Major setback for transgender madness

The most bizarre component of the politically correct agenda has been the promotion of so called transgender rights. This has been based on the mistaken belief that ‘gender identity’ has an objective reality. It is in fact a complete delusion. The physical reality is that there are two sexes, male and female. This has been accepted as a biological fact throughout history and in every society, and confirmed by biological science as immutable through the sex chromosomes.

In the past couple of decades in liberal circles the crackpot notion has gained ground that some people, believing that as they do not conform to the stereotypical notions of their biological sex, conclude that they are really the opposite sex, trapped in the wrong body. There can be no doubt that there are many people who do not conform to traditional notions of masculinity and femininity, since there are clearly effeminate men and butch women, both in character and appearance. So there must be a broad spectrum between macho men at one extreme and, for example, simpering females at the other. Each individual will slot into a point in this range according to their character, which in many cases might not accord with their biological sex. So gender is a subjective mental construct involving an almost unlimited number of variations.

The promotion of the transgender delusion has encouraged many mentally confused people to undergo physical mutilation and the injection of hormones of the opposite sex. They believe that these extreme measures will enable them to ‘transition’ to the opposite sex. The first example of this syndrome to come to public attention was the travel writer James Morris, who in the 1970s underwent this kind of physical mutilation and henceforward regarded himself as a woman, with the new name Jan Morris. Extraordinarily, Morris featured as one of the cultural icons in Andrew Marr’s recent BBC TV Series New Elizabethans, demonstrating just how embedded transgender politics has become in politically correct circles.

One of the more pernicious aspects of the transgender agenda that has gained ground in recent years is its impact on children and young teens. At the forefront of this malaise is the Tavistock Centre in North London which operates what is termed a Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) that aims to ‘help young people who experience difficulties in their gender identities.’ Unbelievably, GIDS can involve prescribing puberty blockers and opposite sex hormone treatment for young teens.

One such case was that of Keira Bell who from her mid teens was given puberty blockers, male hormone treatment therapy and then surgery to remove her breasts. However, she later concluded that she did not want to continue living as male, instead deciding to revert to being female. She clearly regretted her decision to consent to the Tavistock treatment, claiming that she was insufficiently mature to give informed consent, and had been given an inadequate psychological assessment. She subsequently took the Tavistock to the courts.

Reassuringly, the High Court recently decided in Keira’s favour declaring that is was highly unlikely that anyone ‘thirteen or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers’, or that fourteen and fifteen years olds could ‘understand and weigh the long term risks and consequences of puberty blockers’. For those sixteen and over the long term consequences of the ‘innovative and experimental treatment’ practiced by the Tavistock, is such that it would henceforth require the authorisation of the courts.

As a result of these court decisions it is highly unlikely that the Tavistock Centre will be able to administer such patently dangerous practices in the future. Once confused teenagers start to realise that playing the transgender card will no longer result in any form of physical medical intervention or uncritical support for their delusions, we should soon find that the numbers supposedly suffering from ‘gender dysphoria’ will start to drop off significantly. It is disturbing that children’s charities such as the NSPCC and Barnados have failed at any time to condemn the barbarous examples of child abuse practiced by the Tavistock Centre.

BBC Covid alarmism

Most people of pension age in Britain today will have witnessed the gradual transformation of the BBC from a high minded pillar of the then culturally conservative establishment, into the hard left mouthpiece for political correctness that it has now become. This new woke cultural and political agenda has been incrementally extended from news and current affairs programmes into virtually all of its broadcast output. It is particularly intrusive when it invades historical dramas, and programmes about history, the arts and science, all of which the BBC once enjoyed a very high reputation which it has now largely lost. The BBC has become the British equivalent of the Soviet propaganda organ Pravda, in which everything it covers must be presented through the prism of the dominant ideology.

This would all be fine if it was an independent media outlet such as the Guardian, which is free to pursue any political agenda it chooses, however misguided or out of touch with majority opinion. But this freedom should not apply to the BBC particularly when it claims to be ‘impartial’ and ‘Britain’s most trusted broadcaster’, both claims which are demonstrably dishonest. The BBC obtains its income via a compulsory levy on all British homes which possess a television, but its output largely reflects the minority views of a self regarding metropolitan liberal elite, who believe they have a quasi-divine mission to impose their outlook on the rest of society.

The journalist Peter Hitchens spent a number of years in Russia before the fall of communism, and thus has first hand knowledge of how a one party state brainwashes its population with an unremitting stream of selective and one sided reporting. Hitchens pointed out that it was permissible for citizens to criticise the performance of the authorities, but what they were never allowed to do was to question the underlying ideology which underpinned it, namely communism and Marxism.

The BBC now operates in exactly the same way. This has been highlighted in its response to the coronavirus crisis. It has been hypercritical of the government’s performance on matters such as protective equipment, testing for the virus and its supposedly tardy response to, and extent of, lockdown. But what it only rarely permits is any viewpoint which questions the need for the lockdown, and whether this strategy is the most appropriate response to dealing with the crisis.

An example of this is the recently published report from Denmark into the effectiveness of face masks. This concluded that ‘there was no statistically significant difference between those who wore masks and those who did not when it came to being infected by Covid-19’. In a Spectator article on the report, Oxford University Prof. Henegan commented ‘now that we have properly rigorous scientific research we can rely on, the evidence shows that wearing masks in the community does not significantly reduce the rates of infection.’ The BBC almost completely ignored these crucial findings, yet in contrast, earlier in the year, it went into an extended meltdown, over a very minor infraction of the coronavirus rules by a single individual, Dominic Cummings.

The Danish report confirmed more indirect evidence of the worthlessness of face masks. In the UK deaths from covid in the UK fell from a peak of 9495 a week in mid April to 200 at the end of July before masks became compulsory in shops. Since their introduction deaths have risen to 3038 a week in late November. Moreover, countries such as France and Spain in which the wearing of face masks outdoors is compulsory have shown even greater rises in deaths than the UK in recent months, whereas in Sweden with very little use, deaths are significantly lower. So it is patently obvious that facemasks do little or nothing to prevent the spread of covid. At the start of the pandemic the World Health Organisation (WHO) rightly considered that masks were of little use, but later in mysterious circumstances, and without any new evidence, the WHO reversed this position, concluding instead that they should be worn, and governments throughout Europe started to mandate their use.

The BBC has been stoking up alarm over covid since the start of the pandemic, castigating the government for introducing the lockdown to late, relaxing it too early, exaggerating the danger of the virus, and promoting face masks as a supposedly essential tool in combating the virus, whilst at the same time sidelining the enormous long term social, economic and financial damage that is being caused by the restrictions. No wonder a significant proportion of the population appear to be petrified of catching the virus, given the unremitting alarmist messages peddled by the BBC.

The BBC is not alone in its blind enthusiasm for face masks, as they have now become a virtue signalling fetish for the broader politically correct class. In a recent Newsnight report about protests following the USA presidential election, demonstrators supporting Biden were nearly all wearing masks in contrast to their Trump opponents, almost all of whom were without masks. So masks now appear to have become a symbol of woke political and ideological allegiance regardless of any medical worth, with the BBC in the vanguard of promoting their acceptance in total disregard of all the evidence.

The recent increase in covid cases and deaths (despite face masks) in the UK and in most European countries has punctured three cherished myths about the virus. Pro lockdown enthusiasts had repeatedly claimed that if the UK had locked down earlier then up to 20,000 deaths could have been avoided. They also believed that measures to suppress the virus would lead to its elimination, leading to the early lifting of all restrictions.

So how have these two theories worked in practice? The Czech Republic was lauded in the summer for locking down very early and so keeping infection numbers low. However, come the autumn the virus returned with a vengeance and the Czech Republic suddenly became the world leader on infection rates. With regard to the policy of suppressing, and then eliminating, the virus, Scotland was very successful in suppressing it during the summer months through its ‘zero covid’ strategy, and went several weeks without there being any deaths. However, despite this suppression, during the autumn the virus returned and Scotland has seen roughly the same rise in cases as the rest of the UK.

Regrettably, the third myth was supported by lockdown sceptics, including this blog. They concluded that cases would continue to fall as herd immunity increased, and that there would be no second wave during the autumn and winter months. Clearly this has not happened. Nevertheless, the herd immunity theory is still valid, the more people are infected the greater the immunity becomes. What is still unknown is at what level does herd immunity shut down the epidemic.

During the past three months immunity has been rising but this has been more than offset by more favourable conditions for the spread of the virus, due to lower temperatures and decreased daylight. Before very long increasing herd immunity will once again become the dominant factor in determining the caseload, and with the onset of spring further disadvantaging the spread of the virus, new cases should start to fall considerably. As full herd immunity will almost certainly have arrived by next autumn, there should be no ‘third wave’ at that time, regardless of whether or not a vaccine has been introduced.