July 10, 2023 - 11:30am
On Saturday, a convicted criminal got up in front of a cheering crowd in central London and publicly incited violence against women. “If you see a terf, punch them in the fucking face,” he declared to whoops of approval from his audience at Hyde Park Corner. (Terf is a slur used against feminists who support women’s rights.)
The trans activist, who now call himself Sarah Jane Baker, served thirty years in prison for a series of violent offences including kidnapping, torture and attempted murder. Since he was released in 2019, he has been a regular attendee of trans events, including a demonstration outside Parliament in January when the UK Government blocked the SNP’s gender reform bill. On that occasion, he was photographed with three Labour MPs who later claimed not to know who he was.
After Baker called for assaults on women at Saturday’s London Trans Pride event, the organisers defended him. They insisted they did not condone violence, but added that “Sarah and many others in our community hold a lot of rage and anger and they have the right to express that anger through their words.”
This goes to the heart of the matter. Time and time again, we are told that transgender people are the most oppressed and marginalised in society, and that their rage is justified. Politicians, including the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, who published a grovelling message of support before the march, claim that trans people don’t have full human rights — but are unable to specify which rights they are being denied. (I asked Khan three years ago; I never got a reply.)
The claim is untrue. Trans people have the same legal rights as the rest of us. What militant activists are demanding is a wholesale takeover of women-only spaces by men who claim to be women. The response, when we politely and reasonably refuse, is a form of aggression instantly recognisable to any woman who has witnessed male violence. Sometimes the threats erupt into actual physical violence, as evidenced in assaults on Posie Parker, Julie Bindel and Maria MacLachlan. That, let’s remind ourselves, is exactly what Baker was advocating at the weekend.
The dishonesty doesn’t stop there, however. The notion that “the debate is toxic on both sides” only aids trans activism. There is not a grain of truth in it, but the movement has so successfully indoctrinated supporters that it’s repeated even by Parliamentarians who should know better.
Thus the Labour MP Clive Lewis condemned Baker’s advocacy of violence, but went on to claim that “violent language and actions are not unique to one side on this issue”. Really? When did feminists bang on windows and let off smoke bombs to disrupt peaceful meetings? When did we threaten to rape people with whom we disagree?
Baker’s speech is just the latest example of the dangerous rhetoric routinely used by trans activists. If he was released from prison on licence, as seems likely, he has almost certainly broken his terms and should be recalled. The police should not stand idly by while women are threatened with physical assault.
But the larger issue is this. All that nonsense about gender fluidity and pronouns is providing cover for a violent, narcissistic upsurge of misogyny. It allows angry men to say and do things they wouldn’t have dreamed of getting away with twenty years ago. And the people who make excuses for it are colluding in the most serious threat to women’s safety and rights in my lifetime.
Joan Smith is a novelist and columnist. She was previously Chair of the Mayor of London’s Violence Against Women and Girls Board, and is on the advisory group for Sex Matters. Her book Unfortunately, She Was A Nymphomaniac: A New History of Rome’s Imperial Women was published in November 2024.
polblonde
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 argument doesn’t work. If America had violence in the political realm then attacks would be random. They don’t look random right now.
Meanwhile, in 2017, Trump appeared to be defending the white supremacist demonstrators in Charlottesville
the straight shooters are all on the Right
Routh never actually made an attempt
None of these three points are true. The writer should stick to making vague observations about what’s happening on the internet. Really, what does this essay contribute to what we already know? This is just trash.
Also Haitians ARE eating the cats.
Taste like chicken
I’m reliably informed that cats taste of pork
But smells like fish
Why is Unherd pushing writers like this? There seems to be an editorial push for ‘balance’…so for every unheard, unherd article proper, there are 1 or more gaslighting ‘balancing’ pieces regurgitating bilious MSM taking points. I can get this from the Guardian
Seems the name “unherd” went over your head. They don’t write essays designed to pander to your sensibilities.
His remark was not about his “sensitivity” but about the author’s honesty. Read the most voted comment here, please.
I thought it was a decent article, which wasn’t even about the merits of the political “sides” in the US. But some of you are so triggered by the slightest remark that even appears to place Trump in a negative light politically, you don’t see it. All the well known points of motivated reasoning and selective bias.
An assessment of “honesty” isn’t decided by voting by a self selected and highly motivated group of people who all agree with each other on a range of issues. No doubt Hitler and Stalin got high rates of approval too.
Yeah, this site has a very heavy conservative readership. You can tell by how triggered they get when anything remotely negative gets posted about trump. “I can get this from the Guardian”, “I’m unsubscribing”, blah blah.
I’m glad I’m not so tied up politically that reading something I disagree with sends me into fits.
I can’t stand Trump. There is a whole landscape of conservative and post-liberal, blue-labour, communitarian, libertarian and Christian thought and debate that is completely ignored by mainstream media…..That’s what I wanted from unherd. Let’s hear from the SDP….not Labour.
‘Unherd’ I had assumed referred to the media landscape – which is chokkabloc with this stuff and these writers. I read Guardian, New YT, and watch CBC…and BBC. I look to unherd for voices that are …’unherd’. And I gifted subscriptions to a number of my family on that basis….very successful gifts….But not so much with this kind of lame balancing act.
This is a ridiculous complaint. I know some of you guys are just desperate for UnHerd to be a cheerleading site for Trump fanboys, without dissent, but some of the rest of us are not.
This long, drawn out civil war lite is bringing out the sociopaths and loons, so far the ones on the left.
Just as in 1865.
I think what the author’s trying to point up is the air of indifference, but he’s done so indifferently.
Yes, a good point. The author does not himself demonstrate any outrage or even concern. But the widespread acceptance of violence is in some ways more disturbing than the violence itself since it just increases the severity of the violence — the next perpetrator has to go one step farther — and it shows the public is becoming blase. One can see how monstrous movements in the past gained momentum. The whole business is sick.
What this essay is trying to say – in its annoyingly fumbling way – is that American liberalism is falling apart. What it fails to say is that this falling apart has come mostly from the Left. However you choose to describe them – social justice warriors, virtue signalling liberals or ‘the woke’ – they have achieved a rapid colonisation of every single institution of civil society in America. And all without firing a shot. They’ve hypnotised the citizenry with incantations of pseudo-values so absurd that – only a few years ago – would have seemed like they must be just kidding. Key to the success of this invasion is that it has managed to advance largely under the MSM radar. And the performance of the defenders of ‘traditional values’ has been a textbook case in strategic failure. They started with all the advantage on their side; in particular an American public with solidly conservative instincts. The failure was to let themselves be blindsided by the enemy’s secret weapon: its longstanding grip on the institutions of ‘higher education’. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/invasion-of-the-virtue-signallers
They haven’t done it under the radar of the MSM. The MSM serves as the propaganda wing.
You mistake my meaning. The rapid colonisation by the Left of every single institution of civil society has absolutely been made possible by MSM silence about it. And precisely because it is the propaganda wing. The voting public have been distracted by the entertaining psycho drama of electoral politics; meanwhile the Left has quietly gained permanent hold on the real bureaucratic and legal levers of power. So Yes ‘under the MSM radar’
You are perhaps inferring silence for complicity. The MSM is acutely aware of and heartily approves the colonization. That’s made clear by how often and how loudly they pretend it is not so.
Which was precisely my point….made in the comment you are replying to.
The MSM was one of the first things the far left took over.
“Under the radar” usually implies that the out-going radar waves have been aimed too high, allowing the attacking aircraft to evade detection by flying close to the ground.
The MSM just turned off the radar.
Clap Clap
Bravo Bravo
“Elon Musk, real-life Chauncey Gardiner, and a moral imbecile of world-historical dimensions.”
This caught my eye. Arrogant, aren’t we, Lee Siegel.
He won an award in 2002, don’t you realize! Musk could learn from his achievements.
And considering he discusses the violence against children that is transgenderism, his insult is obtuse.
This was a very long and involved way of saying that civilisation has broken down in the USA.
And that the author appears to be okay with it.
And there the author lays out the game – normalise the violence. Label it as ordinary. All about oddballs not a ‘proper’ political assassination. Totally banal and shock-free. The article feels like it is trying to do the same.
What the author seems to be saying is there was a time when political violence arose when a group of men decided that the end justified the means. The end was an ideology and the group had a plan for violence to achieve it. Now politics is not based on ideologies and violence is haphazard, by individuals.
I agree that there is a lack of ideologies, the political differences are on the means not the ends. All political parties take prosperity as a given, little thought is given to how, if achieved, it would give a fulfilling life.
Until this century I would have thought that civilisation had nearly reached the point that there was widespread acceptance that violence was not an acceptable, or even effective, way to achieve a political end.
There has now been a dramatic change worldwide in violence where for some it seems to be accepted as an end in itself, where it feeds emotions that perpetuates it. Where men will fight without really thinking through the end they seek to achieve or even their competence at fighting.
Can I hope that the pointlessness of that will become apparent to everyone?
There is no point in reading this author’s post. CNN is more informative.
Violence is normalized because eejits in the press like this one write these kinds of essays to normalize it.
quite. Which seems to suggest that Unherd is becoming ‘the press’….like the rest
Contrary to the headline and the ridiculous article that accompanies it, Americans very much do care about the violence perpetrated by the Left against the Right.
It is the media and people like the author who perpetuate the lies that inspire it: that George Floyd was “murdered”, that Trump defended Nazis in Charlottesville, that the Right are domestic terrorists, that Trump is a “pathological liar” – the list is too long to complete.
One can be certain that if an attempt was made on the life of Biden, Harris, or anyone on Team [D], it would be January 6thed for eternity.
You don’t think Trump is a liar?
Please cite a lie.
His lies are so many, from the size of his inaugural crowds to legal Haitian immigrants eating pets, from Obama being born in Kenya to Obama wiretapping him, that it is not possible to keep track of it all.
I wouldn’t call Donald Trump a liar. He uses “truthful hyperbole”, which is a rhetorical device. His speeches and tweets are in the farce and satire genre. People know that he does not expect his comments to be taken seriously but choose nonetheless to call them lies.
I don’t like Donald Trump’s shtick but at least he is an honest liar. Not like Kamala Harris who lied about Joe Biden’s fitness to be president.
It’s a case of taking Trump seriously, but not literally, rather than literally, but not seriously. But that’s true for everyone.
It’s the problem arising with AI output being treated as scripture, without question. I don’t even take Scripture, unquestioningly, as my first take isn’t always how it was meant to be taken.
It needs informed discussion, but that’s out of fashion.
Wow – so Trump’s lies aren’t lies because he knows that they are lies!
He’s credulous & naïve in some ways – bleach injection being a prime example – coupled to a propensity to exaggeration.
He is also garrulous. He has many faults. But you know what you’re getting, so at least you can weigh the pros & cons.
Harris, conversely, says nothing, & hopes you don’t notice. It also means you can ascribe all sorts of virtues to her that she may or may not have. It’s an old strategy, which has often worked in the past. I’m hoping that isn’t the case this time around.
In short, Kamala talks too little, Trump too much.
Orange man bad. Must kill him
That is an interesting response!
January 6thed.
Great use of a new VERB. I
this!
Must say that most of the comments about this ridiculous article restore my faith in humanity. Yours especially. I thank you
“…Elon Musk, real-life Chauncey Gardiner, and a moral imbecile of world-historical dimensions…”
Really a remarkably imbecilic take on a man who has created vast sums of wealth and benefit not just for himself but of world-historical dimensions for everyone – purely because he refuses to knuckle under to the belligerentsia demanding that only approved opinions may be expressed.
Adios.
You’re right. Attack the argument, not the person making it. To attack the person is to concede defeat.
By mid-week, focus had shifted from the man on the golf course to who was to blame for America’s political violence, or in this case near-violence.
Maybe it’s the people who keep referring to their opponent as Hitler, the man they keep regarding as an existential threat, the one they talk of taking out. Just maybe. Some years ago, a Bernie supporter opened fire on Republicans who were at a baseball practice. The decidedly leftist antifa and BLM mobs have left death and mayhem in their wake. Are we really still wondering who is prone to violence?
If Pennsylvania and the golf course prove anything, along with Elon Musk, it’s that Trump has less and less to fear from what now passes in America for political violence.
Wow. Seriously? Perhaps the title refers more to the author than anyone else. Twice now, someone has tried to kill Trump and Seigel shrugs it off as no big deal. No wonder. We have already seen the normalization of govt-sanctioned efforts at censorship and the use of lawfare against prominent political figures and everyday citizens. It’s not hard to imagine the author salivating at the idea of the US emulating the UK’s thought police. All in the name of protecting “our democracy,” of course.
This is a very clumsy, inelegant, and logically confused piece that reflects poorly on the writer and is unworthy of publication in UnHerd.
A worrying observation from thousands of miles away is the attempts to say the shooters were republicans when it clearly comes out their leanings are to the left
Why lie? Do you think your lie will stand?
Political naivety isn’t a good thing in these troubled times, we need adults and calm voices, instead we have the playground and the misappropriation of the legal system and the security services for political aims
It doesn’t bode well for a peaceful transition of power after the election
Why lie? Because it has become a habit.
Do you think your lie will stand? That’s how it has become a habit. Biden and Kamala continue to repeat debunked claims; Harris did it during the debate and the moderators said nothing.
This opinion piece by Lee Siegel was (yet again) 2 or 3 bullet points neatly ‘condensed’ into 13 pretentious and condescending paragraphs. I’m no better informed at the end of the article than I was when I started it. Lee likes the sound of his own opinions sadly. I’m going back to my Peter Schweizer book – Profiles in Corruption – there’s no épater les bourgeois in there, just a collection of rather terrifying facts…
This problem, as it is described, is a.problem on the Left.
Why pretend both sides are using violent rhetoric?
We can see.with our own eyes, hear with our own ears..
This is a problem.on the Left
What a blathering fool.Trump is purportedly a ‘pathological ‘ liar, but none of these other politicians are.Keir Starmer- nah, he’s telling you the truth. The reason the ‘conversation’ moves on, is that the media and the democrat party ‘base’ here in USA want the president ( Trump) to be killed. According to Rasmussin poll, for whatever that may be worth, it’s 3 in 10. The purpose of the current regime and media, IS to assisinate Trump.They can’t beat him in November, too many of us recognize jerks like this author for what they are. Therefore the media normalize and deliberately ignore these attempts. Wray of the FBI suggests they aren’t sure if Trump was hit by “shrapnel” and not a bullet. The rest of us are sickened by these attempts. I think Trump has much to fear from these psychopaths, although not idiots like the author of this midwit essay, Siegel.
To not talk about the pathological liar now ruling Brazil, or how Biden and Harris lied for the last four years, and all through the Trump Presidency, or to mention Slick Willy, while targeting Trump…the author reminds one that it is better to be deplorable than despicable.
So this “so called” author ,just claimed that he was watching the Emmy’s ,when informed of Trumps assassination attempt…Enough said!!
A self test check for being despicable: if you find yourself writing opinion pieces claiming Trump’s would be assassins are Republican, you just might be despicable.
I think what’s going on, is that Unherd contracts with a select group of writers to produce XYZ number of essays within a specified time period. I get the impression this one was written on a deadline. I’m picturing Mr. Siegel finishing it late at night, beside an overflowing ashtray and a half-empty bottle of brandy. I’m sure he probably once wrote something of merit, but this was simply poorly conceived garbage.
As for Unherd, I wish it would bring in some fresh voices instead of constantly relying on members of the club.
The media hasn’t forgotten about January 6 and they won’t let us forget it either! If Harris had been the target of assassins, the media would have reported on it nonstop.
So, we are supposed to move on from some stories and obsess about others.
With all the rhetoric about …well… “super charged rhetoric,” I have yet to see anything Trump has *actually said* that is so divisive.