Self-styled 'Nice People' need to admit why gender debate is so toxic

These are two of the most common, largely meaningless assertions made in the ‘gender wars’, by proponents of gender-identity ideology. For those unfamiliar, that’s the global movement insisting human beings all have unique ‘gender identities’, meaning some males are (or should be viewed as) actually female, and vice-versa.

These beliefs are often sincerely held, and have led to the creation of a new, secular religion of sorts.

Unfortunately, there’s one crucial deviation from the ‘live and let live’ stance of other belief systems or religions, which are compatible with stable, healthy, liberal democracy. In order for genderist ideology to function as intended, everyone must go along with it - by coercion or force if necessary.

Otherwise, the scaffolding propping up these precarious identity-claims crashes to the ground. The ideology requires constant ‘validation’, based on little more than its most strict adherents’ subjective feelings, sometimes genuine anguish about their sex, and internalisation of the oldest of sexist stereotypes. Less strict adherents nevertheless support the scaffolding, compelling others to do likewise.

You don’t need a philosophy degree, a masters in biology, or a PhD in the history of mass delusions to understand what’s going on here. As Confucious almost said, if we monkey about with the category definitions required to live in truth – such as the definition of ‘woman’ and ‘man’ having their stable and ordinary meaning - things go tits-up pretty quickly. And oh, how they have.

Another common trope, however, still going strong among those who’d prefer to board the nearest lunar shuttle than discuss - with necessarily frank honesty – how we’ve gotten here, is to adopt a sorrowful expression and lament how “toxic” this topic is. On last week’s BBC Debate Night, hosted by Stephen Jardine, both Kate Campbell, an SNP councillor, and Gillian Mackay MSP, co-convenor of the Scottish Greens, attempted the role of wide-eyed ‘Nice People’, racking up five ‘toxics’ and several ‘vulnerables’ between them.

Asked by an audience member if the UK government should stop delaying, and “issue effective guidance for all” in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling last year in favour of For Women Scotland – which confirmed women are, indeed, a material and legal category of human being - a visible tension seemed to sweep the panel.

A 2017-era chill descended. Ms Campbell seemed particularly ill-at-ease, sighing dramatically, at one point repeating the Sturgeonite line that, when it comes to women’s rights and the demands of some men to be viewed as women in all circumstances, “I don’t think the two need to come into collision with each other.”

They demonstrably, inevitably do. Only the purposefully dim, fully indoctrinated, or those still deeply frightened by gender activists would deny this. We’re not in 2017 anymore. Most now realise there’s no gentle way to confront this. Their demand is reality-denial: it’s deeply offensive, untenable, impossible to endure. The sooner those styling themselves as ‘Nice People’ realise this, the better.

The only person at all comfortable with the final topic on the show’s panel – wryly amused and eloquent, particularly when contrasted with the startled rabbit um-erring from Campbell and Mackay – was columnist Alex Massie.

Asked why he thought the issue caused “nervousness” for politicians, he answered “You have an awful lot of people who bought an idea that has collapsed when it has been confronted by reality.”

Later, he made the point that in all the talk about toxicity, his fellow panellists were speaking “as though all sides are equally guilty” when they are absolutely not. He’s correct. This debate has been ‘toxic’ because it has been allowed to be. It’s high time politicians stopped fudging. A majority are complicit in making truth unsayable, and for the inevitable fallout of having done so.

Before entering the fray on this seven years ago, I was as averse as anyone else to being thought ‘unkind’. I think I was otherwise viewed as a decent sort in my old life as a poet and literary events programmer. A bit prickly sometimes, certainly flawed. But being branded ‘controversial’ and a ‘bigot’ for defending the definition of ‘woman’, and all rights that flow from that, was a hellish thing to become accustomed to. I understand not wishing to get those labels. My patience wears thin, however, for those perpetuating the “both sides” narrative and thinking that remotely ‘kind.’ It’s entirely the opposite.

The neatest trick ever pulled by gender-identity activists was making the truth so unsayable you could lose your livelihood, reputation, and sense of living in a sane world for daring to do so. These silencing tactics, lest we forget, are in service to an ideology that puts male murderers in women’s prisons, men in women’s sports, rape crisis centres; compels speech, encourages the mangling of the English language, disappears women’s rights and child safeguarding, and has caused legislative chaos worldwide.

What Confucious actually said, as summarised by Steven Poole in the introduction to his 2006 book ‘Unspeak: When Words Are Weapons’, was: “When the names for things are incorrect, speech does not sound reasonable; when speech does not sound reasonable, things are not done properly; when things are not done properly, the structure of society is harmed; when the structure of society is harmed, punishments do not fit the crimes; and when punishments do not fit the crimes, the people don’t know what to do.”

We all know why this ‘debate’ has been ‘toxic.’ Because it’s in service to a foundational untruth. For all our sakes; for any chance of conducting affairs sensibly following this sorry period, may the label of ‘toxic’ be assigned where it is richly deserved. Too many category errors have been made already.