Monday, November 18, 2013


OK, a trigger warning: I’m linking to the Daily Mail.  Sorry.

Nikki Sinclaire is an MEP who happens to be transexual.  Nobody seems to particularly care either way that she’s trans.  Nobody except the Daily Mail, obviously, who calls her “sex-change politician”. You’re probably thinking that the only reason there’s a story in the DM about her at all is because she’s trans.  If she opened a supermarket, there’d be an article about Trans Woman Opens Supermarket.  But if you thought that, you’d be wrong. You’d be underestimating the DM. 

Because the article is about how she’s not only trans but lesbian and was turned into a lesbian by being raped.  Seriously. This is their headline:

Sex-change politician says she became lesbian after being raped four years after she became a woman

Note the not-especially cunning use of the word ‘after’ to imply some sort of causality that doesn’t exist.  She’d already realised that she was attracted to women and had a sexual relationship with a woman before she was raped.  She appears to have said that the attack (understandably) made her “very anti-men” but the DM does everything it possibly can to imply that she became lesbian because she was raped.  Because that’s what happens.  Lesbians hate men, you see.  They had a bad experience with a man and decided to become lesbians as a result. It’s not at all that they just happen to be attracted to women.  I guess this also implies that lesbians can be ‘cured’, doesn’t it? They just need a good fucking, right?

Distasteful as this undertone - wait, did I say undertone? It’s clearly an overtone – is, the Mail has more horribleness to offer.  The devil is in the details.  The weirdly irrelevant details that the article trots out.

For example, the Mail thinks it’s important to stress that Ms Sinclaire’s gender reassignment was carried out on the NHS. Why is that detail important, exactly? What does it have to do with the story? Absolutely nothing at all.

And this is just plain weird:

After the attack, which she said left her feeling vulnerable despite being brought up in the capital

Um…. What? It’s surprising when people brought up in London feel vulnerable after being raped?

Then there’s this:

she went with a nurse friend to a hospital in Dartford, Kent, where DNA samples were taken and medics photographed her bruised body.

Am I being oversensitive here or is this a desperate attempt to make the process appear somehow salacious?  What is the purpose of mentioning the photographs or her ‘bruised body’? Isn’t the point that she reported the rape? 

Miss Sinclaire said that she had begun to feel attracted to women shortly before the attack, and had her first sexual experience with a woman with a lesbian she met playing pool in Liverpool.

Again, why is it important that she met a sex partner while playing pool?  It’s an astonishingly pointless detail, why did the Mail find it necessary to include it?

[She] has a long-term female partner who shuns publicity

Does she? Does she ‘shun’ publicity?  That phrase looks calculated to make it seem like she has something to be ashamed of.  I can’t help but wonder what shunning she’s done.  I’ve no idea. But I wouldn’t exactly be surprised if she was accosted on the street by an ignorant reporter and didn’t want to say anything.  What a bitch, eh? But I’m just angrily speculating.

Angry? Did I say I was angry?  When I wrote that I hadn’t read the comments. Holy Cocksucking Christ, the comments. Don’t look at them unless you haven’t had your fix of rage and disgust yet.  You’re going to be close to overdose as it is.

No comments:

Post a Comment