault,’ rather the still all powerful, prescriptive influence of the current political power dynamic is still heavily influenced by men. Patriarchy is how the article alludes to it, but I think it is now more insidious and undetectable than ever because we are silenced against calling it out.
It brings to mind an image of female wrestling fights, where the vast majority of those buying tickets to watch are men.
And so on with the cancel culture…
The minions at Random House Canada have been wailing, gnashing their teeth and generally showing how hurt and wounded they are by the decision of their employer to publish the new Jordan Peterson book.
The kids are most definitely NOT alright.
There are men and there are women, then a minority of people with mental health issues, and parents of children suffering from Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy.
Moore is a writer who wins your respect because she is able to show how her positions are grounded, an ethical and political rigour which grows on you. You come to recognise that if you’re not initially receptive to what she says, this might well say more about you than about her. That certainly applies to those involved in the sad saga of ‘trans debate’ in the Guardian and elsewhere.
Her trajectory is perhaps the best living example of why Mrs. Thatcher didn’t want many people to have access to media and cultural studies. She is able to integrate her learning with life to produce arguments which bite deep into the experience of very large numbers of people. Imagine if this was the rule rather than the exception in political journalism.
Dear Suzanne
I had been hoping to hear from you since the information about your leaving the Guardian started to emerge. It was disturbing but I was a bit unclear what had happened and I wasn’t sure whether or not to cancel my subscription and membership. There aren’t many publications where I can read about the UK, and in my own language, and I started to take the Guardian when I was a student, in 1961. I’m stopping now. I am so sorry and angry that you were treated like that. Good luck, don’t stop being an honest writer.
What a pucka article. There is much in your political thought that I don’t agree with. That said I describe myself as a Ghengis Khan socialist. To many fat cats with obscene amounts of money who should be more philanthropic if they wriggle out of their tax liabilities. I am not a lover of the LGBT/ Trans issues that seem to be pushed down our throats these days. With life long Gay friends/relatives, I have no problem with their sexuality or life-style. Just don’t need it pushed in my face. No more than I want heterosexuals pushing themselves in my face either. But you have put many of my and most of my friends thoughts in writing. Not that many people I know actually give a damn. Sod the Twitterati they are not needed, no more than those than threatend or made you feel you had to quit your job. I have a p***s and am a man. My wife and daughters menstruate, in my eyes that makes them women. Cut my p***s off and I am still a man. You keep it up. Sense must prevail, or we are all in for a bumpy ride. Would like to see more of your thoughts in Unherd.
They used to talk about the Particle Zoo in physics. It was hard to keep the particles straight.
But it ain’t got nothing on the Ideological Identity Zoo in Lefty-land.
Ecod, as the gentle Jonas Chuzzlewit might say.
As many have noted, someting of the biter bit there.
Tour de force. From a similar background and life path as SM and this also feels like my story and so many left feminists. This is about class v rampant consumerist individualism. The left has lost its way. We won’t shut up. And as SM said in the infamous column I think: there are more if us than you think.
The snake has eaten its own tail.
Richard Gott. Wasn’t he the one who loftily described Kampuchea as ‘an interesting experiment’? Still, that was back in the 80s, pre-internet, so I don’t suppose we’ll ever know.
Too long
Please do not give up! The many who support you are muzzled by the few who don’t! I feel powerless because I have no voice. People like you are our only hope and there are many others out there. If you can join them to start a movement against this we will all be grateful and I for one will do what I can to help.
As I understand her article, Ms. Moore cares fundamentally about the right of men to meet in single sex spaces and assert themselves as a class, a sex class ” one that is oppressed by a “woke” system. Good on her! It’s about time! May she write long, and prosper!
“Like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children.”
Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793
A lot of words but absolutely zero self-reflection. Even continues slander people within this very article without any appreciation of the irony of her situation. She really is the most massive t**d.
Thank you Suzanne! I started my life as a 17 year old in journalism. I never reached your giddy heights but I am so sad and angry that so little has changed! I should point out that I am now 73 so I have been through most of the stages of feminism. The trans debate and the cancel culture make me despair.
The Right used to dictate ”The Political Culture” Now its The left and their ‘Diversity obsession” vacuous echo chamber of the Guardian, The metro, financial Times, the times observer etc..shows how out of Touch Our declining sales newspapers are?.
You’d have to go a long way back- possibly as far as the 19th century – to find a point where the Right dictated the political culture – or at least the socio-political culture – in the media and across all arms of the state.
I have read countless columns by Suzanne Moore over the years. I suppose she has been a little more interesting/entertaining than many columnists, but I don’t really remember a striking turn of phrase or anything that has made me think, or prompted me to change my mind on any issue. Indeed, the only information I can really recall is that Camden Council literally gave her a home to own – she didn’t have to pay a penny.
I have now watched the whole of the interview with Freddy Gray and I am struck by the fact that she is barely coherent and, it would seem, somewhat inarticulate. I say this not from the point of view of someone who had a good education or went to a posh university. I went to a bog standard comp in the middle of nowhere and did not attend university. I am simply beginning to wonder why we are making such a fuss about someone of no particular distinction or originality deciding to resign from an organ of no distinction whatsoever, merely for having an opinion that is shared by, one would suppose, 99% of the population.
As an addendum I have just visited the Guardian site for the first time since the day after the last general election – but only to read about Maradonna.
Je suis TERF
ðŸ‘ðŸ»yup #metoo
Suzanne must know, but as a regular Guardian reader – though not a Guardianista – I am amazed to read that the staff are all Jeremy Corbyn supporters. It seemed to me that the Guardian has played a major role – more influential than the Tory press – in kicking Corbyn to political death. I offer no opinion upon whether he deserved it or not – most Unherd readers probably think he did – but I am literally flabbergasted by Suzanne’s revelations and even more suspicious of the media in general than I was before I read what she has to say.
Crikey, if you are ‘flabbergasted’ by these ‘revelation’ then you have been very unknowing and naive for many years.
Exactly. Journalist Jonathan Cook has written many words on their anti Corbyn campaign and on their silence on Julian Assange. Mind you, the workers don’t decide editorial policy.
The patriarchy. Bunk.
You want to see male privilege, visit the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington DC. 58,300 names of men who died in the war. 8 names of women. There’s your male privilege. The privilege to get drafted and die in a pointless war.
Women hide behind the term patriarchy as a way to rationalize their failures. They claim that men run the world. How many households are run by men? Precious few.
I feel sorry for this poor woman who rocked the boat and got burned. But she was burned by her own cult of the religion of victimization. The guillotine was not used only for the aristocracy.
Forgotten also is a vast number of those men did not even have the right to vote, the voting age only coming down from 21 to 18 in 1971 as a result of protest. Men fighting for voting rights! Fancy that.
Dearest Suzanne
First let me start by saying how sorry I am that you experienced the level of bullying you describe here. Bullying is loathsome, a pack mentality sometimes and it is why I went into HR.
It is hard to believe we are here, a journalist bullied and a smear campaign to boot, just for exercising a right to free speech, to express views in an article, to open up discussion and debate about trans issues et al (I’m assuming as I didn’t read the article).
No one deserves to be bullied in that way and I am shocked that so many in the Guardian signed that letter but did not have the balls (or perhaps that should be v%gina, as Betty White says, they can take a real pounding!) to discuss their concerns.
What is really interesting is you mention cult. It’s a different situation, but there are paralells. I grew up within a toxic family as the black sheep aka scapegoat with a narcissistic father at its blackened heart. These families are cults too, but eventually I stuck my head above the parapet to say, this family is FUBAR, this is not a normal familynand any relationship has to be equals, w/o bullying, which of course, they didn’t accept.
It takes courage to stand up for your beliefs, to not accept the status quo and ultimately, like ancient times, if you didn’t conform within your tribe, out you go into the wilderness.
It is a hard pill to swallow as it feels at times, I’m guessing you’ve had moments like I did perhaps, when you have thought the costs were too great and it wasn’t worth it. Occasionally, I did get a bit overwhelmed by a sense of loss of my entire network (you write very candidly about your darkest moments).
But you did the right thing. I did. The fact that 300 guardian workers did that to you is the irony, because it shows a press that lost any modicum of traditional journalism, based on the highest standards and principles. You fall into the latter, and what you set out in your article which kicked it off, must have needed saying. Because as a woman, trans activism means that trans women (who were men before transition), now actively protest feminist conferences because some women are rightly concerned about sharing amenities or institutions like prison (one issue of several), because anyone can say I’m no longer identifying as male. So it’s almost men wanting to transition and be equal with CIS women, but discussion by those women about their safety concerns and the impact on womanhood, means these women are literally bashed out o existence. And yet they never said you are not allowed to be trans or make threats against them. Just expressed concern.
From my perspective, I am gay, but given the average sex act lasts 6 minutes, it is not an identity for me, it’s just about what sex I theoretically sleep with(5 years single by choice). There is much more to me than that and I don’t engage with LGBT nor am I proud of parades where children get to feed dog treats to fetishists pretending to be dogs on all fours.
There was a report on BBC about a survey that said 50% of muslims in UK don’t have a problem with violence against people like me. i’ve posted about it and said by all means, challenge the stats, but I am a British citizen, I have the right to state I have a problem with I slam and the. Muslim community if half of them think that is ok. I do not take issue with individual muslims and treat them as I would want to be treated, with utmost respect.
No-one ever comments or responds because these people, like your guardian ex colleagues have tied themselves up in knots. If you accuse me of Islamaphobia, then by definition, you are homophobic. Anyone else would be tarred and feathered, yet no one ever likes, upvotes downvotes, comments. Literally nothing.
That’s the opposite end, in terms of what you experienced.
It’s fun to mess with virtue signalling SJW’s!
But seriously, you have something to say and you should be able to say it, to open up debate.
It’s a difficult path but when you look at JC himself, protestant Martyrs, standing up to Nazism, Madiba, whatever principle, whatever creed, however large or small, it’s a tough and often lonely road. But the alternative is to become a person you are not…like the 300 plus.
Your story is shocking and I’m so glad that you are are telling it here. God bless you if that’s your thing, may the force or universe be with you if not.
Thank you and take care.
James W, Lancs.
Frankly the action your ex-Guardian colleagues took against you is a disgrace.
People are unwilling to listen to the position of others never mind countenance that there might be something to learn from others, if only to understand why someone holds a different opinion. This also causes resentment and stops people from changing opinion.
I do get confused though. For example, you would appear to think that sex selective abortion is not right (I’d agree). But your ex-Guardian colleague and Unherd colleague Sarah Ditum thinks that it is a woman’s right. To the uninitiated, today’s ideologies are all tangled up and appear inconsistent and modish.
https://www.theguardian.com…
Somehow manages to shoehorn Corbyn in 5 times
“unlike half the paper, I didn’t believe that Corbyn had actually won in 2017. I also didn’t like the macho, bullying culture around him propped up by writers at my place of work.” Who are these people? Not that she would know as she “never goes into the office”
Yep. I know Guardian readers who cannot conceive of political discussion at all without dancing round the maypole that is Corbyn in the middle.
Bravo, Suzanne Moore! When I read this piece, I was worried that the great Larry Elliott, the Guardian journo who has done so much to keep housing bubbles as part of the public discussion in the UK, might have been one of Suzanne’s 338 colleagues who let her down by signing the open letter attacking her. I was relieved to find out that he was not.
No sympathy whatsoever. She was happy to stand by as those same people who are now lining up against her would do the same to others. She probably joined in a few times. Or said nothing. Because remember-silence is violence.
And now this has happened to her all of a sudden it’s a terrible thing? You reap what you sow. So reap it.
When did she sign petitions to demand the silencing of colleagues?
Aah yes, the argument of a pedant. I miss these.
“We live in a country where abortion is free and legal and where health care for trans people, though not perfect, is free”
Wrong. Nothing is free. Tax funds everything.
Actually, borrowing and printing funds a great deal of all the free stuff. That’s why we are two trillion in debt. Ultimately, of course, the borrowing and printing is not free either.
I had given up reading you and many others at the Guardian who seemed to have missed the huge challenges facing us; which, despite it’s failings Corbyn had attempted to address in moving the Labour Party from a facsimile of the Tory Party, to something approximating a party of progressive politics. Particularly around the economic debate.
However I agree about the experience of women in the patriarchy being airbrushed out (again). It seems that sometimes the patriarchy is just being reshaped to double down on women in the current discussions on identity. As you say there is a material physical experience that women have that I as a man will never have.
This is an excellent article, thank you. I’ve been finding myself increasingly confused by the conflicts in trans ideology, with the logical and semantic contradictions that come up.
Like you I don’t want anybody to live in fear and the solutions are clearly much more nuanced than the dogma would have us believe.
Thank you for writing this article and giving me more to think about.
The freedom of speech is the freedom of opinion, expression and the freedom of ideas – all of which may not be agreed upon by some people.
The ‘Cancel Culture’ seek to curtail the freedom of speech. You are not truly free if only one idea is the agreed format.
A very insightful article. I am sympathetic with Suzanne Moore but still cannot help feel that this is very much a revolution eating its own. And even in that ongoing cultural revolution, within which Suzanne has been an active participant, she has never been that sympathetic to those who have suffered from being on the wrong side of the arguments to which she has adhered.
What do you men by a revolution? The one that started in the 60s?
Person feathers her nest in foul flock.
Foul flock turns on said person who then cries ‘foul’.
Said person”now enlightened”is granted shelter and expression in the very tribe, she once disparaged.
Maybe I’m being unfair.
Discuss.
Dear Unherd FROM PETER HITCHENS
I beg and urge you to write to your MP, and to get your friends, neighbours, colleagues and family to join you. Numbers are crucial, as you will see.
On your computer, please find writetothem com . This will direct your letter to your MP in easy steps. Then write, briefly, politely, acidly.
Say only this: ‘If on Tuesday you vote to destroy the jobs and livelihoods of others, do not expect to keep your own. When the reckoning comes for this, there will be no such thing as a safe seat. Scottish Labour MPs once thought their seats were safe. Look what happened to them.’
Do not worry about any reply you receive or do not receive.
These boobies mostly cannot reason. But they can count. And if enough such emails arrive, they will at last grasp what they have done, and fear for their majorities as they should.
This is pretty much the only lawful means of resistance we still have. If you do not use it now, to the full, when are you going to do so?
And if lawful protest is ignored, what do people think is going to happen when the P45s and the bankruptcies spread like a great puce blot across the country through the miserable winter months, and next spring brings no real release?
I have already written to my MP, something I have never done before. Always remember to include your name and address. If you don’t, they use it as excuse not to read or respond to your email.
This is awful, truly saddening. I haven’t always agreed with what Suzanne Moore has written, but that was sort of why I read the Guardian in the first place. As a wishy-washy (Oxbridge educated white male) liberal I always considered the Guardian to be not only my natural paper, but one which might actually teach me something. Now it’s become this temple of preening self-righteousness.
I have no brief for Suzanne Moore, but I do believe that the Guardian is not so different to Daily Mail. Both are screech sheets, though with different perspectives.
I’m banned from commenting on Guardian comments threads even though was against Brexit and am repelled by Johnson administration….
Suzanne has my support. Cancel culture is fascist.
Where is Camille Paglia when you need her?
In many groups in society there are bullies. They are people who call you names of abuse and are threatening and demeaning of you when you dare to have a different view to theirs. They are uttlerly intolerant. Nothing to do with the issue, although it appears that it is. A minority of people but they make alot of “noise”.
Time to take up a hobby Suzanne. Pottery or painting. A great deal more therapeutic too.
Ignore the the infantile remarks from some. Keep writing. I’m sure there will be many wanting to read your stuff.
Thank you Suzanne for your integrity, great writing style and your courage in both talking truth to power and the “un-afraidness” you continuously show when going against the grain.
In an increasingly conforming world it takes courage to be “the one without the tattoo”, to be the one who boldly asks the little/big questions like, why?
I grew up on the Grauniad, but barely give it a glance these days; even its old quirky spelling pre-Wapping no longer even nods to a wry chuckle.
Just “fush ‘n chups” fodder, as a kiwi friend would say.
Including Jess Phillips?
Unpleasant as the letter is, the suggestion of being “bullied by the 338 signatories” seems somewhat absurd.
Aren’t journalists supposed to have some sense of proportion.
It might be better to avoid sympathy-seeking “clickbait” if you want to generate support.
The biter, bit. Tough.
As Ferris Bueller quite rightly put it; “Isms, in my opinion, are not good.”
I didn’t get halfway through the above.
Another victim of lefty cannibalism – how sad.
Thank you Suzanne Moore.
Thank you for your words and saying it how it is.
Your writing is honest and interesting and I wish you well
The Alphabet People and their spats with feminists are of even less relevance now when people are struggling with job losses and keeping a roof over their heads.
It is just another facet of the evil of woke which will end up with everyone either to scared to express an opinion or everyone at everyone else’s throats. I therefore see wokedom as being like a cancer that is spreading untreated due to COVID and is the social equivalent ticking time bomb.
The identity politics revolution has reached the end of its terror stage and it is now all the Robespierres turn to visit Mme Guillotine. This is wonderful news. Hopefully soon this malady will be gone.
If only that were so. Methinks the fever still rages. The snowflakes are melting down over Penguin publishing Jordan Peterson. And over at Estee Lauder make-up company, over a hundred employees wanted Leonard Lauder to kick his brother Ronald out of the company when he offered up some complimentary words about Trump. Rather cheeky that as the two brothers own the $89 Billion company together. Do these triggered folks realize that names were probably taken and that they’ll soon be out of a job or not promoted. All rather cheeky that. No matter, professors in Sociology Departments across the USA are cheering their legions on….over the cliff.
The identitarian ideology is too deeply embedded in the humanities – the contagion has spread from the sociology/anthropology nexus to even STEM – and it is still making its way across the globe via academia and media activists; it has even reached peak yet. What I foresee is a huge mainstream swing rightwards when the ordinary people finally wake up to its absurdities.
I think most ordinary, useful, people woke up to the Woke absurdities some time ago. The problem is that most of the media and all the structures of authority are fully Woke, and determined to crush all reason, along with all useful people.
It is very sad that a paper that was once a beacon of free thinking should attempt to mute its writers.
I can’t say how, but I know there is a lot of backstabbing between editorial staff at this paper. Don’t call me naive for calling it out; of course, journalism is competitive and The Guardian is seen as a really top place to publish your work.
But if ethics matter, they could be fairer in the way they manage contributors. Imagine being invited to participate in an open project to share specialist information, with the incentive to be able to pitch articles for publication in The Guardian, only to see not one, but two of your ideas written up by Guardian writers and published as if it were all their own work, without a single word of credit and not even an email to say ‘nice idea, we have done it ourselves’. I feel we were cheated into volunteering to enhance their editorial output quite cynically.
Not happy. And good luck, Suzanne.
The Guardian along with the Labour Party has killed itself by entering US Culture Wars from their campuses. It should be fairly obvious that this provokes backlashes especially among working class people. As for the biological sex, you only have to step outside your front door and see that manual labour is entirely done by men. In all the years I’ve been employing people to repair things in the house, not a single one of them has been a woman. Even after 40 years of feminism.
As a (former?) rabid, intransigent Marxist and as a card-carrying radical feminist, Ms Moore is no doubt familiar with the expression “the revolution eats its own children”. We seem to have a classic instance of the phenomenon here.
As Marie Antoinette would say, let them eat eachother!
The culture war is lost, the only way for it to end is for the kids to wise up as they grow older. In the mean time, distance yourself from anyone 30 and under. Let them indulge in their ideological orgy. Hopefully, paying off their six figure student loan will re-awaken some of them if it’s not canceled like everything else in this world.
Has The Orwell prize gone the way of the other coveted prizes ““ ie. recognition for helping to propogate the Left-liberal world view above all else? A recent recipient has been shown to have passed off invention as truth.
Yes, all these prizes exist nowadays for no other reason than to reward woke etc. That said, I am currently reading recent Booker winner ‘Milkman’ by Anna Burns and it’s a work of near genius, despite the Booker being one of the purest examples of virtue signalling wokeness.
I guess the book ticked all the right boxes – written by a woman from the Celtic fringe, anti-English, written in a style that might be described as ‘experimental’ etc – but just happened to be one of the very few good books awarded the Booker.
I have great sympathy with you, Suzanne. I think you have been treated appallingly for stating completely reasonable opinions and uncontestable facts. However, I do take issue with some of the things you have said.
First of all, this idea that rape conviction rates are low compared to other crimes. This is a myth that was pushed by feminists for years (see the Guardian article below). Now that the CPS has committed itself to the goal of raising the conviction rates it is now being targeted by feminists for the low number of actual convictions (see the Guardian article below). The politicization of this issue serves no useful purpose. It is merely designed to exaggerate the perceived levels of female victimhood.
https://www.theguardian.com…
https://www.theguardian.com…
The other issue I have is with the statement below:
I noted, referring to this incident, that it is women again, never men, who were losing jobs, incomes and public platforms if they spoke up.
This is so absurd that it’s hard to know where to start. So many men have lost their jobs in recent years for saying the wrong thing, making a joke, using the wrong term, etc, etc. It’s a regular occurrence to see a middle aged white man (usually referred to as a dinosaur) getting sacked for some minor example of wrong think. Most men now know to keep well out of these issues. Hence you’ll find very few men willing to publicly support you.
In which Suzanne Moore finally proves the need for a good sub-editor
I came off Twitter because I couldn’t stand the abusive toxicity of ‘debate’.Everybody shouting nobody listening. I am glad you have left The Guardian now- they don’t deserve you frankly. I have religiously read your columns for years now and not once have I seen a hateful comment made about the trans community. It’s utter madness. I truly hope you find a new media outlet because I have always found your writing wise, truthful and very thought provoking.
“these girls may end up on puberty-blocking hormones and then go on to have surgery. And for some of them that indeed may be the right thing to do.”
Let’s be real. You only say this because you’ve been emotionally battered by unhealthy people who’ve got you doubting your own worth, compassion and security. The right thing to do is NOT for scalpel-sculptors to pretend the endocrine system is an irrelevant vestigial appendage. Nor is it “compassionate” to ignore the horrible statistical outcomes of a “successful” sanctioned mutilation (cancer, depression & suicide rates).
This is the exact opposite of compassion, and it is antitherapeutic. “You don’t love yourself?
Arbitrarily-chosen surface-indicators of femininity and gobs of pills will fix that!” Shall we start treating schizophrenics with the same “compassion”? “I hear the devil too!” Anorexics? “You ARE fat!” The suicidal? “Death WILL be a relief!” The ONLY suffering the media is trying to prevent is their own, the pain of being labeled “trans-phobic” by over-amplified social media chihuahuas. If “journalists” gave a damn about the lives of the mentally ill they’d start interviewing endocrinologists and psychologists, not social media activists, politicians and other statistics-deniers.
(Great article tho)
Shock news. The Guardian is staffed by self righteous cry bullies.
I’m new to Unherd and joined it after reading this piece. No doubt the conversation is over, but I wanted to say to Suzanne that I fully endorse her case. She might be intersted to know that in France where I live JK Rowling got a lot of support from feminists. The orthodoxy she describes has not yet taken hold, thank goodness.
PS I was disappointed to see only three women on the Unherd team. Couldn’t you do something about that?
A few things I noticed:
The disdain for the term “Cis” (as well as the quotation marks and capitalisation). This is simply, the opposite of trans. I don’t really see what Moore’s issue is here- nobody has made cis women “a subset of men”, simple by stating that trans people face more oppression than cis people.
The question “Why can you not be a young butch lesbian these days?” You can- I was, myself, not all that long ago. There is a difference between presenting in a masculine way, and experiencing gender dysphoria and wanting to transition. Trans men are not ‘butch lesbians’, they are men.
Lastly, if the apparent ‘domination’ of trans rights discussion is “too boring” for you, the you are very lucky not to be personally affected by the trans suicide, murder victim, homelessness and hate crime victim rates. Lucky you, to be so blind to the the pain and suffering of our trans friends, who will read this and realise that their struggle is once again being diminished by somebody who has the nerve to call themself a feminist.
That’s all, thanks
There definitely has been misognystic hostility towards feminist like JK Rowling and Moore herself, and I agree that it’s not exactly useful for the Left, or any wing for that matter, to just abuse writers that raise concerns about trans discourse.
However, it’s frustrating that we don’t focus on how to make feminism more inclusive to a variety of female experiences instead of pitting trans women and cis women against each other. It’s just as disingenous for the Left to disregard trans-exclusive feminists’ concerns about gender violence as it is for those feminists to put the blame on trans women, when I assumed it was crystal clear that it is violent masculinity and patriarchy that we’re really up against: a system that both those doing the harm and those harmed are victims of. Also, I don’t see how trans activists talking about their issues in any way minimises issues around for example abortion, health, FGM, or gender equality?
I also find their refusal to use the term “cis women” quite confusing – isn’t this term much better than using menstruation or the ability to have children as criteria for “real/biological” women when not all cis women can have children for example? I doubt that feminists who are critical of the trans discourse would like to exclude those women who don’t fit the norm from their own feminist category of women? Anyways, I do think it’s useful to read and hear about these opinions and take them seriously, but it’ll do no good if there’s no desire to sympathise with both sides.
Before unsubscribing to the Guardian six months ago due to no longer being able to stomach its “smug affirmation and self righteousness”, I hung in there for an enternity due solely to Suzanne Moore’s writing – my thinking being that she somehow represented the ‘true’ nature of the Guardian.How wrong could I be?
Good on you Suzanne for standing up for what is right and honest and for your decades of brilliant and unflinching commentary.
I’m in the US and only found out about all this when that bald guy called out how wrong this was that your cowardly colleagues all went off the cliff hand in hand against you…I can’t remember his name but he was eloquent in his defense of you. I enjoyed every word of this, it’s beautiful and lovely writing, and it’s clear you are called for much greater things than that silly newspaper. Like a book. A great big heavy, hundreds of pages book talking about this stuff, each paragaph in this becomes a chapter. JK Rowling just did a nine hundred page book. I know how boring and profoundly irritating these topics are, as someone expounded that the slur ‘terf’ stands for ‘tired of explaining reality to fuckwits’.I never claimed terfdom but I’ve been beknighted by the crazy corpse-rape threateners called trans-rights activists (misogynists) on social media. But if you ever do write it I’ll be there to read it, and anything else you write. You are an exquisite writer, on the right side of history, and time will bear this out.
Qué?
Hmm…being forced to disappear up your own leftist arse by your own intolerant leftist acquaintances..clearly not something that was enjoyed by the writer.
Well written, Suzanne, an excellent article. Good luck in your next venture. I support you all the way.
Well said. Women’s hard won rights are on the line. The attempted erasure of female identity to satisfy a patriarchal misogyny wearing new clothes.
Wearing women’s clothes to be precise.
I totally support Suzanne Moore’s right to put these views forward, and commend her courage in doing so.
Bravo Suzanne! You’ve been an unwavering source of light in this sorry mess. I wish you all the success in the world.
Hail Suzanne – brave, honest, lucid and compassionate. f**k the Guardian and its wet lifestyle/politics bullshit… it has long ceased to be relevant. Absolutes are for children and dictators ““ reality is nuanced and of many shades. Butch lesbians, cross-dressing straights – what the f**k ever has been happening for centuries, but nobody is going to tell me how as a woman I should feel and behave – especially not some zealous arsehole trying to groom my teen kid into their dangerous righteous cult.
From a fellow polytechnic graduate I say well done for elbowing your way into the land of the Oxbridge entitled, I was also unaware of the problem of gender selection, so it was worth the read just for that (but nor only for that).
Brava Suzanne Moore! Thank you for this – your own history and your brave decisions. Language has been changed against us; we are not, it seems entitled to name ourselves; we have to deny science and our lived, daily experience in these, our female bodies, and much else that you describe. And, as far as I know, no-one ‘hates’ trans people, (especially in our case, trans women) but they were men and perhaps some of that male experience lasts on as an entitlement to tell women, born women, what they may or may not do. But then, there are the transexuals, the trans women who know and accept they are not ‘real’ women as in biologically female but still are women every day in the way they live their lives. The problem, as you so well express it, is that we, women, are not allowed our own spaces nor are we allowed to battle as we have for years for level playing fields – literally in the case of women’s sports. Why not? I have only one explanation – it is a form of misogyny. Over and over again we now read reports to the UN or the EU or to our own Government talking only of ‘people’, ‘children’, the ‘disabled’, ‘the elderly’, Black and ethic minorities”, and so on as if there were no sex differences, no boys or girls, no women or men within these categories whose education, whose health, whose working lives, whose private lives remain different and unequal.
It’s a curious form of silence, Suzanne, when your words are in multiple national newspapers today and you are trending on Twitter.
The first step on your long and tedious journey to being another reactionary spreading hatred and playing the victim – the Hopkins-Fox pipelines yawns before you, and you’re leaping gleefully into it.
See you on Parler.
Wow – an article about the extreme left getting more extreme and fissile, results in a load of comments here with men and women treated as if they are two homogenise groups that are all “good” or “bad”.
Doesn’t anyone realise that this “identity” stuff is basically injecting the tribal nature of humans with steroids, so that society tears itself apart. This is the Marxist way, destroy the structures of society so you can replace them with your own untested one. The new ‘fairer’ model always sounds great, but never works, and usually end in genocide and mass poverty.
Our modern society is basically a lab full of rats in a great big post modernist university experiment….
Doesn’t anyone realise that this “identity” stuff is basically injecting the tribal nature of humans with steroids, so that society tears itself apart.
many of us have pointed to the toxin of identity politics for a long time. It’s why there is a modicum of sympathy when it starts infecting people on the left.
The most important feature of a cult is to dismantle the family and separate family members.
This explained a lot to me
Thanks
Bravo. I’m hearing you.
What happened to those who refused to sign the letter?
Well I believe that Hadley Freeman, for one, was one of those laid off in the recent round of Guardian lay-offs. Not that Hadley Freeman has ever written anything useful or interesting, at least not while I was still visiting the Guardian site.
“The Labour leadership contenders were ordered to sign a pledge which
called Woman’s Place a “hate group”. With the exception of Keir Starmer,
they did. “Transphobe” was now a slur to throw at anyone who didn’t
keep the faith.”
I recall asking a friend if they asked any Labour contenders for the economic philosophy/thoughts after all we’ve had despite all the EU, North Sea Oil, Financialisation, Globalisation, Reform etc etc all supported by Labour and Conservative and Coalition Govts since 1980 40 years of slowing economic growth. Of increasing inequality etc. Yet no but they all had to give views on trans rights!
It’s why those of us in the centre feel homeless stuck between gut Socialists and the centre right of Lib Dems and Noo Labourite loons. Oddly in a corrupt and idiotic sense likes of Cummings maybe even the racist nut ball Bannon were more centrist than self styled extremists who call themselves moderate [very accurate description given what their extreme policies have done]. It’s why I give up on them all. They offer nothing and thus fall into strictures of conformity around alien and ephemeral ideas to most of the population and then refuse to argue or discuss to make them less alien and blame people for their views.
Chapeau!
It is not the first time and it will not be the last time that you have received this kind of “support” from your colleagues and the media.
Free thinkers have never fit into this world and for this reason they are free.
Keep standing. Keep thinking, but above all, keep saying.
I feel sorry for Suzanne, caught in the intersection between the culture of the modern left and the current debates around trans people. I believe that trans issues can be discussed openly and productively. However, I’m not certain the modern left is a faithful participant in any debate.
With issues around bodies – whether male, female, trans, non-trans, whatever – my thought always turns to science. It won’t be long, maybe in the next few decades, until sex is a choice. Biology won’t withstand the march of science. Debates we have today will be outdated, irrelevant. I ask myself, what will I think then? Will a trans women who menstruates, who becomes pregnant, who mothers her children, be different from any other woman?
We should be careful about policing lines which one day simply won’t exist.
Is this the same Suzanne Moore who wrote the column explaining why it’s morally acceptable to hate men as a group, now complaining because cancel culture, a culture in which she happily swam for years when it protected her and feminists like her for years, has finally come for her?
A bit late in the day for a road to Damascus conversion, isn’t it Suzanne? That “cult of righteousness” that you rightfully condemn was created by feminists like you fifty years ago as a moral high ground from which to disparage men, all the while complaining about sexism.
And of course double standards.
Just not your own.
But never mind the hypocrisy of feminist demanding equal treatment while simultaneously hiding behind the politically correct barricades taking potshots at men based on their gender. Let’s discuss another feminist hypocrisy evident in Moore’s column: the belief that gender is simultaneously a “social construct” but somehow also an innate predisposition. Moore states that ” as a feminist, I would argue that gender is a social construct. And as a social construct, it can be reconstructed.”
But then not long after, you claim”a new kind of gender tourism became possible. Everyone could be anything.”
Do I really need to point out the obvious self-contradiction implicit in these two statements? If gender really were a “social construct”, then gender tourism would actually be possible.
But feminists like Moore find themselves trapped in a paradox of their own making, forced to face a basic fallacy inherent in their ideology. Gender is not a social construct. It is as innate as sex, because if the term means anything, it means the psychological predispositions of each sex that maximize their reproductive success. It is an evolutionary, not a social construct.
That means that Moore- and feminism as an ideology- is caught on the horns of a dilemma of their own making. You cannot simultaneously claim that gender is somehow a social construct, and can therefore be deconstructed in defense of feminist claims of gender oppression, and that it is also unchangeable when it comes to defending women’s spaces on the grounds that men can’t become women. These are two sides of the same coin.
Sorry Suzanne, but I don’t have much sympathy for feminists who are now whining about cancel culture, not after years spent trying to “mansplain” why your own hypocrisy has become so offensive.
Many (but not all) feminists rejected the scientific evidence of differences between the biological sexes. They supported the creation of the idea that there is one and only one politically correct view on any subject. They built their institutional power bases in academia. Now this has all turned and bitten them in the butt. The science that supports the idea of biological sex is rejected. There is only one permitted view on transgenderism and every other view is transphobic hate crime. There are now other, more powerful institutional power bases. It would hard not to laugh if there weren’t so many innocent victims.
Excellent assessment of the whole situation of where all has gone wrong. With one exception, this naïve belief that the new ones are worse than the old ones. The erasure of the female sex was always the intent, from the outset, and people need to open their eyes.
“The Guardian journalist Suzanne Moore tweeted gleefully: ‘Hello Editor types. Jordan Peterson holed up in rehab in Russia. F*** me gently with a chainsaw”¦ let me do that story. Come on!’
Yup, the great Suzanne Moore in all her squalor.
“FEWER fucks to give.” Dammit.
Thanks Suzanne, both barrels! As a previous regular reader of the Guardian – enjoying, but certainly not always agreeing with, your pieces – I rarely visit it these days. Well, for Grace Dent essentially. Much of the rest of it is dross. Half the ‘reporting’ is from Twitter, clickbait headlines, dog whistle articles, treatment of the ideologically unclean etc.. You’re well out of it. Good luck to you.
It does seem as if the left has simply given up on the odl Class Struggle thing and moved over into *any other struggle thing* and now old-style left wingers like Ms Moore are getting exactly the same treatment the left have handed out to Evile Tories, Vile Conservative scum and so on, that’s been going on for years.
In respect of the actual topic that’s blown up in front her, the whole trans thing, most blokes who I know wouldn’t go within a 100 miles of commenting about, especially if, like Ms Moore, not entirely convinced by every aspect of the arguments put forward around it all.
Yes! Yes! Yes! Thank you Suzanne.
As I read this and pity this poor reporter and the idiocy of the 338 people who are so out of touch as to actually believe the Guardian has “cemented” a transphobic reputation, I am also struck with an understanding of why she was singled out in such a way. Some of her rhetoric is insanely transphobic. I’m sure she means well but there are a few things she needs to learn.
For example, I realize that the outspoken “trans women are women” activists have mainstream media claiming that all one has to do to be transgender is “feel” like the opposite sex. I am transgender (haven’t changed all my profiles yet…) and live in a place in the US that is famous for its LBGQT activity and activism. I know not only from my own experiences but from hearing other people discuss theirs that for a vast majority of transgender people, gender dysphoria is not an “emotional” type of feeling, but such a strong physical frustration it can be actually physically painful. I do realize that in the UK there are broader laws and attitudes and that all a person has to do to be considered “trans” is claim they are trans, but for feminists to also fall for that line of thinking as well as project it onto all transgender people is simply adding to the conflict. In fact, most transgender people are more than accepting that even after surgery they will not be their preferred sex in any biological sense. They accept this in the same way that women accept that those silicon implants are not exactly the same as natural breasts. It’s a discomfort in one’s own skin that is physically distressing. Imagine having a canker sore that never, ever goes away… for some people that’s parts of their bodies and for others it’s the whole thing. Don’t let the hype of the zealots speak for all of us.
Secondly, the choice of “transitioning” to describe menopause is needlessly confrontational. Menopause is nowhere near the level of hormonal change transitioning is, and that is despite the great amount of change it does have on the body. I have also been through menopause, as I didn’t start transitioning (or even put together that I was trans) until my 40’s, and can offer an experienced comparison of the two from not only my point of view but the massive difference in quantifiable hormone levels as a result of being on testosterone. Certainly menopause is a transition in the sense of moving from one phase of reproduction to another, but it is so vastly different from the act of virilization or feminization that there is little room for comparison and the deliberate choice of this word was meant to provoke the very kinds of strawmen represented in my first point. I should mention for full disclosure that I’ve always had high T anyway, a little more than twice what girls and women should have and enough to convince the Olympic Committee that I was doping (not that I’ve ever tried out for the Olympics – HA! – but comparable to women who’ve had to go through this recently). Even so, this is still 1/5-1/10th of the amount men have, and the comparison of achieving male range testosterone levels to menopause is a serious and deliberate misrepresentation of facts. That applies even more when it comes to male-to-female transition, as a whole soup of hormones are required to feminize.
Lastly, a bit of perspective on trans minors: if transgender had been something openly discussed when I was a teenager the way it is today, I would have realized when I was 15 that I wanted to virilize, and perhaps even before that. However, I grew up in the 80s, the daughter of staunch Reagan Republicans, and didn’t even know transgender existed until my mid-20s. From there, I was misled into a lot of the same ideas as Suzanne Moore as to what transgender meant by an alleged “trans woman” who is exactly what Ms. Moore objects to – a guy who “felt” female and felt like that gave him permission to invade female spaces. Seeing his obviously bad behavior gave me the wrong impression of what transgender people were about, even as I followed figures like Chaz Bono, Buck Angel, and eventually Zeke Smith. Even as the conversation grew more national, it took me a few more years from the damage this guy did, this “trans woman” who proves Ms. Moore’s point, to realize that thoughts and urges I’d had since I was 4 probably meant that I was transgender. But again, a lot of those ideas are thoughts I’ve had since I was young and had consolidated enough by 15 to take on what male identity a C-cup girl in 1990 could take.
I am also a mother, and let’s face it that had I transitioned as a teen, I would not have been able to give birth on my own and would have had to adopt one of the millions of children that need homes in order to be a parent. The idea of “trans women are women” certainly attacks that aspect of my life from the opposite side, somehow negating my motherhood as “dead” because of virilization, and I do have a problem with that. And again, I grew up in the 80s, was a teen and young adult in the 90s, and lived as a girl who didn’t even know the word transgender, so I’ve had all those “female” experiences Ms. Moore mentions. However, given the amount of conditioning I was given about the importance of giving birth alongside this “trans woman’s” bad example, I don’t think I was really informed about – well, anything regarding these thoughts and accompanying physical sensations. So I would have to commit to the idea that if I were 15 today I’d be seeking HRT, regardless of what it would have done to my reproductive system.
With all of that said, I can’t argue that the sensationalism of transitioning at this point in time has swept a certain type of parent to project transgenderism onto their children (especially boys), as well as enabled the phenomenon of teenaged girls with alleged ROGD. Foundations like Mermaids are definitely imposing transgenderism on many children who are simply learning their identities as is psychologically healthy. I know enough vulnerable, “female-like” straight men to believe that if we left everyone alone to form their own worldview without even parental influence, we’d find we have a lot more people are transgender than we think, but not all of them are the ones who think they are transgender now. But right now, some forces are in a rush to judge for it and others against it rather than taking a balanced view. Ms. Moore’s view is too far against if it prohibits young people from exploring HRT as an option at all, especially in cases where parental interference prevents or confuses it. All kids should be made aware it exists and allowed to explore it for themselves… BUT it should not be forced down their throats the way some parents and some government agencies (e.g. schools and the NHS in the UK) are currently doing.
However, true solutions won’t come as long as no one is willing to concede ground on their points or listen to those of us who aren’t “trans women are women” zealots. Being deliberately confrontational only stirs the hornet’s nest and validates their ideas of persecution. Instead of relegating everything to “male/female,” we’re collectively going to have to accept that there needs to be space for someone who is not quite either and stop using reproduction as our main guideline for what to expect from people. That’s NOT going to happen if people like Ms. Moore are silenced any more than it can happen if the Mermaids/legally enforced pronouns/”trans women are women” crowd continues to get its way. Dialogue must be open, not shut down.
So shame on the Guardian and its 338 idiots for condemning, rather than discussing. At least Ms. Moore seems open to reasonable discussion on the topic. I don’t have to agree with everything she says to think that, regardless of what the zealots say.
I so know where you are coming from and to say I have not read the full length of your article but will later this evening and I know it will keep me interested and mulling over your words for the next week no doubt.
But on what I have read, I can only sense as no one will speak openly and if they do tend to code their words to follow the norm and what they feel not aired so not to be judged. Which quietly amuses me.
But to think the retrending in the freedom of speech, I began to notice started in the 80s. With the obligatory two fingers held high up by both hands to tell me, my thoughts were not PC. Again to amuse me and so to blame my outspoken but mostly thoughtful words on most occasions due to my birth sign, Scorpio. So here’s to say I will read and digest your words and maybe we could start a new trend. “Let’s say how it is”, without judgement, but to air views and come to an agreement that we do not always agree with each other and to know that’s how it is, and to add equally surprise ourselves when we do. Not fall out and it always in my experience lead to bad feelings which we can all live without.
Imagine that causing offense was punishable in 1930s NS Germany. Here is what I wrote, in the Völkischebeobachter letter column, Dear Editor, There is abundant evidence from your columns that the Minister for Propaganda, Herr Goebbels is ready to lie, and it is also clear for everyone with eyes in their head, ears to hear and a brain to think, that he considers that the bigger the lie, the more credible the assertion becomes. I can imagine him saying that if you lie often enough, the lie becomes a truth. yours sincerely, JS. P.S. This is a false address in case the thought police decide to follow-up.
She confessed to working at Marxism Today and apparently learned not much thereafter. Wake me when the gender wars are over.
Bullying from low level staffers was a non-event; but being censored is certainly a real motive to move on.
I read once that Goering said whenever he heard The Guardian mentioned he reached for his Luger. Probably a myth but a good one.
A bit strange that the authoress didn’t just resign when the writing was on the wall.
Rang very true to me. I used to work for the Observer – owned by the Guardian – in the early ’90’s and it felt incredibly sexist. And very keen on people fitting in to the right demographics – which were male and middle class.
The Guardian is two completely distinct, and completely contradictory, propositions. One, a political activist’s blogroll which in many cases is now more aggressive and intolerant than the Daily Mail (The Daily Nazi as it’s known to Guardian readers). Two, a fabulous culture and leisure magazine with some of the best photo essays, book reviews, cookery, culture and homeware articles you can find anywhere on the web. No one takes the paper seriously but the magazine features are superb. It is quite bizarre.
Absolute gold!
The only reason to read the Guardian, now and during the recent past when Suzanne was there, was to see where a particular brand of non-thought was taking it.
David Gerber was right to refuse to write for the Guardian, so long as Suzanne, Jonathan and co were churning out low rent stuff on Corbyn’s so called anti-semitism, settling old political scores no doubt. A brave newspaper would have tried to counter the assault on Corbyn from the right. The Guardian merely added to it, and censored people who tried to challenge the line which Suzanne repeats here.
As to the issue which led to her resignation, a passing reference to Foucault inspires no confidence. I long for a decent, funny, enquiring, left of centre daily newspaper. I would cheerfully pay for it. Sadly, the Guardian, with or without Suzanne Moore, is not it. Like all the old media it has been swallowed up in Seymour’s twittering machine, which makes the sort of incident she describes inevitable. It’s an unfortunate event. But perhaps it will enable her to reflect on the bullying mob, of which she was part, that did for Corbyn.
Reading through the comments. it’s astonishing to me how many people can read about someone’s genuine pain and respond with, “They had it coming.” Is compassion reserved only for those who we agree with, or those who have lived what we define as an exemplary life?
Love this article. Fearless, brave hearted and coming from a clear and independent mind.
“My hurt at being ejected from cults I never belonged in anyway is not self-pity. That dissolves the moment I have the freedom to speak my truth.”
Deep respect to you Suzanne Moore, for going where so many others fear to tread. The Guardian (indeed most mainstream media) has gone down the tube into a cess pit of utter censored (in one way or another) mind numbing crap. The last good thing they did was the Cambridge Analytica story… I wonder if that kind of reporting is just over now?
Although not surprised given the turn the Guardian has taken over the last five years or so, I am deeply disturbed by what I read above. The formerly highly-respected Guardian has become little more than a self-opiniated lifestyle magazine for those who believe in the new orthodoxy. Very briefly: As a gay man, I do not identify with a group known as LGBTQI+, or whatever iteration currently serves their craven needs. I find it alienating and non-inclusive. Two: The Guardian’s explicit ‘message’ that trans is good was exposed for the shite it is by their dropping Caitlyn Jenner, their figurehead of trans people for whatever reason, like a hot potato when it turned out the old tranny was a vocal Trump supporter. Three: I’m also disappointed to see Owen Jones among those who signed that offending letter. Himself a victim of violence, he should know better that to throw an esteemed colleague under the bus. I’d like to say to Suzanne that she has my full support and thank you for speaking out against this new culture of bullying by people who usually are the first to speak out about other people’s perceived bullying.
Sad to read that about The Guardian. I have noticed the shrill tone lately in some corners of the publication. A bit like the petition sites: a failure to prioritise causes, with the result that all causes become lost.
Wow, fascinating read. Thank you Suzanne for taking the time to account this for the rest of us. Cancel culture has definitely become a debacle and your account helps to elucidate how and why it’s happening
It’s striking that hardly any of the comments here are about Suzanne and what she went through. It’s just men and women arguing about who’s got it worse
I really appreciate this wonderful post that you have provided for us. I assure this would be beneficial for most of the people.
I wanted to thank you for this great read!! I definitely enjoying every little bit of it I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you post.
What bothers me most is this civil war amongst those who should know better is pointless and self defeating. No real trans activist would threaten to rape a woman, that is the actions of a supporter of the patriarchy. No real feminist would try to oppress anyone who is transgender for exactly the same reason that is the actions of supporting the patriarchy. Each when empowered is not threatened by the other but enhanced by the others freedom, the same goes for gay men etc.. The Right and the Patriarchy behind it uses division as the main tool to maintain control as we see in the current risible “debates” (monologues are not debates) that feature the attacks of the pseudo woke vs the pseudo feminists. These shouting matches aid no one barring the old white straight male bastards who rule the western world. Turn your sights back at the 1% where it rightfully belongs for no real change can occur until they are overthrown.
The Guardian is on the front foot of the British Inquisition.
Brilliant writing Suzanne. You are an inspiration.
This really is British feminism in a nutshell: narcissistic, self-pitying and self-serving.
While I agree, of course, that the trans issue is complexed, nuanced and not binary (!), I am also worried by the emphasis placed by Suzanne Moore, Julie Bindel and other ‘radical feminists’ on ‘biology’. It reminds me of the homophobic emphasis on ‘nature’ that I can recall a few decades ago as a gay man: homosexuality is ‘unnatural’; men are ‘naturally’ attracted to women, etc. I haven’t heard this for some time but it seems as if ‘nature’ has resurfaced as ‘biology’?
Also, there is an alarming affinity with some of the rhetoric of the far right. ‘Racial science’, after all, was predicated on alleged biological differences between ‘races’. Furthermore, the obsession with ‘women’s spaces’ is somewhat redolent of the ‘protect our women’ mentality that has been used to justify lynchings and race riots. Religious fundamentalists also believe that ‘biological’ sex, among other characteristics (sometimes including ‘race’) is divinely ordained. Far right parties in Europe (including the UK) now routinely use feminist rhetoric to justify targeting non-white immigrants, including the ‘threat’ to ‘white women’ and the ‘patriarchal’ nature of some Black and Islamic cultures.
I recognise that there are emotional and physiological differences between men and women. I approve of those differences and don’t want to see them erased. This is why it is a good thing to have all-male and all-female clubs, sports and single sex ‘spaces’ generally for men as much as for women. This is completely compatible with accepting that a small number of people are transgender or non-binary and should have full human rights.
Finally, let’s examine the ‘women’s spaces’ argument by applying it to lesbianism. Several straight women I know have had traumatic experience with lesbians, including sexual assault, in the context of sport, school or university. In one case, a lady who is now long dead gave me a vivid description of an experience she had in the (then) Women’s Air Force: ‘I had to beat her off with a clothes brush’. Yet (fortunately) nobody is arguing that lesbians should be denied access to women’s shelters or sports clubs because they ‘might’ be ‘sexual predators’.
7,800,000,000 people in the world, every one of them born from a woman. That is biology.
And your point is? I’m sorry, but I can’t relate it to anything I have said. In fact I stated quite clearly that differences between men and women were real and needed to be taken into account. My point was that ‘biology’ should not be a cover word for bigotry and hysteria.
I think that it’s right for newspapers to publish articles like SM’s. But the Guardian did publish it so what’s the issue? I also think that SM’s colleagues at the guardian were entitled to let their views be known to the editor. The letter didn’t call for SM to be sacked and there’s no way of reading it like that. If they had wanted to name her and call for her to be sacked then they would have done so. It certainly wasn’t bullying (unlike the twitter abuse which is obviously heinous). Personally I feel that releasing the names of the signatories, most of whom have no public profile at all, was intentionally aggressive and intended to expose them to similar twitter abuse. SM has a right to express her view on a controversial topic, and she a better platform than the vast majority of people to do so, but she doesn’t have a right to have everyone else in the world agree with her.
of course it is bullying
Why? Guardian staff aren’t allowed to have a view on Guardian editorial policy? They weren’t calling for any consequences for SM, they were complaining about the decision to publish. It’s possible to disagree with someone, possible to think that someone’s views shouldn’t have been published, without bullying them. I don’t actually agree with the letter’s implication (that the article shouldn’t have been published) but I don’t see how disagreeing with someone is the same as bullying them.
I read as far as, “my lifelong commitment to campaigning for abortion”. I do hope, as you are being slowly hoisted by your own petard, that you are not looking for sympathy and understanding.
I have to say, after reading this thought -provoking article, I was interested to see what people had to say about the problematic issue of Feminism and trans women. The comments are full of the same old Men’s Rights assholes storming in and complaining about how feminists don’t care about men. Its so boring and untrue. I guess there is no moderation here.
Tragic, tragic woman. Can I call her a woman?
Moore and her ilk are wannabe men, and have done their utmost to violate the spaces and ‘privileges’ of their imaginary male oppressors.
Well, dear wimmin… now it’s your turn.
The karma is beautiful enough to be symphonic.
What Suzanne Moore can’t seem to comprehend, is that she’s very much a part of the problem – being an ‘early adopter’ of the woke, cancel culture, when it was known as PC. Now the revolution is eating it’s own, she runs to the ‘enemy’ – as she would have regarded them – in the Mail and Spectator. It also has nothing to do with being a woman – the result would have been the same for a man who ‘transgressed’.
As youve made a living from condemnation&platitudes Suzanne…perhaps its someone elses turn.
You are just a woke who got it slightly wrong and can now be bullied by woke thugs. Poor article.
The desperation, the sly covert fulmination, the delciousness of this brazen attempt to offload unresolved cognitive dissonance on to an uncaring world: haven’t laughed so much since Suzanne ‘blocked’ me on Twitter during one of her many hissy fit prissy twit tweet meltdowns. Why? 🤔 For daring to challenge her lazy misanthropic misandry posing as intellectual 90s firebrand when in reality she’s now a cast-off post-modernist prop and trope bag lady way past her journalistic sell-by date. Is there anything sadder than the sight of post-punk, post-menopausal North London privilege posing as victim hoodie poster gurl for career failure? A hair-trigger censor herself yet with the audacity to fume at being cancelled by the cancerous cultural landscape she co-created? It couldn’t have happened to a more worthy target 🎯 and i applaud the smug snowflakes certainties arraigned against her by her ‘enemies’ because karma really is a b***h and she keeps receipts. So do I, including the screen grab of this daft eejity attempt at a crushing parting snide snipe at me before flouncing off to hit the block button and the caps lock 🔒 to attempt to silence those of us who do not accept that public figures can expect to dish it out but evade taking it in blowback and who simply laugh 😂 out loud at execrably 🎠performative peevish whining such as we read in this unintentionally comedic masterpiece of grandiose self-pity. And yes, Suzanne, I’m a far more accomplished writer than you could ever be with your desperado advertising of some PhD redundancies…😎 Best wishes…wooosh! Andymooney666
So aging is a concept you are grappling with?
As an accomplished writer, you surely have taken on the concept of organizing thoughts with the use of paragraphs?
Her privilege was hard won,, having left school at age 16. I did not understand what you meant by advertising PhD redundancies, yet I will admit I only glanced through your wall of accomplished writer words.
Amazing read!! Painful to read tho, since the reality that she describes is right here, right now, but people still choose to hate the messenger. The patriarchal mentality is harming the whole planet, women AND men, but somehow there is always a woman blamed and hated at the end when she openly defies the ideology … It’s not a pleasant thing to face your own bulls*, but has to be done. I think she is doing it pretty well, that’s why so many people can’t stand her!
‘The patriarchal mentality’: surely that is a statement of hatred. Somewhat like anti-Semites blaming ‘the Jewish mentality’ or white nationalists blaming ‘the Negro [sic] mentality’.
I’m far from alone in being tired of people who blame others (men, immigrants, gays, Muslims, ‘the global elite’,etc.) for their own problems, anxieties and personal shortcomings.
So where do people’s ‘own problems … personal shortcomings’ and responsibility for them end, and the responsibility of an unfair system begin? Surely that’s the whole dilemma of politics, and your statement strays dangerously close to victim-blaming.
Actually, the victim mentality is dangerous and allows evasion of responsibility. It is characteristic of fascist movements, whether ostensibly ‘left winger ‘right wing’: think of the ‘stab in the back theories’ of the German right, in the post-WW1 era, which paved the way for the rise of National Socialism. Today, we have (sections of) the ‘white working class’ blaming immigrants, ‘Europe’, etc. for their problems rather than, for example, the high rate of family breakdown, substance abuse and lack of respect for education in their communities.
As a gay man, I have come across the victim mentality quite often. Section 28 in the 1980s was blamed on ‘the Tories’, ‘straight oppression’, etc.,etc., whereas really it was a reaction against far left Councils and gay (or actually more often lesbian) activists overreaching themselves. I was opposed to Section 28, of course, but on the grounds that it was unworkable and regressive, rather than on grounds of hysterical ‘victimhood’.
When I start my big, dirty, oily, inky broadsheet, you will have the front page. And the middle ones. And if you know anything about sport, you can have them too. Honestly, you’re a diamond. X
The comments here are as boring and as self-obsessed as the article. Clearly, there are a lot of people without a life.
I suggest the hideous orange overcoat and gold boots combination should be enough to facilitate you leaving the country, let alone that fiasco of a newspaper.
My only take-away from this article is that Suzanne Moore resents a tiny portion of men enjoying the special privileges that women do, despite the fact that these men have an all-consuming need to be female which well surpasses hers, by the look of her.
Just add a third toilet in shopping malls, and leave the trannies alone, Suzanne. They’re really not bothering you.
I just wish there were more writers and commentators who would turn the focus back onto how the Patriarchy has so easily managed to turn trans people and feminists against each other while actual predatory cis male aggressors continue to kill and maim women, trans women, trans men, non binaries and children. It’s pretty clever to divide and conquer when we should be united to fight them.
Nailed it! Patriarchy is always the real enemy.
if your beliefs require an enemy to be sustained then you don’t have an ideology you have a pathology
I’ve been a man for years. Why won’t anyone ask me to join the patriarchy?
Hang on, no, maybe I’ve been a woman all along. That does make more sense actually.
Are you Titania McGrath?
Exactly what I was thinking!
70% of murder victims in the UK are male, but, let me guess, you think they deserved it?
That’s Jordan Peterson’s argument, but I don’t get it. 99% of the murderers were probably men. What have we proved?
Who exactly is running this campaign and how? Seriously, let’s say I have an agenda to divide and conquer etc…do I look in the Yellow Pages for Misogynists ‘R Us ?
Men mostly kill men. Check out the BBCs first 100 murder convictions of 2020.
Half of the women killed by men seem to be mothers killed by their schizophrenic sons.
And men mostly do it because they are stronger, not eviller.
Thank you Suzanne, for this, for all you do. Brilliantly put. Sending so much solidarity with you.
I think the people with cervix etc terminology is to keep trans men happy who may still have their female parts. I actually know a trans man. It’s not used to implicate trans women can give birth or menstruate.
Implicate? I think you mean “imply”.
The change of language and social norms to placate a tiny,tiny fraction of humanity is too much.
You say you want to talk about
“the deep unhappiness of women, the
suffocating girdle of masculinity, the ever growing and bleak
inequalities, the falling fertility rates which will mean girls don’t
get to be born, rape as a war crime, FGM” etc
So talk about them!
If you feel that the debate is being dominated by “the trans issue”, why do you focus on it so much yourself?
Do you seriously think that just because trans people exist, it’s somehow impossible for women to speak and write about these topics?
I am a woman and a feminist. How am I being stopped from talking about my miscarriages, abortions, maternity leave, menstruation, sexuality, etc? I might be silenced by the voices of misogynistic men – but what are trans people doing to limit my rights?
I do not think that you deserve the hate mail etc. No one deserves that. But I also don’t understand why you are so fixated on this topic, or why it is so hard for you and other feminists of your generation to act in solidarity with trans people, who are one of the most oppressed minorities. You behave as if they are stealing something from you, just by being themselves.
Total nonsense. Suzanne is perfectly prepared to act in solidarity with trans people, but not to look on as activists enable misogynistic violence and medical experiments on children. It isn’t her who’s ‘fixated’ on the topic, it’s the activists who will not let the mildest, most reasonable querying of their agenda pass without torrents of abuse and attempts to get people sacked.
” If you feel that the debate is being dominated by “the trans issue”, why do you focus on it so much yourself?”
Maybe because it’s why she was bullied out of her job?
Essentially you are asking Moore to shut up about transactivism. Slow clap for your feminism.
Transactivism is interfering with science – biological denialism exists.
Transactivism is interfering with single sex (aka safe women spaces – toilets, rape refuges, women’s prisons)
Transactivism is interfering with language – attacking gendered languages like spanish, introducing nonsensical neologisms like Filipinx, being dogmatic about pronouns, erasing words like women,mothers, pregnant or menstruating females.
Transactivism is interfering with historical records- deadnaming is considered a terrible crime and brand new identities are being created with complete erasure of old identities.
Transctivism is interfering with women’s sport – the issue is greater than testosterone levels.
Transactivism is interfering with some children’s gender confusion – and pushing for transition ( with no real data on the longterm medical effects) without question.
I am female and feminist too. I support the existence of trans people and their right to liberty and happiness but I can see these issues as problematic and worthy of discussion. Why can’t you?
It’s as though you have missed the point of the essay, she has tried to write about these things, but they are being ‘edited out.’
She isn’t saying it’s just about the individuals in the trans community; she is saying that this is another area where many woman no longer get to speak their truth, where woman’s and men’s voices are being edited out and silenced if they speak against the current political climate.
Bitter? Chip on shoulder?
When 338 colleagues complain … does it not make you think that maybe they are right?
Not when it is 338 Guardian employees – cretinous bigots the lot. More like proof that you are right.
Normally, yes. But we are talking about employees of the Guardian.
30% of Germans circa 1930 couldn’t possibly all be wrong either.
when they complain that “only women get pregnant” or its equivalent is radical? No, it makes me think they are mired in group think.
All this (and some of the comments even more than the article) confirms and reinforces my impression that there is now a close affinity between (overwhelmingly white) radical feminism and the far right. All the far right tropes are there:
hidden, ‘predatory’ enemies (in this case men as a ‘class’, but also more familiar far right targets such as trans women, ‘Muslims’ as a whole, ‘the left’);
an obsession with ‘the (implicitly white) working class;
a preference for subjective ‘experience’ and ‘feelings’ over rational thought;
an obsession with ‘biology’ and ‘nature’;
strong influences from the New Age and ‘wellness’ movements
Where does radical feminism end and Q-Anon/anti-vaxx begin?
I would turn this round and say that the identitarian left has moved so far from any kind of connection with real life that for them, all the varied mountain peaks of what normal people on any part of the political spectrum used to think have merged into one single range of ‘far right’.
This is because, of course, the identitarian left and the far right are both based on … identity politics.
The reason why the comments here reinforce that impression is because the readership here seems to be predominantly right wing. Naturally, they’re going to read and interpret the essay with reference to their own beliefs. That’s their choice, not the author’s. When Lankford quoted Rowling earlier this year to support employment discrimination in the US it certainly wasn’t because the two of them were on the same page, in fact Rowling’s politics would be diametrically opposed to such a thing.
Are white people allowed to use the N word these days? If you were previously cancelled for being a transphobe, you’ll certainly be cancelled as a racist now.
The Guardian is trash but hearing that people there disliked Moore because of her vile transphobic views makes me respect them more
What ‘transphobic’ views are those?
indeed-and given that a phobia is an excessive or irrational fear what is excessive or irrationally fearful in her comments about “trans” issues.
Well, you know: only women get pregnant, only women have periods, and so forth. Truly radical stuff.
“Phobic” does not mean views other than your own. There is nothing phobic in saying that only women get pregnant or have periods. Once upon a time, we treated that as going without saying. Today, saying it somehow radical. But nice job revealing yourself.