It is necessary to preface this article, for the content it contains is considered paramount to "hate speech"; dictated by the realm of "political correctness".
Under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, “everyone has the right to freedom of expression” in the UK. The law states that this freedom “may be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society”. Those restrictions may be “in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary”.
The argument(s) one seeks to discuss do not in any way infringe upon the rights of others; taking offence to my arguments, or disagreeing with them cannot correctly, within a sane world, be conflated to the infringing of any rights, in fact, it only improves and points out the right to be offended in a democratic society (though it is heavily debatable as to whether we even reside within a democracy anymore, and indeed, whether we are witnessing its inevitable death; perchance an issue for another article).
Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 (POA), makes it an offence for a person to use “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress”. This law has been revised over the years to include language that is deemed to incite “racial and religious hatred”, as well as “hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation” and language that “encourages terrorism”. I write plainly; I am not using words or language which causes, or is likely to cause "harassment, alarm, or distress", nor does this article incite, or attempt to incite "hatred" on any grounds.
I further do not claim to be a medical professional, or a behavioural expert.
Our society is being forced to contend with an epidemic of transgenderism. Youths across the nation, nay, throughout the north-western hemisphere, are insisting that they are born in the wrong body, convincing themselves, and others that their bodies are misaligned with the self-perception they have of themselves, thus warranting a barrage of physical alterations, and a set of demands that all conform to their warped worldview. Society continually encourages these whims: legislating in favour of them, whilst simultaneously failing to recognise the harmful situation we are encapsulated within - one of irreversible damage, legal and moral grey pasture, and the total abolition of sex as we know it.
A clear agenda is being pushed; gender is a social construct. Gender is now considered to be a set of culturally and societally imposed behavioural norms ingrained into everyone according to the behaviours expected and ipso facto, “taught”, by their biological sex; societal norms, to put simply. This, in itself, produces a dichotomy, as gender and sex are intrinsically linked. In order to vie for the former line of argument, one must firstly separate the two on the superficial level of semantics - meaning one would have to agree with the fact that gender is representative of socially constructed performative behaviours, whilst sex is what we are “assigned” upon birth according to our genitalia, which ironically, requires the fortification of emotion to support the now tautological definition of gender, as it is often also described as how “one feels inside, and how one chooses to express oneself”. This is where the issue arises, because firstly this juxtaposes and conflicts heavily with the idea that it is socially constructed, and secondly, our emotions are intrinsically linked to our brains and the chemicals present within them - meaning that gender, is also, inherently biological, inasmuch as sex, which is not assigned, but rather announced upon birth. It therefore should follow that the definition of both sex and gender should be biological.
A “female” is defined as, “of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilised by male gametes”; this definition does not automatically exclude women who are menopausal, or those who are unable to give birth, conveyed through the usage of the verb “can”, thus indicating the underlying pretextual chromosomal definition. Nonetheless, in order to quash the latter argument regarding inclusivity, the definition should be both expanded and distinguished, “of or denoting to the sex, derived from the double X (XX) chromosomes, which may bear offspring or produce eggs”. This definition does include women who are unable to menstruate, or give birth; it includes all women, since all possess the XX chromosome, which makes them, us, intrinsically female. If society can no longer agree that there is an intended, and inherently biological juxtaposition between men and women, then we cannot ipso facto concur that one purpose of the existence of the human species is procreation, thus purporting the current, more common anti-natalist school of thought. This debate of semantics has become considerably more heated, as depicted by the removal of a billboard displaying the definition of the noun “woman” as an “adult human female” due to it allegedly representing the beliefs of “a hate group”. Author of the Harry Potter series J.K Rowling, has been labelled a member of the same, “hate group”, which has been specifically branded “TERFs”, transgender exclusionary radical feminists; essentially any woman who begins to question this tautological, harmful, and hypocritical ideology. Rowling was buried under swathes of death threats after tweeting, “People who menstruate. I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”. This was a clear nod toward the forceful eviction of the noun “woman” from societally acceptable vocabulary. It is no longer politically correct, and de facto no longer “inclusive” to be using this noun within academic institutions, places of work, or even in personal conversations. Instead, women are reduced to their biological function, disguised under this same hypocritical mask of inclusivity and political correctness, with reference to “pregnant people”, or “chest feeders”. Whilst this may merely seem like the evolution of language, it is clear that by bending to the whims of a minority, who have the support of massive corporations, there is forced conformity taking place, within linguistic ability to communicate, self-identification, free-will, and the freedoms of belief and expression – much akin to that of Newspeak, present within the decreasingly dystopian Orwellian Ingsoc landscape.
Biological reality seems to have caused offence to those who aspire to be women, who cannot, and never will be women, yet demand the platform of women to preach their self-righteous and purportedly virtuous message; being that they are those who are the true allies of feminism, femininity, and equal rights. The massive platforms gifted to transvestites and influencers spreading such messages to and the entirety of the population, ultimately allows for them to wield the exploitative powers of the algorithm to further fuel this culture war, and to disrupt society as we know it. For example, Dylan Mulvaney, a “transgender woman”, who posts consistently documenting his “journey into girlhood”, was recently invited to both the White House, and the Forbes “Power Women’s Summit”; ironically to “mansplain” how to be a woman, and how we should all become more accepting of the transgender infiltration of female-only spaces, such as changing rooms and sports categories, purporting it to be an issue of equal rights and basic healthcare, and not the scourge it truly is for parents, their children, familial relationships, the mental health of children, of individuals, and the destruction of consensus within both politics, and culture more generally.
The issue with creators and influencers like Mulvaney has become increasingly prevalent; they try to dictate what womanhood should be, how it should be portrayed, and most importantly, how it should be practised. Femininity is intrinsic to womanhood, it is not, what Mulvaney portrays in an insulting mockery of his perception; high-heels, makeup, long hair, and a fear of the outdoors. The harmful idea, that one no longer needs to suffer from gender dysphoria to be “transgender” to take life-altering chemicals which allegedly halt growth with no side effects, is encouraging adolescent, and even younger women or girls, that any discomfort with their bodies throughout puberty (which is a very normal reaction to hormonal imbalance, and most commonly stated to be “a part of growing up”) is a manifestation of their “transness”, which cannot be further from the truth. This also points to the tautological aspect of the ideology once again; girls and women who are self-described “tomboys” cannot exist, since they should be transgender, as they do not openly put on burlesquing displays of “drag”-like interpretations of femininity. Dr Lisa Littman’s theory of “rapid onset gender dysphoria” may confirm that this massive increase in children identifying as transgender is something of a social contagion, which has been brought upon by internet influencers and social trends; the diagnosis of gender dysphoria is increasingly being used as a “social coping mechanism”, for other disorders (it may even be used as a manifestation of coming to terms with trauma directed at young women, who may perceive this event to have never occurred if she were a male, for example). Being transgender is now something which garners empathy, and ultimately, popularity.
The common insistence to attempt to alter one's biology by consuming hormones of some sort, or even seeking surgery, which gives the appearance of biological organs associated with either of the two sexes, only emphasises the clearly disrupted line of argument that gender is distinct from sex. If there is an issue with accepting one's appearance with regard to one's own self-perception, then it is clear that this is a mental health issue, and not one which can be solved by altering the body, as discussed within Abigail Shrier's "Irreversible Damage", which makes note of trends among adolescent girls, which vary depending upon the decade examined; throughout the 1990s to the 2000s this was seen to be eating disorders due to a barrage of harmful diet culture propaganda intrinsically embedded within literature, such as magazines, and even television shows, music videos, etcetera - specifically, the desirability of a stick-thin silhouette, the attention garnered from the self-victimisation via means of starvation in an attempt to physically contend with the hormonal imbalances which come with adolescence, ultimately resulting in a boost in relative social popularity as the ideal of “fitting in” was met. Today, this same trend is mirrored by identifying as both LQBTQ+, and as “transgender”, even if one is not suffering from gender dysphoria. This is an issue not only because it involves the self-identification of children in an ideology they are unable to contend with, or effectively grasp, but is also inherently harmful, as children are increasingly encouraged to confide in anyone but their parents about this newfound identity, ultimately allowing for exploitative involvements within children’s lives to interfere with the relationship they have with their own parents, which has been exacerbated by judgments passed down by courts like the British Columbia Supreme Court, which ruled in favour of a fourteen-year-old teenager who desired medical treatment in his gender transition, despite the opposition of his father. This sets a harmful precedent for transitioning youth across the province, ultimately suggesting that seeking medical assistance is a health decision, and not a political or moral decision that even a parent can prevent, or question. Such rulings have also allowed for the establishment of an international precedent due to the fixed paradigm of psychiatry’s role; “diagnosing people and then getting them on the right drugs”, rather than seeing “the non-medical approach as the real work of psychiatry”, discussed by James Davies within “Cracked. Why Psychiatry is Doing More Harm than Good”. The existence of this set international precedent, according to the standards of political correctness and a “pseudo-scientific point of view”, is also displayed by the high-profile custody battle undertaken by Jeff Younger, father to two seven-year-old twins, one of whom is being socially gender transitioned from male to female whilst remaining at the mother’s home, which has been purported since the child was aged only two. It is utterly preposterous to assume that children are able to grasp the “abstract concept of gender”, as defined by proponents of this so-called gender ideology; if adults are unable to fathom this concept, how on earth can children, of any age, come to even grasp the sheer depth of it?
The issue, as it stands currently, is the root cause of this transgenderism epidemic. There had been a marked increase in the number of referrals to the Tavistock and Portman Gender Identity Disorder Service between the years 2014-2015 to 2015-2016; over 100% to be precise. Within the next year, they saw in increase of 41%, and by 2017, around 50% of the referrals were made on behalf of patients under the age of fifteen. The issue is not with the sudden increase of rapid onset gender dysphoria, but with the reckless diagnosis of these mentally-ill children and teenagers with something that is no longer considered a mental-illness, but a way of life. The fact that side effects of these puberty-blockers have not been properly investigated, or advertised, is not the only aspect which is inherently fishy; in research conducted by the Tavistock Board within 2015, involving a group of 44 “young people”, researchers found that 30 agreed with the statement, “I deliberately try to hurt or kill myself” after taking puberty blockers for one year. The “significant increase” in suicidality is, and should be a concerning matter, yet GIDS concluded that the data was collected from a “small sample”, and therefore, “no meaningful conclusion” could be drawn. The clinic went on to state that, “all patients were seen regularly by mental health professionals. They concluded that there was no evidence of harm that could be directly attributed to the treatment and that continuation of the study was appropriate”. This is precisely the problem; “gender-affirming therapy”, is not, and should not be a form of proper “treatment”, it is merely allowing for the patient to have their delusions that they wish to be, or are, a member of the opposite gender or sex, affirmed by a medical professional, which ergo gives them both the authority to go forward with this medical transition, but also presumably allows them to retain the warped idea that every person they encounter will also affirm their identity. The former issue is summarised by Marcus Evans, a former psychoanalyst and adult psychotherapist at the Tavistock and Portman trust for two decades; “we’re doing the whole area a disservice by this besieged mentality in which you feel that questioning things and having curiosity about what’s going on is the enemy of good treatment and care—rather than it’s [being] an absolute central tenet of good treatment and care”.
Furthermore, the fact that side-effects of these puberty blockers remain relatively unknown - for the sake of appeasing a minority which brandishes the club with which to beat others for refusing to be politically correct, and in the current climate, essentially destroy someone’s livelihood – establishes another degree of uncertainty regarding the whole palaver. William Malone, an endocrinologist in Idaho with an interest in puberty blockers, stipulated that the drugs seem to halt the rapid increase in bone density that occurs in adolescence, and ergo, GIDS’s “conclusion [that there can be no conclusive results of any studies due to small sample sizes] should be the opposite: puberty blockers profoundly inhibit normal bone density development and this should be of great concern to any practitioner using this medication”, thus the reckless prescription and administration of such drugs should be questioned, and scrutinised. The closure of the Tavistock and Portman Gender Identity Disorder Service is, unfortunately, not an indication of society beginning to correct its errors – instead, it indicates a process of reform to make these hormone “blocking” drugs more accessible at a regional level. Alongside “gender affirming therapy”, the presence of rapid onset gender dysphoria and the over-medicalisation of gender dysphoria, which is ironically no longer being definitively seen or defined as a mental illness, indicates serious issues pertaining to the reconsideration, reconstruction, and defunding of political factions within the medical sector.
And then there is the harsh reality of the matter, the tragic case of David Reimer proves that it is not possible for someone to be socialised as someone of the opposite sex; sex is something intrinsic which we will always recognise as authentic, within ourselves. Thus, the findings of the highly controversial figure, the creator of this gender ideology, Dr John Money, will always be inherently flawed; for him, it was a money-making endeavour, and the ideology which he founded with the help of the cruel experiment on the Reimer twins continues to bring in an influx of capital to an already booming industry of medical transitions, which many fail to recognise the truth of. David Reimer’s suicide ultimately proves that no matter how effective this social transition proves, even after extensive puberty blockers, transitioning a child will have disastrous effects which will begin to manifest in adolescence and adulthood. The millions of complacent parents who bend to the whims of their demanding children, who wish to alter their bodies surgically, demand usage of “preferred” pronouns, and threaten to cut all ties with families unless all wishes are granted and obeyed, will one day, be taken to court by these same, stubborn children, who knew no better. For these children had groomers, like Eli Erlick providing them with argumentation; whispering in one ear, and the help of corporations and woke educators in the other. The same details provided within gut-wrenching testimonies of de-transitioners fortify the failings of the internet in its usage as a tool for manipulating innocent children, as they fall from rabbit-holes into conspiracy theories, into the hands of groomers, and eventually make life-altering decisions recklessly, not knowing truly what the consequences are. This is merely beginning of society’s pitfall – we are failing to protect the most vulnerable.
The tenet of the ideology which seeks to control human perception via Orwellian limitations of Newspeak by socially criminalising (and in certain jurisdictions, legally justifying the criminalisation of “misgendering” which is now considered paramount to a hate crime, such as Canada) the use of “incorrect pronouns” and “misgendering”, is an issue gaining hasty prevalence. Firstly, the intended usage of pronouns is for the ease of communication; to prevent excessive linguistic repetition of any individual’s name within conversation, or written text. If anyone wishes to have specific pronouns, to the point at which they are labelling themselves with utterly ridiculous neo-pronouns, then one wonders if they ever considered just asking people to forego pronouns altogether and always address them by first-name basis. Next, pronouns are not usually used in conversation with an individual about themselves; a majority of the time, pronouns are utilised when speaking about this individual to another person – indicating that this is a clear attempt to control, and restrain the freedom of speech, since it is no longer socially acceptable to verbalise our own perception of others at a basic level, as many demand the absolute recognition of their pronouns, else one risks being damned to the depths of the cancellation abyss after having been destroyed by the self-righteous and virtuous politically-correct mob. This raises another question, proposed by Matt Walsh, author of “Johnny the Walrus”, and presenter of the documentary “What is a Woman?”; if there is a demand to use the “correct” pronouns, no matter how one may perceive another, then soon enough, will not the demand to use only certain adjectives to describe specific arise? People may begin to demand that only adjectives which affirm their respective perceptions of themselves be used, which once again infringes upon one’s rights of the freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. This seems like a hastily approaching reality, not too distant from the dystopian setting of Orwell’s “1984”, with the destruction of linguistic ability entirely, and the limitation and gradual erasure of the English language, and by extension, our ability to express ourselves effectively; an intended outcome of Big Brother - the ideology.
Maya Forstater’s loss of an employment tribunal for tweeting that people could not change their biological sex indicates clearly the limiting of the freedom of expression and speech, simply because it offends a minority, which for the first time in history, has the support of corporations, governments, is fortified by massive capital, and perhaps the most concerning facet of support, the doctored and specially created social media algorithms. How can we correctly allow someone to claim they are of the opposite sex, when they do not believe in either sex or gender, yet they insist on a physical and clinical transformation? Why are we trying to make sense of such ridiculous notions, which don't, and never will make proper sense? You might rightly respond, just because we fail to understand something, doesn't mean that it is beyond our understanding completely. But then, riddle me this; if gender is a social construct, and sex doesn't exist, how can homosexuality exist within the same realm? The entire ideology then begins to fall apart; it is completely circular.
Feminism has become so inclusive that it has been turned on its head, a corrupted movement flailing to continue in its lackadaisical fifth wave; it is now being led by men (the sworn enemies of the same hypocritical radical feminists who demand that intersectionality is of prime importance, and that abortion is an issue only women should discuss and legislate upon). This is a horrifying mistake; from sports scholarships being taken from deserving young women who compete against biological males; the likes of Lia Thomas, to university scholarship winnings in beauty pageants being handed to obese transgender women, solely for the sake of institutions maintaining an aura of inclusiveness, society is failing to see the blatant hypocrisy of it all. Anorexia is recognised as a mental illness, and patients are treated to be cured, as opposed to allowing anorexics to continue starving themselves and then labelling it a lifestyle; similarly, the treatment of transgender children and adolescents should not be fortified by unquestioning “gender-affirming therapy”, but rather by extensive counselling and vigorous de-medicalisation of the entire “transitioning” process. It is clear that blindly affirming children, will have disastrous effects, mentally, physically, developmentally, and more broadly, culturally. Governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis recognised this and subsequently proposed a degree of transparency within the education system with regard to the indoctrination of students via the Parental Rights in Education Act, which in no capacity mentions the phraseology “Don’t Say Gay”, and instead limits conversations of a sexual nature from occurring within certain classrooms which contain students under the age of ten. Lawmakers and leaders like DeSantis are in a stringent minority, and whilst British politicians skirt around the transgender debate, the ideology has spread like a plague from across the pond, indicating that Britain has waited far too long to begin to consider solutions, particularly also with regard to the ridiculous notion of allowing prisoners to be placed in prisons based upon their “gender identity” rather than biological sex, which within the US has resulted in the occurrence of multiple rapes, as there is a predominant desire of biological male rapists to enter exclusively female prisons, to take advantage of already vulnerable women.
Whilst the Conservatives remain in power, it is of prime importance that the sane members of the electorate make their views known, and ultimately help to push through directives which will halt the destruction of childhood innocence, allow for women to regain their platform, and end the waging of an unnecessary culture war. A majority of society has become increasingly complacent in this Huxleyan nightmarish realm, where the fear of cancellation; or Soma, lulls us into a constant state of submission. As put rather eloquently by Elie Wiesel, “those who kept silent yesterday will remain silent tomorrow”. It is of prime importance to forego silence, particularly if we wish to avoid a hastily approaching dystopian reality.
Comments