"Please don't pretend two dads is the new normal': RICHARD LITTLEJOHN says children benefit most from being raised by a man and woman." screamed the headline. If you haven't read it and wish to do so, you can find it here. Please make sure there are no breakables or heavy throwable objects nearby before you do so.
I generally avoid the Daily Mail, although I'm very aware who Richard Littlejohn is. His regular bigoted attacks on the LGBT+ community frequently cause a furore on Twitter, which makes it difficult not to be. Like Katie Hopkins, Littlejohn makes his living from writing the most hateful and offensive “think pieces” he can, which frequently come back to bite him. This “gem” was retweeted onto my Twitter timeline a few times yesterday and, against my better judgement, I decided to read it. I found myself shouting at my mobile phone screen, arguing with every paragraph - sometimes every sentence - and decided I had to write my thoughts down to clear my mind. This blog doesn't get much traffic, so this entry is really just for me, although I will share it as always.
Two dads isn't the "new normal" (someone "borrowed" that from a US comedy series), it's just normal. Families come in all shapes and sizes and, if the children are loved and well cared for, the sex of whoever is raising them doesn't matter.
There's nothing unusual in posting an ultrasound on social media. Most parents-to-be post photos of their nascent offspring online, mums and dads alike. Even in the 1970s, when Littlejohn's children were born, ultrasounds were routinely used during pregnancy. If social media had been around then I'm sure Littlejohn would have displayed his "grainy image" just as proudly as Tom and Dustin did. And why not? A new life is something to be celebrated. It is not something unpleasant, such as the duodenal ulcer, triple heart bypass or colonoscopy that Littlejohn compared their new son or daughter to. The comparison was spiteful and completely unnecessary.
In fact, Littlejohn's whole article is churlish and filled with vitriol - "Pass the sick bag, Alice"(!) Not that Littlejohn is homophobic; perish the thought(!) He's a self-professed supporter of civil partnerships, so he can't possibly be homophobic. However, the fact that he refers to Tom and Dustin's announcement as a "publicity stunt" suggests otherwise. He goes on to complain that we know nothing of the mother of the child; who she is, where she lives, or when the baby is due. Because all pregnant mothers want the tabloid press camped out on their doorstep 24 hours a day for the next 6 months of their lives. That wouldn't be at all stressful or upsetting(!)
Littlejohn posits that Tom and Dustin shopped for a baby in America, due to strict UK laws on surrogacy, then further suggests that this child is nothing more than a fashion accessory, "like those preposterous designer handbag dogs." That is such a malicious insinuation, not to mention an incredibly insulting way to refer to a baby.
He then speculates on who is the father of the child. He finds it "slightly disconcerting" that there wasn't "so much as a raised eyebrow, as if it would be impolite even to ask any questions about the parentage." Well, yes, Richard, it would be downright rude and none of your fucking business!
Littlejohn then shifts his focus to the recent article in the medical journal 'Transgender Health' documenting the case of a 30-year-old trans* woman who successfully breastfed her baby (birthed by her partner) after undergoing experimental hormone therapy. He takes issue with this person being described as a woman because she hasn't had gender reassignment surgery (despite her taking feminizing hormones for 6 years and having developed fully grown breasts) and states that "someone in possession of a full set of wedding tackle is a man, not a woman". He goes on to speculate on the parentage of the baby in the case report and questions the long-term effects on the baby from having been breastfed by a "man".
While the mainstream media reported this as a "world first", the trans* community were quick to respond with their own accounts of breastfeeding their children dating back a decade or more. If any of those children experienced adverse effects I'm sure we would have heard about it. Additionally, it would be unethical and immoral for a doctor to undertake such an experiment if there was any likelihood of harming the baby. In an interview with Tonic the doctor in question, Dr. Tamar Reisman, an endocrinologist with the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, explains that the drugs involved are well understood, with predictable effects. Very little is excreted in breast milk and the American Academy of Pediatrics signed off on it. None of this stops Littlejohn calling the veracity of the article into question, despite it being published in a reputable medical journal, unlike his bigotry-laden invective.
Littlejohn ends his rant by calling the parents of the child "selfish", then speculates that scientists are “probably” in the process of creating fertile hermaphrodites(!) and closes by implying Tom Daley is a trans* woman.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but why Richard Littlejohn is paid to write such noxious, overtly homophobic and transphobic, wildly inaccurate - and possibly libellous - material, I don't understand. It's neither reasoned nor well-researched, and it does nothing to inform or encourage civilised debate. It's just hateful rhetoric from an invidious old man who has forgotten the basic principles of journalism.
As a direct consequence of Littlejohn's column, Center Parcs pulled their advertising from the Daily Mail. Sadly, I don't think this will adversely affect either the Daily Mail or Richard Littlejohn. As long as people continue to buy their foul rag they have no reason to change anything and will continue to peddle their filth.
No comments:
Post a Comment