Gerard O’Donovan describes ITV’s Transgender Street as ‘insightful and positive’ Telegraph, January 12, 2018.
However, there was little insight into why individuals, in the face of scientific evidence, believe they are the ‘wrong sex’, and should seek to be irreversibly mutilated and take artificial hormones for life to reflect their mental self-image. No responsible physician would affirm the false beliefs of an anorexic by agreeing to perform liposuction, or remove a healthy limb from those who want their bodies to reflect their mistaken belief that they are disabled.
Like so many ‘sympathetic’ media treatments of ‘transitioning’ from male to female or vice versa it failed to ask why anyone needs to travel to a place where they believe they already reside; but the answer is that what they see in the mirror – reality – conflicts with the fantasy in their heads, and they need to convince themselves and the rest of the world that reality is fantasy and fantasy is real. Any programme can be ‘positive’ if it does not confront these basic facts, but it would not provide such titillating viewing – and unless it offered unstinting praise and affirmation it would be trashed by the LGBT+ lobby. These carefully crafted media offerings resemble the transgender ‘journey’, mutilating the truth, removing healthy scepticism and swallowing a powerful cocktail of political correctness to suppress reality.
Mr O’Donovan says that one participant’s ‘rush of joy’ after surgery to remove ‘his’ breasts ‘erased any doubt that this was the right and only path for him’. Perhaps they should go back and see how ‘he’ fares when the reality sinks in – like so many others, mutilated, distraught, sterile, and still unable to deal with the psychological problems that drove them down this path in the first place.
No wonder so many commit suicide, and how sadly ironic that the ‘diversity’ warriors who have ‘weaponised’ their plight and who would impose uniformity of belief on the rest of society use the threat of suicide to silence criticism. Worse, they would also silence the stories of those who, even more unhappy after their ‘transition’, realise that there is no going back, but wish to warn others against taking this dreadful course of action. They have been attacked on social media, but viewers deserve better of a responsible media outlet – expected to inform as well as entertain – than to ‘no-platform’ views that might mar the ‘positive’ picture.
As entertainment, this programme functioned as a tastefully decorated shop window to tempt the confused and vulnerable – not so much insightful as a jolly good gawp at people whose lives are even more chaotic than our own. Victorian audiences used to pay sixpence to watch freak shows, where unfortunate individuals, disabled from birth or horribly mutilated, displayed themselves to gasps of horror or pity, or howls of derision. Now we can watch perfectly healthy, able-bodied individuals being mutilated on our television screens to beguile the tedium of an idle moment. We at least can switch off; they will be helped to ‘switch sex’, but they will never be able to switch off the nightmare.