Stop humouring the trans lobby

Giving in to the self-delusions of the non-binary does no one any favours.

Jo Bartosch


As a goth during my teenage years, every person who shouted at me, ‘When’s Halloween?’, made me feel that bit more validated, that bit more special and different. If asked why I was dressed as I was, I would have explained that prancing about in layers of black velvet wasn’t a choice; it was a fundamental expression of my identity, integral to my sense of self. Naturally, I would have explained that, more than anything, I didn’t want to be stared at. But deep down I thrived on the attention. No one flounces about in a velvet cape in July if he or she doesn’t want a bit of an audience.

So far as I can see, there is no real difference between those who listen to depressing music and dress in black and those who call themselves non-binary, and who insist on being referred to as ‘they’ or ‘them’. Yet whereas us goths, emos and assorted oddballs were never taken seriously as a political force, the non-binary definitely are. This was in evidence last week, when several Labour leadership candidates pledged their support for the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights, and again over the weekend, when London mayor Sadiq Khan intervened, and promised to support the ‘non-binary’ community as part of LGBT+ History Month, tweeting: ‘Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Non-binary people are non-binary. All gender identities are valid. #LGBTHistoryMonth.’

Critics on Twitter were quick to respond. Some mocked Khan, while others attempted to acquaint him with the ongoing debate between those who view being male or female as a biological reality, and those who consider them as mere roles or identities. Many other responses were from gay, lesbian and bisexual people like myself, who were annoyed that Khan seemingly forgot to mention us in the course of promoting LGBT+ History Month – no doubt we’ll get a slot somewhere behind the human pups and asexuals during the ever-lengthening Pride season.

The political promotion of the non-binary identity is a thoroughly contemporary phenomenon. It is true that people in the past experienced discomfort with rigid and socially policed sex stereotypes. In response, some might have challenged these constraints, as feminists still do, while others may have self-consciously played with those identities, becoming a masculine woman or feminine man. Indeed, generations of public figures from Marlene Dietrich to Boy George, deliberately straddled the ‘gender binary’.

But there are two key differences between then and now. First, the likes of Dietrich or George never demanded any changes to pronouns or public toilets. Perhaps that was because they recognised what today’s non-binary brethren (or theythren?) do not: that humans are born male or female. (Even intersex people with chromosomal abnormalities tend to fit within the mammalian pattern of sexual dimorphism.)

And, second, they located the source of gender identities outside themselves, in society, rather than inside themselves, as too many young people identifying as non-binary do today. As the non-binary pop singer Sam Smith put it: ‘After a lifetime of being at war with my gender I’ve decided to embrace myself for who I am, inside and out.’ In other words, Smith believes that his sense of gender identity – as non-binary – is located within himself.

But this is not true. The markers of masculinity and femininity are not ‘inside us’, as internal essences which we express, and then demand that the outside world recognise as our true selves. Rather, gender identities surround us, in the messages, images and expectations we are born and then socialised into, as social animals. We may be born male or female, but we become feminine or masculine.

The question as to why trans identity politics is flourishing today, especially among young people, is a complex one. But one possible answer lies in the fact that many young people have come of age online. This means they have spent their formative years cultivating online social-media selves and avatars, and expecting others online to recognise them as such. And they are now taking that expectation out into the real world, as adults. Not all young people, of course. But a significant, vocal minority. And it’s made worse by the fact that those in positions of power, like Khan, are giving into them, recognising their made-up identities and acceding to their linguistic demands.

It is a dangerous move. The words we use to describe ourselves and others rest on a consensus as to their meaning. Male or female, like short or tall, or black or white, are words that reference an objective, shared reality. The moment we give in to those who insist they identify as such and such, we violate that linguistic consensus and sense of shared reality

And why give in at all? There is nothing ‘kind’ about pandering to an individual’s self-delusion, whether he or she is claiming to be non-binary or an ‘otherkin unicorn’. That some people are unable to reconcile themselves to the sexed reality of their bodies is a problem, of course. But it’s one that politicians, like Khan, are making far worse by humouring them.

It’s enough to make me want to don my velvet cape and listen to some depressing music.

Jo Bartosch is a journalist campaigning for the rights of women and girls.

Picture by: Getty.

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.


Fred Walls

23rd February 2020 at 6:46 pm

Mentally delusional people belong in mental hospitals–NOT driving the agenda for the rest of us. IMHO.

Thomas Laird

19th February 2020 at 5:15 am

Is ZENOPHOBIA PALMRYDER a woke parody in the same vane as Titania McGrath?


19th February 2020 at 11:03 am

Is Thomas Laird the epitome of unthinking gammonish brexit nativism?

Fred Walls

23rd February 2020 at 10:20 pm

You DO sound like an utter moron and nazi Jessica Yaniv type thug. Are you?

John Gaunt

18th February 2020 at 7:20 pm

The writer misses the point here, and upon the matter of biological nature, is mistaken.

It is not possible to locate biological sex as accurately or completely as she pretends, and the fact that sexual dimorphism is usual does not help us to assign sex where there is doubt. Any attempt to define sex by a single measure, chromosomal, endocrine, genotypic or phenotypic ends immediately in paradox. Sex is not perfectly binary and gender identity is a facet of mind, with all the complexity which that entails. The extent to which that facet of mind arises by socialisation or neurodevelopment is debatable, but its locus, in mind, is not.

But that is not the real issue here.

Isn’t this phenomenon of radical trans politics, the logical end point of the process which begins with giving preference to group identity over a unifying human identity, to which we all belong…?

For a long time now, it has conferred social and political advantage to belong to a protected status group. Such people speak more freely than others, enjoy advantage in many workplaces and are specifically protected in law. Crimes perpetrated against protected people are punished in law more severely than the same crime committed against others, and there is very clear evidence, now explicitly referenced in more than one independent report into organised crime that police may be reluctant to prosecute criminals with protected characteristics, for fear of the accusation of prejudice.

The solution is not to condemn or diminish the experience of trans-people specifically, nor to pretend that it is possible to police deserved protected status against undeserved protected status, as she would seem to suggest (retained for women, lost for trans-women). It is to do away with the concept of legally protected status altogether.

We should stand equally before the law.

Were there to be no advantage in the choice of gender identity, perhaps people would return to the experience of gender identity as a personal matter, replacing the incessant stream of celebrity declarations, as well as the proliferation of self promoting activists who perceive personal advantage. I suspect that many people who experience true gender dysphoria, would be grateful for having the spotlight removed from their lives, a spotlight which at present is unavoidable in the wake of the controversy generated by activists.

In this regard, there seems to me to be little to choose between trans-activists, radical feminists and those who seek advantage by virtue of a particular racial identity.

On one point, I agree entirely. It is extremely dangerous to give in to those who seek to redefine language to their own advantage, and in defiance of objective truth. But I’m afraid that particular post-modern practice is now so commonplace as to be unremarkable, and among the groups most enthusiastic in its embrace, are radical feminists.

She cannot have it all ways.

ygleizer carvalhol

18th February 2020 at 2:36 pm

I am making a real GOOD MONEY ($550 to $750 / hr) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT chek of nearly 85000$, this online work is simple and straightforward, don’t have to go OFFICE, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this JOB. I really thanks to my FRIEND who refer me this SITE. I hope you also got what I…go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart…… Click here

tifif52731 tifif52731

18th February 2020 at 1:28 pm

Getting paid every month easily more than $15k just by doing simple job online. Last month i have exactly received $16839 from this online job just by giving this 2 hrs a day online. Now everybody on this earth can get this job and start earning more cash online just by follow instructions here……/.;'[]..for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lotCopy Here………>>

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.