Religion is a Mental Illness

The new anti-gay activism

Those who advocate for gender identity ideology are fundamentally opposed to gay rights. We need to start describing them accurately.

andrewdoyle.org

“Trans kids do deserve better. They deserve better than to be told lies that that they might have been born in the wrong body. They deserve better than to be told that these hormones and surgeries that they are clambering for will somehow solve all their problems. Many are on the autism spectrum. Many are struggling with their sexual orientation. We know that. They deserve better than to be told that we hate them. And they deserve better than to be labelled trans when they’re going through all the turbulence of adolescence, when your feelings about yourself are in constant flux.”

“When designing gender settings on Grindr, it was important to us to not further perpetuate discrimination and harm for the trans and nonbinary community. For this reason, we allow filtering based on gender - you can specify that you want to see men or women - but this will include all men or all women, because trans men are men and trans women are women.”

Lots of responses to this post I made the other day laying out the case for why trans activism is homophobic, most of them supportive. For the few that weren't, here's a thread where I brought the receipts. If my earlier post was opening arguments, consider this the full case: 🧵

First up, the charities, such as Stonewall and GLAAD. These are the groups that were originally set up as gay rights advocates, but were retooled around 2015 into trans rights advocates, and - since trans activism seeks to erase homosexuality - promptly began to do exactly that

With the anti-gay activists now in charge and setting the tone, media now takes the reins and begins subtly erasing the very notion of same-sex attraction, suggesting that lesbians who don't want to date ppl with penises, and gay men not interested in vaginas are hateful bigots

And more of the same nonsense:

With the activists dictating, and the media following their lead, the homophobia inevitably trickles down. This manifests in different forms, but one of them is the psychological torture of homosexuals, some of whom have come to believe their innate orientation means they're bigots

But mostly the biggest effect is in the trans community itself, who have increasingly internalized the idea that same-sex attraction doesn't exist, and thus, any ppl who claim to be exclusively same-sex attracted are actually just transphobic bigots who can be abused at will

The rest is just gonna be a firehose of hate, as I try to dispel the idea that this homophobia is "just a few bad apples" instead of the truth: it's a core component underpinning the entire ideology transgenderism, as are the violent threats that often accompany it:

I could go on and on, but I think the point here is made. Homophobia doesn't just exist in the trans community, it's RIFE in it. It's a feature, not a bug, the erasure of sex (and by extension, homosexuals) is a core goal of trans activism. Hopefully this has opened some eyes /end

Thread by @Rob_ThaBuilder on Thread Reader App

@Rob_ThaBuilder: Lots of responses to this post I made the other day laying out the case for why trans activism is homophobic, most of them

threadreaderapp.com

The culture war is not a myth

Why do politicians on the right and the left keep insisting that these key issues of our time simply don’t matter?

andrewdoyle.substack.com

“The Conservative Party has to think very carefully about the type of campaign it wants to run, and the longer term impact of stoking culture wars. It is clear that voters are rejecting the politics of division. We must not run on ‘wedge issues’ for a narrow core voter base alone.”

“I’m sure the world of trade and business will take note that the actual Secretary of State for trade and business has decided that the biggest issue on her agenda on her first big election outing is the weaponisation of trans rights. Anyone might be tempted to think Kemi Badenoch has less interest in the general election than the internal ideological shitshow likely to follow.”

There is little research at the international level to help us understand the experiences and needs of trans people living with dementia, despite population aging and the growing numbers of trans people including the first cohort of trans older adults. There is a need to understand the widespread barriers, discrimination and mistreatment faced by trans people in the health and social service system, and the fears trans people express about aging and dementia. Anecdotal evidence from the scarce literature on the topic of LGBTQ populations and dementia suggest that cognitive changes can impact on gender identity. For example, trans older adults with dementia may forget they transitioned and reidentify with their sex/gender assigned at birth or may experience ‘gender confusion.’ [...]

Aids and the new homophobia

UnHerd

“All of my friends are dead.” It was said in his customary matter-of-fact tone, without the slightest hint of self-pity. This was Robin, my supervisor at university, who would often discuss his pre-academic life and what it was like to be a gay man during the worst of the Aids crisis. That he had survived at all struck him as incredible.

In those early days, the sense of an angel of death targeting a particular community seemed like the realisation of a nightmare. When it first emerged in the US it was known as GRID (gay-related immune deficiency). An article appeared in the New York Times on 3 July 1981 with the ominous headline: “Rare cancer seen in 41 homosexuals.” Some called it the “gay plague”.

Confusion turned into widespread panic, not limited to the gay community. The first time I heard of the disease was during a PE lesson at primary school. Such was the general ignorance that our teacher warned us not to borrow each other’s plimsolls or we’d catch Aids. Some time later I saw the government’s public health advert on the television; I remember little about it except the large tombstone with the dreaded four-letter acronym as an epitaph.

In the 40 years since the virus was identified, there has been a sea-change in attitudes. Whereas the government’s campaign set out to frighten people with the message “it’s a deadly disease and there’s no known cure”, a recent advert by the Terrence Higgins Trust reminds people that those diagnosed with HIV “can live a healthy, happy life just like anyone else”. Much of the stigma has dissipated.

The same is true of homosexuality itself. One could say that while the Aids crisis exacerbated the hatred and mistrust against an already beleaguered community, it also spurred activists onto the pathway to normalisation. Whereas the pursuit of a gay lifestyle was romanticised — or demonised — as a dance of Eros and Thanatos, a way to ensure that one remained beyond the scope of civilised society, today the very notion of being orientated towards one’s own sex is largely perceived as unremarkable. Those who bleat about their oppression as gay people in a climate of widespread tolerance are luxuriating in a kind of perverse nostalgia for a reality they could never comprehend.

For those who lived through it, the Aids crisis was a moment when the concept of a “gay community” actually meant something. Lesbians were instrumental in providing support for their gay brothers, and amid the loss there was a sense of greater solidarity. I remember seeing a production of Larry Kramer’s The Normal Heart in New York in 2004. The audience mostly comprised of older gay men, and Kramer was among them. Afterwards, people were visibly shaken from watching the worst of their past so unflinchingly dramatised. One man approached Kramer and, through his sobs, I heard him simply say: “thank you”.

Kramer has been credited as a kind of Cassandra figure, one who had warned that the hedonism of gay life in the late Seventies would lead to trouble. His novel Faggots (1978) was loathed by conservatives for its graphic depiction of the sexual free-for-alls of New York’s bathhouse culture, but it was also mistrusted by the gay community for its moralising implications. Its lead character is on an impossible quest to find meaningful love in a world of fleeting sexual encounters. Kramer was criticising what he saw as a sybaritic and morally vacuous culture, and the sense of an impending reckoning has led to the novel being interpreted as predicting the outbreak of Aids.

When the crisis exploded, Kramer was one of those calling on gay men to exercise sexual temperance, and to shut the bathhouses until the virus could be contained. For this he was accused of being a puritan and a traitor to the gay lifestyle. His play The Normal Heart is set around this time, and in one furious monologue a character rails against a Kramer-type figure for trying to make gay men feel ashamed of their own liberation.

For the ultra-religious, Aids was seen as a righteous punishment from God. Many had been appalled at the promiscuity that inevitably arises when women are no longer in the equation. Male sexuality has always been contained to a degree by the institution of marriage, but gay men had been forced to exist on the periphery. There was no need to abide by sexual mores, because the rules had clearly not been written with them in mind. In other words, sex became an integral aspect of their own defiance against the society that had shunned them.

It always seemed a catch-22. Gay men were loathed for their sexual licentiousness, and at the same time excluded from the very ethical framework that would, to a degree, offer some kind of incentive against it. In his 1982 lecture, “Rediscovering gay history”, the historian John Boswell addressed this fundamental contradiction and argued for the need for a gay archetype or moral aspiration. He pointed out that when a straight man cheated on his wife, he at least knew that he was falling short of society’s expectations. But the same could not be said for gay men:

“I think that part of the reason for the ambivalence of the intellectual establishment in the United States is that they can’t tell when they read a book like Edmund White’s States of Desire, whether the life of casual promiscuity it depicts represents a homosexual ideal or the failure of an ideal. Are they reading about what gay people should do, what they do, or both, or neither? So they don’t know how to fit it into their usual critical apparatus. They don’t understand what would be a departure from homosexual ethics because they don’t know what homosexual ethics would be. And neither do we.”

Boswell was right that this ambivalence existed within and without the gay community. When William Friedkin’s film Cruising was released in 1980, the most vehement opposition came from gay campaigners who feared that it would depict them as being inherently deviant. And yet the movie had been shot in the leather bars of New York City, and the real-life sex acts that were filmed were hardly atypical. This subculture may not have been reflective of gay society as a whole, but it certainly existed.

Perhaps it could be said that the activists who sought to ban Cruising won out in the end. Their implicit goal was that gay people could be brought under the aegis of heterosexual respectability — that they could, in other words, live as conventionally as everybody else. It didn’t surprise me at all, therefore, that it was a conservative government in the UK that eventually legalised same-sex marriage. It would appear that we have seen the cultivation in the Western world of the kind of shared ethical ideals that Boswell seemed to crave. Gay monogamy is no longer seen as an oxymoron.

Many gay rights groups, of course, opposed same-sex marriage. To them, it was a way to control gay people, to bring them within the same heteronormative yoke that dominated the rest of society. This debate echoed those of The Normal Heart, where there was a fear of an attempt to “civilise” those who had found freedom in occupying a realm outside of social convention. To be gay was to be different, and for many this was a source of pride. An older gay man once told me that sex was far more exhilarating when it was illegal. It meant that even the most casual sexual encounter was a little act of rebellion.

But even as tolerance has increased, anti-gay feeling has not gone away. The Aids crisis galvanised such prejudices, and of course religious fundamentalists have always opposed those who they deem to be acting against the wishes of their various gods. Today, these prejudices are resurfacing through the obsession with gender identity, an ideology that shames gay people for not being attracted to members of the opposite sex and has been responsible for the government-funded medicalisation of gay youth. In many ways, this is a “progressive” rehash of Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, with its prohibition in schools against the “promotion” or “acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”.

The instinctive disgust that many people feel towards those who do not share their own sexual inclinations is seemingly hard-wired, and so what we call “homophobia” will always emerge in one way or another in a majority heterosexual culture. But at least to be gay is no longer defined solely by the sexual act, and that for one man to fall in love with another is widely considered to be an unexceptional fact of life. The gay rights activists of yesteryear weren’t necessarily calling for universal indifference, but perhaps we’ll get there in the end.

I still can’t convince my mum I’m just a lesbian, not a transman — LGB Alliance Australia

A personal story of a girl who knew she was a girl, despite what she did, wore or liked. A viewpoint not shared by some of the adults in her

LGB Alliance Australia

I was around 10 the first time my mother asked if I thought I was a boy.

There was a period from the 1970s-1990s where the concept “tomboys”, although perhaps originally intended as a derogatory term, provided a space for pre-pubescent girls to act, play and dress in ways that were not stereotypically coded feminine; in other words, some of the freedoms boys were granted. My mother clearly felt that raising a daughter and a son should be drastically different experiences. This was not largely the case, as I wanted to be just like my older brother.

Growing up, my parents had strict ideas around the roles of men and women in society. Men were “head of the household” and had the final say on decisions, as well as being the primary disciplinarian; women’s primary roles were as caregivers. My parents were religious, raising me in a religion where homosexuality was taught to be immoral and unnatural.

In some ways, I fulfilled many stereotypes of feminine attributes: being gentle, soft-spoken, and nurturing towards others. I enjoyed playing with dolls and soft toys; however I also had a keen interest in cars and transformers. As a painfully shy child, I preferred the company of fictional characters in books more than people; this level of social awkwardness alone cast me as “odd”.

However, what had been convenient and financially fiscal - hand-me-down clothing from my brother - had become my clothing of choice. I only wanted to wear “boys’ clothing”, much of which came in my favourite colour (blue) versus the bright warm colours of “girls’ clothing”. Having worn both, I had realised that boys’ clothing was looser fitting, had more flexibility of motion, and was more comfortable. I disliked glitter, sequins, lace and frills, none of which was found on boys’ clothing. As a very shy child who refused to wear the clothing supposedly designated for my sex, this often invoked commentary and disapproval from adults around my appearance and my body. Boys’ clothing, with its longer sleeves and longer torso, covered up more of my body; a body I was painfully aware that others were observing and judging, sometimes openly.

My mother had told me how excited she was when she learned she was going to have a daughter to “do girly things with”, fantasising of frilly dresses and ballet rehearsals. Instead, she had me. Although my parents allowed me to play with the same toys as my brother, pursue the same sport as my brother, and (eventually) choose my own clothing, my mother’s question showed that she still didn’t understand: “Do you think you’re a boy?” My mother, likely feeling that she had been short-changed around the perks promised with raising a girl, could not understand how her daughter, who declined most things coded feminine, could indeed be a girl who was comfortable with this fact. 10 year old me didn’t understand just how loaded the question was, but did find it strange and hurtful, replying, “No, I’m a girl” in a confused tone.

Thankfully, as the concept of “tomboy” was popular while I was growing up, this meant there was a known word that described the type of girl I was; one that allowed me to know that, no matter what I liked or did, I was still a girl.

There was another word that described the type of girl I was. I was around 8 the first time I heard the word “gay”.  A boy slightly older than me had spit the word out, yelling at another child “I’m not gay!” This caught my interest. Although the word itself was unknown, the meaning had been clear with the derision and emphasis the boy had placed on the word, his face consorting in disgust as the word left his mouth. It must be something really bad was the clear impression.

I had the opportunity to quench my curiosity that same week. In line with other tasks that could be deemed naughty, looking up bad words in the dictionary required careful timing to when family members were distracted elsewhere. I timed my moment carefully and looked up “gay”, which naturally led to my learning the term “homosexual” - oh. Reading the definition, it was almost like a warm recognition spread across my chest, embracing me. I hadn’t known that homosexuals existed, but I was pretty sure I was one. After this, I would sometimes sneak out the dictionary just to read these words again; although just ink on paper, it was proof that other people like me existed.

I would later use this word - gay - against myself, turning it from something comforting and wonderful, to the same kind of contempt that shrouded the word whenever I heard others use it in real life. Laying in bed at age 11, I had prayed to not be gay, promising myself that I would never tell anyone about these feelings and grow up to marry a man. Although it had been fine when my feelings towards certain girls had just been an intense desire to be their friend and be near them, these feelings had become much harder to ignore now they had turned into more concrete thoughts, such as how beautiful a certain girl was, how shiny and luscious was her hair, and daydreaming around our hands accidentally touching. It was much harder to deny the very clear signs of a crush, particularly when all my female friends had crushes on boys. In order to fit in, I focused my energies on talking about how “cute” one of the boys in the class was - I had never interacted with him, however he had soft features and long eyelashes, and seemed gentle in nature. I would then go home and dream about my female friend and her lovely, long dark hair.

Coming into puberty, I had also started learning more about my religion’s views on homosexuality, specifically that it was immoral and unacceptable. This led to a lot of emotional hurt and confusion for me. At this point, homosexuals may as well have been mythical creatures, discussed by others, but never appearing as an identifiable person in real life.

* * *

Several years older, 15 year old me was struggling. Since puberty, I had been trying to push away any inkling of desire I had towards other girls.; it hadn’t worked. Now with slightly more understanding around the world and how I fitted into it, I had started the process of accepting that these feelings weren’t going anywhere and were, perhaps, just a normal part of me. I had also started considering that if I had been created with intent, as my religion taught, then no mistakes were possible, and my attraction towards girls, which had always been there in some form, was as natural and as similar as anyone else’s. Although it had improved, my social awkwardness still made me frequently feel like an outsider, with my secret and furtive crushes on other girls further making me feel different in a way I couldn’t discuss with anyone. This feeling would decrease when I eventually met other lesbians, however this wouldn’t happen for several years.

I had started to shop in the women’s department, and outgrown my obsession with cars, instead falling into an obsession with music; something familiar to many teenagers. Still, I preferred comfortable clothing that would be classed as “gender neutral”: jeans, baggy t-shirts, converse shoes. I wore my mid-length hair messy, fantasising about the short hairstyles lesbian duo Tegan and Sara sported. I spent a lot of time listening to music with female musicians who played guitar, preferring artists who openly sung about and desired other women, or those who sang with ambiguity in their love songs, allowing me to place my own meaning on them. My penchant for female musicians had not escaped the notice of my friends, who gently teased me about it, although they didn’t seem to understand the cause for this fixation.

Again, now a teenager, the same question from my mother, phrased slightly differently this time: “do you feel like you’re a man?” I remember telling my friend about this at a sleepover the same night - her response was silence. She didn’t know what to say.

* * *

Several years passed. I was now an out lesbian with a rainbow flag proudly adorning the wall of my share-house bedroom. This included being out to my parents, who had taken the news reasonably well and had been supportive. Having a friendly gay male couple move into their neighbourhood in my late teenage years had significantly increased their understanding and acceptance of homosexual relationships - and had allowed me to finally meet others “like me”. I had fulfilled my fantasy of cutting off the majority of my hair, with the longest section being a fringe that flopped into my eyes. I had also gone back to shopping in the men’s wear section, though my wide hips and narrow shoulders made finding men’s clothing that fit me well difficult. I had finally had my first kiss, although not yet a girlfriend, though most of my time was spent dreaming about this.

My parents had reassured me that they loved and accepted me when I told them I was a lesbian. They had continued to reaffirm this in the following months, however despite this acceptance, my mother showed that she still doesn’t understand, asking me the same question again, some months after I came out: “do you want to be a man?” It was as if every five years, the thought occurred to her again that I must have gender identity disorder because of the way I looked and acted.

I’m in my late 20s now. I have been an out lesbian for a decade, and have had several girlfriends, although my current relationship is by far the longest. My parents adore my girlfriend, buying her birthday presents, and always letting me know how much they approve. My mother comments on how nice my girlfriend’s dresses are and how much she likes her long hair, telling me, “you would look so nice in that”. I feel fatigued with a lifetime of trying to convince her I am genuinely comfortable like this, and tired of defending my short hair, which is my favourite part of my appearance. My girlfriend gets angry on my behalf whenever my mother makes these comments, defending me and saying she thinks I look beautiful as I am.

I am thankful that I never came across the often repeated and homophobic rhetoric that only boys like girls, and therefore lesbians are actually just straight males on the inside. My conviction of my own self, that I am a girl who likes girls, has protected me in this way, but may not have had I had been born a decade later, where it seems many young girls similar to myself are being taken to gender clinics. Or that my mother’s conviction that I am secretly a transman - which has been a reoccurring theme across my life so far - could have caused consultation with a medical professional to convince me of this very fact; something that, as a child who felt different and never seemed to fit, I am sure I would have trusted the adult expert’s views on.

Somehow - bewilderingly - now almost 30, my mother again asks me if I feel like I’m a man and if I’m actually trans. I explain as patiently as I can that no, I’m a lesbian woman and it’s hurtful to me that she seems to refuse to truly accept this, questioning whether I can be a woman because I don’t match her view of what a woman looks like.

She listens to my words and apologises, saying she thinks she understands now. I can’t help but wonder if we’ll be having this same conversation in another five years.

"Religion invents a problem wher enone exists by describing the wicked as also made in the image of god and the sexually nonconformist as existing in a state of incurable mortal sin that can incidentally cause floods and earthquakes." -- Christopher Hitchens

“Is the trans movement anti-gay?” In honor of Pride Month, Peter Boghossian begins this conversation with an investigation into the increasing rejection of trans ideology by the LGB (without the T) community. Peter’s guest is Andrew Doyle, acclaimed author, comedian, and host of Free Speech Nation on GB News. Here’s an important piece of information to better understand this conversation: Andrew is gay. Andrew explains the impact the trans movement has inflicted on gay people over the last several years, including the rise of abusive language toward gays he “hasn’t seen since the ‘80s." Lesbians are labelled “sexual racists” or “transphobes” if they reject trans women as partners. (The same is true for gay men rejecting trans men—that is, women—but the abuse is not as pervasive.) Peter and Andrew discuss the incoherence of gender ideology, the nature of sexual attraction, how predators manipulate gender self-ID, and the sterilization of gay youth. Also discussed: Bad woke art, sensitivity readers, primary education, censorship, standpoint epistemology, critical thinking, the long history of human fantasy and folly, and more. Andrew Doyle is a journalist, playwright, satirist, and comedian. He is the creator of Titania McGrath, “a radical intersectionalist poet committed to feminism, social justice and armed peaceful protest.” He is the host of Free Speech Nation and an unabashed lover of art and literature.

Peter Boghossian: Is the trans movement anti-gay?

Andrew Doyle: In its current manifestation, yes. So, not trans people are anti-gay, but the predominant cheerleaders of trans activism in its most extreme form are most definitely anti-gay. Because the movement at present -- and it wasn't always this way, only over the past five, six years -- is now completely underpinned by the notion of gender identity ideology.

The concept of gender identity is a difficult one because no one ever defines it, least of all the activists themselves. The best we can come to is a kind of feeling, a kind of sense, of who you are and a sense of an authentic self.

Helen Joyce in her book "Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality," describes it as something akin to a sexed soul, which actually is very close to what certain trans activists have described it as. So, because it's not really pinned down definitionally, what we get, the most useful way of thinking about it is is that sense of self within, which is gendered. And whenever you try to get people to define it, they will say things like "I am a woman because I feel like a woman," which leads to a subsequent question, "but what is a woman," and then it's "whoever defines themselves as a woman," so we're in the realm of identity politics.

But gender identity ideology effectively is about ensuring that gender, as in the concepts of masculinity and femininity and stereotypical behaviors of what it means to be male and female, that those things are prioritized over biological sex.

And you even have, of course, activists again on the extreme side, who now pushed for the idea that not only is gender socially constructed, as in boys wear blue and girls wear pink - well there's nothing innate about that, is there - so there are certain modes of behavior that men and women have that are certainly socially constructed, there are others that are rooted in biology. But there's a great deal that is to do with social constructs.

But some activists will now say that even biological sex itself is a social construct. There's no really authentic way -- they've been saying that for many decades by the way, you've had voices in academia saying that for a long long time, even when I was at University, so there's nothing new about that; it's not true and it's never been true -- but it's now taken hold in society as though it is.

Peter: So, two things. One throwaway: one of the fake papers that Jim and I wrote, we titled it "Pre-epistemic Transgenderism." Since gender is a social construct and sex is a social construct -- this is so the argument goes -- no one ever truly knows their gender until after they've transitioned right, if we just remove the genitals from everybody, or if we just allow them to -- I can't remember what age it was -- you know at 12, they would transition, then they would know if that was a good thing or not. Yeah, pre-epistemic transgenderism.

[..]

So, what is anti-gay?

Andrew: Right, so that's the -- you asked whether it was anti-gay and I didn't really explain that.

So, the reason why it's anti-gay is because gay rights were secured through the recognition that there were always in any given society and culture a minority of individuals who are innately attracted to members of their own sex.

The debate about how that develops within individuals, that's a bigger debate and it's nothing to do with this. The fact is that there are a minority of people who are instinctively, innately attracted to members of their own sex. And that gay rights were secured by getting people to understand that.

Now you have groups like Stonewall, who's the UK's foremost LGBT charity, redefining the word homosexual to mean "same gender attracted."

That's not what it means. It's not homogendered, it's homosexual. It's people being attracted -- so a gay man isn't attracted to someone who identifies as a man they're attracted to men. Similarly, lesbians are attracted...

Peter: So, I just need to disambiguate. They're attracted to, and I'm trying to think about -- there's just no other way to say this without being vulgar. So, I'll put it on myself -- heterosexual is attracted to a natal woman or a person with a vagina.

Andrew: Right.

Peter: A gay person is attracted to a man that is in a natal, a biological -- someone born biologically male with a penis.

Andrew: Quite. But you see, extreme trans activists will twist that and say well, why are you obsessed with genitals, and they will then say that genital preferences are transphobic. But of course, you're not solely attracted to genitals. That is of course a part of the whole, part of everything that you are attracted to.

The idea that you're attracted to how someone perceives themselves doesn't make any sense whatsoever in terms of sexual attraction.

And it gets worse than that. Because Stonewall not only redefine the term, but then you have the CEO of Stonewall, Nancy Kelley, comparing lesbians who don't want to date people with penises, comparing them to "sexual racists," saying that if you're writing off whole groups of people, a whole demographic out of your dating pool, you want to examine your prejudice and you want to examine where that bigotry came from.

But a lesbian writing off men from a dating pool isn't bigotry, it's homosexuality. So it's very, very serious when effectively the whole precept of of homosexual rights has been drawn away, taken away.

And you've even got trans activists now who talk about how lesbians who don't want to sleep with someone who identifies as a woman but has a penis, that they are suffering from some kind of trauma. That's the phrase they use. They say this is an example of trauma.

And of course that's -- I mean the WHO perceived homosexuality to be a mental disorder as late as 1990. That's what they used to say to gay people, you're suffering from some kind of trauma , you're suffering some from some kind of mental illness. You're a gay boy so all you need to do is find the right girl. Or vice versa. And that's exactly what trans activists are saying.

Now there was a website called Woke Homophobia which collected thousands and thousands and thousands of screenshots of trans activists attacking gay people. The website has since been deleted, which is a shame that no one archived it, because people don't believe this. But there are, it's not just one or two people on Twitter. There are thousands of these people using the kind of language that I haven't seen since the 80s about gay people, talking about faggots, about how AIDS was a good thing, gay people should die.

I did a tweet the other day which was, it was a monologue that I did on my show about the pride flag. [..] And I put out a thing about how pride no longer represents gay people.

I got attacked from both the right and the left, or at least people who identify as right and left, I should qualify. I got attacked by outright right-wing reactionary homophobes calling me a sodomite, you know, saying that it is degraded you know, degeneracy is the word they like to use they also use. Like to spell the word "return" with a V instead of a u to invoke in Roman numerals this idea of this Grand Roman tradition. Believe me, if they went back to Rome they might not like it. But anyway, so those idiots you know you just block and move on.

And then similarly, I was being attacked by gender ideologues who identify as being on the left. Their responses were slightly worse because I had two of them saying I should kill myself, calling me a cis gay, saying cis gays like this should kill themselves, and another one called me a faggot, and that was coming from someone who says they're left wing.

Now that -- I've never heard that kind of language, not since I was a small child. It's sort of been out of our society for about 15 years that kind of stuff. But now that kind of virulent homophobia is coming from trans activists.

Peter: So, why are they calling you, what, why are they, why?

Andrew: Because they fundamentally believe that to be gay is transphobic. They don't say it that way, but what they are saying is that if you are writing off -- if I as a male and writing off women who identify as men okay then I am transphobic.

"Nobody should ever be pressured into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to. But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions." -- Nancy Kelley, CEO Stonewall UK

[Kelley] further complained that the ‘highly toxic’ cotton ceiling issue was ‘analogous to issues like sexual racism’.

Remember when the pride flag made sense?

It was designed by an American Artist called Gilbert Baker in 1978. It was originally an eight-stripe rainbow but was soon refined into the six-striped version that was the norm for many decades.

At a time when gay people couldn't hold hands with their partners on the street, this flag served a useful purpose. It meant that you could easily find gay pubs or other places where no one had to pretend to be something they weren't. The rainbow symbol was a simple and effective concept that conveyed positivity and unity.

And then some activists came along and said hang on a minute, why are there no black or brown stripes in the rainbow flag? See, for some reason they were under the impression that the gay flag was a literal representation of the range of skin colors that are acceptable in the community. And so we got this.

Okay then, I mean, well, there weren't any white stripes in the original one either. But most people understood that it was symbolic with that we were all included already, irrespective of our race.

But then after this, trans activists came along and said, why aren't we in there? So we got this one. And this was the chevron with the pink white and blue, which was based on the trans flag.

But surely this eyesore couldn't get any worse, could it? Well, it could, because activists were then concerned that it was excluding intersex people, so they added this symbol.

Okay, it's getting a bit out of control now. But then last year, some bright spark added a red umbrella to represent sex workers.

Now, if you thought this was getting out of hand, last year then we had Microsoft. They designed a new version to incorporate all the other multiple sexualities and genders that have been invented over the past few years. Let's have a look at that.

I mean, what the hell is it? It looks like a space ship going at warp speed through a Care Bear's bum hole.

Identity politics in its current form is an ever expanding beast. Pride used to be just one day. Then it was a month. And now Pride events have been scheduled all the way from March through to September. As one sign in a shoe shop pointed out Pride never stops. If only it would.

The initialism as well that's expanded too. First we had LGB, and then it became LGBT, then LGBTQ, then LGBTQIA. The Canadian government currently favors 2SLGBTQIA+, although even its prime minister finds that a bit of a mouthful.

Similarly, Pride started out as an important protest against injustice. When the original Pride March took place in London in 1972, homosexuality had only been legal for five years, and the prospect of gay marriage or even an equal age of consent, seemed impossible. Only 2000 people turned up to these protests.

But by contrast, the Pride parade in London in 2022 attracted over a million. And of course, most of those people aren't even gay. It's become a family day out, a huge party.

And what's so wrong with that, you might ask. And that's a fair question. If people are celebrating and having a good time, that's great. Except that's not necessarily what's going. Increasingly, gay people no longer feel welcome at Pride. I spoke to a representative from a lesbian group on this show last year who had been moved along by police when trying to protest at Pride. But isn't Pride meant to be a protest, not a party? What's going on?

The answer is that pride has been hijacked not once but twice.

First by avaricious multi-billion dollar corporations who are able to pose as virtuous by posting the pride flag. Only, they don't do it in the branches in countries where homosexuality is still illegal. After all, you wouldn't want to fly the flag anywhere which might actually make a difference.

I'm old enough to remember that corporations were certainly not celebrating Pride quite so openly before section 28 was repealed in 2003, or before the age of consent was equalized in 2001, or before the decriminalization of homosexuality in Scotland in 1980. So, these corporations' commitment to LGBT rights apparently only manifests itself when it's likely to make them a profit.

And then there's the second hijacking. See, whereas the original Pride was about agitating for equal rights for gay people, it's now been taken over by activists who are obsessed with group identity and who believe that gender is more important than sex.

That's why the British library, to celebrate the advent of pride month this week, posted a thread on Twitter about the sex life of fish, and how some species have been known to change from male to female.

I mean, what's that got to do with Pride? Why have Librarians seemingly forgotten that human beings aren't the same as fish? Now, they've since deleted those tweets, because well, you know they're bonkers. And although we might laugh at that kind of nonsense, the ideology it promotes is actually rather sinister, particularly for gay people.

See, in her book, "Time to Think" by Hannah Barnes, she found that between 80 and 90% of adolescents referred to the Tavistock pediatric gender clinic were same-sex attracted. Studies have long confirmed a correlation between gender non-conformity in youth, and homosexuality in later life. At the Tavistock, staff used to joke that "soon there would be no gay people left." Somehow the medicalization and sterilization of gay people has been reframed as progressive.

Even Stonewall, the UK's foremost LGBT charity has redefined the word "homosexual" on its website and promotional materials to mean "same gender attracted." Its CEO, Nancy Kelly, has claimed that women who exclude trans people from their dating pool are akin to sexual racists. There's been an intense resurgence of old homophobic tropes online from gender ideologues that believe that "genital preferences are transphobic" and that lesbians who don't include men in their dating pool must be suffering from trauma.

Gay rights were secured by recognizing that a minority of people are instinctively attracted to members of their own sex. And the new ideology of gender identity rejects this notion entirely, and actively shames gay people for their orientation.

So, when you see this flag, try to understand that many gay people consider it to be a symbol of opposition to gay rights, Women who are concerned about their rights consider it a symbol of misogyny, because it promotes an ideology that denies the reality of sex-based oppression, and yet most people, gay people included, haven't even noticed this transition from the pro-gay rainbow flag to this anti-gay imposter.

And that's because it all happened so quickly, and activists are playing on good intentions of a public who don't want to be seen to be on the wrong side of history. Well, I would suggest that upholding the rights of women and gay people and protecting gender non-conforming children and opposing the hypocrisy of corporations is the truly progressive approach.

Anyone who spends any time on social media would have seen that homophobia is clearly on the rise. It's coming from the reactionary elements of the right, who are now holding gay people responsible for sexualized drag shows for children, and the proliferation of sexually explicit books in school libraries. But of course, they've fallen for the trick. This isn't gay people. That's gender ideologues who've convinced everyone that the LGBTQIA+ movement is one big happy family, when it isn't.

And we know this because homophobia is also on the rise among gender ideologues themselves, who frequently go online to tell gay people to kill themselves. Some of them have said that they celebrate AIDS as a good thing. And this isn't just a few mad activists, there are thousands of examples of this if you've got the stomach to look them up.

So whether it's coming from those who consider themselves right wing or left-wing, anti-gay sentiments are back in fashion. And the best way to combat this is to remind everyone that that Progress Pride flag, and the corporate orgy that accompanies it, is not in the interests of gay people.

And if it's too late to reclaim the original Pride flag, we can at least ditch the new one.

Who took the SO out of SOGI? | Bev Jackson | The Critic Magazine

Who is responsible for undermining the rights of lesbians and gays at the United Nations? Why, that would be Victor Madrigal-Borloz, the UN’

The Critic Magazine

Who is responsible for undermining the rights of lesbians and gays at the United Nations? Why, that would be Victor Madrigal-Borloz, the UN’s Independent Expert for Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI). “What’s that?” you say. Shouldn’t he be protecting the rights of people who are attracted to others of the same sex? Ah, but SOGI is a way of getting round that. Having an advocate for Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity is a bit like having one for Veganism and Chicken Farming. It doesn’t work.

Victor has just concluded an official visit to the UK — probably his last, since his second term is coming to an end. For the first nine days of his ten day visit, he met almost exclusively with gender identity enthusiasts. It was not, I think, a question of saving the best (in his view) for last.

Victor is a passionate advocate of gender self-ID. He has an impressive ability to claim over and over again, with a straight face, things that are untrue. He seems to have got on well with Nicola Sturgeon. He came to her aid twice to promote Scotland’s ill-fated Gender Recognition Reform Bill. One of Victor’s favourite untruths is that international human rights law requires the introduction of gender self-ID. This completely false notion relies on a little-known document — the Yogyakarta Principles or YP — which identifies as “best practice” when it is simply an activist manifesto. Human rights law professor Rob Wintemute, one of the signatories back in 2006, later changed his position when he realised that the impact on women’s rights had not been considered when the YP were being drafted. 

Where Victor is supposed to represent SOGI, he just focuses on the GI without the SO. Victor is the only Independent Expert (IE) to have a dual mandate encompassing irreconcilable aims. It recently emerged that he receives funding from the Arcus Foundation, which means that rather than “independent expert”, he is a paid mouthpiece for gender identity.

Victor maintains there is no conflict between the rights of LGB people and those claimed under the banner of “trans rights”. Whatever definition of “trans” you choose (and there are as many as there are scandals in the SNP), this is obviously untrue. Either people born male belong on a lesbian dating site, or they don’t. Either persons born female can be in a gay men’s sauna — without revealing their little secret — or they don’t belong there. Either it is fine to say you’re only attracted to people of the same sex, or it isn’t — because saying so out loud is hurtful and makes you a transphobe or a “sexual racist”, as Nancy Kelley (somehow still CEO of Stonewall) has been known to say. In this conflict you can jump one way or the other, but you can’t say no jumping is required.

Victor also insists — and this is his favourite mantra — that self-ID has not caused any problems in any country in the world. He has been sent pages of evidence to the contrary: abuses in prisons in countries from Ireland to Canada, explanations that data is becoming impossible to collect, abuses in women’s and girls’ sport, the self-exclusion of women of faith from vital services. Above all, there is documentation of what happens when children are sold a lie. It really isn’t possible to change sex. It is difficult to hear the pain expressed by dozens of women, and some men, now in their twenties or thirties who dare to speak in public about their bitter regret that they believed the lie, acted on it and are forced to live the rest of their lives with the consequences.

Sex is sex, and gender is — who knows? Victor knows, apparently. He also has a bridge to sell you.

LGB Alliance and other LGB groups have sent him numerous submissions, but he buries them and dismisses criticism of self-ID as “bigoted and exclusionary narratives”. It is of course exclusionary to exclude males from lesbian spaces. Nasty bigots. Everyone who stands up for sex-based rights is so used to being called names, that the abuse just inspires confidence — no one who has real arguments resorts to name-calling.

At LGB Alliance we became so concerned by Victor’s non-fulfilment of his sexual orientation mandate, his misrepresentations and his dismissal of our concerns that in January this year we submitted a long and detailed complaint in several languages to the President of the Human Rights Council and published it on our website.

This visit to the UK, Victor’s swan song in his ill-fated position, was a last chance to repeat the many points we have made to him over the years. We were pleased he met with Joanna Cherry KC MP, Chair of the Human Rights Committee, who was doubtless able to correct his misunderstandings of international human rights law. His final day’s schedule included — wonder of wonders (anything to do with that complaint?) — a meeting with some of those he has spent his entire term of office ignoring or belittling: Kate Harris of LGB Alliance, Dennis Kavanagh of the Gay Men’s Network and Paula Boulton of Lesbian Labour. The LGB groups’ aim was to ask some very pointed questions to elicit brief, cohesive replies — not the kind of Butlerian gibberish he is used to spouting (“Of course the challenging of the binary causes significant sensations of vertigo when the challenging of the binary appears to seek dismantling of binary structures”). We wanted him to say yes or no to whether homosexuals should have rights — simple stuff like that.

At this stage there was little point in being conciliatory. Years of polite requests had produced no result. So we bluntly repeated all the things we have been telling him for years. Funnily enough, he professed ignorance of all of it. “Cotton ceiling” (the difficulty trans-identifying males experience getting into lesbians’ pants)? Never heard of it. Homosexual detransitioners — surely part of his mandate in the interests of “inclusion”? Hmmm … please send details of such persons. Keira Bell, Sonia Appleby? Never heard of them. Quote from Dr Hilary Cass on lesbians who had felt pressured to transition? Silence. Had he met with Dr Cass? Didn’t want to say. GIDS clinic due to close because an NHS review found it to be unsafe? Oh, hadn’t heard. David Bell? Who’s that? Homophobia a key factor driving teens to seek gender transition? Here Victor raised a hand and flatly ruled it out. Not possible. HER dating site controversy? Who is HER? The Hoyle case in Tasmania in which a lesbian gathering was ruled unlawful? No, didn’t know about that. This last one is a bit telling since it is actually mentioned in one of Victor’s own reports.

Victor also wanted us to understand a few things. For one, children should have agency to make decisions about their bodies. Interesting. Would that apply to laws governing alcohol and cigarette sales, and legal or illicit drugs? Not to mention laws on the age of consent? Presumably so. With this “bodily autonomy” approach, the whole concept of safeguarding flies out of the window.

What Victor doesn’t know, or doesn’t want to know, or refuses to acknowledge, is that you can’t promote gender self-ID without undermining the interests of people with same-sex sexual orientation. Self-ID zealots say two men who both identify as women can be a lesbian couple. Their opponents — including LGB Alliance, Lesbian Labour and the Gay Men’s Network — say that is homophobic nonsense.

Victor’s position is being advertised. Can it be filled by someone who sees the contradictions and dares to conduct open discussions about them? Would the UN accept such an individual? We shall see. 

10 reasons why Biology Denial is homophobia 2.0, not gay rights 2.0

Biology denial pretends to re-enact gay rights. It's not. It's mocking it.

dennisnoelkavanagh.substack.com

[ Above: LGB Alliance making a point no charity should ever have to make ]

Of all the many absurd frauds perpetrated by gender ideology/biology denial the most egregious is the audacious lie “This is just like gay rights”, or the common riposte from the hard of thinking: “That’s just recycled homophobia”.

Such phrases are normally uttered by some risible gender borg, more often than not in answer to an actual homosexual daring to voice even a mild objection to the increasingly eccentric and dangerous demands of a creed whose main aim seems to be the re-medicalisation of homosexuality by force of gender.

Paradoxically, of course, Gay Rights 2.0 is actually the fight against biology denial, not for it and, with unerring symmetry, homophobia 2.0 is of course the fight to seriously sustain the argument that children playing with the wrong toys (normally gay) require surgical correction. For the sake of practicality and utility if nothing else, I propose here to set out why biology denial’s claim to our history, heritage and social position as gay rights activists is a fraudulent and sinister mockery of what our movement is, and what it stands for. Gender is a fraud by abuse of trust, most commonly a linguistic sleight of hand or a superficially plausible mapping of one issue onto another.

It’s easy to be fooled of course. Biology denial is a sort of hateful gay rights re-enactment society for bored bourgeois kids, some no doubt genuinely believe themselves to be fighting for “trans rights”, famously, none can specify the particular right when pressed. None can or do deal with detransitioners or inconvenient facts like homophobia being raised by the head of safeguarding at the Tavistock as a concern. Biology denial is a voluntary cyclops with one hand covering an eye which might otherwise survey the human collateral damage of this strange and failed aesthetic flesh cult. But then the acceptable casualties tend to be gay of course. That alone should provide you with a telling clue as to what is really going on.

[ Above: The absurd reconceptualisation of gay people as privileged beneficiaries with no history of pain ]

The 10 reasons biology denial is not Gay Rights 2.0:

(1) Biology denial regards gender non conformity as a medical issue

Biology denial position: Playing with toys atypical to societal gender roles should be regarded as the diagnostic criteria for experimental drugs with known results (underdeveloped genitalia, bone density deficits etc.) and as yet unknown results such that Nordic countries and France have now banned/seriously restricted their use. These drugs lock children into medical pathways with studies showing 97%+ graduation from puberty blockers to cross sex hormones.

Gay Rights position: Let children play with whatever toys they happen to like. Gender non-conformity is perfectly normal in our community. Children should not face lifelong medicalisation because homophobia is not taken seriously as a safeguarding issue at facilities engaging in gay conversion by gender.

[ Above: A mocked up satire on heterosexual MPs unwittingly supporting gay conversion by gender having not properly looked into the safeguarding of young gay people ]

(2) Biology denial is well funded, well connected and supported by left and right

Biology denial position: The profoundly religious and unevidenced suggestion that everyone possesses a gender soul enjoys huge corporate support and is also the de facto position of almost all trade unions in the UK. That consensus is largely mirrored in politics where the classic alignment of a political party is not a reliable indication of where it’s members stand on biology denial. While the right wing are in general terms more resistant to mass medicalisation of children, some of the most prominent gender borg acolytes in the UK are found on the Conservative benches. Ancillary to both is a monocultural charity sector where numerous “LGBTWTF” charities in effect act as proxies for one another. This leads to intellectual stagnation and discourse characterised by mantra like repetition of absurd phrases in place of arguments.

Gay Rights position: The gay rights of old and today is a grassroots phenomenon containing actual homosexuals. A comparison as between the funding arrangements for LGB Alliance, Gay Men’s Network, Lesbian Labour etc. and the leviathan biology denial outfits would be like comparing a local sports team to a televangelising mega church. Corporations and unions in the past had limited affinity with classic gay rights and support from both left and right was earned through open debate and discussion, rather than by diktat, shaming or dubious membership schemes requiring payment and adherence to a set of doctrines. Where BD is organised, lavish and entrenched in power structures the gay rights of old and today was and is a movement of private individuals giving up free time to fight homophobic hate.

(3) Biology denial rewrites science, language and history to appear organic

Biology denial position: Intersex/DSDs (Differences of Sexual Development) conditions should be dishonestly leveraged to argue sex is a spectrum despite such conditions being differences of either male or female development. Language control should become normal with a privileged class requiring forced/coerced language socially and in written communications. New words should be fabricated for an ever increasing range of biology denial identities and parties not adhering to new speech codes should be punished/ostracised/humiliated as “hateful”. Gay people may present a threat or object to the misuse of their movement as a vehicle for these aims so should be humiliated and demoralised by being told they owe all their rights to biology denial, their history should be extensively and audaciously rewritten to minimise/erase achievements by gay men and lesbians. History should further be raided and recrafted such that a claim to the long term existence of biology denial can be dishonestly made.

Gay Rights position: (Science) Human beings are not sequential hermaphrodites so cannot biologically change sex. Intersex/DSD conditions are not a debating prop nor is it fair or right to deploy these conditions when those with them loudly and repeatedly ask you not to. (Language) Coerced language is wrong and is simply a show of social power verging on bullying. In Gay Rights the advent of gay marriage was not accompanied by a demand that heterosexuals started saying “cis straight marriage”. Changing words is wrong and imperious. Homosexuals are not “homogendered”, nor is it morally acceptable to summarily redefine us in this way. The only language we’ve ever asked someone to accept is to get used to “his husband” or “her wife” and funnily enough most people are completely fine with that. (History) The achievements of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals should not and will not be forgotten. No social force/philosophy or cult has the right to rob people of their heroes. Our history should be accurately described according to facts, not rewritten to suit an oppressor class exploiting our movement and erasing our historical agency. Truth matters and gay history matters. We are a minority and minorities have more need of heroes that majorities. Children should not be taught lies about the Stonewall riots to suit the political objectives of biology denial and no movement should normalise the practice of trafficking in falsehoods.

[ Above: A sadly accurate assessment of how biology denial repackages historic anti-gay hate ]

(4) Biology denial believes in cancellation, silencing and harassment

Biology denial position: Disagreement of any kind should be met with pile-ons, attempts to get people sacked/driven from their jobs through stress, doxing and dishonestly representing their positions in the worst light all the while simultaneously maintaining that “there is no such thing as cancel culture”. Women in particular, like Maya Forstater, Professor Kathleen Stock and Professor Jo Pheonix are to be particularly targeted as they will engage in a reasonable manner and attempt to show kindness. As many BD adherents are fundamentally cowardly by nature, they will just about be able to add to the voices harassing these women where they would likely steer clear of a biological male. Only in this field, paradoxically, will the faithful unerringly recognise the biological demarcation between male and female. These public humiliations should chill freedom of speech and people should be afraid to say what they want with accusations of “hate speech” or “phobia” being made at the least provocation and on a hair trigger in order to silence any dissent.

Gay Rights position: An equal age of consent, gays in the military, equal marriage and employment protections required precisely zero women to lose their jobs nor did they require that anyone who opposed these measures be cancelled. We engaged in freedom of speech and a debate which is healthy and proper in a democracy. We note two of the women (Professors Stock and Phoenix) named above are lesbians, that is no accident. Lesbians were the first target of the biology denial movement particularly in the form of the demand they stop being lesbians and start sleeping with male bodies persons. That is homophobic. Chilling freedom of speech more generally and harassing people brings the gay rights movement into disrepute and squanders the goodwill brave lesbians and gay men built up over decades as it recasts itself as a bullying, authoritarian enemy of free speech.

(5) Biology denial believes in legislative change by deception

Biology denial position: There is no popular mandate for medicalising mostly gay kids or introducing the concept of gender souls into legislation such that the concept of “woman” is reduced to a self-declared feeling. If the public are left with a normal functioning legislative process, most would be horrified about matters such as homophobia as a child safeguarding concern at gender clinics or the reality of female prisoners forced to share cells with male bodies persons. The democratic process should therefore be subverted and far reaching legislative changes should be snuck into the law by abusing the close and unhealthy connections biology denial lobby groups have with legislators. Speaking to the public or actual gay people should be avoided as gay people in particular are likely to recognise and highlight the homophobia of biology denial. A vivid example is Stonewall’s campaign for there to be no public consultation on the “conversion therapy ban” (in reality a charter for gay conversion by gender).

Gay Rights position: Legislation in a democracy should be made on the basis of evidence, not ideology and normal consultation processes should be followed. The public should know what legislation contains and debates should be open and clear about what is being proposed. When the Gay Men’s Network and many other organisations responded to the government’s consultation on the “conversion therapy ban” we made the case that it amounted to conversion by gender. This is what gay rights organisations should be doing - fighting homophobia wherever it threatens gay people. Any policy that has to be snuck through a legislative process is, by definition, a change with something to hide. Gay rights movements have nothing to hide and we have never had to lie or obscure our policy objectives.

(6) Biology denial targets children for indoctrination

Biology denial position: Despite there being no evidence for this proposition and its far reaching consequences, children should be taught at school that they have a gender identity and this spiritual belief should be reinforced across youth media and through as much mainstream television as possible. Children are pliant and impressionable and less likely to ask questions. They should get the impression biology denial is fun and fashionable and present in ever increasing numbers at gender clinics so this movement can sustain a moral civil rights / safeguarding claim. Any suggestions of social contagion or harm should be met with as per (4) above with the claim that such concerns are hate.

Gay Rights position: Teaching children unscientific pseudo-religious dogma about gender souls is morally wrong and tantamount to using education as a way of proselyting a new religion. It is no accident the number of children presenting at biology denial clinics has risen in the UK in one instances of 5000% and in Scotland 1000%. To imagine that this increase is purely coincidental with these matters being taught in schools stretches credulity far beyond breaking point. Many of the children targeted in this way are gay. It is homophobic to teach gay children that they have the wrong bodies because they do not fit a sex stereotype. This is thus simply another homophobic religious belief which has no place in schools and it amounts to a serious safeguarding concern.

[ Above: The CEO of Stonewall equating lesbianism with a “societal prejudice”. ]

(7) Biology denial is racist

Biology denial position: Black people are a subset of the sex class to which they belong. The interests primarily of a group of white men with biology denier related identities come first. Countries that were colonised did not have a concept of male and female before white Western imperialism and were in a noble state prior to such corruption. What they now need is a new group of (mainly white) biology deniers to explain this to them and they should be re-educated in the ways of biology denial.

Gay Rights position: Allison Bailey was right to say in her keynote address at LGB Alliance conference that she had never known racism such as that emanating from biology denial / gender ideology. Her quote “if black women can be women, why can’t I” is a shocking illustration of the obvious racism of this movement. The targeting of Allison Bailey , Sonia Appleby, Kiera Bell and the public vilification of Baroness Kishwer Falkner is beginning to suggest that women of colour who speak out against biology denial face particularly harsh consequences. White men adopting biology denial identities seem to be at the forefront of this movement and many of them appear to be heterosexual.

(8) Biology denial is misogynist

Biology denial position: The word “woman” has no fixed definition and anyone who says they are woman is one, except adult human females who may only say that they are “menstruators”, “cervix havers” etc. Women should have no sex-based boundaries at all from toilets to bathrooms to prison cells or rape shelters, women who challenge this position at rape shelters should be called “bigots” who should “reframe their trauma”. The concept “woman” should primarily be understood with reference to sexual stereotypes and the performance of a particularly porn-based understanding of femininity. Women in particular who dissent (see (4) above) should especially be targeted for cancellation and silencing.

Gay Rights position: A woman is an adult human female. As homosexuals, same sex spaces and boundaries are not just necessary, they are the existential framework of our minority community. It is demeaning and morally wrong to existentially acid strip meaning from the word “woman”. The male Gay Rights movement has no interest in, or desire to compromise, female sexual boundaries or spaces. The lesbian Gay Rights movement has no interest in, or desire to compromise, male sexual boundaries or spaces. That is what makes us gay. The fact biology denial is preoccupied with this quintessentially heterosexual endeavour makes it a straight rights movement, not a gay rights one. The open harassment and abuse of women that goes on in the name of biology denial should be a source of shame to it. The fact it is not demonstrates aptly the contempt in which it truly holds women.

[ Above: A statement so utterly homophobic of course the author wasn’t cancelled ]

(9) Biology denial is homophobic

Biology denial position: Gay people are second class members of the movement who lack the determination to embrace one of biology denial’s ultimate goal, the surgical transformation of homosexuals into ostensible heterosexuals. Gender nonconformity should be medicalised. Lesbians and gays who disagree with this should be cancelled and excluded from their movement, charities and any social spaces where they might organise. Those who go along with this should be rewarded and encouraged to engage in woke conversion therapy propaganda.

Gay Rights position: Homosexuality is not a medical problem, our same-sex attraction is in fact a protected characteristic pursuant to s.12 of the Equality Act 2010 in the UK. Gay people owe it to the next generation to speak up in the face of our political vehicles being taken from us and we must make our own new organisations where necessary and form such groups/alliances as are necessary to protect our community. Biology denial is an existential attack on our minority community and it regards us as second class citizens. We must challenge and defeat it. We have to.

(10) Biology denial makes only pornography, not art

Biology denial position: As this in an inorganic, top-down movement it stunts creativity and blunts free thinking because both are threats to cult-like religions. Self-expression is limited to pre-designed identities and flags, each of which constrain and categorise human creativity while giving the illusion of choice. Biology denial produces a vast army of adherents who check and double check each other’s language/adherence to the core doctrines so will produce endless videos as to categorisation (what one can and cannot say without causing offence for example) and identities. This will keep followers in a state of fear where the primary concern is regulation of thought/language all the time purporting to celebrate authentic expression while completely annihilating that by the bureaucratic allocation of people into pre-approved conceptual categories. Because adherents will be in a state of fear and incapable of art, they will have less sex than the generation before so pornography and anime should be deployed to fulfil such needs as obtain.

Gay Rights position: Every era of gay rights has produced artists, poets, playwrights, singers, etc. who have produced world-changing art, music and prose. Gay Rights has never encouraged or been of a mind which makes or recycles mediocre memes. The free expression most gay people treasure from their first ever trip to a gay bar is mirrored in the free expression many treasure in our words, paintings or music. We have nothing in common with a bureaucratic allocation exercise endlessly obsessed with labels and we are very far away from a world view which deprecates or diminishes the perfectly normal appetite for sex.