Putting the welfare of children first
A puberty blockers resignation:
A councillor has quit the Labour Party in a row over its transgender policies. Zoe Hughes, Exeter City Council member, said the party’s support of a ban on puberty blockers for under-18s questioning their gender identity was “a policy I refuse to stand by and accept”.
So she’s confident it’s a good thing to tamper with teenagers’ puberties? She’s that sure it’s better to stop normal physical maturation than it is to let it proceed without interference? It’s an odd thing to be that confident about. It’s not as if being frozen physically at age 12 or 13 has no consequences.
The Labour Party said it was putting the welfare of children first and its decision had been based on all of the available evidence.
Because puberty isn’t a disease. It’s right to try to block cancer and other progressive diseases, but puberty isn’t a disease. Blocking it is a very young fad, and it’s entirely possible that it’s a mistake.
Hughes said: “As a queer person, I have often felt alone and marginalised within society. However, I historically have felt that at least the Labour Party had my back.”
Hughes, who uses “they” and “them” as personal pronouns, said they were “nervous” when the Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he wanted to meet the author JK Rowling, who has expressed concerns about how trans issues affect women’s rights. Hughes said there would be “increasing self-harm” as a result of the decision on puberty blockers in “an already vulnerable and marginalised group”.
They added: “We have let the LGBT+ community down and I want no part of it – there is no LGB without the T for me, it is that simple.”
It may be that simple for her [them] but it’s not that simple in reality. It’s not just self-evidently true that tampering with children’s maturation is the pro-LGB thing to do.
What does “as a queer person” even mean at this point? Does it mean you’re a lesbian, or that you have blue hair? I know it could be both, but with so many spicy-straight people calling themselves “queer” (which is still seen by many homosexual people as a slur), I think it’s important to be clear.
And I suppose that anyone’s refusal to play along with your demand makes you feel “alone and marginalized”? You’re not a plural, and the demand for people to use this terminology does not make you neither male nor female. By your image, I’d say you’re an adult human female, i.e. a woman. That means I would refer to you as “she” or “her” when talking about you in the third person to somebody else. I’ll not have you dictate my understanding of material reality, so if that’s what you meant by Labour “having your back,” then they had no right to impose that misrepresentation on anyone else either. Your edgy haircut does not make you any less female, so stop pretending it does.
You think this is a bad thing? Talking? What could they possibly say that would make you feel “nervous”? Afraid they’re going to call you “she” behind your back? Rowling has repeatedly pointed out the cost to women of trans “rights.” Is she not permitted to talk about these concerns, which are a response to ongoing, actual harm to women? Is she supposed to stay quiet about this continuing danger to the female population? Why? Why should a heroic champion of women’s rights not talk to the Prime Minister about the erosion of those rights at the hands of entitled men who are invading women’s spaces? Why are you on the side of these men who are so keen to violate women’s boundaries? Make no mistake, that’s what trans “rights” result in, the loss of women’s health, safety and dignity at the hands of men. Why else do trans activists (like you, Zoe) always see any dicussion or defence of the rights of women as nothing but an attack on trans people? You might call this a “dog whistle”, but you’re ignoring the elephant in the room. Rowling’s continued insistence on speaking out in favour of women’s rights (and genderists’ continuing attempts to silence or discredit her) puts the lie to the repeated insistence that there is “no conflict” between women’s rights and trans “rights.” Why are you against the defence of women’s rights, Zoe? Why are you on the side of predatory males invading women’s spaces? By definition, any male demanding access to women’s spaces is predatory, no matter what he is wearing. Why do you accept the past, ongoing, and future harm to women that is the inevitable result of the promotion and enforcement of trans “rights”? Are you ready to be strip searched by a male police officer who has decided that today, he is a “woman.”? Why would you be okay with that for any woman? Why impose this on them just for your own bloated self-righteousness? What’s in it for you? What makes you think there will be no blowback for you? You are a woman after all, pronouns and haircut nothwithstanding. Like it or not, Rowling has your back. Rowling is on your side; the real question is why aren’t you on hers?
Way to suggest suicidal ideation there Ms. Hughes. Very safeguarding, so responsibility. And here’s an update for you: so-called “gender affirming care” is self harm. It’s self harm aided and abetted by adults who should know better. Like You Zoe. You’re not helping to protect children; you’re encouraging them to mutilate and sterilize themselves, the sooner the better. You’re in favour of fast-tracking a course of action that would short-circuit desistance, transing away the gay. You’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the threat that dysphoric children face.
It’s even simpler: you’re wrong. You are the one letting down the LGB community. Gender ideology has nothing to do with same sex attraction, and your delusional insistence that it does helps genderists spread their deeply homophobic, misogynistic agenda. Congratulations; you’ve just scored two own goals against yourself, tin the mistaken belief that you’re winning the game.
It’s bad enough that you’re supporting the stupid, homophobic mantra of “no LGB without the T” but the real aim of this reality denying movement is No Women without Men. That’s the ultimate forced teaming they’re trying to cement into law and society. And we’ve already seen they’re more than ready to apply whatever force is required to achieve this end. This is what you’re supporting. Resigning from Labour? Go ahead. Stay the hell out of public life altogether until you stop siding with misogynists and homophobes.
I hope Rowling gives Starmer an earful. He’ll learn more from her than he ever has or will from Tony Blair. My inclination would be to tie him to the chair so he can’t leave when things get too intense for him; he’s got a lot to answer for, and there’s a lot that needs fixing. The ban on puberty blockers is a welcome step, but only the first in a long road of walking back trans “rights” harms and over-reach. Imagine Starmer’s face if Rowling brought Rosie Duffield to the meeting; Duffield could fill his other ear.
YNNB: Can I just say “bravo”?
I won’t stop you!
Thanks!
“You might call this a “dog whistle”, but you’re ignoring the elephant in the room.”
Heeheehee
Fantastic rant there, not Bruce. Standing ovation!