BY SAM WHITE
The world of transgender activism is disorientating. Stare into it for too long, and it won’t just stare back, it’ll call you a TERF and punch you in the face. In the warped hinterlands of post-logic social justice, the ground slips easily from beneath your feet. There’s no reason or consistency, and no truth to which you can anchor.
Draped over the entrance by way of demarcation or invitation are rainbow flags, but step inside and it’s all kicking off. There are threats and slurs. And violence. Be aware that if you have the propensity to question what you’re told, then you aren’t simply curious or contrary, you’re a bigot.
And the flags weren’t really inviting at all, they were a declaration of identity political diplomatic immunity. Transgender activism has positioned itself as being categorically not up for debate. Contradict any of it at all and you’ll be labelled transphobic. As stroppy alt-left propagandist Owen Jones put it,
So that’s pretty much everyone except Owen then.
But what is it that you are being compelled to accept? As I’ve written about previously, the plan is that gender becomes entirely self-determined, and we’re all free to alter our birth certificates so that no official trace of our biological realities can be found. We will have rapists in women’s prisons, and men shoving aside women in sporting competition. And all this is accompanied by an unquestionable mantra: transwomen are real women. But if those words are true, then what are we to call women who aren’t transwomen? Do we need to make up a new word, because if not then how can we accurately describe these People Formerly Known As Women?
And can we then have sporting competitions, changing rooms, and prisons which are only open to People-Formerly-Known-As-Women, or would Transwomen-Are-Real-Women demand access to them too?
Here’s another development that the modern transgender movement has brought about. Lesbians are harassed and called transphobic if they state that they’re not attracted to men. Actually, that’s not entirely accurate, let’s be more precise. Lesbians are no longer allowed to state that they’re not attracted to men, if the man has declared that he is, in fact, a woman. This is because, don’t forget, transwomen are women, so to exclude them from sexual attention would be to doubt their self-declared womanhood.
Now, I don’t deny that the man in question may well believe himself to be a woman, and really, I don’t care. Everyone is free to live and present themselves however they choose. Change your name and wear a dress, a three piece suit, a kimono with wellington boots, it makes no odds to me. But are we seriously to accept that the evolved biological preferences of an entire species can be overridden by a social justice diktat?
There’s a cock under that dress, and here’s the thing: lesbians, by definition, don’t like cock.
A matter of fact statement. But one which will lead to accusations of bigotry, prejudice, or some such horribly coercive nonsense. And the result is that, as in homophobic times gone by, lesbian and gay people are forced to watch what they say about their own sexual preferences, for fear of the reaction it might provoke. Not the reaction from the religious right, though, as used to be the case, but the reaction from the new transgender movement.
Here’s another story. A man punches a woman in the face. The fact that it’s a man punching a woman is important when describing that occurrence, right? If you were reading about it in a newspaper, you’d expect the reporter to put the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so you’d know what happened.
Now let’s imagine the man has stated that he’s actually a woman. Biologically, remember, it’s the same person, nothing’s changed. He still pulls back his male-length arm, and with his male muscles wrapped around his male bone density propels a man-sized fist into the side of a woman’s face.
The only difference now is that he has made the subjective claim that he is a woman. Unlike the selectively caring postmodern left, let’s not focus solely on our trans-bruiser and his feelings, but on clarity of expression, and the safety and understanding of everybody, and in particular the woman who’s just been violently assaulted.
What do you want our onlooking reporter to do now? Do you want them to change the words to woman hits woman, so that—in the absence of visual evidence—anyone who reads the story will take away the belief that a biological woman hit a biological woman?
If I wanted a faithful observation of what had actually happened, I would certainly like the reporter to write man hits woman. Because that’s what happened. And yet there were influential voices arguing, when such an event actually occurred, that the violent man should be described as a woman.
Let’s just imagine that your only duty is to truthfully document the event, simply for your own records. And assume that it’s absolutely vital you record the details accurately. If you wrote woman hits woman, and came back to it years later, when your memory of the event had faded, would that tell you what had really happened that day? If the answer is no, then woman hits woman is incorrect.
It might be dreadfully un-PC and liberal progressives of the modern variety won’t like it at all, but I care more about accurately describing the real world than following arbitrary new speech codes which obscure the truth. And I care even less about the overwrought emotions of punch-happy political thugs, whatever their preferred pronouns.