Main Edition
US
FR
Would you Adam and Eve it? (Mike Hewitt/Getty Images)
Last weekend brought surprising news: an unprecedented spike in the number of West Ham fans identifying as trans. According to the 2021 Census, the London borough of Newham has the highest proportion of trans people in England and Wales, coming in at a staggering 1.5%. Meanwhile, the “trans-friendly” city of Brighton and Hove languishes in the rankings at a lowly 20th, a bit like the UK at Eurovision.
Marvellous as it is to imagine the Cockney heartlands full of Paris Is Burning re-enactments, a more plausible explanation is that many of those Newhamites answering “yes” to the trans question didn’t understand what they were saying. Newham, after all, has relatively high numbers of immigrants and non-English speakers; and as an investigation by academic Michael Biggs has revealed, the strongest predictor of trans identification within a local authority is the proportion of people whose main language is not English. Once this was pointed out, the Office for National Statistics acknowledged it was “possible” that respondents misinterpreted the question, and confirmed it would investigate the findings.
On reflection, such confusion was easily predictable — and not just for non-native speakers. The Census asked: “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?” Even assuming you successfully parsed its off-putting syntax, a number of serious ambiguities remain.
Is a “gender” a grammatical category, a synonym for maleness or femaleness, a set of sociocultural meanings, or a psychological identity? According to the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary, it could be any of these. So, whether or not you “identify with” a gender (or, even more clumsily, have a “gender you identify with”) will partly depend on what you think “gender” is. It also partly depends upon what you think “to identify with” means, since this is hardly an everyday term. And then there’s the awkward fact that, if you are an immigrant without a birth certificate, you may not take yourself to have a “sex registered at birth” at all.
One might ask why the statisticians at the ONS got this so wrong, given that one of their main jobs is to design survey questions that don’t invite false positives. By the ONS’s own admission, the trans question was trialled by means of “community testing at LGBT History Month events”, which is a bit like gauging atheists’ understanding of the Catholic Mass by means of community testing at the Vatican. Why didn’t those in charge anticipate that a question couched in obscure genderese might stump noninitiates, even if it would please their Stonewall overlords?
The most obvious hypothesis would be that the ONS was cajoled, guilt-tripped, befuddled and emotionally blackmailed into linguistic compliance, like many a fellow national institution before it. Maybe so, but a wider explanation is also available: that those who designed the question didn’t even realise it was couched in obscure genderese. They took their own standards of linguistic apprehension to be universal and binding.
This is a tendency that extends well beyond transactivism. Word choices can have many functions apart from direct communication, and an obvious one is to convey the status of the speaker or author. Now that many of us spend our days sitting around scrolling emails and timelines, reading snippets and writing things with our thumbs, word choices are one of the main opportunities to socially signal. Slang, jargon, abbreviations and buzzwords are all ways to imply that you’re in a particular crowd.
Belonging also requires knowing what words not to use. As social animals, we can’t help but practise what linguistics expert Deborah Cameron calls “verbal hygiene”: trying to purify language of socially problematic word choices. If you’re a well-off Tory, you’ll want to avoid terms such as “toilet”, “lounge” and “settee”. If you’re a well-off Lefty, you’ll want to avoid phrases such as “ladies and gentlemen”, “cancel culture” and “lab leak”. The Right dislikes grammatical solecisms, especially when committed by Angela Rayner; the Left is much more concerned with moral solecisms. Either way, though, it’s at least partly a way of indicating who’s in and who’s out.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeSurely if you want to count transsexuals, you can count the number of sex-change operations conducted each year. I bet the answer is less than 1000.
If you like to wear women’s clobber but want to keep the old fella, you shouldn’t count in the stats.
You’re confusing transvestites with transsexuals. The LGBTQ+ activists have done untold damage to the gay community. Gay activists in the 80’s spent all their time schooling people that they were gay: Fully functional males, not paedos, not liking to dress up in women’s clothes, not a biological anomaly, not men who hate women or had some issues with their mothers. Just Gay
Thank you Brian. Too few people appreciate this.
Many more do not care and are bored stiff by all this pouffe whinging.
Many more do not care and are bored stiff by all this pouffe whinging.
Fair point, but why then did the Gay activists in Stonewall add the TQ+ given the obvious downsides for vanilla Gays? Surely TQ+ could have been told to start their own campaigning organisation instead of piggybacking on a successful organisation and pushing an ideology that seems to be essentially anti-gay?
Given that several founders of Stonewall have now quit and even denounced it, I’m not so sure that they were the activists who pushed for a change of direction. As for those that did, well, what do you do when you win the war and don’t want to lose your influence and income stream?
I thought that Stonewall was a US private equity fund?
I thought that Stonewall was a US private equity fund?
Simple Jeremy, they already had a pathway via their campaign for their hugely successful gay rights campaign and used these networks to keep the cash flowing in by turning their attention to the trans ideology movement.
A bit like drug runners using the old alcohol routes during prohibition.
The gay activists added the TQ+ when it became apparent there was money in it and an opportunity to cause trouble.
Given that several founders of Stonewall have now quit and even denounced it, I’m not so sure that they were the activists who pushed for a change of direction. As for those that did, well, what do you do when you win the war and don’t want to lose your influence and income stream?
Simple Jeremy, they already had a pathway via their campaign for their hugely successful gay rights campaign and used these networks to keep the cash flowing in by turning their attention to the trans ideology movement.
A bit like drug runners using the old alcohol routes during prohibition.
The gay activists added the TQ+ when it became apparent there was money in it and an opportunity to cause trouble.
The “confusing” difference between transvestites and transsexuals is lost on me. High heels and sparkles, I suppose. Otherwise they’re pretty much the same.
My understanding is that transsexuals are people who have the biological characteristics of both sexes, whereas transvestites are people who like to dress in clothes associated with the opposite sex.
Transexual used to mean someone who had medically and surgically ‘transitionec’; they hadn’t changed sex but had simulated the sexual characteristics of the opposite sex and ‘lived as’ the opposite sex.
Transvestite meant someone who wore the clothes and aped the mannerisms of the opposite sex – all of this generally depended on heavily regressive stereotypes of dress and behaviour. They did not remove or modify their sexual characteristics.
You may be confusing transexuals with people with Disorders of Sexual Development (DSDs) which we used to call intersex. They are all either biologically male or biologically female but may have some ambiguities in how genitalia etc have formed during gestation. They are nothing to do with trans though the trans lobby tries to use them to make their arguments.
An excellent and succinct set of definitions, and your use of ‘simulated’ regarding transsexuals is very apt. However, a problem is currently being created by people who seem to fall in between the transsexuals and transvestites, as your ‘used to’ implies. We now have people who ‘self-identify’ as the opposite sex (ie They don’t just dress up in the clothes associated with that sex, but claim to BE that sex), but don’t have the surgery to complete the ‘simulation’.
Thank you Alan. I was careful to place these definitions in the past because the terms and their meanings have been deliberately obscured in the blatant language hijacking.
The current umbrella ‘trans’ identity is really about fantasy, fanaticism, feelings and fetish. Therefore transvestites have been able to find a happy home within it.
Ironically, the group who have been left behind by the current ‘trans’ lobby are the real minority – transexuals as we once recognised them. Those I knew were quiet, self effacing people who went out of their way not to attract notice or distress others.
Thank you Alan. I was careful to place these definitions in the past because the terms and their meanings have been deliberately obscured in the blatant language hijacking.
The current umbrella ‘trans’ identity is really about fantasy, fanaticism, feelings and fetish. Therefore transvestites have been able to find a happy home within it.
Ironically, the group who have been left behind by the current ‘trans’ lobby are the real minority – transexuals as we once recognised them. Those I knew were quiet, self effacing people who went out of their way not to attract notice or distress others.
Those kind of people are incredibly rare.
They are.
So now the ‘science wing’ of trans activism is trying to include all sorts of normal chromosomal variations in their definition of ‘Intersex’ to inflate the numbers. This in turn allows them to add them to the total number of the mythically oppressed.
Those actually diagnosed with DSDs have repeatedly told the TRAs to leave them out of the argument but to no avail.
The trans lobby has no shame.
They are.
So now the ‘science wing’ of trans activism is trying to include all sorts of normal chromosomal variations in their definition of ‘Intersex’ to inflate the numbers. This in turn allows them to add them to the total number of the mythically oppressed.
Those actually diagnosed with DSDs have repeatedly told the TRAs to leave them out of the argument but to no avail.
The trans lobby has no shame.
An excellent and succinct set of definitions, and your use of ‘simulated’ regarding transsexuals is very apt. However, a problem is currently being created by people who seem to fall in between the transsexuals and transvestites, as your ‘used to’ implies. We now have people who ‘self-identify’ as the opposite sex (ie They don’t just dress up in the clothes associated with that sex, but claim to BE that sex), but don’t have the surgery to complete the ‘simulation’.
Those kind of people are incredibly rare.
Transsexuals are those that have had a sex change operation, transvestites are those that dress up as the opposite sex. Transgender is a word made up to blur the lines between the two and confuse the conversation
Eg Isla Bryson
Precisely. He is a transvestite, and exploited the confusion caused by the word transgender to get himself moved to a female prison
Precisely. He is a transvestite, and exploited the confusion caused by the word transgender to get himself moved to a female prison
Eg Isla Bryson
Think you are thinking of intersex people. Trans people are just those who are 1 sex but feel as if they are/should be the other.
Basically a mental illness known as gender dysphoria.
Exactly, Rob: a mental illness deserving pity and, if possible, some form of therapy, but not acceptance of the delusional aspect.
Exactly, Rob: a mental illness deserving pity and, if possible, some form of therapy, but not acceptance of the delusional aspect.
That’s intersex people not transsexuals. Transvestites are focused on the dressing up thing , whereas transsexuals think they have a female ‘soul’ .
Transexual used to mean someone who had medically and surgically ‘transitionec’; they hadn’t changed sex but had simulated the sexual characteristics of the opposite sex and ‘lived as’ the opposite sex.
Transvestite meant someone who wore the clothes and aped the mannerisms of the opposite sex – all of this generally depended on heavily regressive stereotypes of dress and behaviour. They did not remove or modify their sexual characteristics.
You may be confusing transexuals with people with Disorders of Sexual Development (DSDs) which we used to call intersex. They are all either biologically male or biologically female but may have some ambiguities in how genitalia etc have formed during gestation. They are nothing to do with trans though the trans lobby tries to use them to make their arguments.
Transsexuals are those that have had a sex change operation, transvestites are those that dress up as the opposite sex. Transgender is a word made up to blur the lines between the two and confuse the conversation
Think you are thinking of intersex people. Trans people are just those who are 1 sex but feel as if they are/should be the other.
Basically a mental illness known as gender dysphoria.
That’s intersex people not transsexuals. Transvestites are focused on the dressing up thing , whereas transsexuals think they have a female ‘soul’ .
That’s what I thought. Transvestites were those who dressed up as women, but maybe those people have become today’s transexuals because of the new political climate.
My understanding is that transsexuals are people who have the biological characteristics of both sexes, whereas transvestites are people who like to dress in clothes associated with the opposite sex.
That’s what I thought. Transvestites were those who dressed up as women, but maybe those people have become today’s transexuals because of the new political climate.
You have confused yourself, Brian – Matt makes no reference to the ‘gay community’, either explicit or implicit. If you are keen to take offence on behalf of gay men who like to dress as women, please go right ahead, but Matt was distinguishing between persons who have undergone surgery for the purpose of sex reassignment, aka gender-affirming surgery, and those who ‘identify as trans’ in some other way. It seems that Matt thinks these other ways shouldn’t be taken seriously – or at least not for the purposes of the Census. Of course, some alternative forms of ‘gender-affirming treatment’ are deadly serious. And then, for example, there is Thomas Gordon of Edinburgh, caught on CCTV drop-kicking a cat, who simply assumed the name ‘Rebecca’ for his recent court appearance, and immediately became a woman in the eyes of the Court and the Press. Others do nothing at all. A significant number cross-dress. And: the whole article is about the ‘trans census’.
Any attempt to count people in what can only be called a chaotic category was probably doomed from the start. Recently a colleague confided in me that both her 20-something son and daughter are ‘trans-questioning’, and one can only guess what they made of the Census question.
As it is, asked, “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?” 93.5% answered “Yes”, 6% wisely ignored the question, and 0.5% answered “No” – of these about half would not or could not say what they consider their gender to be, which may mean they are totally confused or just having a laugh, 0.10% identified as trans women, 0.10% as trans men, 0.06% as neither one thing or the other, and 0.04% as something else entirely (which we need not go into here).
Adding the trans persons together gives a total of around 96,000, of whom around 6,500 have a Gender Recognition Certificate (assuming that no-one who has one has died or emigrated since 2005). And the total number may, as Professor Stock has pointed out, be greatly inflated due to ideological capture of the ONS. It’s difficult to take any part of this process seriously, but no-one is laughing.
You have confused yourself, Brian – Matt makes no reference to the ‘gay community’, either explicit or implicit. Old fella is code for p***s. If you are keen to take offence on behalf of gay men, please go right ahead, but Matt was distinguishing between persons who have undergone surgery for the purpose of sex reassignment, aka gender-affirming surgery, and those who ‘identify as trans’ in some other way. It seems that Matt thinks these other ways shouldn’t be taken seriously – or at least not for the purposes of the Census. Of course, some alternative forms of ‘gender-affirming treatment’ are deadly serious. And then, for example, there is Thomas Gordon of Edinburgh, caught on CCTV drop-kicking a cat, who simply assumed the name ‘Rebecca’ for his recent court appearance, and immediately became a woman in the eyes of the Court and the Press. Others do nothing at all. A significant number cross-dress. And: the whole article is about the ‘trans census’.
Any attempt to count people in what can only be called a chaotic category was probably doomed from the start. Recently a colleague confided in me that both her 20-something son and daughter are ‘trans-questioning’, and one can only guess what they made of the Census question.
As it is, asked, “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?” 93.5% answered “Yes”, 6% wisely ignored the question, and 0.5% answered “No” – of these about half would not or could not say what they consider their gender to be, which may mean they are totally confused or just having a laugh, 0.10% identified as trans women, 0.10% as trans men, 0.06% as neither one thing or the other, and 0.04% as something else entirely (which we need not go into here).
Adding the trans persons together gives a total of around 96,000, of whom around 6,500 have a Gender Recognition Certificate (assuming that no-one who has one has died or emigrated since 2005). And the total number may, as Professor Stock has pointed out, be greatly inflated due to ideological capture of the ONS. It’s difficult to take any part of this process seriously, but no-one is laughing.
No, Matt is not confusing transvestites with transexuals, he is clearly stating that transvestism is not sufficient grounds to categorise the perpertrator as transexual and that the latter requires serious surgery.
Thank you Brian. Too few people appreciate this.
Fair point, but why then did the Gay activists in Stonewall add the TQ+ given the obvious downsides for vanilla Gays? Surely TQ+ could have been told to start their own campaigning organisation instead of piggybacking on a successful organisation and pushing an ideology that seems to be essentially anti-gay?
The “confusing” difference between transvestites and transsexuals is lost on me. High heels and sparkles, I suppose. Otherwise they’re pretty much the same.
You have confused yourself, Brian – Matt makes no reference to the ‘gay community’, either explicit or implicit. If you are keen to take offence on behalf of gay men who like to dress as women, please go right ahead, but Matt was distinguishing between persons who have undergone surgery for the purpose of sex reassignment, aka gender-affirming surgery, and those who ‘identify as trans’ in some other way. It seems that Matt thinks these other ways shouldn’t be taken seriously – or at least not for the purposes of the Census. Of course, some alternative forms of ‘gender-affirming treatment’ are deadly serious. And then, for example, there is Thomas Gordon of Edinburgh, caught on CCTV drop-kicking a cat, who simply assumed the name ‘Rebecca’ for his recent court appearance, and immediately became a woman in the eyes of the Court and the Press. Others do nothing at all. A significant number cross-dress. And: the whole article is about the ‘trans census’.
Any attempt to count people in what can only be called a chaotic category was probably doomed from the start. Recently a colleague confided in me that both her 20-something son and daughter are ‘trans-questioning’, and one can only guess what they made of the Census question.
As it is, asked, “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?” 93.5% answered “Yes”, 6% wisely ignored the question, and 0.5% answered “No” – of these about half would not or could not say what they consider their gender to be, which may mean they are totally confused or just having a laugh, 0.10% identified as trans women, 0.10% as trans men, 0.06% as neither one thing or the other, and 0.04% as something else entirely (which we need not go into here).
Adding the trans persons together gives a total of around 96,000, of whom around 6,500 have a Gender Recognition Certificate (assuming that no-one who has one has died or emigrated since 2005). And the total number may, as Professor Stock has pointed out, be greatly inflated due to ideological capture of the ONS. It’s difficult to take any part of this process seriously, but no-one is laughing.
You have confused yourself, Brian – Matt makes no reference to the ‘gay community’, either explicit or implicit. Old fella is code for p***s. If you are keen to take offence on behalf of gay men, please go right ahead, but Matt was distinguishing between persons who have undergone surgery for the purpose of sex reassignment, aka gender-affirming surgery, and those who ‘identify as trans’ in some other way. It seems that Matt thinks these other ways shouldn’t be taken seriously – or at least not for the purposes of the Census. Of course, some alternative forms of ‘gender-affirming treatment’ are deadly serious. And then, for example, there is Thomas Gordon of Edinburgh, caught on CCTV drop-kicking a cat, who simply assumed the name ‘Rebecca’ for his recent court appearance, and immediately became a woman in the eyes of the Court and the Press. Others do nothing at all. A significant number cross-dress. And: the whole article is about the ‘trans census’.
Any attempt to count people in what can only be called a chaotic category was probably doomed from the start. Recently a colleague confided in me that both her 20-something son and daughter are ‘trans-questioning’, and one can only guess what they made of the Census question.
As it is, asked, “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?” 93.5% answered “Yes”, 6% wisely ignored the question, and 0.5% answered “No” – of these about half would not or could not say what they consider their gender to be, which may mean they are totally confused or just having a laugh, 0.10% identified as trans women, 0.10% as trans men, 0.06% as neither one thing or the other, and 0.04% as something else entirely (which we need not go into here).
Adding the trans persons together gives a total of around 96,000, of whom around 6,500 have a Gender Recognition Certificate (assuming that no-one who has one has died or emigrated since 2005). And the total number may, as Professor Stock has pointed out, be greatly inflated due to ideological capture of the ONS. It’s difficult to take any part of this process seriously, but no-one is laughing.
No, Matt is not confusing transvestites with transexuals, he is clearly stating that transvestism is not sufficient grounds to categorise the perpertrator as transexual and that the latter requires serious surgery.
You are missing the point. The purpose is to create a contentious, adversarial environment in which the actual terms of debate are so ambiguous, debased and confused as to be useless for purposes of reaching any sort of logical conclusion, in which accusation over-rides evidence and none can be sure of their position from one day to the next.
Read Koestler’s “Darkness at Noon”. Rubashov no longer understand the charges against him, let alone believes them to be true, but is indoctrinated to the point that he accepts unquestioningly that he is being sacrificed to the inscrutable purposes of the Party, and can no longer question the justice of this, far less its legality or desirability.
I think that was the point I was making. If you really wanted to know how many people had amputated their m and two v, it would be easy to do. But the definition has been extended to the point that it is meaningless and covers anyone who ticks the box. And this redefinition was done, as you say, deliberately to obscure and overwhelm. The Darkness at Noon comparison is a good one. I found it a very troubling book when I was at university many years ago.
Yes, great book.
There are many others of course like “Captive Mind” by Milosz, 1984 and “Homage to Catalonia” by Orwell and Solzehitsin works.
Then poetry of Marina Cvetayeva, Osip Mandelstam and Ahmatova.
All should be required readings in Westerns schools and universities.
Instead miseducated youth reads rubbish by Hobsbawm, Derida, Facoult and Gramschi.
That is why we get woke morons being taken in by BLM, Climate Emergency etc.
I am old, so I hope not to see fall of the West.
I think that was the point I was making. If you really wanted to know how many people had amputated their m and two v, it would be easy to do. But the definition has been extended to the point that it is meaningless and covers anyone who ticks the box. And this redefinition was done, as you say, deliberately to obscure and overwhelm. The Darkness at Noon comparison is a good one. I found it a very troubling book when I was at university many years ago.
Yes, great book.
There are many others of course like “Captive Mind” by Milosz, 1984 and “Homage to Catalonia” by Orwell and Solzehitsin works.
Then poetry of Marina Cvetayeva, Osip Mandelstam and Ahmatova.
All should be required readings in Westerns schools and universities.
Instead miseducated youth reads rubbish by Hobsbawm, Derida, Facoult and Gramschi.
That is why we get woke morons being taken in by BLM, Climate Emergency etc.
I am old, so I hope not to see fall of the West.
That would be a simply answer; and it would be good if this accounted for it everything, but alas there’s more to it that than removing and remolding body parts. Trans means changing, as well as changed. It used to take years to qualify for the trans op., you had to prove a commitment to it. It was a much monitored process. So many folk who are transsexual are in the a state of flux – waiting for the body parts to match as best they can with what they feel and identify with. It’s far far more than shopping for clothes to confirm a sexually identity.
There are many who claim to be transsexual who have no intention of having any surgery . They talk about their p***s being a woman’s p***s and often berate lesbians for excluding them from their love interest through bigotry
There are many who claim to be transsexual who have no intention of having any surgery . They talk about their p***s being a woman’s p***s and often berate lesbians for excluding them from their love interest through bigotry
You’re confusing transvestites with transsexuals. The LGBTQ+ activists have done untold damage to the gay community. Gay activists in the 80’s spent all their time schooling people that they were gay: Fully functional males, not paedos, not liking to dress up in women’s clothes, not a biological anomaly, not men who hate women or had some issues with their mothers. Just Gay
You are missing the point. The purpose is to create a contentious, adversarial environment in which the actual terms of debate are so ambiguous, debased and confused as to be useless for purposes of reaching any sort of logical conclusion, in which accusation over-rides evidence and none can be sure of their position from one day to the next.
Read Koestler’s “Darkness at Noon”. Rubashov no longer understand the charges against him, let alone believes them to be true, but is indoctrinated to the point that he accepts unquestioningly that he is being sacrificed to the inscrutable purposes of the Party, and can no longer question the justice of this, far less its legality or desirability.
That would be a simply answer; and it would be good if this accounted for it everything, but alas there’s more to it that than removing and remolding body parts. Trans means changing, as well as changed. It used to take years to qualify for the trans op., you had to prove a commitment to it. It was a much monitored process. So many folk who are transsexual are in the a state of flux – waiting for the body parts to match as best they can with what they feel and identify with. It’s far far more than shopping for clothes to confirm a sexually identity.
Surely if you want to count transsexuals, you can count the number of sex-change operations conducted each year. I bet the answer is less than 1000.
If you like to wear women’s clobber but want to keep the old fella, you shouldn’t count in the stats.
“ Mitchell received a 12-month community order including 20 rehabilitation days, 150 hours’ unpaid work, and a fine of £1,500”
Never dreamed I would see such a reaction to an opinion expressed in England, for heaven’s sake. North Korea, certainly. The Soviet Union of my childhood nightmares, sure. But England? Why is simply accepted? How did we reach this point?
(Mods, why was this held up? Very disappointing.)
Well quite – what “crime” was he said to have committed? Probably one of the discretionary “incitement” offenses to which you can now slap on a “hate” label and throw the book at the hapless tweeter.
I suggest everyone gets on Bookface an posts that the drag queen in question was “grooming children” and that the parents of attendees “clearly have serious issues and should have their devices checked”
I did exactly this on this page about two minutes before reading your comment.
It appears to have been deleted, so I have just reinstated it.
It appears to have been deleted, so I have just reinstated it.
I did exactly this on this page about two minutes before reading your comment.
I suggest everyone gets on Bookface an posts that the drag queen in question was “grooming children” and that the parents of attendees “clearly have serious issues and should have their devices checked”
What concerns me here, is total lack of legal assistance for people in his situation.
Maybe if Lord Sumption was on his case the result would be different?
Or we would have some reporting in the press.
UK looks more like late day communism.
You will not be killed anymore for expressing “wrong” opinions but you would loose job etc…
Well quite – what “crime” was he said to have committed? Probably one of the discretionary “incitement” offenses to which you can now slap on a “hate” label and throw the book at the hapless tweeter.
What concerns me here, is total lack of legal assistance for people in his situation.
Maybe if Lord Sumption was on his case the result would be different?
Or we would have some reporting in the press.
UK looks more like late day communism.
You will not be killed anymore for expressing “wrong” opinions but you would loose job etc…
“ Mitchell received a 12-month community order including 20 rehabilitation days, 150 hours’ unpaid work, and a fine of £1,500”
Never dreamed I would see such a reaction to an opinion expressed in England, for heaven’s sake. North Korea, certainly. The Soviet Union of my childhood nightmares, sure. But England? Why is simply accepted? How did we reach this point?
(Mods, why was this held up? Very disappointing.)
First Mary Harrington. Now Kathleen Stock.
Unherd has just the best writers out there.
I’d include Julie Bindel and agree – it seems Unherd have some of the most fearless and talented writers of our time, and we need and appreciate every single word!
Kathleen Stock is a SUPERB writer. Fearless, lucid and funny – and always original
Kathleen spent the majority of her life stirring up the sort of ‘liberal-progressive’ problems she now riles against – until the so-called progessives’ continous ‘progress’ left her behind and they came looking for her.
Yes, she is great writer but your point stands.
She was part of revolution when it was in Danton stage (or Bucharin in case of Soviet state) but is not happy now when we get to Robespierre and Stalin purges of mid and late 30s.
I somehow doubt that she will appreciate that she is not in prison or shot by her former comrades…
Thanks to misogynist state which still protects her…
Yes, she is great writer but your point stands.
She was part of revolution when it was in Danton stage (or Bucharin in case of Soviet state) but is not happy now when we get to Robespierre and Stalin purges of mid and late 30s.
I somehow doubt that she will appreciate that she is not in prison or shot by her former comrades…
Thanks to misogynist state which still protects her…
Kathleen spent the majority of her life stirring up the sort of ‘liberal-progressive’ problems she now riles against – until the so-called progessives’ continous ‘progress’ left her behind and they came looking for her.
I’d include Julie Bindel and agree – it seems Unherd have some of the most fearless and talented writers of our time, and we need and appreciate every single word!
Kathleen Stock is a SUPERB writer. Fearless, lucid and funny – and always original
First Mary Harrington. Now Kathleen Stock.
Unherd has just the best writers out there.
I am a West Ham fan and I done speak the lingo good enough. My stock response to the census is to assume that the New Elite (The elite that Professor Stock believes does not exist, and that she wouldn’t be a member of, even if it did) will use the results to stiff me – So I lie. Sometimes the simple explanations are the best.
Is that ‘tattooed oaf’ in the caption photo wearing West Ham or Aston Villa?
West Ham (check the badge on the shirt). Top kit. Top fans. Used to have one of the best old grounds in the country.
Probably a really nice guy for all we know. Is the tattoo Chinese or Japanese ?
Thank you! Photo definition on my tiny i-pad is rather poor.
I have no doubt he is a splendid chap, ‘salt of the earth’ etc, however he does appear to be in ‘oaf mode’, which is not meant as a criticism, but merely as an observation.
If someone’ could translate the tattoos it would be interesting.
I also note no ‘invaders’ seem to present in the exuberant crowd, which says something for a Club buried deep in the bowels of East London.
They look Chinese.
The individual characters on his right arm – from top to bottom – seem to be friendship, love, strength, belief (?), laughter, and dreams. Not sure if they combine to one word.
No idea about his left arm.
No, Palestinian.. ” The Hamas” as they are known at Upton Park!
Agreed, Chinese. The character for “belief” could also be read as “trust”. His left arm, at a guess, has Taiwanese versions of Chinese characters since the mainland has been simplifying the more complex pictograms since the days of Mao. Off topic, sorry.
Thank you!
Yeah. You gotta watch out for his left.
My Chinese friend tells me that the left arm is a Chinese girl’s name – Shu Lee – presumably our hero’s current or former girlfriend who persuaded him to get the tattoos. The two outer characters are simplified script; the middle one complex.
No, Palestinian.. ” The Hamas” as they are known at Upton Park!
Agreed, Chinese. The character for “belief” could also be read as “trust”. His left arm, at a guess, has Taiwanese versions of Chinese characters since the mainland has been simplifying the more complex pictograms since the days of Mao. Off topic, sorry.
Thank you!
Yeah. You gotta watch out for his left.
My Chinese friend tells me that the left arm is a Chinese girl’s name – Shu Lee – presumably our hero’s current or former girlfriend who persuaded him to get the tattoos. The two outer characters are simplified script; the middle one complex.
Well, invaders are not really into football.
They are into cricket.
Always failing Norman Tebitt test…
They look Chinese.
The individual characters on his right arm – from top to bottom – seem to be friendship, love, strength, belief (?), laughter, and dreams. Not sure if they combine to one word.
No idea about his left arm.
Well, invaders are not really into football.
They are into cricket.
Always failing Norman Tebitt test…
Thank you! Photo definition on my tiny i-pad is rather poor.
I have no doubt he is a splendid chap, ‘salt of the earth’ etc, however he does appear to be in ‘oaf mode’, which is not meant as a criticism, but merely as an observation.
If someone’ could translate the tattoos it would be interesting.
I also note no ‘invaders’ seem to present in the exuberant crowd, which says something for a Club buried deep in the bowels of East London.
West Ham. We do have an exuberant wing. Actually, the obvious give-away, even without the badge, is the astonishment on his face – We have won a match?!
One really must congratulate Unherd for digging out this photo to head up a Kathleen Stock article on the West Ham supporting trans community.
Pictures, words, thousands, comes to mind.
Was it this year.
Chelsea supporters, so not much to cheer either…
One really must congratulate Unherd for digging out this photo to head up a Kathleen Stock article on the West Ham supporting trans community.
Pictures, words, thousands, comes to mind.
Was it this year.
Chelsea supporters, so not much to cheer either…
West Ham (check the badge on the shirt). Top kit. Top fans. Used to have one of the best old grounds in the country.
Probably a really nice guy for all we know. Is the tattoo Chinese or Japanese ?
West Ham. We do have an exuberant wing. Actually, the obvious give-away, even without the badge, is the astonishment on his face – We have won a match?!
Very useful and adult behaviour/
Are you being a tad sarky Linda? What do you suggest that I do – eat my greens like a good little boy?
Are you being a tad sarky Linda? What do you suggest that I do – eat my greens like a good little boy?
Standen, Bond, Burkett, Bovingdon, Brown, Moore, Brabrook, Boyce, Byrne, Hurst, Sissons… all of my heart… remember ’64
OK, but why would you declare for pseudo women side?
Surely, you are giving ammunition to all the nutters who claim that many people are gender fluid.
My response to them would be:
So you are claiming to be a women?
Well, put your b**ls in this vice then…
Is that ‘tattooed oaf’ in the caption photo wearing West Ham or Aston Villa?
Very useful and adult behaviour/
Standen, Bond, Burkett, Bovingdon, Brown, Moore, Brabrook, Boyce, Byrne, Hurst, Sissons… all of my heart… remember ’64
OK, but why would you declare for pseudo women side?
Surely, you are giving ammunition to all the nutters who claim that many people are gender fluid.
My response to them would be:
So you are claiming to be a women?
Well, put your b**ls in this vice then…
I am a West Ham fan and I done speak the lingo good enough. My stock response to the census is to assume that the New Elite (The elite that Professor Stock believes does not exist, and that she wouldn’t be a member of, even if it did) will use the results to stiff me – So I lie. Sometimes the simple explanations are the best.
This fad or social contagion or whatever it is that emotionally fragile, often autistic children have embraced has gone on far too long. You think this sh*t would be tolerated in African countries? The Middle East? Poland? Singapore? China? The fact that we get articles every other day about this illustrates just how ludicrously tolerant of aberration we’ve become. Douglas Murray was absolutely correct when he cited some silly junior editor who stamped her little foot about publishing a J.K. Rowling book because one of her friends was “non-binary” (paraphrasing): “Why didn’t the people in charge say ‘We don’t care. Shut up’”.
I hope UnHerd will take his advice.
Precisely, ‘we’ are rapidly becoming a bunch of worthless bed wetting spastics. This has to STOP…….NOW!
Precisely, ‘we’ are rapidly becoming a bunch of worthless bed wetting spastics. This has to STOP…….NOW!
This fad or social contagion or whatever it is that emotionally fragile, often autistic children have embraced has gone on far too long. You think this sh*t would be tolerated in African countries? The Middle East? Poland? Singapore? China? The fact that we get articles every other day about this illustrates just how ludicrously tolerant of aberration we’ve become. Douglas Murray was absolutely correct when he cited some silly junior editor who stamped her little foot about publishing a J.K. Rowling book because one of her friends was “non-binary” (paraphrasing): “Why didn’t the people in charge say ‘We don’t care. Shut up’”.
I hope UnHerd will take his advice.
In answer to Paul Goodman, it took Rishi Sunak well over a minute to say that he believed in biological sex, “as a general, as a general, as a general kind of operating principle.” But he will do nothing about even that. The entire public sector and its vast network of contractors have come to treat gender self-identification as already the law entirely since 2015. Go back to 2010, and the concept itself was unheard of.
All of the right-wing media outlets are in internal turmoil over this issue, although none more so than the Daily Telegraph. Its contributors’ columns have rarely borne any resemblance to their lifestyles, and the rising stars, the Conservative MPs and Ministers of the future, have been told in no uncertain terms that their careers inside the Conservative Party were being at least potentially frustrated by the line against gender self-identification. Accordingly, a shift is already discernible, and will soon enough be complete.
Gender-bending like this is a psychological attack on the peoples of the West. Those who equivocate about biological terms like ‘man’ and ‘woman’ know full well what they are doing. It is an extreme hate movement disguised as kindness.
Who really cares one way or the other!
I doubt anybody in say, Middleton-in-Teesdale gives a toss about this nonsense!
You’re right in that they probably don’t care, but the problem starts to arise when all the real-world effects are foisted upon them – when their daughters have to compete against boys/men in sport, when their wives have to share hospital wards with men etc. It’s not just the trans issue that is going to cause problems down the line, when the meanings of every-day words are changed by fiat then people can run into legal problems and could end up in prison, and if you are a woman you will have to share that prison with a (possibly predatory) man. I would like to close my eyes, put my fingers in my ears and hum loudly, but none of this is going away without some sort of opposition, it’s just that I don’t know how to effectively oppose, other than by supporting people like Inaya Folarin Iman, Dr Wanjiru Njoya, Alka Sehgal Cuthbert, and organisations like The Equiano Project, Don’t divide Us, Sex Matters.
Like you, I lived through the 60’s when there was plenty of ‘alternative nonsense’ being bandied around.
Eventually ‘they’ grew up and it passed. I trust the same will happen again.
Indeed we did grow out of it. The difference was that, even then, we knew it was nonsense. Just look at the swivel-eyed expression on the faces of the trans kids – They believe.
Not sure one can grow out of genital mutilation!
Gender mutilation should be a capital offence, no ifs, no buts!
Gender mutilation should be a capital offence, no ifs, no buts!
Indeed we did grow out of it. The difference was that, even then, we knew it was nonsense. Just look at the swivel-eyed expression on the faces of the trans kids – They believe.
Not sure one can grow out of genital mutilation!
The best form of opposition is to laugh in their faces.
Yessss!!!!
Yessss!!!!
Exactly how I feel. We must support the objectors.
A very good series of points.
I think effective opposition is to engage in any activity that you are capable of. Like you, I support those you mention and also try to get the word out there in a reasoned manner, in as many forums that deal with this issue. I have tried to engage with true believer activists but found the communication unproductive – there was no common agreement regarding rules of discourse.
One person that I do support is James Lindsay. He is being very effective in meeting with politicians both in the US and in Europe and presenting a wide ranging analysis of what is going on. For example, he recently spoke, with Frank Furedi, at a European Parliament conference. He gave what I think is a most clear breakdown of the ideology and activism rationale.
His speech – and Furedi’s – can be found of the YouTube channel ‘Paul Boonefaes’.
Like you, I lived through the 60’s when there was plenty of ‘alternative nonsense’ being bandied around.
Eventually ‘they’ grew up and it passed. I trust the same will happen again.
The best form of opposition is to laugh in their faces.
Exactly how I feel. We must support the objectors.
A very good series of points.
I think effective opposition is to engage in any activity that you are capable of. Like you, I support those you mention and also try to get the word out there in a reasoned manner, in as many forums that deal with this issue. I have tried to engage with true believer activists but found the communication unproductive – there was no common agreement regarding rules of discourse.
One person that I do support is James Lindsay. He is being very effective in meeting with politicians both in the US and in Europe and presenting a wide ranging analysis of what is going on. For example, he recently spoke, with Frank Furedi, at a European Parliament conference. He gave what I think is a most clear breakdown of the ideology and activism rationale.
His speech – and Furedi’s – can be found of the YouTube channel ‘Paul Boonefaes’.
Lower Middleton on Pang?
No, just to the north of Barnard Castle. *
(* scene of that wretch Dom’ Cummings’s “eyesight test”.)
No, just to the north of Barnard Castle. *
(* scene of that wretch Dom’ Cummings’s “eyesight test”.)
Oh yes? Wait until the females there go in for a cervical smear and find its done by a man wearing a dress. You’ll see then just how quickly this will become a real polling issue, just as Ms Sturgeon did.
Or they find out the same sex care specified for their disabled daughter is now provided by a bloke called Barbie – including changing her menstrual products etc.
Or their elderly mother on her single sex hospital ward is terrified of the man visibly masturbating in the next bed.
Or they find out the same sex care specified for their disabled daughter is now provided by a bloke called Barbie – including changing her menstrual products etc.
Or their elderly mother on her single sex hospital ward is terrified of the man visibly masturbating in the next bed.
You’re right in that they probably don’t care, but the problem starts to arise when all the real-world effects are foisted upon them – when their daughters have to compete against boys/men in sport, when their wives have to share hospital wards with men etc. It’s not just the trans issue that is going to cause problems down the line, when the meanings of every-day words are changed by fiat then people can run into legal problems and could end up in prison, and if you are a woman you will have to share that prison with a (possibly predatory) man. I would like to close my eyes, put my fingers in my ears and hum loudly, but none of this is going away without some sort of opposition, it’s just that I don’t know how to effectively oppose, other than by supporting people like Inaya Folarin Iman, Dr Wanjiru Njoya, Alka Sehgal Cuthbert, and organisations like The Equiano Project, Don’t divide Us, Sex Matters.
Lower Middleton on Pang?
Oh yes? Wait until the females there go in for a cervical smear and find its done by a man wearing a dress. You’ll see then just how quickly this will become a real polling issue, just as Ms Sturgeon did.
There’s an ever widening gap between the political and journalist classes, and the rest of the population, and I think that gender ideology demonstrates this most starkly. Even as the Daily Mail is reporting on varied trans identifying individuals, even when they are criminals, their writers are bending over backwards to avoid “misgendering”, yet the commentariat are increasingly rejecting this approach, and consistently “misgendering” by daring to ignore all this nonsense in favour of basic biological reality.
Similar is being seen in the comments here of course, but the commentariat of here, and of the Mail are mostly from very different sections of the populace. The Guardianesque affirmative approach is being increasingly ridiculed and isolated, and even many of the activist types are stepping back from it, as the purity cycle completes another cycle, and alienates more and more bar those already neck deep, or young or silly enough to place being on trend above any engagement of their critical faculties.
This schism cannot continue to widen without severe repercussions on society, and I have a hunch that it is the political and journalist classes who will have to fold to the majority as an act of self preservation, no matter what the shadowy influences pulling the reins on this psychological warfare have to say on the matter.
Whither Suzanne Moore? She and her sisters have a point that the views of young men are given priority over those of mature women. The question is which young men. In the early Corbyn years, I remember very young, very left-wing men who were totally sound on this and on Brexit, just as Jeremy Corbyn’s own very old friends around Counterfire and the Morning Star were and are. They were no crypto-Greens, either. But Corbyn chose whoever it was that he chose instead, so here we are. And behind that was what is also behind the right-wing media’s emerging choice of sides on, mark my words, all three of those matters. The old, old favourite. Class.
The best that can be said for The Guardian is that, unlike on the right-wing papers, its writers do at least believe what they are saying. If you wanted a daily, print newspaper that supported Brexit, opposed gender self-identification, and was sceptical of Greenery, or even that managed to be any one of those things, then you will always have the Morning Star. Give it two years, and you will have nothing else. It would be less than a year, if the General Election were sooner. Moore might become a columnist on the Morning Star, having started out on Marxism Today, the voice of the other side of the split between Eurocommunists and those who had continued to insist on the priority of class.
It was in Marxism Today that Moore’s mentor, the late Professor Stuart Hall, first wrote of “Thatcherism”, and this is where Thatcherism has inevitably ended up. Margaret Thatcher was last depicted on British television, for the first time in quite a while, in December’s Prince Andrew: The Musical, the title of which spoke for itself, and in which she was played by one Baga Chipz, a drag queen. Well, of course. Gender self-identification is the inexorable logic of the self-made man or the self-made woman, and a figure comparable to Thatcher, emerging in the Britain of the 2020s, would be assumed to be a transwoman, just as Thatcher herself emerged in the Britain of everything from Danny La Rue and D**k Emery to David Bowie and The Rocky Horror Show. In a generation’s time, everyone will be saying out loud that Tony Blair had always been as androgynous as Thatcher was. Leo Abse wrote eye-opening books on both of them.
Surely you don’t believe in any of this tosh?
Do you remember the spectacular Belah Viaduct in the high days of steam? Or perhaps a stroll up glorious Buttertubs Pass?
Somethings have value, but sadly most don’t.
Surely you don’t believe in any of this tosh?
Do you remember the spectacular Belah Viaduct in the high days of steam? Or perhaps a stroll up glorious Buttertubs Pass?
Somethings have value, but sadly most don’t.
Trying to force us to use “they” as a singular pronoun was just a bridge too far for their activist plans. It’s clumsy and confusing and just doesn’t work. It was their “straw that broke the camel’s back”; the ruin of all their activism. Ten years from now no one will even remember.
Whither Suzanne Moore? She and her sisters have a point that the views of young men are given priority over those of mature women. The question is which young men. In the early Corbyn years, I remember very young, very left-wing men who were totally sound on this and on Brexit, just as Jeremy Corbyn’s own very old friends around Counterfire and the Morning Star were and are. They were no crypto-Greens, either. But Corbyn chose whoever it was that he chose instead, so here we are. And behind that was what is also behind the right-wing media’s emerging choice of sides on, mark my words, all three of those matters. The old, old favourite. Class.
The best that can be said for The Guardian is that, unlike on the right-wing papers, its writers do at least believe what they are saying. If you wanted a daily, print newspaper that supported Brexit, opposed gender self-identification, and was sceptical of Greenery, or even that managed to be any one of those things, then you will always have the Morning Star. Give it two years, and you will have nothing else. It would be less than a year, if the General Election were sooner. Moore might become a columnist on the Morning Star, having started out on Marxism Today, the voice of the other side of the split between Eurocommunists and those who had continued to insist on the priority of class.
It was in Marxism Today that Moore’s mentor, the late Professor Stuart Hall, first wrote of “Thatcherism”, and this is where Thatcherism has inevitably ended up. Margaret Thatcher was last depicted on British television, for the first time in quite a while, in December’s Prince Andrew: The Musical, the title of which spoke for itself, and in which she was played by one Baga Chipz, a drag queen. Well, of course. Gender self-identification is the inexorable logic of the self-made man or the self-made woman, and a figure comparable to Thatcher, emerging in the Britain of the 2020s, would be assumed to be a transwoman, just as Thatcher herself emerged in the Britain of everything from Danny La Rue and D**k Emery to David Bowie and The Rocky Horror Show. In a generation’s time, everyone will be saying out loud that Tony Blair had always been as androgynous as Thatcher was. Leo Abse wrote eye-opening books on both of them.
Trying to force us to use “they” as a singular pronoun was just a bridge too far for their activist plans. It’s clumsy and confusing and just doesn’t work. It was their “straw that broke the camel’s back”; the ruin of all their activism. Ten years from now no one will even remember.
Gender-bending like this is a psychological attack on the peoples of the West. Those who equivocate about biological terms like ‘man’ and ‘woman’ know full well what they are doing. It is an extreme hate movement disguised as kindness.
Who really cares one way or the other!
I doubt anybody in say, Middleton-in-Teesdale gives a toss about this nonsense!
There’s an ever widening gap between the political and journalist classes, and the rest of the population, and I think that gender ideology demonstrates this most starkly. Even as the Daily Mail is reporting on varied trans identifying individuals, even when they are criminals, their writers are bending over backwards to avoid “misgendering”, yet the commentariat are increasingly rejecting this approach, and consistently “misgendering” by daring to ignore all this nonsense in favour of basic biological reality.
Similar is being seen in the comments here of course, but the commentariat of here, and of the Mail are mostly from very different sections of the populace. The Guardianesque affirmative approach is being increasingly ridiculed and isolated, and even many of the activist types are stepping back from it, as the purity cycle completes another cycle, and alienates more and more bar those already neck deep, or young or silly enough to place being on trend above any engagement of their critical faculties.
This schism cannot continue to widen without severe repercussions on society, and I have a hunch that it is the political and journalist classes who will have to fold to the majority as an act of self preservation, no matter what the shadowy influences pulling the reins on this psychological warfare have to say on the matter.
In answer to Paul Goodman, it took Rishi Sunak well over a minute to say that he believed in biological sex, “as a general, as a general, as a general kind of operating principle.” But he will do nothing about even that. The entire public sector and its vast network of contractors have come to treat gender self-identification as already the law entirely since 2015. Go back to 2010, and the concept itself was unheard of.
All of the right-wing media outlets are in internal turmoil over this issue, although none more so than the Daily Telegraph. Its contributors’ columns have rarely borne any resemblance to their lifestyles, and the rising stars, the Conservative MPs and Ministers of the future, have been told in no uncertain terms that their careers inside the Conservative Party were being at least potentially frustrated by the line against gender self-identification. Accordingly, a shift is already discernible, and will soon enough be complete.
A lot of trans answers were probably of the sort of snook cocking that produced 390,000 followers of the Jedi religion in the 2001 Census in England and Wales.
If that’s so, then you can see the problems that arise from being facitious on the census forms.
It’s why the census has never really been fit for purpose, and so error laden that everything it claims needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
I’ve done a lot of historical research using census data, and people have consistently lied about their age, their marital status, etc, for every single census that has ever been conducted.
In the present, we don’t really have much social incentive for lying about marital status, and it’s harder to lie about age in the digital era, but things like religion and gender identity, where the only evidence is a self-declaration, and a multitude of reasons for people to lie, and you see the same thing happening.
All that has changed is what people lie about on the forms.
What makes you think that we followers of THE JEDI were being facetious?
It’s why the census has never really been fit for purpose, and so error laden that everything it claims needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
I’ve done a lot of historical research using census data, and people have consistently lied about their age, their marital status, etc, for every single census that has ever been conducted.
In the present, we don’t really have much social incentive for lying about marital status, and it’s harder to lie about age in the digital era, but things like religion and gender identity, where the only evidence is a self-declaration, and a multitude of reasons for people to lie, and you see the same thing happening.
All that has changed is what people lie about on the forms.
What makes you think that we followers of THE JEDI were being facetious?
Snook cocking?
Isn’t that what the trans community get up to in lieu of intercourse?
I suspect snook cocking was the mildest annoyance Kathleen Stock had to put up with from that community at Sussex. What they indulge in in private I think should remain private if it involves consenting adults and doesn’t increase trips to A&E.
Brilliant!!!!
I suspect snook cocking was the mildest annoyance Kathleen Stock had to put up with from that community at Sussex. What they indulge in in private I think should remain private if it involves consenting adults and doesn’t increase trips to A&E.
Brilliant!!!!
If that’s so, then you can see the problems that arise from being facitious on the census forms.
Snook cocking?
Isn’t that what the trans community get up to in lieu of intercourse?
A lot of trans answers were probably of the sort of snook cocking that produced 390,000 followers of the Jedi religion in the 2001 Census in England and Wales.
A phenomenon described well by Orwell in 1984 – NewSpeak – a language specifically designed to prevent you discussing – and ultimately even thinking double plus bad things.
Its been a prime tactic of the left for as long as I can remember.
A phenomenon described well by Orwell in 1984 – NewSpeak – a language specifically designed to prevent you discussing – and ultimately even thinking double plus bad things.
Its been a prime tactic of the left for as long as I can remember.
You’re not allowed to say ‘flashers’ any more.
You have to say ‘Participants in Channel 4 programmes’.
Political correctness gone mad!
Congratulations. You win today’s internet genius comment prize. Please accept an upvote with my compliments.
Congratulations. You win today’s internet genius comment prize. Please accept an upvote with my compliments.
You’re not allowed to say ‘flashers’ any more.
You have to say ‘Participants in Channel 4 programmes’.
Political correctness gone mad!
What PERVERTED times we live in !
Sadly nothing like Ancient Rome in its heyday.
True, and look what happened to it.
True, and look what happened to it.
Sadly nothing like Ancient Rome in its heyday.
What PERVERTED times we live in !
The reason for the complete mess we now find ourselves in is the abandonment of objective reality for the idea that the world is entirely self created, i.e. solipsism. It is a deep & fundamental philosophical change brought about by a (to my mind) incorrect interpretation of quantum mechanics seized on by French philosophers as a means to defeat British empiricism & pragmatism.
Philosophy is ignored & dismissed as something nebulous & irrelevant by most people, but if you don’t understand the beliefs underpinning your life then basically you’re stuffed. Unless somebody gets hold of the intellectual malaise affecting our leaders & institutions, academic & otherwise, then we’re off to Hell in a Handcart.
In my opinion, we’re there already.
You mean those oikophobes such as Derrida, Foucault, Lacan & Co?
Weren’t our own, Laski, Miliband Hobsbawm & Co just as bad?
Either way if this continues people will soon start chanting “Come back Adolph, all is forgiven “. We have been warned.
To get a solid grip all one has to do is read Aristotle, then a bit if Aquinas. Ignore all post-enlightenment philosophers.
In my opinion, we’re there already.
You mean those oikophobes such as Derrida, Foucault, Lacan & Co?
Weren’t our own, Laski, Miliband Hobsbawm & Co just as bad?
Either way if this continues people will soon start chanting “Come back Adolph, all is forgiven “. We have been warned.
To get a solid grip all one has to do is read Aristotle, then a bit if Aquinas. Ignore all post-enlightenment philosophers.
The reason for the complete mess we now find ourselves in is the abandonment of objective reality for the idea that the world is entirely self created, i.e. solipsism. It is a deep & fundamental philosophical change brought about by a (to my mind) incorrect interpretation of quantum mechanics seized on by French philosophers as a means to defeat British empiricism & pragmatism.
Philosophy is ignored & dismissed as something nebulous & irrelevant by most people, but if you don’t understand the beliefs underpinning your life then basically you’re stuffed. Unless somebody gets hold of the intellectual malaise affecting our leaders & institutions, academic & otherwise, then we’re off to Hell in a Handcart.
The Census has gone down the road of being written by policy people who use language as a code for other policy people! Having been one such person in a former life but for a charity not a public body, my head was flat from constantly saying “if you want people to take part, write everything in plain language that they will understand. When you strangle the language, you strangle involvement.” I got strange looks and whispers behind hands…
The trans question is policy speak. Don’t know about the English Census, but in Scotland, it was optional. Most people ignored it!
Yep, I refused to answer. Also, the census data for Scotland and the rest of the UK is now a year apart and un-interoperable. Another gold-star furq up by Sturgeon.
Yep, I refused to answer. Also, the census data for Scotland and the rest of the UK is now a year apart and un-interoperable. Another gold-star furq up by Sturgeon.
The Census has gone down the road of being written by policy people who use language as a code for other policy people! Having been one such person in a former life but for a charity not a public body, my head was flat from constantly saying “if you want people to take part, write everything in plain language that they will understand. When you strangle the language, you strangle involvement.” I got strange looks and whispers behind hands…
The trans question is policy speak. Don’t know about the English Census, but in Scotland, it was optional. Most people ignored it!
I do wish UnHerd would filter out comments that do not address the ideas presented in its articles. Many of those for this item are merely reactions to others’ off-topic remarks. For people who merely want to interact online there are other platforms available.
Kathleen Stock has identified a very serious and poisonous problem, and outlined how its perpetrators weasel their ideas into prominence by using neologisms that appeal to uncritical users. Once their terminologies become everyday usage, it is difficult to disarm them. The mainstream press, notably The Guardian, but others, too, eagerly use this ‘wokist’ language for the public to absorb–and absorb it they do. Terms such as ‘gender’ are, as Kathleen points out, vague in meaning, but pass unquestioning readers by with ease. Politicians, too, use them even when drawing up government documents. Words such as ‘cisgender’, and ‘heteronormative’, to name but two, are examples I’ve come across in print recently, as if they were not manipulative language.
Kathleen’s idea of exempting children and the elderly (the latter is not an insulting term) from blame for using ‘unauthorised’ language is a good one, but does not go far enough: we, all of us, need to be on guard and militant against the language vandals, calling them out, just as they do presumptiously to anyone who criticises them–before it’s too late.
I do wish UnHerd would filter out comments that do not address the ideas presented in its articles. Many of those for this item are merely reactions to others’ off-topic remarks. For people who merely want to interact online there are other platforms available.
Kathleen Stock has identified a very serious and poisonous problem, and outlined how its perpetrators weasel their ideas into prominence by using neologisms that appeal to uncritical users. Once their terminologies become everyday usage, it is difficult to disarm them. The mainstream press, notably The Guardian, but others, too, eagerly use this ‘wokist’ language for the public to absorb–and absorb it they do. Terms such as ‘gender’ are, as Kathleen points out, vague in meaning, but pass unquestioning readers by with ease. Politicians, too, use them even when drawing up government documents. Words such as ‘cisgender’, and ‘heteronormative’, to name but two, are examples I’ve come across in print recently, as if they were not manipulative language.
Kathleen’s idea of exempting children and the elderly (the latter is not an insulting term) from blame for using ‘unauthorised’ language is a good one, but does not go far enough: we, all of us, need to be on guard and militant against the language vandals, calling them out, just as they do presumptiously to anyone who criticises them–before it’s too late.
One point this misses is that many recent immigrants completed the census in other languages.
Many Bethnal Green residents, for instance, completed the census in Bengali. Would the distinction between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ be completely clear to them, both linguistically and culturally?
One point this misses is that many recent immigrants completed the census in other languages.
Many Bethnal Green residents, for instance, completed the census in Bengali. Would the distinction between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ be completely clear to them, both linguistically and culturally?
I understand the error of non-native speakers is thought to be that they misunderstood the question, ticked the box saying their gender identity was different, then re-wrote their biological sex in the gender identity box. Apparently, if somebody writes the word ‘man’ in that particular box, the census staff will include it in the ‘trans-man’ category – even if it is the same as their declared sex.
But beyond that, if you don’t have a gender identity, but merely have a biological sex, then the gender question is very vexing to answer. It is plainly a loaded question because it is presupposing people must have a gender identity at all, when this is a controversial ideological concept that was only formulated yesterday.
There are three ways to handle the question if you identify it as a loaded question:
1) Tut, and then just answer ‘yes’, i.e. that there is no difference between your gender identity and your sex.
2) Refuse to answer the question, as it is voluntary. Presumably some of the 6% who refused to answer fall in this category.
3) Answer ‘no’ and, for the follow-up question asking what is your gender identity, write nothing (0.24% did this), or explicitly write “none”. ONS has not given a full breakdown, but 0.04% answered ‘no’ to the first question and then gave an answer other than trans / non-binary for the follow-up question). So some of this 0.04% may well include people who wrote “none”.
This means that there is an unknown proportion of 6.28% of respondents who may have treated it as a loaded question and answered in a non-conformist manner.
I understand the error of non-native speakers is thought to be that they misunderstood the question, ticked the box saying their gender identity was different, then re-wrote their biological sex in the gender identity box. Apparently, if somebody writes the word ‘man’ in that particular box, the census staff will include it in the ‘trans-man’ category – even if it is the same as their declared sex.
But beyond that, if you don’t have a gender identity, but merely have a biological sex, then the gender question is very vexing to answer. It is plainly a loaded question because it is presupposing people must have a gender identity at all, when this is a controversial ideological concept that was only formulated yesterday.
There are three ways to handle the question if you identify it as a loaded question:
1) Tut, and then just answer ‘yes’, i.e. that there is no difference between your gender identity and your sex.
2) Refuse to answer the question, as it is voluntary. Presumably some of the 6% who refused to answer fall in this category.
3) Answer ‘no’ and, for the follow-up question asking what is your gender identity, write nothing (0.24% did this), or explicitly write “none”. ONS has not given a full breakdown, but 0.04% answered ‘no’ to the first question and then gave an answer other than trans / non-binary for the follow-up question). So some of this 0.04% may well include people who wrote “none”.
This means that there is an unknown proportion of 6.28% of respondents who may have treated it as a loaded question and answered in a non-conformist manner.
West Ham football fans, far from identifying as Trans, seem to swear allegiance to fundamentalist Sunni-Islam.
“Hamas till I die” – or at least I think that’s what they said.
North Bank rather than West Bank!
I’d always thought that happened south of their manor, in Palace-tine.
Given West Ham’s complex ownership structure, it has been suggested the club might instead be run as a Not-for-Prophet.
Very good!
Boom, boom!
Very good!
Boom, boom!
Given West Ham’s complex ownership structure, it has been suggested the club might instead be run as a Not-for-Prophet.
North Bank rather than West Bank!
I’d always thought that happened south of their manor, in Palace-tine.
West Ham football fans, far from identifying as Trans, seem to swear allegiance to fundamentalist Sunni-Islam.
“Hamas till I die” – or at least I think that’s what they said.
Surely the key question is now ONS has realised the trans result in the census is deeply flawed, will the other mistakes based on 0.1% be admitted to and any actions taken based on those mistakes be repealed?
It is fairly obvious the answer is no, which is why individual freedom of speech is so precious to guard against the systemic lies.
Surely the key question is now ONS has realised the trans result in the census is deeply flawed, will the other mistakes based on 0.1% be admitted to and any actions taken based on those mistakes be repealed?
It is fairly obvious the answer is no, which is why individual freedom of speech is so precious to guard against the systemic lies.
Thanks, as always to Dr. Stock for her unqique blend of erudition and wit. It is not just ONS that is tainted with wokespeak. On 10 February 2023, UnHerd published the results of a survey which included the question ‘Do you agree with the assertion “trans women are women”. 33% of respondents agreed with the assertion. That strikes me as being suspiciously high and it might be due to a misunderstanding that a “trans woman” is a kind of woman. Unherd should have also measured agreement with the assertion “a bloke who says he thinks he’s a woman is a woman” to check the significance of the 33%. Alternatively, they could have asked whether people agree with the assertion that “fool’s gold is gold”.
Thanks, as always to Dr. Stock for her unqique blend of erudition and wit. It is not just ONS that is tainted with wokespeak. On 10 February 2023, UnHerd published the results of a survey which included the question ‘Do you agree with the assertion “trans women are women”. 33% of respondents agreed with the assertion. That strikes me as being suspiciously high and it might be due to a misunderstanding that a “trans woman” is a kind of woman. Unherd should have also measured agreement with the assertion “a bloke who says he thinks he’s a woman is a woman” to check the significance of the 33%. Alternatively, they could have asked whether people agree with the assertion that “fool’s gold is gold”.
The big mistake was dragging the noun category “gender” and using it as an alternative to “sex”. This has done far more harm than good. Not least is the unbelievable harshness of the sentence handed out to Chrisopher Mitchell for saying what many people believe: “20 rehabilitation days, 150 hours’ unpaid work, and a fine of £1,500. “
The big mistake was dragging the noun category “gender” and using it as an alternative to “sex”. This has done far more harm than good. Not least is the unbelievable harshness of the sentence handed out to Chrisopher Mitchell for saying what many people believe: “20 rehabilitation days, 150 hours’ unpaid work, and a fine of £1,500. “
I think we should all identify as trans and then we can all be special.
I think we should all identify as trans and then we can all be special.
Kathleen Stock is SUCH a brilliant writer. On every topic she covers, she is lucid, funny and original. My favourite UnHerd writer
Yep, yep, yep – she is great
A you a relative of my old mate Bernie?
Yep, yep, yep – she is great
A you a relative of my old mate Bernie?
Kathleen Stock is SUCH a brilliant writer. On every topic she covers, she is lucid, funny and original. My favourite UnHerd writer
“And sometimes a man will enthuse innocently about feminist causes on behalf of his “wife and daughters” without realising his supposedly terrible anti-feminist error. He just means it.”
Am I being foolish to think that a man who cares for the women in his life, especially his wife and daughter, has almost as much skin in the game as them? You know he might want them to have wonderful lives?
Are there really people who think there is something odd about this idea?
“And sometimes a man will enthuse innocently about feminist causes on behalf of his “wife and daughters” without realising his supposedly terrible anti-feminist error. He just means it.”
Am I being foolish to think that a man who cares for the women in his life, especially his wife and daughter, has almost as much skin in the game as them? You know he might want them to have wonderful lives?
Are there really people who think there is something odd about this idea?
Sex assigned at birth. What a farce.
Sex assigned at birth. What a farce.
Word perfect KS, and as always so nicely written that even RW would understand it altho’ might not admit to comprehension.
Word perfect KS, and as always so nicely written that even RW would understand it altho’ might not admit to comprehension.
Thoughtful immigrants might google the GRA Act for the legal definitions of sex and gender and surely to be found in an appendix of such an Act. There are none.
Thoughtful immigrants might google the GRA Act for the legal definitions of sex and gender and surely to be found in an appendix of such an Act. There are none.
The Christopher Mitchell case shocks me.
Are we really policing free speech?
This is the worst error imaginable.
People have to be free to speak their minds.
The Christopher Mitchell case shocks me.
Are we really policing free speech?
This is the worst error imaginable.
People have to be free to speak their minds.
Terrific article. Loved the line: bit like gauging atheists’ understanding of the Catholic Mass by means of community testing at the Vatican.
Thanks for your thoughtful and amusing writing. Must be a lot more fun than teaching at Sussex.
Terrific article. Loved the line: bit like gauging atheists’ understanding of the Catholic Mass by means of community testing at the Vatican.
Thanks for your thoughtful and amusing writing. Must be a lot more fun than teaching at Sussex.
You need only cast your mind back to Orwell’s “Animal Farm” and “1984” (you HAVE read them, haven’t you?) to understand what is going on.
“1984” is the particularly relevant text here. Winston Smith is in the cellars of the Ministry of Love, being tortured and interrogated by O’ Brien, who insists that there is no such thing as objective reality, that the situation is anything the Party requires it to be at any given moment, for any given purpose. Smith is being stressed using some sort of electrical pain induction technique. O’brien asks him to count the fingers held up, insisting that there are five – which, of course Smith believes to be impossible from experience, both in general and specific terms
Eventually, under extreme duress Smith DOES see five fingers, albeit momentarily and is then further tortured by the knowledge that his perception has been so distorted; that his belief that “they can’t get inside your head” is in fact, untrue.
The wider purpose is to enforce unthinking compliance to a category of criteria which can only be known in general terms, and are subject to constant, arbitrary change. This us accompanied by a general sense of confusion and guilt over issues of which the subject has no experience to guide them, and are defined quite other than in the generally understood sense. Whether a woman has a p***s, wings or any other appendage is irrelevant in this sense, and any attempt to debate the subject in its supposed context, utterly futile. Starmer and Sunak alike are grown men who know where babies come from. They are not evading a question which on one level is self-evident; they are conducting political manoeuvres in deadly earnest.
Hence the whipping up of hysteria over ideologically defined Slavery which happened centuries ago, while the very real issues of Modern Slavery are trivialised and ignored.
You need only cast your mind back to Orwell’s “Animal Farm” and “1984” (you HAVE read them, haven’t you?) to understand what is going on.
“1984” is the particularly relevant text here. Winston Smith is in the cellars of the Ministry of Love, being tortured and interrogated by O’ Brien, who insists that there is no such thing as objective reality, that the situation is anything the Party requires it to be at any given moment, for any given purpose. Smith is being stressed using some sort of electrical pain induction technique. O’brien asks him to count the fingers held up, insisting that there are five – which, of course Smith believes to be impossible from experience, both in general and specific terms
Eventually, under extreme duress Smith DOES see five fingers, albeit momentarily and is then further tortured by the knowledge that his perception has been so distorted; that his belief that “they can’t get inside your head” is in fact, untrue.
The wider purpose is to enforce unthinking compliance to a category of criteria which can only be known in general terms, and are subject to constant, arbitrary change. This us accompanied by a general sense of confusion and guilt over issues of which the subject has no experience to guide them, and are defined quite other than in the generally understood sense. Whether a woman has a p***s, wings or any other appendage is irrelevant in this sense, and any attempt to debate the subject in its supposed context, utterly futile. Starmer and Sunak alike are grown men who know where babies come from. They are not evading a question which on one level is self-evident; they are conducting political manoeuvres in deadly earnest.
Hence the whipping up of hysteria over ideologically defined Slavery which happened centuries ago, while the very real issues of Modern Slavery are trivialised and ignored.
Another entertaining and insightful piece. Academias loss is our gain. But, in this post-modern goop, maybe an article on language could have lobbed a few grenades at Foucault?
Another entertaining and insightful piece. Academias loss is our gain. But, in this post-modern goop, maybe an article on language could have lobbed a few grenades at Foucault?
If you don’t like the answer it is because they did not understand the question. That is a suspect path to go down
More likely a very large percentage of the population is far more malleable than we imagine and will take on board any old cobblers, especially if it is advocated by the right sources and particularly since we have done away with the foundations that were the extended family, and by extension the community, that used to serve as a bulwark against this kind of nonsense, but then the whole idea of the war on the family mounted by the left was to destroy that bulwark so as to deracinate the population, make it more malleable and so make it easier for them to peddle this kind nonsense.
You sowed it you reap it
I don’t think that explains the correlation of remarkably high levels of people claiming to be transgender with low levels of English language skills. Rather, if you get a very unexpected answer, the first thing to do is critique your methodology.
From what I have read elsewhere, this correlation is not just based on inner city areas with high immigrant populations (which may also contain a disproportionately high level of woke youths), but also with responses that state not having English as a first language. Correlation is not in itself proof of causation, of course, but this certainly merits further investigation. There now appears to be a perplexingly large number of trans-Muslims, who I suspect have not been inspired to declare their true selves by finding a tribune in Humza Useless.
I suspect you are out of touch, as indeed am I.
I am instructed by my children this kind of this kind of thing is rampant amongst young people who have fallen prey to online influences.
This was an interesting story https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11908547/I-tried-help-students-turn-failed-endorse-ideology.html
I don’t disagree that a good part of the population is malleable, especially the young, and that such people will adopt ideas if you both make it easy for them to do so and offer rewards or special treatment. I am quite sure that this has contributed to the overall increase in people claiming a trans identity; but it doesn’t adequately explain the proportionally higher upswing in what are generally considered socially and religiously conservative groups. Again, if you get a very unexpected answer, have a look at the question you asked.
I don’t disagree that a good part of the population is malleable, especially the young, and that such people will adopt ideas if you both make it easy for them to do so and offer rewards or special treatment. I am quite sure that this has contributed to the overall increase in people claiming a trans identity; but it doesn’t adequately explain the proportionally higher upswing in what are generally considered socially and religiously conservative groups. Again, if you get a very unexpected answer, have a look at the question you asked.
I suspect you are out of touch, as indeed am I.
I am instructed by my children this kind of this kind of thing is rampant amongst young people who have fallen prey to online influences.
This was an interesting story https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11908547/I-tried-help-students-turn-failed-endorse-ideology.html
I don’t think that explains the correlation of remarkably high levels of people claiming to be transgender with low levels of English language skills. Rather, if you get a very unexpected answer, the first thing to do is critique your methodology.
From what I have read elsewhere, this correlation is not just based on inner city areas with high immigrant populations (which may also contain a disproportionately high level of woke youths), but also with responses that state not having English as a first language. Correlation is not in itself proof of causation, of course, but this certainly merits further investigation. There now appears to be a perplexingly large number of trans-Muslims, who I suspect have not been inspired to declare their true selves by finding a tribune in Humza Useless.
If you don’t like the answer it is because they did not understand the question. That is a suspect path to go down
More likely a very large percentage of the population is far more malleable than we imagine and will take on board any old cobblers, especially if it is advocated by the right sources and particularly since we have done away with the foundations that were the extended family, and by extension the community, that used to serve as a bulwark against this kind of nonsense, but then the whole idea of the war on the family mounted by the left was to destroy that bulwark so as to deracinate the population, make it more malleable and so make it easier for them to peddle this kind nonsense.
You sowed it you reap it
I suggest to everyone to follow the link to the “stonewalls overlords”.
The list of benefits received from Stonewalls membership is an incredible read.
Also, can someone explain to me what the last sentence mean?
“As Kelley’s fellow Newhamites might put it, it’s amazing what confirmation bias can make you Adam and Eve.”
Adam and Eve…. Believe. Cockney rhyming slang.
Aaahhhh…. Thanks for that.
I am not in the “in” crowd on this. 😉
This just illustrates Kathleen Stock’s point to me – as I understand what “Adam and Eve” means I assume that everyone else does, but I’m obviously wrong.
It’s not Adam and Eve, is it? It’s Adam and Steve. Let’s keep up.
Ahmed and Steve. Come on!
and IT was first mentioned in the ancient scriptures when Eve said that he could have a go on her Apple, if she could play with his Wang…
Ahmed and Steve. Come on!
and IT was first mentioned in the ancient scriptures when Eve said that he could have a go on her Apple, if she could play with his Wang…
It’s not Adam and Eve, is it? It’s Adam and Steve. Let’s keep up.
I think the photo’s caption was intended to clarify the meaning of the phrase.
Does it???
Does it???
The “In” crowd in this case is more than 5 generations old. The original in-crowd had to have been born within the sound of ‘Bow Bells’. For further info, if you are really interested, google Cockney Rhyming Slang.
yer’ ‘ avin a giraffe….
yer’ ‘ avin a giraffe….
This just illustrates Kathleen Stock’s point to me – as I understand what “Adam and Eve” means I assume that everyone else does, but I’m obviously wrong.
I think the photo’s caption was intended to clarify the meaning of the phrase.
The “In” crowd in this case is more than 5 generations old. The original in-crowd had to have been born within the sound of ‘Bow Bells’. For further info, if you are really interested, google Cockney Rhyming Slang.
like “Iron hoof” ?!!!
Aaahhhh…. Thanks for that.
I am not in the “in” crowd on this. 😉
like “Iron hoof” ?!!!
Mr Jackson has beaten me to it!
An ‘it’ needed after Adam&Eve.
Adam and Eve…. Believe. Cockney rhyming slang.
Mr Jackson has beaten me to it!
An ‘it’ needed after Adam&Eve.
I suggest to everyone to follow the link to the “stonewalls overlords”.
The list of benefits received from Stonewalls membership is an incredible read.
Also, can someone explain to me what the last sentence mean?
“As Kelley’s fellow Newhamites might put it, it’s amazing what confirmation bias can make you Adam and Eve.”
If anyone tries to police your speech/expression, simply tell them to f**k off & threaten them with violence. They already think you’re irredeemable scum, so might as well have some fun.
If anyone tries to police your speech/expression, simply tell them to f**k off & threaten them with violence. They already think you’re irredeemable scum, so might as well have some fun.
It may not be the same person but Chris Mitchell is the name of a prominent fascist in the East of England, involved with Patriotic Alliance and other such groups. Just adding for context
If it is the same person and (as you seem to be suggesting) this is a reason for his prosecution and conviction, then if anything this makes it an even more atrocious injustice than it already appeared, as it means that the legal system is being deliberately deployed against those with unsavoury political views to take them out. I seem to recall something similar being reported from the US recently.
If it is the same person and (as you seem to be suggesting) this is a reason for his prosecution and conviction, then if anything this makes it an even more atrocious injustice than it already appeared, as it means that the legal system is being deliberately deployed against those with unsavoury political views to take them out. I seem to recall something similar being reported from the US recently.
It may not be the same person but Chris Mitchell is the name of a prominent fascist in the East of England, involved with Patriotic Alliance and other such groups. Just adding for context
Time was, a few people would have been sacked, and the issue forgotten.
We seem to have lost the knack for sacking incompetent people.
Time was, a few people would have been sacked, and the issue forgotten.
We seem to have lost the knack for sacking incompetent people.
Great article.
Reminded instantly of Orwell’s brilliant essay ‘Politics and the English Language’. It was 46 and he drew attention to the strong link between language used by writers (and in this instance he’d have included Survey designers) and the quality of political thought. He contended that the poor use of language makes it easier for us to develop bad habits of thought because language and thought so closely intertwined. Just another example of his prescience.
On positive side I think we can still course-correct on things like that the Author highlights and intelligent, articulate, informed ridicule of clear nonsense has a role.
Great article.
Reminded instantly of Orwell’s brilliant essay ‘Politics and the English Language’. It was 46 and he drew attention to the strong link between language used by writers (and in this instance he’d have included Survey designers) and the quality of political thought. He contended that the poor use of language makes it easier for us to develop bad habits of thought because language and thought so closely intertwined. Just another example of his prescience.
On positive side I think we can still course-correct on things like that the Author highlights and intelligent, articulate, informed ridicule of clear nonsense has a role.
Another nice article from Kathleen. Although I doubt the segment of the Newham population that might have been confused by the census has much overlap with the segment using Cockney rhyming slang.
Another nice article from Kathleen. Although I doubt the segment of the Newham population that might have been confused by the census has much overlap with the segment using Cockney rhyming slang.
I think that the drag queen in question was grooming children and that the parents of attendees clearly have serious issues and should have their devices checked.
I think that the drag queen in question was grooming children and that the parents of attendees clearly have serious issues and should have their devices checked.
“This week also brought news of Christopher Mitchell, a welder from Caister-on-Sea convicted of aggravated “hate crimes” for making statements critical of a Drag Queen Story Hour event at a local library. For writing in a Facebook post that the drag queen in question was “grooming children” and that the parents of attendees “clearly have serious issues and should have their devices checked”, Mitchell received a 12-month community order including 20 rehabilitation days, 150 hours’ unpaid work, and a fine of £1,500.”
I think that the drag queen in question was grooming children, and that the parents of attendees clearly have serious issues and should have their devices checked.
“This week also brought news of Christopher Mitchell, a welder from Caister-on-Sea convicted of aggravated “hate crimes” for making statements critical of a Drag Queen Story Hour event at a local library. For writing in a Facebook post that the drag queen in question was “grooming children” and that the parents of attendees “clearly have serious issues and should have their devices checked”, Mitchell received a 12-month community order including 20 rehabilitation days, 150 hours’ unpaid work, and a fine of £1,500.”
I think that the drag queen in question was grooming children, and that the parents of attendees clearly have serious issues and should have their devices checked.
It’s one in 400, just like homosexual men are a little under 2% of men. Why do they try to misrepresent the frequency?
I found the accompanying picture a classist sexist trope that added nothing to the essay.
The point was that the ONS is ‘captured’ by gender ideology and, without proper market research, inserted a question that was unclear to those not acquainted with its jargon.
Most people don’t even know the difference between sex and gender because the terms are formally and informally confused and misused.
What is even worse is if someone wrote NO to that confusing question they were counted as trans. Heads should roll.
I found the accompanying picture a classist sexist trope that added nothing to the essay.
The point was that the ONS is ‘captured’ by gender ideology and, without proper market research, inserted a question that was unclear to those not acquainted with its jargon.
Most people don’t even know the difference between sex and gender because the terms are formally and informally confused and misused.
What is even worse is if someone wrote NO to that confusing question they were counted as trans. Heads should roll.
I am relieved to know that Newham is not 1.5% transgender.
Meanwhile no one really wants to engage with the fact that we’ve officially entered the age of trans terrorism with a shooter going into a Christian school to gun down Christians teachers and children because she felt her transsexual feelings weren’t “validated” when she was attended the school as a child. All this (like so-called “Islamic terrorism” bred islamophobia) will breed ACTUAL transphobia, which didn’t really exist as a thing before social media trolls radicalised well-meaning but naive people.
I clearly mix in the wrong social circles, as I have never encountered any single human being with the remotest interest in, nor care about this subject, let alone heard it discussed.
I suspect that many in your circle have an opinion about the Trans agenda, one that is befuddled by it or opposed to it; but keep shtum for fear of being monstered by those on the Trans morality plinth, particularly where those in your circle are work colleagues, as their employment may be threatened if their thoughts were to be revealed. See Maya Forstater / Kathleen Stock.
Work? Please! Nothing as vulgar as that four letter word, and I had partners not colleagues…
Work? Please! Nothing as vulgar as that four letter word, and I had partners not colleagues…
I’d keep it that way. if I were you.
I suspect that many in your circle have an opinion about the Trans agenda, one that is befuddled by it or opposed to it; but keep shtum for fear of being monstered by those on the Trans morality plinth, particularly where those in your circle are work colleagues, as their employment may be threatened if their thoughts were to be revealed. See Maya Forstater / Kathleen Stock.
I’d keep it that way. if I were you.
I clearly mix in the wrong social circles, as I have never encountered any single human being with the remotest interest in, nor care about this subject, let alone heard it discussed.
Surely even the dimmest of professional linguists – like me – would realise ‘the gender you identify with’ has a very recent online meaning
The West Ham fan in the foreground is nowehere near fully transitioned. he seems to be attached to six bell-ends.
“To anyone not already mired in rainbow-sanctioned speech codes — according to which the word ‘grooming’ must never be applied to brave and stunning LGBT+ folk — this looks like a serious overreaction to the exercise of free speech.”
Rubbish. The use of the word was a specific allegation of paedophilia against the drag performer
“The use of the word was a specific allegation of paedophilia against the drag performer” — It was a specific allegation of grooming. And I don’t see how your observation undermines Stock’s point that a hate crime conviction is excessive. Was it defamatory? Possibly. Was it harassment? Perhaps. But a hate crime, simply because the person Mitchell made the remarks about was a man dressed in clothing stereotypically worn by women? It does seem excessive. Mediation could easily have resulted in Mitchell removing the offending posts and making a public apology.
“The use of the word was a specific allegation of paedophilia against the drag performer” — It was a specific allegation of grooming. And I don’t see how your observation undermines Stock’s point that a hate crime conviction is excessive. Was it defamatory? Possibly. Was it harassment? Perhaps. But a hate crime, simply because the person Mitchell made the remarks about was a man dressed in clothing stereotypically worn by women? It does seem excessive. Mediation could easily have resulted in Mitchell removing the offending posts and making a public apology.
“To anyone not already mired in rainbow-sanctioned speech codes — according to which the word ‘grooming’ must never be applied to brave and stunning LGBT+ folk — this looks like a serious overreaction to the exercise of free speech.”
Rubbish. The use of the word was a specific allegation of paedophilia against the drag performer
If the Drag Queen in Caister was not grooming children then he/she/they have a case for a civil action for defamation. Otherwise, what is, for the purposes of entertaining children, the difference between a Drag Queen and a Pantomime Dame? Let’s leave the Principal Boy for another day.
If the Drag Queen in Caister was not grooming children then he/she/they have a case for a civil action for defamation. Otherwise, what is, for the purposes of entertaining children, the difference between a Drag Queen and a Pantomime Dame? Let’s leave the Principal Boy for another day.