MANY of us who study the trans and ‘gender identity’ ideology which is sweeping across our society and through our institutions are baffled as to how it has spread so far, so fast. Someone on Twitter recently put it very well. He pointed out that in all their writings none of the historically renowned child psychologists who studied thousands of children over their careers mentioned gender identity. That is surprising, as we are now meant to believe that all children have one, distinct from their biological sex.
James Kirkup, writing for the Spectator, provides insight into the trans ideology’s rapid spread. He has pointed us to a document published by Dentons (a law firm), the Thomson Reuters Foundation (part of a media giant), and the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex Youth & Student Organisation (IGLYO). The report is called Only Adults? Good Practices in Legal Gender Recognition for Youth and it is designed to be ‘a powerful tool for activists and NGOs working to advance the rights of trans youth across Europe and beyond’. (The writers of the report provide a lengthy disclaimer: ‘IGLYO, Dentons and Thomson Reuters Foundation neither verify the accuracy of, nor assume liability for, the information within the report.’)
The report is, in effect, a handbook for trans lobby groups, advising them how to advance their agenda. Kirkup quotes some of their recommended approaches at length.
Get ahead of the legislation
‘In many of the NGO advocacy campaigns that we studied, there were clear benefits where NGOs managed to get ahead of the government and publish progressive legislative proposals before the government had time to develop their own. NGOs need to intervene early in the legislative process and ideally before it has even started. This will give them far greater ability to shape the government agenda and the ultimate proposal.’
Tie your campaign to more popular reform
‘In Ireland, Denmark and Norway, changes to the law on legal gender recognition were put through at the same time as other more popular reforms such as marriage equality legislation. This provided a veil of protection, particularly in Ireland, where marriage equality was strongly supported,but gender identity remained a more difficult issue to win public support for.’
Avoid excessive press coverage and exposure
‘Another technique which has been used to great effect is the limitation of press coverage and exposure. In certain countries, like the UK, information on legal gender recognition reforms has been misinterpreted in the mainstream media, and opposition has arisen as a result.’
You can find the full report here. Kirkup missed out this:
Target youth politicians
‘Activists found it particularly helpful to get youth wings of political parties on side, as main wings of political parties are often keen to listen and take the views of their younger counterparts seriously. In some cases, activists found it useful to make the point that youth politicians are the senior politicians of the future and that any changes that they are in favour of will inevitably be the policies of the future and are more likely to be on “the right side of history”.’
The stated techniques unabashedly suggest a strategy of pushing through a trans agenda away from wide public scrutiny. However, one of the most important campaigning tools used by trans activists to powerful effect was not listed in the report. Rather the report itself uses it to full effect. This is the technique of stating that something is true, even when it is not so or is disputed. We can see it used here in a tweet by the Labour Party’s Dawn Butler.
On the use of women’s single-sex spaces by trans people she says: ‘There is no way spaces will be permitted to discriminate against trans people. That is illegal and it will stay illegal.’ She has seemingly just made that up. In case you doubt me, the Labour Party manifesto itself contradicts her. It says that Labour will ‘ensure that the single-sex-based exemptions contained in the Equality Act 2010 are understood and fully enforced in service provision’. (Labour Manifesto page 66)
So what you do is simply assert something to be true, even if it is not clear that it is. Give the impression that progressive people have long since accepted something. You’d be transphobic to push back, wouldn’t you? Why not go with the flow?
Here is the report using this technique (my highlighting). It says:
‘UN Treaty bodies have, in fact, repeatedly confirmed that sexual orientation and gender identity are included among prohibited grounds of discrimination under international human rights law’ (p12) No specific examples are given.
Then:
‘Various provisions within the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights are relevant. Moreover, human rights bodies have dealt sporadically with LGBT rights. The following provisions are applicable to young trans people:
‘…For example, states should take action against parents who are obstructing the free development of a young trans person’s identity in refusing to give parental authorisation when required.’ (p14)
And:
‘The European Court of Human Rights held that the issue of legal gender recognition comes within the scope of the right to respect for private life . . . In practice this would mean, for example, that states must not deny the legal gender recognition such that young trans people are compelled to disclose their original identity as this could amount to a violation of the right to respect for private life.’ (p14)
In case you think you mis-read that, you didn’t. The report suggests that governments should take action againstparents who are trying to protect their children. It also appears to say that if a young person who looks suspiciously like a young man is heading for the women’s toilets, no one should challenge the person. And it doesn’t use ‘should’ as in ‘this is where we would like to get to’. It uses ‘should’as in ‘this is what states should be doing today’.
This technique is being used to influence girls’ schools to take boys. Across the UK, independent girls’ schools are considering allowing boys who identify as girls into the school. Why? To prevent legal challenge! Who has told them that they would face legal challenge? ‘It comes after charities that support trans children warned that refusing to admit them to same-sex schools is discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010.’ Who said so? The Act protects gender reassignment, not gender identity.
So we have some insight into how it is done; never mind the casualities along the way. Vulnerable young women with gender dysphoria, often autistic spectrum, possibly gay, who end up taking male hormones and being medicalised for life. Young girls who go into loos and changing rooms and are terrified to find biological males in there too. Women of religious faith who no longer feel able to access public facilities designed for women in case there are men there. An old woman on a hospital ward, late at night, with a large male opposite who identifies as a woman . . . whose interest is all this serving?
A writer for the National Review, Madeleine Kearns, picked up Kirkup’s article and followed through with questions. She puts it so well that I will use her words. She says: ‘How many more people must be needlessly hurt before we decide to dismantle activist tricks and “techniques”? Before we decide to tell them “No way”, “There’s no evidence”, “This isn’t safe”, “This isn’t science”, and, frankly, “This isn’t even plausible”. How will this issue magically resolve itself – our statutes, science books, and dictionaries having all been rewritten?’
And: ‘As is often the case, the corruption of our social institutions does not occur solely on account of a tyrannical minority. Rather, this minority is aided and abetted by a silent majority who cling to comfort and distraction as others suffer in plain sight. But our excuses are wearing thin. This isn’t a fringe issue. This isn’t going away by itself. And people in positions of influence, having fallen asleep, risk waking up from this nightmare in a world they don’t recognize.’
You can read her article here.
