Imagine if Jeremy Clarkson or any other rambunctious heterosexual male who conformed to a laddish stereotype were to be given a TV slot by the BBC in which their brief was to discuss sex?

What if, in an effort to promote his said TV slot, said male wrote a gratuitously filthy article for an online publication known for outrageous and provocative content, in which they dished out various sex tips and advice to women which they claimed to have gleaned from a life of promiscuity. What would happen if this male celebrity were to term sexually promiscuous women ‘slags’, suggest that having sex with a woman who is crying and emotional ‘can be super-hot’ and suggest other potentially dangerous practices which could cause physical injury and infection. Would they really be tasked with presenting an a programme on sex which had to have an educational spin for the yoof?

That is precisely what has happened, dear reader, except the presenter in question is none other than transgender activist, Paris Lees, who because she is now deemed to be a woman and a member of the hippest supposedly-persecuted minority victim group, is now exempt from any scrutiny whatsoever. To question whether or not someone who was born a man and has had their genitalia surgically reconstructed to resemble that of a woman ought to be dishing out tips on feminine sexual health and hygiene is probably a hate crime these days, but nonetheless serious questions need to be asked about the BBC’s judgement.

Without putting too fine a point on it, a transgender woman has an entirely different anatomy to the common or garden woman; certain things are missing and others have needed to be rewired. Paris Lees’s sexual experience is going to be worlds away from that of the rest of us and she will have entirely different sensations and nerve centres. She is, therefore, in no position to be lecturing women about the joys of sitting on traffic cones, boasting that of course, being a surgically enhanced superior being, she is able to do so, or suggesting that women need to use particular hygiene products (which could potentially give you thrush) in order to make them feel like a virgin.

Lees even goes so far as to demand consensus that sex when a person crying can be a turn-on. This is an alarming, confusing and perilous message for the young audience at whom this advice is aimed. Far from being a sign of arousal or something which should be ignored, crying is a sign that someone is experiencing emotional or physical trauma. From the descriptions of her various sexual encounters it sounds as though Lees is trying to work out some very deep-seated physiological trauma by seeking out abusive and potentially dangerous situations.

The trouble with having a transwoman front so-called educational programmes such as this is that they have no actual experience of what it’s really like to be a woman. Therefore, they will omit vital information as well as mislead vulnerable and inexperienced young people who are inundated by online porn and who are having to navigate the modern minefield of consent and mutually fulfilling relationships in a world that encourages them to objectify themselves sexually as pieces of meat for sale, in the one night stand marketplace of Tinder. The last thing that young people need is the validation of a porn-star lifestyle, suggestions that they need to push their personal boundaries, and engage in all kinds of degrading and unnatural practices, if they are to have successful and fulfilling sex lives. Especially when it is all predicated around male lusts as Lees’s desires, so clearly are.

The terminology and phrasing employed by Lees reads like something written by an adolescent schoolboy or sexually stunted misogynist, in which it’s suggested that women enjoy and derive benefit from being penetrated by large objects, breasts are referred to as ‘lady lumps’ and women who are promiscuous are called ‘slags’ but still encouraged to have a period known as ‘slut years’ before settling down. Bizarre, unnatural and potentially dangerous practices are normalised and taken mainstream. Lees, disturbingly makes a jokey reference to a machete as being a normal part of equipment that one might need for sex, and a knife features in the background of her photograph.

The biggest irony is that having bemoaned the fact that the BBC has denied her the opportunity to make a show purely based on superficial smut and asked instead for an educational angle, Paris Lees demanded that sex education in the UK should grow up! A bit rich coming from a person who peppers their article with expletives and references to niche sexual practices in order to enhance her own reputation for edginess.

Both the article and her TV programme (which thankfully turned out to be a short on an internet-only BBC3) were revolting. Still the BBC already have form on this one – they are currently screening a programme on their CBBC channel which encourages children as young as six to question whether or not they are comfortable in their own body and to consider taking life-altering decisions if the onset of puberty alarms them.

Let’s get this straight. No matter how feminine or attractive Paris Lees appears, she remains nonetheless a person who was born a man, who was brought up and socialised as a man and who later decided to surgically and chemically alter her body to conform to male ideas about optimum female sexual attractiveness. And now this born-male is demanding that these artificial female body parts give her the right to lecture to young women on how to conduct and think about their own sex lives, and how to take intimate care of themselves because she knows better. All validated by our State broadcaster.

It’s enough to turn anyone into a feminist!

(Image: Ted Eyton)


  1. Trannies on fannies. Thank goodness I’m not a femiloon otherwise I’d have to take it seriously.

    Just when you think the BBC has reached the bottom of the post-normal barrel they discover a whole new layer of total boll-x to excavate.

  2. I thought it came down to your chromosomes.

    I’ve got XY chromosomes

    My wife has XX chromosomes.

    So, I imagine, if a male really aspires to femininity, he’d have to upgrade every single Y to an X.

    You’d have to spend a fortune on your genetic make up. You could get it probably done it on the NHS. But first you’d have to prove to the hospital that you were an Afghan warlord or something.

    That’s probably chromophobic, sorry.

  3. I’d never heard of this person or seen the show but, from the website

    “We don’t want you getting some awful sexually transmitted disease, like gonorrhoea, or a baby”

    Yes, babies are equated with, indeed treated as sexual diseases. I have no words for the contempt in which I hold sentiments like this.

    • Seriously, there are a lot of young people in Britain who, for a multitude of reasons, would be doing the rest of the world a massive favour if they didn’t have babies.

  4. The defining feature of being female is that we can produce life from within our own bodies (and yes of course I know some women can’t or choose not to have children but this doesn’t undermine my point) – this essential part of being female is something she has absolutely no access to.

    • For chuffs sake, Paris Lees is a trivial air-headed publicity seeker. Next thing you’ll be telling us that you take what Katie Price says seriously.

      • Yes, but isn’t the point that this person has influence because of the endorsement by our (NB, BBC Trust – it is ours, not yours) state broadcaster?

        Ms Price may be a twerp, or maybe not as she’s very rich, but as long as her comments are aired in the Star alone they can be ignored. If she had a platform on the BBC we’d have to view them differently.

        • As an aside, some 11/12 years ago I got to know Katie Price pretty well. Aside from questionable judgement at times – which to be fair relates mainly to body changes and relationships with men, and so entirely within her gift – she certainly isn’t a twerp. She has a keen business brain (self-evidently) and is a highly-skilled people-person.

          I often sigh and shake my head when I read about her shenanigans, but on a personal level I’d be very happy to have a drink or dinner with her again.

          • Well finally you amaze me !!!. 30 years ago I’d thought after Aids that the lunacy of the sexual revolution was stepping out of a sort of psychedelic Carry On/punk era (in which the paedophile exchance got to discuss its message in all seriousness on the Beeb for instance) To one starting to grapple with some of the difficulties of sexual licence (eg. STDs) so a bit more level headed. Clearly I was so wrong. Clearly the “advice” is ridiculous whatever the advisors “gender” nor does having your bits changed and hormones disrupted automatically make your opinions on the topics of the world of any value. I guess its up to Mz Lees if s/he wants to make a circus of her life but a publicly funded (and therefore supposedly above the demands of commerce) body doing this really is…., offensive.

    • “this essential part of being female is something she has absolutely no access to.”

      And we give thanks for that small mercy anyway.

  5. err … having read the article, it seems to me to be a – no pun intended – tongue in cheek article.

    Stop over-reacting over trivial publicity-seeking articles, you come across as hysterical. The “publicity seeking” bit certainly worked on your trivial brain, because you’ve just given he/she/it even more oxygen of publicity.

  6. 2016 was the year in which some grown men were loudly proclaimed to be “women” and others “children”, and anyone questioning these patent untruths was assured that they were phobic, and bigoted.

    I wonder what post-truth orthodoxies the idiot BBC and the unhinged Grauniad will insist upon in 2017.

  7. I should also add that there is a difference between being tolerant of others’ adult choices and actively promoting them to the extent that you impose their damaging ideals on children and young people. I don’t give a toss if Paris Lees wants to identify as the Emperor Napoleon but that doesn’t mean that she should be given a platform to promote the same to other people.

    It’s not only building castles in the air, but living in them too, and then encouraging others to seek similar planning permission!

  8. I blame the fact that the majority of our mental hospitals have now closed and the patients ars now treated in our communities.

  9. there are plenty of people who want their arms chopped off as they think they arent part of their bodies

    or they are Henry VIII

    but they are mad, simple as that

    and how any doctor can go against the Hippocratic oath and remove perfectly functioning organs due to a mental illness is beyond me

    and I guarantee that even after surgery these people still arent happy

    and i bet a lot regret it as well

  10. The BBC is trying to redefine sanity so that it includes insanity. To expose children to this kind of upside-down thinking is child abuse in my book. Perhaps one day they will be held accountable for it.

    • Changing the subject but slightly I read recently that a Female person doesn’t necessarily have to be a Woman person. All to do with Binary and Non-Binary apparently.

      • It’s all to do with denying reality. And warping the idea of nature itself into something it clearly isn’t. Self delusion is one thing. Foisting that delusion onto everyone else in the name of non-binary equality is tyranny by minority. It is identity politics on steroids.

    • I asked the same question three hours ago and the author of the post has not deemed my question worthy of an answer.

        • Be courageous, and refer to a man as “he” and never “she.” I refuse to go along with the madness of calling a man a “she.” I have already been threatened with “hate-speech” laws for opposing the LGBT agenda but such threats have not silenced me. I have even had a death threat when a pro-LGBT nut said I should be hunted down and killed. Evil and madness will prevail if good men (and women) do nothing to stop it.

        • I agree with both those points, Caroline, and would probably do the same myself, but I think it would have been helpful to incorporate a disclaimer to that effect within the article, together with something along the lines of “My use of female pronouns should not be taken to mean that I concede the validity of Paris’s claim to rightful use of them.”

          That aside, I could not be more in agreement with all that you say.

        • Fwiw, Caroline, I thought you handled it brilliantly. You used a hypothetical example of an unambiguous man. Then you described things with scrupulous medical, scientific (and legal) accuracy: “To question whether or not someone who was born a man and has had their genitalia surgically reconstructed to resemble that of a woman ought to be dishing out tips on feminine sexual health and hygiene is probably a hate crime these days”. You used the indefinite third person pronoun “they,” by generalising about cases rather than being direct. Only finally did you make one reference of the approved kind, using she. About the only option you didn’t take was using scare quoted “she.” And that’s right too, imo; that option is overkill.

          Gender dysphoria is real, but comes in degrees, and is often pretended to. It is still incompletely understood. With or without surgical and chemical intervention, attempting to “pass” as a member of the opposite sex is *still* an experimental treatment option that does *not* address all the issues for genuinely dysphoric folk.

          But all that is by the by. You address two separate issues: transfolk have vanishingly rare exceptional sexuality, unsuited to giving generic advice; Lees, in particular, maximises rather than minimises that. Point well made and received by this reader.

  11. Isn’t the greatest thing about sex the whole mystery of it? Isn’t it the unknown which really thrills us? That is why it is the wooing, the chase, the courtship, the demonstration of affection, which we really crave. That is what really binds to people together for life.
    Something just given away has no value. Less is more when discussing sex on TV

  12. Frankly, I’m glad. Indeed, I wish it had been broadcast on the BBC at a popular time. It might make the fem extremist start to realise what the rest of us think about the beeb.

  13. Wow! Just wow. I have picked up more than my share of women in my time. I’m proud to say there has never been a traffic cone nor a machete in my bedroom. The only crying that ever took place was when I inevitably moved on four or five weeks later. What exactly is going on in the cradle of the Anglosphere?

  14. This is the BBC falling down the Identity politics rabbit hole which leads to one destination- a hatred for all white men and discrimination against all white men.
    The white marxist women sits on top of the tree at the moment, as the moral superior dishing out oppression points to various groups based on how useful they are to the political agenda of the time.
    The sickest thing about this development is that these white marxist women who now de facto run the BBC and the public sector are going down a rabbit hole in which a truly misogynistic and hate filled culture called islam will eventually dominate.
    Those white women who are left in a future Islamic republic of the UK will eventually be covered in black polyester from head to toe, and kept in doors after a severe beating so the bruises do not show.

    • On what grounds do you assume that it was a woman, who decided that taking sexual advantage of vulnerable people was acceptable? If forced to speculate, I would guess that it was a boring, male ‘suit’ who is desperate to appear edgy and trendy in the desperate hope that he could become friends with all the ‘comedians’ that appear on the Beeb’s ‘comedy’ panel shows.

  15. Lot of people commenting here without reading the Paris Lees article.
    Lot of people who have never heard the word ‘TERF’.

  16. I would care about this, but I have a job to go to and some work to do, so that these people can live off my labour.

    I’ll be back in 10 hours, when I will be too tired to comment.

  17. The BBC as it is presently constructed should be destroyed.
    This monolith is nothing more than a dangerously partisan bunch of netherworlders who should be shut down and the various departments sold off to generate wealth for the taxpayer.
    TV is a wonderful media for instruction and entertainment but has been infiltrated with the worse kind of bigots and minority pressure groups.

  18. The “detector vans” are in fact empty of apparatus. The scary-aerial stuff was on the top only to scare vulnerable single mothers in kennel-hutch-estates in Bootle and Huyton. they have no warrant to enter a home, and you’re only bang-to-rights – under the law as it stands – if the goons see a big flat shiny TV on, in your front room, when you open the door to the batsards. Otherwise, they can’t bang you up.

    They can be told to “combine the experiences of wide and far distant travel with the sexual act”.

    Turning to more pressing matters, the BBC should be shut-down and broken up. There can not be any need for a “State Broadcaster” in days when every human can narowcast by him/herself, and when there are thousands of “channels”, even including “Russia Today”, and “All-That-Jazzera”. Specially, there can’t be a beed for one so expensive and yet also so morally destructive; I mean to say…just look at “The Archers”.

    The BBC’s offiices can be car-booted on the normal property market. Some people may even want flash offices in London or Manchester; I can’t guess who, but someone might.

    Its most valuable Copyrights can be globally-auctioned. Top-Gear would fetch millions, to be returned to license-fee-payers pro rata. So would many vintage comedy shows of the 60s and 70s.
    The Archives, much of which are historically important (the BBC did do good, once upon a time) can be tranferred to the British Library. There, they can be seen and heard by al people, for all time and for ever, as is right.

    The better people among the staff will get jobs elsewhere, such as the technicians are the best producers. they will not need to suffer, and have marketable skills, and may not even have been ideologically-corrupted themselves.

    The dross, which is to say: the Directorate – may or may not get work filling Tesco shelves – Waitrose won’t employ such dreadful individuals for sure.

  19. Although it’s now possible to reconstruct the bits below the waist, until they can reconstruct the bit between the ears, it’s still the same gender.

Comments are closed.