I am suffering from a monumental bout of cis-titus, I have been reading extensively on the subject for 24 hours – and found myself in a world of such venom, such rancor, such toxic spleen, that I am truly shocked.
Let me explain. Cis-titus has nowt to do with that burning blazing infection of the bladder, and everything to do with being forced to live in a state of Cis – on pain of death. Still puzzled? That’s because it is a new word, conjured out of nowhere, to describe the human condition, and avoid giving offence to those who’s place in the human condition is a tad confused. Those of us happy to remain as designated at birth, male or female, are Cis; those who feel that God’s best effort would be improved with a cut or paste job don’t like the term ‘biological female’ or ‘genetic male’ – it reminds them that some people feel that being feminine or masculine amounts to more than having your big toe cut off and transplanted onto your forehead, or whatever surgical intervention they chose.
It was a chemical term originally, Cis-trans isomerism, which I shan’t even try to explain – look it up for yourself. I started reading because I was puzzled by the Suzanne Moore Twitter fracas. Suzanne writes for the Guardian, that bastion of inclusiveness and liberal thinking, an inclusiveness and liberality that does not extend to anyone mentioning the word transsexual. What she said was that women were expected ‘to look like Brazilian transexuals’ – it appears to be an innocent enough remark, complimentary even, given that it suggests that looking ‘like a Brazilian transexual’ was too high a standard to expect the average woman to attain, and that the average inhabitant of the (British) female race should be content to aspire to the level of ‘overstuffed DFS sofa’.
She forgot to morph off into a monologue on the hardships faced by Brazilian transexuals, the high murder rate (allegedly 1 in 12 – personally I’d move house) and the disgusting slurs and vile remarks cast in their direction as they go about their daily business. Cue a Twitter uprising. The politically correct mob was on the march, demanding an apology of behalf of all Brazilian transexuals. Suzanne didn’t apologise for describing them as an unattainable standard of feminine appearance, and eventually flounced off Twitter with a parting ‘cutting’ remark - “People can just fuck off really. Cut their dicks off and be more feminist than me. Good for them.”
Dearie me, Twitter wasn’t going to stand for that. When Julie Birchill piled in to defend her fellow ‘working-class feminist journalist’ (lurve the right-on credentials!):
“To have your cock cut off and then plead special privileges as women – above natural-born women, who don’t know the meaning of suffering, apparently – is a bit like the old definition of chutzpah: the boy who killed his parents and then asked the jury for clemency on the grounds he was an orphan.”
It was not so much oil on troubled waters, as napalm on a fiercely blazing bonfire. How dare she defend a woman who had mentioned transexuals without whining about their special disadvantages in life? Now Suzanne Moore could have easily said that women were expected ‘to look like the singer Cher’ after God-knows-how-much-plastic-surgery, without going off on a long dirge about the hardships faced by your average multi-millionaire crooner and that would have been OK, but to mention the word transexual in a national newspaper and not take the opportunity to promote the idea that they are ‘different’, more ‘maligned’, more ‘vulnerable’, more in need of ‘special protection’ (hang on, I thought the idea was that they were the same as we ‘Cis’?) was unforgivable - for another feminist to take advantage of Free Screech and pen a coruscating defence, equal in every way to the bile that had been sent Suzanne Moore’s way, was the cue for a Government Minister to rise up from the Equality slurry whence she had been resting, and demand that the newspaper editor curtail said Free Screech and remove the article. Which it did.
This was the point at which I picked up on the word ‘Cis’ and started reading – and met the Militant Tendency of the Transgender world. Only in print fortunately, you wouldn’t want to meet them in the flesh on a dark night. They have a charming meme that they publicise. ‘Die Cis Scum‘ – they are so fond of it that they tattoo it on their arms, on their fingers, and mention it at every opportunity. Google ‘Die Cis Scum‘ – it’s an education.
Now I was under an unfortunate handicap, in that I do have a good friend who has made this difficult journey from married man and father to legally female. He was a highly intelligent and gentle man, in every sense of the word, who has thought through his transition to highly intelligent and gentle woman carefully. I say handicap, because he-now-she had so coloured my judgement that I imagined that all those who termed themselves transgendered were of the same ilk. I suppose if Gordon Brown was the only politician you had ever met, you might imagine that all politicians were barking mad incompetents. Er, hang on…
Anyway, far from being vulnerable, in need of protection, or needing to be vigilant that they didn’t find themselves on the wrong end of bullying – it is they who are doing the bullying. Promulgating the idea that anyone who doesn’t think that a baseball bat wielding, shaven headed, not-quite-sure-whether-its-heading-for-male-or-female is a perfectly normal member of the human race – and should quite literally die!
Needless to say, they don’t think their free screech should be curtailed.
I find the idea that someone can think I should die because I don’t hold the same views as they, utterly repulsive. That really is hate speech. They can chop off as many bits, or add bits to their hearts content, but they will never be cis-ters under the skin with me. Nothing to do with their genitals, or their gender; I no more care what is in their trousers than in whether they prefer the missionary position or swinging from a chandelier. I do care that a Government Minister steps in to an infantile argument on Twitter and demands that a newspaper editor remove an article, not for libel, but for offending a cabal of bullies. Several of the transgendered community have said that Birchill’s article made them feel ‘suicidal’. Can I respectfully suggest that if the Militant Wing of the Transgendered Community had not launched such a hysterically vile and unnecessary attack on Suzanne Moore in the first place, the Birchill article would never have been written. Take some responsibility folks.
Is any Government Minister going to step in and demand that tattoo be removed because it is offending my right to consider myself in a different league from the person sporting it? I doubt it.
Now it seems we are going to have an inquiry into Julie Birchill’s column - wouldn’t it be more to the point to have an inquiry into a Government Minister demanding that an article be removed – and the Editor complying? How many inquiries can one country afford?