Trans fanaticism takes a hit

The recent Cass Review into gender identity services for children and young people has delivered a severe blow to the delusional transgender campaign. This had been gathering pace for several years, often accompanied by virulent expressions of hate against those who questioned the clearly deranged assumptions underpinning this agenda.

It should be remembered that in the past there was no discrimination towards any individual claiming that they belonged to the opposite sex into which they were born, or to prevent them from dressing accordingly. But it was for the wider public to decide for themselves whether or not to accept their claims and to address such individuals in a manner as they thought fit. Thus their relationship towards society was an entirely private matter and there was absolutely no need for the state or the law to become involved.

Foolishly, governments have given transgender people specific legal rights which have caused unnecessary conflict and dissension within society. Women are concerned that ‘transgender women’ can invade female only spaces such as changing rooms. Biological women athletes and swimmers face wholly unfair competition from men masquerading as women. Many companies have imposed unnecessary speech codes and compulsory pronoun use on their employees, with the threat of disciplinary action against them if they refuse to conform. Women have faced abuse and insults, and sometimes threats from their employers, if they question transgender ideology. So in granting legal rights to those claiming to be transgender, the rights of the rest of society have been seriously impinged.

The most pernicious aspect of the trans mania has been the indoctrination faced by children and adolescents in schools. This has occurred because of the ideological capture of much of the teaching establishment by transgender agitators. This has led to significant numbers of children, mainly girls, to claim that they are transgender. The catastrophic consequences for the young people involved are that they have been placed on puberty blockers, the start of a pathway to irreversible hormone treatment and bodily mutilation, imposed in the delusional belief that this will result in them changing their sex.

The main conclusions of the Cass review were that there was a lack of evidence of the efficacy of the medical interventions, that there was a toxicity of debate creating a climate of fear that prevented the open expression of dissenting opinions, and that many of the children presenting as transgender had other difficulties such as mental health and autism which were not properly investigated.

NHS has welcomed the Cass review and has made a commitment to implement the recommended changes, including the cessation of prescribing puberty blockers. Thus children will no longer be placed on a pathway to irreversible hormone treatment and bodily mutilation. So the removal of this option should lead to a significant reduction in the number of children claiming to be transgender, since the deleterious physical consequences of their delusion beliefs will no longer be on the agenda.

More still needs to be done. Private clinics are not affected and thus could continue to prescribe puberty blockers. So this loophole needs to be closed. Action will also be needed to end transgender propaganda and indoctrination in schools. All legislation relating to transgender people will need to be repealed. Finally, it should be a serious criminal offence for any medical practitioner to provide hormone treatment or bodily mutilation to any patient attempting to change their sex or gender.

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion dishonesty

The management objective known as Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) has in recent years been enthusiastically adopted by many British organisations, in both the public and private sectors.

Wikipedia has defined DEI as an organizational framework which ‘seeks to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly groups who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination’. Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the workforce. Equity refers to ‘concepts of fairness and justice, with a focus on societal disparities and allocating resources and decision making authority to groups that have historically been disadvantaged’. Finally, inclusion refers to ‘an organizational culture where all employees feel their voices will be heard with a sense of belonging and integration.’

Although, all this on first glance appears to be only fair and reasonable, the reality is that this innovation is a top down agenda to impose radical identity politics on employees and which in most cases is contrary to their best interests. This high minded rhetoric is intended to conceal the true purpose of DEI, which is primarily to promote the interests of ethnic minorities in the workplace, particularly Afro-Caribbeans and Muslims, and to openly discriminate against white people, but particularly white men.

The promotion of diversity has been around for some time in management jargon, and if it genuinely meant the encouragement of a diversity of viewpoints it would be welcome. But the objective is quite the reverse, since the intention is to police any dissent from prevailing orthodoxies, such response to which can lead to disciplinary action, sometimes even dismissal, for anyone failing to support the approved, fake consensual, group identity agenda. The declared benefits of diversity are of course illusionary. There is no evidence that employing workers from more favoured minorities will improve the operational efficiency of an organisation, since it would be at the expense of appointing the best person for the job, based on merit.

Inclusion in the workplace is a concept without any real meaning. Whilst it is certainly important for management to ensure that the opinions of all staff are taken into consideration, it should not mean that vocal favoured minorities are handed an influence out of all proportion to their numbers, which is what this clandestine agenda is intended to achieve.

The concept of equity is of more recent origin and appears to be the most pernicious of this trio of management promoted buzzwords designed to deceive and obfuscate. At least in principle it could be argued that for both diversity and inclusion there may be a possible tenuous intention to support equality of opportunity. But the intention of equity is quite different; it is to enforce an equality of outcome between different identity groups regardless of merit or talent.

Equality of opportunity can never be fully realised given the widely different backgrounds experienced by individuals. But it is not an unreasonable objective for management to aim for when recruiting staff, as it means that all applicants have the same chance of success based on their own merits. However, it has been noticed that despite all the bending of the rules to promote the favoured identity groups mentioned above, they are still not achieving the same outcome as other groups. So with the inclusion of ‘equity’ the intention is to rig the recruitment system still further to ensure that these identities will no longer be underrepresented in the workforce.

In practice this means that white people, particularly men are openly discriminated against to ensure that the quota for ethnic minorities, particularly Afro Carribbeans and Muslims is achieved. This is reverse discrimination which virtue signalling employers are happy to sign up to demonstrate their woke credentials, despite it being against their best interests as they can no longer appoint the most suitable candidates for posts they wish to fill.

There appears to be an invisible hand in operation here. Behind the scenes there seems to be an obsessive yet influential cohort of self-flagellating, guilt tripping white liberals, in cahoots with vocal ethnic activist agitators, to impose the DEI objectives. The majority of people in the workforce never sought this system of underhand favouritism, which has been imposed upon them through weak management colluding with hard left employees’ representatives who are hijacking the recruitment system by imposing their woke agenda on workforces, which they are wilfully and cynically failing to properly represent.

This has mainly occurred under a supposedly Conservative government which is just as enthusiastic as the opposition parties in imposing this agenda on their own workforce, and furthermore ensuring compliance in the private sector through mandating quotas when awarding contracts. Thus there is a conspiracy by all concerned against the true interests of the majority of British workers.