Bigmouth Strikes Again: Carrie Marshall's blog

Carrie’s books | Carrie’s band

Category: Media

Journalism, radio and stuff like that

  • The bungle Telegraph

    It’s hard to imagine now, but the Daily Telegraph was once envied for its news reporting. Now it’s a comic for angry old people who want to be lied to – and it can’t even be bothered to do that very well.

    Today’s front page trails a big news report on the revelation that the NHS gives surgery to some trans people. Leaving aside the transparently bigoted framing (the implication, as ever, is that you can just walk in and get surgery; it took me seven years, and that was when waiting lists were a fraction of what they are now) and the involvement of the usual anti-trans activists, the article tells its readers that of the people getting surgery on the NHS, “a large proportion of those going under the knife are under 18.”

    No they aren’t.

    The proportion of under-18s going “under the knife” is exactly zero.

    The Telegraph’s reporter, “special correspondent” Hayley Dixon, would have known that if she’d read her own fucking article, as two paragraphs later it notes that the youngest surgical patient was 18.

  • A feeding frenzy

    The trans advocacy group TACC has been counting the (overwhelmingly anti-) trans stories published by many UK newspaper websites. Over the last 30 days the Times has run 38 stories; the Daily Express, 91; The Sun, 123; The Daily Telegraph, 147; and the Daily Mail, 228.

    In the case of the Mail that’s an average of over 7 anti-trans stories per day, but it’s even worse than that: on just one day, the day of the Supreme Court ruling, the Daily Mail published over 35 stories about trans people while The Telegraph and The Express published more than 25 each.

    That isn’t journalism. It’s a feeding frenzy.

  • How it happened

    Juliet Jaques has written a terrific feature detailing exactly how the anti-trans takeover of the press and politics happened in the UK. And it’s been going on longer than you might think: while it really kicked into gear in 2017, the foundations were laid long before.

    The article details how trans writers were pushed out of media, how trans people’s voices were excluded from stories about them, and how fake grassroots groups were able to do so much damage to established LGBTQ+ advocacy organisations. But while the piece is detailed and evidenced, the gist of it is this:

    Our enemies didn’t look at publications that were platforming trans people or parties that were supporting trans rights and then vacate the battlefield – they drove us out and made our sympathisers afraid to speak up.

  • Time for a Snack

    I’m a big fan of Snack magazine, the independent Scots arts, entertainment and culture magazine, so I’m really delighted to be in its pages this month talking about Small Town Joy. You can read this month’s magazine online for free here.

  • Violence

    In a full-page article in The Telegraph today, Sex Matters’ Maya Forstater claims that the tens of thousands of peaceful pro-trans protesters who took to the streets yesterday are a “violent mob” because one of the protesters scribbled on a statue with a bit of chalk.

    On Twitter today, Sex Matters supporter and washed-up former comedy writer Graham Linehan is urging his thousands of followers to physically attack any women they think may be trans.

  • Demons, daily

    Researcher Lee Hurley tracks anti-trans articles in the English press, and the totals are in: in the last year alone, just three English newspapers – The Guardian, The Daily Mail and The Telegraph – ran 1,075 articles about trans people, almost all of them anti-trans. So if you’re a reader of any of those papers, you’re being sold an anti-trans story every single day.

    It’s a horrendous statistic but if anything it underplays things: just yesterday The Sunday Telegraph ran five anti-trans articles in a single edition. And the Scots press is similarly obsessed.

  • A tale of two ERs

    The Pitt has become one of my very favourite shows. It’s a hospital-set drama with a huge heart, originally conceived as a follow-up to the 1990s series ER in which Noah Wyle played a young doctor. Unfortunately – or fortunately, given the result – ER writer Michael Crichton’s estate nixed that so Wyle created a stand-alone series instead. This time around Wyle plays a grizzled veteran who’s trying very hard to keep it together while under incredible pressure. He’s fantastic, as are the rest of the ensemble cast.

    There’s a minor story in The Pitt featuring a transgender woman, and it’s really interesting to compare that with the trans storylines in ER. Because ER’s portrayal of trans and intersex people was vicious.

    [Content warning: slurs]

    Writing on Tumblr, Brin (aka Brinconvenient) describes multiple episodes of ER featuring trans, intersex and gender non-conforming people. The first, ER Confidential, was broadcast in November 1994. Brin goes into detail for that episode but to summarise: the trans woman is played by a cisgender man, she’s treated with disgust and hostility by the show’s stars, and she’s called a slur by one of the nurses. Her story arc ends with her jumping off the roof of the hospital because she’s too old and too mannish to be a believable woman.

    Brin was 16 at the time.

    Just think of the message this episode sends. Are you a young trans kid? Better transition while you’re young or not at all, because you’re on a clock – you have an expiration date. If you transition later, you’re just going to look like a man in a dress, everyone will clock you, everyone will find you disgusting, and they’re right too. You’ll get called names, you’ll get the barest modicum of tolerance, if you’re lucky, and even then, you’ll be kept at arm’s length.

    And hey, if you get old? Or older, really, because you don’t even have to be THAT old, then your life is over. It’s best just to kill yourself instead of not passing.

    I was an ER watcher too. So I got that message loud and clear – not just in that episode, but several times.

    There were plenty more examples.

    over 15 seasons, 331 episodes, ER had a total of 5 explicitly trans women and one explicitly intersex women (and zero trans or intersex men).

    None of them have a happy ending.

    As Brin says, “the general cis idea of trans people is informed by all of these Sad, Angst, Tragic Trannies ™”, and while things have got better we’ve had decades of this stuff in popular culture (I go into a lot of examples of that in both of my books). Other shows were just as careless/callous: for example NYPD Blue, another show I watched religiously, consistently showed trans people as sex workers, dead sex workers or ludicrous caricatures, had the star characters insult and misgender those characters, and titled a 2003 episode about the murder of a trans sex worker “Tranny Get Your Gun“. This was considered completely normal and entirely acceptable.

    I don’t know if Noah Wyle set out to try and do better now than his character did in ER. But The Pitt gets right what ER consistently got wrong.

    First of all, the trans woman is played by a trans woman (the luminous Eva Everett Irving). Tasha is a glamorous, likeable and fun character, a sommelier to the rich and famous. She’s not in the ER because she’s trans; she’s in the ER because she’s got a nasty cut on her hand. The hand is fixed, the deadname on her file is quietly corrected by one of the medical students, and she’s off again to her glamorous life. She’s not there to make the main characters sad, or to be a tragic figure. She’s just another patient.

    That shouldn’t be remarkable. But sadly, it is.

  • A troubled Adolescence

    (Contains spoilers for the TV drama Adolescence).

    Like many people I was gripped by the Netflix drama Adolescence, which tells the story of a teen murder victim. Except as Jude Doyle points out, it doesn’t tell you very much about the victim at all.

    While it’s beautifully shot and features some incredible performances, it’s a story that wants you to feel sorry not for the murdered girl, but for the family of her murderer – and to some extent, for the murderer. And as soon as you realise that that’s what it’s doing, it becomes a very different and much less successful piece of television.

    Doyle makes a good argument that the drama is ultimately superficial (which perhaps explains why the Labour government is so keen on having it shown in schools, despite the show itself pointing out the uselessness of showing videos to bored and fractious teenage boys).

    It’s uninterested in engaging with the darkness it purports to be exploring to any significant degree: it throws in a few signifiers about the “manosphere” of online misogyny, but it doesn’t engage with the reality of it or the fact that misogyny is not something that was invented by social media, a “a weird Ringu-style Internet curse that happens if your son gets too much screen time”. Male violence of the kind portrayed in Adolescence is what you get when your society tells men that they are entitled to control women and their bodies. And god knows, that’s not a message that men are only just encountering.

    With one key exception – which Doyle praises, and writes about in detail – there are hardly any female characters, and the ones that do appear are woefully underwritten; the teenage girl whose murder is at the centre of the drama is barely a cipher.

    Doyle:

    “making a miniseries about Toxic Masculinity and only focusing on male characters is like making a miniseries about Hitler and only focusing on his painting. It’s not until you see who’s getting hurt, and how badly they’re hurting, that you get the point.”

  • Victim blaming

    The Mail, the Telegraph and the Times are all framing a horrifically violent attempted murder in the same way: they’re blaming the victim. Of course they are. She’s trans.

    [I don’t usually come back and edit posts but I’m going to fix this for clarity the day after posting it, because it was written in a hurry and got the timeline slightly wrong.]

    The attack was on a teenage girl who’d been flirting with a young man. He’d been told that she was trans, but when he asked her if that were true she said no; the girl had previously been attacked for being trans and seems to have been concerned for her safety if she’d said otherwise. They kissed, and the young man asked her to perform oral sex on him. He filmed the act without her knowledge or consent and shared it online on Snapchat.

    When the video circulated, the young man was told again that the girl was trans. He asked her again, but this time he told her that he’d stab her if she lied. So she said yes, she was trans. The young man and his friends then conspired to lure her into a trap.

    The girl was jumped in the street by the young man and several other people in a sustained attack during which she was stabbed multiple times, stamped upon, kicked and robbed. Their friends filmed the attack and shared it online; the most violent of the attackers, the one who brought a knife it to stab her, was a young woman who later posted a Snapchat story which included footage of the attack, an image of the victim on a ventilator and a number of transphobic slurs.

    The Mail describes this as being targeted “over her trans identity lie”; The Telegraph says she was stabbed “after lying about her gender”. The Times puts the last two words in quote marks but the headline is still “Transgender teenage stabbed 14 times by Snapchat gang ‘for lying’”.

    The Metropolitan Police rightly called it a “horrendous and violent assault on a young woman, motivated by the fact she is transgender”. But the response on social media and Mumsnet is to call the girl a rapist, say that the attempted murder was her own fault and demand her prosecution for not disclosing her gender history to the young man who filmed her performing oral sex without her knowledge or consent and who conspired to plan her attempted murder. His criminal behaviour doesn’t matter; she, the self-proclaimed defenders of women say, was asking for it. She had it coming. Although of course they don’t call her “she”.

    This is the world that “gender critical” journalism has created: a world where trans kids are beaten up if they tell people they’re trans and stabbed if they don’t. The UK press and the bigots they platform have blood on their hands.

  • Bots and brooms

    I meant to post this a while back: a piece I wrote for Gutter magazine about the “content industry” and what it means for artists.

    Of course there has always been business around art. The music business, the art market, the publishing industry, the comedy circuit, the comic book trade and others have all seen their share of bandwagon boarders and cold-eyed careerists. But for most of that time the art and the business have co-existed, however awkwardly and inequitably. What happens when there’s all business and no art?