Please bear with me – A few quick definitions and a couple of background tales before the grand reveal, because in these days of obsessive word-bending, you won’t know what I mean if I don’t say these things up front:
Sex: the biological categories of ‘male’ and ‘female’ – humans are mammals, mammals are di-morphic – everyone is male or female.
Intersex: somewhat inappropriate, out-dated term for people with DSDs (differences of sexual development). These people, like all humans, are male or female, but their sex-related characteristics develop differently to the average, often causing them health and reproductive problems. The differences, however, are variations within each of the sexes. It is some decades since science worked out how to identify the actual sex of all but the tiniest minority of DSD people.
Gender: a word that was used at times by people who were afraid to say ‘sex’ but is actually derived from grammar, not biology, and nowadays is generally understood to mean the sex-based stereotypes different cultural groups impose on men and women respectively ie, men should wear ties at work, women should not guffaw… (please see comments after this article – the latest twist in the linguistic battle around these issues is using the term ‘anti-gender’ to describe those enforcing gender stereotypes. I’m not buying it – we won’t be able to talk at all if meaning-changes are constantly thrust into the conversation.)
Gender-non-conforming: people who resist society’s stereotypes because, for example, they are women who like trousers and big boots, or men who like to be gentle and/or exhibit emotions other than anger.
Lesbian/gay: women and men respectively who have a same-sex orientation – ie, they are attracted to people the same sex as themselves.
Two background tales, or, here is the gender-non-conforming news…
1. Flags
At the start of June, we had the Jubilee, and a lot of socialists and others who are fed up of the dysfunctional and above all EXPENSIVE remnant of our royal family, were pretty disgusted to see some of their favourite city streets forcing them to walk around under a sky largely obscured by militarist-looking ranks of Union flags – something which has often happened in the past, at times of obligatory patriotic fervor.
This week, a lot of feminists, lesbian and gay people, and other gender-non-conformists who find the whole ranks-of-flags look oppressive, felt the same about the latest attack.
But perhaps most tellingly, the various people who took exception to this ‘progress’ flag (what does that name remind you of, fellow lefties) because of the latest addition, the yellow triangle (!) which claims to represent ‘intersex’ people.
Intersex people?
Well, they don’t mean ‘non-binary’ people – they’re called ‘non-binary people’. Can it be that they’re still using ‘intersex’ in that old way, to propagate the myth that the world is full of people who aren’t really male or female – you know, those people who justify the whole ‘gender identity’/queer theory campaign?
You have to be quite brave to step up for the first time if you don’t like what Pride, Stonewall et al are doing but, increasingly, we are seeing people with DSDs putting their heads above the parapet and saying things like this…
2. Freedom of speech is still your legal right
But to me, there was an even more significant development this week – the week in which the DfE joined those organisations who are, one by one, realising they haven’t a clue why they are giving heaps of money to Stonewall only to be misadvised about equality law – if you missed that story, here it is…
Which leads us to…
The grand reveal
And in the most blatant reveal yet – Stonewall finally admitted just who they and their gender-ideology allies are fighting. Is it homophobic people? No. Is it those ultra-orthodox people who force gay and lesbian people to ‘transition’ in order to conform to gender? No. Is it ‘transphobes’? Nope. Misogynists? No-o-o-o-o-o. It’s…
Are they are using all that money they get from organisations who pay for that virtue-signalling Stonewall kite mark to slander, marginalise and generally harass gender-non conformists?
That has certainly been my experience. Local ‘LGBTQ+ community’ leaders spot one of these suspect people, usually an older woman, stepping out of line, declares them ‘unfit for office’ if they are involved in local politics, their union, or anything with ‘civic’ significance, maybe puts them on one of their lists (see ‘report a transphobe’ below) and an onslaught of accusations and bullying begins. Those who you’d think might defend the victim won’t, because ‘oh, we must all support the LGBTQ+ community’ (whoever they are.) So the former comrades of the victims stand by and watch them pushed out.
Who are the target people? With the declaration above, Stonewall claims as ‘the enemy’…
People who challenge gender
Feminists, and any other women, including many lesbians, who don’t do the frilly-flirty or housey-mothery version of being female
Any men, including gay men, who don’t do the competitive, stiff-upper lip, macho version of male
People with autism, many of whom could not conform to gender if they tried, because the rules are so complex and usually unspoken
And perhaps most tellingly, any people who recognise gender as a form of tyranny and have the character to go their own way without spending money on flags and tee-shirts to legitimise their non-conformity.
Gender non-conformists are all those who don’t buy the current, expensive, marketable, glittery, rainbow-clad gender-ideology.
Under the Progress Flag
In other words, just like those marketing whiz-kids who invented ‘blue for boys, pink for girls’, and doubled sales of childrens’ clothes and toys at a stroke (by thwarting hand-me-downs between sisters and brothers), the gender-ideology brigade are finally revealed by Stonewall’s own admission, as possibly the most aggressive attack on anti-capitalists to date.
Perhaps the sight of those famous cathedrals to capitalism, London’s big-money shopping streets, sliding so comfortably from a Queen and Empire fest to the Pride fest with identical messaging strategies, will finally persuade some of those lefty organisations who believe themselves to be anti-capitalist to realise that gender-ideology is the most successful attack on the left yet, with its demand for obedient, conformist consumerism presented as virtue (under the title of ‘progress’), and the consequent thwarting of socialism, solidarity, and anything at all that isn’t driven by the ruthless individualism of neo-liberal identity politics.
Come on socialists, drop the gender-religion, and start supporting gender-non-conformists — they are the people most likely to be on the side of socialism!
… They aren’t listening. They’re all busy getting ready to go ‘support the LGBTQ+ community’ on their Pride marches this weekend – to support that very community that’s been bullying their former comrades (who they still talk to, but not if anyone’s looking) but who are they, this so-demanding community? My union can no longer afford the corporate-scale cost of a float at the big city Pride marches, and my socialist-feminist and lesbian friends will be keeping well away all weekend – they know they aren’t welcome there.
Think I’ll leave you to decide the answer.
********************
Dear Reader,
Times are hard, and so the articles on this site are freely available but if you are able to support my work by making a donation, I am very grateful.
Cheers,
Kay
********************
Kay Green 
3 responses to “Stonewall finally show their hand”
I totally agree about Stonewall but ‘anti gender’ is used by right wing governments like Putin and Orban and Vatican to attack gay people and reinforce patriarchy for women. It’s why we can be accused of being right wing and some people believe it. So not sure what we use. Personally I use pro reality or pro biology.
LikeLike
I didn’t know that – you mean they say they are ‘anti-gender’? How does that work?
LikeLike
PS I have since realised I have heard that, and note that Stonewall’s current advertising push is equating ‘gender critical’ and ‘anti-gender’ with regressive sexism. I have put a note in the main article to clarify that that’s what I’m complaining about.
LikeLike