Trans Rights and the Order of Speech: Part Two

Simon Elmer

This is Part II of this essay, you can read Part I here.

The Misogyny of ‘Trans’

Let’s begin with a question few have the courage to pose and fewer still dare to answer honestly. Why is it always male transvestites who demand access to women’s toilets, men who want to compete in women’s sports, and male rapists who want to go to women’s prisons? Why do female transvestites never want to go into men’s toilets, men’s prisons or compete in men’s sports?

The answer — which numerous feminists have given before me — is that most violence against women is committed by men, however they’re dressed. Men go into women’s toilets because the transgression of the prohibition against doing so turns them on, not necessarily sexually. Men compete against women in sports and athletics because their unfair physical advantages give them a better chance of beating the women against whom they’re competing, and they enjoy, perhaps, enacting this revenge against the women that have rejected them — sexually, maybe, or as a member of their sex. Men who have been found guilty of raping women choose women’s prisons in which to serve their sentence because if gives them the chance to rape more women, and to avoid the threat of themselves being raped in a men’s prison.

In other words, they are sexual predators and cheats: nothing to be proud of, and certainly not in street festivals and state celebrations lasting now an entire month.

It’s part of their attempt to intimidate women that the transvestite men who go into women’s toilets photograph themselves doing so and then share the image online, much as kids often do the same when committing petty crimes or, as happened recently in London, threatening young women on the street. Perhaps there are transvestite women who photograph themselves in men’s toilets, but I doubt they’d do it when men are present, certainly not when alone. Though I don’t object to it myself, especially when the queues to women’s toilets are always so much longer, I know from experience that some men do not like women in men’s toilets. But I haven’t heard of a single woman competing in men’s sports, or a woman criminal asking to be sent to a man’s jail.

If the overwhelming reason for doing so was because that man or woman felt he or she was a woman or man and needed to ‘be himself/herself’, then female transvestites would do so regardless. They don’t, of course, because that’s not the reason. Men compete in women’s sports because they win, and male rapists asked to be sent to a woman’s prison so they can intimidate, exert power over and rape more women.

To take three of the most public examples of men claiming to be women, Eddie Izzard (who now calls himself Suzy Izzard), William Thomas (who calls himself Lia Thomas) and Adam Graham (who called himself Isla Bryson after he was arrested), all have penises, the last of whom used his to rape two women, while Lia Thomas exposed his penis, erect, to women swimmers in the locker room they are forced by law to share with him. They are transvestite men who, quite evidently, enjoy exerting power over women, whether that’s by invading women-only places, unfairly beating them in women-only competitions, or using their greater physical strength to sexually assault them. In that sense, all three are representative of the aggressive and sometimes violent men pushing trans ideology.

For the same reason, all three are completely unrepresentative of the mostly straight transvestites, gay drag queens and transsexuals I have known, whom I would imagine — my clubbing days being long past, alas, I can no longer ask them — dislike being associated with the explicitly misogynist and implicitly homophobic orthodoxies of this new Lysenkoism, or its embrace and enforcement as the official ideology of Western capitalism. I’m risking presenting anecdote for evidence, but all the male transvestites I knew were heterosexual men who had a far greater love and respect for women than your average ‘bloke’. None used the language of misogyny, although that couldn’t be said of all the drag queens, as there is a strain of misogyny, or more accurately gynophobia, that runs through elements of gay culture as much as it does through straight culture.

But then, there are many reasons why men dress up in ‘women’s’ clothing — even when few women wear such clothing anymore — private, public, sexual, sensual, social, professional, even political, and I’ve yet to meet a ‘tranny’ — as my friends called themselves — who wanted to blend in, or who wanted to be thought of as ‘normal’. Some, of course, cross-dress for none of these reasons, but out of an often-undefined desire or drive to do so; but in all the conversations I had with them about transvestism, none ever said they wanted their kink to become an orthodoxy, or for their difference to be promoted to children as the norm, or for it to be written into legislation and policy that they were ‘women’. There was always a very clear dividing line between when they were called by their female names and pronoun and when by their male.

That isn’t the case for those men who clearly, publicly and so far with impunity enjoy threatening and physically attacking women for standing up for their rights and those of their children, and then in their defence declare themselves to be ‘transwomen’. I’ve only ever met one of these, a young man who dressed in standard anarchist garb but with the addition of smudged red lipstick — more like Robert Smith than a transvestite — and who accused me of ‘misgendering’ him when I called him ‘mate’. He was a coward and a bully, later being arrested and fined for assaulting a 61-year-old woman and feminist during a protest at Speakers’ Corner in 2017.

The widely repeated defence of such violence on the grounds that, if male transvestites are forced to use men’s toilets it will place them in physical danger and they should therefore be allowed into women’s toilets, is a flawed one. First, the men who enter men’s toilets dressed in women’s clothes do so out of personal choice; while the women and girls who enter women’s or gender-neutral toilets to find a man, possibly dressed in women’s clothing and photographing himself before posting it on his Twitter page to ‘piss off TERFS’, have made no such choice. There are many ways in which we can choose not to conform with social norms, and some of them may place us in physical danger; but we have to take individual responsibility for those choices rather than claiming the unique right to inflict those choices on others without their agreement or consent. Second, whatever danger a male transvestite may place himself in by entering a men’s toilet dressed in women’s clothing, the danger is at least between him and other men. There is a reason men were once not permitted into women’s toilets, and that is because men present a physical threat to women in a way that they don’t to other men to the same degree. And third, as for the argument that transvestite men do not attack women or girls in toilets, doubtless most don’t; but some undoubtedly do, and by entering what were until recently female-only spaces, they risk intimidating the majority of women who do not agree with the recent conversion of our legislatures and courts to the Lysenkoism of trans, and are justifiably concerned about a man sharing a public toilet with themselves or their daughters.

It would do a huge amount for the public perception of transvestites the ideology of trans has done so much to damage if some of the ‘old-school’ trannies who knew exactly who and what they were publicly organised themselves to protect these women from the violent and misogynist new breed that have appropriated their kinks and practices for their trans human ideology. For a movement that claims that failure to comply with its dogma and dictates is an act of violence and even murder against its adherents, the authoritarianism, absolutism and violence of its ideologues have done more to endanger the safety of transvestites than any conservative or ‘Nazi’ — as they like to call anyone who disagrees with them. That now includes an increasing number of lesbians, gays and bisexuals that are becoming aware not only that violent men attacking women are doing nothing but harm for their community, but that the ideology of trans is itself homophobic (‘genital preferences are transphobic’), and its adherents are just as likely to turn on them as it has so-called ‘gender-critical’ feminists.

As Deacon Joy Everingham, a married father of two children and the first transvestite man to be ordained by the Methodist Church, famously said in 2019: ‘If gender is on a spectrum, then homosexuality doesn’t really exist, because it can only exist on a binary. . . . Sexuality is redundant.’ Again, it isn’t the existence of transvestites that is under threat but rather those of us who maintain the equivalence between biology and sex and decline to occupy our allotted place on the transgender spectrum of make-up, dress-up and reconstructed identity. But in response, we might ask Mr. Everingham why, if gender is a spectrum, he — like other male transvestites who dress in women’s clothes without their wife’s knowledge — went from ‘man’ to ‘woman’, rather than trying out one of the other genders on his rainbow flag of biology. Or why, out of all the different shades on this gender spectrum, he chose an image of a female clergyman apparently based on The Vicar of Dibley. The answer to both questions, of course, is that the identity Joy Everingham has assumed is not biologically determined but, like the rest of us, a composite of his personal psychology and the cultural norms available to him. Trans is another and currently popular identity in the fragmentation of our culture into competing tribes.

And yet, even after the relentless promotion of this ideology in recent years by the UK state, in our educational, cultural and religious institutions, and by the media and business sector, the 2021 Census for England and Wales reported that, out of a population of 59,642,000, just 48,000 men identified as a ‘trans woman’, 0.1 per cent of respondents and 1 in 1,250 of the total male population. In contrast, 30.4 million people in England and Wales identified themselves on the same census as ‘women and girls’, 51 per cent of the population. It is this majority that are having their toilets and changing rooms invaded, their sports competitions stolen, and their safety put at risk by the 0.08 per cent of men who are under the illusion that they are women.

To put this in context, ten years earlier, in the 2001 Census, 390,000 people in England and Wales identified ‘Jedi’ as their religion, 0.8 per cent of the respondents. That’s 50 per cent more than the 262,000 people who responded ‘no’ to the 2021 Census question whether their ‘gender identify’ was ‘the same as sex registered at birth’. Does that mean we should start teaching our children that they can move physical objects, control the minds of others or see the future using the power of ‘The Force’, introduce legislation making anyone questioning the historical and scientific reality of the Star Wars franchise guilty of ‘hate speech’, or arrest parents who don’t call their children by the name of their preferred Jedi Knight?

Obviously not, and for good reasons. It is a principle of psychiatry not to reaffirm the violent fantasies of a psychopath, pretend to hear the voices in the head of a schizophrenic, or agree with the body perception of an anorexic that he or she is overweight, because to do so would be to entrench them further in their mental illness, to their harm and potentially the harm of others. It is not the confusion of the 0.08 per cent of men who suffer from gender identity disorder (which under trans orthodoxy has been recategorised as ‘gender dysphoria’) that we should be reaffirming, but rather the safety of the 51 per cent of the population to whom the ideology of trans represents a threat, as the intimidation and violence directed at women by its ideologues repeatedly demonstrates.

The biologically false idea that a child can be ‘born into the wrong body’ is based on the socially repressive notion that there is one way to be either a woman or a man. Indeed, one only has to look at the masquerade of women performed by male transvestites — who typically range between the appearance of drag queens, strippers, prostitutes and a dress code not seen in the UK outside Buckingham Palace since the 1950s — to understand how socially regressive and misogynist is the trans model of women to which every tomboy must now adhere if she is not to be subject to surgical mutilation by the state. The recent increase in the glut of awards handed to male transvestites in women’s competitions has made it clear to every girl or woman thinking of competing that the best woman cyclist is a man, the best woman middle-distance runner is a man, the best woman para-athlete is a man, the best track-and-field woman is a man, the best woman mixed martial artist is a man, the best woman beauty queen is a man, and it turns out that even the woman of the year is a man.

Like the male rapist who batters and sometimes kills his female victim in the act of raping her, trans wants to destroy what it isn’t and what it so desperately wants to be. This is partly, no doubt, because its adherents are unable to enter into the symbolic order of ‘manhood’ that has been placed in question by the challenges to the once-dominant place of men in Western economies. There’s nothing wrong with that: many men don’t, either because they can’t or don’t want to enter this order out of a rejection of its values and behavioural codes, and perhaps that’s a good thing. In many respects, undoubtedly it is. But just as that doesn’t justify telling a young man who doesn’t make the First XV for Harlequins F.C. to ‘man up’, so too it doesn’t justify the systematic attempt to erase women, their rights, their sexual difference from men, their place in language, their protected places, their physical safety. Contrary to what is preached at us by trans ideologues, it is not the fantasy existence of trans-identifying men that is being erased but the very real existence of the women they want to be.

As examples of which, in the UK today a cervical cancer charity now describes women’s vaginas as a ‘bonus hole’; the National Health Service now instructs its staff to call breastfeeding ‘chestfeeding’, vaginal birth (as distinct from a caesarean section) ‘frontal birth’; mothers are now reduced to ‘pregnant people’ and ‘birth-giver’; and women themselves have been replaced with the utilitarian ‘menstruators’, ‘uterus-havers’ or ‘people with vaginas’. This is not the language of ‘inclusivity’ trying not to offend the 0.08 per cent of the male population who are being encouraged by this terminology to believe that they have a uterus, can menstruate, give birth or breast-feed, or that the ‘front hole’ a doctor carved into their pelvis cavity is a vagina. Indeed, it is the exact opposite of inclusive. This — overtly, clearly and unmistakably — is the language of misogyny, of male gynophobia, of a pathological hatred of the female body, of the dehumanising of women. But it is also the discourse of a new and authoritarian ideology which has the legal force and institutional authority of the entire UK state behind it.

One of the more unpleasant events at this year’s London Pride was a speech given to a crowd of cheering trans acolytes by Alan Baker, a transvestite male who uses the name Sarah Jane Baker. An artist and violinist born in Brixton, Baker was an underage male prostitute before being sent to jail for kidnapping and torturing his stepmother’s brother. While in prison he was convicted, at the age of 21, of the attempted murder of a fellow prisoner. While serving a 30-year sentence, Baker, in 2017, cut off his own testicles with a razor. Why such a violent, criminal and mentally unstable person should be given a platform to speak at London Pride is not something the organisers have explained; but during his speech Baker — who is an advocate for placing transvestite men like himself in women’s prisons — told the listening crowd that, ‘If you see a TERF, punch them in the fucking face’.

In response to complaints from the Women’s Rights Network about this public incitement to violence against women, the Metropolitan Police Service — who in their written response referred to Mr. Baker as a woman — argued that a ‘TERF’ is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010; that calling on the crowd to punch one was therefore not a hate crime; that Mr. Baker was acting on his beliefs; that his freedom of speech is protected under Article 10 of The Human Rights Act 1998, and that it would therefore not be appropriate to take the investigation further. I’m relieved to report, however, that a lawyer and Director at Gay Men’s Network, Dennis Noel Kavanagh, has challenged the legal incoherence of this response, which I’ll briefly summarise here.

‘TERF’, and in particular as it was used by Mr. Baker, is an insult the Met should not be adopting in its response, while the gender critical beliefs of the women Mr. Baker advised the men listening to assault are protected under the Equality Act 2010. And although relevant to civil claims, a protected characteristic is not relevant to the criminal offence of inciting an offence against others. Whether Mr. Baker was acting on his beliefs that a TERF deserves punching is equally irrelevant to the incitement of violence, which has no defence in law against the offence of Actual Bodily Harm or Grievous Bodily Harm. As for Mr. Baker’s freedom of speech, Article 10 of the Human Rights Act does not include the right to threaten violence or encourage it in others. Finally, the reference to this man with a history of criminal violence as a ‘woman’ indicates institutional bias on the part of the Metropolitan Police Service.

But there is something more than this institutional complacency towards violence against women at an event sponsored and celebrated by the London Mayor and every other local authority in London. At the heart of the promotion of trans misogyny lies this ancient truth: that despite our best efforts to erase sexual difference in the name of erasing inequality between the sexes, most of the joys, pleasures, happiness and beauty to be found in this world still come from women in ways that they never can from men. Hopefully, it’s clear that I mean from far more than their appearance. Replace women with this fake masquerade of femininity, and the world is an even uglier and sadder place, and we in it. And as we saw under lockdown, a depressed and isolated populace, deprived of human contact and social interaction, is easier to control, more willing to believe the lies they’re told, more furiously zealous to obey the dictates those lies justify. The reality is that so-called ‘trans rights’ are not just an attack on women but a new model of what it is to be human that is being implemented through the programmes and technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

A New Paradigm of Citizenship

The adjective ‘toxic’, when applied — as it increasingly is — to masculine and even feminine behaviour, is part of the terminology of woke, and operates within a biomedical image of purging that makes children going through the difficulties of adolescence believe the now promoted lie that they were ‘born in the wrong body.’ But this is another reversal of the critique of power undertaken by feminism. The feminist critique of gendered behaviour was originally directed at questioning the naturalisation of the equation between female and femininity, male and masculinity, not to telling children that sexual difference is a mere construct of patriarchy, or that the difficult passage to adulthood is solved through mutilating their bodies. To quote another ancient truth, God made us ‘male and female’ for a reason (Genesis 1:27): and it’s the same reason that our new god (Science) and its new faith (Medicine) is trying to erase the difference between us.

Cross-dressing, like ‘cosplay’, is just that — a bit of fun, often with a sexualised element, which is different from children dressing up in a costume, and why we used to keep the two activities separate. Some players have more emotionally invested in their roles, undoubtedly, and that can become a form of delusional belief; but just as dressing up in Carrie Fisher’s bikini from Return of the Jedi won’t turn the girl (or boy) wearing it into Princess Leia, it also won’t turn a male transvestite into a woman, and taking oestrogen to grow breasts or surgically removing his penis won’t either. Like the moral puritanism of woke, trans has turned the play of transvestism, which is as old as civilisation itself, into a postmodern, authoritarian, censorial, transhuman ideology whose primary target is our children: the indoctrination of their minds into the absurdities and obscenities of woke orthodoxies, and the control of their chemically damaged and surgically mutilated bodies. The testimony of adults who, as children, underwent what they were told were medical procedures that would make them another sex reads like a catalogue of malpractice, abuse, mutilation, experimentation and financial exploitation.

There are, of course, more reasons for transvestism than just or even sexual gratification. Clothing and appearance play multiple roles in our identity, both social and sexual. But all trans-identifying people are transvestites, because ‘transgender’ is the categorisation and exploitation of an identity disorder. Someone can be born a hermaphrodite with both male and female reproductive organs; but the Latin prefix trans means ‘across, beyond or through’, which the biology of a living organism does not permit, and certainly not that of a human being. We can change our clothes, paint our faces and alter our voices, but no amount of drugs or operations will change our sex, only damage our health and mutilate our body. As for those who distinguish between people who merely declare themselves another sex and so-called ‘transsexuals’, extending transvestism into plastic surgery is not unique to trans-identifying people but includes those who spend tens of thousands of pounds in surgery to look like a doll or some kind of an animal. Far from being a measure of their psychological conviction — which the rest of us are then obliged by legislation to respect or face criminal charges — such mutilation is a measure of their mental disorder.

This is the first time I have used this term in this article, as I am reluctant to pathologise any social practice whose origins lie in the conditions of a given society. As we saw under lockdown, when the UK Government considered sectioning members of the public who refused to be injected with experimental gene therapies under the Mental Health Act 1983, declaring someone mentally incompetent is one of the ways the medical industry controls and, indeed, creates its ‘patients’. But how otherwise can we describe someone who thinks they are another sex, were ‘born in the wrong body’, and are willing to damage their health and mutilate their bodies to realise their perception of themselves? Although not illegal in the UK, my own view is that any doctor who performs such medically unnecessary surgery on what by definition are adults suffering some degree of mental disorder if not necessary illness has violated the bounds of medicine and their sworn oath to ‘first do no harm’; but doctors performing such services on children who cannot grant consent to what they can’t possibly understand are — or should be treated as — criminals under UK law.

The list of permanent damages to the health and bodies of children who have undergone so-called gender ‘transition’ at the hands of the medical industry prescribing experimental hormone therapy and puberty blockers include a lack of bone density, the failure of spine bones to fuse together in young males taking oestrogen, consequent osteoporosis, sexual dysfunction in both arousal and orgasm and irreversible future infertility in both males and females. Most importantly for the medical industry, it creates a permanent patient, with sexual reassignment surgery already a multi-billion-dollar industry in the US and estimated to reach over $3 billion in the next decade. Given the universal promotion of this ideology in the UK, we will doubtless soon produce a proportionately lucrative market here.

Just as concerning as the damaging effects of these experimental medical interventions is the evidence of the success of the promotion of the ideology driving this market. In the USA, where the ideology of trans was first developed into an industry, 1.6 million people identified as ‘transgender’ in 2022, roughly 0.48 per cent of the population. 1.43 per cent of children aged 13-17 years old now identify as ‘transgender’, and 1.31 per cent of young adults aged 18-24 years old; compared with 0.45 per cent of adults aged 25-64, and 0.32 per cent of those over 65 year of age. Despite constituting 18.6 per cent of the US population, those under the age of 25 make up 43 per cent of those who identify as ‘transgender’. 1 in 5 of them are children aged 13-17, this figure having doubled over the last five years alone.

In the UK, where this ideology has only taken hold relatively recently, the figures are even more alarming. 262,000 people in England and Wales identified themselves as ‘trans’ (that is, their ‘gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth’) in the Census of 2021, 0.54 per cent of the population, even higher than in the USA. Of those aged 16-24, 1 per cent identified as a different sex from the one they were born. This decreases to 0.77 per cent for those aged 25-34, 0.64 per cent for those aged 35-44, and in decreasing percentages down to 0.22 per cent of those aged over 75.

Unfortunately, there is no data for children younger than 16 at whom this ideology has primarily been targeted. These figures were collated from the first Census to ask these questions, so there is also no data on the increase in the trans population. However, in 2018 the UK Government reported that, since the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was made into law, 4,910 UK citizens had been issued a Gender Recognition Certificate, which requires, among other things, a medical diagnosis of ‘gender dysphoria’ and changes the gender on their birth certificate.

These figures, and the marked difference between age categories, can indicate a number of things:

1. Gender identity disorder, as even the NHS is belatedly coming to realise, is a passing phase of childhood exacerbated by the marketisation of youth consumerism that has penetrated further into childhood and even infancy, but a phase which, like adolescence itself, will pass with time and the protection of our children from predatory ideologies and marketing strategies like trans.
2. With the recent and growing eradication of the stigma of ‘being’ transgender, the true number of people identifying as such is only now beginning to emerge, and most evidently in the young who, as the young do, have refused the suppression of their true identities by the older generation.
3. The disproportionate and increasing adoption of transgender identities by the young is a product of trans ideology which, like other advertising campaigns that promotes their products and services through the language of liberation, transgression and rebellion, have targeted our children and youth as the customers most easily manipulated to identifying with its values and falling for its promises.

There is an element of truth in all these explanations, but what I have argued and tried to demonstrate in this article is that the ideology of trans is far more than a passing phase of childhood or the latest rebellion of Western adolescents in response to an increasingly terrifying and incomprehensible world, and is — quite evidently for those who look beyond its advertising slogans — a product of both the penetration of the medical industry into more and more aspects of our lives and the biopolitical ends that control serves.

In the UK, anxiety in the young continues to increase. Last year, according to The Children’s Society, 6 per cent of children aged 10-15 were unhappy with their lives. 11 per cent said they did not cope with the changes imposed under lockdown. 12 per cent were unhappy with their school. 13 per cent were worried about another pandemic or other threat to their health. 16 per cent were worried about the environment. 18 per cent of girls were unhappy with their appearance, an increase from 15 per cent a decade ago, and 10 per percent of boys.

Also last year, the NHS estimated that 18 per cent of children aged 7-16 had a probable mental disorder, an increase from 12.1 per cent in 2017, or 50 per cent more in just five years. For young people aged 17-19 years, 25.7 per cent had a probable mental disorder, up from 10.1 per cent in 2017, a 250 per cent increase. 12.6 per cent of children aged 11-16 reported that they had been bullied online. 12.9 per cent of 11-16-year-olds, 60.3 per cent of 17-19-year-olds, and 62.2 per cent of 20-23-year-olds had a possible eating disorder. 28.3 per cent of 7-16-year-olds and 68.6 per cent of 17-24-year-olds who had a probable mental disorder had tried to harm themselves.

As I’ve said, we must situate these diagnoses of mental disorder within the growing biomedicalisation of our society and the biopolitical agenda that serves; but this is the demographic at which the ideology of trans is primarily targeted and on which the purveyors of ‘transgender therapy’ and ‘sex reassignment surgery’ prey.

Under UK law, a child under the age of 16 cannot legally consent to having sex with an adult. Yet this year a High Court judge ruled that a child can consent to an adult — in this case Dr. Helen Webberley, who describes herself as ‘self-taught in trans care’ — administering life-changing puberty blockers and testosterone to three girls aged, respectively, 11, 12 and 17. Again, it beggars belief that any judge who has not been instructed to do so would consider an 11- and 12-year-old girl capable of understanding, let alone consenting to, such life-altering interventions. I presume their parents granted their consent — or were compelled to by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 — which at best demonstrates they are incompetent to raise a child and in effect guilty of abuse, like those parents who starve their child because of their religious beliefs. As for the doctor, who set up her online clinic in 2015, in any other climate than the current one she would be found guilty of professional misconduct at the very least. Instead, the judgement of the High Court has set a judicial precedent that can and will be applied to future cases. Another judge can choose not to follow the precedent if it is ‘clearly wrong’ — which it clearly is to the great majority of the UK population; but the decision to uphold Dr. Webberley’s appeal against her initial suspension from practise for misconduct by a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service panel looks like an attempt by the medical industry, the UK courts and the British establishment to legalise what is child abuse and worse under the guise of upholding ‘trans rights’.

Perhaps the bigger question than this second collusion between medicine and law we’ve seen in the last three-and-a-half years is why an 11-year-old girl, even in today’s social media world, doesn’t merely think her bum or nose is too big, or is alarmed by the changes to her body with the onset of puberty, but believes that she was ‘born in the wrong body’. Where did a child get such an extreme idea that has such violent consequences for herself? The answer is books like Becoming Me, which is used in UK schools on children as young as 10. The first volume, ‘Body Parts’, opens with a drawn image of a bearded woman with a hairy chest and double mastectomy scars holding a large syringe, telling children that their genitals ‘do not determine your gender’, and that they can ‘medically transition’ if they are ‘born in the wrong body’. It then lists the ways 10-year-olds can ‘transition’. These include, for a girl, testosterone injections, a hysterectomy, double mastectomy and phalloplasty; and, for a boy, speech therapy, eostrogen injections, castration, labiaplasty and breast implants. To guide them in ‘transitioning’, the book asks children to ‘draw arrows’ between the correct medical procedures and their new choice of identities, which it defines as: ‘If you are born with a vagina but are a man’ or ‘If you are born with a penis but are a woman’. In an ironically titled ‘Disclaimer for the grown ups’, the authors state that ‘there is no content in the books that children should not know from the age of 10+’.

What I repeatedly hear from transvestites who call themselves ‘transsexuals’ or ‘transgender’ is that they just want to be left alone to ‘become themselves’; and as long as it doesn’t endanger or harm someone else, I support the right of an adult to expand that quest any way they want, even if it’s to the fantasy of changing sex — though the professional ethics of performing such surgical mutilations, even on consenting adults, is questionable to say the least. However, the use in schools of books like Becoming Me or the new practices of ‘Drag Queen Story Hour’ for 3-11-year-olds and drag shows for infants and their parents clearly demonstrate that the ideologues of trans want far more than that, and that they are quite willing to sacrifice both adults with an identity disorder and children going through puberty and adolescence to achieve their ends.

But the abuse and violence doesn’t stop there. The impunity with which threats to the safety of women are made online and then enacted physically in a climate of censorship in which we can be arrested for a Twitter post that mocks the orthodoxies of trans is an indicator of the level of government and corporate support for this now official ideology of the UK biosecurity state. As I’ve tried to demonstrate in this article, the perception that a person is ‘born in the wrong body’ is — quite evidently to the undoctrinated and those with a basic grasp of biology or more advanced knowledge of psychiatry — the product of a form of mental illness, even if it is only depression or the difficulties of childhood and adolescence that social media and the general state of the world have exacerbated beyond what someone of, for example, my generation experienced.

What I’ve tried to identify is the causes of this disorder and why it is being propagated by the UK biosecurity state. The damage to the mental health of children and adolescents by the cultivation of their addiction to smart phones and social media by consumer capitalism, added to two years of lockdown, the interruption of their education and their early indoctrination into the principles and practices of biosecurity (social distancing, mandatory masking, gene therapy and digital identity), has undoubtedly prepared our children to accept, willingly or in fear, the fallacious principles and fraudulent practices of trans ideology.

In addition to asserting as much — which most of the UK population is too intimidated by the police or scared of the consequences for their jobs of doing so to declare openly — we must also start to understand why such demonstrably false, irrational and above all dangerous beliefs are being written into UK legislation, enacted in policy and indoctrinated into our children. It is in this respect, as I have said, that the sudden rise of trans is not coincidental to the Great Reset of Western capitalism and its raft of regulations, programmes and technologies, but rather the official ideology of the Global Biosecurity State. Indeed, it might not be too much to suggest that trans identity and the symbolically castrated, biologically infertile, socially isolated, biotechnologically controlled self is the new model of citizenship in the West. Ultimately, trans hasn’t acquired such hegemony in the UK in order to defend the rights or validate the fantasies of the less than 0.5 per cent of the population that has been fooled into adopting its dogma as their own. Trans is an ideology developed to control all the population.

If it isn’t, then why is it that, across the Western world, every government, every legislature, every civil service, every bank, every corporation, every business, every law court, every municipal authority, every council, every civil institution, every civic authority, every parish, every church, every military, every police force, every hospital, every clinic, every union, every forum for public debate, every university, every school, every sporting organisation, every media platform, every news programme, every TV show, every brand, every advertisement — in other words, every instrument of economic, political, legal, cultural and ideological influence — are all, without exception, promoting and enforcing the ideology of trans?

It is not, undoubtedly, because they are expressing the will, beliefs and opinions of the British people, who by an overwhelming majority reject the orthodoxies of trans. Nor is it because the administrators of Western capitalism have all simultaneously opened their hearts, minds and wallets to the values of ‘diversity, equity and inclusivity’ written into UK law by The Equality Act 2010 and imposed on UK businesses by BlackRock and other financial asset managers under the United Nation’s Environmental, Social and corporate Governance criteria.

No, there is only one answer to this question that is compatible with what we know about the revolution in Western capitalism we have been undergoing over the past four years, since the coronavirus ‘crisis’ and the many years of preparation that preceded it. Woke is the official ideology of the Global Biosecurity State, and trans is the new biopolitical paradigm of citizenship on which it is being built.

Where does that leave the transvestite friends with whom I began this article, some of whom, perhaps, attended London Pride, under whatever spectrum of the once rainbow-coloured flag? I would like to think that they are as angry at what is being done to their practices and identity as I am, and will — hopefully sooner rather than later — come out, physically if need be, to defend the women being threatened and attacked by their fellow transvestites and trans ideologues, and denounce those who shout or carry banners or wear T-shirts with some variation on ‘Kill the TERF’. But I also hope — I invite them to do so now — that if they find something in this article that resonates with them, or even if they don’t, they will oppose the almost universal co-option of transvestism to this transhuman agenda. Because transvestites, as we are rightfully reminded, are humans with human rights, which are no different from those rights and freedoms the rest of us are fighting for; and they need defending from those who seek to profit, financially, medically and politically, from the ideology of trans.

Women, parents and feminists have been doing so for some time already; but the time has come for all of us to defend our rights, our bodies and above all our children from this new order of speech, the pseudo-science on which it is based, the misogyny it has sanctioned, and the new paradigm of citizenship it is trying to impose. It is time we stop being afraid to raise our voices above the censorship and threats issued by the ideologues of trans and denounce not only the absurdities and obscenities of this enforced ideology but also the New Normal it is seeking to impose. If we don’t, our grandchildren and even our children will one day be unrecognisable to us, as will the world in which they will be forced to live out their lives.

Even after the months of research and thought it took to write this article, I still can’t claim to understand why the ideology of trans has received such widespread acceptance.

I can’t begin to explain the parents who sit there with grins on their faces as their children watch adult men strip in front of them, or why people who see themselves as socially progressive cheer young men assaulting women, or how otherwise rational people can affirm that a man can menstruate or give birth, or how teachers can fill the heads of the children in their care with such obvious and dangerous lies, or how doctors can mutilate their bodies. But then, there is always something in excess of what can be rationally explained — something obscene — in all ideologies, and the more extreme the ideology the more obscene is its kernel of irrationality.

I imagine many Germans in the 1930s were equally unable to explain how their country was taken over by a gang of criminals dressed as boy-scouts carrying military banners through the streets of their cities to the ecstatic cheers of adoring crowds. I don’t imagine I’m alone in having a similar response to the Pride celebrations held across the cities of the Western world last month. States don’t invest in such spectacles to celebrate their ‘diversity’; they do it to entrench their hegemony. It is a measure of the dominance of an ideology that it cannot be seen, that its distortion of reality and morality is transparent to our vision. This article is my attempt to make the obscenity of trans visible.

Simon Elmer is the author of The Road to Fascism: For a Critique of the Global Biosecurity State; Virtue and Terror: Selected Articles on the UK Biosecurity State, Vol. 1; and The New Normal: Selected Articles on the UK Biosecurity State, Vol. 2.