Bigmouth Strikes Again: Carrie Marshall's blog

Carrie’s books | Carrie’s band

Category: Media

Journalism, radio and stuff like that

  • 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?

  • The Missing

    I was honoured to lend my voice to The Missing, an episode of The Quilt, the LGBTQ+ audio exhibition and podcast in association with the Queer Britain museum. It’s an oral history of queer lives in the UK; this episode, the third in a series of eight, focuses on Scotland from the Highland Clearances to the loss of Glasgow lesbian bars.

    It’s available from wherever you get your podcasts, and directly from this link.

  • Misreporting

    Let’s do this again, shall we?

    There have been a spate of important trans-related stories in the press this week, and predictably they have all been misreported.

    First up, after a long inquiry into the trans charity Mermaids, the Charity Commission found no evidence of the wrongdoing alleged by anti-trans activists and their pals in the press. Complaints that the charity did not have effective safeguarding policies or that it had inappropriate ties to gender identity clinics were unfounded. The commission tried very hard to find evidence of those things because it really, really wanted to – during the inquiry one member of its staff, clearly an anti-trans activist, forgot to use their own personal account and was caught retweeting an unfounded allegation against the charity on the Commission’s own social media – but failed.

    That’s not to say Mermaids is perfect. It isn’t, and there were failings identified in its management. But the core allegations that have been in the press for two years now were bullshit.

    It’s also worth noting that yet again, the BBC reporting of this is using anti-trans activists’ dog-whistles: we’ve previously had “gender ideology” used to describe trans people existing, and now we have “trans-identified” to describe trans kids. The use of “trans-identified male” and “trans-identified female” are common in bigot circles; the terms are intended to delegitimise trans people and suggest they’re not trans.

    Next up: another bigot fucked around and found out. In yet another case reported widely as a nice teacher losing their job just for saying “sex is real” or misgendering a student, Camilla Hannan has been barred from teaching. And if you look at what the tribunal found rather than what the press is telling you it found, you’ll see that Hannan outed one of her LGBTQ+ students online – a massive safeguarding breach as well as horrific behaviour for any teacher – and that her remorse appeared to be “self-serving”: the judge suggested that “Miss Hannan’s remorse stemmed from being caught, rather than from reflections on her own behaviour.”

    Over in The Atlantic, Helen Lewis claimed that when Donald Trump said this week that “Your child goes to school, and they take your child. It was a he, comes back as  a she. And they do it, often without parental consent”, “lines like this would not succeed without containing at least a kernel of truth.” It does not contain a kernel of truth.

    Lastly, we have the inquest into the murder of trans teen Brianna Ghey. In a report that went out of its way never to describe Brianna as “she”, a girl or a young woman, The Times focused on the real victim here: her killer. He was “set for Oxbridge” and was “a good child with good morals”. That’s good morals as in spending “weeks plotting Brianna’s murder after drawing up a ‘kill list’” and then stabbing her 28 times. The good-morals bit is from a statement by the boy’s mother, who of course is going to come to her child’s defence. But the tone of the reporting here and elsewhere strongly suggests that the real tragedy as far as the press is concerned is not that a young trans girl is dead, but that two cisgender people are in prison for killing her.

  • “Hopeful and broken”

    Juliette, who writes the Kierkegaard’s Lunch blog, has written a dual review of the Will and Harper road movie where Will Ferrell goes on a trip with his recently transitioned trans friend Harper Steele. The first half of the review is for cisgender people:

    Watch it all and pick a side. Because you can’t be neutral  – and one side is winning this fight. 

    It’s not the side that meets Harper with compassion and humanity…

    And the second half is for trans people.

    Above all, perhaps be ready to watch it and to feel both ‘I’m glad they made this movie’ and ‘I’m broken that they still felt they had to make this movie’.  I have been watching movies and reading books trying to explain to cisgender people that we are humans, with feelings, not monsters, rapists or freaks for over 40 years.

    I think Juliette is articulating something I’ve been feeling a lot lately: we’ve had decades of programmes and movies and books that have tried to say something very simple, which is that trans people are people. And yet we’re going backwards, not forwards.

    I had hoped that some of all this, and all the rest, might have moved the dial to a place of greater understanding and decency towards us. For a time I thought it was happening. These days, it often feels like faith in that progress was delusional.

    It’s something I think about in relation to this blog, because I’m so tired of writing about the same things over and over again: a group of anti-trans bigots will do something terrible, and nobody gives the slightest shit. Today it’s the news that those friends of JK Rowling, the Tufton Street anti-trans group Sex Matters and our own anti-LGBTQ+ weirdos For Women Scotland, intend to compile a database of every trans woman competing in sports in the entire UK. Given that there are no trans women competing in elite sport, it’s very clear that the role of this database – which seems illegal under multiple laws – is to find targets for harassment and abuse among people taking part in grassroots sport. You’d have to be very stupid to believe that it’s got anything to do with any kind of fairness, let alone protecting any participants.

    Yesterday, it was the news that multiple senior figures in NHS trans care have boycotted the WPATH conference, the international conference on transgender health, but attended a conference by the anti-trans, religion-based pseudoscientists of SEGM, an organisation opposed to all gender-affirming healthcare. The SPLC, which tracks hate groups, says that SEGM is the hub of the “anti-LGBT pseudoscience network”.

    Also yesterday, it emerged that Elon Musk has so far contributed $50m – that we know of – to fund anti-immigration and anti-trans propaganda.

    The day before it was the US school district whose genital-obsessed weirdos carved new windows in its mixed-gender toilets so that adults could watch children urinate, the presidential campaigns blasting anti-trans ads all over the TV, and the presidential candidate claiming that US schools are transgender surgery factories.

    And the day before, and the day before, and the day before.

    As I’ve written before, to be trans right now, to be talking about being trans right now, feels like the curse of Cassandra, fated to know the truth but never be believed. We’ve watched our healthcare, already wretched, be dismantled. We’ve watched our employment rights, already precarious, attacked on multiple fronts. We’ve watched our politicians embrace beliefs that just a few years previously were largely and rightly considered abhorrent. And through it all, instead of reporting on this the bulk of the press is supporting it.

    It’s hard to see a light at the end of this tunnel. I know there is one. But it seems very far away.

  • “I see myself in corners”

    Like pretty much every other trans person on the planet, I watched Will Ferrell’s Netflix documentary Will & Harper. It’s a road trip featuring the titular duo, the Hollywood actor and his recently transitioned friend. Niko Stratis, a writer who is also trans, posted an interesting review that doesn’t gloss over the film’s flaws but makes it clear why it’s worth watching.

    I think the experience of being trans on the road is different if you’re joined by a movie star, and a camera crew, and (probably) security. But I also don’t think all of those things negate how it feels to be sitting in a steakhouse in Texas while hundreds of people take photos of you to post insulting shit on Twitter with.

    …I see myself a lot in corners of this movie. Harper wants to feel at home in her life as a trans woman, wants to hold onto the shades of the past she holds as important truths to her. She wants to drink shit beer, go to dive bars and race tracks and mud pits. It’s only that now when she does, she would prefer to wear a dress and heels when she does this and this should all be afforded her, she deserves that same as anyone, but we know this is not always going to be true, and confronting the way that the world has shut doors to you is a hard truth in transition for a lot of us who lived with relative ease and privilege. 

  • Cass: MMR all over again

    I think in years to come the Cass Review, and the media’s complicity, will be viewed in much the same way as Andrew Wakefield’s infamous MMR scare and its promotion by Private Eye and UK newspapers. Unfortunately like Wakefield, it will continue to harm people until and long after it’s been fully discredited and its author a pariah.

    One of the countries who provided supposedly expert guidance to Cass was Finland, whose Dr. Riittakerttu Kaltiala was on the Cass advisory board. Dr Kaltialia has testified in favour of banning trans-related care in Florida and a new report by Assigned Media reveals the horrific abuse and medical malpractice carried out by her gender clinics. The Cass Review has multiple other links to anti-trans activism.

    The British Medical Association has now announced it will review the Cass report and has made some mild criticisms of it already, and the bigots are furious – which makes you wonder what it is they’re so scared of. After all, if the Cass Review is so scientific, the BMA review will just confirm that. Right?

    There is already a very long list of Cass Review critiques, which have repeatedly demonstrated that this was an ideological project. Dr Ruth Pearce has been tracking them on her website and it’s already quite the collection. Even if you do as Cass did and ignore the voices of trans healthcare experts as biased, it’s hard to argue that the Endocrine Society or the American Academy of Pediatrics are trans activists. But then, this was never about listening to the experts.

  • Hypocrisy

    The Daily Mail, as I’m sure you’re aware, has spent many years now demonising “cross-sex hormones” and the people who take them for reasons such as not wanting to die.

    This is from tomorrow’s front page.

  • Ignore the experts

    There’s a good piece about the puberty blocker ban in The Guardian by Aidan Kelly, a doctor, in which he explains how we’ve ended up in the farcical situation where fashion writers, bigoted journalists and arrogant celebrities are considered experts in trans healthcare but clinicians and prestigious medical organisations are not.

    In this area of healthcare, like no other I know of, the professionals with the requisite expertise are positioned by their critics as having been “captured by ideology” and therefore lacking in credibility. Meanwhile, those without the expertise are positioned as “independent”, which critics argue makes them better able to evaluate the evidence – despite having never worked in the field and having no understanding of its complexities.

    This simply wouldn’t happen in any other kind of healthcare, but in the UK the entire discussion has been given over to people who get their information from Twitter. Which perhaps explains why there’s been virtually no reporting on the international condemnation of the Cass Review from health professionals, or of the extensive analyses that demonstrate that the government is prioritising ideology over evidence in its healthcare policies.

    There’s a good overview here, from the US organisation FAIR:

    Though there is much more evidence now to support gender-affirming care than in 2008, there is also a much stronger anti-trans movement seeking to discredit and ban such care.

    British media coverage has given that movement a big boost in recent years, turning the spotlight away from the realities that trans kids and their families are facing, and pumping out stories nitpicking at the strength of the expanding evidence base for gender-affirming care. Its coverage of the Cass Review followed suit.

     

  • “Where are the commentators?”

    There’s a good piece in today’s National by Caitlin Logan on the issues that real feminist groups are campaigning on while faux-feminists have been scaremongering about trans people.

    Logan identifies key issues including inequality in the social security system – inequality that means by 2027 the average income of women will have dropped by 7% compared to 3% for men – and inadequate statutory maternity pay; inflexible working patterns; and the severe issues that affect immigrant women.

    Where is the Labour Party on these issues? Where are the commentators, anxiously debating the state of women’s rights because of this bleak picture? Where are the journalists, asking political leaders – again and again and again – what they plan to do about it?

    With crushing inevitability, the very first comment on the online article is a dismissive one from an anti-trans man, part of the same pattern that comes up again and again when women are being patronised or worse by genital-obsessed weirdos; the overwhelming majority of “gender critical” posters are straight men.