Features

It’s dangerous and wrong to tell all children they’re ‘gender fluid’

What started as a baffling skirmish on the wilder shores of victim culture has now turned into something more menacing

30 January 2016

9:00 AM

30 January 2016

9:00 AM

Once upon a time, ‘binary’ was a mathematical term. Now it is an insult on a par with ‘racist’, ‘sexist’ or ‘homophobic’, to be deployed as a weapon in our culture wars. The enemy on this particular battleground is anyone who maintains that there are men and there are women, and that the difference between them is fundamental.

This ‘binary’ distinction is accepted as a given by the vast majority of the human race. No matter. It is now being categorised as a form of bigotry. Utterly bizarre? Scoff at your peril. It’s fast becoming an enforceable orthodoxy, with children and young people particularly in the frame for attitude reassignment.

Many didn’t know whether to be amused or bemused when the feminist ideologue Germaine Greer was attacked by other progressives for claiming that transgender men who became women after medical treatment were still men. What started as a baffling skirmish on the wilder shores of victim culture has now turned into something more menacing.

The Commons Women and Equalities Select Committee has produced a report saying transgender people are being failed. The issue is not just whether they really do change their sex. The crime being committed by society is to insist on any objective evidence for this at all. According to the committee, people should be able to change their gender at will merely by filling in a form. Instead of requiring evidence of sex-change treatment, Britain should adopt the ‘self-declaration’ model now used in Ireland, Malta, Argentina and Denmark. To paraphrase Descartes, ‘I think I am a man/woman/of no sex, therefore I am.’

The committee’s chairwoman, the Tory MP Maria Miller, says there’s no need for gender categories on passports, drivers’ licences or other official forms because gender is irrelevant. ‘We should be looking at ways of trying to strip back talking about gender,’ she says. But it’s people like her and her committee who have made it a frontline issue.

In 2004, Parliament passed the Gender Recognition Act; in 2010, the Equality Act made gender reassignment a protected characteristic; in 2011, the government published its ‘Advancing transgender equality’ action plan.

The NHS has a National Clinical Reference Group for Gender Identity Services. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has a National Policing Lead on Transgender. Last November, the Department for Education flew the transgender flag to mark the Transgender Day of Remembrance.

In short, the political class is obsessed by gender issues. I trust you are, too. Surely you can reel off the differences between trans, intersex, polygender, asexual, gender–neutral and genderqueer? Do keep up. We’re all gender fluid now, no?

No. Gender is not fluid. What is fluid, however, is the language.

The notion that gender can be deconstructed in accordance with ideology started in the 1970s when (ironically, in view of the Greer row) it was promoted by feminists for whom gender was not a biological fact but a social construct. But it’s not. Gender derives from a complex relationship between biological sex and behaviour. And nature and nurture are not easily separable. Some unfortunates feel they are trapped in the wrong gender. Surgery may or may not resolve this confusion. Many who change sex still don’t feel comfortable; tragically, some even commit suicide.

[Alt-Text]


Crucially, however, such people are desperate to make that change. That’s because for trans people gender is certainly not irrelevant but is of all–consuming importance. Yet Miller and her committee would deprive them of the ability to announce their new sexual identity on passports or other official documents.

Is this not, by Miller’s own logic, cruelty to trans people? But of course logic doesn’t come into this. Gender politics is all about subjective feelings. It has nothing to do with fairness or equality. It embodies instead an extreme egalitarianism which holds that any evidence of difference is a form of prejudice.

If people want to identify with either gender or none, no one is allowed to gainsay it. Objective reality crumbles under the supremacy of subjective desire. Those who demur are damned as heartless.

In fact, gender fluidity itself creates victims. Professor Paul McHugh is the former chief psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins hospital in the US. In the 1960s this pioneered sex-reassignment surgery — but subsequently abandoned it because of the problems it left in its wake. Most young boys and girls who seek sex reassignment, McHugh has written, have psychosocial issues and presume that such treatment will resolve them. ‘The grim fact is that most of these youngsters do not find therapists willing to assess and guide them in ways that permit them to work out their conflicts and correct their assumptions. Rather, they and their families find only “gender counsellors” who encourage them in their sexual misassumptions.’

In two states, any doctor who looked into the psychological history of a ‘transgender-ed’ boy or girl in search of a resolvable problem could lose his or her licence to practise medicine.

In line with such suppression of medical freedom, Miller’s committee also wants to dump McHugh’s ‘medicalised approach’. The MPs claim it ‘pathologises trans identities’ and runs ‘contrary to the dignity and personal autonomy’ of trans people. They note that a UK survey found about half of young and a third of adult transgender people said they had attempted suicide. The committee does not suggest this is most likely because of the unbearable mental conflict over their sexual identity. Instead, it blames ‘transphobia’ for driving them to this despair.

Thus Miller and her colleagues do two things: display callous denial of the tragic condition of such unfortunates, and set up the basis for state-mandated coercion.

Their prime target, of course, will be children, whose young minds can be so easily manipulated. Trans and gender issues, says the committee, should be taught in schools as part of personal, social and health education.

We can all predict what will happen. Gender fluidity will be actively promoted as just another lifestyle choice. Under the commendable guise of stopping the minute number of transgender children being bullied, the rest of the class will be bullied into accepting the prescribed orthodoxy — that gender is mutable, and any differentiation in value between behaviour or attitudes is bigoted and prohibited.

The intention is to break down children’s sense of what sex they are and also wipe from their minds any notion of gender norms. In American schools, last November’s Transgender Awareness Month was a festival of such indoctrination. Children were handed out ‘pronoun buttons’, badges which identified their own preferred personal pronouns as specific to any gender they chose or none.

Brighton College, one of Britain’s leading private schools, has abolished distinctions between boys’ and girls’ uniforms. All can now choose between wearing a blazer, trousers and tie or skirt and bolero jacket. The school’s head, Richard Cairns, says he only wants to make his transgender pupils happy. But inviting boys to wear skirts is a dangerous frivolity. Promoting gender fluidity is likely to make children confused or distressed. If a girl prefers to climb trees rather than play with dolls or a boy likes ballet, will they now wonder if they’re really not a girl or a boy at all?

Worse still, something most children grow out of may cause them to become — to use the Miller committee’s own boo-word — pathologised. According to Professor McHugh, prepubescent children who begin imitating the opposite sex are being treated by misguided doctors with puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgery less onerous — even though such drugs stunt children’s growth and risk causing sterility. These are the very drugs that the Miller committee wants the specialist Tavistock gender clinic to prescribe to children with less delay.

These MPs are turning gender confusion from a health issue into a political statement to be enforced. So of course they also want to turn denying or questioning gender fluidity into a hate crime. Certainly, anyone who attacks or threatens people on account of their gender should be prosecuted. But the committee wants ‘stirring up hatred’ against trans people to become a crime — which would include insulting them by saying they belong to the sex they deny.

The Law Commission didn’t support that, observing that ‘criminalisation might also inhibit discussion of disability and transgender issues and of social attitudes relating to them’.

You bet. The Miller committee wants ‘mandatory national transphobic hate-crime training for police officers and the promotion of third-party reporting’.

Heaven help us — Caroline Dinenage, a junior minister at the Ministry of Justice, meekly agreed to this sinister proposal and confessed the government was ‘very much on a journey’.

Indeed, you could say the West is very much on a journey. From divorce and lone parenthood to gay marriage, what was once regarded as a source of disadvantage or category error has been transformed into a human right. In the process, compassion has turned into oppression.

The Miller committee writes about one of its witnesses who talked about the government’s Advancing Transgender Equality plan: ‘Christie Elan-Cane told us that the plan was, from per [sic] point of view as a non-gendered person, “all plan and no action, because nothing resulted from it”.’

Yes, I also stumbled over what I thought was a typing error; but no, a footnote tells us: ‘Christie Elan-Cane asked us to use the non-gendered pronoun “per”.’ Such supine surrender to this hijack of language, the signature motif of totalitarian political systems, tells you more than anything else what’s in store for us.

Gender cannot be at real risk because it is anchored in an immutable reality. What is on the cards is oppression, socially engineered dysfunction and the loss of individual freedom. And it is so-called Conservative politicians who are helping wave the red flag of revolution.

Melanie Phillips was on the staff of the Guardian for 16 years, three of them as news editor. She is now a columnist for the Times.

More Spectator for less. Stay informed leading up to the EU referendum and in the aftermath. Subscribe and receive 15 issues delivered for just £15, with full web and app access. Join us.


Show comments
  • Richard Lutz

    Trans people are a political football used by progressives to further their gender equality agenda. They don’t give a toss about their psychological health any more than they give a toss about the psychological health of young children.

  • WFB56

    An excellent, if alarming piece, thank you Melanie. My only reservation is that more opprobrium should be heaped on the hapless Maria Miller; among the raft of idiotic politicians in Westminster, she, surely is in a league of her own for stupidity.

  • Revd Robert West

    Brilliant piece as usual from so erudite and objective a commentator.

    Why is there this madness about? That is difficult to explain.

    But in schools it has been promoted for decades, not education so much as ideology.

    Last year, a class told me that I could not use the word ‘Negro’ because it was racist. I told them in response, ‘No: it is Portuguese”. It is indeed a loan word from that Latin tongue. I was told by my pupils that the Deputy Head Master had told them that it was racist and could not be used, thus slighting a long standing ally of ours and making any Portuguese in the school feel damned and linguistically excluded. That point had not seemed to have dawned on the Deputy Head who was, he thought, all for inclusion!

    Decades before this a female teacher had scalded me for calling a blackboard, well, a blackboard. Why? It was racist to do so, so she said, with all the confidence of her recently gotten B.Ed. I retorted, ‘Well if calling a blackboard, a blackboard, is racist: then racism is nothing to worrry about.”

    These people major in trivialities and impose them on the rest of us. Why do we go along with it? Let us have a return to standards and objectivity in the public realm, and in the schools too.

    • Bob

      As a lifelong agnostic leftie who has always been for equality, staunchly against racism and such, it’s increasingly apparent that our biggest allies against this current batch of loud lefties are conservatives, Christians, libertarians, and such.

      The stand against totalitarianism crosses the political spectrum.

      • Sean

        It’s destroyed any connection I had to ‘the left’. I’m an egalitarian socialist but I’m repeatedly aghast at what I’ve seen.

      • Revd Robert West

        I wholly agree with you: the moderate Left have got a vital contribution to make, and I am strongly for freedom of speech, equally for all.

        • Kanaris

          Freedom of speech =/= the freedom to abuse. If you really think it is, can you let me know where your church happens to be and I’ll come to your next sermon?

          • Revd Robert West

            I am not sure how you can confuse the freedom to speak what is on your mind, with the freedom to abuse someone, as the latter surely involves personalised points which are not relevent to the issues at hand; and are usually deemed ‘ad hominem” and therefore invalid.

            May I also have the honour to advise you that a church is not a place, so you cannot ask where it is, only where it meets.

            It is not our policy, however, to advertise on social media where we meet as a church, but we will bear you in mind so that you can have the benefit of all our sermons and theology, on these postings, rather than simpy rely on ‘Thought’ or rather ‘No Thought for the Day”.

          • Kanaris

            Ah, I’ve found out why you don’t advertise where you meet! Firstly because you’ve never actually been ordained, have you? Secondly because you actually meet in a house – which is hardly the most glamorous location for the man described as the “religious spokesman for the BNP”! Must be nice being a shill for fascists, though I guess it doesn’t pay well!

          • Revd Robert West

            Most of the churches of the first century met in houses – look up the New Testament – and they did so to exclude certain undesirables. We have standards and would not wish to lower them to accomodate folks who would be unsuited to positions of trust on private premises. My ordination is widely recognised and, in deed, predates that of the current Archbishop of Canterbury: so you hardly have cause to complain on that score, unless it is about the Church of England being run by a lettuce look-alike.

          • Kanaris

            Except your ordination isn’t is it? The church that you were apparently ordained in claims to have no knowledge of you whatsoever, and in fact, has completely distanced itself from you. You’d be better off claiming you’re a priest in the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster – at least then you’d have some legitimacy.

          • Revd Robert West

            I think that you are believing what you want to believe and that if you did a bit more research you would find out the facts; but that is a matter for you. May I wish you well.

          • JabbaPapa

            if you did a bit more research you would find out the facts

            What, like the fact that you are a prominent member of the BNP attempting to set up some idiotic micro-“church” founded on the ideals of racism ?

          • Revd Robert West

            You obviously do not read the Holy Bible which talks about the Chosen Race, the Israelites. Race (genealogy) is a very Biblical concept but happily, since the coming of Christ, the gospel (which means ‘good news’) is open to all races. Praise God for that. However, we are to take the gospel to all nations, not bring them here (see Matthew 28: 19, compared with Mark 16: 15). You will find both books in the New Testament, that is that part of the Bible at the end of the Bible; and you will be very interested to see what they say. Are you too a subscriber to the Spectator?

          • JabbaPapa

            You obviously do not read the Holy Bible which talks about the Chosen Race

            “People” not “Race” you twerp.

            So what, does your copy read “vote for the BNP” or something ?

            Galatians : {3:24} And so the law was our guardian in Christ, in order that we might be justified by faith.
            {3:25} But now that faith has arrived, we are no longer under a guardian.
            {3:26} For you are all sons of God, through the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
            {3:27} For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have become clothed with Christ.
            {3:28} There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither servant nor free; there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.
            {3:29} And if you are Christ’s, then are you the offspring of Abraham, heirs according to the promise.

            If you **really** want to be believe some nincompoop racist version of that “Chosen People” stuff, then why don’t you out and get yourself converted to some radical sect of extremist Judaism ?

            Or would that not sit will with your skinhead buddies, “reverend” ?

          • Revd Robert West

            No, you are quite wrong, it does say ‘genos’ which is Greek for race.

            The point that I made was that in the time of the ‘Old Testament’ salvation was generally confined to one race, which made that race the chosen race; however, as the ‘New Testament’ shows the good news is now for all races and not for just the offspring of Israel, the father of the Israelites.

            But this does not mean that races are ended, nor that they should be ended but only that they are one, or at one, in Christ Jesus for those of them who are Christians. Many are not.

            Are the two sexes ended? Are class distinctions ended? Are individuals ended? Your understanding of Gal 3: 29 and of Colossains 3: 11 proves too much, on your meaning, to be taken as a warrant for what you think it means.

            I wish you well.

          • JabbaPapa

            it does say ‘genos’ which is Greek for race.

            The point that I made was that in the time of the ‘Old Testament’

            … and there was silly old me thinking that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic.

            http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5971.htm

            It means people/peoples — indiscriminately as the whole or a part of a group, possibly even so small in number as a group of dinner guests, possibly as large as all inhabitants of the known world.

            It does NOT mean “race” according to the ideological BNP conception of that word, particularly given the absence of the definite article in the phrase.

            Is that enough pointing out that your racist ideology has no foundation in Christianity nor in Scripture, or have you still failed to comprehend this ?

            for what you think it means

            Making up some invented crap in your own mind about what I supposedly “think” is a non-starter, matey.

          • Revd Robert West

            You have not addressed my rebuttal of your interpretation of Galatians 3: 28, 29, and Colossians 3: 11.

            These two passages are from the New Testament, which is written in Greek, and uses both ‘genos’ [race] and ‘ethnos’ [nation] for the Jews. But the Hebrew equivalent of ‘genos’ (race) is ‘goy’, which is used a lot there in connection with Israel as the chosen ‘goy’. The LXX uses the Greek equivalent ‘genos’.

            I am, moreover, only using the word ‘race’ in its generally accepted modern English usage as a group based on descent, which would of course include the chosen race, the Israelites. As a race the Israelis are now returning to their ancient Homeland under their ‘law of return” and have been doing so since before 1917 and the Balfour Declaration.

            I hope you approve of all that.

            You are obsessing a bit about ‘race’ as though it were ‘racism’. Is there a reason for this?

          • JabbaPapa

            your interpretation” — and what “interpretation” is that ?

            You are obsessing a bit about ‘race’ as though it were ‘racism’. Is there a reason for this?

            Racism is a core element of the political ideology that you adhere to in the BNP.

          • Revd Robert West

            Could you define ‘race’ or your meaning of it.

            I have given you miy definition of ‘race’ which is what seems to be in line with the word’s usage in modern English. But the idea is very venerable and matchs like-words in Middle and Old English such as kith and kin. There does not seem to be anything controversial about that.

            And it also matches the same concepts in Hebrew, Greek and other ancient tongues. The King James Bible tends to use the word ‘nation’ for this idea, or ‘stock’ or ‘kinsman’ or ‘kinsman according to the flesh’. More modern versions tend to use the word ‘race’ itself.

            It seems that every one has the concept of ‘kinsman’ or race; you seem the odd one out.

            After you have given us your view on ‘race’ could you then define ‘racism’ so that a meaningful discussion can go on. You are not suggesting, are you, that everyone is ‘racist’ but you? If so, you would be a very remarkable fellow.

          • JabbaPapa

            You’re trying to pretend that this is some sort of serious discussion, as well as attempting at political indoctrination.

            You should well know, of course, that the notion of “racism” does not depend on any particular definition of “race”, given that it is an irrational and/or ideological attitude to the effect that “races” are viewed with their differences exaggerated to an extreme degree, up to and including some false differentiations between imaginary “races” that exist only in the minds of racists.

            Given its psychological origin, I am not going to pretend that ethnological/anthropological discussions, nor your ongoing misrepresentations of Scripture, would be of any relevance to these irrational claims of the BNP.

          • Revd Robert West

            ‘Racism” may well be irrational but could you give us, and the world, a definition of ‘racism”?

            You seem, also, to be saying that ‘races” are purely imaginary and that they only exist in the minds of, well, ‘racists,” and that ‘racism” is some kind of irrational psychological disease.

            That may well be so, but could you give us your definition of ‘race’ so that we can proceed with some kind of rational discussion.

            I am happy to debate with you but, as a ground rule, we need to know what exactly we are debating and evaluating.

            Clarity of definitions is the sine qua non of that.

    • StephanieJCW

      It is racist. And archaic. Join the modern era.

      If you are talking in Spanish then the word is fine. The English equivalent is “black”.

      • Louis E.

        The perception that it is racist is itself racist.

      • Revd Robert West

        Don’t be so stupid. Who are you to tell us not to use ‘loan words’ from a long-standing national ally or to presume to say that ‘negro’ is fine in Portuguese but not in my mother tongue. And what about the Rev Dr Martin Luther King who fought for the civic rights of Negroes in America. You need to grow-up: the word we used before in English was ‘Blackamore.” Now go off and splutter on that one.

        • Kanaris

          Jesus God, how far up your a*s is your head? Or are you just setting out to abuse people?

          • Revd Robert West

            I think you are being both foul and demeaning. You have just got to get used to the idea that words hop from one tongue to another and that English, or at least Middle English and Modern English, have borrowed many words from the Romance languages, one of which is the word ‘Negro’. Now, if you wish to treat that as ‘abuse,’ Romance speakers – such as the Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, Languadoc, French and Romanians – are likley to look askance at you. I do too. You need to be both much more tolerant, and more educated.

          • Kanaris

            Oh, I’m familiar with loanwords… here’s a couple more for you that you surely should be using, if you’re happy with negro:

            K*k* (loanword meaning jewish, from Yiddish)

            or

            C**t (loanword from Swedish)

          • Kanaris

            Or do those offend your delicate sensibilities?

          • Revd Robert West

            I think that you have just got to acknowledge that the word ‘Negro’ is legitimate and is just not on a par with the other words, or rather subjects, which you have chosen; which level of shame, you seem to glory in. If that is your level, then that is fine for you; and if you wish to talk about those things, that is up to you too. Most of the readership of the Spectator, however, are of a more elevated class, and would be unhappy to give you more than a passing nod.

          • Kanaris

            Do I? OK, if it’s legitimate, please provide me with at least one source written (in English) in the last 5 years that actually uses the word ‘Negro’ to refer to people of a African or Caribbean heritage. Oh, and anything written by your buddies in the BNP doesn’t count.

          • Revd Robert West

            Have you seen my source, above; and how about an English dictionary where the word in question is defined as ‘…a member of a dark-skinned race originally native to Africa [from Latin niger, nigri, ‘black’). I wish you well in your further education. It is a joy and pleasure to interact with you and to further it. Are you a subscriber to the Spectator by any chance?

          • Kanaris

            Which source, the classroom you happened to use the word in? That doesn’t count as a source. And sure, of course it’s in the dictionary – as are the two other loan words that I mentioned and you dismissed as being “not on a par”. Is it really that hard to understand that language evolves over time, and that some words fall out of use to be replaced with others? Have you actually got an issue using the word Black to refer to people of African or Caribbean origin?

          • Revd Robert West
      • 1963_Dalek

        Its the current year!

  • Sue Ward

    This whole debate terriffies me as a conservative, a woman, a parent and not least as the girl who liked climbing trees, dressing barbie in action man’s clothes so she could join the army and playing with toy guns. My favourite colour was blue and I hated pink Tony mothers chagrin! I just thank god I was born to traditional conservative parents in the 60s not to progressive parents in the 2010s.

    • Vikas Sehrawat

      You could have been the poster boy/girl/tree for the leftist lunatics.

      • Sue Ward

        Lol! Makes me shudder to think of it!

    • Sean

      Hated pink, loved blue…preferred climbing trees to playing with dolls.

      Right Susie, time for your testosterone meds. What would you prefer, Stuart or Steven? You’ll have to settle on a more appropriate pronoun. They/it?

  • Hayekian

    If you watch the life of Brian you will see that 30 years ago the python crew thought this topic was so ridiculous it was comic. The reductio ad absurdum leftwing satire is no longer satire. Now it is being debated in parliament and anyone with the incorrect view will be sanctioned and sent for re-education. It’s another example of the (probably terminal) trouble we’re in.

    • Michael990

      Ah, you refer to Mr and Mrs and Mrs Ni**er-Baiter no doubt, played by John Cleese.

    • Michael H Kenyon

      The line “I wish to be known as Loretta” may well lead to “The Life of Brian” upsetting a few folks when the penny drops what they are parodying (and with prescience). It remains a fine popular satire on religion and politics. I await “The Life of Abdul”.

      • Hayekian

        I suspect it will be a long wait…

      • meqmac

        True, but please not ‘Abdul’. Abdul is not a name and never has been. It’s half a name, and all it means is ‘the servant of the’. It requires a second half to be a full name: ‘Abdullah’, ‘Abdul-Karim’, ‘Abdul-Rahim’ and so on, with the second half being a title of God. Sorry to be picky, but this constant error does grate after many years. Otherwise, spot on.

    • milford

      They could never get away with making ‘The Life of Brian’ these days.

  • Dr Bock

    Wonder where my comment went?

    • Michael990

      All of yesterday’s very reasonable comments appear to have been ‘disappeared’ for some reason.

      • Dr Bock

        Well, I put it back up, so lets see how that goes.

  • Frank

    Good to see that the Children’s Commissioner for England is sending out a detailed questionnaire to all English 13 year old girls quizzing them about their sexuality!
    Is there now a policy to appoint demented people to these kinds of positions?
    What or who will take steps to stop this intrusive and ill-judged questionnaire and what are the various opposition parties in Parliament doing to earn their pay?

  • EdmundFoster

    In 34 years I have never met anyone who was confused about their gender.

    • steve taylor

      …or even, “his or her gender”

      • EdmundFoster

        Thank you, you provide a valuable service, never stop

      • JabbaPapa

        “his or her” has over time simply become to clunky — they/them/their as a personal pronoun with indeterminate/dual/collective gender actually is quite useful for the language, REGARDLESS of any of this “gender” theory crap.

        • steve taylor

          I agree, too clunky. It should be “his gender”

          • JabbaPapa

            That works too, though it can is some instances be confusing.

  • Paul.NZ

    One can only imagine what Dr Johnson would have had to say on this!

    In his London, literally anything from naked women wrestling in tubs of lard in taverns, to every other shade of debauchery depicted by Hogarth and Rowlandson, went. The reaction was Victorian propriety. We can’t be far off such a switch.

    • Michael990

      “Victorian propriety” was the public reaction. Under the covers, all went on as abnormal.

    • Adam Carter

      Lard?
      Mud or jelly are so much better.

      • jeremy Morfey

        An old girlfriend had a set of gay friends, one of whom was a chef in a local hostelry.

        It was amazing what he said he could do with whipped cream. Is it halal though?

        • JabbaPapa

          It was amazing what he said he could do with whipped cream

          I **hope** you’re referring to his professional talents, and if so whatever might they have to do with the topic of “gender” theory ?

          • jeremy Morfey

            I was wondering if it had anything to do with gender fluid.

  • AlexanderGalt

    I’m Churchill’s grandson. How dare you laugh! It’s my reality.

    • Texas Sunday Morning

      “I’m Churchill’s grandson.”

      And so’s my wife!

      • AlexanderGalt

        What, two of us. That’s enough to form a new gender! My prayers to Gaia have been answered.

  • Whothehell Cares

    ” It embodies instead an extreme egalitarianism “. I think it’s more accurate to say ‘It embodies instead an extreme feminism’.

    • Michael990

      I think that’s true. The entire educational and political systems have been feminised over the last 30 years or so.

  • http://visionaforethought.wordpress.com/ Oflife

    Spot on. But as per my comments on the constant attacks on Israel (and not other really oppressive nations) to protect our sources of oil, this is all smoke and mirrors. I’m a techie, but taken an interest in all gender rubbish because I’m seeing it effect the world of Information Technology too, with bizarre editorials and so forth on tech blogs like The Verge (and if you dare challenge them, you get banned – as I was once!), whereby everyone is made to feel a victim and blame their gender or similar for any problems they may face at work, when in reality, it maybe their own behaviour and over sensitivity.
    (A very selfish attitude BTW.)

    Anyway, the fact is that governments, in particular here in the UK and liberal ones in the US, are using Common Purpose and Frankfurt School political theory to distract the populace from more important matters, such as diesel pollution, climate change and such (I know Melanie is not a believer in the latter, but let me make my point), because to do so effects the profits of oil companies that are financing most of the politicians! So, if the population are having a hissy (like us all posting on here) about gender, and not marching in London to protest against carbon energy pollution or similar matters, so, the spotlight moves from such issues and they can continue to rampage our planet until it’s become rather unpleasant to live in. This lethal mosquito spread disease out of South America is no co-incidence, it is just one of many examples of what happens when the climate becomes warmer and more damp.

    I will say it again, these issues are suddenly being introduced into the debate to detract the populace from discussing more pertinent matters that effect the bottom line of ‘old school’ corporations. The key is to be aware of this, refuse to comply with any school etc gender rules and eventually, the powers that be will either give up, or alas, have us all arrested.

    • Sean

      So true. 100% what I think.

      Politicians love cultural and social issues being given political currency – distracting from economic, diplomatic and strategic issues that really matter.

  • Cyril Sneer

    Fair play the left are fricking insane.

    • MikeF

      But there is method in their madness. They deploy irrationalism as a tool in support of a quite deliberate strategy which in the end is about nothing but their own empowerment.

  • Dr Bock

    Interesting you list so many stakeholders who have bought into the whole ideology, for if you appoint a witch-finder what are they going to find? Maybe there is a semblance of a point to all this at the margins, but, I suspect, the vast majority of us are perfectly happy with the gender we were born as, including rather mannish looking women and more effeminate men perhaps, there being a spectrum, but I don’t trust adults not to project their ideological preoccupations onto children, and have the strong suspicion that in several decades time this is going to lead on to all sorts of lawsuits and abuse allegations, for the simple reason that the old dispensation, which may have been unfair on a very small number of people who felt themselves to have born into the wrong body, at least prevented a perhaps slightly larger number of people who may have been temporarily confused/had others’ ideological preoccupations with the backing of the state projected onto them left in a by no means desirable situation, to put it no more strongly. It strikes me that in seeking to redress a problem, as terrible as it is, for a small number of people they may be in the process of effecting a remedy that will harm a slightly larger number, setting aside the moral narcissism and play-acting of people who don’t fully understand the issue and want to identify as something other than what they are on a piece of paper. Of course, that could just be me being a reactionary bigot, as opposed to a liberal one.

    • milford

      It’s all about attacking the traditional family and creating minority groups for people to identify with in it’s stead. Why? If you want to oppress people, break the family, because that’s where their strength lies. It’s the totalitarian tip-toe. Bringing in laws that seem to make us more free but which are making us less free. Less free to express our views, which, the way we are going, will soon be a total taboo. Once freedom of speech goes, freedom of thought will follow. The Speccie is one of the last refuges of free speech in the MSM.

  • Michael H Kenyon

    Blimey, a whole set of comments has disappeared. Did someone say something insensitive?

    • Simon Fay

      Maria Miller’s people doubtless have a direct line to the Tory house journal that is the Speccie.

  • milford

    Right on the button. This article needed writing. The next call is to normalise paedophilia with their flawed logic. Every taboo will be broken down then what is left? A mixed up world of no traditional families full of suicidal people. Families and boundaries are there for a reason.

  • Halo

    it used to be the case that “normal” people used to tell “not so normal” people that they aren’t really normal now it’s just the other way around. Moderation in these matters and appropriate support is what’s needed.

  • Joan Bradley

    When I read about such feminist nonsense (and all of the other PC bilge) I ask myself if I should really just ignore it or at least laugh at it instead of contaminating my mind. Ignore them and they will go away – if not you will be dragged down to their stupid level. Anyway, the mass media like this stuff because they know it means more readers, equals more exposure to their ghastly adverts.

  • Cogito Dexter

    Ms Philips… perhaps you have not heard of people who are born hermaphroditic? How do you label them? Their gender is, indeed, fluid – because the nature of their genitals is *not* binary,

    Why do you insist that gender has to be linked to external appearances? If a person can be born with both sets of physical genitals then they have it within them to make a choice about their gender. Clearly that choice is not linked to their reproductive organs since there is no default choice there. Clearly gender is about one’s understanding of oneself. It’s about understanding how one functions in society.

    There may come a time when genitals become irrelevant to gender. It may come at a time when gender as a concept becomes irrelevant to society at large – i.e. nobody cares if someone else is male, female, both or none. And that would be a good thing, as it would put an end to the prejudice that women commonly face – at home, in the streets, in the workplace, etc.

    Perhaps we can also get rid of prejudice against races and religions while we’re at it? I seem to remember a period in history where there was a ‘binary distinction’ between people based on whether they were Jewish or not. That worked out well, didn’t it?

    Perhaps we should stop seeing distinctions between people and simply accept people for who they are: human beings, first, foremost and the only thing that matters.

    • Grant Melville

      It may come at a time when gender as a concept becomes irrelevant to society at large – i.e. nobody cares if someone else is male, female, both or none. And that would be a good thing, as it would put an end to the prejudice that women commonly face – at home, in the streets, in the workplace, etc.

      I doubt that, because the physical differences between men and women will always be a factor. For example: only women can give birth to children, and the vast majority of labourers in the construction industry will still be men, due to the fact that men are more physically suited to that sort of work. The distinction will always exist, and it’ll never be a bad thing. The distinction isn’t the problem: it’s what we do with it that causes problems.

      • Cogito Dexter

        There are exceptions, of course there are: childbearing is obvious. But when considering things like typically male professions – there are plenty of women who are strong enough to carry out such things. While they may not be equal in numbers to the men capable of the same thing, the point is that there may come a time when, because it doesn’t matter what one’s gender is, the only relevant question is whether the applicant for such a job is capable of it. There are plenty of men who are physically incapable of heavy labour too, you know. I’m one of them! It has to be admitted that gender distinctions, for example in areas of physical capability, are not in and of themselves indicative of an absolute binary choice.

        • JabbaPapa

          there are plenty of women who are strong enough to carry out such things

          A minuscule minority of freakishly strong women is not “plenty”.

          • Cogito Dexter

            The quantity of such women is not the point. And clearly you don’t live in Norfolk.

          • Simon Fay

            “And clearly you don’t live in Norfolk.”

            ****me, so THAT’s what Alan Partridge was referring to – it’s creatures like you kept out of sight in those big sheds, innit?

  • Minstrel Boy

    It’s all that female urinated excess oestroegen in the re-cycled water supply, which is now mostly French controlled. Develops man boobs, testicular atrophy and disappearing willy syndrome. And my troupe of pet goldfish seem to have gone fey as well! Interfering with nature will bring us all to a Sodom and Gomorrah style end. Will make for much gayer street parties though. Enjoy!

  • Sean

    Brave and devastating article. Shamefully no-one wants to listen.

    • Cogito Dexter

      Hardly brave. It’s reactionary nonsense from an ‘old order of things’ that’s frightened of enlightened progress and wants to maintain its prejudicial status-quo.

      • Marvin

        Do you like to roll around in excrement?

        • Cogito Dexter

          As it happens, I don’t possess a scatological disposition, therefore kind as it may be, I find myself unable to take you up on your invitation.

          • Simon Fay

            BUt if you did, it’d be fine and you’d talk lullingly to anyone horrified to find you running a scat-session with the playgroup.

          • Cogito Dexter

            Since your hypothetical situation will not be occurring, your theorising about it is utterly pointless.

      • Louis E.

        Everyone who wants to change the status quo regards their pet changes as “enlightened progress”,but not all are equally correct,and they need to be treated accordingly.

  • George

    But the really good news in all this is that 99.999 etc percent of folk are not aware of, or don’t give a hoot about this freakish nonsense.

    Virtually everyone knows and understands that there are always a few biological oddities, and has sympathy. But the notion that these unfortunate oddities should tell the 99.999 percent of people that they, the vast majority, are “fluid” is a measure of how far our self-indulgent, self-obsessive and pampered society has gone off the rails.

    We could laugh it off were it not for the fact that the social justice warriors are targeting our children in our schools.

    Time for the 99.999 percent to wake up.

    • Cogito Dexter

      No… the point is that your quaintly named ‘biological oddities’ deserve the right to live in happiness and acceptance. If your physical makeup matches your perceived gender then that’s fine – and it’s fine for the “99.999%” of the rest of the population too. But we should all be willing to live and let live when it comes to others who are different from us. Or are you happy that people should be targets of abuse, discrimination, prejudice, etc just because they’re in a small minority amongst the population?

      • Amelie

        So what you’re saying is that 99.9% of the population should be subject to propaganda that has no basis in scientific reality, that their children should be indoctrinated from a very young age and become completely confused over their identity, turning into confused and unhappy adults, to make a tiny minority feel accepted? Wouldn’t it be better all round if we followed the experts’ advice (i.e. the scientists and psychiatrists) who suggest counselling and strong family ties to the minority of people who sadly find themselves in this situation?

        • Cogito Dexter

          No. I’m saying that people should be allowed to be what they want to be without interference or prejudice. The only teaching that children require is that there are people who are different from them (and always will be) but that they deserve respect, tolerance and acceptance. And, that if they themselves feel that they are ‘different’ to others around them that this is not something to be frightened or ashamed of because they are equally valued as individuals.

          • Amelie

            To say that people can “be what they want to be” is completely meaningless and shows a complete lack of reality.

          • Cogito Dexter

            What’s meaningless about it? And why does it even have to matter to you anyway what someone else does with their life? It’s their life, after all, not yours.

          • JabbaPapa

            What’s meaningless about it?

            Reality is not a fantasy world catering to our every little fancy.

            Proposing that sexual fantasies should condition our politics is quite literally insane — both paranoid and schizophrenic, with a hefty dollop of autism.

          • Cogito Dexter

            I seem to have attracted a troll. *Sigh*

            Again, you argue against something I have not said. At no point have I mentioned ‘fantasies’ or anything like it.

            For more information, please re-read.

          • JabbaPapa

            I’m not a “troll” — but if you start spamming this forum with the contents of your fantasy politics, and then ask what’s “meaningless” about them, throwing an insult at me when I give my answer is pretty shoddy, to say the least.

          • Cogito Dexter

            Well if you will manufacture stuff from thin air that I’m supposed to have written, then what do you expect? Don’t make stuff up!

          • JabbaPapa

            My characterisations of what you have typed do not constitute a pretense that you are the author of those characterisations.

            I described your proposals as “sexual fantasies” because I don’t really consider them to be much of anything else. They are fantasies about the civil and social realities of how sexuality is actually understood in the real world. This understanding does not incorporate any “gender fluid” sexual fantasy contents.

          • Louis E.

            That people can “be what they want to be” no matter what that is,is fantasy.

          • Aethelflaed

            Well, you know there are some things I do accept, and some things I don’t. And, you know what, that is up to me, and you’ll just have to accept that !! If anyone wants me respect, they have to earn it.

  • Amelie

    Truly brilliant and necessary article. Thank you Melanie for speaking out. It seems like no coincidence that this is timed just after posters of The Danish Girl are appearing on buses and it’s being hailed as film of the year, even though not many people have gone to see it. Cultural propaganda alongside government totalitarianism.
    http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/emily-watson-the-danish-girl-is-brilliant-propaganda-and-another-blow-to-human-happiness/

    • MikeF

      I haven’t seen the film. Does ‘she’ get molested by a migrant after ‘transitioning’?

      • Amelie

        I haven’t seen it either. But according to the plot synopsis, he dies after surgery.

  • Damaris Tighe

    This is deeply sinister. It’s the final frontier in the destruction of boundaries/borders. Boundaries/border announce what a person is & what s/he is not. They reflect clear, linear & reasoned thinking about objective entities, whether that be a person’s s*x or a country’s borders & people. The left’s final frontier is to dissolve all objective thinking into personal subjectivity. Anyone can be any gender they choose; anyone can be a ‘Swede’ or a ‘German’. It’s the ultimate deconstruction, prior to the leftist paradise described by John Lennon in ‘Imagine’: a word of unrooted individuals without firm identities – a ‘human race’ & nothing more.

    • Cogito Dexter

      Why can’t a person simply be a person?

      Why are ‘labels’ necessary at all? Just accept people for who they are.

      Of course, because people like you *dont* accept those who are different, it has to be the case that acceptance is taught. It is manifestly unjust that someone is treated badly simply because *you* don’t like them. You are not the arbiter of someone else’s life. Only they are.

      • Damaris Tighe

        My case rests.

        • Cogito Dexter

          On nothing but prejudice, clearly.

          • Damaris Tighe

            On the contrary – your reply to my comment is full of prejudice & assumptions about my point of view, about ‘acceptance’, about my assumed not liking groups of people. I’m long past debating people like you.

          • Cogito Dexter

            Well you clearly *don’t* like the idea of acceptance of others being different to you. Why can’t you just let other people get on with their lives? Why do you have to feel personally offended by other people’s differences or the fact that it’s taught that you should allow them to be different without enduring prejudice as a result?

            You may be ‘long past’ debating people like me… I just see that as a closed mind unwilling to countenance anyone else being right.

          • MikeF

            So you don’t have a ‘closed mind’ but you are certain that you are ‘right’?

          • Cogito Dexter

            I have entertained the arguments… and found them to be anything but entertaining. I am willing to accept anyone regardless of what their life choices are. Some here are not and are obviously actively prejudiced against people who are different from them. There is such a thing as manifest truth. And that is one example.

          • Zanderz

            You confirmed Damaris’ point – a world of individuals who claim to be whatever they want to be, with no reference to theology, morality, history, culture, country, family or biology.

          • Cogito Dexter

            Referring to all those things sounds like the recipe for oppression to me.

          • Zanderz

            Unfortunately you are a product of all of those things, and to reject them is simply to cut yourself adrift in the storm. You’ll only sink and drown.

          • Cogito Dexter

            A storm of what? What am I supposed to be drowning in? Acceptance? Tolerance? Frankly, that sounds like buoyancy to me. I’d say that the weight to theology, old-fashioned morality, history, culture, etc is what drowns people and has been doing so for centuries. You shouldn’t feel compelled to do or believe something *just* because it’s been done by your forebears. They aren’t necessarily right.

          • Zanderz

            No one exists in isolation. The freedom you seek won’t come from rejecting reality. The utopia you dream of, the one where there are ‘no rules’ (apart from ‘their rules’) is the totalitarian nightmare of many a book and film.

          • Cogito Dexter

            The only utopia I dream of is one where a person’s self-identity is of no concern to others and where their personal choices that have no impact on others – i.e. their choice of who they wish to marry – are equally as irrelevant to other people’s lives. If you should choose not to make the same manner of choices as other people, it is of no concern to me. Just don’t deny those same choices to others.

          • Zanderz

            All choices have consequences. You may dream of the ‘freedom’ where you can do what you want and it not have consequences, but it doesn’t exist.

          • Cogito Dexter

            So what consequence does the choice to accept people of different self-identity have upon you then? A lack of prejudice? How is that bad?

          • Zanderz

            There is an impact of society and culture. You can trace the history of ‘gay rights’ for the same parallels. Whilst I have not ‘gone gay’ because of gay rights, my children and others are growing up in a world where gender and sexual confusion reign, and child mental health issues are at epidemic levels. (yes, I draw a direct correlation). That’s a consequence of their choices.

          • Cogito Dexter

            I don’t understand how, if you haven’t ‘gone gay’ because homosexuality is now legal to express, your children should be any more confused. If they’re gay they’re gay. If they’re straight they’re straight. If you couldn’t be persuaded to change your innate orientation under any circumstances, then how could anyone else be? The only answer must be that those who are capable of homosexuality are capable of it regardless and that, perhaps, in the past they simply repressed it out of fear of unjust consequences?

          • Zanderz

            The prevalence of same se x encounters has risen dramatically. the culture of ‘acceptance’ makes it more likely to occur. Parallels with any type of cultural prohibition / liberty laws.

            (can’t get past mods on s x)

          • Cogito Dexter

            If the incidence of such events has risen, while that may be because society allows it to happen, it doesn’t mean that the desire for such events was any less in the past. It simply means that the prevailing attitudes in society at the time caused the individuals possessing such desires suppressing their instincts, to their undoubted psychological harm.

          • JabbaPapa

            It simply means that the prevailing attitudes in society at the time caused the individuals possessing such desires suppressing their instincts, to their undoubted psychological harm.

            WTF ??!!???!

            So — now you’re trying to justify s€xual violence as an enlightened form of therapy against the “psychological harm” of the “victims” AKA the violent attackers ???

            You really have gone off the deep end, haven’t you …

          • Cogito Dexter

            Again, you’re constructing an argument that I haven’t made. Where on earth have I mentioned ‘violence’??? I don’t know what you’re smoking, but I’d advise giving it up.

          • Hugh_Oxford

            No, young, confused people can be manipulated and tricked in all kinds of ways into believing they are something they are not.

            After all, if you really believed what you claim to believe you would be quite happy to leave children alone to become what they will. But you aren’t, because you know that you have to recruit to keep up a supply of broken people to exploit.

          • Cogito Dexter

            What absolute antediluvian rubbish this ‘recruitment’ argument is. Nobody is being ‘recruited’. Nobody *could* be recruited. I could no more change your orientation by persuasion than I could the colour of your eyes. The only thing that is happening is the freeing from oppression of people who have different-from-the-norm orientations and preventing them from experiencing the psychological harm that enforced suppression of one’s natural instincts would cause.

          • JabbaPapa

            Sorry, but not only is this utter bollocks, it’s also self-contradictory bollocks.

            If “gender” is “just a social construct”, then why has it suddenly become an immutable natural “persuasion” of each individual ?

            If it’s “just a social construct”, then surely Hugh_Oxford is quite right to be concerned about the recruitment of our children.

            Alternatively, if it’s an immutable natural “persuasion” of each individual, then doesn’t that make this whole debate utterly pointless ?

            Interesting thing is — you’re wrong either way.

          • Cogito Dexter

            I’m not sure where you think I’ve written that an orientation is a ‘persuasion’ – especially since I don’t believe it, and try hard not to use that particular figure of speech. Since you’re trying to build up a straw-man argument with me based on something I haven’t said, I see no further utility in continuing along this line.

          • JabbaPapa

            I see no further utility in continuing along this line

            That’s trans-gender-ese for “crikey, been busted, better scarper !!”

          • Cogito Dexter

            No. That’s human for “you’re making stuff up about me”.

          • JabbaPapa

            It is extremely clear from your numerous posts that you sometimes think “gender” to be a purely social construct, and yet you also argue that it is some intrinsic quality of each particular individual.

            These notions are intrinsically incompatible with each other ; therefore your position is irrational.

          • Cogito Dexter

            Again, you’re making stuff up. Gender is a part of one’s self identity. Mostly it matches the apparent physical characteristics but not always (as I have proved to you elsewhere but do not care to repeat now). There is no incompatibility because I did not say that!

          • JabbaPapa

            as I have proved to you elsewhere

            “claimed” does NOT mean “proved”

            You just appear to be very deeply confused, and so incapable of following an argument needing rigour and proper form.

            Your “gender” confusions also seem to be hampering your ability to think.

          • JabbaPapa

            Perhaps in the past people weren’t so confused because we didn’t have hordes of people like you doing everything possible to confuse every single pertinent reality.

          • Cogito Dexter

            I challenge you to tell me how I – or anyone else – could confuse you about your orientation or self-identity. How, in the name of the entire universe, do you think anyone could persuade you to change such things any more than they could persuade you to change the colour of your own eyes? Nincompoop, much?

          • JabbaPapa

            I challenge you to tell me how I – or anyone else – could confuse you

            Direct category error — the proposed massive nation-wide indoctrination of generations of children and youth is not an online disagreement between two individuals.

          • Cogito Dexter

            Answer the question.

          • JabbaPapa

            Your question is irrelevant to the topic of discussion — it simply constitutes an attempt to turn it into some meaningless ad hominem to-and-fro, that I refuse to engage in. Whether I am or am not persuadable of this or that is irrelevant to my point that many other people, particularly the vulnerable youth, might be prone to confusion from being exposed to the propaganda that you seek to shove down their curricula.

          • Hugh_Oxford

            It seems to me this is a self perpetuating process. Socio-sexual disorder begets socio-sexual disorder. At its heart is contraception.

          • http://gentlemind.blogspot.co.uk/ gentlemind

            Shock horror. You said…’the C-word’…
            Yes, contraception is a ligature round our neck, starving our mind of all understanding of our body.

          • Cogito Dexter

            I struggle to see the connection between contraception and acceptance of people’s innate orientations and self-identity. The two are not even remotely similar other than an incidental connection to genitals.

          • JabbaPapa

            incidental

            … that’s a good one. The contraception/abortion mentality has created a generation who think of s€x as a form of entertainment ; it is in fact a central element of humanity as such and of each person’s individuality taken separately.

            S€x without children is also completely barmy. NOTHING is “consequence-free”, you nincompoop.

          • Cogito Dexter

            Again, the availability or not of contraception (or even abortion, although I do not personally agree with it) does not have any bearing on the perception of one’s own gender or orientation. There were gay people and people who perceived themselves trapped in an incorrect gender long before contraception and abortion were legal, you know.

          • justsomebody

            Ever read humanae vitae? Prophetic document.

          • JabbaPapa

            The only utopia I dream of is one where a person’s … personal choices … have no impact on others

            Right, and you only need to repress, oppress, and destroy anyone who disagrees with this to make it so.

            It’s a long road to get to Cloud Cuckoo Land.

          • Cogito Dexter

            The only repression I see in my argument is repression of repression itself. The repression I speak of is not a right, it’s a wrong.

          • JabbaPapa

            Spoken like a true totalitarian.

          • Cogito Dexter

            Hardly. A totalitarian would insist upon the binary divisions I’m arguing against. I’m actually a social libertarian. But I wouldn’t expect you to understand that.

          • JabbaPapa

            A totalitarian would insist upon the binary divisions I’m arguing against

            A totalitarian would insist on the universal application of his political programme into every imaginable sphere — this has exactly **nothing** to do with your “binary” claptrap.

            BTW — hey, well done BTW whoever it was pointed out that “binary” as a slur is the new go-to term of chic lefty extremism ; just more evidence that the assault on the limitation of “marriage” to two people only is the next target. This “gender” claptrap may just be a diversionary tactic.

          • JabbaPapa

            What am I supposed to be drowning in?

            Willful ignorance and empty carnality.

          • Cogito Dexter

            Ignorant of what? As for ‘carnality’ that is a concept grounded in a religious set of morals. Not everyone shares those morals. Why should they be forced to?

          • Simon Fay

            Were you by any chance grown in a nutrient tank by paedo scientists? Or are you the latest thing in libertarian AI?

          • JabbaPapa

            I think he was knitted.

          • lmda

            You also appear to think that referring to reality is unjustifiably repressive. However, being able to recognise and name the truth is the most important and the most basic liberty: you are not being kind to a boy by telling him that he has the option of giving birth, or that the only thing that will stop him becoming a concert pianist is his lack of will to succeed, not his total lack of auditive memory/fingers/musicality.

          • Cogito Dexter

            And that’s totally missing the point that a person’s self-identity about *who* they are is nothing to do with their physical traits. Obviously a male-to-female trans person is not physically capable of bearing a child. They know that, I know that and you know that. But that doesn’t render that person any less worth of respect, tolerance and acceptance – because to do so does not lessen you in any way (except perhaps lessening a prejudice in you that shouldn’t be there in the first place).

          • lmda

            I think what you mean by “self-identity” is so utterly private as to be meaningless (- unless, perhaps it is what is “known unto God”).It would be difficult to criticise someone’s “self-identity”, however justifiably (or is it only possible to self-identify as something good and admirable?), if it is kept in something like Wittgenstein’s private language box, without a way of referring to it.
            I don’t think the reproductive consequences would be clear to a class of nine-year olds, indoctrinated with the idea that although their current appearances might seem to indicate that they are boys, this might change in future should they wish or feel that they ought, to become female.

          • JabbaPapa

            This does not require that such a person’s pathological psychology should be actively promoted by Government propaganda in “education” as if it were something to aspire to.

          • Cogito Dexter

            Nobody is suggesting that any children anywhere are being encouraged to aspire to being transgender! For goodness sake, how many straw-men can you take issue with at once before the friction in your own cognitive (I use the word advisedly) activities sets them on fire?

          • Jack

            This
            statement puts me in mind of an excellent article by Daniel Dennett, in which
            he too weighs-up the balance between truth and people’s feelings:

            “…it is sometimes denied or ignored by scientists and others who pretend
            to believe that truth above all is the highest good. Surely it is not. I can
            easily describe circumstances in which I myself would lie or suppress the truth
            in order to prevent some human suffering. An old woman at the end of her days,
            living her life vicariously through tales of the heroic achievements of her son
            – are you going to tell her when he is arrested, convicted of some terrible
            crime, and humiliated? Isn’t it better for her to leave this world in ignorant
            bliss? Of course it is, say I. But note that, even here, we have to understand
            these cases as exceptions to the rule. We couldn’t give this woman the comfort
            of our lies if lies were the general rule; she has to believe us when we talk
            to her.”

            To me, the comfort of our lies – in this case, earned by admitting a person
            born with a penis is a man – has a value in itself.

            To start by saying the gender-specific physiology of childbirth is ‘obvious’,
            and then to propose completely disregarding it, as you have, is to make lies
            the general rule: thereby diminishing any hope of sparing the feelings of the trans-gender
            people you wish to protect.

          • Cogito Dexter

            It’s an interesting premise that you raise. I reject it, however, because it fails to take into account the fact that the possession of genitals and gender identity are, demonstrably and especially in the case of hermaphrodites – not inextricably linked.

            I don’t doubt that there are multiple reasons why trans people are trans. I believe that extreme care must be taken in the ministering to such people vis a vis the medical interventions required to satisfy their needs, in particular such that those needs and the causes of them are accurately and indisputably identified. I simply contend that it’s the right and proper thing to do to teach children that any such trans person is to be treated with kindness, tolerance and acceptance and that, should that child ever feel that they themselves might be trans, then they will be treated with equal kindness and tolerance and taken seriously, whatever the outcome.

          • Jack

            Ok, perhaps defining a person’s gender by their sexual organs would be folly. However, whether the gender definitions we have as a society are biological (as I say) or arbitrary (as you say, mostly) what’s important is that they exist at all. To deny this, in my opinion, is to open the door to the kind of intolerance you are attempting to assuage.

            Of course our children should be taught to be tolerant, but without accepting there is such a thing as difference within our species, what is there to be tolerant of? Part of human development is seeing and acknowledging difference, analysing it, learning directly from it and ultimately finding such biological divergences are largely insignificant, and that they should have no bearing on how you treat someone.

            The corollary is: Humans will always find a point of difference – it’s what we’ve evolved to do, and so ‘discrimination’ in its broadest definition isn’t a negative thing. It’s how we make sense of our universe because it is infinite and cannot be comprehended in one go. In short, we need our linguistic separators.

          • Louis E.

            When their needs and their desires are at complete variance,we must nonetheless meet their needs and turn their unreasonable desires aside.

          • JabbaPapa

            Destroying any of them, or attempting to, is a **method** of oppression.

          • Cogito Dexter

            Nobody is destroying them. You are free to believe as you wish, connect with your family as you wish, identify yourself as you wish. Just don’t impose your own world view on others who don’t wish to share it. Be tolerant of others. Do not abuse them. That is all that is being taught.

          • JabbaPapa

            Nobody is destroying them

            They bloody well will be if the Government starts injecting this gibberish into its youth indoctrination programme. Oh drat, sorry, “education” I meant, silly me …

          • Cogito Dexter

            *Sigh* So basically you want the freedom to be as objectionable and intolerant as you like, and to make other people’s lives miserable because you don’t want to be told how unpleasant you are.

            Clear as day. And this, gentle people of the Internet, is why children need to be educated in tolerance and acceptance.

          • JabbaPapa

            …. aaaaaaaaaaaaannnd here we go with the ad hominems again …

          • Louis E.

            They need to be educated in not accepting the unacceptable.

          • Jack

            Reading the article and then your statement here, it strikes me is that an objective definition of ineradicable differences i.e. biologically defined gender, can only lead to greater equality, not less, as you say.

            Surely your principle of ‘a person only being a person’ is
            fickle and completely unsustainable, and therefore, a truly touncable one in reality – leading to even worse prejudice.

            A good test for this would be if you were to be mugged and then later interviewed by the police who were trying to get your stuff back. ‘Well
            officer, it was a person, with a person’s hair (or not) a person’s skin colour;
            about a person’s height with a person’s build.’

          • Cogito Dexter

            Visual traits are nothing to do with personhood.

          • JabbaPapa

            Rubbish.

            All sources of distinction are naturally at play in our perceptions of others.

          • Cogito Dexter

            In the perception of a third party, yes, I may identify sources of distinction however they may be evident to me, in order to identify that person at some later stage. However accepting that should not allow me (or anyone else) to indulge any prejudicial actions towards that third party. It is not just to impose upon someone else and force them to use a distinction that they don’t want and cannot identify with.

          • JabbaPapa

            Whether it’s “just” or not is irrelevant to these pre-intellective/animal processes of cognition.

      • JSC

        Well, presumably the label in question has some descriptive utility. The existence of a label in no way implies that I would not accept them, though I reserve that right, the right to judge people and be prejudiced against them for good reason, for myself.

        • Cogito Dexter

          Naturally there are prejudices that are acceptable – certainly if someone else’s actions have an effect on your own well-being. I’d certainly not suggest that anyone should be tolerant of Daesh for example! Nonetheless, if someone else’s life should have no impact upon your own, it seems unjust to maintain an active prejudice against them whether it be regarding their perception of their self-identity, or their choice of person to whom they wish to get married. If you wouldn’t make the same manner of choice, that’s entirely up to you and is, inalienably, your absolute right. Just don’t deny that right to others.

          • JSC

            The terms I use to label people are chosen for their utility to me in whatever discussion I’m having. I couldn’t care less about any mismatch between how I refer to a person and what their personal opinion of their self image is; their opinion is worthless to me and it’s impractical to poll every living person on the planet on their preferred title (etc) before you’re allowed to talk about them. In polite conversation I’m happy to refer to people how they want for convenience, but it does not necessarily change my opinions of them simply because they have demanded it so.

            The reason why marriage became an issue is because the state controls the doling out of marriage certificates, a job it has no moral authority to do so, and one I oppose.

          • Cogito Dexter

            Inasmuch as the State controls marriage, I might agree with you on that one – there’s certainly an argument to suggest that it should be completely deregulated and left to religions to administer whatever versions of human bondings they wish to acknowledge. Of course in doing so, you’d certainly have to change the way in which countless laws work when it comes to legally recognised partnerships, inheritance, tenancy rights, etc. But that’s a totally different argument.

          • SimonToo

            Religions do like to get in on the marriage business, but marriage is a social rather than a religious state.

      • MikeF

        ‘Different’ from what? The concept of difference only makes sense if there is a reference point.

        • Cogito Dexter

          Why do we need reference points? Ultimately everyone is an individual. We’re all genetically unique after all. Why not simply accept that and just get on with things without worrying about what other people do with their lives if their choices have no deleterious effect upon us?

          • MikeF

            I don’t worry about what other people do with their lives. I am concerned about subjecting children to a form of ideological indoctrination that is as irrational as it is intolerant of dissent.

          • Cogito Dexter

            We tell children it’s wrong to steal, murder, lie, etc. That’s ‘indoctrination’. Why is it so wrong to tell them to let other people live their lives and think of themselves how they wish to without interference from others?

          • MikeF

            In case you hadn’t noticed western, democratic, pluralistic society is the one that has tended to let people live their lives as they wish rather more than any other.

          • Cogito Dexter

            I think that’s pretty accepted. Albeit there are arguments to suggest that in certain other areas we’re moving backwards in some regards.

          • sidor

            A healthy society is a structured society. It has to be structured in many dimensions: gender, occupation, education, mental capacity, cultural affiliation (ethnicity). In a structured society everyone has one’ own place and therefore feels comfortable and secure. A society without structure cannot survive. A classical example: Rome in the last century of its existence when idle crowds in its streets were getting free bread, wine and entertainment.

          • JabbaPapa

            Rome in the last century of its existence when idle crowds in its streets were getting free bread, wine and entertainment

            Wow — you really believe this nonsense.

          • Sanctimony

            Take yourself off to your Frejus fleapit and have a gander at Spotlight…. a riveting insight into the behaviour of the Catholic clergy… at all levels of seniority and decadence… cost the Vatican US$ 4 billion in hush money…

          • sidor

            This is absolutely wrong. Democracy and personal freedom are absolutely separate issues which are hardly compatible. Read de Tocqueville. And be careful with geography: which particular West do you have in mind, looking one generation back: Germany, Spain, Italy?

          • MikeF

            Well personal freedom has not tended to be a characteristic of non-democratic societies. Note I said pluralistic and democratic – i.e. very much the sort of society that came to exist here round about the mid 1960s and which the left has been seeking to destroy ever since.

          • JabbaPapa

            aaaaah, good old sidor, back with some more of his patent utter absurdity.

            Democracy and personal freedom are absolutely separate issues which are hardly compatible

            In fact the will of the individual versus the will of the collective is the core factor in every single political system. I very much doubt de Tocqueville thought any differently, so the most likely explanation of your reference to him is that he’s yet another author you’ve understood backwards.

          • sidor

            De Tocqueville’s book is another book which you have never read but have an opinion about.

            “I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.” – Alexis de Tocqueville

          • JabbaPapa

            erm — you **do** realise he wrote more than one book ?

            The **reason** why I doubt that de Tocqueville thought as you do is because his reputation, and what extracts that I have read, do not suggest that he could possibly have been so dim-witted as to think, and much less write down, anything of the sort.

            What is the point of that seemingly random quote BTW ? It seems to be of no relevance whatsoever. As a slur against the US “education” standards it’s quite witty, of course, but this has nothing to do with the contents of your extraordinary claim.

          • sidor

            Read the book instead of meaningless BS about it.

          • JabbaPapa

            meaningless BS about it

            Your comments, you mean ?

          • JabbaPapa

            Started a quick read of it — doesn’t seem to need the more detailed examination — I’m rather puzzled as to why you think such a deliberately ambiguous (one might almost say demagogic) work should in itself be sufficient to support your position ; particularly given that his entire theory of democracy appears to be predicated, as I said, on the will of the individual versus the will of the collective.

            Il y a en effet une passion mâle et légitime pour l’égalité qui excite les hommes à vouloir être tous forts et estimés. Cette passion tend à élever les petits au rang des grands; mais il se rencontre aussi dans le cœur humain un goût dépravé pour l’égalité, qui porte les faibles à vouloir attirer les forts à leur niveau, et qui réduit les hommes à préférer l’égalité dans la servitude à l’inégalité dans la liberté. Ce n’est pas que les peuples dont l’état social est démocratique méprisent naturellement la liberté; ils ont au contraire un goût instinctif pour elle. Mais la liberté n’est pas l’objet principal et continu de leur désir; ce qu’ils aiment d’un amour éternel, c’est l’égalité; ils s’élancent vers la liberté par impulsion rapide et par efforts soudains, et, s’ils manquent le but, ils se résignent; mais rien ne saurait les satisfaire sans l’égalité, et ils consentiraient plutôt à périr qu’à la perdre.

            D’un autre côté, quand les citoyens sont tous à peu près égaux, il leur devient difficile de défendre leur indépendance contre les agressions du pouvoir. Aucun d’entre eux n’étant alors assez fort pour lutter seul avec avantage, il n’y a que la combinaison des forces de tous qui puisse garantir la liberté. Or, une pareille combinaison ne se rencontre pas toujours.

            This extract ALONE demonstrates that your notion that “Democracy and personal freedom are absolutely separate issues” is foreign to de Tocqueville, who describes such a state of affairs as a “dépravité”.

          • sidor

            Once again, avoid discussing a book before you have read it.

          • JabbaPapa

            Looks mostly like a pompous fatras of extremely self-serving pedantry.

            But really — that’s just cowardly of you, after I have actually read the relevant sections, and found contents that are directly in opposition to your analysis, to try and out-snob de Tocqueville himself.

          • sidor

            If you disagree with Tocqueville on the problem with freedom of opinion in the US democracy, could you please comment on some well-known facts of the US history like the notorious monkey trials (and similar trials recently) and the glorious era of Joe McCarthy?

          • JabbaPapa

            Why should events that are posterior to and completely, entirely, foreign to de Tocqueville’s writing be of any influence at all upon one’s interpretation of his claims ?

          • sidor

            Posterior but not foreign. The genius of Tocqueville’s description is that he recognised the most essential features of the American political mentality which, as we can see, are time-invariant. Considering the US as an archetypal democracy, we can assume these features to be universal for a democratic society.

          • JabbaPapa

            Considering the US as an archetypal democracy

            Why ? De Tocqueville didn’t, in fact he spends a great deal of time in his introduction pointing out the differences between his democratic ideals and theories and what he found to exist in the US.

            Considering the US as an archetypal democracy, we can assume these features to be universal for democratic societies

            Bad method — you’re deriving universals from particulars, and then, to boot, blaming de Tocqueville of your own error.

            Among the better aspects of this rancidly pedantic work is that it’s a palimpsest — a portrait of US democracy by a French républicain ; so that there’s an ever-present implicit point of reference, to wit : la démocratie à la française.

            This simple fact precludes the US democracy being some kind of “archetype”, except of course in a point of view that has been informed by US propaganda.

          • sidor

            I think the reason for your regrettable confusion is that you cannot distinguish between opinions and facts as Newton recommended to do. In this way, you aren’t a scientist describing reality which Tocqueville was.

            In the time of Tocqueville’s writing, the US was the only observable democracy in the world (except Switzerland and possibly Holland). Only a hopeless paranoid can describe a reality based on his fantasies. A scientist derives theories based on observations. That’s why the peculiar features of the American democracy discerned by Tocqueville as an external observer, are of interest for the general conclusions about this type of government. And we see confirmations for Tocqueville’s conclusions every day. Look at the current presidential campaign dominated by vulgarity and mediocrity. The results of democratic elections in Germany we saw in 1933.

            History demonstrates how true is the idea of Voltaire: the best government is an enlightened despot.

          • JabbaPapa

            you cannot distinguish between opinions and facts

            So you must now needs resort to a broad dismissal of my intellective abilities, as the “only possible explanation” why I might disagree with your erroneous analyses. In your mind, the possibility that you might just be plain old wrong was likely hobbled in its stable.

            you aren’t a scientist describing reality which Tocqueville was

            erm, no, de Tocqueville wasn’t for starters, he was a professional politician and a philosopher describing a certain political state of affairs on the basis of his own political/philosophical doctrines and biases.

            You are **greatly confused** if you have arrived at the belief that the contents of this work might constitute some sort of objective data.

            In the time of Tocqueville’s writing, the US was the only observable democracy in the world

            In the time of Tocqueville’s writing, the French had gad several decades of experience with their own republican systems, and the Constitutional Monarchy of the period was not much different to a democratic system anyway.

          • sidor

            It is particularly funny about France. Could you please specify when the classical police state founded by Richelieu turned into a democracy? During Robespierre? Any of the two Napoleons? Marshall Petain? General de Gaulle?

            A small remark: don’t confuse republic with democracy.

          • JabbaPapa

            ffs — if you can’t win an argument, start twisting all definitions to suit your personal needs.

          • sidor

            Definitions are arbitrary as agreed on. Just semantics. There is nothing to twist.

            I am still waiting for the history of French democracy. Napoleon once said: We need 4 newspapers, I cannot read more.

          • JabbaPapa

            But you can’t even stick to the subject we already had without introducing some barmy 11th hour entirely gratuitous changes in **basic** definitions, which you then “justify” on the false basis of “definitions are arbitrary as agreed on. Just semantics” except that you couldn’t even be **bothered** to pretend to seek my agreement on these stupid re-definitions that you’re now attempting to unload in here as a last ditch attempt to salvage what you can of your deeply inaccurate claims.

            I mean sure — IF the USA is the ONLY “real” democracy (whatever that’s even supposed to be at this point, I actually couldn’t give a flying fig), then logically democracy can have existed nowhere before 1776 nor elsewhere than the USA.

            aaaaaand I mean never mind the total circularity of the “argument”, given that you’ve just demonstrated once more why it’s so often a waste of time talking to you.

          • sidor

            Still waiting for your answer concerning the French democracy. Don’t be shy.

          • JabbaPapa

            Which part of “it’s … a waste of time talking to you” did you fail to comprehend ?

          • sidor

            The medical part of it. Is the exhibited cognitive difficulty of genetic origin or a result of an unfortunate childhood?

          • JabbaPapa

            It’s the result of your fricking inability to get even your basic concepts straight.

          • sidor

            So, you cannot explain what you wrote because of my inability to get (whatever) straight. Thanks for confirming the medical conclusion.

          • JabbaPapa

            crikey you’re a deluded fool

            I. Am. Not. Going. To. Have. Discussions. With. Those. Who. Lack. Basic. Cogency.

            (PS your claim that France isn’t a democracy is NOT my responsibility, and I want nothing to do with it, you goggle-eyed loon)

          • sidor

            PS Is your problem with reading or with comprehending the text? I never claimed that France isn’t a democracy; I asked you to tell since when it became one. Do you know the answer?

          • Sanctimony

            Et au plus élevé trône du monde, si ne sommes assis que sur notre cul…

          • Neil Saunders

            Because they’re not simply “living their lives”; they’re pretending to be something they aren’t. In other words, living their lies.

          • Margo Broom

            What aren’t they exactly?

          • Margo Broom

            You mean ideological indoctrination like religion, capitalism etc. Ideological indoctrination is inevitable, it just about what kind of society we want to build when we teach our children about the world. I, for one, would like them to be aware and not afraid of others different from themselves.

          • MikeF

            I don’t want to fill them full of fears about themselves – which seems a good start to ensuring they do not fear anybody else.

          • Margo Broom

            Why would they feel innately fearful of themselves?

          • MikeF

            Perhaps I should have said uncertainties. Why do you assume that wanting children to feel secure in one or other ‘binary’ identity involves fear or antipathy to the tiny minority who are not.

          • Margo Broom

            Why would they innately fear themselves?

          • JabbaPapa

            Why do we need reference points?

            Because without them, we might as well just spread out back into the wilderness and start grubbing for roots.

            Reference points are the foundation of even the simplest human intellect.

          • Cogito Dexter

            The only reference points that are important are those we set for ourselves. Other people’s don’t matter – or at least, shouldn’t – in so far as they have no direct effect upon our own identities.

          • JabbaPapa

            That’s bollocks.

          • SimonToo

            I have never been entirely confident in the integrity of self-made men.

            O wad some Power the giftie gie us
            To see oursels as ithers see us!
            It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
            An’ foolish notion:
            What airs in dress an’ gait wad lea’e us,
            An’ ev’n devotion!

          • SocratesWept

            Exactly. Identity, personal or group, requires reference points and norms of behaviour. It is the very basis of a civil society.

      • NT94

        It is ironically these progressive liberals who come up with all the labels.
        “Gender Fluid”, “Pansexual”, “Gener Queer” etc. They label themselves, and then march around proclaiming to the world that they identify as some spurious term to notify others of their sexual preference. Nobody wants to know.
        They have so little going on in their life then need to latch onto some redundant fad identity they give themselves to feel special.

        • Cogito Dexter

          When people insist upon imposing upon others a label or distinction and then, after doing so, actively discriminate against those people, is it any wonder that the discriminated-against should band together as a de-facto ‘tribe’ to draw attention to the injustice? If it were really the case that ‘nobody wants to know’ (or care) about what others do with their private lives then these people could do such things freely without fear or favour. The trouble is, they can’t. When people like you diminish and oppress and insult those with whom you do not share a particular facet of life, what do you expect? You’re attacking a fundamental part of some people’s psyche. That’s personal. And for what reason? Why does it matter to you in the slightest?

          • JabbaPapa

            You’re attacking a fundamental part of some people’s psyche

            “Gender” theory is an all-out assault on the collective and individual psyches of the vast majority.

            What did you expect ? That all your sexual fantasies might suddenly become true ?

          • Cogito Dexter

            Again with the ‘fantasies’ bilge. Self identity is how one views oneself, it is one’s innate understanding of one’s own self. You have no right to impose upon someone else the duty or obligation to change their own understanding of themselves, any more than anyone else has the right to change how you view yourself. What is it about that that is so difficult for you to understand?

          • JabbaPapa

            You wish to detach the process of self-identification from its normal psychosocial structuring, and **that** is pure fantasy.

            See Truffaut’s “L’enfant sauvage” both for a portrait of an entirely self-constructed identity (it doesn’t look good), and of the fundamentally psychosocial nature of what it means to begin functioning as an __individual__.

            The word “individual” in these terms is *fundamentally* social in nature — it is in fact definable ONLY in relation to a society.

            To pretend that we could just throw away multiple key components of Western society is as lunatic as it is destructive.

          • Cogito Dexter

            Again, I ask why, if one’s gender identity is so inalienably linked to physical attributes, how do you explain hermaphrodites’ self identity?

            I would also venture to suggest that ‘Western society’ can survive being tolerant to a few people who do not conform to your idea of gender norms.

          • JabbaPapa

            Again, I ask why, if one’s gender identity is so inalienably linked to physical attributes, how do you explain hermaphrodites’ self identity?

            It is quite shameful of you to exploit the numerous psychological and social difficulties of the intersexed for the purposes of your own completely unrelated political activism.

            tolerant

            Why not look up the meaning of this word in one of the better dictionaries ?

          • Cogito Dexter

            Exploiting? You really are the giddy limit and you utterly refuse to see sense. If anyone is exploiting people born as hermaphrodites, it’s you, by claiming some sort of moral ownership over them! I’m simply illustrating that what you claim as an absolute is nothing of the sort. The very existence of people for whom gender identity cannot be linked to a particular design of genitals proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is no absolute connection. Gender identity is separate. That it generally parallels the genitalia is irrelevant. That is simply a matter of statistics. All you have to do is accept that gender identity, while mostly matching the outward appearance, does not always do so. Having once accepted that, it becomes nonsensical as well as unjust to insist that it there is an absolute connection.

          • JJD

            To interject:

            It might be that there is an absolute connection where physical deformity does not intervene to such an extent as to make that connection impossible.

            The reason there is no clear connection between s*x and gender in hermaphrodites might be because their s*xual (genital) identity is itself physically ambiguous. This has the inevitable result that their gender identity, too, is ambiguous.

            But with people whose s*xual (genital) identity is not ambiguous, gender identity is not ambiguous either. Just as with hermaphrodites, gender identity is predicated upon s*xual identity.

            Is there anything to stop me interpreting the phenomenon in that way?

          • JabbaPapa

            If anyone is exploiting people born as hermaphrodites, it’s you, by claiming some sort of moral ownership over them

            What a load of bollocks.

            What nonsensical “moral ownership” might this be ????

            You, matey, are the one trying to support your own nonsensical “gender” crap by making reference to some persons born with anatomical defects or malformations.

            And CRIKEY you do so rant on about genitals …

          • Jess

            As the 20th century philosopher Bernard Manning said, “just because a dog is born in a stable it doesn’t make it a horse.”

          • Cogito Dexter

            Irrelevant.

          • Louis E.

            One’s MISunderstanding of one’s own self must not go uncorrected,we have the obligation to impose that correction upon them.Not all views are equally correct!

          • Cogito Dexter

            Absolute rubbish. You are in no position to determine what is or isn’t the correct view another person has of themselves. Keep your nose out of other people’s business!

          • Louis E.

            Untrue.People can have delusions about themselves and be better served by firm correction than being left to indulge those delusions.

          • NT94

            The “progressive” liberals are the ones coming up with these labels and they apply it to THEMSELVES. They are the ones who insist on being addressed with different pronouns and actively want to be known as identifying as some obscure sexual orientation. They actively ensure everyone is aware of how unique they are (like Vegans).
            Regular people are told to address these individuals with their desired pronoun, or be brandished as a sexist bigot.
            For the record, I have absolutely no problem with these folks – they can do what they like. Of course you should be able to be in a relationship with whoever you like and dress in whatever clothes you like. But, when they start to change what the definition of what it is to be a man or woman they have gone too far.

          • Cogito Dexter

            But one needs to understand that outward appearances do not always (mostly, but not always) reflect the internal view a person has of themselves. One simply has to accept that and try not to discriminate against people based on a prejudice against those who view themselves differently to what is suggested by their outward appearance. I mean, what is actually gained by such discrimination?

          • JabbaPapa

            But one needs to understand that outward appearances do not always (mostly, but not always) reflect the internal view a person has of themselves

            This is referred to by the colloquialism “cognitive dissonance”.

          • Cogito Dexter

            Really? Are hermaphrodites suffering from cognitive dissonance?

          • JabbaPapa

            The intersexed are an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT question — as you’d realise, if you actually cared about their problems, instead of just shoving them forward as part of your political agenda.

          • Louis E.

            You need to understand that people can have incorrect and harmful internal views of themselves that they need to be pressured to abandon.

          • Cogito Dexter

            What business is it of yours what people think of themselves?

            Ever heard the phrase ‘Mind your own business’? Your mother may well have used it a lot with you. Certainly she should have.

          • Louis E.

            It helps people to be corrected…if you care enough about them,you make sure they get that help.

          • Louis E.

            When those who wish to engage in an activity that NEEDS to be discriminated against face the appropriate consequences,they are not entitled to recourse.Helpful correction is not hateful oppression despite the claims of self-righteous wrongdoers.

          • Cogito Dexter

            So you’re suggesting that people who are transgender NEED to be discriminated against?

            Well aren’t you a nice person? (Hint: No)

          • Louis E.

            No,I am insisting that rules against certain behaviors the “transgender” seek to perpetrate need to be equally forbidden to all persons.Rules of conduct are for everyone…not just those not minded to violate them in the first place.

          • bargogx1

            You can pretend to be whoever or whatever you want to be in the privacy of your own home, but when you do it in public, and expect others to indulge your delusion, then you are infringing upon their rights. You have no right whatsoever to tell me that I must indulge you if you believe that you are something you are not.

      • johngf

        While gender may be over-emphasised it’s still important. Ironically I think all this gender-denying could lead to the resurrection of feminism as men seek to increase their advantages at the expense of women.

      • Chris Taylor

        Yeas. I can see how that could work with criminals and the psychopathic. I mean why put obstacles in their way. That is so judgmental. Or just plain mental.

      • bargogx1

        So, do you mean accept people for who they are, or who they say they are?

      • Neil Saunders

        Why can’t it be Christmas every day? Why can’t I be 25 for ever?

        • Cogito Dexter

          Why can’t you take a serious point seriously?

          • Neil Saunders

            I can and I do. That’s why I employed a reductio ad absurdum argument.

          • Cogito Dexter

            No, you didn’t. Since every day is clearly not Christmas day. A person is always a person though. And the point is that that fact should be the only thing that matters to anyone. What a person does with their life, how they perceive themselves, etc, should be of absolutely no concern of yours. As your mother (should have) said: keep your nose out of other people’s business.

          • Neil Saunders

            You have missed the point of the comparisons, which was their impossibility. It is not enough merely to be “a person” (however enduringly) to elect to be any kind of person, hence my inability to be 25 for ever, or a s£x other than my own.

            One group of people impersonating another group of people (other than for entertainment purposes or in private) is the concern of the whole society (of which I am a member). Such regular imposture (e.g. as a uniformed police officer or priest) is generally regarded as criminal. Your mother should have taught you not to criticise others until you understand what they are saying.

          • Cogito Dexter

            The point I have been trying to make all along (although clearly some people think i’m failing) is that personhood is what we make for ourselves. Respecting another’s self identity requires nothing more than accepting them for who they present themselves to be. Whether or not you consider that person to be lying to themselves is irrelevant. They do not consider that they are lying – in fact they consider what they present to the world to be the absolute truth of their own personhood. It is no business of yours to interfere with that person’s self identity. You can go away and grumble to yourself about how deluded you think they are, that’s entirely up to you. But you don’t act on it because you would cause pain and suffering to someone else. Their self identity should not be causing you any pain or suffering at all, since their life isn’t yours to manipulate or change.

          • Neil Saunders

            The point you’ve being trying to make is incoherent.

          • Cogito Dexter

            No. It is extremely straightforward. Your refusal to accept it is simply evidence of your own unjust prejudice and bigotry. You do not get to make the rules for other people. Simple as that. Like it or lump it.

          • Neil Saunders

            It’s extremely and straightforwardly wrong, which I why I reject it. We all supposedly “get to make the rules for other people” (and ourselves, for that matter) in a democracy, which is why I support open, public debate and freedom of speech. We shouldn’t have to “like or lump” anything that goes too strongly against the grain for most people most of the time. It’s rather a moot point whether we really live in a democracy, though; that much I’m prepared to concede.

          • Margo Broom

            I’m not aware of anyone in trans activism advocating the above. This is all about making children aware of the differences in people and society. Potentially their fellow classmates. This should in turn alleviate their potential confusion and fear of these people. All of this just echo’s the section 28 debate. Making children aware of the spectrum of sexuality hasn’t meant more people are identifying as something other than straight. Gender fluidity and gender dysphoria are not chosen lifestyles they are part of some people for reasons they probably can’t explain themselves. Those people do not need to justify who they are. The choice is whether these people are oppressed or not. Awareness hopefully safeguards against immediate oppression as well as the subsequent privilege and inequality. Also granting these rights to trans people in doesn’t even require you to engage let alone “like or lump” it . The trouble is right wing people love a bit of social order, it feel all warm and fuzzy and safe. They also tend to dress it up as “common sense” but really it’s anything but.

          • Neil Saunders

            Section 28 should have been strengthened, not abolished. Children’s minds should not be raped by activists from often bizarre sexual minorities. “Gender fluidity” and “gender dysphoria” are categories (among others) invented by activists to serve as rhetorical battering rams against mainstream society.

            If a man chooses to take hormones and/or be castrated, and then dress up in what appear to be his auntie’s cast-offs, looking for all the world like Cissie or Ada from Les Dawson’s old show, or the late Billy Dainty in his pantomime-dame guise, then he can hardly claim to be “oppressed” when the vast majority of people refuse to buy into his narcissistic fantasy of really being a woman.

            Real women have wombs (unless these are surgically removed) and most ovulate during their fertile years; the trans-fantastists do not. It is not “right-wing” to acknowledge reality.

          • Margo Broom

            Gender fluidity is a term that is used to encompass people who don’t fall into either male or female genders. I think it is irrelevant whether this is a choice or is inherent to them. People should have the right to express themselves however they wish so long as those expressions don’t oppress others.
            Gender Dysphoria is the experience of not being at one with ones assigned gender. This is very much about physicality and probably as inherent to a person as homosexuality. It is not a mental illness because it is simply a difference from a societal norm rather than something that will inherently cause an individual distress. Having gender dysphoria probably predisposes an individual to have a different view of gender and the philosophy that has arisen is gender fluidity.
            I am biologically male who has probably has an intersex condition XXY (I have chosen not to know) and was therefore assigned male. I am also infertile. I am different to most trans people in that I don’t mind if you think I am a man. I think this is more rooted in your lack of experience and empathy of trans experience than anything to do with me. I don’t know if I am a woman, the true nature of womanhood is very much under debate anyway amongst all women. I agree with Germaine Greer when she claims femininity is about performance for example. What I am certain of is that I suffer from gender dysphoria because I feel physically detached from my body and I am uncomfortable in a male role in society. I have a choice as to how to deal with this persistent feeling. I tried to come to terms with this for 20 years but became severely depressed, attempted suicide and couldn’t form meaningful relationships with other people.
            When I came out my first thought wasn’t to throw on a dress and strut down the high street in my heels. I just did what most women do, get on with the rest of my life. Trans women are not caricatures of women nor are they narcissistic. Most are not activists and are inconspicuous and I imagine you have seen many trans women but never noticed. You never chose to buy into the idea those individuals were women, you assumed based on external appearance.
            Trans women are victims of oppression like most women but also have their own set of battles for this is the nature of intersectionality.
            It is right wing to try to maintain the reality of patriarchy or any social order. There is currently a gender class system that we can either maintain or dismantle. Part of making young people aware of difference is to make them less fearful of it. Nobody is advocating telling young people they are gender fluid just to inform them that some people think that gender is fluid and live their lives accordingly. This hopefully means that all people can live their live free from oppression.
            Do you ever consider that your view comes from a position of privilege and that you simply don’t feel oppressed? Is there anything you wish you could do but don’t through fear of oppression? In that circumstance would others be right to oppress you?

          • Neil Saunders

            To quote Claudius (to Polonius) in “Hamlet”, more substance with less art.

            PS. I’d sussed you as a Panto Dame.

          • Margo Broom

            What’s wrong with being a panto dame? Not that I regard myself as one and I’m not at all camp.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Ah, bigotry must be enforced, kids bullied until they fit your rigid roles. No matter how many commit suicide, if they’re saved they’re “raped” in your world. Hmm!

            As you ignore the fact you’re the one hating modern society, as you speak for yourself and show you’ll be a bigot and a bully, standing outside said society. Real cowards like you… as you spew that hate is “reality”…

          • Neil Saunders

            If kids commit suicide it’s because society has been messed up on the one hand by the globalist neoliberals, who’ve created a Wonga economy with only casualised Mc-jobs (most of which are taken by foreigners anyway) and on the other by sexual deviants who want to impose their own sickness upon the mainstream culture and educational system by governmental fiat.

            As far as Section 28 is concerned, the real bullies are the nonces (and their virtue-signalling enablers) who want to make their grooming of our children compulsory and state-sponsored.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Ah, so you make excuses for your bullying, denying it.

            And excuses for your capitalism, blaming the Other. Blaming those not exactly like, you as you decry mainstream culture and education. Oh, and democracy.

          • Neil Saunders

            What a very confused person you are, Leon.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            “UR CONFUSED”

            Ah, the accusations start.

          • Neil Saunders

            It’s not an accusation, Leon, but an appraisal.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Ah, that excuse for accusations.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            You don’t, though, as you’ve repeatedly shown. You want the right to bully and oppress people who don’t fit your ideas of sexuality, for instance.

          • Neil Saunders

            You’re just a scattergun contrarian, Leon. You have to disagree with everything anyone says, just for the sake of disagreeing. It must be a psychological condition, unless you’re some kind of professional troll or disinfo merchant.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Ah yes, the wild accusations, because you can’t understand that anyone outside your ideology can have views. Thanks for admitting your job, trolling merchant, as you start with the social darwinist, totalitarian, far right accusations that disagreeing with you is mental illness.

            You’re a 100% committed censor, right.

          • Neil Saunders

            Calm down, Leon. It’s not good for your blood pressure.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            See, there you are making your assumptions and projecting again.

            All because you don’t want to let more than one viewpoint exist.

    • Oddsbods

      It is a real attempt at destabilisation of the existing society to enable replacement by a more malleable one.

    • stuartMilan

      agree with most of what you say, but the Left doesn’t the subjectivity to be truly personal – it’ll be what they say it is, Handed Down From Above

    • http://gentlemind.blogspot.co.uk/ gentlemind

      Hi Damaris. You and I do not know each other, but I recognise your name because of the high quality of the comments you contribute to discussions such as this one.
      Come and have a nose around my blog? I am miles ahead of everybody on this gender thing.

      • Damaris Tighe

        Hi there. What blog is that?

        • http://gentlemind.blogspot.co.uk/ gentlemind

          Click on my name, and you will find a link on my disqus profile.
          gentlemind.blogspot.co.uk

    • Amelie

      Hi Damaris. I’d like to echo what gentlemind is saying, I really like the quality of your comments on a number of blogs. Do you write at all? If so where, and if not, would you be interested in writing some articles?

      • Damaris Tighe

        Hi Amelie. Thank you for your comment. I once wrote a few articles for academic journals (not politics). What are you suggesting?

        • Amelie

          Quadrapheme is looking for contributors and I think you’d be a good fit. Have a look: http://www.quadrapheme.com/about/

        • E.I.Cronin

          Haha! see Damaris… it’s not just me saying that you’re a very gifted writer. Accept it – you’ll just have to write a bestseller. :)

          Mind you I think writing is a form of self-inflicted but mild torture. Every writer I know finds their art stressful. I had a stroke of luck last year and also got an article published by a UK mag but not one publisher has responded to a rough draft of my book. Too polemical I suspect (besides badly written). Am letting it stew for a while.

          I look forward to an autographed copy of your first release.

          • Damaris Tighe

            I’m rubbish at fiction tho’ some say that’s all I write 😉

    • flipkipper

      Hi Damaris, I really like the qualiddy of your comments on other blogs and how you elucidate here that John Lennon is so deeply sinister, I mean, that is just so most excellently bodacious. Do you experience in writing at all? You must of done some pretty wacky stuff in the past. Kisses.

      • Baron

        You’re being unkind, flipkipper, Damaris’s comments are to the point, logically argued, never miss to add to whatever’s discussed.

        Melanie and he (most others here) are right. Some two generations ago, the unwashed were told to abandon sexual inhibitions, they greedily did, and what’s the result? Much higher level of VDs than before, broken marriages with unhappy kids, and above all, greater unhappiness, google for suicide rate for the 16-45 most sexually enlightened generation.

        Gender fluidity takes the process of liberating us from the shackles of the dark past a step further. What do you reckon that will lead to? The nirvana everyone wants or mass suicide?

        • flipkipper

          Neither Baron, it will lead to neither.
          It’s all a perpetual ying and yang if you ask me. Depending on where you stand you might feel like you want to yang whilst others will follow their calling and ying. A crisis scenario occurs whenever inexplicable occurances cannot be adequately processed by an individual mind, in severe cases causing psychosomatic trauma.

    • SimonToo

      Sadly, it is not the final frontier. Ever more esoteric ones lie beyond.

      • Damaris Tighe

        It’s difficult to imagine …

    • Margo Broom

      Sounds great! Do you ever feel oppressed?

  • disqus_QL05BqU79X

    Maria Miller (a hardline feminist) heads a Women and Equalities Select Committee. That such a committee can even exist defies everything it could claim to stand for.

  • Lewis Bassett

    Is this not, by Miller’s own logic, cruelty to trans people? – The answer is no, it isnt. By promoting gender fluidity you are not necessarily denouncing gender identities. The reason the CWESC wants to remove it from documents of importance is to prevent its from playing any part in deciding outcomes for that person EG: Job interviews. They are not saying gender doesn’t exist, but instead claiming that 1. People must understand that its is a complex, varied spectrum and 2. That it does not need to be officially recognised by governments, employers etc because it should not play a part in determining the persons life in any way except for their own personal expression.

    “If a girl prefers to climb trees rather than play with dolls or a boy likes ballet, will they now wonder if they’re really not a girl or a boy at all”

    Thats kind of the point. An increase in awareness of fluidity means that children no longer need to see themselevs as one of two types of person. It makes people realise that they dont necessarily have to act, think and feel in certain ways – which is undeniably a good thing. This analogy doesn’t hold because it presumes that the child’s confusion is a problem, when with more education and coverage on the subject of fluidity it will be a positive realisation.

    The essential argument here seems to be that ‘we need labels’. By why not push for a more malleable society? Who will be the victims? This reads like just another cultural libertarian masquerading as the voice of reason but who is actually confused, aggravated totally misinterpreting information.

    • lmda

      But in the dark, backward abysm of time, before the dawn of gender-fluidity awareness, (about 6 months ago), – the vast majority of girls who liked climbing trees and boys who liked ballet were quite untroubled by the thought that these, possibly transitory, enthusiasms might have any baring on their XX or XY status – to suggest that they do is a) false and b) disturbing.
      It appears to me that those pushing gender-fluidity imagine that the unenlightened masses have a much narrower and more prescriptive view of what it is to be a boy or a girl than is in fact the case. I suspect they are projecting.

    • Simon Rhodes

      And what about passports? Sorry this is dangerous whichever way you look at this. If someone is serious about changing gender, yes the facilitation of this should be there but to deny gender is ridiculous.I belong to the optimistic strand of society that feels that in the not too distant future,gender prejudice or relevance will be a thing of the past. Attributes of both sexes & other gender traits they have will be seen of no consequence.

      • Simon Fay

        Looking forward to that. How many cybernetic tentacles might I have by then? And will human-tissue samples have the vote by then? Or will those of us born to human mothers have quietly inherited the condition & status of tissue-aggregations?

      • NoPasaran

        Having a NAME is cis-heterodox oppression! Passports should have neither photographs or names!

        • Chris Taylor

          Or information of any kind. Nor tickets which restrict your identity to that of a specific individual. Or any luggage labels because that would be a capitalist identity trap. In fact let us abandon language lest it restrict our being to that of a sensible human able to interact with other human beings – preferably male and female ones.

    • Arnold_Laine

      We “act think and feel” according to biological imperatives. This fluidity nonsense is a mental illness suffered by a small amount of the population, and the left has jumped on it to prove how “liberal and advanced” their thinking is. The end result is that many normal people will be afflicted and confused by the pushing of this non-issue issue when they could have just lived their lives and been happy.

      • Chris Taylor

        Are you Pink?

    • Louis E.

      We need to divorce what we do (like ballet,climb trees,as we choose) from who we are (determined by our chromosomes,not anyone’s right to choose).Socially constructed gender-role vs. biologically determined sex/identity.

      • JabbaPapa

        Except that the formation of our personalities, including some basic language-learning, starts in the womb.

        So there’s this great big 9-month-long wibbly-wobbly bit in the middle that’s neither quite nature nor nurture.

    • Chris Taylor

      Whatever. Yawn.

    • bargogx1

      Who will be the victims? Anyone who is told that they must deny the evidence of their own senses, and call a woman a man, or a man a woman. In other words, everybody.

      • evad666

        With the swarming of Muslims into this country such nonsense puts all young people at risk.

    • JJD

      No, this is terribly disingenuous. The concept of gender fluidity is not being pushed out of a concern for justice (eg job interviews and equal life chances). It’s part of a long and vicious crusade, by feminists and gender theorists and other sympathetic cultural vandals, against the social order they so intensely despise, namely, the “patriarchal” Christian West.

      Among the many non-sequiturs above, let me highlight the following: “It makes people realise that they don’t necessarily have to act, think and feel in certain ways – which is undeniably a good thing.”

      This is not undeniable at all. Helping people realize that they do indeed have to act and think and feel in certain ways is a good definition of Education. Educating people into an identity that is both individual and socially-approved is healthy. Encouraging them to make up their own identity with no other reference point than their own feelings, is not. The idea that subjective experience is the foundation of personal identity is already a profoundly destabilizing concept. And stability is exactly what children today often lack.

      • Lewis Bassett

        My first claim was not concerning the whole gender fluidity in schools movement. I was disagreeing with Miller when she said that removing gender from integral documents was cruelty to trans. She is not dismissing gender, merely suggesting that our objective ‘gender identity’ should not necessarily influence how we are treated. This is to avoid predjudice based on gender.

        My second point was that teaching children about gender ambiguity may foster a more rounded understanding about the complexity of gender in the 21st century.

        I dont agree that the stability of children is dependent on a strict sense of personal identity based on gender? That is a kind of essentialism that feels reductive. Its not like the reference point of ‘Im a man’ is some sort of saving grace when kids get confused.

        “Educating people into an identity that is both individual and socially-approved is healthy”

        Yeah, but why cant a less essential socially approved idenity be included in this? I agree that people must identify with something, but the twofold paradigm of boy/girl is clearly something that is becoming more and more of an issue and i dont see why people cant be educated to understand that?

        • JabbaPapa

          My second point was that teaching children about gender ambiguity may foster a more rounded understanding about the complexity of gender in the 21st century.

          FFS, you’re now spouting this gibberish propaganda as if it had somehow been magically transformed into reality.

          That is a kind of essentialism that feels reductive

          In fact, it’s just plain straightforward common sense gained by looking around at people instead of imagining that frenzied social networking with the like-minded about your common obsessions was somehow “real”.

        • JJD

          The boy/girl thing is only becoming an issue because certain people are making an issue of it, not because it actually is an issue.

          These are the people who see gender identities, as traditionally understood, to be forms of oppression. For my part, I see them as essential equipment for a healthy and happy human life.

          If boys or girls get confused about their gender identity, then that confusion ought to be addressed or treated, not indulged. Indulging the confusion does not heal the confusion, it only ingrains it. For example, trans people sometimes get operations in the hope that their gender confusion will be resolved. But often, these operations do not resolve the confusion. They only ingrain it.

          I don’t have any problem with the label ‘essentialism’, if that’s what you want to call it. Because I do think that gender identity is built upon sexual (genital) identity. It is not a free-floating category: it is bound to, although not reducible to, biological maleness and femaleness.

        • peterdavis

          I’m really looking forward to all this stuff being put forward to Muslim schools!

  • Tom M

    This, by comparison, makes the latter stages of the Roman Empire look quite sensible. The end result I fear, will be the same.

    • logdon

      It’s turning out to be a mirror image.

      The rot starts from within and then it’s open all seasons.

      When even a US lowbrow series on Rome blamed its downfall on lack of, or resistance to diversity, we see where it’s all headed.

      If only they’d let more Barbarians in, was the trope, everything would have been hunky-dory.

      I think that Europe is at that, test to destruction, stage right now.

      • Simon Fay

        I didn’t see HBO’s ‘Rome’ (the show you mean?) – was that the thrust?

        • logdon

          I bought the box set in The Word for about ten pounds.

          The thrust was glossed over with the sheen of modern political correctness.

          • JabbaPapa

            It’s sort of OK — Classical Roman politics actually **were** uncannily like the modern version ; where it screwed up really was a) it’s myopically ignorant representation of the religious issues, including **completely** obviating the FACT that Julius Caesar was a High Priest, b) some of the grotesquely unbelievable crap they wrote for its second season, and c) its **utterly false** representation of family and civil Law — within the Roman Capital **especially** (even “Gladiator” did it better).

          • logdon

            I think it offered a highly accessible overview and whilst I know far less about Roman history than you, I immediately detected what basically is the narrative.

            We see it at the UN. We hear it constantly from Obama. Cameron does his bit. And the BBC?The less said, the better.

            So that’s what they do. Rather than the truth, they ‘revise’ to fit the academic and establishment zeitgeist.

            A bit like Newspeak, in fact.

  • http://romangovernor.org/ kentgeordie

    Where do the churches stand on this? ‘Male and female he created them.’ (Genesis1,27)
    I would have expected an episcopal outcry against such wicked nonsense.

    • Cogito Dexter

      Strangely enough, in the history of the Catholic Church, there have, on rare occasions, been male-to-female nuns. It’s not the norm, but from time to time it has occurred.

      Nope, I wasn’t expecting that fact either, when I read it.

      • JabbaPapa

        Strangely enough, in the history of the Catholic Church, there have, on rare occasions, been male-to-female nuns

        If you got this total crap from some queer website, please understand that it’s total crap.

        There have been a few cases in History of boys pretending to be girls being accepted, through this pretense, and by means of telling lies, into some convents — these are cases of abuses, NOT the Catholic Church accepting any of this bollocks.

        • Cogito Dexter

          I did not get this from ‘some queer website’ as you so quaintly put it, as it happens. But thank you for your concern for the veracity of my facts. It’s very sweet of you.

          • Mike17

            I see you are not wanting to tell us where you did get it from, then.

          • Cogito Dexter

            That is because I don’t retain the sources of all the facts that go into my head. I tend to discount untrustworthy sources though, and although you wouldn’t know this nor would I expect you to accept it on my own say-so, I am actually something of an expert on the Catholic Church compared to most people. Howsoever, the facts that I presented were indeed facts, gleaned from orthodox Catholic sources.

          • JabbaPapa

            I am actually something of an expert on the Catholic Church compared to most people

            Saints and Angels preserve us …

        • Catrionasuthers

          There’s quite a few saint’s tales of girls pretending to be girls to get into monasteries. The one that I’ve read, from the 6th/7th century, (‘Life of St Mary/Marinos’, Ten Saints Lives in English Translation, ed. Alice Mary-Talbot, 1996) doesn’t criticise the girl’s attempt, in fact it praises her for aiming at higher goals! But in the end when she died they were like ‘oh, she’s a girl’ not ‘she’s physically a female but we will continue to call her a he because her gender was male’. I don’t think the transgender issue was hugely on their radar.

          • JabbaPapa

            The existence of abuses involving false representations, disguises, and lies is not admirable, regardless what obscure little texts you might refer to. (usually these texts get completely warped out of all resemblance to their original meaning when presented in the pro-gay manner BTW, as a continuation of the false representations and lies)

            I don’t think the transgender issue was hugely on their radar

            Neither “radar” nor “transgender” existed prior to the 20th century.

          • http://rantingoldgit.blogspot.co.uk/ Arthur Sparknottle

            Hey – I’m no fan of the ‘trans women are women because they say they are women,’ nonsense and go along with Ms Germain Greer on the matter, but your assertion is completely wrong on the transgender issue. There have been men who acted and dressed and lived like women for hundreds of years and vice versa. Have you seen those dreadful Indian trans folk? Hijras they are called

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3009010/India-s-men-minus-maleness-Meet-transgender-women-ostracised-communities-forced-lives-begging-prostitution.html

            Horrifying to me, but the do and have existed for a long time prior to the twentieth century.

          • JabbaPapa

            “transgender” is a modern concept invented in the 20th century, regardless what has been shoved into that concept, and so regardless of points of origin in history or fiction or etc.. It is a big mushy one-size-fits-all political stance seeking to unify all of those diverse sources under a great big lefty rainbow banner of “vote for me”.

      • Sigfridiii

        It was a traditional method of getting the fox into the hen house, so to speak.

      • JJD

        What has that got to do with the point at issue? Boys/men who’ve successfully passed themselves off as women is irrelevant. The article is about something different.

    • Grant Melville

      I don’t think the churches will have a clear position on the issue. If they did, then they’d face a backlash from the activists who created this debate in the first place – and the churches seem to care disproportionately about bad press. They (and we) know very well how the Almighty God views this issue: He created them, male and female. He made a clear distinction, as clear as Night and Day. In the divine mind, and according to the divine will, everything is clear-cut and perfectly defined. In man’s mind, there’s endless confusion. If the churches were true to light as to the truth which they claim to have, then they’d ‘call a spade a spade’ and call this what it is – another manifestation of the sin and self-will of man, a dreadful psychological condition elevated to the position of a cherished and inalienable human right. My deepest sympathy goes out to anyone who’s suffering from this condition, and I can’t begin to imagine the distress which results from it. That doesn’t take away from the fact that they need treatment, rather than, for want of a better word, ‘pandering’. One doesn’t give an alcoholic a bottle and tell them that their alcoholism is part of their identity and that they should embrace it. Before there’s an outcry about my use of that comparison, one thing should be considered. The wilful violence done to the human body in the form of ‘gender reassignment’ surgery is comparable with that the ravages caused by sustained alcohol abuse.

      • JabbaPapa

        I don’t think the churches will have a clear position on the issue

        Pope Francis : “Gender ideology is demonic.”

        • Cogito Dexter

          Much as I like the guy (a lot, for many different reasons), Pope Francis isn’t the final arbiter of everything for all people on this planet.

          He also said, of gay people “Who am I to judge?”, by the way.

          • JabbaPapa

            He also said, of gay people “Who am I to judge?”, by the way

            In fact, he was being asked a very specific question about one specific person — Who am I to judge that person? – NOT Who am I to judge teh gayz?

          • NoPasaran

            It’s working the distinction. A gay man is still a man, not an “otherkin” or whatever passing nonsense someone wishes existed.

          • Mike17

            Oh no, not that one again. How many time must poor Pope Francis be misconstrued? Who said this: ” But who are you that you judge your neighbour?” Sounds rather like what Pope Francis said, doesn’t it. But it was written by St James in his Epistle. So Pope Francis was only echoing St James. he was NOT saying that we must not condemn homosexual activity. He was saying that we must not condemn the people who do it. That’s not our job. There is a world of difference between condemning a type of behaviour and condemning individuals.

          • http://ecclesandbosco.blogspot.com/ ecclesiam

            The answer being, of course, that he is the Pope, from whom some judgement is expected.

    • Fulgentian

      I’m sure there will be. They’re just reeling from what happened to them in Canterbury. Give it time.

    • Paul Jackson

      So what’s your point? Fight one load of irrational nonsense with another load of irrational nonsense?
      Once you start arguing from scripture you lose the argument because there is so much that is morally repugnant and downright idiotic in all ‘holy books’.

      • http://romangovernor.org/ kentgeordie

        A load of irrational nonsense? Today is the feast of St Thomas Aquinas.
        But my point really is, isn’t it surprising that the inheritors of a 2000 tradition seem to have surrendered to such a very feeble adversary. The gay juggernaut rolls on.

    • Sigfridiii

      It is yet another bandwagon that they are late in spotting and climbing aboard.

    • http://ecclesandbosco.blogspot.com/ ecclesiam

      It’s generally regarded as a mental disorder, rather than a physical one. Likewise, you may believe that you are a hamster, but going round and round in a wheel all day is not sufficient evidence.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Free Churches (Reformed, or Protestant) are indeed shouting about God’s creation truths, but the CofE ain’t got a lot of Christians left in it. The RC’s, well, who knows what their current pope might tell them they believe on this matter.

      • JabbaPapa

        Will no-one rid us of this troublesome sectarian ?

        • Dominic Stockford

          Your attempt to incite people to violence and murder has been noted, and pointed out to the relevant authorities.

          • JabbaPapa

            moron

          • Sanctimony

            Still full of the milk of human kindness, I see…. you really are the most ghastly arrogant old bat…. whatever happened to the Woman in White ?

      • paultitterington_7

        One Roman Catholic Priest-to-be told me: he would rather be an atheist than a Pentecostal or a Charismatic.
        Strange that, seeing that the late and present pope now have their very own Charismatic Churches throughout the world?
        That Priest must now be one very mixed-up individual.

  • Anthorny

    I read today about a young lady who believes she is a cat. She says she’s a cat trapped in a human body and hisses at dogs, hates water and claims she can even see better at night.

    So perhaps the current fashion for acceptance and recognition of all things “transgender” should be extended to “transspecies”. Individuals have a right to believe they are for example a cat, or a dog, or a hamster and so should be taken seriously and their needs duly accommodated.

    • Louis E.

      Look up “Therians” and “Otherkin”.If the “LGBT” are not turned back these will be the next “protected minorities”.

      • Anthorny

        Ah yes: “Therians are people who identify, in some intrinsic way, as an animal that exists or has existed on earth. Some believe that their soul is that of an animal while others identify as a non-human animal. They practice Ph-Shifting and M-Shifting.”

        Let’s stick up for the intrinsic rights of Therians!

    • Frank Marker

      I love the idea of a hamster transspecies demanding the right of a wheel at the workplace.

      • evad666

        Most of us have had to put up with a wheel for our working lives going round and round anyway.

        • Frank Marker

          Alas was it ever thus. Sigh.

    • Dominic Stockford

      If she’s a cat she can’t talk, so how can she be saying anything at all?

    • paultitterington_7

      You know what curiosity does to cats! Maybe this is her 1st life?

  • Teacher

    I heard a programme on Radio Four today about gender in sport and how transgendered people will be able to play for the boys’ or the girls’ teams as they wish. It was pointed out that testosterone gives physical advantages in the height, speed and strength departments so those who transgender from male to female will have an unfair advantage. Despite the strong demurral this point evoked someone pointed out that the Iranian football team now has eight male to female transgendered players.

    You couldn’t make it up.

    • JabbaPapa

      the Iranian football team now has eight male to female transgendered players

      /face-palm/

    • Jess

      They’re very weak in the tackle though.

      • Peter Simple

        I am rather weak in the tackle too, these days, but that has rather more to do with the passing of the years.

  • Reality is sweet

    The idea that personalities and clothing preferences are linked to one’s genital configuration — and that genital surgery and lifelong medication are in order when they are not — is as bizarre as any of the claims made by phrenologists, Scientologists and astrologers.

  • Sigfridiii

    Cultural Marxism is very close to achieving the deconstruction of all our realities. In readiness for an ideology which we are not allowed to name to impose its legal system on us.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Which end is the biggest irony, for what they intended was for a socialist revolution to take place at that ‘deconstruction point’, instead there will be a massacre of the socialists…

      • Simon Fay

        “there will be a massacre of the socialists…”

        I think I’m up for a bit of that.

  • NoPasaran

    They really aren’t saying that gender is fluid, they are saying that girls are girls, and that boys are girls.

    • MrJones

      there needs to be a counter revolution

  • Chris Taylor

    Next – those who self identify as animals. Really. This is the next barrier of unreality. Pity these fools can’t self identify as intelligent or sensible. Get a proper life. This is not TV and you are not a star.

    • SimonToo

      This is not hypothetical, nor is it satirical. Species dysmorphia is an issue. There is no point in coming to a conclusion about transgenderism if one cannot reach a consistent decision about trans-speciesism. Oh, and about people who believe that they are the Emperor Napoleon or a teapot.

      • magi83

        I don’t believe I’m a teapot. I am a teapot.

        • SimonToo

          If you say so. (Or perhaps not).

    • evad666

      I understand belief in being a chicken is popular among politicians who enjoy stuffing and being stuffed.

    • newminster

      Didn’t I read somewhere a day or two ago about a woman who thought she was in reality a cat?

  • bargogx1

    Mind control and brainwashing is what this is all about. If you can convince people to believe that a man is a woman, or a woman is a man, you can convince them to believe just about anything. And if convincing doesn’t work, force seems to be the next step.

    • http://www.competentme.com Adetoz

      Have you heard of Cat girl? Aye, the West is going mad.

  • jeffersonian

    Vintage Melanie Philips.

    • Bert3000

      Why do they keep embarrassing this mad woman by publishing her ravings?

      • http://www.competentme.com Adetoz

        why do you embarrass humanity by displaying your lunacy?

        • jongnagy

          A wizened sage told me 30 years ago,

          “Before leaving your house and venturing into the world, grip the doorknob, pause for a moment and say to yourself, ‘I am about to enter an insane asylum.'”

          I thought he was wrong then.

          But with gays and transgenders and etceteras who propund their propaganda and believe our concerns should be to worry about their supposed “civil-rights” instead of solving suffering humanity’s myriad problems, I believe now he was 100% right.

          Wade Henderson, the president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, noted the existence of phrases like “gay is the new black” and said that attempts to equate the persecution of gay and black Americans can be “deeply offensive…inherently disrespectful to the black experience in this country.”

          Council Nedd II, bishop of the Episcopal Missionary Church and founding member of the Project 21 black leadership network said, “Gay is not the new black. There are lots of people who lived and died and suffered merely because of race.”

          As for the NAACP.

          They only came out for gay marriage because of political expediency —two weeks after Obama did.

          And Obama only came out when Joe Biden tested the waters for him.

          Noting his own reputation for candor that can sometimes cause political problems, Biden said, “I assure you, it was no surprise in the White House when I spoke out (positively for gay marriage) on ‘Meet the Press.’ ”

      • Alex Higgins

        Why are you here with your extremist viewpoints?

  • MrJones

    It’s utterly wrong and ought to be criminal to do this at least until a few years after puberty.

    The people doing this should be in jail.

    • Cogito Dexter

      Teaching tolerance for people different to oneself should be a criminal offence?

      Wow. That’s going some.

      • http://ecclesandbosco.blogspot.com/ ecclesiam

        It’s not tolerance to refuse to help people get over their psychological problems.

        • phil8

          Some don’t want to “get over” their psychoses, they want it to be normalized and accepted. This is the issue.

          • jongnagy

            Abraham Lincoln inquired of Stephen Douglas:

            “If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have?”

            Douglas responded: “Five.”

            Lincoln retorted: “Wrong! Calling a tail a leg, does not make it a leg, it’s still a tail.”

      • MrJones

        You do know puberty is a biological process and not a lifestyle choice?

      • Marvin

        How can one have tolerance for freaks of nature who thinks that they are normal and having this shoved in our faces more and more everyday. Now they have gone for the little children.

      • Terry “Death to Equality” Xu

        teaching any sort of egalitarianism is a crime against civil society

      • jongnagy

        Tolerance for perversity and sexual deviancy is wicked.

        The prime example in human and animal nature is a male and a female procreate to continue the their species.

        Not wishing to doing so willingly violates the laws of nature and God.

        (The latter part of the sentence directly above is not addressed to atheists)

    • Marvin

      It is purely Paedephillia

      • MrJones

        I think that’s the root of it.

        • Marvin

          Have you noticed how much and how fast this push for supremacy and normality is happening. They think that they are normal.

          • jongnagy

            NAACP’s Rachel Donezal is white but claimed to be black.

            Hey why not?

            To paraphrase the U.S. Army slogan.

            “Be anyone you want to be!”

            Feel like a boy today OK.

            Feel like a girl tomorrow OK.

            Feel like being gay OK.

            Feel like mutilating yourself to be a transgender OK.

            Feel like being a frog OK.

            Feel like being toad OK.

            Forget the Jazz Age song “Anything Goes.”

            Today it’s “Everything Goes.”

      • Kanaris

        Wow, just wow. So trans* folk are paedophiles now?

        • Marvin

          It certainly is when the minds of 3,4 and 5 year old are being filled with filthy dogma. Next you lot will be abusing newborns.

          • Kanaris

            Sorry Marvin, but I don’t think you’ve understood what Paedophilia actually is…..

        • http://charles-dawne.blogspot.co.uk/ Charles Dawne

          Thinking about it though, it is child abusers and “paedophiles who stand to win out of this nonsense. I noted sometime ago that there was an aim to arresting puberty in children.

          One is to create a “pure” and unidentifiable Post op Transgender who will lack the obvious features of masculinity; large hands, body hair, deep voice etc.

          But the result in young children being given these drugs will be adults over the age of consent who will still look ten years old….

  • Dominic Stockford

    “Objective reality crumbles under the supremacy of subjective desire.”

    Excellent comment in an excellent article. I began to rant about the lie that ‘you can be whatever you want’ that started to be peddled to children, and others, 10-15 years ago. Ok, call me a prophet…

  • SocratesWept

    Sodomites and other deviants have always wanted to bring the rest of us down to their level.
    It’s as simple as that.

    • Bert3000

      They’d have trouble getting down to yours.

      • Alex Higgins

        You appear very lost.

        • Spectrum

          That’s because he’s without a moral compass.

    • http://www.competentme.com Adetoz

      succinctly put…thought not all, some recognise that others disapprove of their lifestyle and are happy to live and let live. It’s the Peter Tatchell types that one has to stand up against up the Western civilisation will be a thing of the history books.

  • Finola Moss

    Agree completely
    This is very dangerous, insidious stuff.
    We are now frightened, to say anything.
    And worse still, if we say this is a marginal issue, we are discriminating against trans genders.
    So, the issue cannot even be discussed, so, we are forced to accept it.
    And, it will then be fed into all education, and soaps.
    My daughter likes the Odyssey in her classics A level, but not the 20% on the woman’s role in ancient Rome, now trans genders will no doubt be added .
    It will lead to confusion amongst children, and a feeding frenzy amongst experts.
    We have very serious issues already, with the control the state has,over how we parent, and our personal relationships.
    Allowing the state, to decide who can parent, and who is abusive.
    With draconian unchecked results, like removal of children, and the right to parenting ever, and possibly a criminal record..
    Our freedoms get less and less.
    Our children more and more confused. Our education ever more politically controlled.
    Why ? Control.
    Whist, real issues of abuse, like the 15,000 raped children, just in Rotherham alone,are largely ignored.

  • Marcus

    Good grief whatever next?

  • Alex Higgins

    Assuming there is a God, I want to thank him for Melanie and the few brave voices of reason remaining within our press. Bravo.

    • Peter Simple

      In Melanie’s case, of course, “brava”. A great writer and a great thinker and whose “Londonistan” and “All Must Have Prizes” should be set texts for sixth-formers.

    • Spectrum

      I can’t understand why they haven’t hounded her out of her job by now, as they have done with many others who speak out with the truth.

  • Margot5000

    Any chance of some medical opinions here? I’d imagine there would be some useful comments from Great Ormond Street as they must deal with many children each year who are BIOLOGICALLY in the middle who they will hormonally swing to one side or the other. If this is not done pre-puberty then would imagine there are going to be problems.

    • JabbaPapa

      There are problems doing this even in infancy. There was a fad for doing so, back in the late 50s to 70s (poss. later), following the “gender is a social construct” rubbish theory, which started leading to cases of **serious** psychological and social identity problems for those so operated upon and “gender-reassigned”.

      The issue is only VERY rarely of children “who are BIOLOGICALLY in the middle” — these are children born with gonads that failed to develop as male or female (testicles or ova). Such cases are extremely rare.

      The issue is far more commonly with children born with some anatomical abnormality of the genitals. But the poor experience of previous decades tends to show that the boys (XY) will be boys, and the girls (XX) will be girls, and that all the artificial “gender reassignment” in the world has a hard time surviving the onslaught of puberty.

      • Margot5000

        Before this started becoming a social issue – whilst it was still solely a medical one – there was a children’s hospital in London (Queen Elizabeth) which attracted children with such problems from all over the country. The hospital is now a block of luxury flats. It would be interesting to know what became of its records. Did they go to GOS – or to landfill? Who organised the clearing out of the hospital? Did all that research just get binned?

  • Tom Sykes

    While the BBC and the Left are obsessing with such issues they are distracted from thinking about the subjects that matter to the vast majority of voters. Useful.

    • Spectrum

      Legalising and promoting perversion are subjects that SHOULD matter to the majority. Unfortunately, the decadence of today’s society means that they’re not.

  • Chris Hobson

    Biology and nature ultimately trump ideological dogma.

    • sidor

      How would that happen? A kind of genetic mutation? Or a virus? And it is also interesting: do you suggest that an ideological dogma isn’t natural? Some sort of supernatural phenomena?

    • Spectrum

      Yes. The sad thing is we have to remind them of this because they’re so self obsessed that they lose touch with reality.

  • David

    Think whatever you like about gender. Just stop demanding that normal people agree with you.

  • Richard

    I think the Greeks had a name for this: hubris. When people think they can make their ideology trump nature, we are in for a catastrophe. Even Canute showed that he was not able to enforce human laws onto nature. It has happened in so many ways: think of the 2008 financial crash, which was essentially the whole of society trying to take out more than they put in. I think what’s left of Western civilisation will disappear up its own backside.

    It reminds me of that Kipling poem “The Gods of the Copybook Headings”.

    • JJD

      Hubris is exactly what it is. I’m glad you used that word. It does have something of the feel of a Greek tragedy. The arrogance of Pentheus as the prelude to social dissolution.

      • Richard

        No doubt the story of Tireseus will become our new national one.

        Did you see “Bacchae” at the Almeida last year?

        • JJD

          I’ve never seen it live, Richard. Was it good?

          • Richard

            I saw it at the National Theatre long ago, and that was excellent. The Almeida version wasn’t bad, but not as good as the National Theatre’s.

    • Sponsz

      Or Kipling’s short story: “The Mother Hive.” Some talk of “1984” and “Brave New World” but that short story is the best illustration of today’s UK and what’s likely to happen to it.

  • Jacobi

    Interesting. About two hours back, circa 21.30, I entered a polite considered comment deliberately based on the teaching of the Catholic Church, CCC. It as been eliminated. There are nominally 5 million Catholics in UK, some 12 % of the population.

    It would seem that our views are not now acceptable, not just to the political classes, but to the Spectator.

    Sign of things to come?

    • JJD

      Shocking but not surprising, as they say.

    • Radford_NG

      Disqus removes any comment containing the Anglo Saxon word for Gehenna…There is no telling what they take amiss.

  • MelissaCyn15

    “The enemy on this particular battleground is anyone who maintains that there are men and there are women, and that the difference between them is fundamental.” Actually, the enemy is one who maintains this binary and then says, “And we are going to cram you into one of those boxes whether you like it or not.”

    If you will leave us alone to lead our lives as we see fit, we will accord you the same privilege.

    • JabbaPapa

      Exceptions prove the rule, they don’t become a rule of their own.

      The game of heads or tails doesn’t need a change in the rules just because a coin can sometimes land on its edge.

      But it is clearly unhealthy to promote psychological disassociations with material reality as if they might be positives.

      • MelissaCyn15

        We will pass over for the moment your belief that you have the right to promote or dissuade my “psychological dissociations”. Have you even considered the science from the last 15 years that point to a biological, not psychological basis for being transgender? I am aware of 16 such studies, published in peer reviewed journals. The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, The American Medical Association, The World Health Organization and every major organization of health care professionals in the west have concluded that being transgender is not a psychological condition but a medical one amenable to treatment with a course of counseling, hormones and, if necessary surgery.

        Finally, I reject your underlying premise that being transgender is unhealthy. We are a minority, certainly. Perhaps we are the “ecge of the coin”. But that does not change the fact that we exist and we are not going anywhere anytime soon. I lead a full and happy life. I work at Costco Headquarters, make a good living, I am engaged with the world around me (I went to a wonderful production of Marriage of Figaro last night) I am healthy, I have friends and I sleep very well at night.

        What is unhealthy about that? If your “edge of the coin” definition of health is followed to its logical conclusion then left-hand dominant, red heads are surely a pitiable lot with a health condition that needs to be addressed immediately.

        • JabbaPapa

          Have you even considered the science from the last 15 years that point to a biological, not psychological basis for being transgender? I am aware of 16 such studies, published in peer reviewed journals.

          Are you aware of the intensely politicised pro-gay ideology that permeates much of contemporary academia ?

          your belief that you have the right to promote or dissuade my “psychological dissociations”

          You read more into my words than what was put there — psychological disassociations with material reality are by their very nature psychotic ; but to say that it is barmy to promote them as positives does NOT require abandoning those who may be victims of such a conditions.

          … have concluded that being transgender is not a psychological condition but a medical one amenable to treatment with a course of counseling, hormones and, if necessary surgery.

          Viz. “intensely politicised pro-gay ideology” passim.

          The increased % rate of suicides among transgendered, that some of them ascribe to hostility from the rest of the population, has I believe been shown as a constant, regardless of any environmental or social variables.

          This is not indicative of it being anything *other* than a psychological condition, regardless of all the PC posturing we’re being deluged with.

          I reject your underlying premise that being transgender is unhealthy

          Self-mutilation, even medically assisted, is an intrinsically unhealthy activity.

          I lead a full and happy life

          Well that’s nice, but discussion of individuals, even yourself, would constitute a category error — because each individual is intrinsically and by very nature unique.

          A culture is defined by a relatively small number of fairly simple ideas — destroying or attacking those ideas is to try and attack or destroy a part of the culture. It is an extremely unhealthy and dangerous thing to attempt, because it creates dissensions, hatreds, violence. It’s barmy to try and create these conditions deliberately, as if everyone were just going to start holding hands under a rainbow cloud singing Kumbaya.

          • Kanaris

            So wait, you think that “The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, The American Medical Association, The World Health Organization and every major organization of health care professionals in the west” are “infected” with an “intensely politicised pro-gay ideology”? Is this the same thing as that “gay conspiracy” we’ve heard about?

          • JabbaPapa

            you think that “The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, The American Medical Association, The World Health Organization and every major organization of health care professionals in the west” are “infected” with an “intensely politicised pro-gay ideology”?

            It is indeed so, though I’ve no idea why you use this ludicrous “infected” word.

          • Kanaris

            And what’s your evidence for this? Have they all started wearing tight pants and listening to the Village People?

          • Spectrum

            You obviously aren’t aware of how the gay lobbyists hijacked the American Psychological Association back in the early 70’s. They pressured them into changing the definition of homosexuality from a psychological disorder into a more acceptable politically correct sanitised version. True story. One of the psychiatrists who was present when it happened, wrote a book about what transpired.

            This new “reality” has become the medical norm ever since, even though the decision was far from unanimous, and as I said, was made under mental duress at the time. Shameful behaviour by the gays who are desperate to achieve respectability for their deviancy, even if they had to do so dishonestly.

          • Spectrum

            Oh I don’t know – “infected” seems very appropriate to me….

        • jongnagy

          “Finally, I reject your underlying premise that being transgender is unhealthy…”

          This is not only a deviant life choice but a deadly one.

          Johns Hopkins University pioneered transgendered surgery. Due to the high rate of suicide (40%) they stopped.

          A Netherlands large-scale 2011 study found treated transgenders had much higher than normal death rates due to suicide, drug abuse, AIDS, etc.

          It is because they have rejected their natural gender not because of society.

          Transgenders need psychiatric help and counseling to accept their physical designation as to who they really are

      • Spectrum

        “….But it is clearly unhealthy to promote psychological disassociations with material reality as if they might be positives….”.

        Very true. And I’m sure that the “entire body of psychiatric and medical opinion” that she is so keen to quote, would not argue.

    • jongnagy

      “…some people are born in the wrong bodies…”

      Men and women are born with a varying degree of each other’s psychological traits; their bodies are OK.

      Their sexual inclinations—both good and bad—are the determining factor. Those who have beliefs that a person is ruled by fate take away a person’s free will.

      Some people have an tendency towards theft, adultery, or murder. Should they satisfy these desires or rule over them? That decision is what separates humanity and the animal kingdom.

      A woman was given a womb to hold a child.

      A woman was given breasts to nurture that child.

      A woman was given a sexually appealing figure to attract men so she can fill her destiny to populate the human species in world.

      Both men and women were made specifically to complement each other and bear (preferably) and raise children with spiritual goals as well as obligations they have together.

      Parents should set the example by cherishing each other and setting the example of opposite genders getting along together.

      Weird, perverted and deviant genders don’t do it and violate the laws of nature, no less God’s laws.

      Sorry people, but anatomy is destiny.

      And we are trying to overturn it. It will only end in sexual perversion, hedonism, paraphilia, cataclysmic sorrow, failure and often death by sexual diseases or suicides.

      It’s already happening.

      Gays have been dying by the millions all over the world for decades.

      God and nature’s hint that their lifestyle is actually a deathstyle.

      • MelissaCyn15

        Wow…You write off, as politically motivated, the entire body of psychiatric and medical opinion that holds that being transgender is biological and no more changable than the color of your skin and then rely for your condemnation of us purely on your version of “God’s Law”.

        That might have worked in the 14th century, but we have learned a lot since then…or at least most of us have.

        • Spectrum

          So we now aim to overturn the traditional ways that have worked so well for thousands of years for the majority 98%, in order to pander to the aberrant 1-2% of confused, spiritually misguided weirdos ? That makes sense only to the radical leftists / feminists who seek to impose this craziness on us.

          • MelissaCyn15

            Ahhh Spectrum….it is even worse than you thought. The minority is .3% not 1%-2%. Fortunately, though, we are not asking you to overturn the ways which have worked for you, traditional or otherwise. We only ask that you do not impose those ways on those of us for whom it does not work.

            As to the cost of surgery, I pay taxes too. I also pay insurance premiums. For me, my surgery is covered under my insurance policy. So, if the other policy holders are entitled to say that they do not want their premiums to go for my surgery, why can I not say that I do not want my premiums to go to pay for the triple bypass of the three-pack a day smoker and frequent diner at McDonalds?

            At least Gender Identity Dysphoria is biological and beyond my control whereas for the heart attack sufferrer his consumption of tars, nicotine and trans fat is purely volitional.

        • Spectrum

          “Cyn”. What an ironic name. And in the context of this subject, highly pertinent too.

          • MelissaCyn15

            My middle name is Cynthia. As for your implication, I am happy to discuss the politics and economics surrounding being transgender. In fact, I am willing to discuss anything except for my relationship with God. I leave the fate of your soul to your God and you and expect you to accord me the same courtesy.

      • Spectrum

        Well said jongnagy !

      • El S F

        But the real question is: why do guys have nipples? (there have even been incidents of boys lactating very briefly after birth if the relevant hormones enter his bloodstream beforehand via the umbilical cord)
        Also, as a woman, I would like to think that I am more than my ability to bear young. (Are you saying that infertile people have no purpose in living?)

  • Radford_NG

    On my screen this page throws up two employment adverts for the Security Service,with the slogan : “MI5 is proud to be named employer of the year 2016 by Stonewall” : ( the militant homosexual group).

    Elsewhere I saw the question mooted : does this not raise concern that MI5 is biased against President Putin and that their reports are influenced by this: (as with the report on the death of the FSB/MI6 agent ).

    • Radford_NG

      FSB/MI6 agent Alexander Litvinenko.

      • sidor

        In a similar way, Kim Philby may be referred to as MI6/KGB agent. Ha-ha.

        Litvinenko, at the moment of his death, was a MI6 agent, and presumably he was an MI6 agent when working in FSB, not other way around. Therefore, MI6 is solely responsible for his activity in London. Of course, nobody likes to be responsible for a failure. That’s why the coroner inquest was delayed by 10 years. And we still don’t know what happened.

        • Goinlike Billio

          He was killed with a radio active substance which killed him and endangered thousands of others. And we know it came from Russia and even which nuclear plant in Russia. We know the exact route the assassins took from Russia to London.
          And you are saying we don’t know ?

          • sidor

            We still don’t know what the deceased was doing with this material. He contaminated a number of his contacts. Scaramella, an expert in radioactive materials, was seriously contaminated after meeting him in a sushi bar. Scaramella was later hospitalised for a couple of months. It is of interest: in what way Litvinenko contaminated Scaramella? By exchanging bodily fluids? Or they both were involved in handling polonium?

            Another problem of the assassination theory is that it doesn’t explaing in what way polonium was administered. The allegged putting it into the teapot would have killed everyone in the restaurant and half of the hotel.

          • Goinlike Billio

            The killer fact was that it was found in places the two Russians had been but Litvinenko hadn’t notably the plane in which they had flown to the UK.

          • sidor

            There is no logically consistent version of the poisoning, besides the idiotic fable about teapot. And the crucial episode to be explained is Scaramella. What happened in the sushi bar? In what way Litvinenko poisoned him?

            The best version of the events: an accident during an illegal trafficking radioactive materials. It is a scandal that a MI6 agent happened to be involved in that business.

          • Goinlike Billio

            The Russians don’t believe it was as result of illegal trafficking otherwise they would have arrested the two Russians ;.Lugavoy and Koftun.

          • sidor

            This is just an entertaining literature. No facts supporting your version. And no explanation of well-known facts. And no logically consistent scenario of the allegged assassination.

            What is your story? How was he poisoned? By polonium in the teapot?

          • Goinlike Billio

            Unfortunately the fact that the Russians did not arrest the two Russians involved is completely damning to your version of events .We can safely say it was not due to illegal trafficking. I believe there is further evidence of this in the amounts of polonium involved.
            It is not known why the earlier event with Scaramella at the sushi bar took place but a botched earlier attempt is likely.
            Your claim about the teapot killing half the hotel is also wrong. It had to be ingested to be certain of being effective.
            The fact that it could be concealed in a bottle of water without being detected until opened made it extremely easy to smuggle in through airports.
            ” How often have I said to you Watson that once you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be the truth ” – Sherlock Holmes

          • sidor

            “the earlier event with Scaramella at the sushi bar took place but a botched earlier attempt is likely”

            ================
            Could you please clarify this extraordinary statement:
            Are you saying that Litvinenko tried to kill Scaramella in sushi bar using polonium? Or Scaramella tried to kill Litvinenko using polonium?

          • Goinlike Billio

            The botched attempt was on 16 October when Litvenenko met the two Russians at the sushi bar when earlier Polonium traces were later found. Litvenenko meets with Scaramella at the same table on 1 November when Scaramella was probably contaminated from the earlier attempt.

          • sidor

            So, I repeat the same question, third time: how did Litvinenko manage to contaminate Scaramella so much that the latter was hospitalised for a couple of months and narrowly escaped death? What kind of physical contact did they have in the sushi bar? A deep French kiss?

          • Goinlike Billio

            Just stick to what we know : The bus carrying Litvenenko to the sushi bar carried no trace of Polonium .The taxi which took him away was so contaminated that it was written off. The taxi which took the two Russians to the sushi bar carried traces of Polonium and so did the taxi which took them away,
            The point is that once they knew that they were looking for Polonium then it is dead easy to trace.

          • sidor

            That is, the Litvinenko has got polonium from Scaramella. What kind of business was it? The most probable scenario is that there was a leak when they handled it, and both were contaminated.

          • Goinlike Billio

            You don’t know that. The known facts are enough.

          • sidor

            You don’t seem to understand what you wrote:

            “Just stick to what we know : The bus carrying Litvenenko to the sushi bar carried no trace of Polonium .The taxi which took him away from the Mlllenium Hotel was so contaminated that it was written off.”

            That means Litvinenko was heavily contaminated during the meeting with Scaramella. What happened in the sushi bar?

          • Goinlike Billio

            No we know that he was not contaminated when he entered the sushi bar because the bus contained no trace and we know that he was contaminated when he left the Millenium Hotel after his meeting with lugavoy and Kovtun

          • sidor

            You jump over time. Let us see your facts in order:

            1. He was not contaminated when he entered the sushi bar.

            2. Scaramella, who he met in the sushi bar, was later found to be contaminated so much that he was hospitalised and narrowly survived.

            Now, we have a question: what happened in the sushi bar? Who brought polonium there? What did they do with it?

          • Goinlike Billio

            No I don’t know. I only know that the Russians had a motive for getting rid of him as well. But the rest of it is so well established that it leaves almost no room for doubt. If the conclusions had not been so inescapable about Litvenenko’ s death then the recent enquiry would not have made such strong accusations in it’s conclusions.

          • sidor

            Now, you move from the facts to bullshit. I repeat the question: what happened in the sushi bar? How did Scaramella get contaminated?

            A reasonable version must explain ALL the available facts. Not those you find convenient.

          • Goinlike Billio

            “I never guess .It is a shocking habit destructive to the logical faculty ” – Sherlock Holmes

          • sidor

            Then you shouldn’t talk about assassination since this version doesn’t explain all the facts we know.

            A feasible scenario is that the deceased, together with Scaramella, was involved in some kind of business with radioactive materials. An accident happened due to unprofessional handling of polonium. No murder.

          • King Kibbutz

            I think a decent hotel lets you have your own teapot. It’s not like down at Sweaty Bettie’s.

          • sidor

            It wouldn’t help much. Polonium rapidly evaporates at the temperature above 50C. In a couple of hours after putting it into a hot teapot, the entire restaurant would have been dead, as well as half of the hotel.

          • King Kibbutz

            Cup, spoon, spoon, cup?

    • Kandanada

      I would think operators on all sides in the secret services are getting bumped-off fairly regularly. As we rarely get to hear about it, it must be regarded as particularly bad form for a government to go public about a killing. That the British government did go public would mean that there was something significant to gain from making this event known.

      What could that be?

      Somehow, I don’t buy that this was an elaborate gay rights crusade on behalf of the security services.

      • Goinlike Billio

        They went public because when you have to shut down the centre of London to search for radio active substances people would like an explanation.

        • Kandanada

          Why not just be looking for a gas leak across a substantial part of the network that may have been compromised by recent building activity, but just as a precaution.

          • Goinlike Billio

            It is impossible these days to stop the press being alerted where there is a potential news story.

    • Neil Saunders

      It raises two important questions immediately:

      1) Why should a government agency be “proud” of receiving the approbation of an organisation which holds controversial opinions greatly at variance with much of the wider society?;

      2) Why should a supposedly militant organisation like Stonewall wish to confer its praise upon an agency absolutely at the heart of the establishment? One which, moreover, operates in secret and has a sinister reputation?

  • bhrush

    sick confused politicians blind to their destructive actions.

  • The Great Satan™

    This is child abuse promoted by mentally ill leftwing perverts. There should be a restraining order against democrats/socialists keeping them away from children.

  • Mike E

    The new ruling class has ideas that are so stupid, sick and unnatural so it is beyond belief.

    • GreenLantern

      Just like the old one did!

    • jongnagy

      Enter a world without God and here’s where you end up.

      Worse it’s not over.

      It only gets worse.

      It ends up in self-serving hedonism, lust, sexual perversion and paraphilia.

      These kinds of people end up in suicides.

      Tragic.

      • Jack Rocks

        I’m quite sure God has nothing to do with it.

        • Spectrum

          That’s what he is saying. It’s because God is absent ( i.e. “has nothing to do with it” ) in these people’s lives, that this is happening !

  • Kandanada

    It is much simpler than that.

    If you get people to start arguing about gender, you can say that gender causes a problem, and then you can get rid of gender, or at least the state can start stomping its boots about gender.

    I think we all now have some (concious and unconscious) idea that gender is “problematical” in one sense or another. I don’t think we had that five years ago.

    If the argument is that gender is a construct, and a bad construct at that, the argument is seriously undermined if that construct needs to be moulded, to be altered into something it isn’t. first.

  • http://twitter.com/jdrch jdrch

    I couldn’t agree more.

  • Karl_SkidMarx

    Daily Mail, 25 November 2014

    Berlin was a liberal hotbed of homosexuality and a mecca for cross dressers and TRANSSEXUALS where the first MALE-TO-FEMALE SURGERY was performed – UNTIL THE N@ZIS CAME TO POWER

    The science of ‘transsexuality’ was founded at the Institute of Sexual Science where the first male-to-female surgery was performed

    [Jewish sexologist] Dr Magnus Hirschfeld opened the Institute for Sexual Science in March 1919, the first such facility in the world to offer medical and psychological counseling on sexual issues to heterosexual men and women, homosexuals, cross-dressers and intersex individuals also known as hermaphrodites or individuals caught between male and female.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2847643/Berlin-liberal-hotbed-homosexuality-mecca-cross-dressers-transsexuals-male-female-surgery-performed-Nazis-came-power-new-book-reveals.html#ixzz3deMLpRNb

    • Karl_SkidMarx

      In 1897 Hirschfeld established the Scientific-Humanitarian Committee with Max Spohr, Franz Josef von Bülow, and Eduard Oberg; it was the world’s first GAY RIGHTS ORGANIZATION.
      http://www.britannica.com/ biography/Magnus-Hirschfeld

    • Karl_SkidMarx

      Deadwood Pioneer-Times, 03 January 1946

      “My spirit will arise from the grave and one will see that I have been right.” – Adolf Hitler, April 1945
      http://bhpioneer.newspapers.com/newspage/94130335/

  • Terry “Death to Equality” Xu

    gender relativity is socially backwards
    the trend of human society is towards greater hierarchies and specializations, not equality

    the west’s devotion to it is a form of emotional incontinence

    • Kanaris

      Evidence please?

      • Neil Saunders

        Evidence of what, exactly? Did you actually understand what Terry wrote? I certainly didn’t.

  • Karl_SkidMarx

    It’s dangerous and wrong to tell all CHILDREN they’re ‘gender fluid’

    It’s fast becoming an enforceable orthodoxy, with CHILDREN and YOUNG PEOPLE particularly in the frame for attitude reassignment.

    bargogx1 said: “Mind control and brainwashing is what this is all about.”
    Sigfridiii said: Cultural Marxism is very close to achieving the deconstruction of all our realities. In readiness for an ideology which we are not allowed to name to impose its legal system on us.

    “It’s a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages. The first one being “demoralization”. It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate ONE GENERATION OF STUDENTS in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of [their] enemy. In other words, MARXISM-LENINISM ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generation of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism; American patriotism…” – Yuri Bezmenov, ex-KGB
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obr1XqUPEII

    • Andrew

      Wow…these are gems

  • Karl_SkidMarx

    Damaris Tighe said: “People without family (goal 1, achieved three decades ago), without roots & with floating identities based on the fad of the moment are isolated individuals, confused & easily ruled. Also, when identity is always floating, the fad of the moment, people feel ungrounded, unable to claim anything permanent for themselves. This destablilises the psyche.”

    PoliticsHome, 10 July 2015

    “We are one of the very few cultures that has ever attempted to ABOLISH IDENTITY.” – Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, former Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth
    https://www.politicshome.com/communities-and-regions/articles/house/lord-sacks-if-jews-leave-europe-continent-will-have-lost-its#sthash.XeJKcYcB.mDuvkFFc.dpuf

    • Andrew

      Yup…truth.

      • Karl_SkidMarx

        The person most responsible for saturating anthropology with Cultural Marxism was Jewish anthropologist Franz Boas.

        In sociology, the advent of Jewish intellectuals in the pre–World War II period resulted in “a level of POLITICIZATION unknown to sociology’s founding fathers. Boas and his students were intensely concerned with pushing an ideological agenda within the American anthropological profession. They were a compact group with a clear intellectual and POLITICAL AGENDA rather than individualist seekers of disinterested truth.

        By 1915 the Boasians controlled the American Anthropological Association…By 1926 every major department of anthropology was headed by Boas’s students, the majority of whom were Jewish. His protégé Melville Herskovits noted that: “…the four decades of the tenure of [Boas’s] professorship at Columbia gave a continuity to his teaching that permitted him to develop students who eventually made up the greater part of the significant professional core of American anthropologists, and who came to man and direct most of the major departments of anthropology in the United States. In their turn, they TRAINED THE STUDENTS who…have continued the tradition in which their TEACHERS WERE TRAINED.”

        Ashley Montagu was another influential student of Boas. Montagu, whose original name was Israel Ehrenberg, was a highly visible crusader in the battle against the idea of racial differences in mental capacities.
        http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/chap2.pdf

        Jewish anthropologist Israel Ehrenberg first attracted public attention as the author of UNESCO’s “Statement on Race” (1950), arguing that race is a social invention with no biological basis.
        http://www.britannica.com/biography/Ashley-Montagu
        http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Ashley_Montagu.aspx

  • Kanaris

    You’ve entirely negated your argument by quoting McHugh… good work Melanie!

    • King Kibbutz

      Seems to back up the argument. In what way has his mention negated anything?

      • Kanaris

        Well, there could be the fact that he filed an amicus brief saying that gay people have “chosen” their sexuality, or it could be the fact that all of his opinions on transgender issues have been fairly thoroughly debunked… See here for more details: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/fighting-back-against-ant_b_5633450.html

        • King Kibbutz

          My what a surprise: ‘Huffpost Gay Voices’ comes out against someone who raises objections to the transgender factory. ‘Debunked fairly thoroughly’?

          • Kanaris

            Well, glad to see you looked at the hyperlink and then failed to actually read anything.

          • King Kibbutz

            I’ll be honest with you: the link bore a title and nothing else. If you have the full text and it isn’t too long, I will take a look.

        • Spectrum

          Thoroughly debunked, or thoroughly whitewashed ?

  • Jacobi

    Whatever a tiny aberrant number of people choose to think about themselves is one thing. I suppose we, the other sensible 95%+ of the UK population
    ought to allow them their delusion – or alleged delusions –
    provided they keep these to themselves.

    But this article highlights a deadly danger to the rest of us, to that sensible 95% plus of the UK population.

    It is when elements in Parliament force or try to force upon us through our long suffering NHS ,or our long suffering Police Forces, or our long suffering
    teachers or our long suffering selves and – by far the worst of the lot and thereby insidiously evil – our long suffering children, all that crap, and I use the word advisedly, about such aberrant people being normal.

    We must all stand up and cry out against this!

    • Karl_SkidMarx

      “It is when elements in Parliament force or try to force upon us through our long suffering NHS ,or our long suffering Police Forces, or our long suffering teachers…”

      Daily Telegraph, 02 Nov 2013

      [Part-Jewish Prime Minister] David Cameron officially declares that he is patron of an initiative run by Common Purpose…

      “I would always advise caution when it comes to being involved with any organisation that has close links with Common Purpose,” Mr Davies [Philip Davies, Conservative MP for Shipley], a member of the Commons media select committee, said.

      “Common Purpose is a very secretive organisation which I think the Prime Minister would do well to be wary of.

      “They are trying to get their tentacles into every nook and cranny of the Establishment to pursue their Leftist, pro-European political agenda.”
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10423070/Press-row-PM-faces-questions-over-link-to-charity.html
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/10692757/David-Cameron-speaks-of-Jewish-ancestors-including-great-great-grandfather-and-Yiddish-novelist.html

      Martin Jacques is the former editor of MARXISM TODAY and one of the founders of DEMOS.
      http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/feb/16/appreciation-stuart-hall-1932-2014-sociologist-cultural-theorist
      http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/withfounderslikethesewhoneedsenemies

      The founder and Chief Executive of Common Purpose, Julia Middleton, is one of the founders of DEMOS.

      Daily Mail, 16 November 2012

      “A clue can perhaps be found in a speech made to the LSE in 2004 by Geoff Mulgan, with whom Middleton had founded the New Labour think-tank DEMOS…”
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2233681/Leveson-Inquiry-Mail-dossier-raises-disturbing-questions-influence-quasi-masonic-nexus-people-know-best.html#ixzz3YDKXcWrM

      • Neil Saunders

        It doesn’t surprise me to find Common Purpose at the root of much of this mischief.

        • Leon Wolfeson

          You are? Hmm!

    • Neil Saunders

      You think that we should indulge these people, “…provided they keep these [actual or possible delusions] to themselves.”

      The whole point is that they don’t intend to. They are demanding compulsory public acknowledgement of what they declare themselves to be, and brook disagreement only on pain of social and legal penalties against the dissentients.

      • Leon Wolfeson

        Bullying is generally not legal, no. Why do you want a right to bully and discriminate?

        • Neil Saunders

          Why do you keep wanting to butt your ignorant two penn’orth in where it is neither wanted nor needed, Leon?

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Why do you have a problem with debate, thinking it’s ignorant to want it? Why won’t you answer basic questions?

            As you think you have some right, censor, to exclude me – not wanting or needing your views discussed, as you’ll try and impose them on people anyway.

          • Neil Saunders

            Goodbye, Leon.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Run away now, as you prove my point about your issues with debate, Neil “The Censor” Sanders.

    • Spectrum

      David Cameron and his government are a total disgrace, and have a lot to answer to God for. They are responsible for legitimising sodomy in Britain under the guise of same-sex “marriage”.

  • Terry Field

    How much more poisonous garbage can the cadres of socialists and moral-equivalence cultural Marxists impose on the bleeding cultural corpse that is modern Britain.
    Don’t you people have the strength pf character to remove the power these monsters (including the very nasty BBC) have ever you??
    A dead society, in a country that clearly does not amount to much anymore.

    • sidor

      I wonder if this unisex “cultural Marxism” has anything to do with Marx? I don’t think the latter was in favour of same-sex marriages. Neither were his followers Stalin and Mao.

      • King Kibbutz

        For Marxists, it’s not about following Marx, it’s about destroying what stands in Marxism’s way. If confusing the heck out of kids serves the purpose, then gender fluidity it is.

        • sidor

          So, you are saying that Marx, Stalin and Mao weren’t real Marxists. The real Marxists are the modern feminists, who have never read Marx’s economic theory.

          How interesting.

          • King Kibbutz

            No, your construct there mate.

          • sidor

            Didn’t you say that the real Marxism is feminism?

          • King Kibbutz

            No.

          • sidor

            Then feminism is not a real Marxism? A fake?

          • King Kibbutz

            I haven’t a clue where you’re getting this idea from, that I’ve mentioned feminism here at all. Are you confusing my comments with those of someone else perhaps?

          • sidor

            You said “gender fluidity”. Isn’t it feministic?

          • JabbaPapa

            It’s gender-neutral-istic, you ninny !! Do keep up !!!

          • Ambientereal

            I believe we shouldn´t “call names”. Leftists agree with LGTB but also with muslim immigration, who in turn reject LGTB. So it is nonsense over nonsense.

          • sidor

            You are right. I am still trying to identify the origin, and the nature of that social disease which is ambiguously called “left liberalism”.

          • Neil Saunders

            At the moment I think it stands at LGBT, although members of the Bacon, Lettuce and Tomato community will probably join (making it LGBT-BLT), along with Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick and Titch, Bill Brewer, Jan Stewer, Peter Gurney, Peter Davy, Dan’l Whiddon, Harry Hawke and Old Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all! And Old Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all!

        • Neil Saunders

          True. The Marxists only opportunistically adopted the proletariat, since they are numerous. They’ve now transferred their allegiance to “minorities” and other special interest groups, hence their bizarre marriage of convenience with Islam.

      • Neil Saunders

        It has nothing directly to do with Marx himself, but a great deal to do with the cultural Marxists of the so-called Frankfurt School (Marcuse, Adorno, Horkheimer, Fromm, etc.).

        • sidor

          Thanks for your illuminating information. So, it has nothing to do with Marx’s economic theory and represents just another chapter of the pointless bullshit known as “The German Philosophy”.

          • Ambientereal

            You see people are mixing everything up. They confuse philosophy with anatomy and with amusement. People want to have fun and people want to have children. Sometimes things don´t get together at the same time.

          • JabbaPapa

            You see people are mixing everything up

            You’re so passé — beyond “genderfluid”, all concepts and ideas will become fluid, so that everyone will be able to say exactly what they please, and everyone will always be right !!!

          • Ambientereal

            And you will never be able to distinguish between good and evil, between what makes humankind progress and what makes humankind go down the drainage. Everything will be the same, the whole earth as the Sahara dessert every sand grain equal to the other. Entropy at his maximum.

          • Spectrum

            “…and everyone will always be right…” !!!

            Unless of course, you happen to oppose homosexual deviancy.

          • Neil Saunders

            Broadly speaking, yes. The Frankfurt School rejected Marx’s economics and historical determinism, but applied aspects of his analysis (in ways of which he was extremely unlikely to approve) to social and cultural issues. Martin Jay’s book (by no means hostile to its subjects) provides an excellent survey.

          • sidor

            Marxism is a school in political economy. Marx was the first who described a new type of market economy – capitalism. Anyone who is using this term is using Marx’s economic theory. I understand nobody of this group of charlatans called “Frankfurt school” was qualified to discuss economics.

            Marx didn’t have any systematic education in history, and his layman opinion about it is irrelevant. The Frankfurt school’s discussion of Marx’s opinion about history is even less relevant.

            Concerning their “analysis” of social issues: this has nothing to do with whatever science, and it is a great scandal that taxpayers money are wasted on that useless and meaningless bullshit.

    • Neil Saunders

      Don’t you realise that these people are at war with us? It’s only going to get much worse. Language itself has become weaponised. First they invented such anathemas as “racist”, then they coined such horrors as “sexist” and “homophobic”. “Binary”, in this deranged new sense, is just one of the more recent in this litany of lunacy.

      • Terry Field

        I don’t live there, so it is not my problem.
        I left a long time ago and it was the best decision I ever made.

        • Neil Saunders

          It’s everyone’s problem, Terry. You might think you’ve left it behind, but it’ll come looking for you, just like the Appointment in Samarra.

          • sidor

            Mene mene tekel upharsin…

          • Spectrum

            Que ?

          • sidor

            Never read Bible in your Spanish school?

          • Spectrum

            Nope. I’m not Spanish and I didn’t attend Spanish schools.

          • sidor

            What school was it where you learned que but missed reading the Bible?

          • Spectrum

            I’m not familiar with Belshazzar’s feast. But I will look it up.

          • sidor
          • Spectrum

            Thankyou. It’s part of Daniel’s vision then….

      • sidor

        I am afraid you failed to realise the scale of the problem. Evil is a natural phenomenon. A blind force. Pointless to look for a special idea behind it. What we are observing is a natural process of social disintegration. It a turn of the wheel of history. Like disintegration of the Roman society in the 5th century. It is the end of the great epoch that started in the 17th century. We cannot do much. There is no armour against fate.

  • nancoise

    When I was nine and ten and eleven years old, I wanted to be a boy. Not very surprising back then, when boys were allowed to do many exciting things that we girls were not. I was tomboyish and sporty and could see that girls got a raw deal regarding the things that most interested me, e.g. football, tree-climbing, wearing trousers to school, being President.

    I cannot imagine the damage that might have been done to my psyche if the grownups around me had carted me off to the psychologist to ‘explore my issues’ and possibly offer me gender-changing medical treatment. They would, in essence, have been medicalising a societal inequality and putting the consequences on my young shoulders.

    I accept that a tiny percentage of humans have gender dysmorphia, but the current fashion for locating gender fluidity under ever stone is yet another craze that can only harm the most vulnerable among us — our children.

    • Ambientereal

      We must understand that 99,99 % of the “gender” activity is not for reproduction purposes. Then it should not be an issue until it comes to reproduction, and in that case we should talk about “birth” not “gender”

      • JabbaPapa

        The more “genderfluid” you get, the more meaningless the verbiage you’ll produce.

        A prime example.

      • Neil Saunders

        Where do you get your invented statistics from?

        • Ambientereal

          How many times do people have gender activity in life and how many of them produce children?? Have you any experience of the gender activity in a conventional marriage during 40 years? Which percent would you agree 99%? I have been married 40 years, have done it around 5000 times and have two children, how much is it? less than 99,5% isn´t it? Have you “any” idea of statistics? Have you any idea of normal gender relationships? have you any idea of anything?

          • JabbaPapa

            Depends — is the “gender activity” fluid, solid, or gaseous ?

          • Ambientereal

            You know exactly why I use that expression, as you, I don´t like it at all. There are some words that are forbidden here, although they are used in the article. By the way, gaseous is also fluid.

          • Neil Saunders

            Just answer the question. Don’t go off into irrelevant digressions.

          • Ambientereal

            I answered the question, personal observation and statistics. Have you any doubts that much less than 0,1 % of the gender activity is devoted to reproduction?

          • Neil Saunders

            No you didn’t. You just waffled with a lot of made-up-on-the-spot guesswork figures.

            Incidentally, I understand the ridiculous Disqus embargo on a certain three-letter word, but please spare us a horror like “gender activity” as a substitute. The purpose of you-know-what is reproduction, however much of it (and I have absolutely no idea just how much) is “devoted” to it.

          • Ambientereal

            Why should I spare you the horror of reading my comments? Just stop reading them. You are too arrogant to read someone else´s comment. Just tell yourself your own truth and rejoice for jour brilliancy.

          • Neil Saunders

            More deflection (along with a gratuitous accusation of being “arrogant”).

            I said that the expression “gender activity” is a horror; I made no wider statement about your comments.

            If I disagree with what you have written, in what way does it further debate or resolve anything for me simply to stop reading any of your future comments?

          • Ambientereal

            You don´t show disagreement, you show contempt and scorn about my comments, i.e. “Thank you for that brilliant insight. Now go back to sleep.” You don´t even invest a second thinking about what intend to say. You look very similar to what is abhorred in social media, a troll.

          • Neil Saunders

            Scorn implies disagreement. How much “investment” is required to recognise a feeble argument? Meanwhile, you prefer to deflect than to explain.

          • Ambientereal

            English is not my mother language but it seems it isn´t yours also. Disagreement implies respect but scorn is disrespectful. Also I will no longer discuss with someone that doesn´t show respect.

          • Neil Saunders

            English is my mother tongue. Respect must be earned, not demanded.

    • Peter Ratcliff

      A very good point. How many people would be mutilated today if for the last 80 years children who had any gender confusion were treated with surgery? How many more are there who can look back now as normal married people with children and grandchildren and be thankful that it was not possible to undergo such treatment when they were growing up and being led about with all sorts of strange ideas? A survey on this would be useful thing to point out the danger.

    • Ingrid

      Absolutely. Gender may or may not be fluid, but individuals certainly vary a lot in terms of how well they conform to arbitrary gender stereotypes. There’s often been a high price to pay for those don’t conform, which doubtless causes psychological stress. Why not wish to be a boy if you prefer ‘boy’ activities or vice versa? It’s far better to permit kids (and adults) to pursue interests which conform to their own talents and desires without fear that it’s not appropriate for boys or girls. Strict adherence to a biological determinism in behaviour has done – and continues to do – a lot of harm.

  • Jacobi

    Interesting. Two days ago I posted a comment deliberately based on the CCC and using that terminology but not direct quotes, from it. It was censored.
    One day back I entered another comment, using different language, but from the meaning point of view the same language. Perhaps “nicer ” language you might say with more implication?
    This illustrates a dangerous trend even with organisations such as the Spectator.
    Our freedom to speak our personal opinions simply and in a straightforward but in no way offensive manner on a whole range of matters now in the UK is being more and more curbed.
    I will not on this occasion make any reference to Godwin’s Law!!!

    • Ambientereal

      We should open an opinion line in Twitter for example, and there we could comment freely.

  • Ambientereal

    We should abolish formal marriage. People are free to live together in the form thy wish, but it should not be formalized. Only the birth of children should be taken seriously and the parents helped.

    • Neil Saunders

      Thank you for that brilliant insight. Now go back to sleep.

    • Jacobi

      Some people, now having full freedom to indulge heir odd habits seem nevertheless determined to refuse us ordinary folks the same rights. Fallen Human Nature is Strange!

  • Jim Crowther

    Of course it is to anyone with a grain of commonsense. But just try telling those obsessive MHG claimants or ‘virtue signallers’ why it is. Not only are they wholly unable to comprehend such obvious reasons, they will comprehensively dredge up a twitter storm of all their trendy lefty imbeciles to ensure that it, like much of the ‘equality and hate speech’ garbage, is added to legislation to ensure it becomes as compulsory as homosexual ‘marriage’, and without any recourse to a referendum of the rest of we peasants !

  • Neil Saunders

    The “sexual revolutionaries” are now at the very heart of the Establishment. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/news/mi5-named-employer-year-stonewall

    • Spectrum

      “…It ( Stonewall ) campaigns to eliminate homophobia, biphobia and transphobia in
      communities, and empowers LGBT people and their allies to be role models
      wherever they live, work, shop, socialise or pray.”

      Sodomites as “role models” !!?? Now we KNOW society has been turned on its head…..

      • Margo Broom

        What business is it of yours who puts what in who? Historically religious people have been just as good at putting their junk in inappropriate places as anyone else, probably more inappropriate places and without consent as well.

  • Margo Broom

    Did Melanie actually consult with any trans people in preparation for this article?

    • JabbaPapa

      Would doing so have any effect whatsoever on the fact that it is dangerous and wrong to indoctrinate children into this “genderfluid” ideology ?

      • Margo Broom

        No but it may have an affect on whether “genderfluid” is an idealogy. If you believe it is an idealogy, what do you suppose it’s ideals might be?

        • Peter Ratcliff

          One ideal here is the assumption that of the thoughts of the human mind are correct and true. However the truth is that our strange ideas come from the fact that we have fallen from God. That leads to all sorts of confusion and hopelessness. Only Jesus Christ can set this straight. There really is hope in Him as we Take up our cross and deny ourselves as we follow Him. It is the same fro everyone whatever our natural tendencies and thoughts. We have to deny ourselves!

          • Margo Broom

            Deny ourselves what?

          • Peter Ratcliff

            We must deny ourselves what we would choose and choose to do what God says instead. Of course society tells us that it is a bad thing to deny ourselves! For that you need to be converted thorough faith in Jesus Christ as the saviour who died for our sins. It may sound impossible, and indeed as Jesus said in other cases, “With man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible” . I pray that you will be blessed. I don’t underestimate what a huge battle it is to be a Christian.

          • Neil Saunders

            Here come the Holy-Joe brigade. They think they’re helping, but they’re not.

          • Margo Broom

            How do you think you are helping?

          • Neil Saunders

            I wasn’t talking about me, Margo, you wicked woman!

          • Spectrum

            She was.

          • Spectrum

            ( He isn’t ).

          • Margo Broom

            Also true and correct with respect to what? All truths have a scope, nothing is absolute nor relative.

          • Neil Saunders

            Truth has either to be absolute or relative in scope. Make up your mind, dear.

          • Margo Broom

            What I mean to say is that nothing can be either absolute nor relative without stating the scope. One cannot logically argue against the existence of absolute truth. In this case, however ,Peter seems to be claiming to know an absolute truth about other peoples experience or perspective on something metaphysical while seemingly not at all considering testimony of that experience as evidence. (I think this is possibly what Melanie Philips is doing and the reason for my original question.) If he believes that his view is valid despite evidence then he probably is guilty of relativism. I despair as much as anyone about the rising tide of relativism.

          • Neil Saunders

            If Peter believes that his view is valid in the absence of evidence then he is guilty not of relativism, Margo, but of blind faith.

          • Margo Broom

            What I mean if he believes his view is as valid as any other. Agreed he is guilty of blind faith.

          • Neil Saunders
          • Peter Ratcliff

            Dear Margo, when we get set straight on the big picture which is that Jesus is the Truth then we are on solid ground and soon things fall into place. I was amazed how this happened to me. Not that I know everything! But this one thing, salvation through Jesus’ death in our place is utterly transforming. God bless, Peter

          • Margo Broom

            Good for you, I am not an authority on your experience. I am glad you are happy but religion doesn’t work for everyone.

          • Peter Ratcliff

            Indeed, religion works for noone. What works is God giving us repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. It is old Methodism that saves, not the new liberal version.

          • Spectrum

            ( God’s ) Truth IS absolute. ( And you’re therefore absolutely wrong ).

          • Margo Broom

            What about personal truths such as “I love my wife”? Are they absolute? Are they absolute to others?

          • Spectrum

            Yes, as long as they are in conformity with His laws on how we should live. God is love and Truth. He created woman to be man’s mate, and instituted the foundation of marriage ( see Genesis ). So loving your wife is fulfilling God’s purpose.

          • Margo Broom

            This sounds like a religious justification of patriarchy to me.

          • Spectrum

            I Corinthians 11:3 – “…But I want you to understand that
            the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God…..”.

            Under Christian Patriarchy, the framework in this verse is extended to women in general. Every woman has a male authority, and that male authority looks to Christ as his authority. A woman is to obey her male authority, whether it is her father, husband, brother, or son, and he in turn is to obey Christ. By obeying her male authority, a woman is obeying God. This is seen as the natural and God-given order.

            This natural order was rebelled against in the late sixties and through the seventies, as leftist feminists knowingly or unknowingly attempted and succeeded, in revolutionising this natural order via the Womens Liberation Movement. Just another example of how society thinks it knows how to run itself better than what God originally planned for us. A plan like everything God does, that is meant for our ultimate benefit.

          • Margo Broom

            Also true and correct with respect to what? All truths have a scope, nothing is absolute nor relative.

          • Neil Saunders

            Very nice, Peter. However, not everyone is a committed Christian (I’m not myself, as it happens), and you are consequently stating your argument in terms which will only be accepted by those who already share your religious beliefs.

            This will probably give you a nice, warm, fuzzy feeling inside, but it will not persuade a single person to change their mind.

            It is very important for sexual revolutionaries to understand that there are secular people – agnostics and atheists – who also reject their programme.

          • Peter Ratcliff

            Neil, thankyou for a courteous response but with respect also, the warm fuzzy feeling is more the illusion suffered by secularists. Their dream has no sense of reality. They claim freedom from religious blindness but like atheists before who founded communism, they are blind leaders of the blind. Like it or not, secular humanism is part of the problem and not the answer. Only Jesus Christ can give real hope, peace and joy to people who are confused. Atheism is void of help. Why should it matter to a bunch of molecules from nowhere evolving into nothing, whether it is male, female or somewhere inbetween. Secularism will be trodden down by Islam and every other form of falsehood.

          • Neil Saunders

            I have no doubt that you sincerely believe this to be true, but I still think that you’re coming at the debate from the wrong perspective. The narcissist pseudo-left (with its roots in the soil of the Frankfurt School, fertilised with a dash of Boaz, Dewey and Gramsci and hothoused beneath the blinding sunlamps of Francophone postmodernism) tends to see all of its adversaries as Bible-bashing simpletons from the Flyover States (and their equivalents elsewhere).

            Actually, the strongest arguments against the sexual revolutionaries are rooted in evolutionary biology and psychology, along with the critical reasoning of the Anglo-American analytic tradition in philosophy. These movements, I hardly need tell you, are quite secular in nature.

          • Peter Ratcliff

            Thanks Neil. These theories are interesting but they come and go and have no imperative force. Yes, homosex would be an evolutionary dead end and therefore cannot be genetic but there is no natural law that says that extinction of a species is wrong. The Bible is the one and only accurate description of the fallen nature and the only Saviour of sinners. There is power in the blood of Christ.

          • Neil Saunders

            As far as science is concerned, Peter, there are – to quote the title of one of Karl Popper’s books – Conjectures and Refutations. Theories (or conjectures) are proposed, tested and – if they withstand the most rigorous tests – they become the scientific consensus until or unless they are finally falsified and then, in response to their refutation, replaced by better theories. If they are very compelling they certainly carry a great deal of imperative force, both positive and negative. However, I concede that while science can inform judgements of value it cannot, of itself, provide them.

            That said, there are scientists who sincerely hold religious beliefs (Christian and other), and this is probably no great problem where it doesn’t conflict with their scientific judgement. I can understand that you yourself hold sincere beliefs, and I can furthermore appreciate that, as a Christian, you feel the need to evangelise and to view important ethical issues through the prism of your faith. I’m just concerned that some people will be distracted by this – particularly those who automatically conflate Christian belief with what they presume to be unacceptably conservative social and moral positions.

          • Peter Ratcliff

            Neil. Thanks. I am quite aware of the intense prejudice against Biblical Christianity. But I also believe that God raises the dead! That is what I am to do, like Ezekiel in the Old Testament who was told to preach to the dead bones until they came alive! That’s what we need. St Paul said to the Corinthians that the natural man cannot receive the things of God. He speaks of the unconverted as being dead spiritually. So I grant that my task, and that of all Gospel preachers, is an impossible one but God has promised to do great things so we press on! It is wonderful that Jesus thanked the Father in Matthew 11 that God hides himself from the wise and prudent but reveals himself to babes. May you be one too. You are certainly very polite, other than the one “holy Joe” jibe, but I understand your feelings so no offence taken.

          • Spectrum

            Science is the tool God uses to demonstrate the glory of His Creation.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Ah, the PC hate of the left, right, as you spew pure nuggets of Randroid…

          • Neil Saunders

            I take it that you are referring to Ayn Rand, who I am on the record as detesting with a vengeance.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Your self-hate is not my issue.

          • Neil Saunders

            Ayn Rand’s ideas (if you can dignify them with the term) on economics and society are at 180 degrees to my own, so I can scarcely be accused of self-hate when I admit my hatred for this vile woman and all her works.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Then why do your views have such commonality with hers in many respects? I remind you she was an utter hypocrite who did in fact claim welfare.

          • Neil Saunders

            In what way do my views resemble hers, Leon? Explain.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            LMAO!

            Ah, the commands begin.

          • Margo Broom

            What is wrong with being confused? I think I am confuse about many things but I have hope despite this and sometimes because of this. However it is true I have no idea whether this hope is real. I find that atheism helps me make sense of the world and my feelings more than methodism ever did.

          • Peter Ratcliff

            As above, it depends what sort of Methodism you had. There is a nominal religion that does nothing and there is the original methodism which is old biblical Gospel in which God does a work in us, giving us repentance and faith in the death of Christ. Nobody with this true Methodism can say that Jesus has not done the most wonderful thing for them! Churchgoing did nothing for me until I was 31 and heard a real Bible believing Gospel preaching Methodist in Cornwall and God brought me to faith, being so thankful that Jesus died for my sins. Amazing grace! Atheism cannot match that because it ends in death but Jesus has promised us something better than we can imagine, even if we go through years of suffering and old age.

          • Margo Broom

            The only thing I took from methodism was regarding the “penitence through work” ideology. It made me realise how intrinsically linked religion, social order and ultimately capitalism are. In converting workers to a methodist ideology employers where able to placate their these workers by ideologically equating socialism with satanism. I have no doubt that the ministers concerned had faith in their teachings but they were complicit in oppression nonetheless.

          • Peter Ratcliff

            Margo, that is terrible. These ministers who preach politics rather than the Gospel will have it worse in the day of judgment than any atheists. No Gospel? How evil many Methodist chapels have become. That is why the people in Cornwall who helped me had left the Methodist Church and become an independent Bible preaching church.

            I must say that what I used to hear in the C of E before I was converted was equally as useless. Gospel -less churches are really a curse.

          • Margo Broom

            Do you imagine that many trans people consider themselves sexual revolutionaries? How does trans activism adversely effect (I hope that’s the right one) non trans people? Is the programme you speak of not simply about equality and civil rights?

          • Spectrum

            “….Is the programme you speak of not simply about equality and civil rights…” ?

            In short, no it’s not. Do some research. There’s a radical left wing / feminist agenda behind this, that uses the pretexts of rights and equality to manipulate the general public’s minds into accepting perversion such as homosexuality and other aberrant behaviours, as normal and ( now ) to even be celebrated ! Why do you think public opinion polls on these issues for example, have turned around so dramatically ? Because this well funded psychological agenda has worked spectacularly well for them.

          • Margo Broom

            Do LGBT rights and alike infringe upon your rights? There is nothing inherrently left wing about civil rights. Feminism is simply about the destruction of patriarchy and maintenance of gender class is a form of patriarchy. The far left and extremes of feminism often cutail rights for all.

          • Spectrum

            Of course LGBT “rights” infringe, ARE CONTINUING TO INFRINGE, and often violate our rights. When I say “our” rights, I am referring to Christians’ rights. And to a lesser extent any non- Christian who is still decent minded enough to either oppose their agenda or simply to be left to their obey their own conscience in peace.. Haven’t you been following the news ?

            As you seem to have missed a lot, here is an entree ; http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/courts-conclude-faith-loses-to-gay-demands/

            ……and when you’ve digested that, here’s 300 more as the main course ; http://barbwire.com/2014/07/07/300-examples-read-understand-meant-term-homofascism/

          • Margo Broom

            Non of the cases outlined in those articles are examples of institutional oppression against christians or prevent christians from practicing their faith. They fall into one of two categories. 1. A secular state maintaining equal rights for all and christians working within those institutions allowing their personal beliefs to deny others rights safe guarded by the state. At no point have those christians had their right to practice their faith infringed upon. 2. Non justifiable violent actions of individual extremist activists against christians. These two things are not related and unless you are of the opinion that it is violent to inform children of gender variance not related to the issue in the article. There is no infringement on freedom of speech or freedom of faith. What you seem to be condoning is the infringement of rights of others which nobody has the right to do. Please explain how christians right to practice their faith has been infringed and why the you think the freedoms of LGBT or other minorities have not.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Yes, there’s also the far right. And?

          • Margo Broom

            Do you find the questioning of gender norms strange? Does God only recognise male and female? What are your thoughts on gender being a class system?

          • Peter Ratcliff

            Great questions Margo. When the usual pattern is followed the husband and wife share all and there is perfect equality. Feminism is quite brutal in comparison, forcing women into competition with men. Where there is Christian love then the mutual respect between classes grows so that the rich and poor recognise their own limitations and need of each other to glorify God. The Christian employer and employee look after each other and thank God for each other and there is no class war but a building together. Thanks for the stimulating question which gives me some thoughts for a sermon I am preparing on Nehemiah 3 for Sunday evening about working together!

          • Margo Broom

            Glad to be of help! I have learned many things from well written sermons but maybe not always the intended message. What you describe above truly is the essence of right wing politics i.e. the maintenance of social order. Gender is probably just another form of social order like any other. It seems that we disagree fundamentally on the importance of social order. I, being a trans lesbian, experience it as an oppressive force. This would apply my experience of capitalism (I try to live as much as I can in a sharing economy), religion (I am humanist and an atheist) and of course gender norms. I don’t believe that I am sinful unless my sin is not conforming to these ideals. I lead an independent, altruistic and ultimately fulfilling life.

          • Peter Ratcliff

            Thanks Margo. I certainly don’t approve of the social order or the ruling class. There is not much denying of ourselves in the UK. It is a very dysfunctional and tragic society. True Christian love transcends in a whole new dimension.

          • Margo Broom

            But i think you are generally describing a very specific dimension that, in my view, amounts to a form of social order. My ideal is the destruction of any social order that is oppressive and I believe to have any hope of achieving this we need to at least listen to the oppressed. I am interested in belief in God and your feelings of being oppressed, I wonder whether you consider yourself an oppressor in any imaginable circumstance?

          • Peter Ratcliff

            Dear Margo. I am not sure I have answered everything as some comments did not get posted. I am nor sure whether disqus is a fully adequate wat to discuss in depth.
            Just a few more thoughts.
            Capitalism is criticised but I think the problem is greed and covetousness, not capitalism. The alternatives to capitalism are either that everyone has to be self sufficient or that there is a totalitarian state. I think capitalism subject to law, and preferably Christian values, is much better.

            The Right-wing Bible, if that is what I represent, is very very against the oppression of the poor and needy. At the same time there are laws. To say that laws are oppressive would be true if the laws were ungodly, but not I we merely felt this because we wanted to be ungodly. That ungodliness is a very deep thing but we cannot justify it.

          • Margo Broom

            Capitalism is a social order that can be libertarian or authoritarian. There is an inherent contradiction in right wing politics in this country that goes something like this. Free market capitalism for the rich and meritocracy for the poor. Depending on where you reside in the social order depends on who you regard as rich or poor relative to you. If you are right wing you tend to argue for meritocracy for the people below you and advocate a free market for the people above. This maintains the social order and tends towards greater inequality. A true free market cannot exist if people still have basic needs that can be used to exploit them. Poor people have no choice in the work they do. There can be no true meritocracy if the rich can make money without working for it. Capitalism allows both these things to occur simultaneously.
            I don’t know what makes a law ungodly but I think the function of law should be to protect people either from each other or the flaws of the current social order in this case capitalism. If you agree that a law is ungodly if it is oppressive then I guess we are in agreement. But that would have to include laws that safe guard freedom of speech, freedom of expression and equal rights for all and I doubt that you agree with all of those.

          • Peter Ratcliff

            Margo, life is not all about money. Jesus said a widow who gave two little coins gave more than all the rich men. There are precious souls who according to secularism have no quality of life because of bad health, but that is a lie. It is the heart that is the key, not what we own. Capitalism is only a word coined in the 19th century for private ownership which has virtually always existed everywhere. I cannot see that as wrong in itself, especially when the alternatives are considered, ie tribal chiefs or totalitarianism. It needs to operate within a fair (what I call godly) system of laws. I think you agree on that. I don’t envy those with millions and billions. There is nothing wrong with being contented. I might also envy those with less than me because they have less responsibility. Who would choose to be a king, a celebrity, or multi-millionaire rather than an ordinary citizen?
            We should not envy the rich and the rich should not despise the poor. That is how it works in good churches at least.
            Sorry if I didn’t answer your question.

            I do however believe that parents should be allowed to pass on their assets to their children and not have that all taken from them. Wealth redistribution does not work and is not the way to help the poor. Capitalism must work within good laws rather than be replaced with forced redistribution of wealth and forced self-sufficiency which most people could not cope with but would soon die of hunger or war.

          • Margo Broom

            How can you be content if you are hungry or unable to gain any kind of stability? This does not imply envy, just basic needs to exist. I don’t think there is much correlation between wealth and responsibility inherently and it certainly isn’t practiced in our society. Most right wing politicians want to reduce their responsibility to their fellow citizens. I think society has a responsibility to ensure everyone has the chance at least a basic standard of living free from poverty and oppression. I don’t believe enacting this would disadvantage anyone else anything more than superficially. For the 500 years or so that capitalism has been around it has improved standards but never provided this universal level.

          • Peter Ratcliff

            Don’t you think the UK gives people a chance? With free education and many other free services provided? I agree it could be much better but we would probably disagree on the changes necessary.

            How to be hungry and contended? Do you have a Bible? See Philippians 4:12,13.

            When John Wesley preached to the poor the tears rolled down their cheeks as they heard about the Saviour. They were happy before they were filled with bread.

            I trust that if I fall on hard times physically or financially, I too will continue to praise God. You will be familiar with the story of Job in the Bible who lost everything yet said, Though He slay me yet will I trust him.
            At this moment there are millions of Christians being cruelly persecuted and oppressed around the world yet they are not becoming terrorists but are praying for their persecutors.
            We must overcome evil with good.
            Come to church tomorrow!

          • Margo Broom

            A bit of a glass half full/empty situation don’t you think? I am against hereditory and monetary privilege of any kind. Just because there are freedoms and social mobility present it does not imply an absense of privilege and oppression. Religion is used to justify many actions such as terrorism and prejudice, these are obviously never valid. There is really no need for me to come to church.

          • Spectrum

            “….Does God only recognise male and female…” ?

            Yes, God does only recognise male and female. Because to the normal minded among us, there IS only male and female. Always has been. Always will be.

            What a stupid and pointless question – unless of course, it has an ulterior agenda behind it. And as Melanie Phillips succinctly explained in the above article, that’s exactly the case.

          • Margo Broom

            Not that i like using groups as a political football but are you aware of intersex people? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex. Also “normal” in its usage above is just another word for privilege. That’s why i raised the question about gender class.

          • Spectrum

            Since when has it been a privilege to simply be a male or female ? Only since the radical left is almost stigmatising that traditional reality. Yes, I’m aware of “intersex” people. More than that, are you aware that there are now up to 56 invented gender terms that our politically correct cultural warriors want us to absorb and regard as fact ? http://guardianlv.com/2014/02/all-56-of-facebooks-new-gender-identities-defined/

            And they’re indoctrinating the next generations with this nonsense through the schools ; http://www.infowars.com/nebraska-schools-ban-term-boys-and-girls-train-teachers-to-avoid-gendered-expressions/

        • Neil Saunders

          Just a few tips on spelling and punctuation. In the sense that you mean, the word should be “effect”; ideology is spelt thus; “its”, when used possessively (rather than as a contraction of “it is” or “it has”) does not have an apostrophe.

          • Margo Broom

            Thanks for the info. Unfortunately I am the recipient of a meagre state education. I am here to learn. I assume you managed to understand my question despite the errors.

          • Neil Saunders

            Actually, the info wasn’t directed against you personally, Margo. The errors are such persistent ones on the internet (and elsewhere) that I felt obliged to draw attention to them, in the faint (but sincere) hope that their onward march can be – to cite Doctor Johnson – retarded if not altogether repelled.

    • Hugh

      your espousing Identity Politics. Hence I advise you re-evaluate your position,

      • Margo Broom

        Please explain your sweeping dismissal of identity politics? Does it have anything to do with your position of privilege?

        • Elena Genuos

          No, it has to do with its worshipping of identity. Through that it seeks to pigeonhole and divide people.

          • Kspo

            True, it’s identity politics that divide transpeople from the general population. Not the espousals of the people who murder them.

      • Elena Genuos

        So is the author of this article really.

  • http://charles-dawne.blogspot.co.uk/ Charles Dawne

    “The MPs claim it ‘pathologises trans identities’ … Instead, it blames ‘transphobia’ for driving them to this despair.”

    So pathologising one set of people is not allowed but they like to use a bogus pathology (transphobia) to label everyone else who disagrees….

    • Margo Broom

      I assure you transphobia is not bogus to its victims. Many trans people are murdered and raped around the world who have never engaged in any kind of activism or political agenda.

      • http://charles-dawne.blogspot.co.uk/ Charles Dawne

        Regardless of how many people are killed it is still a made up word (that makes no sense) used to silence and pathologise people.

        • Margo Broom

          What do you suggest we call violence motivated by prejudice against transgender people?

          • http://charles-dawne.blogspot.co.uk/ Charles Dawne

            What you called it is enough to describe such acts. All violence is wrong – regardless of who it is against.

            Yes “homophobia” is made up too (fear of same; same what?) and makes little sense syntax wise. Ditto for “transphobia” (fear of change) which is just used to pathologise people with name calling labels.

            Xenophobia is not made up (and a real psychiatric term, since skewed by cultural Marxists to mean something else).

          • Margo Broom

            So what do we call this kind of violence? Surely it still exists regardless of what we call it.

          • http://charles-dawne.blogspot.co.uk/ Charles Dawne

            Why does it need its own psychiatric name? Why not “assault”? As we are all equal and regardless of who is on the receiving end for whatever reason, it is still a wrong.

          • Margo Broom

            We are not all equal and it helps to categorise crimes against people to enable us to understand them. In most jurisdictions crimes motivated by racism, homophobia and transphobia are deemed hate crimes because they are part of a history of violence and in the context of privilege. This classification is designed to address institutional inequality and oppression. If all the violence is equal then why are women, LGBT people and ethnic minorities more likely to be victims of violence? Not all violence is equally wrong or valid, violence against an oppressive state, for example, can even be justified.

          • noupperlobeman

            “We are not all equal and it helps to categorise crimes against people to enable us to understand them.”
            -This is a fundamentally racist and prejudice idea. You are deciding for someone that they aren’t equal, and in doing so you strip them of their agency and their ability to think for themselves.

            ” why are women, LGBT people and ethnic minorities more likely to be victims of violence”
            -Completely and demonstratively false. Your argument lacks any scope. Is this worldwide? Whites are a minority in that particular scope, as are homosexuals and trans people.

            Inside western culture? Men are significantly more likely to be the subject of violent crime. Women have rights unsurpassed by any group in history. Trans and homosexual people are more widely accepted in Western Nations than any other point in history.

          • Margo Broom

            Labels are not the cause of inequality they are simply there is identify groups who suffer oppression and inequality. I don’t think victims of hate crime are victims because they are unable to think for themselves or lack agency. There is a parallel with post colonialism here, does the oppressive legacy of colonialism still have an impact on equality in the post colonial era? Trans people are not arbitrarily abused but because they are trans. This is the legacy of an era of oppressive gender norms and will likely be the case long after trans people achieve equal rights.
            When I say more likely I mean a greater percentage of those people are victims of violence. Try this http://www.rrsonline.org/?page_id=944 if you need some stats.
            True equality for women has a long way to go, equal rights are just the beginning. There are any number of things I can cite here, the gender pay gap, political representation, prominence in industry etc.

          • Anne Louise

            Seriously? All words are “made up words”. Humans “made up” all human languages and all human words. Just because one word is newer than another that doesn’t make it not a word.

          • Spectrum

            Do you find the term “homodisgustic” preferable ? I do !

          • Margo Broom

            What do you find disgusting about trans people?

          • polidorisghost

            All words are made up

      • noupperlobeman

        Did the author claim that transphobia is bogus? It was pretty long at I don’t remember.

        And to me this article was written from the view of someone living in a western culture. Trans people in the western world have more rights than ever. There is a trans history month, major celebrity transitions are nationally celebrated, and any hint of transphobia is stamped out quickly by mainstream PC culture.

        Transphobia outside of the West is irrelevant to the discussion at hand because it’s outside the scope of the article.

        • Margo Broom

          I was replying to Charles Dawne who claimed transphobia was bogus. The author does not claim it is bogus as far as I am aware.

          Do you mean LGBT history month?

          I have been the victim of transphobic abuse and many people I know suffer it frequently. Transphobia should be stamped out wherever it is present as it is no more than another form of irrational prejudice.

          While it is true that trans people are more accepted than ever in the UK there is still a long way to go in many “western” countries. I cite the recent bathroom bills in the US that allow businesses and authorities to discriminate legally against trans people.

  • Scott Keen

    Great article.Nice to see that the entire world has not been eaten up with the liberal PC mentality despite what the media want us to believe.Transgenders and homosexuals are mentally ill people, period. No amount of legislation can stamp out the natural human reaction of revulsion when one sees two men kissing in public or a man dressed like a woman. The politically correct politicians can be damned. Freedom of speech and freedom of thought are the two greatest freedoms in the world. To criminalize free speech as “hate speech” is a dangerous thing and has a tendency to backfire.

  • Carter

    “We’re all gender fluid, no?” That is the most idiotic thing I’ve seen. No you are not gender fluid unless you have actually experienced sometimes feeling like a male and other times feeling female. Gender is a spectrum, some people fall on a direct spot ie more male or more female, some are closer to the center like a tomboy. Or you can move from diferent spots and that is gender fluid. This article is crap.

  • Elena Genuos

    This article started off well, but then became rambling and incoherent.

  • Kat Repse

    Personally I found this article very hard to understand. I kept looking for a ‘here’s what not to do’ but it seemed the writer truly believed the bullshit that they have written. I would like to address multiple issues with this but I don’t remember any fluidity or continuity in the writing.

    • noupperlobeman

      Personal incredulity. This is a logical fallacy in which the person finds something difficult to understand, and therefore claims it isn’t true.

  • Reader

    If you want to assign everyone one of 2 genders based on their immutable physical reality, and therefore claim gender isn’t socially constructed, what gender does the author foresee assigning to intersex people? Are they forced to pick one?

    Also, she obviously isn’t well informed on the terms because she lists asexual among terms for gender and intersex (which is biology not gender) when asexual is an orientation not a gender. (Might she mean agender?)

    And what is the concern over a girl who likes to climb trees questioning her gender? People learn by asking questions, if she can be allowed to wonder whether she has a crush on a female friend, why not wonder if she is in fact female? Why are you so afraid of children asking questions? Is a change in the status quo so terrifying?

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here