Emblematic of the hostility

More on the sez Jo question.

The Supreme Court decision is emblematic of the hostility towards trans people in much of the so-called justice system. Conservatives , and then Labour, appointed transphobes to head the watchdog notionally charged with protecting trans people, the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The Charity Commission, whose senior leadership “likes” transphobic material on social media, has funnelled huge sums of public money in charitable tax relief to organisations set up to attack trans people.

No, see, this is the basic misunderstanding or rather misrepresentation that Jolyon and people like him lean on so heavily. It’s not about “hostility to trans people”. It’s about not believing in, and resisting, the ideology. It’s the ideology, stupid.

Because the ideology is all there is – because trans people are trans people only because the ideology says so – we do dispute and reject and criticize the ideology, but that’s not the same thing as hating the people who have been duped by the ideology.

Comments

One response to “Emblematic of the hostility”

  1. Your Name's not Bruce? Avatar
    Your Name’s not Bruce?

    Trans activists never see their own demands as “emblematic” of their own hostility towards women. As for the UK justice system itself, police forces harrassed and arrested women who publicly questioned or criticized trans ideology, judges forced female victimes to refer to their male assailants as “she” in court, and convicted male sex offenders were locked up with women who had no say and no protection. That’s the kind of “justice system” that Maugham wants to go back to, a state supported enforcement wing of the trangender movement. This is the sort of ideological distortion and institutional abuse that the Supreme Court ruling was supposed to put a stop to, a distortion and abuse which Maugham would rather see continue. There are far too many in positions of power and influence who are doing their damnednest to slow or reverse this attempted return to sanity. Women are not allowed to resist, not even allowed to say “No”.* If that’s not emblematic of hostility to women, I don’t know what is.

    *There should be a name for a society or culture that promulgates this kind of belief, that denies women the right to refuse consent. I’m sure somebody will think of something to label this practice….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *