On Richmond Hill

9 Jun

Email exchanges yesterday, apropos my references to a subset of transgenderism which claims sex to be a ‘spectrum’, suggest I have not made myself sufficiently clear. So let me try again:

I do not deny the sufferings of transgender persons in a transphobic world. They have my sympathy and, should it be called for, my support. This is wholly separable from the issue of whether sex is a spectrum. The latter question is in turn separable from my view that the rapid successes of that subset of trans-women demanding legal recognition as women, regardless of consequence – and silencing dissent on pain of legal sanction and verbal thuggery – is deeply worrying for reasons set out in my previous post.

*

Now to lighter matters. I spied last Friday on Richmond Hill, or rather the Swale waterfall at its foot, a lass more bright than Mayday morn.

* * *

One Reply to “On Richmond Hill”

  1. I know little about the trans debate and the reactionary inside me grumpily turns away. But since I haven’t looked into it, I suppose it would be discreet of me to resist “blowing off” about it. However – I do get annoyed when I feel that the past is being rewritten to suit modern (postmodern?) prejudices. I was attempting to read China Miéville’s “October” – an account of the Russian Revolution when I found, in the pages describing the build up to the revolution, a list of the various sectors involved – and one such was “sexual dissidents in the queer hinterland” – as if the Russia of the early 20th century had a thriving LGBT movement! I think that starving Russian peasants of that time had more important things to think about!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.