Keep Britain Free
Monday, September 28, 2020
Keep Britain Free
Home News Rob Slane: Only lawyers gain from gender reassignment

Rob Slane: Only lawyers gain from gender reassignment

-

I’m beginning to think that the whole LGBT movement was started by a group of powerful lawyers who rightly foresaw the huge opportunities they would have to make a mint in a society that opted to go full moon bat crazy. The legal cases are coming in thick and fast now, and with each one we find ourselves sailing further out into the Ocean of Absurdity, far away from the Island of Sanity, and the lawyers must be coining it in. Here’s another one, which if it weren’t so tragic would be a hoot. Actually, I have no idea whether I should weep at it, or just laugh myself silly. Judge for yourselves.

There was a man who got married in 1974, before deciding at some point after this that he was really a woman. It’s worth pointing out that he had two children at some point between these two decisions, and that it was his wife who actually carried them in her womb rather than him in his. He didn’t have a womb you see. Small point perhaps, but I mention it because it does rather lend credence to the argument that his maleness was an objective fact, and that any ideas he had to the contrary were therefore not only subjective, but plainly challenged by the actualité.

Anyway, when he decided that being a man was not for him, he started living as if he were a woman in 1991, before undergoing the process of “gender reassignment” in 1995. However, he (or she as he now identified) chose to remain married, apparently because of his/her “Christian beliefs”. Confused? We’re only getting started.

In order to stay married, MB as he/she is known in the court case, did not apply for a gender recognition certificate, for the simple reason that back in the pre-moon bat era, it was considered a prerequisite of marriage that only one of the parties to it should be a man (the other party, for those just joining us, had to be a woman). So in order to stay married, he had to remain legally a he, but to all intents and purposes he was now identifying as a she and was married to another person who was not only a she, but continued to identify as such.

Now here’s where we really begin to hang out at the asylum. When MB turned 60, he/she applied for a pension but was turned down by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). Their reasoning was simple: MB was legally a man, and since men don’t get the state pension until 65, he/she was not granted it (as an aside, does anyone know where the next feminist lobby meeting opposing this obvious sexist anomaly is being held?).

And so MB took the case to the Court of Appeal in 2014, only for judges to uphold the DWP’s decision. He/she then took the case to the Supreme Court, where his/her lawyers claimed the DWP was in breach of EU law, but the judges in the case appear to have been given a headache by the whole thing, claiming they were “divided” over this issue “since there is no Court of Justice of the European Union authority directly in point.” In other words, the European Union Court of Justice just hadn’t envisioned a case where a man becomes a woman, but remains legally a man in order to stay married to a woman, and then finds that remaining legally a man means he/she can’t take a pension as a woman, because in the eyes of the law he/she is a he, even though he/she believes him/herself to be a she. How intolerant and bigoted of them not to anticipate such a scenario. #Haters!

So to avoid having to take any more Nurofen, the Supreme Court parcelled it off to the European Court of Justice to get a headache over, thus proving that not only do they not have the first clue how to adjudicate in Crazyville, but also that the word Supreme is not strictly the most accurate of descriptions of their court.

What can we say to these things? Firstly, the normalising of gender change was never going to be up there with the very wisest of decisions in human history, though many currently seem to think it is so. Normalising such things was bound to lead to problems for the individual, for society, and for the authorities as they try to work their way through cases whose absurdities make the head spin.

Secondly, other than the producers of headache pills, the other big winners are the lawyers. We may need a new term to describe those that are making a mint in these cases. We already have ambulance chasers. LGBT-Jackals perhaps? Or maybe Gender-Vultures?

And thirdly, although this case is amusing in terms of the extreme levels of absurdity involved, I don’t want to lose sight of the fact that a human being has taken a decision that is so obviously detrimental to him/her, or that thousands of others are currently being encouraged to do the same. In a case where the body says one thing and the mind says another, why does modern man assume that it is the body that is wrong and that needs mutilating? It’s because modern man believes the mind of the individual has pre-eminence, but the irony is that following this course leads to subjective and highly irrational decisions. If my body had cancer, but my mind was in denial, which would you say should be listened to: my body or my mind? Or if my mind said that my fingernails were made of the wrong stuff, and that I had always felt that they should be made of steel, would you say the problem is with my fingernails or my head?

There is plenty of evidence out there that the process of “gender reassignment” does not actually deal with the person’s underlying problems, but merely postpones them for another day. A 2011 study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, for instance, found that many of those who had undergone surgery began to experience increasing mental difficulties, often around 10 years after surgery, with suicide mortality rising almost 20-fold above the comparable non-transgender population. This doesn’t necessarily prove a correlation, but it does at the very least demonstrate that gender reassignment isn’t the answer it is now being touted as. It deals with the body, when it is the mind where the problem resides.

Those who have bought into this need to realise they are simply pawns in a much larger game that is being played. One that seeks not to make men who feel like they are women happy, but one that seeks to obliterate the differences between male and female altogether. In a few years’ time, there will be an awful lot of unhappy transgender people out there, and an awful lot of lawyers with fat wallets.

(Image: Sarah-Rose)

- Advertisement -

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We receive no independent funding and depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.

Rob Slane
Rob Slanehttp://www.theblogmire.com
Rob writes for a number of organisations on a wide array of subjects from a Christian/conservative perspective and blogs regularly at www.theblogmire.com

Support Us

Support the Conservative Woman
Click here

Like The Conservative Woman? Donate to help cover our costs

Sign up for The ConWom News

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.