Part 1: Trans Rights? Yes. Toxic In Your Face Activism? No / A Strange Kind of Liberalism / Detail Free Slogans / When Reality Wins / Stonewall
Part 2: The Problem with Self-ID / Women’s Rights Are Human Rights / Public Opinion
Part 3: Individuals with a Cervix (nee Women) / Biology 101 / Gender Identity
Part 4: Medical Negligence and the Betrayal of Children
Part 5: Are You Now or Have You Ever Been a Transphobe? / Lesbians and the New Homophobia / LGB Alliance / Kathleen Stock / J.K. Rowling / Dave Chappelle
Part 6: Peak Trans / Logical Inconsistencies in Gender Identity Ideology
INDIVIDUALS WITH A CERVIX (NEE WOMEN)
Sounding as equally evasive and uncomfortable as Ed Davey did a week prior, Keir Starmer somehow managed to come across even worse in his pre-conference interview with Andrew Marr in September. When questioned about Rosie Duffield, he said that the words ‘only women have a cervix’ were “something that shouldn’t be said“. He neglected to explain why.
Other senior Labour figures didn’t do any better.
John McDonnell told Tom Swarbrick on LBC that the statement ‘only women have a cervix’ could be offensive depending on the context in which it is said, but then went on to talk about himself instead of elaborating.
Rachel Reeves got so flustered during her interview with Nick Ferrari on LBC that for part of it she couldn’t even get words out. She eventually said “I don’t feel comfortable talking about women’s anatomies and different parts of women’s bodies”, which did inadvertently answer the question.
David Lammy’s contribution definitely tops the lot: in one interview he described women as “dinosaurs” who want to “hoard rights” and then in a second he somewhat astonishingly suggested that with certain procedures and hormone treatments a man can actually grow a cervix.
He did spawn this though. A gift really.
That these senior politicians evidently don’t have any idea of what they’re talking about when it comes to this issue is one thing, that they didn’t even bother to think about how best to answer a question they were clearly going to be asked really is something else. As the journalist Sarah Ditum put it in an article for The Times, “To the average voter, ‘only women have a cervix’ is a banal anatomical truth. Telling them it’s now offensive is alienating; refusing even to say why it’s offensive is downright insulting.”
Emily Thornbury at least deserves credit for actually answering the question put to her, despite her actual answer. It’s journalist Helen Lewis who nails both the problem and the answer in this short clip though, sensibly explaining the importance of being able to talk about biology.
A sensible answer that was respectful for all concerned really shouldn’t have been beyond Labour’s top political advisors. Nor any other party. I mean how complicated is it really?
Boris Johnson bumbled through with his usual non-answer when asked about the issue before the Conservative Party conference, committing himself to essentially nothing, but he at least mentioned the word ‘biology’.
A cervix is a part of the female reproductive system. Trans men can have cervixes because they were born and remain biologically female – not because ‘men can have cervixes’. We can respect trans rights without denying reality or erasing the word women. We can aim health campaigns at women using easily understood language – and we can also have separate campaigns for trans people, tailored to their needs. This really isn’t hard. It should be one of the easiest parts of the whole debate.
Even Stonewall recently acknowledged the problems when a person’s biological sex isn’t made clear to health professionals – problems they of course helped create. Trans men still have female-specific health issues. Trans women still have male-specific health issues. The need to record both legal and biological sex on health records is obvious. How the hell is this difficult?
BIOLOGY 101
“Of course nobody is disputing biology, don’t be ridiculous”, you might say. Well, you’d have thought that…
Here’s a small selection of takes on biology from – Pink News, prominent trans activist Katy Montgomerie, a trans porn OnlyFans influencer (the Richard Dawkins they claim to have debunked, if it wasn’t clear, is the famous evolutionary biologist), a student nurse, a journalist for Slate magazine, a former parliamentary candidate, and somebody who somehow used to be employed by a US senator.
So yes, it is a feature of the ‘trans’ debate. There are people saying this – and some of them doing so have quite a sizeable platform – and it is getting more common.
So we’ll just go over the basics:
Sex is binary and immutable – it is not a spectrum. There are two biological sexes – male and female. Sex is not ‘assigned’ at birth, as if a doctor picks it out of a sorting hat, it is ‘observed’ and ‘registered’ (the sex of a baby can in fact be detected with great accuracy even before it is born). If anybody can find evidence to the contrary, then that person will win a Nobel Prize.
Here is a list of more than 40 peer-reviewed journal articles from biologists on the binary nature of sex (for starters). Below that are some quotes from several scientists in response to the notion that sex is some sort of spectrum (both compiled by @zaelefty).
And here’s the highly decorated biologist, Professor Robert Winston on Question Time last month putting it in no uncertain terms:
In contrast, the pseudo-science proponents usually point to a single article from The Scientific American (the popular science magazine) to support their arguments.
This is the author:
Intersex conditions (or Differences of Sex Development (DSDs), the term generally preferred) are specific to either the male or female developmental pathways. The number of true intersex conditions – those that actually lead to either ambiguous genitalia or genitalia inconsistent with chromosomes – is extremely small (around 0.018%) and is a medical issue with nothing whatsoever to do with trans issues. Many people with DSDs are not in the slightest bit pleased at being used by trans activists as ‘evidence’ that people exist who are neither man nor woman. They do in fact find that quite offensive.
This is not some sort of moral argument, it is basic scientific fact.
Many of those with gender dysphoria who transition are open and comfortable with the fact that they have not truly changed sex. Others are less comfortable with that, which is understandable. To be clear, you won’t find many people saying that trans people who go through transition have to be constantly reminded of their biological reality, of course not – that strikes me as pointlessly cruel, but this debate about ‘rights’ does at least need to be grounded in reality – which is that sex exists and sometimes does matter.
It matters in medicine, psychology, sexual attraction, statistics, sport, the legal system, schools, and child safeguarding. It matters particularly for women as a protected characteristic. And it matters even more so when one side of this debate refuses to make any distinction between those who fully transition, those who partly transition, and those who simply claim a ‘gender identity’. Because when trans activists argue that gender identity – something which would seem to be based entirely on a person’s self-perception – should ultimately supersede sex in law and policy, many people take issue with that.
GENDER IDENTITY
The terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ are generally used interchangeably – gender being something of a euphemism owing to the dual meaning of the word sex. ‘Gender’ is also often used in a different way – with reference to the characteristics, roles, and behaviours typically associated with either sex. The distinction isn’t always particularly clear in my view and there certainly isn’t one from a legal perspective – but it is something.
Gender identity, however, well that’s something else.
Despite the heated and highly public nature of the ‘debate’, most people have no idea what gender critical means and they have no idea what gender identity is supposed to mean either.
I’m pretty sure I could predict the reaction of most people were they to see these though.
The top image is from a Mermaids training course and was leaked to the media by one very bemused person in 2019. The middle two are intended to be learning tools available for anybody to use – as the Stonewall podcast discovered, a version of the genderbread person had actually been used by the BBC as part of its equality training for staff. The latter image is intended for use in Canadian schools.
It’s hard to even find the words to express my thoughts on them. They look like something out of Brass Eye.
If gender identity is supposed to be a kind of euphemistic expression of gender dysphoria, that could make some sense to me. But that doesn’t appear to be the case. What appears to be being argued is essentially a form of dualism – that people have, or can have, both a biological sex and a gender identity – with the latter considered more important. The most coherent descriptions provided thus far paint it as something akin to a ‘gendered soul’ – which is a faith-based position; or something to do with ‘boy brains’ and ‘girl brains’ – the scientific evidence for that is of course near non-existent.
In a discussion with Debbie Hayton on GB News a few days ago, Peter Tatchell said in support of gender identity that “The feeling that a person is a trans woman is so strong, so powerful it must have some psychological, emotional, probably brain structure roots”. It’s an incredibly muddled point on a number of levels. Not least because if true then it would obviously have a basis in biology – ie. a scientific basis for gender dysphoria rather than anything to do with ‘gender identity’.
Gender dysphoria is a real thing that some people experience. There has been quite limited research into its causes – and the research that exists into its types (because it is not just one thing) certainly isn’t something that any trans activists actually want to talk about – a recent Twitter thread compiling dozens of videos of some people with penises who identify as trans women masturbating in women’s changing rooms evidences the darker side of the ‘a person is whatever they say they are’ mantra and the issues with such broad and ill-defined terminology.
Some people do feel severe discomfort with their biological sex and medically transitioning to present as the opposite sex enables them to feel more comfortable as themselves. I’ll never be able to understand what that feels like. But I absolutely believe they should be supported and accepted to play a full part in society.
However, the vaguely defined and ever-expanding trans ‘umbrella’ now includes those who don’t actually seem to have any sort of gender dysphoria at all but instead claim a ‘gender identity’ – something that supersedes sex regardless of any external objective qualities and anybody else’s perceptions. What exactly does it even mean to ‘feel’ or ‘live’ as a man or woman? I don’t feel like a ‘man’, I just am one. I am male. It’s a category, not an identity.
The problem with ‘gender identity’ is that it can only seem to be explained by reference to gender stereotypes. The liberating nature of gender nonconformity and the acceptance of people as valid members of their sex regardless of how they present now seems to have regressed to the notion that man and woman are best defined by rigid stereotypes – and the implications when it comes to children and young people, in particular, are extremely concerning when combined with an affirmation only approach to medical transition. It’s strange to see so many consider this progressive.
In the 80s, people like Boy George, Prince, and Grace Jones were lauded for breaking boundaries, but none of them believed that doing so literally made them the opposite sex – or neither sex.
‘Third genders’ in a handful of other cultures around the world are sometimes pointed to in support of gender identity as a concept. The cultural context of the societies they inhabit is generally overlooked – historically, those identifying as third genders are mostly highly effeminate men and homosexuals effectively forced to identify themselves out of manhood because their societies had very traditional ideas about gender roles.
Go look up Two Spirit on Wikipedia and read about the term it replaced in 1990 – ‘berdache’, you’ll see my point. It’s borne of conservatism, not progressivism – and not really related to the very recent constructions of trans and gender identity. Now adopted as part of the trans community, here’s a particularly egregious modern definition: “Two Spirt people have both a male and female spirit within them and are blessed by their Creator to see life through the eyes of both genders”. Really?
That I do not hold a belief in gender identity conveys nothing other than that. My absence of a belief in gender identity is no more hateful than my absence of a belief in God. The latter doesn’t make me ‘Christianphobic’, nor does it ‘invalidate’ Christians any more than their beliefs ‘invalidate’ mine.
That’s not any sort of moral statement. It’s not an intention to treat anybody else badly or discriminate against them. I am simply stating that I don’t believe that somebody’s subjective version of reality in which they believe they have a ‘gender identity’ but can’t even clearly define it, should take precedence over the objective reality shared by me and everybody else.
Identities such as ‘libragender’, ‘aroace, ‘xenogender’ – they were nonsense when confined only to Tumblr around a decade ago and they remain nonsense now. Neo-pronouns such as ‘ze/zir’ or ‘fae’ equally so. In a way they’re relatively harmless – but when it’s stated that ‘non-binary identities are valid’, I do wonder if all of them are included in that though.
For plain non-binary, I’m not going to pretend I genuinely believe it to be a real, tangible thing either – it’s an outward expression of personality, nothing more. But if some people do feel more comfortable identifying in that way, rather than as man or woman, all power to them. Socially they can be accommodated. It’s to what extent societal structures and the law can or should do so that raises questions for me.
This isn’t a parody. This is a real person.
There you have someone who is male complaining about a nightclub’s failure to have a non-binary line or recognise earrings as valid ID, then demanding to be searched by female security and getting upset when the club refused.
If you’re thinking I’ve only gone and chosen the most ridiculous example possible, well yes you’re right – this absurd narcissist was an open goal and I’m grateful to they/them. But it really does illustrate a point.
This person identifies as non-binary, but that doesn’t mean they’ve actually stopped being male. The search procedures in that club (and well, basically everywhere) are sex-based – for the dignity of the staff above all else. There is no non-binary sex. So what exactly was this person expecting? I mean if they were waiting for somebody who was neither male nor female to search them, then they’d still be there. If they’d had their own non-binary line, they’d still have been searched by a man at the end of it. Because that’s the thing, a man has no right to expect a woman to search him simply because they claim a gender identity, likewise, a woman should not have to be searched by a man who claims one either.
So when it’s stated that ‘nonbinary identities are valid’, just what exactly is being asserted? Bangor’s non-binary mayor Owen Harcum took part in the Stonewall podcast yet struggled to define even their own non-binaryness. So how can the law be expected to recognise gender identity when even its proponents can’t define it, and when some insist it is fluid and can change at any time? How do you legislate for that? And why exactly?
Part 1: Trans Rights? Yes. Toxic In Your Face Activism? No / A Strange Kind of Liberalism / Detail Free Slogans / When Reality Wins / Stonewall
Part 2: The Problem with Self-ID / Women’s Rights Are Human Rights / Public Opinion
Part 3: Individuals with a Cervix (nee Women) / Biology 101 / Gender Identity
Part 4: Medical Negligence and the Betrayal of Children
Part 5: Are You Now or Have You Ever Been a Transphobe? / Lesbians and the New Homophobia / LGB Alliance / Kathleen Stock / J.K. Rowling / Dave Chappelle
Part 6: Peak Trans / Logical Inconsistencies in Gender Identity Ideology
Democracy Coma 
Leave a comment