This and the recent Lia Thomas travesty can’t help but change my feelings about respecting gender identity. Because, rather than something done out of courtesy and politeness, it feels more and more like a tool of language control which makes honest and clear discussions about biological sex impossible.
Respecting gender identity basically amounts to, thou shall *always* treat someone’s gender identity as more important than their biological sex. And because there’s now no distinction between the sexed and gendered terms for people in the press (i.e. “woman” can be used for both “adult human female” and “male who identifies as a woman”), we end up with ridiculous stories about “women rapists”.
I upticked this but I also want to say that it is so easy to get caught in the word trap. You can respect someone’s gender identity. If they want to be called Jennifer and wear a dress then fine. It’s biological sex that is the issue. Lia Thomas is a biological male. Has been since before birth. The State should record this actual fact. As far as the state is concerned this person is a male. Was male when they certified the birth. Is now. Will always be. And if, in the future, an archeaologist digs up their skeleton they will also declare this person was an adult human male. It will be verifiable.
So by all means let us respect respect people’s gender identity for social purposes. But let’s not pretend that this is anything more than a courtesy and that their biological sex is real.
So in sports terms why not just make the men’s competition an “open category”. Anyone can enter. Men, women transwomen, transmen even. Women’s category just being for women.
This approach solves everyone’s issues. Because it is the truth. And the truth is transwomen are men.
I’d have no problem calling Jennifer “she” and “her” in most social situations. But if Jennifer decides to compete on a woman’s team, am I still obligated to discuss Jennifer with terms that imply that Jennifer is, in fact, female? What if Jennifer goes out and commits a heinous sexual offence? Is it about respecting gender identity in some situations and not others?
Problem is, I just don’t see a lot of trans women being happy with the idea of being discussed as “he” in matters regarding sex and “she” in social situations where sex is not important. There’s simply too much existential-level significance and validation for them wrapped up in these pronouns. This is also why “open sports” would not be a satisfactory solution for many trans women and why you never see trans activists campaign for their own spaces. It’s all about the validation women’s spaces and sports provide.
As a result, a lot of kind well-meaning people who are outraged about the Lia Thomas situation muddy up their own arguments by using words “woman”, “she” and “her” when talking about a male. They’ve been told that misgendering is cruel and hurtful, and what person who cares about being kind wants to be hurtful?
Precisely!
What do we expect will happen when statements like, “…but there is no evidence that he had undergone treatment of any kind,…” are a reality? These people need to be properly diagnosed with the appropriate mental illness vs. being allowed to put everyone in society at risk. I read an article recently, which described certain people as “vagina owners” rather than say the word woman.
I posted a comment highlighting the absurdity of a “vagina owner” as a description of a woman and included the phrase “p**** owner” which was briefly starred and then the post was deleted.
For some reason “vagina owner” is acceptable to the moderating algorithm but the male equivalent is not. All a bit odd. The algorithm clearly has certain prejudices.
Perhaps the answer is to do away with male and female sports, as a classification, and have p***s-owner and vagina-owner as the new basis for participation.
Jeremy Bray
2 years ago
In the case quoted by Baroness Nicholson the NHS hospital appears to have denied the rape on the grounds that rapist was a woman. Completely barmy and sick. Potentially they might be charged as being accessories after the fact.
You don’t have to be a feminist to see the risk to a woman from male criminals purporting to be women to gain access to their victims. Ideology seems to trump real safety concerns in favour of potential hurt feelings safety.
Why do some always jump to the “woman-hater” line the moment someone questions something that we all agree is an example of insanity, originally brought on by the feminist movement? Is to simply disagree with something an example of hatred these days?
Because of your knee jerk response about the Feminarchy. Why not push back against gay males? Other human rights groups? To certain people the ‘Feminarchy’ is responsible for all the ills of society. Wars, famines bring them on.
According to Baroness Nicholson, the hospital asserted that no rape could have taken place because there were only women patients present – not just barmy and sick, but extraordinarily callous. This carried on for a year, during which the victim became close to a breakdown.
The hospital being an inanimate object could not assert that no rape took place.
I don’t know the facts of this case but if someone (a) knew that a rape had occurred and (b) shielded the rapist by knowingly asserting that the male bodied but female presenting individual was a woman and so could not have committed the rape they could and should be charged with the crime of being an accessory after the fact and theoretically be liable to the same punishment on conviction as the rapist.
I suspect no such charges will be brought since it might be difficult to prove that anyone asserting disingenuously that only only women were present actually knew a rape had occurred. It would certainly be a fine line if it could be shown that they had credible evidence of the crime. It would set a bonfire under the whole charade if someone did get charged as an accessory.
Very likely. But such a reason would not be a defence to a charge that anyone was an accessory after the fact. I was only following orders or was afraid for my job are not legitimate defences to criminal behaviour.
I didn’t know about it, until I read the article on the BBC website the other day.
You had to be very careful indeed to find out that the perpetrator was male as it was mentioned only once towards the end and in the passing.
However, they identified a “female” torso (how did they know it was of a female???) and the female victims (how did they know they were females???).
The story belongs to a film, but the way it has been reported belongs to a fantasy movie.
This person is patently a man and a violent one at that. All this pussyfooting around his rights (which frankly should be removed while he rots in a male gaol forever) actually undermines those trans people who genuinely transition.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if a male born criminal declares themselves trans in order to be placed in a woman’s jail, they should be rushed through the procedure. I suspect the prospect of losing their manhood would quickly change their mind!
Lesley van Reenen
2 years ago
The parole officers (and people insisting on him being called a woman) should be locked up with him.
The parole officers were just following orders. The entire justice system (and the BBC, the NHS, etc) has been brainwashed by the Stonewall brigade.
Francis MacGabhann
2 years ago
Another attempt to twist plain evil into some kind of criticism of men in general. If leftists just accepted the existence of absolute right and wrong instead of constantly medicalising and socialising every act of evil, we’d all be a lot better off. Has it occured to the author that this ass*ole was repeatedly paroled to continue on his murderous way because of that very mindset? If there had been DAs and politicians prepared to push back, he might never have got out in the first place.
Don’t agree, on this occasion. She seemed to avoid the usual grotesquely generalised swipe at the lot of us in the penultimate paragraph for a change.
Clive Mitchell
2 years ago
This is disgusting. This man should never have had the opportunity to murder a second time, he is evil, as is the system that has allowed him to get away with it. And to incarcerate him with women, shows contempt.
The truth is though on that last point, self identification, women are as guilty as men. Until this insanity is addressed, this won’t be the last time. All those involved should be ashamed.
Jorge Espinha
2 years ago
Just asking the question…..Monty Python’s absurd sketch about the “right to have a womb” is now a reality.
I believe cross-dressing is now mandatory for lumberjacks in Canada too.
Linda Hutchinson
2 years ago
Leaving aside everything about gender itendity (it’s all too rediculous to have to comment on anyway) why was this man even allowed to be out on the streets after his second murder (sorry manslaughter)?
I’ve really never had a problem with the use of “man” because it comes from the Old English “mann” meaning “person”, not specifically an adult human male (it I’m still allowed to define a man as such)
What can you say – pathetic really. I do remember speaking to a 90-year old doctor once and she said, and I quote, “Man embraces woman, and may he always do so”
People with XY chromosomes should only be jailed with other people with XY chromosomes. People with XY chromosomes are, and can only ever be, male.
People with XX chromosomes should only be jailed with other people with XX chromosomes. People with XX chromosomes are, and can only ever be, female.
I hope that clears up this kindergarten level argument.
People on the left are horrified by biological determinism of the sort you just expressed. They react to genetics by pointing to eugenics, scientific racism, and the crimes of the Nazis.
It is pretty well established that differences in intelligence are partly genetic, but this is anathema on the left. Every baby has to be a tabula rasa, random in its level of intelligence, and completely free to choose its future sex.
The left is a cult…just like The Moonies or Muslims or Christianinty. These cults have little to no interest in the truth and are prepared to use extreme measures to falsify ‘the facts’ in order to allow the superstitious dogma of their madness hold sway….Galeleo’s fight with the Church of Rome is one such example and Transgernerism is another.
Im a lifelong socialist and feminist. My feminism is what informs my view as a gender critical woman. To write this off as cultish left wing behaviour misses the point. The first trans MP is a conservative, and some tory MPs are pushing for self ID, Carrie Johnson is a keen supporter, This is far beyond Left or right and to see it as such just Muddy’s the waters.
I too am tired of the lazy leftie label. It doesn’t represent left wing so much as woke. And while the instigators of this “movement” (I’ll be kind) are in full command of their faculties, the followers are brainwashed. Thus it is not unreasonable to regard this as a cult.
I sorry to make a light hearted statement…, but women can be referred to as Dos Equis!
Helen E
2 years ago
With respect, Benjamin, your post can be summarized as saying “this never happens.” Meanwhile, women’s rights organizations in the UK and now in the US have been trying for years to raise awareness that abominations like this *do* happen, and are *not* rare.
Google “Karen White” et al., to see dreadful examples of what you have called molehills—crimes committed by predatory felons who (surprise!) bend every norm and societal expectation, to “identify” as women so that they can gain access to (1) better carceral conditions, and (2) females.
Malcolm Knott
2 years ago
This gender recognition policy could, and should, be reversed by this ‘Tory’ government tomorrow. All that is lacking is a minute dose of political courage and a willingness to enrage a minute number of deranged individuals who are never going to vote Tory in a million years. How about a bit of leadership, for once?
Ian Stewart
2 years ago
Jeez this is just getting more nonsensical, and tragic, by the day. I’m starting to think this world is merely a figment of my fevered, and perverse, imagination.
I miss ordinariness and common sense. Could someone plug me back into The Matrix please?
But it’s not necessary to imagine it, is it? It’s a growing insanity and likely to come shortly to a street near us in some form or other, if enough confused people can be convinced they are in the wrong body, or that identifying as a member of the opposite sex is to their advantage.
This particular case is not a molehill. Anger and outrage are not being ‘stirred up’. Any reasonable person reading the facts (and it is covered in other places) will be angry and outraged. No stirring up is needed. So, your last paragraph, whilst a plea for calm and reason, is shrill and misjudged. With the state of society, with the BBC and the New York Times reporting the Marcelin case as a murder committed by a ‘woman’, do you not feel the ship of reason left the port of persuasion some time ago? Reasonable civil discourse is no longer possible in issues like the Marcelin case.
Sharon Overy
2 years ago
America is not usually known for its lenient sentencing – that it happened twice in this creature’s hideous ‘career’ is a surprise. I wonder what other stupidities were at play to bring it about, current trans-ideological madness not really lining up timewise, if it’s correct that the claim to be trans only happened after the latest release or even after the latest murder.
America is not usually known for its lenient sentencing.
It’s a state by state thing. The tough sentences butress the culture of plea bargaining which is designed to save the state money. It’s a terrible system that allows this man to bargain down his sentence so the state can get a quick result. And the flip side is that many poorer people without access to a really good lawyer (just the public defender that is overworked and underpaid- peanuts and monkeys etc) are encouraged to plead when they are innocent precisely because the sentence, if you lose in court, can be savage. I guess that is what happened here. The full sentence for 1st degree (premeditated) murder was probably life without parole. The prosecutor just wanted a quick conviction rather than days/weeks in court. So the prosecutor offers 20 years to life for a guilty plea. Prosecutor gets another win to add to their CV. Defendant gets convicted. State saves a ton of money. On the flip side though there is someone who may not be guilty but may have a criminal record and isn’t a compelling witness in their own defence. Perhaps a drunk, a drug addict, a prostitute perhaps. In the ideal world they get a great public defender, win their case in court, because they are not guilty and walk free. From the prosecutor’s point of view this is a disaster. It costs the state a ton of money and they get a loss in court to add to their CV. To avoid this disaster, however, the prosecutor might offer a very minor sentence for a guilty plea to a lower charge. A small sentence to be served in a less high security prison. Plead guilty to that and in 6 months and you are out. You may even get some medical help. Or…. roll the dice and go to court. If you go to court the prosecutor will be charging you with a much more serious crime and possible decades in prison if you lose. It is a very, very bad system.
There is a big difference in the mainstream bias in favour of transgenderism and against transracialism. Recall the ridicule and blame, including for “cultural appropriation” that Rachel Dolezal’s case attracted. Then Rebecca Tuvel, who wrote “In the Defense of Transracialism”, pointing out that same difference in attitudes attracted a massive backlash, which more or less shattered her career.
Julian Farrows
2 years ago
Thought crimes supersede physical crimes. Our politicians don’t care what we do to each other as long as we warp our way of thinking to theirs.
Richard Ross
2 years ago
I assume most readers have heard of the phenomenon of the “trans-abled” – individuals who, thru a quirk of the brain’s body-map, falsely identify as disabled in specific ways. For example, a person with normal vision ability may “identify” as blind – https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/becoming-disabled-by-choice-not-chance-transabled-people-feel-like-impostors-in-their-fully-working-bodies
In what meaningful way does this condition differ from gender dysmorphia? – other than the fact that it is treated as mental illness, while gender dysmorphia is held up as courageous self-empowerment?
The Harvey Marcelin story is where ignoring the truth leads.
Where is the “follow the science” crowd in all of this outrage?
David Kingsworthy
2 years ago
It will be interesting to see if/when certain well-known fictional serial killer stories (e.g. Silence of the Lambs) get re-assessed in light of today’s gender dysphoria discussion. Cancellation would be expected but expect to see new interpretations…. Buffalo Bill was the real hero?
Andrea X
2 years ago
I largely agree with what you are saying, and I would agree even more had the BBC not reported the news the way they did (see above for the link). For me that is the really troubling aspect of this story.
Alan Hawkes
2 years ago
At so many levels self-identification is being abused. It seems to matter not a whit that female athletes efforts are not regarded as worthwhile supporting and male athletes are allowed to compete against them. It is like a heavyweight boxer self-identifying as a featherweight and knocking hell out of a little guy. How long before a male boxer self-identifies as female?
cara williams
1 year ago
we have self identification as law in new zealand. men convicted of crimes need only to claim be women and are to be kept in women’s prisons. often these men are sex offenders or are imprisoned for violent crimes. the media refers to them as women so their crimes are reported as women’s crimes. and government crime statistics now record their offences as being committed by women too. this affects not only the safety of women in prison but also public attitudes and allocation and design of resources. it is warped.
Andrzej Wasniewski
2 years ago
So Marcelin is abusing it but a swimmer with a p***s winning all women races is a woman? Cathlyin Jenner is a woman? Are there any men who are women? Would you explain how something that by itself is a delusional, stupid lie can be abused?
David McDowell
2 years ago
Isn’t that Margaret Hodge?
William Shaw
2 years ago
For all Julie Bindel knows the people that were murdered may have been born female but presenting as male.
So legally it’s quite possible that she only killed men, no women. In which case this would be an instance of a woman mass murdering men… which I’m sure would be applauded in some quarters.
The law might be obliged to view this case quite differently from how normal sensible people view it.
And I think it’s quite possible you are posting rubbish. Perhaps you’d like to reread the article. Did you do so yet, or did you simply note who the writer was and skim a few phrases? Do let us know your justification for imagining these murders of women in 1963, 1985 and again in February of this year (who had a daughter who has spoken about her mother at the funeral) are likely to have been “presenting” as male.
Have you never read about those who transition from female-to-male but retain a female reproductive system so they can bear a child? There have been at least of couple of instances in the news. It’s a crazy mixed up world and as unlikely as it seems what I wrote, tongue in cheek, is hypothetically possible.
The legal situation could also be similarly bizarre.
The point is that based on this new normal of people claiming to be the opposite sex, none of us can assume anything.
You may not be able to make any decisions without twisting reality into pretzels, and maybe the legal system no longer (in some countries, apparently) is able to distinguish between males and females.
But a reasonable person can.
Philip Stott
2 years ago
That doesn’t look very dangerous to me.
I’m fairly sure one of Julie’s butch fellow travellers will have snapped it like a twig once word gets around.
This and the recent Lia Thomas travesty can’t help but change my feelings about respecting gender identity. Because, rather than something done out of courtesy and politeness, it feels more and more like a tool of language control which makes honest and clear discussions about biological sex impossible.
Respecting gender identity basically amounts to, thou shall *always* treat someone’s gender identity as more important than their biological sex. And because there’s now no distinction between the sexed and gendered terms for people in the press (i.e. “woman” can be used for both “adult human female” and “male who identifies as a woman”), we end up with ridiculous stories about “women rapists”.
I upticked this but I also want to say that it is so easy to get caught in the word trap. You can respect someone’s gender identity. If they want to be called Jennifer and wear a dress then fine. It’s biological sex that is the issue. Lia Thomas is a biological male. Has been since before birth. The State should record this actual fact. As far as the state is concerned this person is a male. Was male when they certified the birth. Is now. Will always be. And if, in the future, an archeaologist digs up their skeleton they will also declare this person was an adult human male. It will be verifiable.
So by all means let us respect respect people’s gender identity for social purposes. But let’s not pretend that this is anything more than a courtesy and that their biological sex is real.
So in sports terms why not just make the men’s competition an “open category”. Anyone can enter. Men, women transwomen, transmen even. Women’s category just being for women.
This approach solves everyone’s issues. Because it is the truth. And the truth is transwomen are men.
I’d have no problem calling Jennifer “she” and “her” in most social situations. But if Jennifer decides to compete on a woman’s team, am I still obligated to discuss Jennifer with terms that imply that Jennifer is, in fact, female? What if Jennifer goes out and commits a heinous sexual offence? Is it about respecting gender identity in some situations and not others?
Problem is, I just don’t see a lot of trans women being happy with the idea of being discussed as “he” in matters regarding sex and “she” in social situations where sex is not important. There’s simply too much existential-level significance and validation for them wrapped up in these pronouns. This is also why “open sports” would not be a satisfactory solution for many trans women and why you never see trans activists campaign for their own spaces. It’s all about the validation women’s spaces and sports provide.
As a result, a lot of kind well-meaning people who are outraged about the Lia Thomas situation muddy up their own arguments by using words “woman”, “she” and “her” when talking about a male. They’ve been told that misgendering is cruel and hurtful, and what person who cares about being kind wants to be hurtful?
Precisely!
What do we expect will happen when statements like, “…but there is no evidence that he had undergone treatment of any kind,…” are a reality? These people need to be properly diagnosed with the appropriate mental illness vs. being allowed to put everyone in society at risk.
I read an article recently, which described certain people as “vagina owners” rather than say the word woman.
I posted a comment highlighting the absurdity of a “vagina owner” as a description of a woman and included the phrase “p**** owner” which was briefly starred and then the post was deleted.
For some reason “vagina owner” is acceptable to the moderating algorithm but the male equivalent is not. All a bit odd. The algorithm clearly has certain prejudices.
Perhaps the answer is to do away with male and female sports, as a classification, and have p***s-owner and vagina-owner as the new basis for participation.
In the case quoted by Baroness Nicholson the NHS hospital appears to have denied the rape on the grounds that rapist was a woman. Completely barmy and sick. Potentially they might be charged as being accessories after the fact.
You don’t have to be a feminist to see the risk to a woman from male criminals purporting to be women to gain access to their victims. Ideology seems to trump real safety concerns in favour of potential hurt feelings safety.
…indeed, but it’s the ideology of the Feminarchy that has brought it about. The now defunct Patriarchy would not have left the creature alive.
You actually know what you are saying is untrue, but it’s always good to get a hit in against uppity women.
Absolutely Linda. ‘Gender’ identitarians on the Left and feminist-haters on the Right are two sides of the same misogynistic coin
Why do some always jump to the “woman-hater” line the moment someone questions something that we all agree is an example of insanity, originally brought on by the feminist movement? Is to simply disagree with something an example of hatred these days?
Because of your knee jerk response about the Feminarchy. Why not push back against gay males? Other human rights groups? To certain people the ‘Feminarchy’ is responsible for all the ills of society. Wars, famines bring them on.
Spot on Lesley.
If they really are “two sides of the same misogynist coin,” then why does one side only flourish in the absence of the other?
According to Baroness Nicholson, the hospital asserted that no rape could have taken place because there were only women patients present – not just barmy and sick, but extraordinarily callous. This carried on for a year, during which the victim became close to a breakdown.
There in lies your defence:
Your honour, no castration could have taken place because there were only women patients present.
The hospital being an inanimate object could not assert that no rape took place.
I don’t know the facts of this case but if someone (a) knew that a rape had occurred and (b) shielded the rapist by knowingly asserting that the male bodied but female presenting individual was a woman and so could not have committed the rape they could and should be charged with the crime of being an accessory after the fact and theoretically be liable to the same punishment on conviction as the rapist.
I suspect no such charges will be brought since it might be difficult to prove that anyone asserting disingenuously that only only women were present actually knew a rape had occurred. It would certainly be a fine line if it could be shown that they had credible evidence of the crime. It would set a bonfire under the whole charade if someone did get charged as an accessory.
Perhaps people are afraid for their jobs if they say the wrong thing.
Very likely. But such a reason would not be a defence to a charge that anyone was an accessory after the fact. I was only following orders or was afraid for my job are not legitimate defences to criminal behaviour.
No perhaps about it.
I didn’t know about it, until I read the article on the BBC website the other day.
You had to be very careful indeed to find out that the perpetrator was male as it was mentioned only once towards the end and in the passing.
However, they identified a “female” torso (how did they know it was of a female???) and the female victims (how did they know they were females???).
The story belongs to a film, but the way it has been reported belongs to a fantasy movie.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60742364.amp
Well done Julie for presenting clearer evidence on this case than the BBC managed to do. The BBC article amounts to a cover up.
Submit a complaint to the BBC about its misleading and inaccurate reporting
This person is patently a man and a violent one at that. All this pussyfooting around his rights (which frankly should be removed while he rots in a male gaol forever) actually undermines those trans people who genuinely transition.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if a male born criminal declares themselves trans in order to be placed in a woman’s jail, they should be rushed through the procedure. I suspect the prospect of losing their manhood would quickly change their mind!
The parole officers (and people insisting on him being called a woman) should be locked up with him.
The parole officers were just following orders. The entire justice system (and the BBC, the NHS, etc) has been brainwashed by the Stonewall brigade.
Another attempt to twist plain evil into some kind of criticism of men in general. If leftists just accepted the existence of absolute right and wrong instead of constantly medicalising and socialising every act of evil, we’d all be a lot better off. Has it occured to the author that this ass*ole was repeatedly paroled to continue on his murderous way because of that very mindset? If there had been DAs and politicians prepared to push back, he might never have got out in the first place.
Dunno about that. There was odium directed at predatory men. This general man felt no criticism.
Nor did this general woman.
Same here Ed.
Indeed. The likes of Bindel have exploited this kind of moral relativism to advance the cause of feminism and it’s biting them back.
Don’t agree, on this occasion. She seemed to avoid the usual grotesquely generalised swipe at the lot of us in the penultimate paragraph for a change.
This is disgusting. This man should never have had the opportunity to murder a second time, he is evil, as is the system that has allowed him to get away with it. And to incarcerate him with women, shows contempt.
The truth is though on that last point, self identification, women are as guilty as men. Until this insanity is addressed, this won’t be the last time. All those involved should be ashamed.
Just asking the question…..Monty Python’s absurd sketch about the “right to have a womb” is now a reality.
I believe cross-dressing is now mandatory for lumberjacks in Canada too.
Leaving aside everything about gender itendity (it’s all too rediculous to have to comment on anyway) why was this man even allowed to be out on the streets after his second murder (sorry manslaughter)?
‘Manslaughter’ is offensive and a linguistic relic of patriarchy. Can we call it ‘Personslaughter’ please?
Maybee if we did this more people would see how ridiculous and dangerous self-identifying can be.
I’ve really never had a problem with the use of “man” because it comes from the Old English “mann” meaning “person”, not specifically an adult human male (it I’m still allowed to define a man as such)
I have seen a serious argument in favour of banning ’person’ and ‘human’ on the grounds that the ‘son’ and ‘men’ components are offensive. Careful!
What can you say – pathetic really. I do remember speaking to a 90-year old doctor once and she said, and I quote, “Man embraces woman, and may he always do so”
I am guessing that his post was tongue in cheek.
The trouble is, who knows these days?
This is all very simple:
People with XY chromosomes should only be jailed with other people with XY chromosomes. People with XY chromosomes are, and can only ever be, male.
People with XX chromosomes should only be jailed with other people with XX chromosomes. People with XX chromosomes are, and can only ever be, female.
I hope that clears up this kindergarten level argument.
People on the left are horrified by biological determinism of the sort you just expressed. They react to genetics by pointing to eugenics, scientific racism, and the crimes of the Nazis.
It is pretty well established that differences in intelligence are partly genetic, but this is anathema on the left. Every baby has to be a tabula rasa, random in its level of intelligence, and completely free to choose its future sex.
The left is a cult…just like The Moonies or Muslims or Christianinty. These cults have little to no interest in the truth and are prepared to use extreme measures to falsify ‘the facts’ in order to allow the superstitious dogma of their madness hold sway….Galeleo’s fight with the Church of Rome is one such example and Transgernerism is another.
Im a lifelong socialist and feminist. My feminism is what informs my view as a gender critical woman. To write this off as cultish left wing behaviour misses the point. The first trans MP is a conservative, and some tory MPs are pushing for self ID, Carrie Johnson is a keen supporter, This is far beyond Left or right and to see it as such just Muddy’s the waters.
I too am tired of the lazy leftie label. It doesn’t represent left wing so much as woke. And while the instigators of this “movement” (I’ll be kind) are in full command of their faculties, the followers are brainwashed. Thus it is not unreasonable to regard this as a cult.
I sorry to make a light hearted statement…, but women can be referred to as Dos Equis!
With respect, Benjamin, your post can be summarized as saying “this never happens.” Meanwhile, women’s rights organizations in the UK and now in the US have been trying for years to raise awareness that abominations like this *do* happen, and are *not* rare.
Google “Karen White” et al., to see dreadful examples of what you have called molehills—crimes committed by predatory felons who (surprise!) bend every norm and societal expectation, to “identify” as women so that they can gain access to (1) better carceral conditions, and (2) females.
This gender recognition policy could, and should, be reversed by this ‘Tory’ government tomorrow. All that is lacking is a minute dose of political courage and a willingness to enrage a minute number of deranged individuals who are never going to vote Tory in a million years. How about a bit of leadership, for once?
Jeez this is just getting more nonsensical, and tragic, by the day. I’m starting to think this world is merely a figment of my fevered, and perverse, imagination.
I miss ordinariness and common sense. Could someone plug me back into The Matrix please?
Please stop imagining it and it might all go away.
But it’s not necessary to imagine it, is it? It’s a growing insanity and likely to come shortly to a street near us in some form or other, if enough confused people can be convinced they are in the wrong body, or that identifying as a member of the opposite sex is to their advantage.
okeydokey! Here’s hoping….
This particular case is not a molehill. Anger and outrage are not being ‘stirred up’. Any reasonable person reading the facts (and it is covered in other places) will be angry and outraged. No stirring up is needed. So, your last paragraph, whilst a plea for calm and reason, is shrill and misjudged. With the state of society, with the BBC and the New York Times reporting the Marcelin case as a murder committed by a ‘woman’, do you not feel the ship of reason left the port of persuasion some time ago? Reasonable civil discourse is no longer possible in issues like the Marcelin case.
America is not usually known for its lenient sentencing – that it happened twice in this creature’s hideous ‘career’ is a surprise. I wonder what other stupidities were at play to bring it about, current trans-ideological madness not really lining up timewise, if it’s correct that the claim to be trans only happened after the latest release or even after the latest murder.
It’s a state by state thing. The tough sentences butress the culture of plea bargaining which is designed to save the state money. It’s a terrible system that allows this man to bargain down his sentence so the state can get a quick result. And the flip side is that many poorer people without access to a really good lawyer (just the public defender that is overworked and underpaid- peanuts and monkeys etc) are encouraged to plead when they are innocent precisely because the sentence, if you lose in court, can be savage. I guess that is what happened here. The full sentence for 1st degree (premeditated) murder was probably life without parole. The prosecutor just wanted a quick conviction rather than days/weeks in court. So the prosecutor offers 20 years to life for a guilty plea. Prosecutor gets another win to add to their CV. Defendant gets convicted. State saves a ton of money.
On the flip side though there is someone who may not be guilty but may have a criminal record and isn’t a compelling witness in their own defence. Perhaps a drunk, a drug addict, a prostitute perhaps. In the ideal world they get a great public defender, win their case in court, because they are not guilty and walk free. From the prosecutor’s point of view this is a disaster. It costs the state a ton of money and they get a loss in court to add to their CV. To avoid this disaster, however, the prosecutor might offer a very minor sentence for a guilty plea to a lower charge. A small sentence to be served in a less high security prison. Plead guilty to that and in 6 months and you are out. You may even get some medical help. Or…. roll the dice and go to court. If you go to court the prosecutor will be charging you with a much more serious crime and possible decades in prison if you lose.
It is a very, very bad system.
Ah yes, It’d slipped my mind that States vary. I’m probably used to seeing the harsh sentencing of Federal Crimes.
It’s what they voted for and no system is perfect.
Besides don’t we operate a similar system with sentencing discounts for early guilty pleas?
It is a like a (say) white racist saying “I can’t be racist. I identify as black,’ It is a get out of jail (or into the wrong one) card.
There is a big difference in the mainstream bias in favour of transgenderism and against transracialism. Recall the ridicule and blame, including for “cultural appropriation” that Rachel Dolezal’s case attracted. Then Rebecca Tuvel, who wrote “In the Defense of Transracialism”, pointing out that same difference in attitudes attracted a massive backlash, which more or less shattered her career.
Thought crimes supersede physical crimes. Our politicians don’t care what we do to each other as long as we warp our way of thinking to theirs.
I assume most readers have heard of the phenomenon of the “trans-abled” – individuals who, thru a quirk of the brain’s body-map, falsely identify as disabled in specific ways. For example, a person with normal vision ability may “identify” as blind – https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/becoming-disabled-by-choice-not-chance-transabled-people-feel-like-impostors-in-their-fully-working-bodies
In what meaningful way does this condition differ from gender dysmorphia? – other than the fact that it is treated as mental illness, while gender dysmorphia is held up as courageous self-empowerment?
The Harvey Marcelin story is where ignoring the truth leads.
Where is the “follow the science” crowd in all of this outrage?
It will be interesting to see if/when certain well-known fictional serial killer stories (e.g. Silence of the Lambs) get re-assessed in light of today’s gender dysphoria discussion. Cancellation would be expected but expect to see new interpretations…. Buffalo Bill was the real hero?
I largely agree with what you are saying, and I would agree even more had the BBC not reported the news the way they did (see above for the link). For me that is the really troubling aspect of this story.
At so many levels self-identification is being abused. It seems to matter not a whit that female athletes efforts are not regarded as worthwhile supporting and male athletes are allowed to compete against them. It is like a heavyweight boxer self-identifying as a featherweight and knocking hell out of a little guy. How long before a male boxer self-identifies as female?
we have self identification as law in new zealand. men convicted of crimes need only to claim be women and are to be kept in women’s prisons. often these men are sex offenders or are imprisoned for violent crimes. the media refers to them as women so their crimes are reported as women’s crimes. and government crime statistics now record their offences as being committed by women too. this affects not only the safety of women in prison but also public attitudes and allocation and design of resources. it is warped.
So Marcelin is abusing it but a swimmer with a p***s winning all women races is a woman? Cathlyin Jenner is a woman? Are there any men who are women?
Would you explain how something that by itself is a delusional, stupid lie can be abused?
Isn’t that Margaret Hodge?
For all Julie Bindel knows the people that were murdered may have been born female but presenting as male.
So legally it’s quite possible that she only killed men, no women. In which case this would be an instance of a woman mass murdering men… which I’m sure would be applauded in some quarters.
The law might be obliged to view this case quite differently from how normal sensible people view it.
And I think it’s quite possible you are posting rubbish. Perhaps you’d like to reread the article. Did you do so yet, or did you simply note who the writer was and skim a few phrases? Do let us know your justification for imagining these murders of women in 1963, 1985 and again in February of this year (who had a daughter who has spoken about her mother at the funeral) are likely to have been “presenting” as male.
Have you never read about those who transition from female-to-male but retain a female reproductive system so they can bear a child? There have been at least of couple of instances in the news. It’s a crazy mixed up world and as unlikely as it seems what I wrote, tongue in cheek, is hypothetically possible.
The legal situation could also be similarly bizarre.
The point is that based on this new normal of people claiming to be the opposite sex, none of us can assume anything.
You may not be able to make any decisions without twisting reality into pretzels, and maybe the legal system no longer (in some countries, apparently) is able to distinguish between males and females.
But a reasonable person can.
That doesn’t look very dangerous to me.
I’m fairly sure one of Julie’s butch fellow travellers will have snapped it like a twig once word gets around.