“Sweet how males always stick together”.
Oh, nearly. So, so close. I mean, I was right with you all the way up to then, but the Guardian staffer just came roaring up to the surface, didn’t it? You simply HAD to have a dig at an approved target. Close, but no cigar. But if it’s any consolation, no Guardian writer ever came nearer to getting me to read one of their contributions in its entirety. Great try.
Haha, I spotted that too and it was a completely unnecessary and divisive comment. We all know that most men (and women) are anti biological men in women’s sport.
I find a pro trans in female sport stance coming through from both males and females and think these people equally stupid.
‘think these people equally stupid.’
Knaves, yes. Fools, no. They all know exactly what they’re doing.
I can’t believe that the majority of people adding to the evil chorus are intelligent and cunning. They think they are moral and ‘on trend’, but actually they are immoral and are incapable of critical thought. Stupid.
I agree. From conversations I have had with some who support this (both men and women), they are utterly clueless but not malicious. I most certainly did not appreciate the ‘sticking together’ comment.
Maybe we should have compassion on them instead of getting irate? What stops me being compassionate is thinking about all the young people who will be damaged because of the confusion they espouse.
The hooded men issuing death threats to normal women will need to be neutralised. By whatever means necessary…only then can any sense of compassion be shown to the remainder.
I imagine she is juxtaposing male commenters with herself and writers like her colleague Zoe Williams, who just put out a totally doolally piece asking Labour to own and double-down on it’s and the left’s trans-stance. And if I’m honest, I’m far less interested in what both ladies are actually saying than the spectacle of the cat-fights and the parallel humdinger row brewing across the entire left ecosystem over this stuff, which I cannot help but view as free entertainment. I long for UnHerd to pull in a graun staff writer who is willing to report on the confrontations and slanging-matches at the graun christmas party, ideally with naming names.
I don’t think we can afford to sit back and enjoy the spectacle, because it is NOT just the Left and the Guardian. Science and common sense is not (yet?) winning, not by a long shot.
For example, I was recently completing a survey from the City of London – a rather notably conservative local government institution – about the Highgate bathing ponds, to find that I was asked what gender I was ‘assigned’ at birth! My walking club has also become obsessed with LBGTQ+ and particularly trans issues. Douglas Murray wrote a couple of years ago about the Daily Telegraph’s Diversity Manager, whose entire assumptions and world view would probably have got 90% of the readers of that newspaper spluttering into their coffee!
Highly contentious ‘woke’ political positions are being enforced through hundreds of institutions with cowardly, cynical or lazy management just going along with it for an easy life. That is where the rewards are, questioning and resistance brings brickbats and a threat to careers.
You make a valid point of course, and when the media circus moves on from asking “define what a woman is” to asking “should you encourage an irreversible transition for a ten year old who is confused about their sexuality” then the debate will get deadly serious, but for example I have to admit I was laughing out loud at the sight of Annalise Dodds squirming during interview recently.
And why on earth does the Torygraph have to have a ‘Diversity Manager’? Why does anyone at all? And I guess this illustrates your point – if nominally soft-right institutions start to participate in this stuff, then of course woke type narratives will start gathering momentum – a strata of HR type people are created whose salaries and indeed existence then depend on pushing and policing these narratives, so they are of course going to fight to preserve that, and since they are then gatekeepers for employment, they influence creating a workforce that is on board with their views. And one of the grimly comical things few comment on – at the *precise moment* when traditional newspapers are under assault from the social media platforms for content delivery, they all decide that the best way to parry existential threats is to burn money…. on a ‘Diversity Manager’.
Once the Diversity Department is in place they behave exactly like HR – create things to justify and grow their existence.
A couple of nights ago we were talking about the days of team building facilitated by HR teams – closing your eyes and allowing yourself to fall from a height into the arms of a colleague, making strange human chain links with colleagues on the sand at the seaside etc.
Those were just hilarious things from the early days. Now the intent and results are much more malevolent. I have utter contempt for these people.
“Malevolent”, a word well chosen.
This is happening in many American universities – once there is hiring based on diversity – incompetent people can be removed on good grounds – try doing that with a diversity hire and you’ll be cancelled even before they all start shouting “racism” with the white victims of CRT and Unconscious Bias training shouting loudest and longest.
I would as well.
I recall reading an American article a few years ago about bullshit jobs. It was taking a swipe at the bloated HR industry etc etc. diversity officers are just an extension of that. It’s particularly true in the public sector because no one has enough nous there to ask what all this costing & if it’s really needed
The problem is every single institution now has a ‘diversity manager’ or ‘inclusion officer’ who is the 21C equivalent of political commissar.
Indeed most firms are still asking my “gender” with a range of choices, including male and female. I now tick “other” and write in “my sex is female I don’t have a gender identity “ This ridiculousness swept in and most people weren’t noticing until now.
A couple of years ago I was filling in a medical-type registration form at a dentist. The last question asked which gender I identified with.
What’s that got to do with teeth?
Off subject – I was asked late last year when I went for an Xray if I was vaccinated. I politely asked why as they didn’t convey immunity or the inability to transmit the virus. Plus I was paying for this Xray. Effing cheek. They sat there with a mouthful of teeth.
You left their teeth intact then?
Well they didn’t want to offend you if your chosen identity was as a woman as we know that many transgenders will get irate if you do not address them as their chosen gender. You must understand that your gender is what you choose not what you actually are. The advantage would be you could rob a bank as a woman and get lost in the crowd as a man and the police would be none the wiser.
Whenever my dentist hands me one of these forms to fill in, I just scrawl “I’m not woke” across it.
Mustn’t offend now Wilfred. Anyhow they’ll have paid a big fee to the diversity specialist who provided that form from a template on their computer
Yes,I do this as well. The question isn’t “what is a woman” but what is this BS gender ideology!
True but Starmer wouldn’t have the guts to say that.
Yes, It’s all about guts in calling this gender fascism out.
Allow me to suggest that you tell the City of London and your walking club that you have zero tolerance for woke nonsense, and that any further attempt to impose woke values will result in the immediate termination of your relationship.
That is a good way to fight back I think. Nothing else seems to work at the moment. We will have to learn how to be wise in our quips without offending the actors who don’t believe what they are saying themselves.
I often think a good tactic is to express one’s disbelief in or disdain of a current fatuity not to convince the person addressed (who may subscribe to the nonsense or be paid to support it) but rather to convince any others who may hear that there are others out there who do not agree with it. The audience is really the bystanders who, one hopes, may gain some confidence in learning they are not alone.
I agree; I do not understand why it is assumed that ridiculous opinions are always on the left. Boris has disproved that theory (but I agree with his caution in the area of gender ideology while wishing he had the guts to speak out against trans extremism).
It came into the Tories from Europe via Cameron and then by May and now it is affecting Boris who does seem to lack a bit of sense concerning this. Fortunately we can still believe what we choose to in our own minds but you do hear of governments who are trying to govern your own thoughts like the communist countries do. Once this happens you are in danger of becoming a yes sir cabbage.
Big institutions like banks etc. who should know better are coming out with statements and pictures pushing these things. I felt like closing my account. They are trying to please 100% anyone who might open an account. No courage of conviction seems to be expressed but many organisations toe the line through fear of offending anybody and gradually the people who think straight are perceived as being in the minority. My trust is at an all time low in my bank and in my MP who both toe the line not to lose any woke adherants. Actually I don’t vote for her anymore.
Your misogyny is showing. Women can disagree and discuss, argue their points, without having a ‘cat-fight’. If you find the efforts of women to retain women-only sports, women-only hospital wards, to keep domestic abuse refuges single-sex, etc etc as mere entertainment, then your view of women is all too clear. Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.
Be careful you misandry is showing
Women are people, not one iota unequal to men, and should be free in all circumstances to do as they see fit – pursue whatever goals in life they want, just like men.
What I object to is the notion that women are biologically the same as men, or that anyone can reclassify themselves as a different gender, because that is patent nonsense.
As to the “cat-fight” language which you picked out, well that illustrates a whole bunch of things, lack of humour not least. My language was a patent bit of horseplay and provocation, because I also object to the notion that a society should become so sensitised to words and language, that someone somewhere can object to anything anyone says. Such a society is repellent.
Physically different, but equal.
There, I fixed it for you.
So women are “not one iota unequal” to men
And they are not physically “different”
Women are dramatically weaker than men in terms of physical strength, muscles and endurance.
That is just a fact but there are many other differences if you really study it. I know that many of their abilities complement a man in marriage and vice versa.
Do men also have cat fights?
Absolutely they do. And dog fights, they have those too. And ferrets (in a sack) fights too.
The magnificent Staffordshire Bull Terrier (SBT) being the preferred weapon of choice.
They also – occasionally – when the mood takes them – have bun fights.
My weapon of choice is a cream doughnut.
Anyone who cannot see the difference in men and women in addition to physical differences must be blind or biased.
Nobody has doubted they are people. The trouble has been that the men have not been counted as people.
Feminism is simply the female version of humanism where the intellect is all and God doesn’t exist..
‘Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.’ If only that were true. Feminism was built on a series of falsehoods, and the results have been apocalyptic.
Your misogyny is showing.
Sorry to hear you didn’t make it to the end. I agree the “males sticking together” was a foolish “It’s the patriarchy in’it” moment. But she went on to give credit to Boris Johnson and highlighted the roll of Ruth Hunt of Stonewall in setting the stone rolling as it were. So she managed to step away from many of the Guardianist ideological prejudices so it was worth staying through to the end.
She did not step away she just let the mask slip for a moment
Yes. I can’t see the sentence ‘Johnson sounded moderate and realistic’ ever being allowed in The Guardian.
Indeed, all graun journos are required to sign an undertaking in their contract that they will not say anything positive about any Tory government ever. That, and an undertaking to make at least one mention of ‘racist extreme right wing neoliberal newspapers or politicians or Koch Brothers (tick as appropriate)’ per article. They can face serious disciplinary action for failing to do so – facts!
They sometimes do say positive things about the Tory government, but it’s rare. It would take me too long to find an example though
I’m not disputing what you say but I find it quite extraordinary, even for a publication like the Guardian. If these employment conditions for Guardian journalists are “facts” can you provide a link with the evidence?
Here you go
The link is to the Samaritans website ???
A dead end for sure…
By their fruits you shall know them. Read it. If you like it you are probably leftwing.
Yes, but it actually IS fascinating how most of the fanatical trans promoters and activists ARE in fact men. (Phillip Pullman, a writer of children’s books, what the ** is his particular understanding?) Of course this doesn’t mean most men.
There is in my view in fact a hidden misogyny going on, because if large parts of the Left (and, even more depressingly, some on the Right) can airily dismiss the completely obvious concerns of women – real biological women – then frankly, what else can you call it? (Either that, or they are all utter morons, which they are probably not).
In a not entirely dissimilar way, many supposedly anti-racist activists in fact have deeply racist assumptions (you can’t expect black people to study, or be punctual or disciplined, those are ‘white’ values etc).
Steve Sailer long ago pointed out the irony of women’s organisations, which invariably become dominated by high-testosterone lesbians (with their particular skew of preferences), now falling under the sway of even higher-testosterone ex-men.
There is a certain type of man known as the “nice guy”. The sort of man who wears a “this is what a feminist looks like” t shirt. Often just a competitive virtue signaller using that to get ahead of the pack or as some sort of mating strategy but sometimes also as a facade to hide his own poor behaviour.
Men can’t be feminists their sex disqualifies them! Allies yes of course.
The word ‘ally’ has fallen a long way.
The relevant couplet from my heroic couplet satire The Wokeiad by Richard Craven:-
The creepy masseur and the mesmerist,
The slightly rapey male feminist.
(n.b. To comply with the iambic pentameter format, you have to construe ‘male’ as two syllables, as in ‘Rik Mayall’.)
I have to admit that whenever I hear a man claim to be a feminist I assume he has a vial of date rape drugs in his back pocket.
How can you be slightly rapey?
You either rape or you don’t.
Rape is serious. There is no crime of slight rape.
I see what you are getting at, but rape is not something that can be put on a scale, and to my mind your couplet trivialises it.
I don’t tolerate having my language policed, so you can do one.
In Geordie, male always has 2 syllables
Where can I get hold of a copy of the Wokeiad? Not fussed whether it’s hardcopy or electronic. I’m thinking it would make a nice present.
It’s not quite finished yet – I’ve still got another 40 lines to write. When it is, I’ll produce hardcopy and electronic versions, although this will probably take a few weeks. Thanks v much for your interest. It’s most heartening.
There’s certainly a lot going on and it is worth pointing out – my view is that it has less to do with male solidarity* (after all, if trans women are women then she’s not a man, is she, bigot?) and more to do with incentives. If you’re a man in the public eye, you have absolutely zero reason to paint a target on your back by getting yourself called a ‘phobe’ of any kind. Doesn’t matter who agrees with you out there in the wider world, your entire social and professional circle are those fully paid-up paramilitary progressives who in Orwell’s time got their cooking from France and their opinions from Moscow, would rather be caught with their hand in the poor box than standing for the national anthem etc. etc.. So naturally, trans women are women are trans are women as far as you’re concerned because when it comes down to it, most people are Havel’s grocer rather than Solzhenitsyn.
If you’re a woman in the public eye, you’re subject to those same incentives but you’re also acutely aware of the importance of the formal distinction between ‘woman’ and ‘man’ in what’s otherwise an age of equality. Rightly, you perceive any blurring of that distinction, whether in the field of sport, business (witness the guy at I think Credit Suisse who was named one of the City’s top women in banking a few years ago because he showed up to work in a pink dress a few times a week) or wherever else, as a threat to the position of women as a whole in society, as so much of that position depends on the legal protections/privileges (depending on your view) that were hard-won by earlier generations. This is to say nothing of the personal safety issue – prisons, toilets, refuges etc. So although you still have a huge amount to lose by going against the grain (possibly more), you feel far more keenly that you have a great deal to lose by staying silent also.
I’m not sure it’s male solidarity that explains why it’s always women who suggest the emperor’s got no clothes on, as much as male apathy. Just look at the mountains of excrement heaped on Forstater, Stock, Rowling etc., and tell me you’d throw yourself into that firing line unless you felt you absolutely had to. Cowardly on the part of those men who don’t of course, but sadly understandable. I’d be very interested to see survey data on views on “TWAW” broken down by sex, suspect much as with the abortion issue women would be slightly more in favour because it’s the ‘compassionate’ belief, but women’s opinions would be more strongly held in either direction while men would cluster around the centre.
*Incidentally, I think women drastically overestimate the extent to which male solidarity exists, in part because of this same perception. Seeing yourself as a member of a group called ‘women’ between all of whose members there exists a basic commonality of interests, such that when the chips are down there’s at least some extent to which they can rely on each other, it would be natural to assume that those in the other group think along broadly similar lines. But I don’t think men do, really – certainly you’d favour your friends and those are more likely to be other men, but a consistent baseline sympathy for men over women? I don’t think it exists to anything like the same degree.
Doesn’t research support men having more out-group bias and women tending towards in-group bias?
That is was my thought as well.
I have more solidarity with the women I know in my family and among my friends than with any other random man. Men care about women’s rights because they have sisters, daughters and nieces and mothers.
That could be my husband talking…
Very clearly put. I particularly noted the final starred paragraph about women over-estimating the strength of male solidarity. The same thing happens when the left over-estimates right-wingers’ supposed tendency to conspiracy. In other words people always assume that the ‘opposition’ suffers from the same tendencies as they themselves.
Is that the same Philip Pullman who became so incandescent with rage over the Brexit result, may I ask?
If so he seems to be a particularly spiteful and unpleasant individual if I may say so.
Such a shame, he’s a brilliant writer but yet another of my heroes bites the dust.
Yes what extraordinary bad luck. He has the all the venom of a teenager, yet is well into his seventies.
It’s just positioning. He lost readers (and a good job) over the Kate Clanchy incident and is now trying to get them back.
He is spiteful and nasty. And I say that as a Brexit sceptic. This is a strange hill to die on, as banning conversion therapy for Trans is actually banning therapy for trans as Haley pointes, particularly for young children who might, or might not, have gender dysphoria. This won’t age well for him.
Pullman is just trying to some of his fanbase back after he made the ‘mistake’ of supporting Kate Clanchy.
This pair of statements:
“actually IS fascinating how most of the fanatical trans promoters and activists ARE in fact men”
There is in my view in fact a hidden misogyny going on
(With a tonne of upticks)
Highlights how infantile and moronic social discussion has become
The real reason why men dominate trans discussion is simple and two fold and both arise from a LACK of women participation.
Firstly, most such discussions or debate is dominated by men: Wikipedia editors, YouTube comments, even this Unherd forum.
Secondly and more specifically, women tend to be less vociferous because they are major beneficiaries of sex based discrimination (separate sports / Title 9, women’s facilities or centres, quotas where they are underrepresented)
In contrast, you have no male only spaces, no quotas for men in college admissions or education.
So of course women would lose out under a trans world which strips away those benefits.
Pretty much all the “trans” athletes are men.
It’s not because “misogyny” but because there is no benefit for women to compete in men’s sports.
The real question is why we have no male only spaces or quotas. Because the main driving force for society is misandry, not misogyny, and that’s the real explanation why most trans beneficiaries are men.
No male spaces? What do you call men’s toilets and male prisons? If there is a female only space, it stands to reason that there are male only spaces too! Plus it wasn’t that long ago that Golf was actually Gentlemen Only Ladies Forbidden and Gentlemen clubs!
Men’s toilets are just like men’s sports: created because women didn’t want to be in the same space.
Do you think men would care if women shared their toilets? Plenty of women reporters enter male locker rooms, when they are changing for instance.
Just like nobody would care if women joined the men’s segment at Wimbledon.
I am sure women were prohibited from a lot of things in an era when they sat at home while only men were supposed to die like flies in war, mines and factories.
What we have today, is boy scouts forced to admit girls and no male only spaces or quotas, while the reverse is rampant.
And that’s the explanation for largely male “trans” – decades of misandry.
Samir, your boo-hooing is wearing a bit thin.
Pretty certain when the ancient Greeks started the tradition of the olympics, not only could women not participate, they couldn’t watch either because all the men were naked! Today, women only sports is about having a chance to actually win something, hence the upset of trans women contenders, not misandrist gatekeeping!
I’m quite happy for men to have male only places, in my home my husband has his garage, my son has the cellar (man cave) and I have…. the kitchen, which if I’m honest isn’t my space I just use it the most.
When I was young the scouts seemed much more exciting than brownies and guides, the boys had pocket knives and went camping whereas we did needle work and did badges for safety round the home. It’s not so much about wanting to takeover boys only clubs and more wanting to do fun stuff!
Toilets however are another matter, as many women have already spoken about not feeling safe in mixed toilets, my preference for female only loos is largely down to hygiene and smells. You guys are notorious for peeing everywhere but inside the bowl! I don’t blame trans women for wanting to use the ladies, our loos are much nicer and don’t smell as bad!
“You guys are notorious for peeing everywhere but inside the bowl!”
I have a young daughter, am all for women’s spaces and sports. And ideally – in case of scouts and guides for instance – you want a healthy balance of mixed groups as well as single sex spaces.
But this whole issue has become infested with false egos.
If you notice above, how difficult it is for people to admit that women are physically weaker
It’s just plain biology and you know what? Doesn’t matter, apart from sports and a few occupations.
In the home, male physical strength is something you use to help and serve your family, not dominate.
But this egotism is what led to this whole Trans mess in the first place. And even now it’s being blamed on “misogyny”.
Not by me, I don’t do the feminist thing but I am happy to play devils advocate on occasion. I think what complicates the trans issue is that different people are trans for different reasons and the activists don’t want to acknowledge that because it complicates the argument and stops the one size fits all approach they want to take. However in order to enforce their one size fits all approach they push for the don’t question just accept approach which is even worse as it enables loopholes for predatory behaviours galore!
Can’t say regarding the more evangelical activist cohort, but my own observations regarding the ‘pronouncers’ would suggest 10:1 women to men. I cannot find an explanation as to why this is.
Shame, this is the equivalent of “not all men”. The rest of the article is very good and I’d encourage you to read it if you agreed with the first bit.
Waiter, can I get a pinch of salt for Mr MacGabhann please?
Yep, Totally unnecessary. An otherwise interesting article somewhat undermined by the writers momentary unguarded bitterness and bigotry.
I saw this and my first thought was – oh dear, this is going to be picked up as the only sentence worth commenting on. I do notice it has a disproportionate sized thread here. It was a silly remark, but not important enough to ignore the rest of a very good article,
I didn’t know about Ruth Hunt, but it makes sense that Stonewall wants more dosh. This is another issue with any pressure group, even those with which one might agree, their sole purpose is to work themselves out of a job, but when they get near that point they panic “My God, I’ve worked myself out of a job! Quick, redefine our mission – add black cats to our BAME group. Do something!”
Organisations like Object are positing that Mermaids, Stonewall et al, sensing the house of Trans cards crashing down, are already moving on to their next “human rights” campaign…Surrogacy. Mermaids is hosting a conference on the issue soon. Why would they be interested? Well…they’ve promoted the sterilisation of children for a number of years so they see the market expanding?
Pederasty must be next?
No it was not just a sill remark. The mask slipped to show she is not an honest narrator.
Concerning ‘working yourself out of a job’.
Imagine if the scientists who actually triumphed in eradicating smallpox instead wanted to keep the disease going to make sure their research funding didn’t dry up.
Douglas Murray has a very good insight into this phenomenon in his book “The Madness of Crowds”. He calls it “St George in Retirement Syndrome”. (When you have conquered the dragon you go round looking for smaller and more pointless targets).
‘Every pressure group eventually becomes a business and, ultimately, a racket.’ (Anon, but true.)
Stonewall has salaries, pensions and mortgages to meet so needs the funding to flow in.
So, what society obviously needs is an executioner. Someone whose job it is to go around shutting down all the institutions whose goals have already been fulfilled yet who for some reason are still sucking at the public teat.
The fact is that right wing men have generally been the better friends of women in this matter. The left has mostly disgraced itself and it will take a very long time for it to recover. There’s no forgiving or forgetting the current shower for what they are doing to women.
Is it really right wing men, or is it more likely that holding that position makes you right wing (from the perspective of the media/twitter)?
From the perspective of the left-wing media holding that position makes you far-right. A bedfellow of Victor Orban worthy of being expelled from all right-thinking society.
But Orban won the recent election hands-down; just as BoJo did here a little while ago. Or dosen’t democracy matter anymore outside of Ukraine?
Not in the world of left-wing media where having the approved views is more important than having popular views. Populist is the sneer against the politician that put forward popular ideas. For them Democracy has to involve politicians pressing forward with the approved policies never mind what most of the voters that basket of deplorables want.
Not in the world of left-wing media where having the approved views is more important than having popular views.
True. And indeed where having the approved views is more important than accepting reality.
Politicians on both sides usually use populist to describe popular ideas that they disagree with.
This is one of the reasons it’s crucial to have ideas that are rationally defensible as well as democratically attractive, because ideally a mandate to govern must be based on both.
It is useful to look at the really great piece of gerrymandering done in Hungary to ensure Mr Orban’s super majority. Kudos to Mr Orban for managing such a massive political coup.
Bravo! Spoken as a true disciple of Diogenes.
I agree. A friend of my husband’s is still not talking to me because we had a difference of opinion years ago over gender neutral toilets. He doesn’t think women should be allowed female toilets until there is safety for all. He is a giant of a man and yet could not understand the physical vulnerability that so many women feel.
I suppose so, but isn’t the prospect of men-claiming-to-be-women, swanning around female-only changing rooms with their d**ks out trying to engage in feminine chatter the ultimate misogyny?
I thought it was ineed an odd remark — but as I did not understand what may be the background to it, I simply passed by on the other side
Well quite. I linked to the article on a forum that I use, as I found it an informative read,. But I did point out, and apologise for, the uncalled-for throw-away misandry with which the author indulges herself.
It’s sad to see such thoughtless casual abuse from a supposedly professional writer. I expect it may have been unintentional and if the author would like to apologise on here, then I’ll happily forward her apology to my forum’s members.
Yes, gaslighting again, by ignoring the fact that broadly speaking, the base supporters of “wokeism” are majority-female, especially younger women. Their natural empathy has been weaponized to encourage them to support today’s latest Leftist outrage. For “white” women, supporting wokeism is also a way to claw back some social credit.
Thank you. You have provided an answer to my conundrum elsewhere on this thread.
Side-note on your point: I understand that in the US universities, there are now about two women students to every one man.
The prevalence of wokeism in US universities and the the reluctance of men (‘toxic males’, I meant to say, of course) to endure that environment are, I would guess, not exactly unrelated.
My thoughts exactly. It is a long while since I read such a fair and well-written article from anyone at The Guardian, but then in came the snide dig and typical Guardian devisiveness. That said, as Guardian writing goes it was at least a humorous snide remark.
The world would be a better place if people stopped the nonsense about “I didn’t read past this sentence”.
I can’t believe you took that ONE piece out of the article and used it to divert the conversation. The Trans men in women’s sport conversation must remain honest. My personal opinion is that men have no place in girls or women’s sport nor in their locker rooms. How did thinking people get so off-side?
And the irony – as if women like her don’t always stick together against what women like her regard as the common enemy! Utterly pathetic.
I was confused when he called a male transgender sports person she instead of he.
Given context, I thought she was being ironic
“they will start with the photos of Lia Thomas, the Ivy League trans swimmer, towering over her teammates.”
*they will start with the photos of Lia Thomas, the Ivy League trans swimmer, towering over his teammates.
I think Lia Thomas HAS transitioned, so I think it is fair enough to say she / her in her case. I think the whole notion of radically changing your body to ‘change sex’ is deeply questionnable, but it has been happening for decades now, recall the historian Jan / James Morris in the 1960s.
But in any case she should certainly not be allowed to compete against biological women in any sport where strength and stamina matter.
One of the things his teammates are objecting to is seeing his p***s as he walks around naked in their locker room.
[Edit] Interesting. I did not place the three asterisks in this reply. Unherd’s software did that on its own and as I edit the note now, I see the original text as I typed it.
It is interesting that the asterisked word is clearly so trauma inducing that it has to be disguised in the safe space that is Unherd and yet the actual thing can cheerfully be waved about in front of women when they are changing without sanction. A strange world we live in.
That was my thought when I saw it!
Correction… walking around with an erect p***s in their changing rooms!
No one can magically “transition” from one sex to another. But even if you’re talking about transitioning in quotation marks, Thomas hasn’t had any surgery at all and still has male genitals.
The actress Ellen Page had her breasts removed (don’t know about below the belt) so she could look like an adolescent boy. But her chromosomes are still XX and she’ll always be female, sans quotation marks.
But still has to be asked if he is pregnant before undergoing an X-ray in the UK!
“I think Lia Thomas HAS transitioned”
No he hasn’t. He’s a 6’2″ bloke with an intact willy frequently visible to his fellow competitors in the women’s changing rooms.
According to mermaids, you don’t need surgery or hormones to transition, all you need is to say your trans and voila! Which is pretty much what MP Wallis has done. I feel for legitimate trans people because these massive loopholes being pushed for allows people of questionable character to abuse the system and innocent people will suffer for it, trans and otherwise!
Well said. I completely agree, and strongly suspect that there is an substantial silent majority of genuinely trans people who are not exhibitionists but just want to get on with their lives, and who feel utterly traduced by the so-called activists purporting to speak for them.
Sadly I wouldn’t be surprised if the genuine Trans people are in fact the minority, the majority being made up of messed up/confused kids, criminals with an eye on an easier sentence and s3xual predators exploiting the movement.
“Legitimate trans people” do not exist. Some people have medicalised more than others but they remain the sex they were born. It’s all just cosmetic surgery and dangerous wrong sex hormones.
In which case, as Germaine Greer once said, I am a cocker spaniel.
‘legitimate trans people’. What a world.
I refer to those who have been having years of therapy rather than those who self diagnose after wallowing in social media.
Thanks for the correction.
If it’s that size, it’s not surprising that he can’t keep it in his pants.
Call me an 82 yo, former socialist bigot if you must; but like 95% of the population I refuse to believe that while Thomas continues to retain those bits, and refuses to face up to the surgery required to remove them, he hasn’t really got sufficient committment to becoming female.
And while we are discussing this nonsense, mother’s sons are fighting and dying in Ukraine for real freedom and democracy. They and their loved ones are the ones my tears are for. If my body would allow me to “trans” into a young, fit male I’d be over there to help out in a heartbeat.
So now he is a male who has undergone hormone therapy and surgery to more resemble a woman? Still doesn’t make him one.
No surgery. Just testosterone suppressants.
Yep, still male.
It doesn’t matter what he does to himself, he will never be a woman. This is a hugely important point. You cannot change sex – no policy or practice should ever be predicated on the fiction that you can. All children, women and girls are put at enormous disadvantages in all sorts of ways by transgenderism. Compassion for dysphoria, self-expression consistent with their private feelings without ridicule, yes. But a firm NO to unmaking and denying material reality in any context. No compelled language, no men in any women’s spaces – sporting, cultural, political, social or whatever.
I think we’re all as guilty of this confusion – at least anyone my age or over.
Up to 10-15 years ago, anyone who ‘transitioned’ – at least surgically – was described as have ‘changed sex’. Anyone remember the tabloid frenzy in the 80s and 90s over people getting the op on the NHS? The words SEX CHANGE were always headlined in bold on the front page!
You’ve just described the probable opinion of 75% of the British population. The requirement to contradict reality should never be made of anyone.
The word “transitioned” has an extremely low bar then. He has grown his hair and taken some testosterone suppressants. Is that all it takes?
It’s a magickal process… and it mostly involves magickal thinking.
OK, I can understand women being unhappy about trans “women” competing in women’s sport. But complaints about being pipped to a gold medal by a biological man sound a bit precious compared to the risk that gender whisperers pose to vulnerable confused children. It’s a relief to learn in this article that the UK parliament has excluded gender identity from the conversion practices legislation that’s recently been passed. In New Zealand unfortunately our parliamentarians lack the good sense of at least some of their British counterparts. Our House of Unrepresentatives has recently passed similar legislation that unfortunately DOES include gender identity. Our air-headed PM admitted she could not rule out the possibility of parents being prosecuted under the new legislation, if they prefer “watch and wait” to “affirmation” of their child’s gender dysphoria. The trans activist position is that any child experiencing gender dysphoria is trans, and so must be transitioned. Which is inconsistent with the evidence that at least 75% of cases of gender dysphoria resolve by the end of adolescence if a “wait and watch” approach is taken. Our grossly negligent parliamentarians have sentenced many NZ children to mutilation and sterilization that they will later regret.
Boris Johnson is a flawed and maybe even dysfunctional character. Yet more often than not his government makes sound policy decisions. I hope the Brits have enough sense to continue to support his government, despite his frequent bumbling antics. The current iteration of “Labour” is unworthy of being anywhere near the levers of power – as unfortunately is also the case in NZ.
I largely agree, but the situation is desperate, and allies are needed wherever possible and whatever their main focus. We have to gradually enable more and more people to be confident to fight back against this evil (which it is) in ever more contexts
Ed Miliband was on Times Radio this morning. Lord, did he flounder when asked if he agreed with Boris Johnson’s views. Labour is in a complete mess on this. And it’s entirely self-inflicted.
Great strategy from Boris, then (at long last).
It isn’t just about medals. Its about biological males competing in sport against women. Rugby, football, any contact sport, we’ve already seen males fighting women in the MMA, I wouldn’t want my daughter on the pitch or in the changing rooms with males.
Children in Canada and some states in the USA have already been taken away from parents who don’t want them medicalised.
This I find deeply disturbing. Tell us more!
Thought it was a great article.
I’m guilty of seeing a phrase or two I disagree with and wanting to throw the baby out with the bath water.
It was too good overall to do that.
Plus extra points for well reasoned and evidenced from a guardian writer.
“Last week, the Tories executed a double U-turn, the result of which was to press ahead with banning conversion practices in regards to sexual orientation – in other words, outlawing “pray away the gay” practitioners – but not in regards to gender. ”
Aaaaargggh!!! I could scream! What on earth is wrong with journalists that they keep framing this issue like that!!! The UK government is NOT endorsing ‘conversion practices’ for sex dysphoric people. It is saying that automatic ‘Affirmation’ therapy for CHILDREN can be a very bad thing when those children may well turn out NOT to be sex dysphoric, but gay (as research shows is the case with 80%!!!) – and struggling with shame over their same sex attraction, or are autistic, or recovering from child abuse which has caused them to hate their bodies. ‘Affirmation’ – which is what the genderists want for chidren from 0 upwards, ends up being the very thing they claim not to want: conversion therapy for gay and confused children. The Affirmationists want hormones, puberty blockers, and social affirmation on the instant a ten year old child claims to be ‘trans’. With transgenderism now incorporated into school policy, thousands of children are being horribly confused and buying into this. Adults all around them are utterly failing them. It is a major scandal. And this is what the likes of Stonewall are now screaming in outrage about. Hold firm Boris – you’ve made a good start but it is imperative you face down this transgender mania.
Thankyou for this article. It cheered me that common sense might finally be breaking out!
I too was prejudiced before starting to read, and surprised that the Guardian writer has been ‘admitted’ to the club but soon forgot about it as the line of argument was very convincing.
It is like Brexit all over again! The Labour Party is torn between two camps and can’t formulate policy.
1/3rd of its supporters (Muslims, Black Christians, traditional feminists, the last of the working-class Labour voters) will think that Boris is absolutely right: kids can’t decide to have hormone injections behind their parents’ backs, men can’t compete in women’s sport, men can’t go in women’s prisons, refuges or changing rooms.
2/3rds of its supporters (students, trans activists, lefties, virtue signalling upper-class remainer types) violently disagree.
Sir Kier Stammerer is left waffling about how some women have penises.
Boris is one lucky b******! The greased pig lives on!
Shouldn’t that be piglet?
Yes it should be, you are right.
Very good comment, but please stop capitalising “black”.
Good point. I won’t do again.
And it will be the same with energy. Labour will get caught out backing expensive energy – not least due to Ed Miliband’s Climate Change Act which deliberately hugely raised the price of energy in the UK.
There will be enough votes for cheaper energy at the next election for the Tories to win it. Even if that’s less than 50% of the electorate. The question is – will they do it ?
I hope so. Not fracking seems insane to me – it kills at least three birds with one stone – gas prices, energy security and levelling up (lots of well paid jobs in Lancs).
Everything Hadley says here is the truth, but the headline still feels a bit too optimistic – the spell may be broken amongst the uk electorate, but what are we versus the transhumanist whims of zuckerberg, kurzweil and musk?
Guardian staff writer speaks truth eh? Stopped Clock.
Hadley has always been good on transideology amazed the Grauniad hasn’t sacked her tbh!!
Let’s hope they don’t.
Don’t drag the UK electorate into it. Fortunately they are ‘thick‘ enough to not be dragged into this demented, mad ‘parody’ of clever people thinking about how ‘clever’, ‘superior’ and ‘with it’ they are.
Or literally hundreds of private companies, public bodies, voluntary organisations and clubs, who actively enforce this nonsense – in fact – evil – through, their administrative and HR policies.
Allow me to suggest that you do what I do nowadays. I always preface every initial contact with any private body, governmental organisation, voluntary organisation, or club with a statement to the effect that I have absolutely zero tolerance for woke excrement, and that any attempt to introduce the woke agenda into our conversation will result in the immediate termination thereof.
I have to give a plug to the London Times. It’s been at the forefront of this battle, with excellent reporting coverage and critical opinion pieces. The only time it lapsed was a few weeks ago when suddenly all commenting under articles about trans was stopped. Apparently the editor was flooded with letters of complaint and comments were restored. Not only was commenting on the issue back, but the usual pre-moderation stopped except in a few cases. Something happened, I don’t know what, but it’s unusual for a national newspaper to u-turn on its commenting policy because of emails to the editor.
Some Times articles on the subject attract well over one thousand comments. The Times’ commentariat is overwhelmingly anti gender-ideology from across the political spectrum. Many women say they’re disaffected Labour voters. Many post that they’ll vote Tory for the first time because of Boris’s comments about the importance of biology. The London Times is an influential paper and I find this all very encouraging.
Yes, the UK Times has been a beacon of fact, sense and compassion for women throughout this madness. It has earned itself a lot of new readers – refugees from the insufferable Guardian and it’s misogynyst in chief, Owen Jones.
Curiously, my heroic couplet satire The Wokeiad by Richard Craven features a gentleman with the same initials:-
Wokeness observes it all, and is well pleased
To see the body politic diseased.
And yet one element eludes her eye,
One piece is missing from the jigsaw lie.
“It wants,” she snarls, “a useful idiot,
Some naive kidult who resents his lot,
Some milquetoast be11end, wet behind the ears
Some thirty summer suckling prone to tears. 180
His name is Legion, though, for he is many,
His kind’s superfluous and two a penny.
I face a cute embarrassment of choice.”
Just then is heard a chafing, peevish voice,
The whine of angel fallen into Hell,
Not so much ringing as to crack a bell.
Wokeness looks down to see who harshly moans
And fixes basilisks on O___ J___.
Half Oxon scholar and half stream of p155
A Gaveston unsponsored by Marquis, 190
Vile parcel of caught dirt from Shoreditch pub,
A chrysalid which hatched a writhing grub,
A scribe who now the noble chav defends
And now with fierce polemic gammon rends.
Today, quite out of countenance, young J___
For his oppressive whiteness thus atones,
Reclined like Chatterton without his looks
Upon his bed of anti-racist books:
‘Why I’ll No Longer To Pale Cracker Talk’,
‘A Dozen Recipes For Curing Pork’, 200
‘On The Fragility Of Mr Snow’,
‘Laugh At The Tears Of Mrs Wypipo’.
A hundred other tomes haphazard spill
O’er unwashed coffee cup and unpaid bill.
While J___, this farouche starveling Jabba Hut
Troubles deaf Heaven with his scuttlebut.
I suspect the pressure was too much. I called up to cancel my subscription after the comments were turned off and was offered a 90% reduction on my subs. I think others would have done so too.
The sheer weight and strength of reader opinion on the issue was too large to ignore. At the end of the day they couldn’t possibly hope to hold it back and decided it had to run its course.
I also believe that it’s taken a while for a lot of people to understand the issues properly.
Thank you for being one of those caring enough to call them up.
Thomas is, visibly, a very different story, and her teammates
His teammates. He is a man and should have male teammates, though of course he would lose against them.
Did Hunt hype up the gender campaign and sell out women – which, of course, includes lesbians and bisexual women – just to ensure Stonewall’s revenue flow?
Of course. It’s like the race relations industry. They’ve nowhere else to go in a country with very little genuine racism and where ethnic minorities are overrepresented in the highest offices of state. That’s why they hated the Sewell Report – it threatens to deprive them of a nice little earner.
Not just the race industry, but all of them. As their lucrative franchised products pass their sell-by date, they have to develop new ones. The poverty industry has struck gold, by foisting on us a definition of poverty, a percentage of average income, which has no sell-by date. The race industry is trying hard, with ‘micro-aggressions’ and ‘sub-conscious bias’, soon, no doubt, to be quantum aggressions and sub-sub-sub conscious bias, but hasn’t found the magic formula yet. Have some sympathy, though. When you’ve enjoyed wealth and status, and been able to strut your holier than thou stuff, for years, it’s hard to acknowledge that your day is over. Look at organised religions; they only exist to serve the organisation.
I disagree with the headline – the trans-agenda has not lost this war. Or at least, the Progressive agenda of which it is part, has not lost any war, in fact it now has a major gain, in the form of an official, legal recognition of an idea that just a few short years ago was rightly regarded as ludicrous: cultural relativism.
Maya Forstater recently won her court case upon whether or not her sceptical views on transgenderism amounted to a hate crime. They did not, thankfully for both herself and the rest of us who wish to remain sane human beings, but here’s the gotcha: her defence turned out to be that her own views were “protected” under the latest legislation.
Nowhere did the law conclude that Maya Forstater was merely stating a fact and that she was free to do so: her views were treated as merely an opinion amongst a sea of other opinions, none of which are required to be factually justifiable.
This outcome has been a cherished goal of the Progressives for quite a while now, a holy grail in which what is deemed to be true/permissible/speakable etc, depends upon the authority of a self-appointed clerisy. No longer are we permitted to refer to the facts: we outside this new authority are no longer deemed capable of factual judgement for ourselves. The Orwellian nature of this of course cannot be denied, and this is why I say that the rest of us, who typically value freedom of thought and expression only constrained by reason and civility, are the losers here.
Yes exactly and many GC people are thus saying they “believe “ that sex is unchangeable (because that’s how she won her case) rather than saying we KNOW sex in mammals is unchangeable. Drives this biologist potty!!
Excellent point – the issue was consigned to the realm of ‘belief’ as if we were talking about competing religions. But biological sex is a fact that can be stated without contradiction, not a belief. Micharacterising it as a ‘protected belief’ has the potential effect of rendering all facts/any fact a matter of mere belief. That is a precedent set or interpretation that could be argued. So not sure we are back where we should be.
I had to stop reading, although I will probably go back and finish it in due course. Why are you giving these cheating male athletes female pronouns? Do you not see that the whole problem starts with pronouns being the thin end of the wedge which has led to men in women’s sporting competitions, men in women’s prisons, men on women’s hosptital wards, a woman being raped by a man on a women’s single-sex ward whose presence was denied by the NHS, boys in girls lavatories and changing rooms in schools, language being changed so that women cannot talk about themselves, their bodies or their bodies’ functions because we must not exclude men.
In todays Times there is an article ranting about the exclusion of Trans from the new conversion therapy bill.
There is still a very long way to go in this fight, but a sensible, well reasoned argument, outlining a conservative position, from a Graun staffer, is cause for some optimism.
Not seen it yet, but probably written before Johnson came out. Now it sounds like yesterday’s news.
Surely conversion therapy is happening already.
Converting children to the belief that a human being can change sex.
The problem is that this well-reasoned argument needs to be in the Guardian as well. Why is it not?
Come. come; you know the answer to that. 🙂
Derek, you KNOW why!!!
There’s a war going on in Ukraine.
How is this gender debate even in the top ten issues our politicians and media should be concerned with ?
It’s complete nonsense. Angela Rayner says the next Labour leader “must be a woman” and yet is unable to define what a woman is. Why are we even paying these half-wits ?
For once (and I hate to admit it), Tony Blair is correct. It’s nonsense. As they used to say about Yassir Arafat, “never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity”. That’s the Labour party these days.
As a female whose rights are under threat it IS more important to me than many other issues. And our efforts are at last bearing fruit. I do what I can for victims of war ( quite amusing how the Ukrainian trans identified males are claiming they’re women so not required to fight, and the trans-identified females are detransitioning at a rate of knots!!)
I wondered if Keir Starmer is beginning to think that he’s misjudged the views of general public on this and that he’s backed the wrong horse. It would be hard for him to back track at this stage.
I think the author misses the most important reason that sport is so important in the transgender debate: it has objective standards. The stopwatch,the tape measure, and the scales just don’t lie to fit your/one’s ideology. And while other athletic endeavors aren’t as reliant on such measurements as the sports mentioned in the article, there still exist ways of judging performance that are not reliant on personal feelings. And that’s why sport, like genuine achievement in academia, is so incongruent with the “Left’s” wishes.
Now that Johnson has finally come out, will Sturgeon plough ahead? That would be interesting (if I didn’t live in Scotland and didn’t have 2 young girls of my own, that is).
Well if self-ID gets in in Scotland they’ll all be running there for new birth certificates and then coming back to England with them
I think Hadley Freeman has it right that it was sport which would bring this issue to a head. I think most people have a well developed sense of fair play especially because it’s easy to relate to. So when a man competes against women in a sport which requires strength it’s clearly not fair.
I don’t mind her crack about men sticking together. She couldn’t resist and I’m quite happy to take that on the chin. I enjoyed the article.
You mean his competitors. And that’s where I stopped reading. I don’t play that game anymore.
Great to read your journalism again, Hadley. So sad this piece can’t appear in the Guardian which is completely out of step on these issues.
As a life long Labour voter I’m not planning to vote for any party in the upcoming election. Unless of course Keir Starmer reads the Cass Report and sees sense.
Why would you believe anything he has to say? He knows full well what a woman is, as do Angela Rayner and the rest of them. They are lying because they think virtue signalling is appealing to their demographic. If they can lie to the point of denying the material reality of sex they can lie about anything.
Given that many of those transitioning appear to be gay people who are unhappy in their sexuality and trying to escape it, and indeed this is apparently openly the case in some countries such as Iran, is it possible that helping such people to transition would then breach the new proposed laws on conversion therapy?
Every single time I’d mention a point, however couched, in the Guardian’s comments section about autogynephilia, or documented harms against women in women’s prisons, or detransitioners, the mods would find it and remove it.
Meanwhile, they’d leave really hateful half-literate screeds that brought down the whole conversation. But one or two points written in scholarly fashion were carefully expunged–at least 20 times.
That’s why I haven’t contributed to or read the Guardian in about two years. Like the progressive church I used to attend, they helped “red-pill” me. I’ve joined the independent & conservative feminists, which is where I probably belonged all along, considering how I always called out abortion activists who treat pregnancy like a virus to be eradicated with a pill.
Speaking of the real 1% terrorizing the world. Of course the trans people are just pawns in the great game of tribalization of western societies which is the grand strategy of WEF and terminally corrupt elites, with TwitterSS as their crack troops.. They have nothing else.
CRT, BLM, trans propaganda, whatever comes next, will be discarded faster than used condoms when they are not useful anymore. The media are seamlessly navigating from hating Trump to hating Putin, from hating “white supremacists” to hating unvaccinated. Targets change but tribalization and hate must go on.
Good article, and brave too. Brave (often foolhardy) of anyone to venture into print on this subject.
It is great that Boris has come out (not come out!) and said the obvious truth that people born as men shouldn’t compete in women’s sport.
As the father of a son who used to be my daughter, it seems to me the whole nonsense is shown up in all its glad rags by Jamie Wallis saying he “would like to be trans”. What does that even mean? And wants to continue to be referred to as “he/him”! Is he confusing it with being a transvestite?
This sort of behaviour – and the Stonewall approach which would appear to condone people changing gender at will, maybe as often as they change their underwear! – makes a mockery of what is a serious issue for people who find they are only comfortable presenting in a gender other than the one they were born in.
And where have all the transvestites gone I wonder????
The whole transgender thing strikes me as a failure of imagination, a very narrow view of what it means to be a man or a woman. A cultural/social acceptance of a broader range of acceptable behaviors might alleviate some of this nonsense. Not sure how to deal with what appears to be an undercurrent of woman hating (e.g., men make better women than women, “pregnant people”, what is a woman?, etc.).
Yes. I may be wrong but I get the impression that some transwomen don’t just want to be real women they want to be better that real women – Woman++
It’s noticeable that we don’t any longer hear that thing – “I’m a woman trapped in a man’s body”. They are no longer a woman trapped in a man’s body they are a woman IN a man’s body, p***s and all.
What additional behaviors do we need to accept, John? There are no present laws AFAIK preventing men from wearing dresses or skirts, or women pants. All legal vocational fields appear to be open to both sexes, although strippers have to be aware of the specific establishment for whom they will perform. We still talk as if we were living in the 1950s – if not earlier – when there were quite straitlaced gender roles. But that era is long past. People in general still somehow act as if it isn’t, and trans people in particular need to rail against the alleged sins of bygone times. They are out of touch with contemporary social – as well as biological – reality.
I think it’s important for those of us who have seen the extreme gender ideology for what it is from the start allow those who appeared to be drinking the koolaid back into the world of the sane. If your friend was in a cult and needed deprogramming, you likely wouldn’t nitpick and bash them while they were in the process. I know there is a lot of (righteous) anger, but can we possibly give those waking up a bit of space to do so? Most people naturally exist in the large bulbous center of the oh so familiar bell curve, and if we show some kindness we are more likely to help end the madness. This is true on so many levels in the public debate… the extreme divisiveness can only be healed if we are willing to take the high road and not shame those willing to step back from the brink.
It started with sport because at sporting events ordinary people get to have their say.
and more visible than women’s prisons, refuges, changing rooms..
Glad that people are waking up to the absurdity of this. But your article is seriously undermined by continuing to refer to Hubbard and Thompson as “her” and “she.” DNA matters. Sex at birth matters. Gender is not fluid. Pronouns matter.
Perhaps sHE and HEr would accommodate the legalities for publishers.
It would be more honest and accurate to always wrap the gendered pronouns in quotation marks (as you did) when referring to transgender people. That would respect both their apparent desire to be so addressed and English, but it usually seems like too much bother.
Actually, as a language, English has very little gendering. What do, say, French and German do about cross-gender people?
The tail wags the dog. Women are a majority of the population, trans a vanishingly small 0.03%. Flannel-mouthed politicians and media seers would like to have it both ways, but numbers count.
Why is Hadley Freeman using wrong-gender pronouns? Laurel Hubbard is a man. Lia Thomas is a man. Hadley, you undercut every argument you make when you pretend they are women. Pronouns are Rohypnol.
The idea that LGB had anything to do with T was always wrong, an effort to create a political alliance out of groups that had little in common and would be opposed on some things
Creditable as this article is in many ways, the author still calls Hubbard and Thomas ‘she’. Essentially, she has accepted that the so-called trans person is now the other sex. The whole point of the debate is that despite what the person involved thinks, they are NOT the other sex. ‘Laurel’ Hubbard and ‘Lea’ Thomas are still both blokes, as far as the rest of us are concerned. After all, just because the bloke in mental asylum says he’s Napoleon we don’t all start calling him Mon General and saluting him. The spell will be broken when people stop pretending and going along with the ruse.
“Conversion therapy” is too broad a term. For example, a woman in a married same-sex relationship approaches a therapist and explains that she has a strong and unwanted sexual attraction to a man in her office. Can the therapist help get rid of this impulse? .Answer, NO, because that would be conversion therapy. Likewise a man married to a woman but experiencing attraction to another man cannot be helped for the same reason. This makes no sense because everyone who pledges lifelong fidelity in marriage is committing themselves to suppressing ANY feeling of attraction to a third party. We would not regard as an abomination a situation where a therapist offers help to someone trying to be faithful to their marriage partner if the illicit attraction was to someone of the opposite sex. Why is homosexual attraction sacrosanct?
“Sweet how males always stick together”.
No, we don’t, anymore than females always stick together. So, stop second-guessing my opinions.
Alan you missed the sarcasm flag. But there is a wider truth as follows: The difference between male sexuality and female sexuality is like night and day – biologically, emotionally, physically, romantically and socially. (Ever since men have existed, they have happily kept harems if they could get away with it. Women – not so much. In fact there isn’t even a word for a harem for men.) So the idea that sexual behavior is somehow interchangeable between men and women is bonkers.
I don’t pretend to know why any individual wants to change genders. But when an unmodified guy says he is trans and “officially” hangs out in the girl’s locker room, we men know that it’s for a sexual thrill. And THAT is deeply degrading to women. Carnal men have fostered the sexual revolution to maximize their ability to get commitment-free and voyeuristic sex, and pretended that women are liberated. The game is up.
Firstly, my Uncle transitioned in Australia a few years ago aged 70, so I have an awareness and sensitivity about this issue for all people involved as a family. But it’s all gone a bit Pete Tong since then!!
So much so, I was cancelled by a close friend last week, after 29 years supporting her through her divorce, violent relationships, coming out and being a single parent. She called me a Terf for me pointing out whether it was right for straight, intact men to claim to be Lesbians, and to then join gay dating sites expecting sex, as backed up by Stonewall ideology. A lesbian, Stonewall believe, was being Transphobic if she declined sex with a man identifying as a gay female.
Stop the world!! Not sure how we ended up with this crazy situation.
Stonewall used to do great work for gay and Bisexual people, now they just throw women and vulnerable children under a bus.
Listen to Sajid Javid’s interview with Freddie Sayer. He said that sport differentiation should be based on sex not gender. This was published on 31st March.
Was this the real scoop?
I suspect that what moved the needle was the female cyclists’ courage. I think they were prepared to boycott the event and the people who run the sport ran for cover. Now we need some testicular resolution at the Charity Commission. If Stonewall is a charity, Putin is a pacifist.
I agree with you, including about the ‘males sticking together’ thing; the right wing misogyny exhibited on this page is no different from the left wing misogyny of the trans activists. However, ‘Lia’, ‘Laurel’, ‘Caitlyn’ and the rest of them are men. Do not insult women by referring to them as ‘she’.
Just because someone disagrees with your point of view it doesn’t automatically make them a misogynist.
Unfortunately, this writer is part of the problem. While insisting that men-posing-as-women are not actually women, she nevertheless uses female pronouns in referring to them. We are not under any obligation to “affirm” the self-delusions of men who pose as women, no matter how sincerely they believe their own pose. In referring to these males with female pronouns, we reinforce the lies and perpetuate the harms. We have no obligation, moral or otherwise, to be “nice” to those who wish to deceive us.
“I always knew it would start with sport.”
Who could possibly have guessed?
Back in the day when Martina Navratilova speculated that she could compete with men and John McEnroe rubbished her claims there was no “obvious male advantage” to your average feminist.
In fact, the only people who dared to support the “male advantage” theory were decried and hounded as Homer Simpson type troglodytes.
But the question still remains, how do transgenders compete?
Can we not just segregate the results into first female and first trans?
What effects do female hormones have on transgender sporting performance?
Will competing with trans athletes force or encourage female athletes to raise their game?
Should they just compete in male events?
Would a full post-op female hormoned transgender competing in male events be practical or ridiculous?
Very few of these men have surgery. In sports these men are just seeing a loophole and jumping through it. Once the loophole is closed I think we’ll see a drastic reduction in the number of second rate male athletes having the sudden realisation that they are actually women trapped in men’s bodies. Don’t forget Will Thomas was 436 in the men’s category and *amazingly* Lia Thomas was number 1 in the women’s. Quelle surprise!
That was one of the points I tried to make. Segregate the results.
If a trans athlete comes last in a male competition “he” is first trans.
If a trans athlete comes first in a female competition “she” is first trans. The first female is still declared the winner.
The only other choice we have is to exclude them altogether. The chance of there ever being enough trans athletes to compete in their own events is pretty slim.
I can’t see trans athletes being satisfied with segregated results. What’s the point of even being in a competition with other athletes when your results are completely separate to the rest of your competitors? If you’re the only trans person competing on a day you might as well be the only person on the race track or in the pool.
As for the solution… “trans” at this point is such a wide umbrella, including both people who do surgeries and hormonal treatment, and people who do not. There’s no reason why the latter group can’t simply compete with the people of their own biological sex. As for the former, they’ll just have to accept that choosing to put hormones into their bodies makes them different to the people who don’t, and that they don’t have a natural place with either people of their own sex, or the opposite sex. There are no ways to put the trans athletes into the competition with the rest where it doesn’t lead to unfairness, or leaves them at a significant disadvantage.
Yes, I agree. It is to a certain extent a ridiculous notion to segregate the results but it is the ridiculousness that removes the prejudice or bigotry involved in refusing to allow people to compete. If there was only one trans person in the competition they would need to decide for themselves whether or not it was worthwhile to compete. That is a completely different thing to being banned.
Transgender to my mind is quite clear cut. True there is a process to becoming transgender and some people don’t complete it, unless or until they do they are not transgender. Waking up one morning and putting on a dress and claiming you are a woman does not make you transgender. It might be the beginning of the process but, then again, you might just be a man in a dress.
Before any consideration is given to participating in female sporting events the process would need to be completed. Full post-op, as physically female as it’s possible for medical science to achieve.
No, because an operation still does not make the male physically ‘equal’ to a female. They retain their physical superiority conferred on them during puberty. They must just hoof off out of women’s sports.
But you can’t compete without having someone to complete *with*. That’s the whole point of a competition. Saying to people, you can just come along and complete the race with others is meaningless. It’s just a different kind of ban while pretending that it’s not really a ban.
No it’s not. If there were 2 or 3 they would still be able to participate and compete. If there was 4 or more then it would be time to consider having a separate event.
If there was only 1 he/she/they could still participate, they could treat it as personal development until another trans competitor came along.
“It’s sweet how males always stick together, isn’t it?”
That’s rich. The sisterhood is wearing its uniform of p***y hats and their MeToo campaign is canceling men without proof because “believe all women.”
There seems to be an overwhelming majority of male contributors in these comments who are not “sticking together.”
‘Sweet how males always stick together’
No they don’t. And to claim they do undermines an otherwise excellent article. Hadley, I’ve admired your work for a long time (Be Awesome was awesome) but I urge you to resist the Guardian habit of including these thoughtless anti-male swipes. You’re with the a more open-minded publication now. Time to kick the habit.
So much to admire and quote in this piece. I particularly like
After all, in what other scenario are distressed young people encouraged to diagnose and treat themselves?
And, of course, the final paragraph
A glimpse of getting back to normal then? I am very surprised that Starmer doesn’t know what a woman is. Ask that question 20 yrs ago and everyone would have no problem answering, even the infants at school. We live in crazy times, a kind of madness inflicting the west. You wouldn’t even get this in Alice in Wonderland’s tea party.
“Hubbard was widely expected to win gold, despite being 40-years old and therefore about twice as old as her competitors.”
*Hubbard was widely expected to win gold, despite being 40-years old and therefore about twice as old as his competitors.
Let’s rehearse a few maxims:
There is no politics without an enemy.
All activists groups are in the enemy business.
It is very dangerous for a politician’s career to go against an “intransigent minority.”
Women expect to be protected; men know they are expendable.
Politics is the royal road to injustice.
I could go on.
I don’t know whether to be embarrassed or grateful for my naivete. I’ve only really seen headlines about the MP calling himself ‘Trans’. First impressions were that he doesn’t look like a woman who has changed sex – sorry gender. But the media kept referring to ‘him’ so clearly ‘he’ used to be a woman. The more I’ve seen his picture the more I think: OK, he has a slightly chubby, boyish look, so could have been a woman.
It probably doesn’t help that these pages of Unherd only ever refer to ‘trans women’, so my ageing brain had forgotten there is such a thing as a ‘trans man’!
Now I read here that he really is a he? He not had gender reassignment, and he always was male. But he is trans? So is he changing to a woman, but not got to the point of transition?
You had forgotten that trans-men exist?
The overwhelming majority of young trans-sexuals are female to male… Tavistock’s Gender Identity Development Service reports that girls comprise 76 per cent of cases.
My niece is one. I’ve advised my sister in the strongest terms possible to keep her daughter well away from the sadistic paedophiles going by the name of Tavistock GIDS.
One very good way to deal with these people is by means of ridicule:-
What is the rationale for banning talk therapy for those who no longer want the same-sex attraction/behavior? Talk therapy follows the patient and what’s bothering him.
Methinks “(John Cross, Daily Mirror ) and “awful” (Martyn Ziegler, The Times) It’s sweet how males always stick together, isn’t it?” the boys do protest too much.
“While Hubbard was middle aged and in far from peak condition, Thomas is, visibly, a very different story, and her”
You lost me at “her”
It would improve accuracy and honesty to always enclose transgender pronouns in quotation marks, as you did, but they’re a nuisance to type that frequently.
Why don’t you both step outside, and let the rest of us get on with our lives?
Oh Hadley, I haven’t read all the comments, but you’ve made MY day.
Good insights. Conservatives have been complaining about the use of language to alter the conversation for some time. I see you’re still using the silly, conversation stifling term “homophobic.” It’s all in the labeling.
Hadley is experiencing a radicalisation in its proper sense..she has realised the political/lifestyle world she has lived in for so many years,is now uninhabitable.
Welcome Hadley…me too.
‘Ruth Hunt’ is clearly rhyming slang.