Main Edition
US
FR
A group headed by Posie Parker protest in Manchester (Jake Lindley/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
A few nights ago, I attended a gathering at which friends and acquaintances were encouraged to mingle and chat. At one point I found myself discussing the films of Joseph L. Mankiewicz with a gentleman in advanced middle-age. I pointed out that I was very fond of Cleopatra and Sleuth, and that either one or the other should probably be seen as his best work. Almost immediately, my companion screamed: “Fuck you, his best film is All About Eve. You’re a brainless cunt and you should be killed.”
Of course, this didn’t actually happen, because people don’t talk like that in real life. Many do, however, engage in this way on social media, typically towards total strangers. This week I’ve been trending on X (or Twitter, as I stubbornly still call it) following a mass pile-on instigated by several gender-critical activists. This particular bombardment resulted in my decision to temporarily deactivate my Twitter account, to the glee of my critics and transactivists alike.
Having since been contacted by friends within the gender-critical movement, I have learned that many of them are exasperated by the “intolerant elements” within their community who seek to destroy anyone who does not conform to every single aspect of their worldview, even if it means that the cause is fatally undermined. They describe a “civil war” being waged by a small but intimidating minority who maintain that any slight point of disagreement is a form of heresy, that language has the capacity to shape reality, and that those found guilty of wrongspeak ought to be publicly shamed and alienated. Remind you of anyone?
This civil war within the gender-critical movement is, of course, a boon to the high priests of gender identity, those authoritarians who have been conducting a frighteningly effective campaign to reorganise society around the metaphysical belief that “gender” should take priority over sex when it comes to spaces, sports and human rights. Given that the stakes are so high, not least for women, children, and gay people, it might be worth considering what this in-fighting is all about and how it might be avoided in the future. In order to do this, I should first explain the background to this week’s furore.
I host a weekly show on GB News called Free Speech Nation, which explores all aspects of the culture wars and has a particular emphasis on the ongoing attacks on women’s rights in the name of “progress”. Even before last Sunday’s show had aired, I was contacted by regular viewers who had taken issue with me for inviting the trans writer and teacher Debbie Hayton to appear for an interview. As an admitted autogynephile — a heterosexual man who presents as a woman out of an erotic attraction to himself — Hayton is something of a hate figure for many in the movement. By conducting this interview, I was deemed guilty of “enabling” and “promoting perversion”, in spite of Hayton’s gender-critical beliefs.
Further context is required here. The day before my show, a profile appeared in The Times in which the interviewer, Janice Turner, referred to Hayton with female pronouns. Turner clarified her reasoning in a tweet: “The issue of pronouns is becoming absolutist on BOTH sides. Stonewall demands even bearded rapists be called “she”, GC ultras refuse to call any trans woman “she”. I reject both positions. I never call male sex offenders she/her. But I will be courteous to those who respect women.”
For many, the issue of pronouns has become a red line in the gender wars, and Turner’s efforts at compromise are seen not only as wrongheaded, but traitorous. It is widely held that trans-identifying individuals must never be described as anything other than their true biological sex, and cries of “hold the line” are often heard. Not only are the likes of Turner demonised for attempting to find a middle ground, but they are also told that they have been “groomed” by the men who are insisting that other people’s language must be modified in deference to their sense of self.
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.
SubscribeThe way to counter extremism and unreasonableness is through being moderate and reasonable not being extreme and unreasonable in the opposite direction – anti racism is as bad as racism.
Squabbling over the use of pronouns is just pathetic. Trans woman are not real woman and never will be, but trans people are people and we should not forget that.
Oh yeah? What exactly is trans?
That is actually a good question – at what point should someone be considered trans? Trans activists / gender ideologues believe people are born trans and only realise it later in life – hence all the nonsense about “assigned at birth”. Legally it is when someone gets a GRC – again activists want this to happen sooner and lie about the current law pretending that it does apply much earlier when people first realise they are “in the wrong body”. To my way of thinking it should be when someone has fully transitioned their body to match their perceived gender – are men, who are no longer biologically capable as men, either because they have had the genitals surgically removed or the hormones they have been taking for a long while have chemically castrated them, still a threat to women?
I think questions like this need to be openly discussed without turning into unedifying screaming matches between extreme perspectives. As the person most likely to be our next PM claims to believe that some woman have P…….s, the sooner a reasonable debate can occur that achieves some sort of sensible compromise the better – keeping male bodied criminals in male prisons where they belong is far more important than pronouns.
Even if a man cuts his d*ck off, he’s still much stronger than woman…
Most men would remain stronger than most women – there would be obvious exceptions, to which your proneness to generalisation appears to blind you.
Oh dear dude…
Saying that women don’t have c*cks and perverted man isn’t ‘she’ doesn’t seem to be an extreme position. No compromise for women’s and girls safety.
I’ve just read this Adrian. Late. Your comments are sane and humane and informed. And buried it seems unfortunately in a sea of banal and pretty uninspiring comment….not all!
Why should I call myself a cis woman?
You shouldn’t!
Someone who thinks that they are something else. Like a tree, or a box of breakfast cereal. If someone asked me if I could be any kind of vegetable, which vegetable would I be. My answer would be “Joe Biden”.
I prefer fresh veg myself, but a thumbs up nevertheless.
Transphobia: Is this why the chicken didn’t cross the road?
Best joke of the year!
I would also ask what is meant by “trans”. This is very important because, in my view, claims are being made about how categorical reality is constituted. And on that basis how language must reflect the constituents of that reality.
I wonder whether a system analogous to changing nationality would be a solution. You cannot change where you were born or who your parents were at the time, but over time and by going through various steps and processes, you can move to another country, work there and become a citizen. So rather than a GRC you get the equivalent of a travel visa; a work permit; permanent right to remain and ultimately nationality.
I’ll help you- there’s no such a thing as trans 🙂 humans cant change sex and gender dysphoria is a made up nonsense. There’s body dysphoria, but thats a different story. Ah, and fetishist men are not women. you’re welcome.
This from KS and Coleman Hughes gives a pretty good insight into a lot of the questions being asked on this thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grcKIUrEh0o
Removing oneself from Twitter (and it’ll always be known as that) whilst making a case for what you believe in within a more civil environment (Substack / here) is a perfectly straightforward and understandable action.
It shouldn’t really need any explanation, but since many people with a public profile may have felt compelled to do the same, it’s fair enough for AD to make his case and it might be seen as a “class action” (in more sense than one) on behalf of all those who’ve done so, or may be planning to do the same.
The triumphalism of those involved in the pile-on is as shallow as it’ll be short-lived, since once their target has shifted – along with all the other targets – they’ll have nowhere to vent their performative fury. Self-immolation awaits, but may take a while yet.
Some in my circle are unthinkingly woke. Not fanatics but fully subscribed to the general gist, which they genuinely believe is about tolerance and empathy.
Undoubtedly, because of the algorithms, they will come across the abusive quotes trans activists are now using to smear gender critics. This rational, calm exposition of what actually happened may well help me in some future debate.
It’s also useful to see ourselves as others see us. My view of trans activists is entirely formed by the actions of the extreme fringe. When moderates on each side of any question typify the other side as it’s extremes, any hope of sensible dialogue is inevitably lost. The end result of that may well be deeper and more devastating than self immolation.
November in the US is likely to be interesting, whatever the result. The people on the streets won’t just be the nutters. There will be lots of normal people, who think they’re resisting nutters.
As someone who today would be classified as nonbinary, 40 years ago as a young man I rejected the claim that there was something wrong with me as a sensitive male.. Sensitive boys are often just gay. I’m not but I am artistic, nurturing, extremely empathetic, cry at movies etc. I am a man! Just a variation. It is sexist and dehumanizing to say I have gender. It dismisses my genetic propensity towards traditionally feminine interests. The are sex roles established by society which need to be challenged, but gender is a fiction, It does not exist. Just as unicorns, griffins and fairies don’t exist. Well I guess fairies exist … I’ve had some good friends who were lovely fairies.
May I respectfully ask what type of women you are drawn to? I’ve often wondered if sensitive men are drawn to more masculine women.
I am attracted to nurturing feminine women. My wife was attracted to my caring nature and that I am protective and creative. I’m a large framed man and 6 foot. Thinking about my relationships in general, I tend not to associate with masculine men or women. It’s not that I hate them but they tend to be less agreeable and interested in stuff I have no interest in. Like sports. I have been part of gardening clubs and creative groups. I love nature. Oh, and I love intellectual discussions.
Thank you for replying. Being protective is a trait I would think of as generally one of the positive masculine traits. Interestingly, in Indian Vedic culture (prior to becoming the corrupted caste system), people were classified according to the roughly 4 types of natures they possessed- Intellectual types, warriors/ administrative type natures, merchants/agriculturalists & artisans/tradesmen. So the expectations of what was considered masculine differed according to the type of nature you had and this corresponded with what your role in society would be. It was advised women married men of the same types of nature, as there was a natural mutuality. It seems in the western world “Masculine nature” has been narrowed to only a section of society.
You think being protective is a MASCULINE trait? When the most protective beings in the world are actually MOTHERS?
You may be right in absolute terms but mothers are mainly only protective to their own children whereas masculine men tend to be protective to the weaker members of the whole herd.
We are not ruminants, we don’t live in herds. We are Apes. We do not organise like ruminants. Your analogy is old and boring and inaccurate
The domestic violence, corercive control and rape and murder stats of male on female violence belies your assertion.
When protectiveness is observed in a woman, it is called ‘nurturing’. It’s not quite the same thing, perhaps, but overlaps.
I am a ver feminine woman with an hourglass figure, long hair, a love for many things considered to be typical for women yet I am also tough as nails, not very empathetic (sorry, I have always found it difficult to understand things on an emotional basis, and often resort to logic and reasoning to understand why others act a certain way), and my approach to solving problems has been called very analytical, methodical, and masculine. I never understood why women can’t be logical and men should not show emotions. It’s silly and stereotypical.
“I never understood why women can’t be logical and men should not show emotions.
It’s an observed tendency, not a norm.
We need to understand the range of ’emotion display’. I would say it is fine (maybe even good) that a man might cry at what happened to the victims of the Nazis/Communists but not about how he fell over and broke his leg. Both due to the difference in level and the not being too self centered and needing to face facts and get on with it. Similarly good for a woman to be tough yet kind. And accepting that just because you don’t want to live by the sword doesn’t mean that you are willing to die by it.
This annoying stereotype goes back many hundreds of years, and was one of the reasons given for excluding women from universities. Luckily this attitude is nowhere near so prevalent as it was, but there’s still a way to go.
And thankfully, with women dominating the space in terms of professors, administration and students, universities have not become less logical and more hysterical and emotional in recent years, this disproving the “stereotype”.
Right?
The pendulum has swung too far too quickly, causing wild disruption and overreach, especially in the so-called social sciences. But things were not fine and balanced during the centuries when men (mostly “elite” ones) had near-total control of universities either. Let’s be honest about what we observe and believe, but be fair-minded too; not indifferent but calm, or at least not hysterical (loaded worded intentional). The pendulum will swing back–before it overshoots the mark again.
Spot on, and funny to boot!
Men still dominate the higher reaches of academia as well as in the extractive and financial institutions.
There are more women in universities today than ever before. So what do you mean by “there’s still a way to go”?
As a woman I must say the influx of women in academia has not served it well, look at the horrible emotional mess our universities are today.
Jae, it must be those roaming wombs again!
Women are more than their reproductive functions..
There are more women in universities today but, as Betsy Warrior points out, not in the upper echelons.
Dr Anne, yes, it’s hard to stop laughing at those very logical men of the past who put forward the notion of women’s wombs roaming around their bodies to the brain and generating hysteria. [Snork]
My dyslexia has crept in again. My apologies to those it irratates.
No, it very mildly irritates me more that you don’t capitalize the first letters of your name
I think it only goes back to Victorian times and is bound up with Empire. Earlier novels and plays show men crying and kissing and declaring ‘love’ for each other as a matter of course.
How good is your parking, Katja? 😉
James and Katja, just demonstrate the range of charateristics that go to make up a man and a woman. How refreshing.
Katja, I could be reading a description of myself. Thank you.
I think we need to treat people as individuals, rather than groups. This group identity thing will be the end of the west if it doesn’t end.
Indeed. I didn’t understand why Andrew would be upset or surprised that some would not really appreciate the status of his invitee.
“I was deemed guilty of “enabling” and “promoting perversion”, in spite of Hayton’s gender-critical beliefs.”
Of course you were, Andrew. Some people don’t listen before they start to argue. The point isn’t your point, it’s their point, so why listen to your point?
I think Andrew is well aware of that. His article was using absurdity to spotlight absurdity.
Then acknowledge those individuals whose gender has developed at odds enough to their sex, such that they desire medical transition in their gender as imputed from their physical appearance.
There’s no such thing as gender.
Why? Isn’t it just your business? If you want to dress as a woman or have yourself surgically mutilated, why is anyone else’s concern? Go for it, dude, and the rest of us will do our own thing.
We have to protect our children.
The trans activists are demanding everything but live live. It becomes my business when people with a mental illness demand the sane people agree with their delusions. Under the trans approach if a guy thinks he’s Napoleon we’d have to make him Emperor of France.
I have no problem acknowledging trans people. No issue at all. Live your life. Have fun and fulfillment. I simply oppose life altering medical interventions to children.
But this is the way it works with ideologues – if you oppose even a kernel of their agenda, you’re a rac!st homophobe blah blah blah. You must submit to every single article of faith, or suffer the consequences.
When you say their ‘gender has developed at odds to their sex’ doesn’t that just mean they don’t conform to gender stereotypes? In a perfect world they would feel comfortable to live in the body they were given and simply not conform to stereotypes.
James, we are about the same age, and I’m here to tell you that there’s nothing wrong with you. There never was. Feminine interests? Pah. Try telling Jamie Oliver he’s a bit of a mummy’s boy for being good at cooking. And men who like arranging flowers are called floral designers. The best ones make a good living from it. You cry easily? So did Churchill. And so it goes.
That said, you do have gender. You’re a bloke. We need gender, so we can have men’s and women’s loos. It helps to keep women safe. And it’s not sexist to say so.
No, he has a sex. Once upon a time gender was a synonym for sex, used by those too delicate to mention the s word. Now gender is used to describe a set of ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ stereotypes and its use very much enforces those stereotypes. James was/is clearly ‘gender non-conforming’ and if he was a child today would likely have people telling him he was trans. Loos were, and always should be, allocated by sex.
One might equally argue that ‘loos’ is used by those too delicate to call something else by its proper name.
Quite so Denise.
History is full of boys and girls who were ‘gender non-conforming” and grew into adult men and women while never questioning that fact. We do not have to play these linguistic games with people who insist that up is down. James is a man. That he’s not the stereotype does not change that underlying reality.
You are right, though, about what would happen to him today. I wonder how many like him, men and women, have ever considered the blind luck of having been born before adults found it fashionable to medically experiment on children.
Absolutely. I was a tomboy before that useful word was banned and no-one batted an eyelid that I insisted on wearing trousers and climbing trees, hated dolls and all my friends were boys.
However, if someone had told me at the time that I was ‘really’ a boy I might have agreed to transition instead of growing up to become a rather masculine woman who, nevertheless, was able to have children and breast feed them. I’m so glad I was born too soon.
I agree. There is only sex. Gender is a metaphysical concept introduced by James Money. There are sex roles which are collectively established norms set by society. There are no internal gender roles established by individuals. That is just fiction.
No, gender is used to describe words in languages that ‘genderised’ words; as in french for instance with le or la.
A lot of people (me included) use ‘gender’ as (among other meanings) a synonym for what you call ‘sex roles’. It might be easier to stick to ‘gender’ and discuss the contents instead of the wording, but clearly either word will do. Of course, no matter what you call it, it will still be possible to allow people a sex role that does not match their actual sex. If that is what you want to do.
I can remember playing with a dustpan and brush at primary school and being told off because ‘boys don’t do that sort of thing’.
John, My logic tutor at university said the first thing she gave her son to play with was a dust pan and brush.
I was a logic tutor at university and gave my son toy guns to play with.
Very well said!
Only German nouns have gender. People have … well, I’ll leave the punchline to you.
And French.
And Spanish
And Russian (Also Ukrainian, Belarussian, etc)
I’m good with who I am. It’s all the sensitive boys who are being told they are not real boys that makes me angry. It is sexist and destructive. Society needs these boys to become the sensitive men who fulfill many important roles in society.
Blimey, way to go to disregard and disrespect another person’s knowledge of themselves! I don’t have a ‘gender’, I have a biological sex: woman. Don’t be so arrogant as to believe you know others better than we know ourselves. What is ‘gender’? How is it different from personality?
I think you mean ‘you do have a sex, so you can use the right washroom’
Fair enough.
“It is sexist and dehumanizing to say I have gender.”
No it isn’t. Your gender is male, as determined by your sex which is male, which in turn was determined at the point of conception in your mother’s womb approximately 9 months before you were born. This is true of every other human who has ever existed, apart from an exceptionally small minority of unlucky people afflicted by genetic defects and who most certainly do not characterise the group of people in modern times claiming a non-binary identity.
It is not remotely offensive or incorrect to make this observation about anyone: not me, not you and not anyone else. Gender does exist: it is a social construct that emerges inevitably from the binary contrast between the two sexes, and just because it is a social construct does not mean it is arbitrary, or can be eradicated or redefined according to political taste.
Gender is a construct in the realm of grammar, not in biology and nor in society. We have a biologically determined sex (binary), and everything else is personality (infinitely variable).
Nonsense.
In what way?
Gender is not a non-concept socially or politically.
We’re just men and women with different personalities. Gender is a made-up academic word. Academia, unfortunately, has become a foundry of little overly-intellectualized problems that have no bearing in the real world, yet take up an outsized proportion of online debate and discussion. There are far more important things to focus on than the body parts situated between our legs. The fact that this is becoming a multi-billion pharmaceutical and surgical industry is so disturbing.
He didn’t say it’s a non-concept. He said it’s a construct in the realm of grammar, and he is correct.
I didn’t say that he said it’s a non-concept. He specified the senses in which he’s making this claim, and I rejected the basis of that argument. I think this is really very clear on a single read of the thread, too, so I’m surprised you are taking issue here.
In your view, what is the difference between male as sex and male as gender?
If I may:
Male sex is a question of biology: Anyone who can produce viable sperm without medical help is male, as is anyone who cannot but who is a lot more similar biologically to other males than to females.
Male gender is a question of social roles: People to whom society assigns the rights, obligations, expectations, behaviour and dress codes, etc. of the male social role.
The two mostly go together, since the male social role is the role that society finds appropriate for biological males. But there are cases in some societies (old Montenegro, for example) where some biological females are treated socially as males, or where society recognises more than two genders (social roles). It is possible to separate the social role from the biology, if society wants to, and we need to have both concepts in order to discuss what we do or do not want.
Absolutely, the aspects discussed in the thread are all just a subset of someone’s personality. Apparently there are 72 genders, apart from male and female, and if one of those does not fit your personality, I am sure they can create another.
However this is all very different to gender dysphoria, which is a highly distressing mental health issue. Unfortunately the treatment of it has become embroiled in ideology rather than being led by evidence based medical science.
I tend to feel that those who spend time worrying about this sort of thing are missing out on life. It must be depressing, trying to define what you are rather than just enjoying things.
Spot on!
The word gender came into common use because some people didn’t like to use the word sex. Up til recently these words were understood to be interchangeable.
The modern concept of ‘gender identity’ refers to how someone sees themselves in relation to the stereotypical male/female roles and behaviours in their society. Like all other parts of our identity it is personal and only relevant to the individual.
I view it like my star sign. People tell me I have one but it means nothing to me.
The demands by gender idealogs that we honour other people’s gender identity publicly makes as much sense as if I insisted that everyone call me daddy because being a father is very important to my sense of identity.
“The word gender came into common use because some people didn’t like to use the word sex.”
I disagree with that part on the basis that gender is in fact a durable social construct innately definable according to a person’s sex. But the rest of what you say, I agree upon.
You can disagree if you want but I’m pointing out the linguistic history.
Gender as a social construct is meaningless because it refers to stereotypes that change with location, culture, wealth level, religion etc.
If you disagree with that then please explain the objective rules and categorisations of gender that map across societies.
Very obviously that no matter what society we may discuss across the whole world, separation of gender roles exists. The fact that the rules of that separation are not consistent across different cultures is irrelevant.
Does that mean that you think gender is a social construct but that it is impossible to objectively define?
Not at all. Just because such a definition may require the context of a specific culture in order to have meaning, does not mean that it is not objective.
Those are sex roles.
Unfortunately JR is right. Gender is a social construct, and as such defined by the society around you. By and large there is one gender for males and one for females, but the details vary widely, and there are some (rare) exceptions. That does not make gender meaningless, it just means it is anchored in society and therefore obviously changes between societies.
Language, too, is defined socially and anchored in the society that speaks it (as is marriage, politeness, …). There are no objective rules that map across societies that determine how language works, what words mean, which concepts have a word etc. That does not mean that language is meaningless.
Nope. In the terms that you discuss gender = biological sex.
Gendered roles are those typically carried out by men or women in their society.
The ‘gender pay gap’ does not refer to some ephemeral identity, it refers to the pay gap between men and women.
A female bricklayer is no less female for the job she does, a male stay at home parent is no less male.
Dysphoria means “a state of worry or general unhappiness”. (Oxford)
Gender dysphoria is a state of worry or general unhappiness with the gender(biological sex) of your body. It is a mental health issue, not some magic mismatch between a body and a ‘true self’.
Gender = biological sex. It’s as simple as that.
No, because the two are defined differently. They mostly go together, which complicates things, but not always. Montenegro has (had?) a category of people who lived as male, were treated socially as male, but were biologically female. Their gender was male, their sex was female. I gather that some Asian of Native American societies had a category of people who were seen and treated socially as neither male nor female, but as a third gender. Since human biology had not changed they were still either male of female by sex.
The whole discussion here is whether people who have a clearly defined biological sex can be treated socially according to the norms generally applied to the opposite sex (or an entire newly invented set of norms), and under what conditions. To have a sensible discussion and say what we mean, we need both terms. You can certainly say that you think people’s gender should be determined solely by their sex, and other people can then discuss that. If you define gender as == Biological Sex you are redefining words so as to make discussion impossible and make your opinion the only one possible. Exactly as the people do who claim that ‘Trans women are women!’. We need to get beyond that – on both sides.
OED:
Gender
3.b.
1945–
Psychology and Sociology (originally U.S.). The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones; the collective attributes or traits associated with a particular sex, or determined as a result of one’s sex. Also: a (male or female) group characterized in this way.
Amazing how someone can down-vote an extract from the OED. The up-votes went down, which means somebody entered a down-vote.
Michael K’s original contention regarding the meaning and use of ‘gender’ is absolutely correct, as far as I can see. My 1964 Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines the term as ‘Grammatical classification….of objects roughly corresponding to the two sexes and sexlessness (Masculine, Feminine and Neuter)…’ The 1987 O.E.D. gives the same definition, in extended form, but also allows that the term can be used (‘now usually jocularly’) for ‘sex’ (i.e. male or female). The 1997 Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English allows both senses of the word, but no additional sense. As Michael K points out, ‘gender’ has long been used as a polite alternative to ‘sex’, and this is especially useful when ‘sex’ can be used to denote ‘sexual intercourse’ (eg ‘He only goes there for sex’.) The suggestion that ‘gender’ can exist as some kind of separate objectively definable human characteristic is at the heart of the current promotion of what has been called ‘gender ideology’, a promotion that is potentially so dangerous in the case of school-age children. Let’s accept that there are only two sexes (or ‘genders’, if you are squeamish about the former word), and that males and females can have personalities that align to differing extents with the characteristics traditionally associated with either sex.
I’m still not prepared to be upset when people won’t respect my adverbs.
Your ‘gender identity’ may be individual, but your gender is not. It represents which of the available social roles governs the expectations people have about you and the way they behave towards you. And that is set by society, not by your individual choice.
The comparison to astrology is a good one. I will use that. Gender theory is mental and destructive.
You can convince yourself of almost anything. Your chromosomes are made of sterner stuff.
I am not sure if you are rejecting a point I’ve made or are agreeing with it, but I would say that there are quite a few things I cannot convince myself of, and one of them is that I can assert an identity that conflicts directly with characteristics that my genetics determine.
Oddly, it’s not controversial in any other context: if I identified as a dwarf everyone would rightly tell me to f**k off and stop wasting their time, and if I identify as an olive-skinned mediterranean and opt not to wear sunblock on the beach, the sun will not care a jot and I’ll get sunburned to bright-red lobster colour, instead of turning a shade even more attractive than yesterday. Once politics gets involved of course, delusional idiots start legislating against life itself, and the cost of course gets paid by the rest of us.
“The point of conception” is when an early human embryo implants itself into the uterine lining and starts secreting HCG into the maternal bloodstream. Sex is determined 4-5 days before this, when either X or Y- bearing sperm fuses with the oocyte (egg) up near the ovary. About a half of these 4-day embryos never implant, it’s also how IUDs and morning after contraception works.
OK – the point of fertilisation then. I take it the principle of what I’m saying here remains clear either way.
Gender does not exist except as ideology. There are societal sex roles.
Can you explain why most nouns in French possess a gender despite the language can’t remotely be considered the product of an ideology?
“Your gender is male”
“Male” is not a gender. It is a sex. The corresponding gender is “masculine”. Gender, like sex, is binary: There are only two.
re your last paragraph – that is exactly what it does mean. because it is just a social construct. If it was true it would have a permanency. Perhaps tomorrow I’ll put on a dress…………………
Im not getting why you think this is non binary. At want point was it decided that to be masculine you have to be unimaginative, brutish, self centred and emotionally dead?
Society decided it. There are sexual stereotypes. I’m OK with having female traits. It’s just the way I was born. I don’t think having both male and female traits is non binary but if I was a boy today I would be told that is what I am. I reject that. I am a man who has female aspects. I love being this kind of man.
I think you are overthinking it. And unless you also prance around in a tutu, I think as a boy today most people would simply think you were a boy. Gender stereotypes for boys are less rigid than they used to be. We’ve moved away from the “if you ain’t John Wayne, you ain’t a man” type of thinking”. Even gym going is now more about aesthetics than brute strength for most people. And our world is just generally much less physical.
I suppose it wasn’t decided so much as observed. An awful lot of men fit that description. Indeed, the ‘better half’ often levels these criticisms at me. But I think I’m a rather sensitive old soul underneath it all.
My experience of TSs/TVs n queers was postive from Tom (4 kids and a wife) Robinson up to early RuPaul and the she-males in Plaza Colón, Barcelona – ie other humans like me with their own freak flag: you don’t bother me (randy drug using occasionally bisexual) and i dont bother you. THEN it all changed – we had a paedo neighbour come on to our daughters aged 13+ 15, he masquareded as a TS. According to a canadian academic i read at the time (still have the DOI refs but CBA to dig them out) ppl like this are addicts – same as crack/junk/meth etc… so i see their predicament. Apparently many beg for chemical castration to stop the opprobrium of their left wing masters AND the violent vengeance of “normal” ie non-rapist ppl like me. if you dont’ cry at sad movies, pet deaths or even the atrocities committed by Blair’s Labour in Iraq and the Labour movement in Gaza 3m ago you have a mental illness with roots in your own emotional problems. Got FA to do with gay/staight/black/white. Mental illness doesn’t care who you vote for though Rob Skinner and John Cleese did explain very cleary how left wing extremism is just another word for loony. Judean ppls front anyone?
“It is sexist and dehumanizing to say I have gender.” <– No, fool, it is only factually descriptive. You will be unable to demonstrate what you claim — only that you have not the foggiest idea what you are going on about. Gender is no fiction, it how a portion of your brain developed while in utero. Literally, post mortem it can be cut out of you.
If that was true we would not need self-ID – just do a brain scan and we could objectively determine whether people were really trans or just mistaken. Of course your claim does not hold., though.
Thanks for dealing with the groomer.
Wouldn’t you find it more satisfying to post in a forum where your rigid, self-certain views were met with more “loud agreement” instead of the easy, well-earned dismissal they get in this forum?
You are not here to debate, let alone learn anything. And your reliance on sneering contempt makes it quite impossible for you to teach or persuade anyone. You do you though.
Which “portion” was that?
Thank you for this comment, Mr. Love. You’ve made the BTL conversation less “binary” & contentious here.
Aye, Aye the ‘I’ gender generation, no he or she.
When you write in the 1st person you are the subject .
Why has it become the most important word in the Oxford dictionary ?
I think just allow people to be who they are, but stop labelling, as this is now weaponised by the media! No one is really
different they just want to be noticed. Human behaviour is complex and nuanced, but that is why we all have unique traits. We must all refrain from pigeon holing our fellow humans. I workout, have 3 children, quite alpha male, like martial arts and boxing, am
married, and like rude jokes. But i would stand up for anyone who is a decent moral person.
Lets stop dividing people on all topics, over intellectualising everything is not intelligent, its just asking questions with no answers, which is mental illness.
There is a lesson here for all of us who are active in social media. If you see a pile-on starting, especially when it’s coming from your ‘side’, wade in an tell the perpetrators to learn some manners.
You won’t get a bouquet of flowers, but people just might think twice next time.
Sadly, in my experience, all that will happen is that you’ll be seen as defending, and so simply part of, the other side.
It’s very difficult to get people to be rational if they are not, ot to stand apart from their ‘tribe’ rather than just continuing and expanding the pile-on.
I was reading Richard Hanania’s Substack about “Women’s Tears Win in the Marketplace of Ideas.” The assumption is, of course, that women don’t fight it out on X or the public square or anywhere else. Tears work better.
I wonder how the whole gender-bender thing will deal with this. And do licensed and bonded trans women use tears to win or not?
And what will happen to the patriarchy after all this?
“Women’s tears” have no influence on trans activists whatsoever. Women who have politely expressed their fears about being unable to refuse a trans-identified carer for themselves or their disabled daughters, for example, have been treated to vitriolic abuse. Trans activists position themselves as the most marginalised and oppressed people in society, and censure women for having so-called “cis privilege”.
For better or worse, women remain female no matter what they say, do or wear, and this infuriates trans-identified men who either have to work hard to pass, or bully everyone around them.
The problem with the extremists in any debate is that they’re blind to the fact that the majority of people are not THAT invested in these issues. Yes, they’ll lean one way or another and be receptive to arguments and criticisms, but they rarely embrace the position that the most radical (or reactionary) activists believe. Constant exposure to the most extreme views will, at best, result in ordinary people distancing themselves from the issue entirely. And at worst, result in them switching sides out of disgust at the extreme, aggressive zealotry they’re seeing.
That’s why we need moderate, considerate voices like Andrew Doyle – to show the community that gender critical DOESN’T mean anti-trans, or transphobia, or regression to some barbaric backwards past. To demonstrate that you absolutely can respect trans individuals as human beings, while ensuring that females retain single sex spaces and other protective mechanisms. Run the moderate voices out of town and the cause is lost – the public will withhold its support, leaving radical GC extremists to face entrenched woke institutional power that can crush resistance in an instant.
“Constant exposure to the most extreme views will, at best, result in ordinary people distancing themselves from the issue entirely.”
And it is this factor that has permitted transgender ideology to become institutionalised by a small but effective group of extremists, acting in the absence of anyone inclined to ask basic rational questions.
It isn’t an accident either: it is a devious and cynical political strategy for excluding sceptical inquiry and factual discipline from any room in which public policy is decided.
Upvoted.
This, which is a notional problem for the majority, has grown into the mainstream at the same time that authorities have proved to be happy to indulge in decades-long avoidance of the issue of ethnic grooming gangs. Talk about diversionary tactics!
“Constant exposure to the most extreme views will, at best, result in ordinary people distancing themselves from the issue entirely. And at worst, result in them switching sides out of disgust at the extreme, aggressive zealotry they’re seeing.”
Unfortunately that doesn’t seem to be what is happening, at least not online or in the media. Every subject is getting increasingly dominated by the extremes, and fewer and fewer people seem able to understand/tolerate an opposing view.
Those in the middle are mostly trying to keep out of it, so all the attention goes to the extremes. Once that goes beyond a certain point moderation becomes impossible – as the article makes clear, you just get shot by both sides. Fortunately real life hasn’t quite got to that state yet, because decency in face to face human interaction still remains, but it seems to be headed in that direction.
It is division that destroys all forms of resistance against the blob. I have watched the ‘freedom movement’ become divided, first over Ukraine and then over Gaza. I have watched the ‘GC movement’ become divided, first over ‘left wing vs right wing politics’, and now, trivially over pronoun usage.
Whilst it is not necessary to identify as a member of any ‘movement’ at all, the point remains that when we are loosely bound to others by a common purpose, fighting amongst ourselves weakens us and delights and strengthens those we oppose.
Beyond that, X/Twitter is a cesspit, not a place, as Andrew has long noted, conducive to serious, reasoned discussion, and its claim to ‘free speech’ is not what it seems. Substack is a far better forum for developing ideas and is largely shorn of the showboating and the mudslinging by anonymous randoms.
These Twitter wars are like blood sports. The psychopaths who would happily rape, torture and murder us show their faces.
Both Andrew and Debbie Hayton are writers on Unherd I admire and generally agree with. I have posted various messages in support of views Debbie has expressed but have no idea what pronouns Debbie prefers and have never needed to use any pronouns when referring to Debbie.
It seems pretty simple. Debbie has chosen a name to be known by which is indeed not stereotypically masculine and I am happy to adopt that just as I would be happy to use any name someone adopts even if I think it absurd. No need to get involved in pronoun choice at all.
As for Twitter (or X as its principal shareholder would prefer) why bother with something that seems to attract the lunatic fringe of every “movement”. If you get immoderate abuse just move away unless you enjoy a good unedifying slanging match. Good choice on Andrew’s part to move to a sub stack if it avoids the extremist idiots.
I’ve heard Debbie saying that their preferred pronouns are “I and me”. Which gets to the bottom of it, really. How often do we actually refer to people in the third person when they’re in the room? Not often! I’ve used “their” here which I think is a reasonable cop out in this specific instance, and one I use quite often to be polite. But I don’t think Debbie cares “as long as people treat each other with a little kindness and respect” to paraphrase the same interview I saw.
Really excellent article as ever you are thoughtful and honest
Yes Twitter can be dementing
Very interesting article, my first reaction to which is to say that I really feel like I dodged a bullet by setting up a Twitter account years ago, but then never actually using it.
More relevantly to the content of the article, the one observation I’d make is that Andrew Doyle is quite right to maintain the principle of civilised debate even with those who are diametrically opposed to one’s own views and principles, and he deserves acclaim and recognition for this.
But what if the views you’re only allowed to differ from in strictly civilised terms are themselves grossly offensive, or so insanely stupid that debating them in civilised terms actually dignifies them in the public perception, creating an impression that they are not the unadulterated drivel that they really are? A great many people may and up considering such ideas as belonging to serious schools of thought, and such people are not themselves stupid, they just belong to the large majority of people who work all day, raise families the rest of the time, and must rely substantially upon trust in the system when deciding what they should accept or reject.
It seems to me that conceding to the requirement to debate in civil terms the notion that men can become women by an act of self-assertion is actually the point at which the sane majority of people lost this argument. I hugely respect Andrew Doyle for his remarkable ability to confront and reject this poisonous ideology in the form of rational and erudite argument, but he’s in a minority of people who have the ability and position to be able to do so. The rest of us are stuck in the position of just saying “Don’t be so bloody stupid” and then being dismissed as troglodytes for saying so, ironically by the sorts of people who really are in fact stupid.
There is a difference between ‘men can become women’, and ‘some men should be politely referred to as she’. You are not admitting to any nonsense beliefs just by using ‘she’ to refer to Debbie Hayton – or Dame Edna Everage. Would you accept referring to adoptive mothers as ‘mothers’?
“Would you accept referring to adoptive mothers as ‘mothers’?”
A somewhat specious parallel that ignores the obvious fact that an adoptive mother can in fact carry out the role of mother to a child not her own. This basic functional match does not exist for men who would like to be women, or vice-versa. (It also ignores the point that a prospective adoptive mother is asserting a hugely generous and selfless act to a stranger, whereas a man trying to live as a woman and expecting society at large to be required to conspire in the pretence, is demanding a considerable concession FROM everyone else, not giving it TO everyone else).
As to the rest, I am with Andrew Doyle on the part where he would naturally use preferred pronouns in the company of friends whom he would not wish to distress. But that is a million miles away from extending this from a personal courtesy into an institutionalised right, and that is where the political debate – quite rightly – exists.
I think the parallel holds. Being a mother encompasses a lot of things – compare the concepts of gene mothers, surrogate mothers, birth mothers, adoptive mothers, stepmothers and foster mothers. All of them cover part of the territory of being a mother, and which ones are accepted as ‘the mother’ depends whether we are talking about genetics, birth trauma, emotional relations or permission to go on a camping trip. ‘Woman’ covers both the social interactions (the gender, or ‘role of a woman’, like you talk about the ‘role of a mother’), the biology, and experience of growing up female. It is perfectly possible – a few rare societies have done it – to combine the social role of a woman with the biology of a male – even if not all female areas are open to these ‘women’. The question is whether our society wants to and what conditions it will set. Clearly the conditions are something that society as such decides, not something that anyone can demand from others as an individual right. But the rules of society are binding on all of us. If the (unspoken?) rules of our society accept gay or polygamous marriage, we are not free to treat the individuals involved as unmarried, however much we would like to.
For the rest I am actually not particularly generous about what concessions I would make to transsexuals. For certain the transition would require some pretty demanding entry conditions, to serve as a rite of transition and to keep out the unserious. But we do need to get out of the shoving match of what transsexuals ‘really’ are, and into a discussion of what individual accommodations we might be willing to make in specific areas.
We all have to sacrifice something to make society work. Being polite and respectful of others costs nothing and harms nobody and everyone should be able to expect it. However everyone should also accept reasonable restrictions on their behaviour – yes I will call you by your female name and use your pronouns, no you cannot go into spaces specifically set aside for women to preserve their dignity and safety.
“We all have to sacrifice something to make society work. Being polite and respectful of others costs nothing and harms nobody and everyone should be able to expect it.”
You’re missing the point that the ability of society to function doesn’t just require concessions to politeness and respect on the part of each member of that society, it also requires shared norms in order to judge what is polite and respectful in the first place. One of the most enduring norms is the distinction between men and women in a complex interplay of behaviours, of which the segregation of men and women in changing rooms and toilets is only one the more simple and obvious examples.
An example of a norm that isn’t so distinctly binary is the fact that men and women wear different clothes: this too is a norm, though one that can be rejected by any individual in a free society, and that’s fine (at least by me it is, and probably also you). However, while the social convention itself can be rejected and each sex can wear the other’s clothes if they so choose, it doesn’t change the fact that the styles of male and female clothes have evolved to suit the male and female form, and consequently men cannot usually wear dresses without looking as if they’re wearing clothes that make them look silly. (Yes, there are some transsexuals out there who have been pimped-out with surgery who can outclass most women in the looks department, but they’re exceptions and don’t count in this context).
If I see a man wearing a dress and I think he looks silly, there’s more to that conclusion than merely my supposedly prejudice-based refusal to accord equal standing to a person making that fashion choice. I tolerate it, certainly, but that’s principally because 99.999% of the time this will be someone I don’t know whose life is none of my business, but tolerating it doesn’t mean I have to suspend aesthetic judgement, which is similar to what’s demanded when personal pronouns are expected.
It’s worth pointing out, too, that women seem able to get away with weariing men’s clothes far more easily, but they have usually always done it in a way that actually accentuates their femininity without it looking daft (more recently, transgender ideology has led to women actively suppressing their feminine appearance in order to really look like men – jury’s out on that one because it’s very new). Men wearing women’s clothes, by contrast, usually accentuate their masculinity in ways that parody and ridicule masculinity, so there’s probably an asymmetry to this debate that gets lost in the predictable tendency to frame it through gender equivalence etc.
How allowing one to dress as a women, be called she, and having undergone genital mutilation not be allowed to use areas set aside for women? Just asking!
“You are not admitting to any nonsense beliefs just by using ‘she’ to refer to Debbie Hayton …”.
I would argue you are – the belief that a pronoun can become a common noun on usage.
The voice of reason. Well done.
This is appalling. I’m one of those who flatly refuse to use female pronouns for male transvestites etc, but there is absolutely no need to abuse and threaten Andrew Doyle, who deserves our profound gratitude for his steadfast defence of women and children against woke gender depravity.
We’re not at the point of offering a new ‘Act of Toleration’ to the gender borg. The war is still raging and it’s always better to negotiate from a position of strength and victory. Until then don’t give them an inch.
Up until the other day I could have called Debbie Hayton a “she” with impunity because everyone knew it wasn’t true.
But then they started telling me that it *was* indeed true. This is when things went downhill. Had transactivists left things alone, the likes of Debbie Hayton would have been much happier and safe than they are now.
Don’t forget the “Debbie” that was “David”. The taking of a proper noun, a label, and imbuing it with a common noun meaning – a classifier, for himself has become herself.
Clearly there is no cause for vile treatment of Andrew Doyle or gay people or trans even if you think, as I do, that parts of their character are ‘wrong’ or even disgusting.
But there is also no way that you should ever refer to a trans identifying male as ‘she’ even if it is kind to them. It is not true, colludes in their delusions and attacks real women, and men, by making the pronouns meaningless. Just as you should never affirm an anorexic’s view of themself as fat. Be kind to them by all means but don’t confuse or lie to them.
I think it should be an individual choice, not something everyone should be forced to conform to. It is easier when they actually present as their preferred gender. It’s the hysteria around the “misgendering” where I lose consideration. I don’t like being told what to say and how to think.
Whilst the feminists have been useful for spearheading the fight for women’s rights on this issue, it was only a matter of time before they took things too far, too many of them are batsh!t crazy misandrists.
Purity spiralling is the death of all movements.
I consider myself an Ultra but would never criticise someone on “our side” of this issue. I call out e.g. Labour MPs who pretend that men can become women and other such absurdities but an intelligent and articulate man like Andrew can say what the hell he wants imo.
I’ve never agreed 100% with anybody in my whole life. It’s unreasonable to expect such conformity of views and it just leads to more authoritarianism.
I worked with a transwoman in the 1990’s. I had no problem referring to her as she/her as she was a ‘genuine’. By that I mean she had thought very long and hard before transitioning – when she finally took the plunge she was in her mid 30’s. She had fathered children but had known from a very early age that something was up with her, when she was a him. I would have a problem referring to a man as as a she if he had not been through a similar process. Incidentally, this person I mention referenced her former male self by her male initials (AB – not the real initials). One day, she described an attempted mugging the previous night. She proudly described how she fought him off: “I walloped him – I’m still AB, you know.” She knew what she was.
.
He may have thought hard about his ‘transition’ etc but he was /is still a ‘he’. Being kind does not mean lying and changing the meaning of words.
Two points, If I may:
1
When thinking of the words ‘gender critical’ think ‘sex realist’ because that is the position that the majority of women hold. It is being realistic about the fact that sex exists, is defined by the gametes and is immutable in all mammals, including humans.
2
I rather think that what may be overlooked here is the crux of this issue for many, if not most, females.
In humans, as in all mammals, female has a distinct meaning. That meaning obviously has a limit, a boundary, as does the distinct meaning for male.
Any man declaring himself to be a woman, ie: female, violates the boundary of the meaning of the sex class that is female. It is a violation of the integrity of the sex class that is female. It is a violation of the shared experience of sisterhood that all women know.
This violation, occurring as an assertion of male power over females, is against our female consent.
It is a blatant deceit on all women and girls to use ‘she’ or ‘her’ when referring to any man who pretends he is not a man. Hearing that compounds the sense of violation.
Women are very angry about this violation and this deceit.
It is possible that perhaps some men will never be able to grasp the deep sense of violation that is experienced; hopefully many other men can grasp it.
I think there’s plenty of evidence in this article and comments alone to suggest you no longer need to just “hope” – it’s a reality, and although i have no empirical evidence, i’d suggest it’s a reality amongst a large majority of males.
I’m sorry you had to go through that. I’m sorry you have had to report it. Extreme people exist in every argument on both sides and when anonymous they can get off on their hate filled views.
I am very impressed by Debbie Haytons honesty in as much as She/he has admitted that the impulse always was sexual and deeply secret until he felt able to transition in public, when it had become acceptable and even applauded. (until he refused to pander to gender ideology, which soon excluded him. He still lives with his deeply Christian wife who accepts his transition but his three children aren’t so sure. He’s still dad, compare that to the minimum fuss that has been made over Grayson Perry’s admission that his female cross dressing is fired by AGP. Is it because we can tolerate a man being a part time woman but not a full time one? Or is it just because he’s a national treasure?
Debbie Hayton does not threaten women’s spaces, Grayson Perry does not say he is a woman and does not threaten them either. The tipping point is surely when the belief topples over to such illusions as ‘being born in the wrong body’ take hold, that is when I think our resistance becomes justifiable.
If only Eddie/Sue Izzard were more like Debbie .. but that would mean he would have to say he wasn’t a woman, he was AGP, he had surgery on his genitals and he used male loos. Till then then.
You and Janice have got it right and I applaud you, I don’t have any friends or family to discuss this with.
Just to let you know how appreciated you are.
The thing that upsets me about this is that it’s all so f*ing trivial. There are bigger issues we should be worrying about.
Like the end of the enlightenment. Of which, I suppose, this is a symptom.
Yes and yes.
What, the privacy safety and dignity of 51% of the population is trivial?? Not to mention the abuse of children and mangling of language. Wake up, man……
I think you make an important point. However, Unherd is filled with “end of enlightenment” articles, and this particular one being symptomatic doesn’t detract from its value.
The mindset (or lack of it) displayed by those who add to the Twitter pile-ons has a great deal in common with those who seek to undermine the gains in knowledge and political decency; indeed, they’re one and the same.
The woke types are often people with personality disorders.
Nearly always.
Bully disorder…they’re mainly snobs and bullies.
Being confined to a prison cell – in a women’s prison – with a male criminal who discovered his feminine side during his sentencing hearing is not trivial. Women athletes who trained for years losing to male athletes ( losing $ prizes and endorsements in the process) is not trivial. Getting fired from your job because you refuse to call a man she ( or accept his presence in the women’s bathroom) is not trivial. Being abused and ostracized because you objected to a man undressing in a female dressing room while that man was ogling women and children is not trivial. These are all real examples.
You are so right. and I would add ‘genital mutilation’ as a child is not by any measure trivial.
I got about a third of the way through and realized I just can’t be made to care about this bullsh*t anymore.
When the next horrific catastrophe is thrust upon us, no one else will, either, including the pronoun people.
“I just can’t be made to care about this bullsh*t anymore.” That’s two of us in your club, Allison.
Social media brings out the worst in many people. There’s no authority or leadership that can easily clamp down on extreme or abusive comments
Andrew Doyle puts in a shift on these issues, for which I am grateful
“genuinely bigoted elements of the movement may be aberrations, but they are increasingly being perceived as the norm”
‘Twas ever thus. Any movement, any era.
I attended a conference in San Antonio Texas last weekend where I had the privilege of listening to Dr Peter Mcullough, renowned cardiologist and epidemiologist . He put forward the hypothesis that this explosion of gender dysphoria mirrors the explosion of the many vaccines that children are mandated to have. The level of neurological diagnoses we see today is off the scale and he suggests the thought that one is in the wrong body is a neurological disorder.
Our health systems and Education systems are under extreme pressure and all we can do is not address the reason why we are seeing these new disorders.
It was very compelling listening to him and he cannot be dismissed because his huge contribution to medicine cannot be challenged.
Even physicians can become vax quax.
I am old enough to be able to say that my grandfather lived through the last days of the Czar, World War One, the Russian revolution, creating a new life for himself here in the U.S., the Great Depression, World War Two, the Fabulous Fifties, the Civil Rights movement, and the beginnings of the Computer Age and the Space Age. A tremendous wealth of knowledge and first-hand experience in his 88-year lifetime. We often spoke. One thing he was certain of and imparted to me as a warning: he told me to be ready and predicted that someday the lunatics would take over the asylum. He was right.
It took me a while to find the point of this piece, which would benefit from more stringent editing.
But when I finally reached his conclusion, that “I now understand that serious discussions about this issue are simply not possible on Twitter, and my mental health has to come first”, I had to chuckle. I think most people discovered years ago that Twitter is a whirlpool of toxic emotional spleen-venting, and that no good will come from trying to hold an intelligent conversation there, particularly if the topic is controversial.
So, Andrew, you’re a little late to the party but come on in and be welcome!
Is anyone really surprised by this. We’ve seen this mentality within feminism for decades. Now superannuated feminists, desperate for a new fight, are drawn to this issue. And for all the show of concern, their real motivation is an antipathy towards men, just as it always has been. If you read between the lines, it’s easy enough to spot.
This exists within most identity-based movements on the left. The purity tests are endless. Anyone not in agreement with all of the dogma all of the time is a heretic.
You, Janice Turner and Debbie Hayton are great and I always turn to what the three of you have to say. If more people, either gay, woman, feminist or transsexual (transgenderism is is just crossdressing with attitude) behaved as you three do, we would not be in such a mess.
Well said.
Only if it is limited to crossdressing.
They do have a point! As you say, it’s not everyone – but this issue is a real magnet for haters – man haters in particular. Far better for all of us if they sought therapy instead.
Those people are crazy, you say? No kidding. It brings up the Voltaire quote of how the people who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. When absurdities like “her p***s” and “pregnant people” became normalized – and in the US, at least, part of medical school training – the atrocities such as sterilizing and butchering kids follow.
You cannot have a rational argument with irrational people and the trans crowd is driven by the irrational. Whether that’s the sum total or even a majority is irrelevant; groups tend to be defined by their loudest voices and those voices in the trans arena are beyond reason.
God knows how anyone does this “movement” thing.
I’m as gender-critical as it gets, purely because I reject pressure to indulge people’s delusions.
And I was briefly part of a gender-critical group but I quickly got bored of the non-stop drama.
That one expressly homophobic comment reads to me like a false flag attack. Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water, Andrew, please. You are too important a voice in this fight.
Thank you, Andrew, many times over, for being the articulate, sane and insightful man you are.
We have sayings in our family which now span 3 generations: rough scope is: “what would GG Allin/Hunter Thompson/Wm Burroughs do?” We also add in other heroes of seine epoche: Sid Vicious, Lemmy, Nik Turner and i think we can all hold our noses whilst adding the rebel Lord AW Benn & the rebel Grandée Dr Ernesto Guevara – TBH you can add quien de joller you want as log as they are a thinker AND a drinker. So when it comes to sexually aggressive types i think we can follow HST’s advise – i hate to advocate violence, drugs and insanity BUT it’s always worked for me.
It’s odd to me that we seem to have such a problem understanding that these issues are NOT monolithic, including the actors and their motivations.
So I’ve broken it down for folks. Psychopathic manipulation is the order of the day. https://empathy.guru/2024/01/21/transgenderism-and-its-context-in-society/
Debbie Hayton, who writes often for the Spectator, has said she/he doesn’t actually mind which pronoun people use! Good article this, and do you know, while I do watch Free Speech Nation from time to time, and find it excellent, I had no idea that Andrew Doyle was gay! There are some very sad people out there, who feel they have to vent their rage, spite and bile on Twitter/X.
Agree. These are the people that are used to characterise ‘gender critical.’ And why GC is promoted as as synonymous with far right.
They’re as dumb as the gender woo-ists.
You are not a “dissenter” Doyle, you are an advocate for law and policy abusing transgender people and children.
Is “Talia Perkins” a satirical persona like Titania McGrath?
No. I think he’s genuinely into mutilating children.
Imbecile, I know forcing boys to have breasts and periods and forcing girls to have beards and deep voices is what you are about.
Sadistic paedophile, I know castrating boys and sterilising girls is what you are about.
I affectionately think back to a Saturday Night Live skit “Lyle the Effeminate Heterosexual” and wonder how it would be received today. Of course I doubt it would ever see the light of day and am still amazed when an Internet search still returns the video. It was really a good point, do certain personality traits make us hetero or homo, they do not but MUCH of society wants to act like it does. Someone told me of their homosexual friend that couldn’t tolerate flamboyant homosexuals, it didn’t just turn him off, he had a revulsion to it. Who knew! Not me. This world of over-reliance on stereotypes to determine someone else’s future has definitely “jumped the shark.” I miss the days when someone would ask “are you gay and they could say only for a short stint in college.”
Of all the amazing things we could all be doing in the world, especially with our technological advances, here we are endlessly discussing sex, gender and whether a man is a woman. What a waste of life.
Equally wasteful, as if it should be up for debate, is the discussion of whether or not we should allow the destruction of our enlightenment culture by malign forces from without through illegal immigration, and more insidiously from within, through our institutions.
It’s Stupid with a capital S. And Dietrich Bonhoeffer gave us the reason why it’s far more dangerous even than evil itself. Because you really, “Can’t fix stupid”.
2 plus 2 is 4 does not make me ‘number critical’ just correct. There is no ‘gender critical’ belief only the fact of sex male and female.
“It’s always worth bearing in mind that, in the eye of a Twitter storm, one does not see individuals, but rather an army determined to see you crushed. At that point, nuance becomes impossible”.
This principle has a wider reach than “Twitter storms” alone. I know that when I have faced pushback here for comments that are unpopular, inaccurate, or rude–sometimes I even get a hat trick!–I’ve tended to react with defensiveness, and sometimes even lashed out at the wrong commenter while feeling the disapproval of the (un)herd. I know what it’s like to be the first one to “go low” and what it’s like to take the bait. While on occasion a hostile exchange can resolve into a better understanding, even an improved dynamic–both IRL and online–this is quite rare in my too-rich experience with these things. (to be fair, I’ve suffered from opinionated defensiveness syndrome my whole life, since long before the World Wide Web existed).
It usually isn’t good. I try to “walk my words back” when I calm down and notice that I’ve really overdone it, but the words don’t get unsaid, of course. Sometimes a needless, lasting enmity is created, not always mutual but enough to forestall any meaningful engagement from that point forward. I never want to provoke or stoke such antagonism again. Ok…almost never.
Perhaps I’m ageing out of it in my early fifties. But the calmness and tolerance of certain people in their twenties and thirties, many of whom I was recently back in school with as a middle-aged grad student, give me more hope for myself and the rest of us. Yes, their are too many zealous “wokesters”, but some of the kids are alright. So are many of the elders, on either side of our roughly-drawn divides.
Thanks for reading my (latest) confessional outreach.
To be a heterodox thinker and to be nuanced is not to be tolerated.
The world today sounds like two Dalek factions fighting each other.
When I noticed the lack of spine I stopped reading.
Were humans always like this or has social media created a new type?
I suspect they have always been like this in that there is a bullying loudmouth minority, now they have been given a giant megaphone.
This is significant, our politicians (and others in the public eye) cower under the onslaught from these maniacs.
What can be done? There seem to be no good answers.
I’m completely lost; can not wait for this fad to pass. Seems there are lots of people without a clue who they are, so they make something up. In the past a p***s bearing rapist would be laughed out of court wanting to be called ‘she’ and living in a female prison.
I suspect the problem grew out the distaste people not wanting to use the same word – sex as in male/female and sex the act. So people started to using gender as in language.
When does one refer to a person by their pronoun. I talk ot people by name or ‘you’ as in ‘Robin will you do this for me’. All I have ever seen is ‘preferred pronoun’ after an email name.
S** the intellectual discussion, I’m worried about Andrew. Are you alright love?
Dear Andrew Doyle. I have read your books and a considerable number of your essays, listened to and watched many of your interviews, and relished quite a lot of your Titania McGrath oeuvre. You are a highly intelligent, articulate, erudite, well-informed, and literate person. The people who troll you are very, very, very, very far away from possessing ANY of those qualities. They are in almost all cases part of a lonely, despised, self-hating, desperate, envious, untalented, ill-educated, misinformed, spiteful, hateful and VERY VOCAL minority. Why on earth would you pay any attention to them AT ALL? Please ignore them, return to Twitter, and continue to fight the good fight for the truths that you and most people know to be truths. Please follow the advice attributed to Mark Twain: “Don’t wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.” Ignore them all!
I sure like Andrew Doyle. Keep up the good fight Andrew.
Andrew, I think you were wrong to use “she” referring to a TIM while addressing the public on your TV programme. I have always described the sex offenders in Limerick Women’s Prison as “he” and likewise for the TIM who assaulted a woman in the women’s refuge in Rathmines in Dublin, even as the rest of the media in Ireland have lied to the public in this regard. I’ll continue to do that, even if they put me in prison, as it seems they might, given our incoming “hate speech” law. But I’m really sorry to see the pile-on against you when people could have simply disagreed with you. You are one of the best. I love your work on free speech and the trans insanity. And we in Ireland are going to need you as an ally in the fight we are now facing.
Paddy O’Gorman, host of paddyspodcast.ie
Reminds me of the old russian painting by Vasiliy Surikov of the exiling of the Boyarina Morozova (1632–1675):https://russianicons.wordpress.com/2017/08/12/that-woman-on-the-sled/
People just cant help themselves making religions and for a religion you obviously need unbelievers.
Please refer to The True Believer, by Eric Hoffer.
Andrew shouldn’t be vexed by the journalists referring to male rapists and criminals as “she”. The so-called moderate approach where “good” trans identifying men are allowed courtesy of “she” and “bad” trans identifying men are referred to by their sex is never going to work in the public sphere. It then all becomes a matter of moral judgement and personal sympathies rather than objective reporting which is not what journalism is supposed to be about.
The only possible standard is to have one rule for everyone, and right now it’s to refer to all trans-identifying men by their preferred pronouns (which is a violation of objective reporting in its own right of course).
There was always something about Derrida’s philosophy that was quasi-religious. At the same time, this desire to dismantle everything in the name of critique took place in the historical context of Maoism and the cultural revolution also pursued by the youth of the West.
Having treated M Foucault as the messiah of post-Marxist radical engagement, the critical revolution of Judith Butler and Queer philosophy has returned to the religious again. The militants now act like the Spanish Inquisition, rooting out heretics and tormenting them.
I had a professor who said Derrida’s writing was “mystical”—not as a compliment.
I’ll note that enflamed factions on the left AND right are animated by quasi-religious zealotry, without any actual faith.
”Jehova! Jehova!”
Monty Python got it right. You can’t use rational arguments against these people.
Wow, Andrew you made me laugh out loud with that “brainless c#%t” line. Remind me of someone? Yes, of all the trans activists snarling and screaming “transpobe fascist” when we don’t go along with their gynophobic gynocide. Yes, we should be defending our common ground on the points where we can find agreement as far as we possibly can.
“Then there was an especially malicious attack from law scholar Dr. Alessandra Asteriti, who called me a liar and resorted to the defamatory claim that my objective was to “harm women and children”.”
Surely this predilection for imposing narratives on people that deny them the fundamental right to define for themselves what their motives, beliefs and objectives are is the most bullying, authoritarian tactic anyone can adopt. When you’re proclaiming yourself the final authority on what others think, claiming to know their minds better than they know them themselves, how much further can you go? Arrogating to yourself a responsibility that is each individual’s alone is the ultimate expression of contempt for another’s autonomy and essential humanity: it reduces everyone else to bit part, puppet roles in a drama of your own devising.
There’s something very medieval about the form of argument accompanying this tendency. Are you Christian or pagan, orthodox or heretical, left or right? You may imagine you’re a free-thinker, but we know these thoughts of yours come from Satan–just as we know your supposed grievances against immigration are expressions of your covert racism. Once people who reason this way have classified you, they consider their work done: there’s no need for them to go on and consider the actual merits of your argument, once your motives have been judged impure. And since the criteria for ascertaining the purity of those motives are the extent to which you agree with the opinions of the judges in the first place, it’s a vicious circle.
So, no, you won’t get anywhere trying to reason with Dr. Asteriti, nor with anyone else who rejects your right to represent yourself, and substitutes arguments, thoughts and motives of their devising for your own. You’ve been classified an enemy, so no matter what you say it can only qualify as lies and disinformation. (That’s transparently the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad Hominem, of course; but all an authoritarian imposer of narrative has to do is preface ‘logic’ with ‘male’ and/or ‘white,’ and logic can be disregarded too.)
It might be best to take some time away from social media – I think it’s a new era of humanity that we have yet to perfect or manage. I think we eventually will do, but right now it’s just not quite there.
I reject the concept that sex does not exist. I accept that gender is a social construct (there is, after all, no physical reason why a male should not be the home-maker while the female goes to work, there is no physical reason why a male should not wear a dress while the female wears trousers) but I also will call the majority of trans-people by their preferred pronoun out of sheer politeness, much in the same way that I would call a person by their nickname should they ask, but wouldn’t if the nickname was absurd (and there are some absurd trans-people who don’t even make the slightest effort to look and act like the sex they believe they are).
I agree with a large proportion of what you say, Andrew. The irony is that despite not ever interacting with you on Twitter I am indeed blocked by you!
Twitter is a cesspool. Your position is logically consistent, compassionate (in a good way, not a reflexively empathic way) and probably aligns with the majority of reasonable people in the West. On Twitter you often don’t even know whether the person you are dealing with is real–or is representing themselves honestly. Could be bots, foreign troublemakers, or trans activists pretending to be anti-gay feminists. Or just plain crazy people who shout a lot. Substack is a much better place to have civil discussion. Glad you are adding your voice to it.
Andrew, your GBN programme is great. I’ve never done Twitter because I think it’s an open invitation to nut jobs. Like online dating – not everyone on there is a predator, but all the predators will be there.
Kellie Jay Keen is a strong critic of Debbie Hayton, and is a bit absolutist, but there is something to be said for her clear pro-women stance. Debbie does present as very reasonable but, when we know that AGPs get sexual satisfaction from ‘presenting’, it perhaps muddies the waters?
This has become a war zone because we have appeased the activist bullies (and the sports cheats, the bewigged sex offenders, and the mild-mannered AGPs) until the rights of women and girls are all but sacrificed.
Perhaps some gender critical women believe that you (as a gay man) are unlikely to understand the concerns of women, whether straight or gay, and that you shouldn’t be tempted to speak ‘for’ them?
However, there is considerable evidence that young people at the Tavistock were being diagnosed as trans to ‘trans the gay away’. This must be a legitimate concern for gay men (and women) and it might be safer to stick to that angle.
Having said that, everyone who gets involved in the war gets shot at.
Mr. Doyle, I am so sorry this happened to you. I admire your work and your advocacy for women and girls. There are indeed lunatics on the fringes of the gender critical movement, but they are definitely the minority, whereas I would offer that the majority of the trans movement is comprised of radical people who often have other mental health issues.
There is no excuse for the behavior these women exhibited, nor the abuse you suffered, but I don’t think it was actually about you. Not that it matter or felt that way. I think it was about Mr. Hayton. And the way the previous story about him triggered other women whose husbands had done this, and the supreme selfishness of his story. When you used the word “she,” these women lost their minds. They felt personally betrayed by you.
Women are a raw nerve right now. From sports to drag shows for children, to seeing 6 foot tall men in bathrooms, it’s all overwhelming. 1 in 3 women have been sexually assaulted. 1 in 4 were sexually abused as children. I am a survivor of both. I love my husband, but I don’t trust men in general. It can feel at times like all men are predators when you are a woman, and the mother of daughters. And not all people are well enough to anchor those irrational feelings when they rise up.
I guess what I am trying to say is that as horrible as it was, it wasn’t about you personally, or even about you being male or gay. It was something that triggered these women deep inside, and they just lost their minds.
Calling men “she” and “her” seemed benign until they ran over us with tanks and ground us into the dirt. Now they are dancing on our graves.
You’re a rock star Mr. Doyle! Keep it up!
I don’t write you off because of disagreeing with you about this one issue. You’ve been a stalwart defender of truth and women. But courtesy and politeness are not even considerations when they affirm sex deception. That is what you do when you call a man a she. AGPs are dangerous manipulative people. There is a future consequence to others when you privately encourage and reinforce their deception. You prioritise fetish flattery over defending truth and safeguarding – and even over your own free speech. If you know the person in front of you is a man but feel it’s less uncomfortable for you or for them in that moment to pretend otherwise, you are not being true to yourself. That’s not free speech. That’s coerced speech and Debbie Hayton has proved masterful at eliciting this response from everyone around him. It’s not ‘honesty’ for him to admit what is plain for all to see. Consider what he has done to his wife’s life! It’s a play to disarm your rational thinking, it breaks down your normal instincts. Don’t fall for it. Also please do some research about how he has conducted himself in private groups. Look at what he has done to child safeguarding in schools. You have also misinterpreted what Dr Alessandra Asteriti actually said. Unherd have, dismayingly and disappointingly, refused her a right of reply. In the interests of accuracy, fairness and free speech can you do anything about that?
These culture wars seem to take place on the social media battleground. Don’t engage with it and your life will be simpler and happier.
It has taken this author a while to cotton on to the impossibility of intelligent debate on Twitter, or whatever it is called now. It was impossible from the outset.