Madlibs: Julie Burchill "Transsexuals" article as written by a male chauvinist

I do not stand by the comments that appear below. I simply took Julie Burchill's original "Transsexuals..." piece and substituted all reference to transgender persons with "women", and made the writer a chauvanist man railing at "feminism" (as Burchill is a self-defined "feminist"). 

This was deleted by The Guardian website after being posted as a comment underneath the original article. 

This suggests that The Guardian considers the transgender community "fair game" for attack, but not so feminists. The content is the exact same, only the terms of abuse and genders of the participants have been changed. Well, not the exact same - I left out the first two paragraphs and Burchill's clunking product-placement (because no-one's asking, Julie). 

WARNING: some rude language follows.

With this in mind, I was incredulous to read that my friend was being monstered on Twitter, to the extent that he had quit it, for supposedly picking on a minority – women. Though I imagine it to be something akin to being savaged by a dead sheep, as Denis Healey had it of Geoffrey Howe, I nevertheless felt indignant that a man of such style and substance should be driven from his chosen mode of time-wasting by a bunch of chicks in slutty clothing.

To my mind – I have given cool-headed consideration to the matter – a gaggle of women telling Simon Moore how to write looks a lot like how I'd imagine the Black and White Minstrels telling Usain Bolt how to run would look. That rude and ridic.

Here's what happened. In a book of essays called "Rad, The Whassup Anthology" Si contributed a piece about men's anger. He wrote that, among other things, men were angry about "being criticised for not having the perfect bottom – that of a Scottish night bus driver". Rather than join him in decrying the idea that every bloke should aim to think like an oven-ready heart attack, the very vociferous women's lobby and their grim groupies picked on the messenger instead.

I must say that my only experience of the women's lobby thus far was hearing about the vile way they have persecuted another of my friends, the veteran men's rights and partner-ownership activist Jake Barrington – picketing events where he is speaking about such issues as the decriminalising of child labour just because he refuses to accept that their menopause is the most pressing problem that men – real and pussy-whipped – are facing right now.

Similarly, Simon's original piece was about the real horror of the bigger picture – how the savagery of a few old hags is having real, ruinous effects on the lives of the weakest members of our society, many of whom happen to be men. The reaction of the women's lobby reminded me very much of those wretched inner-city kids who shoot another inner-city kid dead in a fast-food shop for not showing them enough "Pokemon cards". Ignore the real enemy – they're strong and will need real effort and organisation to fight. How much easier to lash out at those who are conveniently close to hand!

But they'd rather argue over semantics. To be fair, after having their fannies all dried up (see what I did there?) by endless decades in academia, it's all most of them are fit to do. Educated beyond all common sense and honesty, it was a hoot to see the screaming tarts accuse Si of male privilege; it may have been this that made him finally respond in the subsequent salty language he employed to answer her Twitter critics: "People can just fuck off really. Stick a pad up their kludge and be more ableist than me. Good for them."

He, the other JB and I are part of the minority of men of working-class origin to make it in the female-dominated lesbian porn industry and I think this partly contributes to the stand-off with the hos. (I know that's a wrong word, but having recently discovered that their lot describe men as 'Bros' – sounds like crow, dross, Bromley; all nasty stuff – they're lucky I'm not calling them bitches. Or cunts.) We know that everything we have we got for ourselves. We have no family money, no safety net. And we are damned if we are going to be accused of being privileged by a bunch of dolly slags in fuck-me pumps.

It's been noted before that cyberspace, though supposedly all new and shiny, is plagued by the age-old boredom of women telling men not to shut-up and threatening them with all kinds of nastiness if they persist in saying what they feel.

The women's lobby is now saying that it wasn't so much the initial piece as Simon's refusal to apologise when told to that "made" them drive him from Twitter. Presumably he is meant to do this in the name of solidarity and the "struggle", though I find it very hard to imagine this mob struggling with anything apart from the English language and the concept of free speech.

To be born without a cock and then plead special privileges – above wholesome, natural men, 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.

Bitches, hos, whatever you're calling yourselves these days – don't threaten or bully us lowly wholesome, decent men, I warn you. We may not have as two lovely big bouncing PhDs like you, but we've experienced a lifetime of pissing standing up and female admonishment and many of us are now staring viagra and the middle-age spread straight in the face – and still not flinching. Trust me, you ain't seen nothing yet. You really won't like us when we're angry.