Anthony McIntyre   Enoch Burke to many people is a religious crackpot. 

It is an aspersion easily earned for one who would choose as a title for his book, The Hedonism and Homosexuality of John Piper and Sam Allberry: The Truth of Scripture. It sounds so exciting, that I look forward to having it read to me after I am dead.

To others, usually on the religious right, Burke is a man of devout spiritual conviction. What cannot be hurled against him is the charge that he is all mouth and no trousers. He has faced down the judiciary and the rigours of imprisonment in pursuit of what he believes. While it is my own belief that what he believes is bonkers, his willingness to suffer for his religious opinion is admirable. What is not so worthy of admiration is that he doesn't think it is a religious opinion but a biblical inerrancy which he has the right to inflict on everybody else.

For the last three months he has been banged up in jail on foot of a contempt of court order. He endured that because of his refusal to obey a court instruction to stay away from the school where he had been a teacher up until his suspension and later imprisonment. He believes he has some God given right to turn up at the school while refusing to abide by its policies on how to address or refer to transgender students.

He was suspended on full pay because he publicly confronted the management of the school he taught in for allowing a gender-fluid pupil to be addressed as “they”.

This, he insisted, conflicted with his religious opinion. Throughout his battle with the school and courts, Burke has claimed he was suspended from his post as a teacher on the basis of his religious beliefs. The courts have rejected this, pointing out that he is free to his religious belief and implying that others are free from his religious belief.

Today he was reported to have begged the court to release him from prison so that he might spend the Christmas season at home with his family. While he did use the word 'beg' which might lead to the mistaken impression that he has recanted and repented, the real 'beg' lay in his begging to differ from the court on the propriety of its ruling. Burke continues to refuse to purge his contempt, leading the judge to rule that he had no option but to keep him in custody. This prompted an outbreak from his mother who admonished the judge:

There is a higher judge that you and your fellow judges will stand before and God almighty will put this matter straight.

As God almighty has no form for putting matters straight, and much form for putting nutters in straitjackets, the judge will face no moment of reckoning.

Burke's father also addressed the court:

He has an unblemished record as a teacher. He is in prison because he would not give up his Christian belief which I as a father brought him up to believe and which is consistent with the scriptures, the bible that is on your bench . . .

Richard Dawkins might feel that alone could be sufficient grounds for a child abuse prosecution. For me, it is one good reason for ensuring the vile book is removed from all arenas where the state engages with the citizenry. The Bible has no more place or relevance in a courtroom than Lord Of The Rings, each no more believable than the other. 

While I don't plan to visit Burke's book until after my death, Fintan O'Toole has waded through its sewage to bring back passages. The Irish Times columnist suggests that a reading of it reveals that Burke believes homosexuality is a curse worthy of disease and eternal punishment. What Hitler did to Lidice and Ležáky, Burke is fine with Yahweh having done likewise to Sodom and Gomorrah. Much of a muchness, genocidal dictators, whether they authored Mein Kampf or the Bible.
 
O'Toole, ridiculing Burke’s transformation into an icon of freedom of expression as frankly hilarious, depicts the imprisoned theocrat in odious light.

I have freedom of speech; you should shut up and obey. My opinion is God’s will; yours “ought not to be named”. I should be admitted everywhere; you should be shunned. Free expression is absolute – except for Daniel O’Donnell or Narnia, or anything else I declare anathema.

Enoch Burke does not stand for freedom of religion but for the freedom to impose religion. The idea that people should have as much freedom from religion as they should have to it is anathema to him.

All things considered, jail is probably secular society's best option for Burke. I would like to see him released from confinement for the Xmas period but only for the sake of the inmates who should be able to enjoy their ham and turkey sandwiches without sandwich board men in tow.

⏩ Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre.

Biblical Burke

Anthony McIntyre   Enoch Burke to many people is a religious crackpot. 

It is an aspersion easily earned for one who would choose as a title for his book, The Hedonism and Homosexuality of John Piper and Sam Allberry: The Truth of Scripture. It sounds so exciting, that I look forward to having it read to me after I am dead.

To others, usually on the religious right, Burke is a man of devout spiritual conviction. What cannot be hurled against him is the charge that he is all mouth and no trousers. He has faced down the judiciary and the rigours of imprisonment in pursuit of what he believes. While it is my own belief that what he believes is bonkers, his willingness to suffer for his religious opinion is admirable. What is not so worthy of admiration is that he doesn't think it is a religious opinion but a biblical inerrancy which he has the right to inflict on everybody else.

For the last three months he has been banged up in jail on foot of a contempt of court order. He endured that because of his refusal to obey a court instruction to stay away from the school where he had been a teacher up until his suspension and later imprisonment. He believes he has some God given right to turn up at the school while refusing to abide by its policies on how to address or refer to transgender students.

He was suspended on full pay because he publicly confronted the management of the school he taught in for allowing a gender-fluid pupil to be addressed as “they”.

This, he insisted, conflicted with his religious opinion. Throughout his battle with the school and courts, Burke has claimed he was suspended from his post as a teacher on the basis of his religious beliefs. The courts have rejected this, pointing out that he is free to his religious belief and implying that others are free from his religious belief.

Today he was reported to have begged the court to release him from prison so that he might spend the Christmas season at home with his family. While he did use the word 'beg' which might lead to the mistaken impression that he has recanted and repented, the real 'beg' lay in his begging to differ from the court on the propriety of its ruling. Burke continues to refuse to purge his contempt, leading the judge to rule that he had no option but to keep him in custody. This prompted an outbreak from his mother who admonished the judge:

There is a higher judge that you and your fellow judges will stand before and God almighty will put this matter straight.

As God almighty has no form for putting matters straight, and much form for putting nutters in straitjackets, the judge will face no moment of reckoning.

Burke's father also addressed the court:

He has an unblemished record as a teacher. He is in prison because he would not give up his Christian belief which I as a father brought him up to believe and which is consistent with the scriptures, the bible that is on your bench . . .

Richard Dawkins might feel that alone could be sufficient grounds for a child abuse prosecution. For me, it is one good reason for ensuring the vile book is removed from all arenas where the state engages with the citizenry. The Bible has no more place or relevance in a courtroom than Lord Of The Rings, each no more believable than the other. 

While I don't plan to visit Burke's book until after my death, Fintan O'Toole has waded through its sewage to bring back passages. The Irish Times columnist suggests that a reading of it reveals that Burke believes homosexuality is a curse worthy of disease and eternal punishment. What Hitler did to Lidice and Ležáky, Burke is fine with Yahweh having done likewise to Sodom and Gomorrah. Much of a muchness, genocidal dictators, whether they authored Mein Kampf or the Bible.
 
O'Toole, ridiculing Burke’s transformation into an icon of freedom of expression as frankly hilarious, depicts the imprisoned theocrat in odious light.

I have freedom of speech; you should shut up and obey. My opinion is God’s will; yours “ought not to be named”. I should be admitted everywhere; you should be shunned. Free expression is absolute – except for Daniel O’Donnell or Narnia, or anything else I declare anathema.

Enoch Burke does not stand for freedom of religion but for the freedom to impose religion. The idea that people should have as much freedom from religion as they should have to it is anathema to him.

All things considered, jail is probably secular society's best option for Burke. I would like to see him released from confinement for the Xmas period but only for the sake of the inmates who should be able to enjoy their ham and turkey sandwiches without sandwich board men in tow.

⏩ Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre.

35 comments:

  1. Hang on, forget all the religious bumwhiff, did that school force it's staff to use they as a pronoun?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is the the policy but as Simon points out he was not jailed for that. The matter was subject to a disciplinary proceeding. He broke the terms of that as underscored by the courts.
      I would have liked for him to have argued his case on secular grounds. What he is asserting is that his religious opinion should be prioritised.
      In these matters I try to remain open to all opinion other than religious ones. Why I think the unicorn disapproves of abortion is fine for me, but I can hardly demand that it be given a place in serious conversation or that it play any role in the formulation of public policy.

      Delete
  2. The Guardian reported "The dispute began after Wilson’s Hospital, a Church of Ireland co-ed school in County Westmeath, instructed staff that a pupil who was transitioning to another gender wished to be referred to by a new name and the pronoun “they”, a change supported by the pupil’s parents.

    Burke, from Castlebar, County Mayo, who teaches history, refused, citing his religious beliefs.

    The school put Burke on paid administrative leave after he allegedly confronted the principal at a public event and questioned her in a “heated” manner, a claim Burke denies. After Burke continued to attend the school, it obtained a court order barring him from the campus. He continued to show up, prompting his jailing for contempt of court." He didn't get in trouble with the school because he refused to refer to the pupil as "they". All the school did was outline the pupil's wishes and Burke "went off on one" as they say.

    He wasn't jailed for not using "they" or the pupil's new name but for not complying with a court order to stay away from the school after ambushing the principal in a heated fashion and not desisting in his tirade and not remaining on administrative leave. If you carefully examine his passionately held beliefs and how he articulates them you can easily see where the trouble emanated and where fault lay. The court certainly did.

    He may be a prisoner of conscience but "god almighty" as Burke might say he is the Worst. Martyr. Ever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the additional detail Simon.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Simon that makes it a bit clearer.

      Delete
  3. A tricky situation, not helped by some hysteria driven reporting on both sides.

    - Instructing staff to use preferred pronouns is not the best idea for building solidarity and good relations with trans/nonbinary pupils.
    - There is an argument to be made that he would have been forced to act in a way that contravened his religious beliefs and thus would be similar to the "what if I ran a printing company on the Falls Road and someone asked me to print posters in support of Soldier F" argument that was doing the rounds around the time of the Ashers trial.

    However

    - He shouldn't have confronted the pupil, especially in public.
    - He should have quietly stated his concerns to the board and, if there was a disagreement, got his union involved.
    - He also shouldn't have continued to make a spectacle of himself, leading to this sentence. However, part of me suspects that was what he was after so he could claim 'martyr' status.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thon fecking school shouldn't be indulging in such delusions.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Matt Treacy Comments

    "Disappointed that Anthony refers to the same excuse as others in defending Enoch Burke's being in prison. Technically, yes he is in contempt of a court order but the reason for that is his objection to the ridiculous nonsense of pretending that someone can change from being male to female or vice versa on a whim. It is or was rightly considered to be a psychological disorder: gender dysphoria.

    "I was on protests for the Rossport Five and many years previously in support of Matt Merrigan who was threatened with prison for contempt for calling for a boycott of Talbot Motors.

    "In both cases, it was obvious why they were being pursued, by the state and in both cases, people opposed to them engaged in semantics such as "oh, all they have to do is apologise."

    "Fuck that. if you believe in something strongly then stand by that. As you did yourself Anthony in the Blocks. Unlike some others of our former tribe who have been mocking him and who have never other than benefitted from their faux-radicalism.

    "As for the meme about giving the other prisoners a break by letting him out, I would prefer the company of a bible spouting culchie prod to that of any drug dealer, burglar or mugger.

    "Apart all of that, he is correct in his stance. and one day that young person will hopefully see him as one of those who did not frank what may well prove to be a costly error if he/she takes it to the level of chemical or surgical intervention."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matt, it should be more disappointing that you give any credence to the Christian persecution complex.
      The reason he is in jail is his contempt of court, not his religious opinion. His religious opinion led to his contempt. Had he not have turned up at the school and allowed the disciplinary to run its course, he would not have been jailed.

      He wrote a book expressing his religious opinion - seemingly vehemently expressing his opposition to gays. Wasn't jailed for that nor should he have been.

      Nor does he have to apologise for holding his religious opinion to purge himself of contempt. What he is required to do is stay away from the school until the case is dealt with as part of the disciplinary process. I don't think he should apologise for what he believes. Of course he should stand by it. But neither you nor he should pretend he is in jail for holding that belief.

      I think you are playing to the gallery in claiming that you would prefer a sandwich board Cecil to druggies or muggers. Like myself, you like a tipple and for us to have to listen to sanctimonious preaching against the demon drink - fuck that. I'd prefer the company of a drug dealer if he is easy to get on with. I've been in jail with all these types of people, and the most insufferable are the religious bores.

      Delete
    2. Matt says "he is in contempt of a court order but the reason for that is his objection to the ridiculous nonsense of pretending that someone can change from being male to female or vice versa on a whim."

      The reason for the contempt of court order is not his objection to anything but the manner of his objection. He was not jailed for what he believed in rather the way he voiced his belief.

      The school didn't sanction him for not complying with the pupil's wishes. They sanctioned him for the way he behaved when he confronted the principal and refused to stop.

      If he behaved in this erratic manner for a less controversial reason he would most likely have been placed on administrative leave and it wouldn't have made the news.

      This is a breakdown of what happened from the Irish Times:

      "The school claims that last June a service and dinner was held to mark its 260th anniversary. It was attended by clergy, staff, past and present pupils, parents and board members.

      It is claimed that Mr Burke interrupted the service and said the school’s principal, Niamh McShane, should withdraw the earlier demand regarding the transitioning of the student.

      It is also claimed he said he could not agree with transgenderism, and said it went against the school’s ethos and the teaching of the Church of Ireland.

      The school claims that after he spoke members of the congregation and students walked out of the school chapel where the service was being conducted.

      It is claimed that at the follow-up dinner Mr Burke did not sit at any table.

      After the meal he is alleged to have approached the principal, and again asked her to withdraw the request regarding the student.

      The school claims that she said she would speak to Mr Burke at an appropriate time and place, and walked away from him. It is claimed that he continued to follow her and questioned her loudly.

      Other people stood between them to prevent the continuation of his questioning, it is further claimed.

      Arising from Mr Burke’s alleged conduct, a disciplinary process was commenced and considered by the board, resulting in a decision to place him on administrative leave pending the outcome of the process."

      Delete
    3. Matt Treacy Comments

      Yes. The technical issue is the "manner of his objection."

      Just as was the Rossport men's "manner of objection" to the Corrib pipeline, and Mattie Merrigan's "manner of objection" to the way in which his members in ATGWU were being treated.

      Good to see anyway that the left has imbibed the values of the "bourgeois legal system" and the Irish Times which of course also stood by the Law against the "manner of objection" in 1847, 1913 and 1916 and 1970 :-)

      Delete
    4. I doubt there is any cover for Burke in the other cases cited.

      There is nothing whatsoever to show that he was jailed for his religious opinion - otherwise people like myself would be highlighting it.

      There is much to show that he is in jail for what Simon calls the manner of his objection. But I would go further and separate the objection entirely from his jailing, whatever about the manner. Even if he took the opposite stance and defended the pupil's right to be referred to however he wished and was suspended for it, once the court ordered him to stay away from the school and he refused, he was always going to be jailed.

      His religious opinion should afford him no special treatment. He can believe in the inerrant truth of the Lord Of The Rings if he so chooses but once the court orders him to desist from his action (it did not infringe on his ability to persist in his belief). Much like if a court orders protestors to stay clear of abortion facilities, it does not prevent the protestors from believing abortion is wrong. Even if the court has erred in its ruling, it is the ruling on behaviour, not on beliefs that still leads to you being jailed.

      If only he was capable of following your advice in relation to the Gambling Act and mind his own business.


      Delete
    5. Matt mocks "The technical issue is the "manner of his objection."".

      His behaviour was not a technical issue nor a mere incidental tangent to the case. It was the totality of the case. His beliefs neither mitigated nor aggravated his offence. His belief was irrelevant.

      1. The school advised staff about the pupil's wishes. They didn't discipline Burke for not complying.

      2. Burke protested about the school's decision to tell the staff about the pupil's wishes, in a way that disrupted the school and the students. He bullied the headteacher to get his way in front of people who felt obliged to get physically between the two.

      3. The school placed Burke on administrative leave which he ignored and the school got a court order to stop him bullying and disrupting the school. The well-being of staff and students took priority not Burke's feelings.

      4. Burke decided himself that his feelings overrode the well-being of staff and pupils, and also overrode the validity/merit of the court order. He continued his campaign of harassment, violating the court order and refused to desist so he's locked up. Despite your protestations Matt his feelings are the technical issue, his feelings are the incidental matter not his behaviour.

      As Anthony correctly states if he was passionate about trans-rights but harassed the school, was put on administrative leave, refused to stay away, received a court order and violated that order he would still be locked up.

      His belief is irrelevant. It's all about his behaviour. Nothing more, nothing less.

      Delete
    6. Matt scoffs at me for quoting the Irish Times and for relying on the court's arguments. He forgets that for people outside the readership of Gript that the world and its problems aren't black and white.

      Delete
    7. Simon - the scoffing on this occasion is an alternative to substance. The spin Matt's argument requires to succeed needs to be able to blur out the cold logical facts as you present them. It fails to do that.

      The assertion by Matt that Burke is in prison for his religious beliefs is not plausible. This is the sort of blog that would be to the fore in calling for his release if he were in prison for his beliefs.

      I think there is a serious challenge to freedom of opinion and inquiry posed by the Trans lobby which has sought all too often to close down discussion. Academics, feminists and others have been pilloried for dissenting from the narrative the Trans lobby tries to impose. I think this is fundamentally wrong. But it does not apply to why Burke was imprisoned.

      If we look at Jim Wells who was being investigated by the PSNI for expressing a religious opinion, it is safe to say that this was an abuse of powers and an attempt to curb Wells' right to freedom of expression.

      Delete
  6. My two bits.......

    The Judge had no choice. Burke could have kicked back and enjoyed Christmas. Fcuk Burke. The whole 'Trans' issue. Anyone who is 100% on board with the trans community, then go and live on an island with the woke vegans. There are men and women. Most are hetro, some men are happy being gay, two women get my vote...Bi, simply greed.

    This 'TQ+' argument it is basically another way to say trans-humanism. The whole trans question, it is eugentics on steroids. They are already writing articles in the press about birthing pods. Don't believe me .... open the link . ....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Frankie, my tuppence worth is that there are genuine transexuals; those who are undergoing or are preparing to undergo the relevant surgery. Those who are merely self-declared trans should not be allowed to access women's only spaces. Gender and sexuality do exist on a continuum; there is greater gender fluidity and society is all the healthier for it. Your argument that "the whole trans question .. is eugenics on steroids" is, of course, pants.

      Delete
  7. Barry, life without the perfect designer is going to lead to imperfection, physical and psychological. It seems to me an inevitability that people will find themselves in bodies that they feel alienated from and cannot reconcile themselves to. Medical intervention has long brought relief to people in every walk of life. I see no reason for it to be any different in the case of Trans people. My problem with the issue is that too often opinions like that of Frankie are suppressed and their authors hounded. This can only take away from our understanding of the issue.
    I think you make an excellent point about the right to access women's only spaces but when Gript raised this to flag up a serious danger to women being allowed to be housed in a women's prison, Tusla threatened to take out an injunction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Much like one's age one's sex cannot be changed. Some facts are simply immutable. People who believe they are born in the incorrect body and who undergo any surgery are simply mutilating themselves and nothing more. There's a simple test to prove this. We can dig up bodies from centuries ago and determine the sex long after the flesh is gone. There is no real transgender only body dysmorphia. No reason to not be compassionate but no reason either to deny basic science and attempt to rewrite or compel incorrect pronouns or language to suit the sensitivities of an incredibly small number of mentally ill people.

      While the West worries over the this crap China and Russia laugh at the absurdity.

      Delete
    2. But the body can be changed so that a person can feel at one with it rather than alienated from it.

      I don't see it as mutilating themselves but transforming themselves. Mutilation is when some cleric takes a knife to your genitalia. Even if it is mutilation, Matt has argued elsewhere that what we do to ourselves is no one else's business. Not that I agree with that as an absolute. But a person surely has more right to manage their body than a cleric has to slice it.

      In terms of facts the science looks very much as you outline it. But we have used science for yonks to intervene in nature - the usual voices wailing against are the clerics, whether it be stem cell research or whatever. Not that science will always be right but what we can be absolutely certain of is that science will correct science. Religion will correct nothing.

      I have met a few who have made the trans trip - impacts on me not in the slightest. I think it is harder to adjust to when you know them from before and then deal with them after.
      I am not a Trans advocate in any substantive manner. I have a sort of live and let live approach to it. The rights and wrongs of it have largely passed me by. But any of them I have met seem happy with it so I am not going to advocate for them to be unhappy.

      The thing about pronouns, I am for free speech and against compelled speech. But venue limits what we can say all the time. "They" seems an easy compromise for everybody to make. Enoch Burke seems to think his religious opinion must be accounted for regardless. He is free to practice his religious belief on himself but not on me. He can hardly be allowed to go into a geology class and tell the pupils that the earth is 6000 years old, into a biology class and claim evolution never happened, into my wedding and call my wife a harlot, into an abortion clinic and accuse the women of being child murderers. They end up looking very like The Westboro Baptist Church when they do that. If Burke wants to become the Fred Phelps of Ireland, he knows what is waiting down the line for him. He should be free to hold such beliefs and we should be free to ridicule them. He can even publish them here if he wishes.

      Ultimately, a secular society should stand up for its citizens against the imposition of religious opinion. Burke should never be jailed for his religious opinion but he never has been.

      Delete
    3. If they are above the age of 18 and classed as an adult then it's no business of mine what they do to their own bodies I agree. We shouldn't be arseholes anyway. I'm highly suspicious of organised religion so don't believe they have a valid opinion on anything whatsoever. But I'm not going along with denying the science to assuage people's sensitivities nor change the meaning of language for the same, it's simply a step too far and into the realms of madness. This guy Burke sounds like a tool but he had a point albeit from a shaky standpoint.

      Delete
    4. I don't think society can cope with the degree of libertarianism that would flow from the idea that as long as people are over 18 they can do what they want with their bodies. There are health costs and social trauma to be taken into consideration. And public health policy often runs counter to libertarianism. At root I agree, we should be able to do to ourselves what we want but that's not how it works.
      You are not denying science but affirming it by recognising that science can intervene to make changes in a person's body that allows them to live comfortably in it rather than unhappily accept their lot. You are still able to uphold the scientific principle you outlined earlier. What odds is it to me or you that somebody who crosses over prefers to be be referred to by the pronoun they identify with?
      Burke is quite entitled to hold his opinion that the trans thing is all rubbish. He is not being asked to forego that opinion - but is being asked to abide by the school protocol. He is not being asked to call a male she. He simply does not believe the person is a she. What his complaint is when asked to use "they", I don't get. That is hardly an assault on his religious sensibilities.
      What if he calls a gay person an abomination because he finds it somewhere in the bible? The bible gives him no more rights than Lord of the Rings.

      Delete
  8. No odds to me and in polite company I would use what made the individual feel more comfortable. But it should be up to the individual what they do in polite company. Having a structure dictate that you must use certain language is tantamount to compelled speech and the thin edge of the wedge. There's a reason why 1984 warned against doublethink so overtly. It never ends well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In polite company the individual won't be in it too long if they wish to pontificate and ignore the sensitivities of others. If a guy comes into the company with his wife who is trans it would take an obnoxious prick to refer to the wife as the husband. Venue always constrains what can be said. This goes back to the old maxim about the right to shout "fire" in a crowded cinema.

      We cannot always use the language we wish otherwise someone could walk into a class of Jewish kids and refer to them as subhuman, finding something - just as Burke did with his book of choice - in Mein Kampf to justify it. 1984 offers no solutions for that.

      In public and political discourse I think Burke should be free to make his points. If he gets ostracised after that the state should do nothing to protect him. It can't compel people to speak to him other than in what is required by law in a professional capacity. Free speech means we are free from the law but not the dim view that others might take of what we say.

      Delete
  9. Orwell offered no solutions but signposted what can happen. If we're compelled to hold to simultaneously opposite positions then it's only a matter of time before the worm turns. Bit by bit the definition of other things would change, and this would be manna for any government who wishes to exploit it's people. And as he pointed out they most certainly would avail themselves of the opportunity. When that happens to raise alarm will be akin to someone calling you racist. Doesn't matter if you deny it, the shit will stick to you and we'll become pariahs. We are the dead.

    ReplyDelete
  10. no one is being asked to hold to simultaneously opposite positions. They are being asked to hold to their own position without inflicting it on others. An atheist doctor in a hospital should not be going around the workplace calling clergy attending to the dying charlatans and fraudsters. He is entitled to hold that opinion and is under no obligation to embrace the opposite opinion. The atheist doctor, Burke, would be protesting that to prohibit him from doing just that would be a denial of his free speech.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not yet but that's the wedge. If this nonsense is allowed to continue then I can be looking at a clearly biological male complete with beard and bollocks and compelled to address them in the feminine save I be guilty of a crime (deadnaming/thoughtcrime), and all because we have to vaunt a mentally ill persons sensitives above reason. That's madness.

      Delete
    2. There is always that danger - but every bit of human progress has at first been attacked as being the wedge for some disaster. The accusation goes with the turf.
      I think it is wrong to pathologise this matter as a mental illness - that is an old tactic of the Communist Party - pathologise dissent.

      Delete
    3. Its not a tactic. One cannot simply change genders. I'm compassionate that people do not believe they have been born in the 'right' body but that still doesn't change the objective truth. Ergo, it's a mental health issue. By all means treat for body dysmorphia but I'm not going along with their delusion. What next, the GFA was a stepping stone to a United Ireland?

      Delete
    4. Does psychiatry define it as a mental illness in need of therapy rather than surgery?
      It seems easier to change gender than prejudice.

      Delete
    5. Yes psychiatry does view it as a mental illness and treat accordingly. I've never seen nor read about any other mammalian species set about self mutilation to try to change genders. It's uniquely sapein in that regard. We've observed homosexuality, rape, and killing for the sake of it in our close relatives in the Great Ape family but no chopping nor creating breasts. This alone should tell us something. Interesting footnote, there's mounting evidence of orang-utans now entering the stone age.

      Delete
    6. The American Psychological Association seems not to subscribe to it as a mental illness.

      Does psychiatry regard it as a mental illness or do some psychiatrists treat it as a mental illness and treat it accordingly, much like gay conversion therapy?

      Other species do not have the wherewithal to make the transformation. They lack the scientific capacity to do so. They also don't have medicine. Then there is this type of question: Are There “Transgender” Proclivities in Animals? which makes me wonder. How many animals do you know that have had plastic surgery?

      Referring to it as self-mutilation to my ear has the Iris Robinson echo: gays as an abomination.

      I meet one of these guys regularly in Dublin. He is as compos mentis as you or me and super intelligent, although might not have been sane had he been unable to make the journey across. I believe the mental illness results from the brain rejecting the body it is constrained within rather than the mental illness causing a feeling of alienation from the body. A purely physical process that is not a mental aberration.

      I don't know if I am right as a I lack the expertise to be dogmatic about the matter. But if people want to change their gender, their appearance, their name, religion or whatever, it means nothing to me and I am quite prepared to mind my own business and let them get on with being happy. I can't possibly see why it would make me unhappy, nor why they should be unhappy to appease my prejudices.

      Delete
    7. Och I'm never going to be a prick to them, I'm just not going along with what's going on in their own head and I wouldn't expect them do likewise for me.

      Delete
  11. Matt Treacy Comments

    Whatever the legal technicalities. the fact is that a man has spent 3 months in prison for refusing to ratify a basic absurdity.

    You either think that is right, or you do not. All the semantics aside.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He isn't in jail for contempt of trans but contempt of court.

      He will be released not when he drops his contempt of Trans but drops his contempt of court. He can go free and maintain his contempt of Trans.

      Delete