After her bruising encounter with transgenderists, there is good news and bad news for Germaine Greer. The good news is that transgenderism is not misogynistic. The bad news is that it is misogynistic and misandristic: if males and females can be males or females, then male and female are identical; therefore males and females can oppress males and females; therefore patriarchy cannot exist.

Bang goes feminism. My condolences, Ms Greer.

Transgenderism is not even sexist: it attacks both sexes. Feminists have been fighting it for a few years, dubbed Exclusionary and Radical for the crime of insisting that only members of the female sex can be women, but now a new front has opened up.

A warning shot has been fired across transgenderism’s bows in the form of a Lesbian Gay Bi-sexual (LGB) sponsored petition asking LGBT organisations such as GLAAD and HRC to Drop the T. LGB wants to give the T (transgenderism) the boot. Alas, for LGB there is only bad news…

Feminism, like gay and lesbian sexual orientation, is premised on the recognition of sexual identity.  Transgenderism is not, as I explain below. The problem for feminists is that a male can now legally enter a female bathroom, meaning gender identity legally overrides sexual identity.

Given that ‘gay’ and ‘bi’ cannot be protected without first protecting sexual identity, legally to override sexual identity is legally to override gay and bi. Put another way, if male and female are identical so are gay and straight oriented people. Trans gender is effectively a legal declaration that sexual identity does not exist. Thus the State can no longer protect sexual orientation. We could not continue to issue car driving licences if we abolished cars, could we? It’s the same thing.

LBG/sexual orientation and T/gender may once have seemed like allies. T/genderism however renders the categories of gay, straight and bi legally inexplicable and unsustainable, as is now the case in Canada where the list of protected hate crime categories has been extended to include “gender identity and expression”; or, more expansively, “a gender-related identity, appearance, expression, or behavior of an individual.”

As Canadian theologian Douglas Farrow has observed, gender identity and gender expression are not actually two additions to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. Rather: “they constitute a deliberate attack on one of the existing grounds: sex.”

The sewage poured into Canadian law tends to wash up on our legal shores about five years later, though the gap is shrinking. Canada used to be a country but is now a social experiment.

Sexual identity is a state of being (bodies), whereas gender claims to be a state of doing (gender performativity). In backing gender, the State has reversed the relationship between being and doing. This is another goodreason for LGB to end its bad romance with transgenderism.

To summarise we cannot define sexual orientation without defining sex, because sexual means ‘of sex’. If sex denotes being, sexual orientation denotes combinations of person A’s sex and the sex of the person to whom person A is sexually attracted. Sexual identity limits these combinations to three: difference (straight), sameness (gay) and both (bi).

If sex instead denotes doing (sexual acts), sexual orientation denotes the acts to which person A is sexually attracted. Not limited by sexual identity, this includes number (polyamory) and age (paedophilia).

Logically, to remain in its abusive relationship with transgenderism,  the lesbian, gay and bi-sexual lobby will have to accept sexual orientation is defined by activity not orientation and be prepared to jump into bed with paedophilia too.The alternative is to plead irreconcilable differences and move away from a worldview contradicting natural law, science, history, Christianity and the laws of most countries.

Consider too the T/gender’s hijacking of the phrase ‘coming out’. In coming out as lesbian, Sophie says “My sexual desires are in my mind. Unless I tell somebody, nobody will ever know. That’s why I’m telling you”. But in coming out as female, Trevor says “I have never been who you have always thought I was.” Surely somebody would have noticed, Trevor? Sophie reveals to us her otherwise invisible mind, whereas Trevor asks us mentally to hide his otherwise visible body.

The understood or ‘natural’ definition of sexual orientation says man1 can ask man2 whether he is gay. According to the new gender identity rules, man2 can say “how dare you assume I am male?!”

Man1 can then reply, “I didn’t, I thought you might be lesbian like me”.

Similarly, suppose Trevor and Gary are in a gay partnership and that Trevor then comes out as female. Given that Gary is then in a sexual partnership with a female, Trevor’s mind has rendered Gary straight, hasn’t it? Sounds like involuntary ‘reparative therapy’ to me.

Gay identity is derived from something solid – the body. But gender identity derives from the mind alone.

Remember the cartoon image of a man sitting on a tree branch with saw in hand, unaware that he is sawing through a part of the branch which connects him to the tree? The tree is sexual identity and the branch is sexual orientation. Gender is the guy with the saw. T is not a quirky hitch-hiker thumbing a lift off LGB. No, from a legal perspective T is in the driving seat, pedal to the metal, approaching the city limits of Reality and taking us to some post-sexual place beyond the rainbow.

LGB and T always were strange bedfellows. Now they have reached that awkward “It’s not you, it’s me” moment – separate agendas going separate ways; a very public conscious uncoupling. Who, I wonder, will get to keep the CD collection? (That’s Cross-Dresser).

LGB should divorce T on grounds that T is divorced from reality. If not, T will dump LGB. HRC and GLAAD have responded to the Drop the T petition by issuing statements fully supportive of transgenderism.

We should not expect them to change their minds. LGB, it’s time to dump or be dumped.


  1. Male and female created He them.

    Life was so simple and easy to understand before the evolutionists took over.

      • Although you have chosen to deliberately distort what I said, I wonder if you are aware that some evolutionists have said that homosexuality is part of the evolutionary process and a welcome contribution to controlling population growth?

        • Well homosexuality is certainly an aspect of nature; apes do it too. Not my cup of tea personally but I can’t pretend otherwise. My understanding is that it’s used in the animal kingdom in social ordering so it’s probably something similar amongst humans. I see it as a defect myself but that’s not very PC.
          As for controlling population, well again technically true but not exactly much use – anyone thinking it’s a solution to rampant population growth is an idiot.

    • “Male and female created He them.”

      Yes, absolutely (as they say). That’s why we have heterosexual males and heterosexual females. It’s also why we have homosexual males and homosexual females. Pretty simple, really. I could grasp that even when I was a kid. The theory of evolution, although I don’t doubt that it is correct, makes no difference in this context, one way or the other.

      As for transgender, that’s a different kettle of fish. If people who are dissatisfied with their sex and want to change it (even if they prefer to call it their gender) insist on being bracketed with some other group, people who aren’t happy with their sexual orientation and want to change it would seem to be far more appropriate candidates for the honour. XGT (ex-gay and transgender)? That sounds far more convincing than LGBT.

  2. Is gender confusion part of a social science/confusion and control mechanism/political construct?. There always have been gays, and a very small percentage of people born with genetic caused abnomalities which affect their gender (or connection between sense of gender and physical appearance). If there wasn’t a stereotype for ‘masculinity’ maybe these people might not feel obliged to try to change themselves? Making ‘being gay’ illegal did nothing to alter the fact that gays still existed while used (and still use) the same bathrooms as straights. There are of course laws – sexual assault, indecent exposure, which still apply to everybody regardless of orentiation.

    • Reply It is interesting the development of the idea of gender, of a wide set of behaviours inextricably linked to sexual attraction. This is actually a very recent notion. Certainly in the historical record and from anthropology there is a considerable amount of fluidity. Societies have generally concentrated on the social roles being fulfilled without insisting on a specific orientation in having sex. Indeed many societies with very strict sex segregation are and have been permissive of sex with the same sex so long as social duties and reproduction are attended to: one attends to ones duties. Indeed the older formulations of law on sex focussed on prohibitions of specific acts or sexual behaviours. These were prohibited. Our current crop of laws in England are quite different in that they attempt to say anything is permissible so long as participants are agreeing, give their consent. This is rather more problematic than simple prohibitions on buggery/sodomy, “consummation” outside marriage, sex with age groups or categories of person (people with a down’s syndrome for instance). The Identity politics approach is very problematic because it is actually built around stereotypes and enshrines them. The “Trans” issue exposes the stereotyping simply because it holds a sort of mirror up to the confused thinking that characterises the concepts waved about today.
      As you say it appears to be human to have sex with the opposite sex,( not just to reproduce), to have sex with the same sex(from free choice, through lack of availability of opposite sex or just because) and for some people to feel they want to perform the roles of the other sex or become physically changed to the opposite sex.

  3. I personally, don’t see a need for all these ‘labels’.
    I can recognise what I fancy, a ‘mile off’. 😉

Comments are closed.