In response to Laura Perrins: There is male. There is female. And there is the right to privacy, Peter Evans wrote:
Reading that article by Alice Thomson was like getting stuck in a lift with Afua Hirsch: about as edifying as a bout of colitis.
The right to privacy, of course, is precisely what the feminazi wing of the sex communist movement wants to abolish: they’ve been lecturing us since the 1960s that the ‘personal is political’, which of course means that the private sphere is a legitimate target for the Big Sister state, the place where officials can regulate and ‘correct’ private behaviour, personal intimacy and wrongthink at its source. The correction, of course, will be savagely punitive: raise the most modest objection to using vulnerable, tormented people, as the neoLeft always does, to advance a dogma-driven ‘anti-patriarchal’ agenda and you’ll be publicly pilloried for ‘hate speech’.
I hold to a rather traditional psychoanalytic point of view: ‘transgender’ people are tormented not by widespread social bigotry, because there is none (that’s just the stubborn delusional hallucination of the extreme Left), but by a severe, intractable and tragic psychopathology. Kindness, sensitivity, compassion – yes, all good. Telling them that they can simply self-declare themselves as a different sex than the one they were born with – absolutely not. That’s like telling a hallucinating schizophrenic that the radio really is sending him coded messages from Mars: cruel, unscrupulous and destined to make the psychosis even more florid and unmanageable.
The neofascist feminist Left’s compulsion to parade their ‘compassion’ for ‘victims’ of patriarch oppression so loudly, insistently and publicly (while pointing accusing fingers at everyone else and hissing ‘bigot’ or, as Jordan Peterson once found himself regaled by, ‘transphobic piece of sh*t’) should, and I think does, give most ordinary people pause for thought: what are they compensating for?
I don’t think they care about transgender people or any of the other constantly multiplying ‘victim groups’ they seek to recruit to their embittered cause. I think they’re ruthlessly exploiting people in order to advance their sex communist agenda, which entails the destruction of male-female love and complementarity, especially in its monogamous form, and the effective abolition of fatherhood and the strong, brave, loving masculine modelling it provides for children.
They don’t begin with ‘oppression’. They begin with the fact that they’re deeply miserable and resentful, so they cling to intersectionalist groupthink – malevolence-masquerading-as-virtue – as a desperate attempt to mollify their sadistic and envious hatred of the competent and successful they see about them. And misery, of course, needs more misery to thrive, so sucking impressionable adolescent undergraduates into the pit of hate-laced ‘compassion’ becomes a ceaseless necessity.