The text and image below are taken from the website of a Health Centre in the USA. Similar can be found in the UK’s NHS literature and, I’ve no doubt, across the Western World at large.
Yes, language does matter – it’s right that ‘spaz’, ‘nigger’, ‘queer’ and the like lost mainstream acceptability – but its fetishisation matters even more. The point goes beyond the transgender issue to Western fixation on ‘identity politics’ in general. This too has a tendency to overstate the importance of terminology. Caitlin Johnstone:
… in just 200 years we’ve progressed from expecting our leaders to slaughter brown-skinned people while saying racist things, to expecting our leaders to slaughter brown-skinned people while condemning racism …
Liberals who go apoplectic at the male universal pronoun, or pick up on such speech crimes as “blackmail” and “this is a black day for …”, have a way of staying silent (at best) in the face of “our” massively propagandised wars on the global south – wars in which not only those dark of skin suffer disproportionately but, only slightly less obviously, women too.
But let me get back to the specific matter of transgender. Here’s a Facebook exchange from the days when I used to engage there.
Tess Crow never did elaborate, but the transgender lunacy continues apace: a large slice of it arising, if you ask me, from widespread failure to disentangle three different things:
- It is not OK to demean, discriminate or in other ways do unpleasant things beginning with the fourth letter of the alphabet to biological males who identify as female.
- Asserting that sex is binary 1 can not (validly, and in the absence of any other indicator) be taken as a denial of the previous point. 2 3
- Whether or not we think sex binary, the acceptance of “people with penises” into spaces hitherto reserved for “people with vaginas” – be they changing rooms, toilets, refuges for victims of domestic violence, jails or sports events – should ring alarm bells. All the more so given the astonishing speed and lack of public debate with which ideas many see as outlandish have been embraced by entitled elites whose decisions affect us all.
After TERF wars broke out in the early hours of yesterday (December 20) in Holyrood, between SNP and Scottish Tory MSPs, The Guardian reported:
Scotland poised to pass law to let people aged 16 and 17 change sex on birth certificate
Transgender 16- and 17-year-olds in Scotland are soon likely to be able to apply to change the sex on their birth certificate for the first time as MSPs debated long into the night the Scottish government’s controversial plans to change gender recognition laws.
The marathon session – believed to be the longest ever sitting of the parliament – ended just after midnight and after only half of tabled amendments had been discussed.
It took place amid chaotic scenes at Holyrood, including disruption from the public gallery, uncertainty over whether certain amendments opened the bill to legal challenge, and attempts to delay proceedings into the new year.
Despite concerns among SNP backbenchers, some Labour members and the Tories, the SNP-Green majority in Holyrood means the bill is highly likely to pass its final stage during a crunch vote on Wednesday afternoon.
The bill will remove the need for a psychiatric diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and reduces the time someone must have been permanently living in their gender before they can apply – from two years to three months, or six months for people aged 16 and 17, with a three-month reflection period during which an individual can change their mind.
One protester in the public gallery shouted “shame on all of you, there’s no democracy in here” after an amendment tabled by Scottish Tories’ community safety spokesperson, Russell Findlay, seeking to prevent convicted sex offenders being allowed to change their gender was voted down ….
Emphasis added. For a more pungent account, see Stuart Campbell’s Wings Over Scotland blog post today. (Thanks Dave Hansell.) Each of the 64 SNP members who voted against the Findlay amendment has their name and mugshot included in Campbell’s Roll of Shame, with the litanically repeated wording:
… disgusting, spineless, rape-enabling handmaiden scum.
Below the line comments make unfavourable comparisons between Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, and convicted paedophile Ghislaine Maxwell, while a more nuanced view, given in a lawyer’s tweet which also features in the post, carries weight with me:
* * *
- FWIW I agree with this, from a Fair Play For Women post in 2020: “The existence of only two sexes does not mean sex is never ambiguous. But intersex individuals are extremely rare, and are neither a third sex nor proof that sex is a “spectrum” or a “social construct.” Not everyone needs to be discretely assignable to one or the other sex for biological sex to be functionally binary. To assume otherwise—to confuse secondary sexual traits with biological sex itself—is a category error.” Furthermore, as feminist blogger Contrarian Quinn argues – Everybody Knows What a Woman is, Including Trans Activists – “even if you accept that intersex people disprove binary sex (they don’t) and sex is socially constructed (it’s not) at best that would lead you to conclude there’s actually no such thing as a “woman”. This is not the conclusion trans activists want you to reach. They do think there’s such a thing as a “woman” and are saying it’s what trans women are.”
- Asserting that sex is – or is not – binary has acquired protected belief status. It is now unlawful in Britain to discriminate against a person on the basis of their beliefs, one way or the other, on this question. That’s thanks to an Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling on the Maya Forstater case.
- In cordial exchanges with Contrarian Quinn, below the post cited in footnote 1, she said to me: “The Maya Forstater ruling [footnote 2] was troubling but it would have also been troubling even if it had worked out in Maya’s favour … [which it subsequently would, due to the EAT ruling noted in footnote 2] … because that would have established the belief in two human sexes as being protected on the same basis as religious and philosophical beliefs, which is also not good. That humans reproduce sexually and that there are two sexes is not akin to a religious belief, it’s objective fact that is obvious to everyone (including the sex-denialists).” I sympathise – these questions are not mooted in a vacuum: they have real world consequences – but distance myself from CQ’s argument. Protected belief status can’t be premised on scientific acceptance. If one belief is to be protected, so should all, however preposterous. If I think Elvis Presley alive and running a fish and chip shop in Rotherham – or, less plausibly, that Sheffield United have a fighting chance of winning the FA Cup – should these be sackable offences? OK, maybe they should at that … You get my point though. The whole notion of protected beliefs – or of outlawed beliefs like “holocaust denial” in Germany – is a seriously slippery slope; one we cannot make safer by distinguishing ‘science’ from ‘religion’.
This is my position on this exactly. I’ve wondered but can’t fathom why anyone finds this objectionable, to the degree that they have a kneejerk response of hurling abuse at anyone and everyone who puts this stance out there.
The failed amendment re sex offenders leaves me lost for words.
I hate the fucking tories, but a stopped clock……
… is right twice a day.
Or, if we take one second as our minimum unit of time – and a clock with corresponding accuracy – once every forty-three thousand and two hundred seconds.
Absolutely! As someone who spent a fair proportion of my professional career working with survivors and perpetrators of sexual abuse I cannot stress enough how calculating, devious and manipulative male sexual abusers can be. I don’t think the public at large understand the full import of this.
See Dave Hansell’s analogy, below, with drink driving. Low incidence of abuse by people-with-penises – of access to spaces once the exclusive preserve of people-with-vaginas – is routinely cited by trans-activists to make the case that opponents of such access are (at best) overreacting. Dave nicely skewers that argument.
I used a different analogy to make the same point in a May 2021 post, not all snakes are venomous …
In addition to death and taxes the third certainty in life is that in every aspect of human activity there will always be some group, sub-group or individual who will take advantage to the point of, to put it in industrial parlance, ‘kicking the arse out of it.’
This reality is why we have rules and laws which are, at least in theory if not always in practice, supposed to apply to everyone and which attempt as far as practicable to cover as many eventualities as possible.
To take an example:
Even a cursory check of the data will show that the percentage of all vehicle drivers who drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs is low. Not, of course low enough even today – there are, as stated above, always some who either ‘kick the arse out of it’ or take unnecessary risks.
The point is, however, that no one would ever in all seriousness suggest that;
A. Because there are a relative few among the whole population of vehicle drivers who do drive under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs that ALL drivers are likely to do the same.
B. Because there are relatively few drivers in the population who do drive under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs that there should be no law which protects the rest of the public – be they drivers of other vehicles (whether trucks, cars, motor bikes/scooters or bicycles), passengers or pedestrians – from the consequences of those who do drive under the influence of such substances.*
*sidebar: the objective reality being that collisions with other objects – whether other vehicles, stationary objects like telegraph poles, walls or lamp posts, or other people which result in injury or death to innocent parties – are significantly increased under such circumstances.
C. The existence of laws and prohibitions against driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs represents some kind of bigoted attack on ALL drivers and is based on a phobia and hatred towards drivers per se.
Yet, this is in principle the exact stance that those voting against the amendment have taken – as reported by Stuart Campbell in his latest article.
If you see someone exiting a venue which serves alcohol who is unsteady on their feet attempting to drive a vehicle you would not expect a call to the police in order to prevent the higher risk of an accident which may injure or kill someone else (or even the driver involved) to result in the police cautioning you for being a bigot against drivers; elected politicians taking to social media to denounce you as a ‘hate criminal’; your employer terminating your employment; or a mob of puerile adolescents (of any chronological age) issuing death and other threats against you with no action by the police, politicians, or employers against those who make such “hate crime” threats.**
**sidebar: Such a stance by said politicians, police and employers tacitly implying your concerns for your personal safety and that of others – previously known as social responsibility – are sufficient justification for taking a position that you brought such treats upon yourself. An inconsistent position given that the same principle is not applied in the normal reciprocal manner the other way around.
Yet, today, this is precisely where we are with the defeat of this amendment in the Scottish Parliament.
You are more likely to be prosecuted by the police or lose your job on a charge of ‘hate crime’ for raising concerns relevant to your individual personal safety or that of someone you are related to or know than an individual who has been found guilty of actions which are not only considered socially unacceptable but are also, at least at the present time, criminally illegal.
The fact that institutions and organisations across these islands and beyond – from the police, judiciary, and legal profession to employers, the NHS, education service, media and politicians of all (alleged) stripes – are pushing and championing this anti-social, anti-society, anti-rational, and anti-woman misogynistic extreme subjective individualism should set alarm bells ringing.
This is an Official Narrative. A Narrative totally in tun e with the ravings of Ayan Rand and Margaret ‘there’s no such thing as society only the individual’ Thatcher. As such, like ALL other Official Narratives – from WMD’s in Iraq to supporting genuine full metal Nazis and fascists in Ukraine – it tolerates no argument , deviation or contradiction.
As another BTL contributor on this site, Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh, put it about eighteen months ago:
“Thus arises an intriguing ‘binary’ relationship between extreme individualistic subjectivism and extreme state authoritarianism. Assertion of non-negotiable pseudo-sacrosanct narcissistic power is common to both. Objective law as irreducible sphere of reality is subverted by arbitrary personalism. Might determines right. Autocracy of self-ID is
mirrored by autocracy on high.”
As with other Official Narratives – the proxy war in Ukraine between Western hegemony and the rest of the Planet, like that of Rome and Carthage before it (see https://thesaker.is/carthage-must-be-destroyed/ ) being another prime example – this Narrative and what it represents is also existential for both sides.
Good use of argument by analogy – and argument by reductio absurdum – in your drink driving example.
The Scottish Government is ‘OIFT’ – Off its F***** Trolley. (As well as NGAFASI – not giving a f*** about Scottish Independence). I have absolutely no idea how this situation arose. One minute we have Alex Salmond running a referendum, the next we have the Wee Liar-in-Chief feathering her own nest and inflicting holier-than-thou extreme Liberalism on anything that moves, or even doesn’t move. It’s like living in Italy in 1922. (OK, not really, but it feels sort of like it). I’ll have to read up about ‘entryism’ again.
The issue of where the political ‘left’ is on this and other Official Narratives has been discussed on previous threads. Most recently on that covering the tacit and active support for Imperial Narratives which foster colour revolutions in States considered Official enemies – ie the not under hegemonic control Carthage’s of our present time.
This stark contrast of the total absence of the political ‘left’ from ground it once occupied – ceding it to the political right – can be found in the fact that most of the opposition and arguments challenging the Official Narrative pushing Gender ideology- and its hidden driver, Transhumanism – is coming from media platforms located on the political right such as Spiked and the Spectator.
The same phenomena is also present in relation to the Ukraine proxy war.
Whilst every self-identified section of the poser ‘left’ – from Paul Mason to Steve Cowen; the Guardian to the AWL – can be found cheerleading for a Narrative which is effectively seeking a victory for Nazis acting as a proxy for Imperial objectives* in Ukraine/Russia (just as many of the same people, publications and organisations cheerlead for the anti-rational extreme individualism of self-identifying Gender ideology which has more in common with the philosophy of Ayan Rand and Margaret Thatcher) we find that ground once occupied by the political ‘left’ is now the territory of the political right:
This short video appeared on the Social Media Platform Gettr yesterday:
Yes. That is non other than Tommy Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon himself ensconced outside the Ukrainian embassy in London highlighting the fact that taxpayers money is being shovelled into Ukraine by the shedload with no oversight or paper trail whilst British pensioners freeze.
Think about that for a moment.
About the fact that a mere twenty years ago the political left in the UK got millions out on the street to protest about an imperial war on a dictator (who was once a CIA asset) under false pretences.
A political left that is now cheerleading for Official Narratives from obliterating biological reality to supporting Nazi proxies in order to control the entire planet and its populace whilst the political right are busy highlighting the contradictions that were once staple bread and butter for and of the political ‘left’.
Back in July last year a piece I posted on both Medium and Substack – entitled “Joining…….. the…….Dots……….Wheeshting…for……Thatcherism…….”
arguing against the political ‘left’s’ embracing of the extreme individualism of Gender Ideology argued:
The political left’s abdication—allowing the authoritarian right to re-frame a reactionary right wing approach and philosophy as belonging to the political left with the left doing a great deal of the heavy lifting to promote and impose it—is a gift to the political right as it allows those on the political right to pose as the sane ones.
Indeed, the political right can barely believe their luck. Not only are significant parts of the political left doing all the heavy lifting for this post-modernist/post structuralist Thatcherite/Randian contagion—which the Establishment elite have injected into the left body politic using
Establishment institutions and organisations acting as support for the enforcement of the process and its narratives — it is making it possible for the political right to gain significant ground by presenting themselves as coming to the rescue of the wider society as the last bulwark against mob
A process which is becoming more obvious by the day.
* regardless of stated intent – see Masons rambling inconsistent piece – a political left which cannot make headway in its own backyard (indeed, a political left which has retreated so far as to let the political right park its tanks on its own turf can be said to be going backwards) has less than zero chance of even picking up any crumbs from its support of The Official Narrative (TON) on Ukraine never mind achieving the kind of objectives set out in Mason’s Walter Mitty article.
But then, what do us unreality deniers know eh?