candy-darlingFirst it was Germaine Greer, now it’s Jenni Murray. Their crime? Daring to voice an opinion that contradicts the doctrine of the new order consensus, specifically the clause that declares we must never question the authenticity of men who have undergone gender reassignment surgery and must automatically place them in the same category as women who were born with full female anatomy. And this despite the fact many Trans-Women invite such distinctions. No doubt the po-faced funereal spectre of Professional Northern Trans-Woman Paris Lees will be prompted into one of her regular ‘Channel 4 News’ or ‘Newsnight’ comedy turns in response, hurling the ‘old bigot’ slingshot at the latest target.

The veteran ‘Woman’s Hour’ presenter who has provided the serial offence-takers with a new hate figure is 66 years-old; Germaine Greer is 78. Unlike their hysterical detractors, both women were born into a world that had clearly defined boundaries based on class, race, sexuality and gender; and Greer in particular played a hugely significant part in changing the perceptions of those boundaries where gender was concerned, far greater than her twenty-something critics could ever imagine. She and Murray have been witness to arguably the most revolutionary breaking down of those boundaries that the western world has ever experienced; and it has happened in the space of barely half-a-century.

More than one generation has had to overturn all its inherited beliefs and opinions on society’s so-called ‘minorities’; and this takes the kind of time that those born into a world where the contemporary consensus holds sway have no comprehension of. To use just one personal example, I recall my mother expressing her embarrassment when my deaf granddad (her father) used the word ‘nigger’ loudly in a supermarket, yet she herself still uses the word ‘paki’, which makes me wince every time she says it. That she could find ‘nigger’ unacceptable whilst simultaneously not thinking the same of ‘paki’ highlights how her own inherited beliefs and opinions have changed, albeit not quite reaching the acceptable standard demanded by the speech police.

Expecting the grandparent generation to mirror the approach to what can and can’t be said in either public or private discourse as practiced by their grandchildren is not that different from expecting them to have unnaturally coloured hair, piercings and tattoos. The under-40s blame game from the losing side in the EU Referendum, reserving Remoaner vitriol for pensioners who had the audacity to hold a different point of view, largely based on life experience and a wider knowledge of the lengthy European project rather than ‘racism’, was a telling demonstration of that generation’s narcissistic refusal to accept there are contrary opinions to their own; and this extends into other facets of life in which their inability to respond to these contrary opinions with nothing more than lazy labelling is revealing a worrying absence of emotional maturity.

If a trans-woman wants to be recognised and accepted as a ‘real’ woman, why is there the need for the ‘trans’ prefix? One is either a trans-woman or a woman; one cannot be both, surely? It’s almost as though some want the benefits each can bring – acceptance as belonging to the sisterhood yet also requiring ‘special treatment’ that a natural-born woman is exempt from. Here’s your cake, and you can eat it too! I’ve met a couple of women in my life who were born male, and I wouldn’t have known if I hadn’t been told. To me, both resembled middle-aged Avon Ladies and they seemed happy in their skins, which is great; they weren’t declaring to all and sundry that they were spokeswomen for the LGBTRSVPABCXYZ community and demanding to be treated as a Third Sex.

The majority of men who have endured male-to-female surgery do so because they genuinely believe themselves to be women trapped in men’s bodies; therefore, once they re-emerge from hospital, their bodies are finally in-synch with what their heads have always held to be true and they are, to all extents and purposes, now bona-fide women. Yes, they have no menstrual cycle and cannot get pregnant, but other than that, there’s little to distinguish them from women whose bodies were compatible from day one.

I don’t believe the constant carping from militant Trans-Women or those professing to speak on their behalf really has anything to do with gender identity, more another example of the contemporary craving to sign-up to an officially designated minority, to uphold the trend for comfortable pigeonholing and membership of a ‘victimised’ collective that can gather together and share placards.

The original 70s Gay Liberation movement in the US often saw conflicts between those who preferred the traditional masculine male role model and those who revelled in their feminine side; the latter was seen as ‘letting the team down’ by camping it up and aping the flamboyant vanity and cartoon frivolity of girlie girls, thus reinforcing the archaic effeminate stereotype. But there was still room for both in the battle for acceptance. Today, any prominent gay media man, whether Stephen Fry or Peter Tatchell, faces the threat of the no-platform treatment if they dare to say anything that shatters the facade of everyone being in it together. Ridiculously, they can be labelled ‘homophobic’ just as Germaine Greer can be labelled ‘misogynistic’.

Virtually all of the men or women who have been targeted by the speech police in the last couple of years have been over-45 at least, and most were on the frontline of the actual battles that obliterated the old boundaries, something their wet-behind-the-ears opponents have benefitted from. More was achieved by ‘The Female Eunuch’ than mixed-gender lavatories, so it’s time the kiddies cut their predecessors some slack and stopped trying to impose their own rigid framework on generations that were far more fluid and broad-minded when it came to sexuality and whether or not their own predecessors agreed with them.

© The Editor

13 thoughts on “SHE WHO MUST BE OBEYED

  1. “The majority of men who have endured male-to-female surgery do so because they genuinely believe themselves to be women trapped in men’s bodies”

    Which is all well and good but I’d be interested in the psychology behind this.

    Just recently we have had a man called ‘Nick’ who has asserted that establishment figures were involved in the most horrendous acts of violence and peaderastic abuse. His graphic claims of being abused, and witnessing others being similarly abused and even murdered, were detailed in the MSM, on social media and on his own blog. He, it turned out, was either mentally ill or a fantasist, or a liar. His claims didn’t stack up – not a single one of them.

    Is it necessarily the case that we have to trust the subjective beliefs of anyone?


  2. “…she herself still uses the word ‘paki’, which makes me wince every time she says it.”
    As a keen follower on YouTube of VictotiaLucas38, I must admit I find this statement rather surprizing.
    And another thing that baffles me is – why do the thought police turn a deaf ear to ‘Ausi’ and ‘Brit’, just to mention two?
    I expect you can guess that as a child in the 40’s I never winced at “eeny meeny miney mo,” in the playground, or objected to wearing a ‘nigger’ brown school uniform bought from the local Co-op.


  3. Cutting some slack to anyone holding a different opinion is not the natural state for the ‘blame gang’: their approach to freedom of speech tell us all we need to know of them.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. For some time now I have been observing and trying to get to grips with a phenomenon which I regard as deeply disturbing. It is the policing of thoughts and ideas, and it goes something like this:
    1. There is an accepted suite of opinions and beliefs and values
    2. The suite is held by a relatively small in numerical terms cadre of “opinion” makers, but a very strident and voluble cadre. These will typically be journalists, actors, academics and so forth.
    3. Deviation from the accepted suite of beliefs is not acceptable and is met with attack in the form of ridicule, or demonization.
    This is the mind set of the medieval witch hunter. It is not the mind set of the rational or free thinking man or woman. Deviation from the accepted norms is treated as heresy, or sin – and with the same intolerance as would have marked the Inquisition. It is exactly the same mind set, and based on just as nonsensical mores.
    What I have been trying to fathom is how these closed intellectual patterns come to spread and become accepted. I think one way of describing it is a phenomenon I read about called “Group Think”. Membership of The Group is all important for career and social acceptance, and so at some very fundamental level, acceptance of all the beliefs of The Group is the price to be paid. I think a very visible example of this is the phenomenon of the Self Righteous Actor. It seems I cannot turn on my tv or radio these days (I do so less and less) without some pompous luvvie berating me for my lack of compassion and apologising for my country.
    The only way in which I can analyse this is in terms of Group Think: the established norms of the Group are x, y and z, and so the all important membership requires total adherence.
    If Jenni Murray has deviated from the norms of the Group, then the Group will attack, because it feels its sense of moral superiority being undermined, and like the ego, it cannot permit that. So she will be ridiculed, demonised and if she fails to recant, if possible, sacked.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I myself have never been a ‘joiner’, so I’ve always instinctively recoiled from what you accurately label the Group Think syndrome. I often refer to it as the ‘Body Warmer Syndrome’, which is an obscure personal reference, but goes back to around 1980 when 99% of the boys in my class were suddenly all wearing body warmers, a mass-produced incarnation of the sleeveless jacket traditionally worn by toffs on a shoot (for those who remember them).

      I thought they were awful and had no intention of wearing one, even though it marked me out from the crowd and denied me membership of the ‘inner circle’ – not ideal at such a vulnerable age. Having said that, I’m glad I opted out, not merely for sartorial reasons! To me, it was just another uniform, and we already had to wear one of those at school, anyway; and few things symbolically eradicate individuality than a uniform – on a superficial level, perhaps, but it’s the thin edge of the wedge.


    2. Gildas, I agree entirely with both your observations and your conclusions. The mentality of the witch hunt, the pitchforks and burning torches and of the Inquisition, not to mention the disturbingly Orwellian overtones, are all dreadfully on full display these days. Perhaps I’m getting paranoid in my old age but given the average age range of these so called ‘progressives’ I cannot help but see some rather chilling parallels with the days of China’s ‘Cultural Revolution’ or even Pol Pot’s ‘Year Zero’. Where all this ends and what sort of world it will lead to is beyond my powers of speculation but the lessons of history certainly suggest that it may not end well for anyone!


Comments are closed.