Girls will be boys and boys will be girls
It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world - Lola, The Kinks, 1970)
This is an attempt to lay out some of my thinking around the trans debate, and in particular, the school of thought that “wokeism” facilitates dangerous acts like housing a convicted rapist with a track record of attacking women in a women’s prison.
I’ve never been comfortable with the term “woke” – I have considered it overused, misused, and misleading. To be honest, I’ve found justifying this position difficult. So, now I’m more open to it – but still have serious reservations. I hope it stimulates debate, and that that debate is up to the usual TPQ high standard. I’ve tried to keep language as neutral as possible.
If it is accepted that a person can be born into the “wrong” body in terms of sex assignment, a number of complex questions arise. Of course, many people will dismiss the concept that a person can be born into the wrong body, and believe that a male born a male is meant to be a male. I think this is a perfectly valid belief to hold. There is a vocal (mainly on social media) cohort who believe holding that view is tantamount to fascism. This may leave me open to accusations of hypocrisy, or dissonance, but I think Twitter warriors accusing people who hold perfectly rational beliefs of being fascists could accurately be described as “wokeism.”
However, many people, and governments/health services in the UK and Ireland accept that some people have been assigned the wrong sex at birth and have a legal right to change their sex. When a person has ceased to become a male and transitioned to female has caused legal, political, and cultural havoc (far more so than if the sex is reversed). Alternatively, people may well not believe that a person can be born into the “wrong” sex, but still support the right of people to change their sex if they want to.
I would like to discuss two controversial instances in Scotland which demonstrates the legal, cultural, and political dissonance which exists around the trans debate.
Adam Graham/Isla Bryson
In a case that stretched credulity, Isla Bryson was convicted of raping by penile penetration two women, prior to her “transition” when she was a man named Adam Graham. The language of transition is messy and unconvincing in this case. Bryson was taking hormones and “presenting” as female, but had not had gender reassignment surgery. Shockingly, Bryson was remanded to a women’s prison (although she was kept separate from other prisoners).
Adam Graham’s announcement that he was transgender led to the creation of a female identity and the name Isla Bryson. Adam Graham was a tough looking man, with facial tattoos. At a presumably early stage in the process towards transition Graham was, as far as I can understand it, granted the right to be treated as a female and receive treatment to facilitate full transition.
It also emerged that Bryson attended a beauty therapy course. All of Bryson’s fellow students were female, and some as young as 16. Bryson was reportedly intimidating, disrespectful of boundaries, and inappropriate.
Some questions emerge
- Why was Adam Graham’s belief that he was transgender taken seriously?
- What are the circumstances where someone could be refused the range of support to transition?
- Why does officialdom grant upon a person transitioning the sex status they desire early on in the process?
At what stage did “wokeism” come into play? Was it accepting that people are born into the wrong sex? Or that someone with an obvious predatory personality presented as transgender and was taken seriously? Or was it that someone, somewhere, within the prison/justice system didn’t act to prevent the act of placing Bryson in Corton Vale? Or was it all of these instances or none of them?
Officialdom has placed predatory people in positions of power amongst those they prey upon since officialdom began. I’m currently reading the Kincora book by Chris Moore, and it’s shocking how many chances there were to save so many innocents from such vile abuse.
The Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre “heresy” scandal
Some time ago, Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC) appointed a CEO who a number of websites described as a male who had not undergone gender reassignment surgery. This legally would have excluded them from the position. As far as I can tell, they remain in post.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, a number of high-profile incidents rocked the charity, a selection below:
Rape centre worker wins tribunal over gender-critical beliefs - BBC News
Ash Regan says it would be 'unconscionable' for Mridul Wadhwa to continue as rape crisis centre CEO - Scottish Daily Express
Mridul-Wadhwa-Guilty-Feminist-transcript.pdf (forwomen.scot)
Rape crisis sabotage is a feature, not a bug, of trans activism | Victoria Smith | The Critic Magazine
Here are some comments Wadhwa made on a podcast, quoted in the Employment Tribunal mentioned in one of headlines above:
If you are transphobic in a way that you don’t recognise trans people for who they are then my experience suggests that you are also racist, you are also ableist and probably a misogynist even though you might be a woman.
Wadhwa’s comments on that podcast bring to mind this part from the Spiked article:
Critical Social Justice theorists and activists apply their ‘critical’ methods to analyse systems, language and interactions in society to ‘uncover’ these power systems and make them visible to the rest of us. In their framework, these identity-based power systems include ‘whiteness’, ‘patriarchy’, ‘colonialism’, ‘heteronormativity’ and ‘transphobia’. They are believed to infect all aspects of society and even the most benign everyday interactions. The belief that people are unable to avoid being racist, sexist, or transphobic because they have absorbed bigoted discourses from wider society is a tenet of faith that originated in postmodern thought, particularly that of Michel Foucault.
The convulsions experience by ERCC, the damning verdict of the tribunal, and the implications for clients who have experienced horrendous trauma make this a disturbing case, and one deserving of a degree of gravitas. A quick look on Google news turned up two stories about “wokeism” in a variation on the “Christmas is cancelled” trope. The Daily Mail is reporting that some “woke” types have declared that the US “doesn’t deserve” a day (4th July) to celebrate it, and another story concerns “microaggressions.” Despite my earlier comments about the Spiked article, I question the appropriateness of using a term like “woke” to describe the ideology behind the happenings reported in the ERCC tribunal.
Would it not be more effective, and more accurate, to criticise, directly and unequivocally, this use of Trans legislation? Or the non-utilisation of existing legislation that is designed to protect women? Or, indeed, just name TRAs as pushing things much too far? This last point of course happens – do TRAs act under the cover of “woke” Twitter warriors? Or are they one and the same?
Some other points
The two examples above are of people who identify as a sex that their physicality contradicts. In Bryson’s case, the criminal and predatory nature of the person transitioning made what happened so shocking. But it seems other individuals with male genitals are in female prisons. In the ERCC case, it seems that the CEO’s politics led to challenges for a once groundbreaking charity with decades of experience.
In discussing the issues that arise from the transition phase of sex-reassignment, I have not touched on those that arise when an individual has completed reassignment and had surgery. Then, there is the question of the physical advantage transwomen have over ciswomen in sports, amongst other issues.
I think in a landscape this deeply complex, nuance is required. It seems to me that using words like “wokery” or related terminology to cover a landscape that covers the invented (school pupils identifying as cats) to the inconsequential (Noel Gallagher Takes Aim at “Woke” Glasntonbury) to the two instances I discussed above is as tautological and counterproductive as simply reiterating “transwomen are women.”
I also think it gives cover to the likes of GB News who are fixated on the term, and not because it reduces provision of services to traumatised women.
And do some people use the term “woke” when describing policy or organisational failures because it’s more comfortable than robustly naming trans activists as being responsible?
⏩Brandon Sullivan is a middle-aged West Belfast émigré. He juggles fatherhood & marriage with working in a policy environment and writing for TPQ about the conflict, films, books, and politics.
Quite interesting that all this preoccupation with "Trans" rights ( what rights are they currently denied by the way?) is only an issue in the West.
ReplyDeleteI will accept that a person can be born in the wrong body, but it doesn't negate a simple fact; it's simply not possible to change ones biological sex.
Attempting to redefine the word 'Gender' is also an acceptance that this point is not lost on these activists.
The main issue seems to be that the wokeists are compelling you to accept that "trans" people are actually the opposite biological sex and if you don't you are invariably an 'ist' that deserves shame and scorn. That's thought control akin to in Orwell's tome.
If the wokeists weren't so foaming at the mouth then the acceptance of the trans persons would be far more likely to accepted by the community at large.
Life's tough for everyone and we can all use a little more compassion, but don't try to dictate to people what they should think. The pendulum also swings back.
@ Steve R
ReplyDeleteI think it's more "settled" in other societies, but I think there have been a number of societies where there is more than two sexes/genders.
In terms of what rights they are denied, this is where is gets extremely complex. I think the pool of people who would wish to deny a person the right to have gender reassignment surgery is small and getting smaller. It many ways society is more tolerant and compassionate, and I think this extends towards people who identify as trans.
I am drawn to the concept that the trans debate is too complex to fit into a "woke" framework.
If we take you as an example, Steve (and I think your views are probably representative of a substantial portion of the population):
You accept that people can be born into the wrong body, but (and again I think your views are representative of many):
"The main issue seems to be that the wokeists are compelling you to accept that "trans" people are actually the opposite biological sex and if you don't you are invariably an 'ist' that deserves shame and scorn."
This is where I start to question, but not reject, the utility of the term woke. Shades of strongly held, sometimes fanatical, opinion starts to emerge about when/if "a person born into the wrong body" becomes "the opposite biological sex."
Some think that can never happen. Some think after surgical reassignment surgery. Some (often the loudest and most fanatical) seem to think that simply "identifying" as the opposite sex means that you are the opposite sex.
I can see why people use "woke" terminology to describe a section of activists who see and experience society as a structure which fosters bigotry as the default setting. Therefore, for example, a person born with a male body but currently identifying as a woman is *not* a man exercising ultimate male privilege, but instead a double disempowered individual excluded from various societal spheres.
But my feeling is that woke terminology is too weak an instrument to critique policy failings. Doesn’t it make more sense to say:
“The main issue seems to be that the some Trans Rights Activists such as X, Y, and Z are compelling you to accept that "trans" people are actually the opposite biological sex and if you don't you are invariably an 'ist' that deserves shame and scorn."
This was an interesting comment:
"If the wokeists weren't so foaming at the mouth then the acceptance of the trans persons would be far more likely to accepted by the community at large."
I think the social media addicts who do so much of the metaphorical foaming at the mouth have a vested interest in people *not* being accepted. I have no issue with describing Twitter warriors as "woke." But they aren't really an issue, because they don't really have any power. Power genuinely does sit with some highly effective trans rights activists.
I think if one does accept, as I do along with many others, than a person can be born into the wrong body, then so many difficult questions emerge that it demands honest, robust, and sincere debate. Charges of "wokeism" play right into the hands of those who don't want honest, robust, and sincere debate, in my opinion.
Brandon,
ReplyDelete“Why was Adam Graham’s belief that he was transgender taken seriously?”
Because according to some, sex and gender are fluid concepts and ones we are not allowed to question.
“What are the circumstances where someone could be refused the range of support to transition?”
If it appears that the person is using the trans angle as a way of being sent to a female prison and that there is no prior history of such issues.
“Why does officialdom grant upon a person transitioning the sex status they desire early on in the process?”
See the answer to question 1.
“…exactly what does wokeism have to do with the bureaucratic action of placing Bryson in a woman’s prison?”
The fact that the idea of a male rapist being put into a female prison while retaining the anatomy of a man wasn’t laughed out of the building.
“At what stage did “wokeism” come into play?”
See above answer.
“Would it not be more effective, and more accurate, to criticise, directly and unequivocally, this use of Trans legislation? Or the non-utilisation of existing legislation that is designed to protect women? Or, indeed, just name TRAs as pushing things much too far? This last point of course happens – do TRAs act under the cover of “woke” Twitter warriors? Or are they one and the same?”
One and the same. Trans issues have been heavily bound up with the concept of wokeism for a long time.
“The two examples above are of people who identify as a sex that their physicality contradicts.”
No mention of Barbie Kardashian?
“And do some people use the term “woke” when describing policy or organisational failures because it’s more comfortable than robustly naming trans activists as being responsible?"
No, because the ideology of wokeness has driven these people to produce policies that actively harm such as:
- Defund the Police
- Abolish Jails
- Net Zero
- Racism as original sin
- Gendered soul
- Children should be able to transition at any age
I think that anyone can do what they like to their own bodies as long as they are adults. What I and (probably) the majority of the silent hoi polloi have and issue with is the pushing of this ideology on kids, that is the belief you can change sexes. It's not possible, right down to the size of the cervix and the double XX chromosomes.
ReplyDelete"Gender reassignment" surgery should be called what it is, a mutilation of a body to bring comfort to the individual. As such, it points clearly to there being a psychological component behind this malady. But the stigma of mental health issues brings forth an irrational back lash. People can have body dysmorphia but that's not tolerable for some of this activists oh no, they want society to bend to their will and pretend black is white in a grotesque pantomime probably in their mind fighting for a noble cause.
The problem they now face is the cases of regret now showing from people who went through the surgery on the advice of their doctors and I'd wager with the encouragement of family and friends who really should have known better.
The NHS stopped this elective surgery because they saw the looming court cases.
As I said, do want you want if you are an adult and it's your own body, but they need to back off the kids. I'm also a bit baffled that the Gay community isn't more vocal on this as the kids affected are overwhelmingly gay.
@ Christopher
ReplyDeleteI think we view things reasonably similarly, except for the labels we'd put on the leading and guiding lights who have had a hand in some extremely dubious policy making.
"The fact that the idea of a male rapist being put into a female prison while retaining the anatomy of a man wasn’t laughed out of the building."
Whilst accepting the general thrust of your comment, you'll know bureaucratic entities such as the Scottish Prison Services (SPS) don't have the latitude to laugh such things out of the building. This particular case perhaps gives a compelling rationale while they should retain such a privilege...
So, the SPS will rely on the systems and processes they've had in place since their foundation. Men in men's prisons, women in women's. A person will be released from the courts into their care, whereupon a risk assessment will be carried out concerning the risk they are at, and what risk they pose to others.
But if the individual they take responsibility for is a legal woman, then they are duty bound to treat them accordingly. So it seems to me that there was (is?) a failure when drawing up the policy to account for instances such as this (not actually all that uncommon), *or* some individuals did consider this possibility and decide that it didn't matter.
I think the only real difference of opinion that we have on this is that I think trans activists are responsible, and you think wokeists are (and that they are one and the same).
I think a flaw in your argument that they are one and the same is that some TERFs would be considered "woke" when it comes to gender power relations, but consider someone transitioning to a woman as ultimate male privilege.
I think a strength in your argument is that TRAs didn't make the law, politicians did, and said politicians would of course be influenced by the political atmosphere which, some would say, is "woke."
Which brings me back to one of my original questions:
"At what stage did “wokeism” come into play? Was it accepting that people are born into the wrong sex?"
I don't think you can accept that people are born into the wrong sex without then encountering issues like this.
You wrote:
"No, because the ideology of wokeness has driven these people to produce policies that actively harm such as:
- Defund the Police
- Abolish Jails
- Net Zero
- Racism as original sin
- Gendered soul
- Children should be able to transition at any age"
As far as I know, and I stand ready to be corrected, none of what you have listed are in fact ongoing legal policies, except Net Zero. Plenty of ridiculous policies are proposed, but get nowhere.
I have never before heard of Net Zero being as a result of "wokeism."
Your list is, I think, evidence of the weakness of using "wokeism" - plenty of environmentalists will support Net Zero and be against the concept that children should be able to transition at any age. Plenty of extreme TRAs will not care about Net Zero or abolishing jails.
Looking at that list, it seems clear to me that the two areas that policies have moved significantly are Net Zero and trans activism (though as far as I know, children can transition at a certain age, on certain conditions, following certain procedures in America). I don't think it's any surprise that both areas have highly organised activists lobbying and pulling at some levers of power.
"No mention of Barbie Kardashian?"
I was blissfully unaware of this individual. I Googled and wish I hadn't. WTAF.
Brandon, (1)
ReplyDelete“I think we view things reasonably similarly, except for the labels we'd put on the leading and guiding lights who have had a hand in some extremely dubious policy making.”
Agreed.
“Whilst accepting the general thrust of your comment…”
Ooh er, matron!
“you'll know bureaucratic entities such as the Scottish Prison Services (SPS) don't have the latitude to laugh such things out of the building. This particular case perhaps gives a compelling rationale while they should retain such a privilege...So, the SPS will rely on the systems and processes they've had in place since their foundation. Men in men's prisons, women in women's. A person will be released from the courts into their care, whereupon a risk assessment will be carried out concerning the risk they are at, and what risk they pose to others. But if the individual they take responsibility for is a legal woman, then they are duty bound to treat them accordingly. So it seems to me that there was (is?) a failure when drawing up the policy to account for instances such as this (not actually all that uncommon), *or* some individuals did consider this possibility and decide that it didn't matter.”
Bryson had not medically transitioned, nor did he possess a Gender Recognition Certificate. Therefore he should not have been considered for a woman’s prison. If both have occurred, then it would be genuine and (depending on the severity of the crime) imprisonment among women could be considered.
“I think the only real difference of opinion that we have on this is that I think trans activists are responsible, and you think wokeists are (and that they are one and the same).”
Agreed.
“I think a flaw in your argument that they are one and the same is that some TERFs would be considered "woke" when it comes to gender power relations but consider someone transitioning to a woman as ultimate male privilege.”
I see what you’re saying but I think trying to pin down a definition to such a slippery term is a bit of a fool’s errand: we know that the term (in its original meaning) related to being aware about social injustice and this is often used as a “gotcha” by some to show that they’re Good People. However we know that the meaning of words can evolve over time in the same way definitions of ‘left’ and ‘right’ have changed and so it’s no surprise that this is the case with woke. Ultimately, at the heart of woke culture is a deep intolerance of a dissenting opinion to their worldview so TERFs and TRAs are both sides of the same coin.
“I think a strength in your argument is that TRAs didn't make the law, politicians did, and said politicians would of course be influenced by the political atmosphere which, some would say, is "woke."”
Agreed.
“Which brings me back to one of my original questions:"At what stage did “wokeism” come into play? Was it accepting that people are born into the wrong sex?" I don't think you can accept that people are born into the wrong sex without then encountering issues like this.”
Personally, I don’t like the phrase “born into the wrong body” as it’s a way of avoiding the key issue of the trans debate: identity. Don’t get me wrong, I have no doubt that gender dysphoria is a legitimate condition where, in some cases, surgery is a necessity for the individual and, if you read the accounts of Jan Morris and Wendy Carlos, it is real. However, identity is a very fragile and personal concept that does not fit everyone. Hence why the push to give puberty blockers to children should be abhorrent to any sensible person as some of those kids may simply grow up to be gay.
Brandon, (2)
ReplyDelete“- Defund the Police
- Abolish Jails
- Net Zero
- Racism as original sin
- Gendered soul
- Children should be able to transition at any age"
As far as I know, and I stand ready to be corrected, none of what you have listed are in fact ongoing legal policies, except Net Zero. Plenty of ridiculous policies are proposed but get nowhere.”
All of them (bar Abolish Jails) were legal policies until they were either reversed due to backlash (Defund the Police, Racism as original sin) or obfuscated (Gendered soul, transitioning)
“I have never before heard of Net Zero being as a result of "wokeism."”
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/4065316-the-climate-emergency-demands-a-woke-response/
“Your list is, I think, evidence of the weakness of using "wokeism" - plenty of environmentalists will support Net Zero and be against the concept that children should be able to transition at any age. Plenty of extreme TRAs will not care about Net Zero or abolishing jails.”
See my previous answer on defining woke.
“Barbie Kardashian”
A harrowing tale.