Badgey McBadgerson
If there’s one thing predators are good at, it’s spotting soft targets. Thanks to Dr Ronx Ikharia, this could soon be easier than ever. Ikharia – a BBC children’s presenter and NHS emergency medic who identifies as ‘trans nonbinary’ – has launched a new scheme called ‘Safe With Me’. It involves distributing large yellow badges, which signal that the wearer is available to escort ‘trans+ people’ to ‘their preferred facilities’. In other words, it is to help men in frocks breach the law on single-sex spaces.
The first thing that occurs to me is not even the “but women” bit, it’s the glaringly obvious fact that someone saying or signaling something does not make it true. What’s to stop men who like a little recreational violence getting one of those nice large badges and slapping it on? What if the wearer turns out to be available not to ‘escort trans+ people’ to ‘their preferred facilities’ but to kick the shit out of them? It seems like a wildly fatuous campaign in its own terms.
But the second thing of course is the usual “yes but what about the safety of women who don’t want your huge male friend in their toilets?” So what about that, eh?
It’s no surprise Ikharia seems to have overlooked the risks here. She has the monomaniacal focus of a true believer. Not only did she have her own breasts amputated to align with her ‘trans nonbinary’ identity – she has also used her position as a children’s TV presenter to promote harmful interventions to confused young people. In one BBC Three clip, she hands out a new breast binder to a girl whose previous use of one had displaced her ribs.
Here, kid, make your ribs even worse.
Ikharia’s badges are a petulant response to the recent UK Supreme Court ruling that the word ‘sex’ in the Equality Act refers to biological reality, not identity. This legal clarity has caused a moral panic among activists. As Ikharia told the local press: ‘The ruling means trans+ people may be forced into spaces where they don’t feel safe… Toilets are one of the most dangerous of these spaces.’
Now think about women in those spaces when a man comes in.
It’s the most ridiculous thing, a safety rating system where everyone rates themselves.
Restaurants in Toronto are inspected by the health commission or whatever it’s called, same as in any other normal city. Here, the inspectors issue a “grade” to the restaurant, a Red, Yellow, or Green Card, which must be prominently displayed at the business entrance.
But imagine if restaurants all just issued their own cards. Each restaurant could just post a big yellow “You’re safe eating with me!” badge on its front door if it chooses to.
It’s so fucking stupid, it’s not even worth imagining. It’s not even funny. It’s just plainly, obviously so dumb, it’s tedious to even try and entertain the idea.
And now imagine that kids are the ones doing the evaluating of what’s safe and what’s not!
This is a perfect example of how the gender cult activates the primitive parts of the brain that are fixated on signalling virtue to protect their status among their tribal peers, while at the same time completely deactivating the brain’s entire critical thinking parts when doing so. There is not just a lack of critical thinking behind the badge thing, there’s an active, glaring, explicit, and frankly shocking suppression of people’s mental faculties going on here.
And whoever introduced the clumsy neologism “trans+” has just cranked up the purity spiral another notch. As sure as April rain, we’ll see it soon pretty much everywhere.
Argh, people are so stupid!
Right???
This is a excellent point. It’s easy to see how this scheme could actually enable violence against trans people; given her convictions, I don’t doubt Ikharia is well aware of the increasingly hateful rhetoric in some circles, so this is a possibility she really ought to have considered.
I would think that the trans most likely to suffer from the scheme are the male-identifying women and girls since badge-wearing men could only be escorts into men’s facilities. TIMs will be looking for girls and women to escort them into women’s facilities ao won’t be at risk from men pretending to be allies because men are unable to escort them to where the TIMs want to go.
Basically, the scheme is bad news for women and girls who will wear the badges because they will be vulnerable to predatory TIMs; for women and girls using their own facilities because of the continued presence of TIMs; and for male-identifying women and girls for the reason stated above. No men will be harmed by the scheme.
[…] a comment by Artymorty on Badgey […]
So is “Trans+” just a way to include an ever-shifting swarm of ‘identities’, or is it actually an attempt, after so much forced teaming, to now abandon the LGB entirely?
Freemage, as far as I can tell it’s umbrellas within umbrellas within umbrellas. ‘Transgender’, according to the latest iteration, is an ‘umbrella’ term covering everybody who is not ‘cis-het’. ‘Queer’ is also an ‘umbrella’ term for the exact same people plus those ‘cis-het’ people who dye their hair pink or blue and have a nose- or lip piercing. ‘Trans+’ seems to be the ‘umbrella’ covering everybody in the letter salad from ‘T’ onwards, separating special identities from plain old sexual orientation. A man who identifies as a lesbian woman will be ‘trans+’ but a lesbian of the traditional type will not.
That’s this week’s categories, next week it will have all changed again.
So a gay man or a lesbian is “transgender”. Huh.
I saw a clip of a street interview by an apparently conservative journalist, in which the interviewer asked this young woman, who said she was “queer”, what “queer” meant. She said it was an identity, a way you could identify. He persisted, and explained that he might call himself conservative, and it meant (a list of basic views that someone who was conservative might have); he asked if she could explain what “queer” meant in a similar rudimentary fashion? No response.
I suspect it means dedicated follower of fashion.
Sackbut, it sounds odd but that is how they are defining ‘transgender’ at the moment. I suspect that in part it’s a ploy to boost numbers. Transgender people (by the original definition of ‘transgender’) are not especially numerous, but by expanding the definition to include everybody who is not ‘gender-conforming’ – and what could be more non-conforming than men having sex with men and women having sex with women – then they get to count LGB people, those who declare themselves non-binary , a gender, asexual, those with DSDs, and so-on and so-on, then they get to make their bogus claim that ‘anti-trans’ policies affect a quite significant percentage of the population. In hindsight it was obvious that this would happen once the ‘T’ was stapled onto the LGB mast.