For her smear-test appointment at a London clinic, a woman had asked to be seen by a female practitioner. So you can imagine her surprise when she was approached for this intimate procedure by a bearded bloke with tattoos covering his arms. A deep voice said: ‘I don’t identify as a male; I’m a transsexual.’ So that’s all right, then. The woman complained to the NHS trust but felt that she was perceived as the problem. Meanwhile, female bathers who complain about male bodies being allowed in the Ladies’ Pond at Hampstead Heath are disparaged on social media as transphobic.

Two stories to get 2018 off to another adventure in cultural Marxism. But as I have suggested before, society is unlikely to bow to all the demands of transgender activism. Indeed, it could be a tipping point against the decadence of narcissistic identity politics that has threatened a repeat of the sacking of Rome, which was destroyed not so much by invaders but by the lassitude within.


An immediate problem for a reporter or common bystander is how to define the person who appears male but claims female gender: state what you see, and you could find yourself on the wrong side of the law. Organisations nervously toe the line, and millions of workers have received memos from politically correct, risk-averse bosses or personnel departments demanding that any person’s chosen identity be respected. Category error could cost you your job.

Until recently there was a clear distinction between sex and gender: the former your biological assignation and the latter a socially-constructed status. Sex is almost unexceptionally dichotomous: male or female. You are born with either XX (female) or XY (male) chromosomes. A small number of people who are genetically male grow up with female features owing to failed activation of the Y element. A man who dresses as a woman would be transgender, whereas a transsexual is undergoing or has completed a physical sex change, but this has been blurred by the current obsession with self-determination.

Society has been shaken by the sudden prominence of transgenderism, and questions are being asked about why there are now apparently so many people born in the wrong body. Was it because the battle for homosexual rights needed to be fought first, and that transgender people were actually as prevalent in the past, but forced to live a lie? To some extent this may be true, but I doubt if it satisfactorily explains the surge in boys and girls wanting to be girls and boys.

This is more a matter of nurture than nature. First, let us consider environmental influences. A study at Hebrew University of Jerusalem found that sperm count has declined sharply among men in North America, Europe and Australasia. Deterioration in quality and quantity of human seed has serious implications for fertility. Exposure to agricultural pesticides, food packaging and domestic cleaning agents may disrupt the balance of sex hormones. The contraceptive pill, by raising oestrogen levels in rivers, is blamed for a female excess in fish. Chemical castrators are pervasive: men are being feminised by the commodities of modern life.

Secondly, and perhaps partly as a result of chemical factors, our culture has embraced transgenderism to the extent of encouraging it. Good riddance to Justine Greening, whose progressive ministerial ambition was to overturn the sex dichotomy through radical legislation. But the momentum will continue, pushed by younger generations infused with the revolutionary subversion that attacks the family and traditional gender roles. The requirement for medical certification of sex change may not survive the Zeitgeist.

A Times editorial in November argued: ‘A confused debate about gender threatens to harm young people. Doctors and politicians need to summon the courage to tell them they are wrong.’ However, Myles Harris, general practitioner and editor of the Salisbury Review, fears that medical expertise has lost influence and can only shout from the touchline. ‘Alarm bells have begun to ring, far too late, with some GPs refusing to prescribe hormone treatments for children. Psychiatrists, surgeons and medical researchers have all begun to express serious doubts about the value of this type of surgery, pointing out the lack of evidence, and the possible serious long term effects, both psychological and physical, of changing one’s sex.’

Any doctor who challenges transgenderism risks censure. Paul McHugh, chief psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Hospital in the USA, believed that people with gender dysphoria should be allowed to live as they are, with psychological help. He stopped sex-change operations at his hospital, although these resumed after his retirement in 2001. Six hundred LGBT activists wrote an open letter arguing that he ‘does not represent prevailing expert consensus opinion about sexual orientation or gender identity related research or clinical care’. Unperturbed by the Twitter storms, in a recent article McHugh described transgenderism as a ‘craze’.

McHugh’s reason for opposing sex reassignment surgery was his research data showing a high suicide rate. This, however, is anathema to the vociferous transgender lobby. James Caspian, a psychologist who is gay and a trustee of the transgender charity Beaumont Trust, also became aware of an increasing number of transgender men wishing that they had stayed female. His proposal to study people who regretted having a sex-change operation was blocked by the University of Bath ethics committee. While university administrators prioritise ‘values’ over empirical enquiry, Caspian noted that conversion one way is celebrated, but reversion is taboo.

For transgender campaigners, science is oppressive reductionism, a white heterosexual male construct. Biological and chemical causes are denied as ideology trumps scientific truth: transgenderism is a choice. Yet the sex change process is a medical intervention, deploying hormonal agents such as Cyproterone, and the careful building of a penis or vagina. I still think that transgenderism is a bridge too far, but as at Arnhem, the troops will find out the hard way. We mess with nature at our peril.

111 COMMENTS

  1. Is it not possible that the PC , transgender brigade can be likened to the puritan movement in the 17th century . That group achieved power and simply carried on imposing their extremism on the populace until , eventually , just about everyone had had enough and things returned to more or less normal . Some of the proposals that we are faced with regarding our daily lives , for example , smacking naughty children , simply declaring oneself to be male , female or even something in between , are so far removed from “common sense ” that they simply won’t be accepted .
    Smacking children is described as “beating a child “. A hairy tattooed man cannot be a woman simply because he says he is . Neither of those things are reality .
    Perhaps it will also be the case that those who seek to change their gender/sex will simply be left behind by the process of evolution which pays no heed at all to political correctness and LGBT rights . As Dr Macrae concludes , we mess with Nature at our peril

    • 1. Smacking a child must be allowed as the ultimate deterrent – running into the road will otherwise be a much more severe “smack” by a passing car.

      2. We are obsessed with the physical body. In my view the obvious thing to work on is not changing the body, but changing the mind. And yes, there is a difference.

      Man is a spiritual being, a fact ignored, even denied by those who would guide us down this insanity’s route. The psych industry, ology and iatry, present themselves as “experts”, they are nothing of the kind, they are charlatans.

    • This is the same thing as the Puritan Movement and likely involves the same kind of neurotics and sociopaths. They are used today by leftists seeking to cause more and more severe social divisions to exploit politically — and don’t think they won’t turn against the same persons once securely in power.

      • It’s fascinating that leftist atheists who sneer at belief in God, yet believe they can alter their gender at will.

  2. “For her smear-test appointment at a London clinic, a woman had asked to be seen by a female practitioner.”
    That wouldn’t be an issue in Saudi Arabia or Iran: male doctors aren’t allowed to see female patients.
    Hopefully the muslims in UK would help to solve the issue.

    Are you a muslim, Niall McCrae?

    • It would be an issue in Iran as they give full gender change rights to trans people so exactly the same situation could theoretically arise there too.

      • In Iran they also force transition: gays are forced to become women, lesbians are forced to become men.

        I was referring to McCraie acceptance and apparent praise of this kind of separatism: he sounds just like a muslim.
        In my opinion a person using public healthcare shouldn’t be allowed to ask for a specifical sex of the doctor: doctors are defined by their job and their competence, not by their sex.
        Sex should be relevant just only when the issue is clearly sex-related: having sex with someone being the most relevant example.

        • Your penultimate paragraph is bare assertion, but traditionally doctors have not always entirely been defined by their competence. If a woman wishes to be examined by a woman doctor, why is that wrong?

          • Because it’s not allowing a person to do his/her job, just only due his/her sex.
            It’s textbook discrimination against a worker.
            What would be the difference compared to such case?
            HR doesn’t hire women, regardless their qualifications, because the manager prefer having around just only men.
            HR and the manager happen to work in the public sector (NHS is public, too)…

          • Can you please explain why the preferences of employees should always trump the preferences of clients ?

            Can you please explain how non- “discrimination” against these should somehow require “discrimination” against those ?

          • Because it’s a job: people doing a job must be evaluated just only due how they do the job.
            You have a sort of gag-reflex against everything that is “anti-discrimination”, probably because “anti-discrimination” have been widely abused by the crybullies bandwagon, but this is a very different matter: this is about meritocracy, this is about efficiency, is about assigning tasks and evaluating people on the basis of their performances and not about the “feels” of the clients.
            If it would be a shop selling dresses, then I could even understand: after all, the shop is going to lose clients if they don’t submit to the whims of the clients – the goal of the shop is making money. But here we’re talking about NHS: it’s publicly funded, it have to be efficient, their goal is to provide healthcare, and so pandering to such discriminatory idiocy mean being less efficient.

          • I think you have hit the nail on its head.
            Where the “customer” has a choice then the provider has to take notice of the “whims of the client”.
            In the state system no choice is allowed, and the customer has just to put up with whatever they are given.
            You have expertly shown the nastiness that emanates from the monopoly of the state provider and hence Socialism.

          • Except that you wouldn’t agree to privatize the Armed Forces, so you’re wrong.
            Still, having to pander to whims isn’t efficiency: it’s actually a feature causing inefficiency in the private sector.

          • Can you please explain why the whims of one minority unrealistically demanding universal acceptance of their impersonation of the opposite sex should trump the whims of another minority demanding medical care from members of their own ?

          • Men aren’t a real minority, they’re more or less half population.
            This issue isn’t about trans, this is about pandering to females refusing all male doctors, including Niall McCrae.

          • Let me explain it better:

            Jabba:
            This person with a beard and a penis is a man
            Discrimination against male doctors is OKAY
            This person is pretending to be a woman, so he cannot be discriminated against: UNFAAAIIIRRR!!!

            Eric
            This person with a beard and a penis is a man
            Discrimination against male doctors is WRONG

            See?
            The problem isn’t the trans, here we agree about him.
            Trans who haven’t totally transitioned shouldn’t be considered women, in my opinion.

          • And, as I just explained to another user: allowing such kind of “preference” (discrimination on the basis of sex) of the patient, is exactly why sex-selective abortion is going to be allowed. It would be impossible without legalised discrimination on the basis of sex.

          • I am just thinking of the humane approach. Of course we could strictly insist only on the professional competence of the doctor, but other, social, considerations might be taken into account, if there were any room for manoeuvre.

          • This isn’t about a club accepting just only women as clients: this is discriminating against workers on the basis of their sex. The doctors are qualified for female anatomy.
            The thing you call “social considerations” is actually to allow discrimination against workers to pander to a subtle and light form of misandry, rejecting professionals with full competence just only on the basis of their sex.
            Do you think that there would be pandering to male patients not wishing female doctors? No, there would be outrage.

            Why are you guys so afraid to say “no” to women?
            They’re human beings just like you and me, they aren’t goddesses.

          • A refusal to ACCEPT a service is not discrimination. A refusal to SUPPLY a service might be, depending on the circumstances.

          • Discrimination have been committed by NHS mainly against male nurses, not mainly against the trans.
            We have two wrong sides: the patient and the NHS, NHS being the most guilty, and countless victims: ALL the men in UK, including the trans if you want consider this person a woman.
            I’m glad this discriminatory entitled **** have been punished through mockery, she deserved no less. Men should spit in her face, because she’s sabotaging their careers due her misandry, all males in NHS should also go on strike for a day.
            I’m also looking forward for some men refusing female doctors, to see what happens.

          • You are wrong about the legal basis of discrimination, which you are using as a boo-word in the mistaken belief that this wins your sex-offender’s argument. Only sex offenders think people have to submit to physical assault by them. Only sex offenders think that assaulting patients is a reasonable response to a refusal of consent.

            “men should spit in her face”. I think that tells us all we need to know, that you think that an attack is a reasonable response to a refusal to allow their genitals to be handled.

            To clarify: all physical procedures require consent, as does sex. A refusal to submit to either is not discrimination. It is a choice a person is entitled to make.

            It may be that in the absences of consent the procedure cannot be offered (and sex certainly should not be), but no discrimination occurs on the part of the person refusing the offer. If they set unreasonable terms it may be that they cannot be treated, but that is their choice. It is not discrimnation. It may be that in an emergency consent is not available, but that is not the case here.

            The patients do not exist for the purposes of the nurse’s career. Repeat, loudlly: pateints do not exist for the purposes of the nurse’s career. It is the other way round: The nurse exists to give care where consent to that care exists. In some emergency situations where it does not, the test would be ‘best interests’. In the event of a competent adult refusing care, the best interest case does not apply. People are entitled to be wrong in their own cases. They are not bound to submit to treatment. Or to sex. Nor can they be punished for a refusal to submit to you.

            No man is required to accept care from female staff except where a court has determined that for various reasons (usually lack of capacity) that this would be in their interests. They are at liberty to refuse examination and treatment, and some of them do. It is one of the problems of early diagnosis of testicular cancer that men do not seek treatment, but that is their choice. They do not discriminate against anyone by refusing to seek treatement or by refusing it if diagnosed. They may equally refuse treatment from a male nurse. That is their choice, it is not discrimination. (However, I urge them to seek diagnosis and treatment as early intervention can save their lives, but ultimately it is their life and their choice).

            However, since men (and women) are of woman born and suckling is a female adaptation, and care in the early years tends to be a female occupation, the default condition is that men tend to accept women as care-givers throughout their lives. However, if they did not, they would be exercising a choice, not discriminating against anyone.

            Any nurse striking on the basis you have suggested should be removed from the register because a nurse must first of all understand the primacy of consent and how, as with sex, it is consent which distinguishes a lawful act from an attack.

          • Again: NOBODY is allowed to discriminate against a person due his/her sex.
            She can refuse service: THEN SHE DOESN’T GET THE SERVICE, she shouldn’t get service from another nurse.

          • You have misunderstood the legal concepts of discrimination and consent. In particular you have misunderstood the difference between supply and acceptance, which cannot usually be compelled. Where a nurse who suits the patient’s preferences is available, that preference must be complied with. To withold the treatment where a suitable caregiver exists would be unprofessional and does not come within the conscience exclusions. That is, the obligation is on the supplier to comply as far as possible. Sometimes it will not be possible, but a failure to supply when it is possible would be a serious disciplinary matter.

            Anyone who advocates attacking patients by spitting at them for their failure to comply has already lost the argument. Spitting is unhgenic and possibly transmits tuberculosis, which has made a reappearance. It is completely inconsistent with all nursing practice and is a public health menace.

          • Patient refusing to accept treatment = / = NHS witholding treatment.

            Let’s compare it to consent about sex.
            Man offers sex to a woman.
            Woman reject the man but ALSO ask the man to find for her a woman for sex.
            Would you agree that the man is obliged to find a woman for her?

          • You have misunderstood the concept of consent – which I am not surprised about since you still seem to think you can assault and infect a patient who refuses to comply – and the purpose of healthcare. The patient takes priority and anything which gets in the way of them accepting help – for example, being told that they have to be handled by a particular nurse when substitutes are available – must fall away as their health and comfort takes priority.

            Sometimes it will not be possible to cater to their preferences, as all reasonable commenters have conceeded. Emergencies happen and a refusal to accept treatment may sometimes mean no care is available at all. However, where those preferences can be met, they must be met. To withold available care in order to try to compel compliance is a serious disciplinary matter.

            Fantasising about spitting at a patient and rolling out bizzare sexual fantasies about being asked to procure make it impossible to take you seriously.

          • the most guilty

            “guilty” of what, exactly, you berk ?

            men should spit in her face

            So you’re advocating directly criminal acts based on direct ideological intolerance then ?

            My !! How … “liberal” of you …

            I wish I had you personally right in front of me right now to tell you to your face how much I despise and revile your opinions …

          • this is discriminating against workers on the basis of their sex

            You are a tedious self-absorbed ideologue.

        • The point was not that the patient was told that a male nurse was the only person available, allowing her to make the choice of an appointment another day or finding another surgery. Rather, they sent down the man who insisted he was female and the argument came to be about the patient refusing to agree to that.

          I call this the Magic Mirror disease. Some bloke decides he’s female and focuses on forcing the nearest female to reflect that illusion, as if that would make it real. The penalty for refusing to comply is that the man goes in to a wicked-quean tantrum and smashes the mirror.

          I simply would not let someone in the grip of a delusional mental illness stick a piece of wood up my chuff, given that they are bitter and jealous. The patient comes first, not the nurse’s delusions.

          • My point is that the right answer to a patient saying: “I want a female nurse, not a male nurse” is “you’ll have a very good, qualified, nurse – it’s your right. Sex of the nurse isn’t among professional qualifications, just like there aren’t color of the skin, height and body shape – those features aren’t negotiable”.

          • The competent patient is not obliged to accept treatment from anybody. You have confused supply and acceptance, again. Discrimination as a concept apples to SUPPLY not acceptance. These are separate concepts.

            The nurse – the supplier – is professionally bound to offer the service and may not discriminate in the offering of that service, except where things such as conscience clauses exist.

            It is for the patient to decide whether or not to accept it. They may set unfulfillable conditions, in which case it may not be possible to treat them at that point. That is their choice and they are entitled to make it.

          • Another consideration: I now understand the legal basis for sex-selective abortion that is going to be introduced in your country. It’s a choice based on the preference of the patient. Since such preference matters even when it’s discrimination on the basis of sex, then you also get sex-selective abortions.

          • More like a person who think she’s witty while defending a practice that is comfortable, to the point of comparing the uncomfortable version to sexual assault, without realizing that when you allow discrimination on the basis of sex then consequences can be much more extended than what initially intended. And this is just only the beginning, since you also imported a lot of people from a certain culture…they’re going to use such weaknesses to forward their goals…indeed, you already have Islamic courts, technically not courts, actually courts administering even criminal justice about, in example, domestic violence. Good job, really a good job.

          • So you aren’t in Britain, haven’t got a clue about how the NHS works, haven’t understood the legislative concepts and whose interests have to be protected (the patient’s), haven’t bothered to read the RCN guidelines, do not understand the case (which you hope will be about what you want rather than what it is) and you think that by chucking the word abortion about along with the separate problems about immigration, it will somehow give you credibility when you have already written:

            “men should spit in her [the patient’s] face.”

            The key concept you have not grasped is directional: it is the nurse who is supplying the public function. It is to the supplier that the anti-discrimination regulations apply. The patient is not discriminating: they are exercising a preference as they are entitled to do. However, sometimes their preference may not be met and they are then entitled to decide whether or not they wish to proceed with treatment. No public servant is entitled to spit on them for a refusal to accept that treatment, nor can it be withheld from a patient if a preferred care-giver is available.

          • “It is to the supplier that the anti-discrimination regulations apply.
            The patient is not discriminating: they are exercising a preference as
            they are entitled to do.”

            So it’ll work legal sex-selective abortion, too: if a woman decide to abort a baby just only bacuse the baby’s sex, then the woman is the patient, and she isn’t discriminating, she’s just only excercising a preference related to her right to get an abortion”
            What it could go wrong? 😀

            “No public servant is entitled to spit on them for a refusal to accept that treatment”

            Clearly you have not idea about how protests works.
            Just like you have not idea about why discrimination is wrong.

          • You are not here and you have misunderstood the legal and conceptual basis of these subjects. Chucking the squirrel of abortion in to try to disguise your willingness to assault patients and mis-describing it as protest fools nobody. It is never acceptable to assault patients, to punish them for non-compliance, or to withold healthcare when suitable healthcarers are available.

  3. What a balanced and refreshing article. Thank you.

    Those of us who still think and live in the ‘less modern’ world are now vilified as all the phobics possible- even phobia has been re- assigned a new meaning, to the extent that even wishing to ‘like’ this article, or to post it on face book is unlikely, until we start something like ‘# absolutely agree’.

    This would be ridiculous in itself- in that it is a confirmation that we are also almost at the point where all human life is run through social media!!

  4. A refreshing article for a utterly bizarre and beyond sanity
    topic. We have but just two genders end of subject.

  5. It’s long past time to stand up to this nonsense.
    There should be a measurable way to determine who’s really “transsexual” and who’s faking, perhaps brain wave patterns. An objective test is the only way to stabilize society and help actual unfortunates.

  6. Having gone through 10 years of boarding school both single and co-ed, university and 35 yeats in a profession dealing with the public, I have met one person whom I could identify as a “feminine” male.
    And how did our Courts go from a leading authority which clearly established that one’s gender/sex was set down at birth and that was that. No amount of surgical intervention altered this.
    Our politicians are a disgrace to their so-called “profession”. Subjecting the public at large to these spurious ultra-minorities and investing them with almost magical rights and powers….”miss-categorise one and it could be your job”….begs the question as to which or both of them are the most insane. The politicians with the utter contempt for the greater mass of the public to tell it as it is, or the bearded tattooed “lady” claiming the right to administer intimate medical examinations with no right of objection?
    It is, really, a measure of the contempt our politicians hold us in and the complete absence of any sanction in our hands to demand that we, the ordinary people, are respected.

  7. Is it McCrae allowed to treat female patients?
    What if some female patient would prefer a woman on the ground that a man cannot truly understand female thoughts and feelings?

    • Well I think people should be allowed to ask. But in the real world we don’t get what we ask for all the time. Often for practical reasons. As a man I know that though I might prefer a male nurse or care worker, that is difficult to supply and so I might have to compromise.
      Somehow we appear to have lost our adult selves and all requests are greeted as if they are demands that must be met despite any reality. People should ask for whatever they want and be answered by clarity on whether this is a sensible or practical request.In that way we all learn to deal with reality.

    • Well I certainly don’t mind being helped by women doctors, though in cases when I get to choose, I do have a slight preference for ones who are men.

      doctors are defined by their job and their competence

      Certainly, but neither of these things determine the individual emotional preferences of patients.

      • I have mixed preferences: if I have a serious illness then I tend to prefer competent doctors, regardless their sex, if I’m pretending to be illed then I want female doctors, but not because they are less competent, because I usually can manipulate them.

        The problem I have with actual anti-trans campaign in CW is that they’re ready to sell their soul to the devil.
        McCrae has just write an article using as premise the discrimination of doctors on the basis of their sex.
        Farewell embraced radical feminist anti-male talking points hoping it’ll help against trans.
        Here, clearly, the cure is worse than the illness.

        • I want female doctors, but not because they are less competent, because I usually can manipulate them

          I would shun ANY doctor that I could manipulate, as I would assume them to be incompetent.

          McCrae has just write an article using as premise the discrimination of doctors on the basis of their sex

          What a load of BOLLOX.

          The problem I have with actual anti-trans campaign in CW is that they’re ready to sell their soul to the devil

          Again, BOLLLOX.

          • What’s happening here, in my view is:
            We have a bunch of hysterical females burning the house because there’s an invasion of ants, with a bunch incompetent clueless cucks chivalrously offering them the petrol to burn the house and praising and encouraging them.
            It’s a pathetic scene: there are men saying that it’s ok to discriminate against male doctors and male nurses “because trans aren’t women”.
            It’s like randomly bombing London in hope to kill Islamic extremists.

  8. Jeez, you guys are totally obsessed! Barely a week goes by when there isn’t at least a couple of articles about this topic or its associated issues.
    I may as well just prepare a comment I can copy & paste it’s so frequent!

    I’m sure that whoever the person undertaking this smear has performed hundreds if not thousands in the past, until one – just one snowflake decides to complain. I’ve had mine done by my male GP in the past. It’s medicine girls, you leave your dignity at the door for a while and collect it again on the way out.

    Can I take it from this that the author is equally opposed to male gynaecologists operating on womens bits on the same grounds? Or is it just the lower ranks you expect to be women and the higher and obviously more senior should be male?

    Allow me to illuminate you on the crackpot idiocy and arrogance which presided at John Hopkins in the US with a widely reported case of Bruce & Brenda Reimer and the Psychiatry John Money.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

    It is an object lesson in what happens when ‘scientists’ are allowed to pursue their beliefs unsupervised, and instead of being guided by the outcomes, seek evidence to support the theory. Money was so convinced his theory was right he even invented the evidence in opposition to the facts.

    It also showed what happens when you take a person of one gender and raise them as the other. Moneys theory was that it was all about nurture – the Reimer case showed it’s all about nature.

    Moneys incorrect views were proven wrong by Miltons Diamonds discovery of the sexually dimorphic nucleus in the brain and experiments on rats proved beyond doubt that there is a genuine physical cause for transsexualism. Alas this fell on the deaf ears of arrogant psychiatrist Paul McHugh who despite all the evidence to the contrary continued to believe Money was right.

    All the people who were the subject of Moneys experiment died as a result by suicide the mother and the two sons. This is too high a price for science to pay and money never did retract his theory in spite of all the evidence.

    You can prove Moneys theory wrong yourself. Imagine it was you who at birth had your gender changed. What do you think you would do to change back again? It took Brenda Reimer two decades to change back. These theories from John Hopkins are wrong, and need to be utterly dismissed.

      • Nothing there you can’t disprove though is there? Have a read of the story of David Reimer, if it doesn’t shock and anger you then nothing will.

        • That experiments in “gender reassignment” in children lead to unmitigated disaster is something I’m very well aware of, thanks, but the rest of your own ideological theorymongery is of little real value.

  9. I would volunteer that perhaps the normalisation of masturbation may also be a reason for our declining male fertility and one that is rarely questioned today.

    • No, the main culprits appear to be certain chemical food additives, pesticides, and the massive production of contraceptive medicines and the industrialised normalisation of women making daily use of these life-destroying “medicines” and abortifacients, that some infant boys are literally forced to suck into their bodies with their mother’s milk.

  10. Until recently there was a clear distinction between sex and gender: the former your biological assignation and the latter a socially-constructed status

    I have no idea why some writers at ConWoman have given in to this Lefty propaganda … there is NO “clear distinction between sex and gender”, and NO “gender” is NOT “a socially-constructed status”, it is a grammatical attribute of nouns and pronouns.

    • Quite. One of the ways in which the left has got the upper hand in the culture wars is by defining words on their own terms. So, objecting to gay marriage or Islam makes you a homophobe or Islamophobe even though you are not afraid of homosexuals or muslims, still less is your objection any evidence of mental illness (as implied by it being deemed a phobia).

      TCW needs to up its game in this respect and challenge the cultural Marxist manipulation of language. Let’s be clear on gender: there is no gender in the English language because gendering words is unnecessary. Nouns are given a pronoun according to their sex and any noun that does not have a sex identity is referred to as ‘it’. Only languages lacking a neuter pronoun have to engage in arbitrarily assigning gender to nouns (if any French person can explain why a table is feminine, please keep it to yourself).

      And in this spirit of pedantry, “A man who dresses as a woman would be transgender” is an incorrect statement. A man doing this is either a transvestite, pre-operation transexual or a drag queen. Properly speaking, I don’t think transgender exists – because people don’t have genders and thus can’t be transitioning between them.

      • Gammatical gender is indeed weak in the English language — originally BTW, it had only two genders : animate and inanimate (neutral).

      • “One of the ways in which the left has got the upper hand in the culture wars is by defining words on their own terms.”

        I would suggest to you that this is not the case, and to prove the point try actually writing a definition for any of their isms and phobias – I will guarantee you will fail. Even the oft used word ‘equality’ doesn’t have a definition!

        Far from redefining the Left has destroyed meaning so they can twist it to mean what ever they want it to mean, (although in identical circumstances it might not mean the same thing!).

        No one ever knows when they have transgressed one of these unwritten laws, and no one ever knows who the judges are with multiple voice declaring someone guilty of one or many breaches of their delicate sensitivities. It is effectively mob rule, and kangaroo courts.

        • The very fact their terms can’t be defined proves my point. The left uses words as Humpty Dumpty did, to mean whatever they like. ‘Equality’ is a great example of this. The left talk about ‘equality’ to hide the fact that what they actually mean is equality of outcome (hence their obsession with sex and race quotas) whereas conservatives believe in equality of opportunity, which may not lead to equality of outcome.

          • I forgot to add that they are attempting to destroy the definition of Gender as well, claiming that we are all on some kind of sliding scale between the two.

            Whilst this might be true and I’m sure we can all recall some masculine females & effeminate males (not gay or trans) we have lived with this for millennia, and everyone accepts it. We do not need some Fascist to tell us that we must understand and accept their twisted vision of reality.

    • I wonder if this is more of a English language thing where we have quite loose gender structure.
      I can’t imagine the continentals putting up with this rubbish given how their languages are very formally structured around gender!
      Anyone got any info on how this is being dealt with there?

      • I very much agree with you — it’s pretty much a non-starter in French and France, and attempts to “genderize” the language are typically met with instant public scorn.

    • Sex and gender are synonyms until such time as someone assigns to each a different meaning and it is generally accepted.

        • Jabba I quote the OED definition of “gender” which includes:

          3.

          a. gen. Males or females viewed as a group; = sex n.

          • That definition is not in OED 2nd Edition 2009, which has :

            b.3.b In mod. (esp. feminist) use, a euphemism for the sex of a human being, often intended to emphasize the social and cultural, as opposed to the biological, distinctions between the sexes. Freq. attrib.

          • Jabba I am quoting from the COMPLETE online dictionary which has all the entries from the 24 volume version but more up to date.

            In the case of “gender” it is specifically noted as revised for the third edition making your second edition reference outdated.

            gender, n.
            Fully revised for OED Third Edition in June 2011.
            Earlier versions published in:
            • OED First Edition (1898)
            • OED Second Edition (1989)
            oed.com is a living text, updated every three months. Updates may include:
            • further revisions to definitions, pronunciation, etymology, variant spellings, quotations, dating or styling of citations;
            • new senses or phrases.

            Regardless, what you quote is specifically identified as a feminist inspired variant on the base meaning. You have shot your own fox.

  11. “a woman had asked to be seen by a female practitioner” She had asked and in this circumstance this would probably have been quite possible. As a male I have to accept that a similar request may be less practicable. So that’s one issue, people may ask but the ability to accede to the request my vary. The fact that the practitioner was masquerading as female is another issue entirely and betokens dishonesty to only have a male available and pretend this meets her request for a female.

  12. I have every confidence that women will prove the ultimate stumbling block to transgenderism, and will see to its demise. At least in the form into which it is morphing at present, i.e. I feel like I want to be a woman today, ergo I am a woman and there is nothing you can do about it.

    Women will stop that line of nonsense because they are becoming the victims of it – and this time they are real victims, not the pseudo-victimhood of supposed pay gaps etc. Their lives will be diminished in certain respects; which is why something will have to be done, because women will never accept any backward step. Not in today’s gynocentrist society.

    Nobody would listen to men if they objected to being intimately examined by female medics masquerading as men. Nobody would listen to men if they objected to women using male toilets, or women entering men’s sporting events. Any complaints are easily slapped down as misogyny, and you can shame men into silence by telling them to stop being wimps and man up. That works a treat.

    But once women start objecting to being examined by men masquerading as women, or having to share their toilets with men, or having men invade their sports (most particularly because the men will scoop all the prizes and medals), then they will most certainly be listened to. You can’t tell women to take a hike as you can with men. You have to take notice, and respond.

    It’s how things work. Which is why I foresee a brief, nasty battle at some point between the transgender lobby and the mass of ordinary women. My money is firmly on the latter to win hands down.

    • This is so true. And it fits what we sceptics of identity politics have always said – eventually they will run out of easy targets and start attacking each other. There is finite territory to fight over.

      • In other words, you know that you can’t challenge the main issue (gynocentrism, as highlighted by Paul) so you hope to solve the main issue by helping gynocentrism to win a minor issue: their fight against trans.

    • You really don’t understand what is happening do you Paul? If you think this is some shadowy transgender lobby then who are they? Who are the people appearing on far left BBC shows such as wimmins hour ?

      I can tell you Paul that every single voice I have heard has been female leftist extremists who have hijacked some other cause and are using it to bully others.
      There will be no end to it because you are incapable of preventing blinkered hatred for the hijacked group to see the truth of the sinister hands driving it.

      So you will continue to attack the wrong target delighting the far left who will use your attacks as justification for their bullying, and instead of stopping this you will actively add to it.

  13. ‘For transgender campaigners, science is oppressive reductionism.’ On the internet last year there was a photo of a class of students in an American college. On the blackboard was written ‘Science is a social construct’.

  14. According to classic Liberalism… whatever you want to be or believe is true, is true..

    Facts and proof are boring, old fashioned and don’t matter anymore, Liberalism is all about……………………………

    Feelings..

    • No, that’s nu-liberalism, not the classical.

      Classical Liberalism is basically just the right wing of contemporary conservatism.

    • Not exactly.
      Since feminists are short-sighted they pushed it as long as it favored women over men.
      Now it’s backfiring on them, and they’re trying to recover.
      Unfortunately, it’s just only trans, they’re very few, so they cannot exploit the contradictions of the system: if it would be men using the system at their advantage, then it would be really funny.

  15. I really don’t have a dog in this fight. But it is a complete obsession here, with an article more or less every day. Maybe if you just turned down the volume a bit it would help move us all to a more proportionate view of it all?

  16. the author is clearly a snowflake – if the heat of progress makes him melt then he should go back to the nineteenth century.

    “We mess with nature at our peril” – tell that to the chicken industry!

    • The recent Leftard trend of trying to slur those who denounce snowflakery as being “snowflakes” is simply just more evidence that Leftardism is devoid of originality nor invention.

      • nor has always been a difficult word for people to use correctly 😉 something to do with the failings of the higher education system apparently

      • i think it’s a metaphor that can be used to describe both sides of any self polarizing debate. as soon as someone sees something they aren’t comfortable with in their own living room hysteria breaks out

        • No, it comes from the film ‘Fightclub’ and is specifically about people who think themselves so special all the established rules should be changed for them. It is therefore de facto about current identity politics, and not about anyone who finds a conversation difficult.

          • evidently i didn’t understand thanks for the enlightenment 🙂 . do you know what’s so special about fight club that it has generated tyler durden at zerohedge as well as the blizzard of snowflakes? tbh cba to rewatch

            as far as i can tell the snowflakes are only visible in writing

          • Thanks for the reply, but I don’t know what the comment re ‘zerohedge’ means. I only know the reference and it’s current use due to an interview with the author. I’ve seen the film, remembered the line, but can’t remember any characters etc if you’re referring to them.
            Have a good day.

  17. I remain convinced that doctors of the future will view the deliberate surgical mutilation of people to cure a mental illness in the same light as today’s doctors view frontal lobotomies to achieve the same thing.

  18. It’ll all come out in the wash.

    If gender reassignment surgery has more long-term negative than positive effects, over time the data will show this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    Currently, as far as I’m aware, we just don’t have enough data to draw these kinds of conclusions. Opinions like the one expressed in the above post are based on anecdotal evidence and hearsay, which should never form a basis for denying treatment to those who seek it.

    This is of course not to say there isn’t a real phenomenon of regret or remorse following gender reassignment procedures. But how prevalent is it and does it negate the experiences of those whose for whom transitioning is a positive experience? How do other factors like religious and political identity or overall mental health influence these feelings of regret? Should one trans person be denied gender reassignment procedures because of another’s bad experience?

    A lot more research is needed before any of these questions can be answered.

    My own attitude is that trans people should be free to make their own decisions about gender reassignment procedures. Only if the kind of psychological evaluation that should accompany any elective surgical procedure flags up some kind of mental issue that would prevent informed consent being given should an individual’s wishes not be respected.

    If further research indicates consistent negative outcomes associated with these procedures, it might then be possible to limit them to consenting adults on the basis that the state has a compelling interest to prevent harm belng done to children by their parents. It might also be possible to withdraw public funding. But until we have irrefutable evidence to support a ban on public support for gender reassignment, the state has a duty to respect the personal sovereignty of those who seek this treatment and provide it as it provides treatment for any other condition.

    In other words, if you experience gender dysphoria and want to undergo gender reassignment, and your physician agrees that you’re fit to make that decision, you should of course have access to treatment on the NHS. Whether that will then make you a woman (or a man) in other people’s eyes depends largely on their prejudices against (or in favour of) trans people. But the state should acknowledge your identity, because it’s in the state’s interests to respect your right to be who you feel yourself to be, as long as that identity causes no harm to anyone else.

    And really, who is actually harmed by a trans person’s gender identity? Conservatives might be affronted by it. But an affront does them no effective harm. It just gives them a feeling of imperfect mastery. This is what they really hate: not being able to tell others what to do.

    Poor darlings…

  19. Unrelated, but I have heard of the low sperm count story. It echoes from the 1990’s scare that Western sperm rates were falling astronomically. Xenoestrogens, chemicals in the food and water supply, whatever, /may/ have something to do with this but it cannot be 100%. Consider how this explosion didn’t occur when these chemicals were just introduced, and they were unregulated. I can agree that many men have a ‘feminine’ appearance, whether or not there is a universal sperm rate drop cannot be known unless a huge substantive study is offered.

    Back to the issue, some professionals and citizens are finally voicing alarm, but I feel that it is too little, too late. Transgenderism has just reached its zenith the same way homosexual rights have. They will get what they want, no matter the cost. And no matter how many children are victimized. Countries all over are introducing these gender laws and laws are being relaxed for transgender offenders. Anyone who opposes anything that they do is called a transphobe.

    • Other than the ridiculous Paris Lees, name me one transgender person you have heard or seen on radio or TV driving this? I have only ever seen/heard horrible left wing Fascist women talk on the subject and they it appears are the real drivers.

      You are attacking the puppets, and it appears you don’t even realise there is a puppet master somewhere controlling them, let alone begin to attack him or her !

      • Attacking the puppets, eh?

        How about Lily Maynard? Joan Roughgarden? Zinnia Jones? Laverne Cox?

        Tell you what. Go on 4thwavenow’s Twitter feed, and you can see just how nasty transactivists are. They shut out Kenneth Zucker when he was scheduled to appear on WPATH. And you mean to tell me nasty left wing women are using them as puppets? Try harder.

        • Ah Le Fox, if you have to Google people you’ve proved my point for me! Every one of the people named save one is an American activist who have little or no profile here in the UK.
          Lily Maynard who you name first is genetically female and the mother of a trans daughter. She is actively opposed to transition in childhood which she describes as ‘child abuse’.

          And yes there are groups of transgender activists, but they are not the ones driving this, they are also pretty low profile, I’d never even heard of the one you mention.

          • I mixed the names up. Yes, Lily Maynard is an anti-trans activist. Lily Madigan was the one I was referring to.

            But you still insist that trans folks themselves have nothing to do with transgender promotion. Well, then. Lily Maynard would prove you otherwise. The girls she discusses on her blog who are ‘binding’ are getting their information from tumblr – with arguments and excuses given to them by trans activists.

            No point in denying it.

Comments are closed.