IN what’s been seen as a test case on freedom of expression on trans issues, specifically the right to the belief that there are two biological sexes, the tax expert, May Forstater, has lost. An extraordinary ruling against her by employment judge James Tayler on Wednesday has established that there is no legal right to question whether a trans person is a man or a woman.
The significance of this terrible tribunal decision goes beyond women’s rights and even freedom of expression. It is an attack on and denial of objective truth. A reminder of what this means is timely. We republish my post from May this year, deconstructing the mad claim that a man can become a woman.
I UNDERSTAND that George Orwell’s 1984 can be over-used, but really it has come into its own when dealing with this transgender phenomenon.
In the next few years the UK and US governments will ask their people to believe that 2 + 2 = 5. It is that simple.
They will ask for millions upon millions of people in sports bodies, schools, universities and businesses not only to accommodate, accept, or tolerate a man living like a woman, but to believe, to really, really believe, that a man is in fact a woman. They will use the power of the State to impose this unreality upon us – namely that men can transform into being women on the subject’s say-so alone.
In the UK, since 2004 trans people in the UK have been able legally to change their gender with a gender recognition certificate. The Gender Recognition Act became the first law in the world allowing someone to change gender without surgery. This arguably was bad enough, but it limited itself to gender.
The government is now currently considering after a consultation whether people may self-declare their gender. They want to make the process even easier.
The government and some feminists believe that gender identity does not cancel out sex. But it should be clear by now that the two have been conveniently conflated. The distinction rests only on the flawed assumption, long argued by feminists, that gender is solely a social construct with no connection to biology. Most people will disagree with this and believe that gender is closely linked to both biology and social expectations.
What has occurred, however, is a frequent switch and bait by activists who want everyone else to ignore reality. They claim a male or female gender identity but then use this to claim they should be treated to the privileges and protections accorded to them by sex. Some men who self-identify as women want access to women’s sports as biological women, a tiny minority want access to women in women’s prisons and refuges etc.
For all of human history, men and women have been seen as distinct and different. Women have often been oppressed and men treated as disposable but they were always treated differently because they are different. They have different chromosomes and different reproductive systems. All of this was taken for granted as of about two seconds ago. Today we are told to ignore what is before our very eyes: namely that 2 + 2 = 4. That is the only way I can explain it. Instead we are being asked to believe that a man can be a woman. They cannot.
In the US, the proposed Equality Act would make it unlawful to differentiate among girls and women in sports on the basis of sex for any purpose. This means that men who identify as women may not be excluded from competition. However men and women have hitherto competed separately, according to their sex, because men are so much more powerful, stronger and faster than women. The Equality Act destroys this truth. The American Civil Liberties Union instead pushes the lie that there is ‘ample evidence that girls can compete and win against boys’. There may be some individuals this can apply to, but not as a category and it is the category that counts.
This radical change has received considerable push back from women on the Left who understand, finally, that this will lead the utter destruction of girls’ and women’s sport.
But I am less interested in outcomes, as awful as these might be (men in women’s prisons, the destruction of women’s sports etc).
I am more interested in the gross abuse of State power and the immorality of forcing your population to lie.
In 1984, O’Brien says to Winston:
‘Do you remember,’ he went on, ‘writing in your diary, “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four”?’ ‘Yes,’ said Winston.
O’Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.
‘How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?’
‘And if the party says that it is not four but five — then how many?’
After a bout of torture: ‘You are a slow learner, Winston,’ said O’Brien gently. ‘How can I help it?’ he blubbered. ‘How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.’
O’Brien replies: ‘Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.’
And so it goes on. There are two critical issues here. The first is that O’Brien doesn’t just want Winston to say that 2+2 = 5, he wants Winston to say whatever the party declares is true at any given time. Again, ‘Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once.’
Today men can become women. Tomorrow women can become men and the next day, when we have all agreed to get on the transgender train and call it a day because we can’t take it any more, men and women will be something else. Reality will be whatever the Left says it is.
The other critical part is that Winston must not just say what the party wants him to say, he must believe it. He must really, really believe it.
‘How many fingers, Winston?’
‘Four. I suppose there are four. I would see five if I could. I am trying to see five.’
‘Which do you wish: to persuade me that you see five, or really to see them?’
‘Really to see them.’
Similarly, the Left and this government want you to really see a man as a woman.
O’Brien later on explains the torture: ‘No! Not merely to extract your confession, not to punish you. Shall I tell you why we have brought you here? To cure you! To make you sane! Will you understand, Winston, that no one whom we bring to this place ever leaves our hands uncured? We are not interested in those stupid crimes that you have committed. The Party is not interested in the overt act: the thought is all we care about. We do not merely destroy our enemies, we change them.’
This is what the radicals and their enablers in the government want to do. They want to change us. They want us to believe, to really believe, that there is no objective reality. That there is no objective truth. They want us to believe that a man can self-declare as a woman and that he should therefore be treated as a woman.
I will not do it.
And this is where the pronouns come in. ‘Two types of people desire to impose politically correct locutions on the rest of us: those who possess unlimited power and fear to lose it and those who aspire to unlimited power and need a means to attain it. And there is, after all, no greater power than that of prescribing what others must say and what others must not think.’
When you see a man dressed as a woman, you must not think, There is a man. And you must not say he is a man by using the wrong pronoun. And should you do it, should you use the pronoun that reflects the objective reality of the situation, namely that this person is a man, then they will do what they always do: they will seek to destroy you. Once this legislation passes it will be impossible to resist this. You might get fired from your job, or lose many other opportunities. Who knows?
I will not do it.
There are men and there are women according to their biological sex which cannot be changed.
And Theresa May and the rest of them in government can wave around their hands as much as they want – there is truth and there are lies. And the truth is that transwomen are men. The end.