Transgender activists branded a Facebook post by a birth coach as offensive. Her crime: she said that only women can have babies. A decade ago the response to trans activists would have been derision. Today we must all learn to bow before the inevitable. Trouble awaits those who will not conform. Not yet your neck severed from your body, but there are consequences and they are severe. Loss of vocations, careers and reputations are no small losses.
Lynsey McCarthy-Calvert, a spokesperson for the charity Doula UK resigned from the national organisation for birth coaches. The reason: complaints by transgender rights activists had triggered an investigation in which the charity came to the conclusion that her message breached its equality and diversity guidelines. Well of course it did, a new Inquisition is in the land and social media provides written confirmation of the breaches which occur. A person can be tripped up merely by having an opinion. Especially one which has been held as inviolate for thousands of years by everyone, everywhere. That for a woman there existed an opposite sex, always defined as male, and of course visa versa. That view is now heretical. Not according to the huge majority, but who cares about them, they are sitting back and watching it happen like lambs to the slaughter. The activists are loud, demanding and remorseless in pursuit of their aims.
A farmers wife once told me a story about how to make an impression on a gaggle of geese, the leader of which was a constant aggressive menace. She marched in among them, took the offensive creature by its neck, held it up in a strong grip, twisted and dropped the dead goose at the feet of the rest. That is how to make a memorable first impression and show the geese who is the real boss. Transgender rights activists, like all bullies and ideologues use the same tactics. It is a form of terrorism. If you value your reputation and your job then conform to the rules, even if, as the author and journalist Douglas Murray states in his book The Madness of Crowds; that these new ruling elites appeared only the day before yesterday. One day we all believed the sexes divided two ways, now it is anything you choose to be. Just like the animals in the Animal Farm story. One day it was good to be four footed, the next to be two footed. The reason being the ruling pigs were copying their ex human master; parading round the farm enclosure on two feet. And like the huge majority of humans today, we are watching like dumb animals while the takeover continues.
This lady was not sacked by Doula UK, but she was disappointed and pointed out that the leadership of the Charity seemed paralysed by not wanting to upset transgender rights activists, having in her view fallen over themselves to acquiesce to their demands.’ These activists have form.
Flora margarine stopped advertising on Mumsnet. Their website was accused of being transphobic due to hosting a wide range of views on transgender issues. Same tactics caused the makers of Always sanitary towels to remove the female ‘Venus’ symbol from their packaging. All it took were complaints from trans men.
The Doula UK row started after Cancer Research UK dropped the word ‘women’ from its smear test campaign, instead saying screening was ‘relevant for everyone aged 25-64 with a cervix’. A cervix defines women like a penis defines men. Or that is how it was the day before yesterday. The British are infamous for being slow in learning a new language. Put a great big sword of Damocles above the heads of the UK citizenry, and we will quickly learn that not to know the right language is liable to be marked as provocative hate speech. From government agencies to Social Media giants to big business corporations, the same message is being hammered out to the sounds of a regular drumbeat.
Here is a doctor who knows what she is talking about. A fact which immediately will cause every word spoken to be sieved through not for evidence but just for telling it as it is. And if that does not conform to the post modern, LGBTQ agenda it is false and defamatory by definition. But according to principles of free speech she should be heard.
The slogan on the picture above is untrue. It is not all about love, there is much more to it than that. Gay Pride is the noisy, colourful, brazen sharpened edge of a movement to turn a once stable society into something unrecognisable to previous generations. A society in which science and biology are removed from the investigation of what seems to me a crime against humanity; one which sets itself up as an icon of modernity and enlightenment. Offering a tainted choice of lifestyle which cause mutilations of the human body of such gravity, they would be serious crimes in any other context. Transgendering is a medical process which leads to infertility. Those who have chosen this path can form families in many ways, including via donor sperm / eggs, foster care, or adoption. But transgender people who undergo surgical transition can end up infertile. This is often irreversible, depending on the medical processes undertaken. That unhappiness caused by feelings of living in the wrong body is real and deserves sympathy and help is obviously true. There is no doubt about that, but is this confusion a matter caused primarily by disturbances in the mind? Is it psychological?
Dr. Joseph Berger, a Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association and a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada has stated that from “a scientific perspective,” being “transgendered” is a psychological issue, “emotional unhappiness”and “cosmetic surgery” is not the “proper treatment. These were the headline quotes from a statement made before the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This committee was considering Bill C-279 which was proposing to “include gender identity as a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
On June 15, 2017, the Transgender Rights Bill C-16 passed the third reading in the Senate of Canada, with a 67-11 vote. It certainly defends Transgender rights, making objecting to the transgender ideology a potential hate crime. The proposed legislation prohibits discrimination against the transgendered. In the bill Gender Identity is defined as “the individual’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex that the individual was assigned at birth. The Canadian Human Rights Act protects people in Canada from discrimination when they are employed by or receive services from the federal government, First Nations governments or private companies that are regulated by the federal government such as banks, trucking companies, broadcasters and telecommunications companies. In amending the Act, the Gender Identity Bill would affect all of these industries, in that they would be explicitly prohibited from discriminating against trans people, as well as bear an obligation to proactively ensure that trans people are treated equally. This is the same obligation that such entities already bear based on similar grounds as race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, etc. The Gender Identity Bill would also amend the hate propaganda and hate crime sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code. That last provision means when there is evidence that a crime was motivated by bias, prejudice or hatred based on gender identity, a judge would be required to increase the sentence for the crime to account for this aggravating factor. Another form of discrimination against those that oppose a bill which enforces a doctrine known to be without a shred of actual evidence. Proposing that our sexual identity can be just changed at will, one way or the other on one day and reversed on another. Something known to be false according to the only accurate measures: genetics, biology, and all previous human experience.
During the prior consultation period Dr Berger made the following statement to the Canadian House of Commons in 2013. It obviously went down badly since it was ignored. An example of how expert evidence is always trumped by an ideology.
‘It appears to me that this bill requests that some special allowances or attitudes or possibly even ‘rights’ be given to people who identify themselves as being ‘transgendered’. From a scientific perspective, let me clarify what ‘transgendered’ actually means. I am speaking now about the scientific perspective – and not any political lobbying position that may be proposed by any group, medical or non-medical. ‘Transgendered’ are people who claim that they really are or wish to be people of the sex opposite to which they were born as, or to which their chromosomal configuration attests. Sometimes, some of these people have claimed that they are ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ or alternatively ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’. Scientifically, there is no such a thing. Therefore anyone who actually truly believes that notion, is by definition deluded, psychotic. The medical treatment of delusions or psychosis is not by surgery. On the other hand, if these people are asked to clarify exactly what they believe, that is to say do they truly believe whichever of those above propositions applies to them and they say ‘no’, they know that such a proposition is not true, but that they ‘feel’ it, then what we are talking about scientifically, is just unhappiness, and that unhappiness is being accompanied by a wish – that leads some people into taking hormones that predominate in the other sex, and even having cosmetic surgery designed to make them ‘appear’ as if they are a person of the opposite sex. The proper treatment of emotional unhappiness is not surgery. Cosmetic surgery will not change the chromosomes of a human being. Cosmetic surgery will not make a man become a woman, capable of menstruating, ovulating, and having children. Cosmetic surgery will not make a woman into a man, capable of generating sperm that can unite with an egg or ovum from a woman and fertilise that egg to produce a human child. These are the scientific facts. There seems to me to be no medical or scientific reason to grant any special rights or considerations to people who are unhappy with the sex they were born into, or to people who wish to dress in the clothes of the opposite sex – which I believe is not illegal. I have read the brief put forward by those advocating special rights, and I find nothing of scientific value in it. Words and phrases are used that have no objective scientific basis such as “the inner space”.
The committee examining these proposals should be aware that there are indeed some quite rare examples where the sex of a baby at birth is uncertain. Two particular conditions are well recognized. One is where the child is a boy, but the testes have not descended into the testicular sac, but remain somewhere ‘stuck’ in the abdomen. The other well-recognized condition is where the child is a girl, but because of some abnormal hormonal levels as the baby was growing in the mother’s uterus, the clitoris of the baby girl is unusually large, and might at first be mistaken for a penis. Both these conditions are now diagnosed earlier, chromosome testing to confirm the genetic sex is widely available. They should not nowadays lead to any confusion about the real sex of the baby. Other than these and possibly even rarer abnormalities, the so-called ‘confusion’ about their sexuality that a teenager or adult has is purely psychological. As a psychiatrist, I see no reason for people who identify themselves in these ways to have any rights or privileges different from everyone else in Canada.’
Dr Joseph Berger is a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and Diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Examiner from 1977-2005 for the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology in the Board Examinations to become a Board Certified Psychiatrist. Past Assistant Professor of Psychiatry. University of Toronto. Past President. Ontario District Branch of the American Psychiatric Association. Representative for Ontario 2002-2010 to the Assembly (parliament) of the American Psychiatric Association. Distinguished Life Fellow, American Psychiatric Association. Author and Presenter, numerous medical and academic Papers at Conferences, Seminars, and in Medical Journals.
Love does not mean taking a permissive view on all things that now appear under the heading Love. It must have boundaries otherwise all sorts of expressions from sado-masochism to engaging sexually with multiple partners without a thought of commitment falls into what was once a well understood concept, love has rules which if broken breaks relationships, and on the large scale can poison entire societies. The breaking of these boundaries and abandoning any sense of order and restraint is leaving society in a state of bewildering chaos. Children who have little idea of a stable relationship, unsure who their biological parents are, with rising levels of anxiety disorders, health issues and suicides. Loosening the moral order has had catastrophic results which are going to greatly increase when the current generation of our youth begin to have children of their own. These topics are discussed below by a mother speaking about her experiences of loving her daughter through the transgender process. Her grief is apparent throughout. Emotional unhappiness is not confined to a person undergoing the process of transgendering, other members of a family may be hurt, confused and reduced to a state of mental and physical distress of a type hard to comprehend and from which they may never recover.
Who am I is becoming a confusing issue filled with uncertainties. He and she are pronouns that once had the field to themselves, but no longer. To make a mistake in identification may have serious consequences, maybe leading to a prosecutable hate crime. We are in the process of creating a society which is upending long established social guidelines: these relate to morality, ethics and what was once understood to be natural. Changing from a people who knew who and what we were to one that creates whatever we want be. The LGBT issue is a crucial part of that deconstruction and its influence on political policy is far reaching.
The following saying is attributed to the Christian Saint Anthony the Great. He died in 356 AD and could be speaking to our generation.
“A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, “You are mad; you are not like us.”
The force of that statement can hardly be over emphasised in the current social and political environment. In a mad world the sane will be committed to an asylum for corrective treatment. This has happened under communist totalitarian regimes. You may be interested to know that political correctness, the enforcer of current social thinking has been described as Cultural Marxism. Marx was one of the founders of Communism which has proved itself to be a brutal dictatorial system of government. In Mao’s China the communist re-education programme was conducted in concentration camps under the harshest conditions.
In Western society we are far from this, as yet, but things are changing and the direction is obvious, as are the consequences. We are confused because confusion is being sown like wheat in China. The result is a contagion of mixed messages, false facts, and indoctrination. I am not unsympathetic to what is going on, people are suffering and unsure and anxious, with suicide among the young on the increase. I do not doubt I would be equally confused growing up as a young person in a society which has deliberately thrown over almost every structure which once held it together. One of these being the nuclear family: father, mother and children born of the union made between their biological parents. That model has been overthrown and the results are all around us; tragic stories mapping the breakdown and dispersion of the family unit. The cause is I believe one of the results of Post Modernism, or perhaps Post, Post Modernism. Things have moved on since adding Post Truth to its arsenal. These revolutionary ideas have had the effect of removing ourselves as far as possible from the old certainties that were once our overseers and guardians. We have adopted a new kind of faith which welcomes diversity in all its forms. As individuals we decide what is true when it comes to essentially private issues like gender and sexuality and how cohabiting adults interact with one another. These may be personal issues but they have wide social consequences. But we are no longer to be ruled by outdated norms which dictated how nature was to be understood and acted out. There are well documented disastrous statistics documenting this ongoing process. One for which no state department or pressure group is prepared to take the blame. An example: data released by the Office for National Statistics shows that 13.3 per cent of deaths of females aged between five and 19 are now due to suicide, The number of teenage suicides in England and Wales increased by 67 per cent between 2010 and 2017. Mental health and anxiety among young people cannot be unexpected in the current social environment.
By focusing on LGBT I am not ignoring a reservoir of other reasons; from high, usually unattainable expectations, to a facile lifestyle largely focused upon ourselves. I believe it is a symptom rather than a cause of confusion. We have chosen to refuse a truth which changes every expectation; which is that there is a calling on our life to something higher than making the most of ourselves or an image of ourselves. That however is a subject of other articles.
This LGBT issue is therefore just one of many which are focal with regard to the changes taking place in society. This is dangerous to confront, and giving offence is unavoidable. Difficult for someone like myself to say what I feel without causing hurt and anger, reactions which unfortunately close down a lot of reasonable questions being asked. One of LGBT’s immediate effects has been to blur the contrast that once existed between what was considered normal and abnormal, natural and unnatural.
There are many factors involved, this article concerns LGBT culture which has put into question whether gender was fixed or fluid. These new ideas and ideologies ran counter to the views of the main religions; that was until major sections of Christianity began moderating their views in order to accommodate the new reality. This new reality rapidly gathered support from all parts of society. To be anti-Gay to any degree or for any reason became a hazardous occupation. Which is why today the subject has to handled very cautiously, the Twitter mobs enjoy indulging their fondness for virtual lynching’s via social media. I fear and suspect I have not handled the matter with sufficient caution.
One of the strangest results of this interference in what was once a natural acceptance of norms in society, such as definitions of gender, is that it has set feminists at odds with the transgender lobby. The reason? A male transgendering to female has at least in theory, lawful rights to enter formerly gender specific areas: women’s toilets, changing rooms, refuges and prisons. Each one of these are supposedly devoted to the protection of women from the unwanted attention of voyeurs and predatory males. Looking at all this from what could be described as a traditional point of view, it is difficult to acclimatise to the demonstrable lack of care and foresight. These problems were not difficult to anticipate; problems which all originate from the raft of equality, diversity and hate legislation which have changed our once stable nation out of all recognition. The old saying that the Law is an ass has been underlined in recent times. The truth is it cannot adapt fast enough to the changes. Trying to square multiple circles has tipped the law into confusion and contradictions. It is difficult to anticipate where the madness will eventually terminate. No doubt a Royal Commission will one day be demanded, and such are the complexities it could remain in session for as long as the famous Dickensian court case Jarndyce and Jarndyce. Dickens used it to attack the court system as being near totally worthless, as any “honourable” man among its legal practitioners remarked: “Suffer any wrong that can be done you rather than come here!”
Nowadays this caution about embarking on legal action has a different consequence to the one identified by Dickens. It is not the interminable length of a court case that is to be feared, it is the almost inevitable result. Anyone who offends against the new prospectus is guilty. The reason? You have no defence that can stand unless your are prepared to go to the Supreme Court, as two Irish Christians discovered. They were taken to court by a homosexual who wanted a pro Gay message to decorate his cake. He was politely refused; declined on the grounds of Christian conscience. You see it is hazardous for Christians to take offence however carefully and respectfully it is done.
In the case of LGBT the law will never get it right. Why? Because the law is not equipped to deal with such a problem. It is like multiple interest groups trying to make claims on items broken beyond repair by a bomb blast. The Law is out of its depth, the damage is scattered all over in the hearts, minds, spirits and emotions of recent generations, which in my view have lost touch with its roots and foundations and refuse to return to better ways once well understood and accepted. And government is no better. Ofsted is a government organisation set upon ensuring that our children are detached from the old certainties. They preach to the schools, they enforce their agenda in ways the worst kind of conservative Christians are often accused of doing. In that kind of case the word indoctrination would be used. Isn’t that charge equally applicable to Ofsted inspectors? It has been recorded that they are empowered to interview a child; one to one privately in a schoolroom without parental consent. Asking intimate questions of a type that would not have entered the mind of an average teenager, even in the early 1960’s. Dutifully promoting lifestyle choices opposed to the very things some traditional schools are trying to protect children from: such as indoctrinating the open minds of children into the very diverse world of the LGBT culture. Questions like: Do you know what a lesbian is? Are you happy in your gender? These kinds of questions are being asked by government officials to children. That is their mission, and they are permitted to do it without hindrance. Ofsted are authorised to teach the permitted doctrine of the State and no one has the authority to prevent them. Here is a quote from a Christian Institute article.
‘At Grindon Hall Christian School in Sunderland, primary school children said they were asked if they knew of any boys or girls who thought they were in the wrong body, and if they knew what gays and lesbians did… The mother of one pupil stated: “The questioning was completely inappropriate, they asked her what lesbians were, and whether she felt trapped in someone else’s body.” The head teacher said: “Pupils were embarrassed and surprised to be asked questions about sexuality. The offer of a one-to-one meeting with an inspector, who was a complete stranger to them, in order to discuss personal matters of sexuality was also viewed with alarm by some parents.” Following the inspection in November 2014, the school was rated ‘Inadequate’, with the draft Ofsted report stating that: “The Christian ethos of the school permeates much of the school’s provision. This has restricted the development of a broad and balanced approach to the curriculum.” Ofsted failed to investigate the conduct of its inspectors, and the Department for Education has now forced the school to be transferred to a secular trust.’
In its ‘Integrated Household Survey’, the Office for National Statistics asks 178,197 people about their sexual identity. Most chose to answer. These are the figures. 93.5% of people said they were ‘heterosexual’ or ‘straight’. 1.1% said they were ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’. 0.4% admitted to being bisexual. That’s a lot of people, but its still a tiny minority. Do they deserve to be heard? Yes of course. Is their influence massively disproportionate? Absolutely! And it is currently being enforced as a vital component part of educational standards in the UK. That is indoctrination sponsored by the State.
I hope you will appreciate the disconnect in terms of justice. Since it is a fact that those who stand opposed to this mission by government agencies, and are willing to protest, may be liable to the threat of censure of the same kind being applied to individuals and schools. You see it is OK for a person like myself to be hated for expressing views on actions I believe to be dangerous and wrong. Hate crime is a perverse and very nasty weapon when put into the hands of ideologues like the politically correct. If this continues then I think that for free speech, rights to protest against the liberal left and preach the full gospel of Jesus, including the writings of Paul, will soon be over.
Below is a video presentation by a doctor deeply concerned about where the LGBT issue is leading us, one of the few of a rapidly diminishing group of experts prepared to challenge its core beliefs. The reason being the threat of losing their jobs in a profession they have dedication their lives. None of the LGBT beliefs stand before the medical facts, as Dr Saunders demonstrates. We are being led by the nose into a world of medical experimentation; with people and organisations dedicated to health care coerced into using their patients as unwitting guinea pigs. I hesitate to use the use word Frankenstein, but it does seem to apply. No one knows the long term effects of drug therapy and surgery on those undergoing the processes involved. Many of the individuals under treatment are known to be vulnerable, sometimes autistic. This entire lifestyle is known to lead to increases in almost every type of negative data regarding health issues, both physical and mental, including psychological issues, unhappiness, depression, anxiety and suicide. At least one study into whether or not decisions made to accept drug therapy and surgery are later regretted was closed down. If the LGBT issue was not an ideology it would by now have been shut down with immediate effect, reconsidered and critically assessed. The chances of that? Nil!
