6 Nov 2008 - Support Julie Bindel for Stonewall Journalist of the Year
Support Julie Bindel for the Stonewall Journalist of the Year award Thursday, 6 November from 5:30pm prompt http://www.vam.ac.uk/your_visit/travel/index.html Demo to support Julie Bindel in her bid for Stonewall Journalist of the Year outside the Stonewall awards at the Victoria & Albert Museum in Kensington. Look out for the eight-foot high purple and white Julie Bindel Fanclub banner. Statement from Julie Bindel In January 2004 I wrote a column for the Guardian Weekend Magazine entitled ‘Gender Benders Beware’. It was primarily about the case of Canadian male-to-female transsexual Kimberly Nixon, who had taken a rape crisis centre to court over its decision not to invite her to be a counsellor for rape victims. As a result of the legal action the centre almost folded. I was, and remain angry that Nixon decided to risk the future of such an important service for rape victims. I stand by my position on this case, but regret using sarcasm, jokes and innuendo which may well have resulted in inciting others to treat transsexual people with disdain or even hatred. The article, unsurprisingly, caused uproar amongst some sections of the transsexual community and its supporters. The Guardian received 200 letters of complaint, four of which were published in the following edition of Weekend, and the readers’ editor devoted his weekly column to it. The 2004 article was the only time I used what could be termed offensive language and sentiment against transsexual people, and yet I am still branded a ‘bigot’ and ‘transphobe’ to this day, despite my three public apologies, (on the Guardian website, on Radio 4, and more recently in a Podcast with Christine Burns). However, the controversy around me and my views gathered pace in September when it was announced that I had been nominated and shortlisted for the Stonewall ‘Journalist of the Year’ award. Immediately, a number of transsexual-rights groups began a Facebook Group, ‘Transphobic Julie Bindel nominated for Stonewall Award’, and a petition, to be handed to Stonewall, demanding my de-nomination. Letters from the lobby have been sent to the judges, the other nominees in all of the categories, Stonewall’s funders and sponsors, and to LGBT and health organisations around the UK and beyond. A demonstration is planned for the evening of the award ceremony, and placards bearing my photograph with a line through my face, with the words ‘Bindel Bigot’, amongst others, will be brandished as people arrive at the venue. I had written about the politics and principles of transsexualism prior to the 2004 column. In 2003, I wrote a feature for the Sunday Telegraph Magazine in which I questioned the diagnosis of ‘gender identity disorder’ (GID) from a feminist, human rights perspective. I outlined the story of Claudia who had undergone surgery in the 1980s, having been ‘railroaded’ into the decision, and had regretted it ever since. I also wrote about Claudia, in the Guardian features section, May 2007, after the ruling from the General Medical Council against Claudia’s psychiatrist Russell Reid. In 1985, after a consultation with Reid that lasted only 45 minutes, Claudia was diagnosed as transsexual and referred for surgery. Reid, until his retirement in 2006, was the UK's best-known expert in GIDs. During more than 20 years of practice, Reid was responsible for assessing whether those wishing to ‘transition’ fitted the criteria for treatment. In May 2007 after a case lasting three years, the General Medical Council's disciplinary committee ruled that Reid had prescribed hormones to five of his patients too soon, and referred them for genital surgery without properly assessing their mental and physical suitability. Whilst fully accepting that Reed was also highly regarded by many other transsexual people, getting to know Claudia was the catalyst for me in deciding to research the hidden side of sex change surgery, namely the validity of the original diagnosis of GID, and the stories of those who regret taking the hormones and having the surgery. In August 2007, I took part in a Radio 4 debating series ‘Hecklers’ where I argued against four expert opponents, two of who are transsexuals, that “Sex change surgery is unnecessary mutilation". I wrote about the experience on the Guardian Comment is Free website, beginning my piece with the words: “There can be no doubt that transsexual people are often targets for abuse and cruelty. Good liberals should find this appalling, and add our voices to those within the transgender rights movement, calling for an end to discrimination towards this community.” I concluded, however, that I still had profound concerns regarding the widespread acceptance that gender is innate and biological. In a piece I wrote for the Guardian newspaper in April this year, on why there appears to never be enough toilets for females in cinemas, etc, I was clearly not being transphobic, but accepting the inevitability of trans people ‘choosing’ their gender: “Billy Wizz, one of the LGFF organisers, points out that the festival has a commitment to screening films of interest to the transgender community, "One of our priorities is to work with our audiences to ensure we provide events and facilities that they have requested," he says. But why would transgender folk need a "gender-neutral" loo at a gay film festival, when they would ordinarily use the one prescribed to their chosen gender?” Why was this piece singled out as “transphobic”? My understanding of ‘transphobia’ is a hatred and fear of transsexual people. I refute this accusation, despite the fact that I expressed views, some 4 years ago in one column, in an offensive and insensitive manner. My position is this: I question the basis of the diagnosis, coming from ultra-traditional male psychiatrists, at a time when gender polarisation and homophobia work hand-in-hand. Iran carries out the highest number of sex change surgeries than in the world. It is unnecessary mutilation – in my opinion there is nothing ‘wrong’ with those who are currently seen as candidates for transgender surgery – they just don’t fit the gender stereotype. Surgery is an attempt to keep gender stereotypes intact. The diagnosis of childhood GID follows old-fashioned notions of what constitutes appropriate behaviour for those assigned to the sex classes of male and female. It is precisely this idea that certain distinct behaviours are appropriate for males and females that underlies feminist criticism of the phenomenon of ‘transgenderism’. This view is shared by a large number of feminists of all ages and backgrounds. I am open to exploring (through academic debate) how my views on the inappropriateness of medical diagnosis fit with those of experienced transsexual academics and activists who ALSO have objections to the way medicine models and pathologises transsexual experiences. For instance, much has already been written on whether transsexual people's experiences of themselves should continue to be classified as a mental illness in the next edition of US Psychiatry's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM V). Since the age of 16 I have been an outspoken and proud lesbian – often at significant personal cost to myself. I have been beaten up (and hospitalised) by anti-lesbian men, and my home was once firebombed by fascists when I was living in a lesbian relationship with a black woman. Over the years, particularly as my writing has become mainstream, I regularly receive hate mail from anti-lesbian and misogynist readers. Woman and lesbian hating opponents have taken offence at the fact that I speak out against rape, child sexual abuse, murder and prostitution of women. Others have threatened me with harm if I continue to name men as the common perpetrators of sexual violence. Whilst I have not become desensitised to this abuse, I have understood it in the context of a proud and courageous battle against women’s oppression, dating back to the beginning of the women’s liberation movement. Thus, I feel I am well qualified to understand the meaning and implications of bigotry. To face abuse and threats from a group of people who name me as a ‘bigot’ and worse is nothing short of offensive. I have a public reputation as a human rights defender. It is therefore extremely painful to be portrayed all over the web as a person whose nomination for a prize is worthy of a massive hate campaign. In fact I have debated the issues of transsexual identity with several leading members of the community since then, and have also, since 2004, written other articles about transsexual issues which question the, in my opinion, often dire way that people presenting as trans are treated by the medical profession. If these articles are deemed transphobic, then it is obvious that merely to question the diagnosis and attempt to open a debate on this issue is such. I did not ask to be nominated for this award. However, I can see that I am a worthy contender having raised a positive profile of lesbians in the mainstream press. Certainly I have done so more than any other journalist writing in a national newspaper in the UK. The bullying insistence from some groups and individuals to have Stonewall withdraw my nomination is anti-lesbian in the extreme. Indeed, I am the only lesbian in the category. Stonewall is an organisation funded to support lesbian rights (amongst gay and bisexual). I believe I am the victim of an organised group of bullies who seek to discredit me and silence any radical feminist debate around the issue of GID and of the transsexual industry. Stonewall has refused the demands to de-nominate me on the grounds that I am a worthy candidate who has written more in the mainstream press about lesbian issues than any other lesbian-identified journalist. I have been told that despite my apologies I am still responsible, according to a number of transsexual people, of ‘genocide’, because I do not want to accept the GID diagnosis. My apologies have been dismissed by the vast majority of my critics, and the 2004 article repeated over and over again. It would seem that redemption is an impossibility, and yet some of my critics seem to think this only applies to me. For example, on one of the many websites where discussion of my nomination is occurring, one critic removed remarks she herself had made about me previously. In an attempt to justify this action, she wrote: “Alright, I removed the phrase ‘rabid, tampon-chewing sexist’, a phrase of mine which I used to describe Julie Bindel when I was younger and a lot more naive, and which I feel was and is inappropriate as well as ugly and sexist itself - I was trying to be shocking, without really any point to it.” This Blogger went on to claim that I ‘genuinely hate men’. So, it would appear that my critics refuse to accept that I should not be judged on an article written almost five years ago, but think it is acceptable that others can regret writing vile, misleading and abusive comments about me in the very recent past and absolve themselves of any responsibility. I have been castigated beyond belief for causing offence to the transsexual community, by people hypocritically using gross and vitriolic insults and threats against me, whilst continuing to insist that this protest is not about me, but Stonewall’s refusal to include the ‘T’ in LGB. For example: “Personally I believe that Julie Bindel is a fascist who normally gives feminists a bad name.” One thread entitled ‘Genocide and Julie Bindel, one poster wrote: “What would Stonewalls reaction have been had a BME group nominated Ayatollah Khomeini as Politician of the Year. Would Stonewall accept Ernst Rohm* for nomination in a new Historical Figure category.” *gay man who was deputy leader of the Nazi party until the Night of the Long Knives in which he was murdered. “She is a worthless piece of shit. Fuck Julie Bindel. She is an active oppressor of trans people. I hope she dies an agonizing and premature death of cancer in the very near future. It would make the world a better place.” I do not, as accused ‘single out’ the transsexual community to deny them a ‘right’ to argue that their condition is innate or biological. I have argued the same about lesbian and gay identities. I have consistently maintained that there is no scientific basis to sexual orientation. For example, on December 14 2004 I wrote in the Guardian’s Comment section a piece entitled, “If we wanted to be straight, we would be”, in response to the latest scientific claims that sexuality is pre-determined in the womb: “All these claims serve the notion that there is something wrong with those of us who shun heterosexuality. Many lesbians and gays want to believe we were "born that way" to provoke sympathy and understanding. In the mid-1980s, during the kerfuffle around Section 28, I dared to write in a gay publication that being lesbian or gay was a positive choice. I was inundated with letters telling me what trouble I had caused, because if heteros thought we were choosing to be deviant, that means we are responsible, not our genes. Some said: "I have known I was gay since I was three months old. How can it be a choice?" Obviously she was exaggerating. It is rare to remember anything before two years old, by which time we are significantly socialised. You just have to look at the cries for Barbie dolls and Action Men from toddlers to see how masculine and feminine traits are taught to children almost from the womb.” I have regularly found cause to criticise lesbians and gay men. For example I have written in various publications, including Diva magazine, that lesbians who sexually objectify women, by visiting lap dance clubs and buying or producing pornography, are as complicit as the men who do so. I have said of gay men that most appear to be complacent about political issues outside of those which affect them directly, and of the need to address the issue of the sexual exploitation of young gay men on the commercial scene. As far as I am aware, the transsexual community has not concerned itself with these sentiments. Radical feminists were the first to deconstruct gender and name it as a ‘social construction’ which is harmful to females. However, the arrogance of the transsexual lobby engaged in this ‘debate’ is staggering. For example: “Is that strictly speaking feminist theory, or is it just thinly-veiled transphobia masquerading as feminism? I mean, I can think of Julie Bindel credibly coming out with something like that, but is there a body of theory? I'm afraid I'm not very up on modern feminism. But let’s get to Julie Bindel specifically, rather than the privileged norm born dictatorship she represents. A pathological hatred of transsexual people is clearly the order of the day with Bindel and her friends.” As an out lesbian feminist living in a misogynistic, anti-lesbian world, I challenge gender norms each and every day. Growing up female, but refusing to conform, I have been severely punished and threatened for doing so. I consider myself to have rejected the gender assigned to me, by a patriarchal culture, and am therefore qualified to name myself a ‘gender resister’. I have been blamed for the internal factions within the so-called LGBT movement, as well as the dissatisfaction of the transsexual movement towards Stonewall. One Blogger, who for a number of years has been deeply and unfairly critical of my work on prostitution, has joined in with transsexual people on the attacks on me. The heading on her Blog, “Stonewall Awards nominee causes LGBT split” implicitly blaming me for the ensuing kerfuffle. The fact that I have been supported by a number of transsexual people has caused bad feeling. I have been told, however, by some transsexual activists, that I am not a ‘real woman’ in the way that they are, “Because we have chosen to become women, unlike Bindel and her ilk, who just were born that way.” One transsexual woman claims that I am not a real lesbian, which suggests that I am dishonest and misleading my editors and readers. She wrote: “Julie Bindel is what I understand to be a ‘political lesbian, that is someone who does not do anything so queer as to have homosexual sex, but colonises lesbianism for her political ideology. The woman she introduced as her partner…it would not be the first time people have masqueraded their relationships for convenience.” And… “Bindel is on the record as supporting reparative therapy, apparently to be used to eradicate transpeople. As a lesbian, I am ashamed to be associated in any way with someone this bigoted, and Stonewall does not represent me.” “I cannot see what Julie Bindel has done to contribute to a greater understanding of either lesbian/gay sexuality or transsexuality. Neither do I understand why Stonewall would want to honour her.” I have offered to speak with, both privately and publicly, to various members of the transsexual community involved in this campaign against me. Whilst a small number have accepted, the majority have refused. I believe that they are not interested in hearing what I have to say, but merely wish to use me as their ‘whipping girl’, and to take all of their anger out on me. I refuse to be a scapegoat, or to be silenced by them. I do not need the Stonewall award in order to continue writing about controversial topics with a view to challenging views and ‘truths’ which I, for good and sound reason, dispute. In my 30 years as a political activist, I have never allowed the vile misogyny and anti-lesbian bullying I have endured over the years in response to my writing and activism to shut me up. I certainly will not let this campaign against my feminist and journalistic integrity do it now. ENDS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Articles Here are links to just some of Julie's Feminist articles in The Guardian this year: "School for deaf children faces further hurdles" "Revealed: The truth about brothels" "Mirren's twisted logic" (on date rape) "A literature of our own" (on lesbian fiction) "From inside to outsider" (on women in prison and lack of care packages when they leave) "A huge job for the boys" (Vernon Coaker and DV and prostitution laws) "An end to the easy way out" (on homicide laws) "There is no excuse" (on rape laws) "This one's for Emma" (on the law over women who kill after sustained abuse) "Rape victims nationwide need this support" "A rape campaigner runs for office" "Two women being killed each week" "Beyond the pleasure beach" (on child sexual abuse) "A mother who fought to the end" (on Pauline Campbell) "No time for battle fatigue" (on peacewoman Pat Arrowsmith) "Its more like a strip club than a restaurant" (on Hooters chain) "Its abuse and a life of hell" (on prostitution) "Get prostitutes off the streets and into a Jack The Ripper exhibition" (January 2008)