LGBT Intolerance

Yesterday, via a Twitter user, I stumbled across this tweet:

Seems sensible, doesn’t it? Only the first response disagreed with the sentiment and linked to this article:

I’m a gay scientist – a passionate chemist and a proud member of the LGBT+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, plus) community. In recent years, I have often spoken and written about the lives and experiences of LGBT+ scientists, including my own, but some of the responses still shock me:

You are mistaking us for people who give a sh*t – Your sexuality is NOT important vis-a-vis your job.

Imagine replacing the word ‘sexuality’ with ‘identity’ – how would that make you feel in your place of work?

There is no obligation whatsoever on the part of your colleagues to ascribe any importance to your “identity”. If their not doing so makes you feel bad, you’re seeking solutions to your problems in the wrong place. A workplace does not and should not double as a support group for people who need their “identity” validated. I’ve written recently about the importance of identity, but if you need to go around demanding everyone else validates it, I suspect it’s not one you’ve adopted naturally. Rather, it’s like complaining your parents don’t like clothes you’ve chosen to wear just because everyone else wears them.

The survey also made clear that people are more likely to ‘come out’ at work if they know their workplace is safe and welcoming, and less likely to come out if their workplace is unsafe or hostile.

Ah, but you’re not just demanding a safe and non-hostile workplace, are you? You want everyone to go a step further and appreciate – by force if necessary – the supposed importance of your sexual orientation.

This is a damning indictment of the workplace environments scientists are creating, and should make us think long and hard about how we can ensure that everybody feels included and supported.

Oh please. In Britain LGBT people are blessed to be around the most open, welcoming, and supportive people on the planet who for decades have happily accepted people who are different into their ranks provided they are well-behaved, respectful and don’t cause trouble. How long do you think ordinary people who have never shown any animosity towards LGBT people, and happily seen national legislation passed for their benefit, are going to tolerate authoritarian cretins like you demonising them as bigots at every opportunity? I’ve written about this before:

By moving away from the principle that consenting adults ought to do as they please towards one of forcing moral acceptance of their choices onto a reluctant public via the legal system, the gays have lost a lot of natural allies in the process, those people who may or may not have approved of what they do but on the principles of freedom and liberty believed they should have been allowed to get on with it. The question they ought to now be asking is who will they turn to when they are stripped of their victim status and chucked under the bus. They’re not going to find a lot of sympathy among those who didn’t care who shagged who but cared very much that the proprietors of pizza restaurants in Indiana were being crucified by the media, politicians, and gay lobby after being goaded into uttering the wrong opinions. The mainstream, in other words.

Back to the article:

In spite of my optimism about the new wave of LGBT+ scientists taking ownership of their identities, we must also remember that beyond our own privileged positions, such as in the UK, many scientists work in far less supportive environments. This includes countries where LGBT+ people have no rights, where it is illegal to speak about being gay, or where the act of homosexuality can even carry a death sentence.

And idiotic campaigns like yours are only going to make things worse. As I also said before:

One of the most effective arguments authoritarian government use to repress gays is one which suggests that turning a blind eye to gays results in a slippery slope of degeneracy which can lead to outcomes nobody wants or expected. Unfortunately, these arguments can be amply supported by pointing to intolerant, ridiculous cases in the west, such as the man who recently got arrested for heckling Caitlyn Jenner or the Christian bakers.

Demanding everyone attaches “importance” to co-workers’ sexual orientation is simply going to convince conservative rulers abroad that they shouldn’t give an inch to gay rights lobbyists. The people who will suffer most will be gays in those countries who just want to be left alone.

So how did the tweet thread end?

Now there’s a surprise, eh?  And to think, these people have the audacity to call everyone else intolerant.


Power Balance

A reader sends me a link to this article discussing sex and consent in the modern era. The author is making the case that the sexual revolution has been a failure for women and, in their own words, made them less safe. It’s an interesting hypothesis, but undermined considerably by this statement:

Most importantly, we have learned that men almost always hold power in sexual situations with women and the subsequent narratives about those situations.

Anyone who thinks women don’t hold power in sexual situations probably shouldn’t be writing on the subject.


The Results of Modern Parenting

Well this is a surprise:

Children whose parents are over-controlling “helicopter parents” when they are toddlers, are less able to control their emotions and impulses as they get older apparently leading to more problems with school, new research suggests.

The study looked at to what degree mothers of toddlers dominated playtime and showed their child what to do, and then studied how their children behaved over the following eight years, revealing that controlling parenting is linked to a number of problems as a child grows up.

Something which always amuses me about many modern parents is their casual dismissal of two thousand years of experience by their forebears. Parents having time to play with their children, let alone micromanage the activities, is something very, very new. I’ve asked around and few people my age (41) had their parents play with them when they were toddlers, and absolutely none of my father’s generation did. Children were expected to play with their siblings, with other children, or by themselves – as quietly as possible. Parents would read to their kids, or help them with a particular task (“ask a grown-up to help you” often appeared in the instructions in children’s play-sets), but they were never seen as a play partner. The reason for this was parents were too busy and it wasn’t really their job. Now it appears some mothers not only want to join in their childrens’ playtime, they want to take it over. Unsurprisingly, this is having an effect on their development.

“Parents who are over-controlling are most often very well-intentioned and are trying to support and be there for their children,” said Dr Nicole Perry of the University of Minnesota Twin Cities, who co-authored the research.

“However, to foster emotional and behavioural skills parents should allow children to experience a range of emotions and give them space to practice and try managing these emotions independently and then guide and assist children when [or] if the task becomes too great.”

If the role of a parent is to raise a child to become a functional adult, they ought to be able to stand by and watch their offspring struggle and overcome small problems. But I suspect many mothers are more interested in the “unconditional love” they keep telling me about, and hence can’t bear to see their child undergoing any sort of difficulty. I’ve said this before, but I think some may have been better off getting a dog.

“The problem here really is that if you don’t learn skills to self-regulate, how can you self-regulate when you leave the home, like [when] you go to school or you go to university? In a way it is a form of abusiveness – taking this opportunity away from children,” he said, although he noted over-controlling parenting was usually done with the best of intentions.

But Dr Janet Goodall from the University of Bath urged caution, noting that it is difficult to say how much parental control is “too much”, and that cultural factors such how dangerous a child’s environment is should be considered when looking at parental behaviour.

What’s interesting about this is it echoes with what I was on about in yesterday’s post. Modern parenting seems to be an odd mix of over-controlling combined with ultra-permissiveness. Several mothers I’ve observed try to micromanage every aspect of a child’s life and environment, sometimes demanding the entire world be changed for the benefit of her brat, yet at the same time let him or her dominate the household. Mothers will campaign for diesel cars to be banned in cities “for the sake of the children” yet allow her toddler to dictate when he is eating, what he is eating, and where he’ll be sat while doing so. There are few households now where young children are forbidden from interrupting adults when they’re talking; most are permitted to barge in for the most trivial reasons and the mother will give them their full attention for as long as required. As a side observation, I’ve found French children are a lot better behaved in the home and in restaurants than their British counterparts; for all their reputation of being liberals, the French are a conservative lot.

For whatever reason, the study mentioned above only looked at the degree of parental control not permissiveness, and I think they may be missing a large piece of the puzzle. By way of example, have a look at this tweet, which to be fair is quite funny:

You can be damned sure it was the kid’s mother who caved in and ordered her husband to drive around town looking for ice cream. Now I’m going to go out on a limb here and speculate that perhaps this sort of parenting is not going to produce a generation of adults able to deal with the world at large. Here’s a question for my readers: how many of you would have got away with that at three years old, or any age? More importantly, how many of your children would today?


A Sign of the Times

Writer Helen Dale makes an interesting observation on Twitter:

This struck me as an interesting juxtaposition of ultra-permissiveness and authoritarian nannying and control. There is something very confused about a city authority that encourages people to let it all hang out while monitoring the same people for transgressions.

Since New Labour, successive governments have sought to run the country with an increasingly long, confusing, and ever-changing checklist of what people ought to do and what they musn’t. None of this is based in any logic, principle, or coherent ideology; these people have no idea who they are trying to be or what they want to achieve. Rainbow coloured signs warning people they’re being monitored is one of many indicators of a fearful establishment ruling with increasing desperation over a population they no longer understand.


Portugal, Jobs, and Banks

I’m back from Portugal, where I spent almost the entire time in dingy bars watching the world cup and drinking heavily with an American mate, joined briefly by a Venezuelan ex-colleague who happened to be transiting in Lisbon airport on his way back to Angola. I saw a tiny bit of Porto and nothing at all of Lisbon, which made me rather glad I’d been there before. That said, I had a great time: catching up with friends and getting drunk in foreign countries is as good a holiday as any, even if it could just as well take place in your basement. The first thing I’ll do today is eat a vegetable: I don’t think I saw one the whole time I was there. I consumed copious amounts of pork, bacon, sausage, potato, and grease though. I was also offered, quite brazenly, all manner of illegal drugs in the street of Lisbon, something which didn’t happen last time.

Anyway, this morning I found this on my Twitter feed:

It’s the second story I find interesting. Leaving aside the high probability that not a single person working at The Times knows the first thing about fruit picking and they’re likely just repeating whatever they’ve been told, since when was a job being fun a requirement to taking one? It’s little wonder we rely on foreigners to pick fruit if the local youth are permitted to refuse jobs and collect welfare because the work being offered isn’t fun enough for them. Perhaps The Times, rather than engaging in Brexiit scaremongering, could have gone into the reasons behind this extraordinary sense of entitlement in today’s unemployed and reflected on their role in supporting the various governments under whose watch it developed.

Incidentally, the chap I was drinking with in Portugal works in banking and, according to him, the giant American banks are shifting thousands of jobs from London to Paris. I asked how they’d cope with the unions and labour laws, and he said they’ve done their homework and they’re simply not going to deal with the unions. If they run into any labour disputes, they’ll simply up and leave. I have every reason to believe what my friend says is accurate, but I suspect these banks have been lured in with promises of special dispensation and once they’re installed the reality is going to hit them right between the eyes. I wonder how long it will be before the CEO of an American bank realises by law he must form a work council:

Any company with at least 50 employees must set up a works council (CE). This committee is composed of representatives of the staff and trade unions, with a mandate of 4 years maximum. It is chaired by the employer. It has economic, social and cultural attributes. To carry out its missions, it has hours of delegation.

We’re not in London any more, Toto.



This story and accompanying video crossed my Facebook page late last week:

Gina Martin was at a festival when a man took a photograph up her skirt and shared it with his friends. When the police told her they could not do anything because upskirting was not a crime, she started a campaign. This is how a 26-year-old woman with no legal or political experience is trying to change the law.

The first thing that crossed my mind was that these festivals probably attract weirdos and sex pests who mark down lefty women with facial piercings, tattoos, or funny-coloured hair for special attention. Trying to change national law based on what went down at a festival is a bit like campaigning for restrictions on alcohol after a bad experience on a stag do in Prague. Now upskirting – the practice of taking a photo up a woman’s skirt without her permission – is an unpleasant thing to happen and I can see why women want it stopped, but there are a few points I’d like to make before we rush headlong into creating yet more laws.

Firstly, let’s not pretend this is something so traumatic it needs to be dealt with as matter of priority by the national government. I haven’t seen any upskirting pictures but I can’t imagine they show very much other than some blurry skin and what might be knickers. As the police mentioned in the video said, they’d show more than you’d them to show, but they’re hardly pornographic and you couldn’t identify anyone from them. When the woman in the video says “I had no rights over my own body at that point” she is engaging in laughable hyperbole which is all too common when talking about women’s rights in the modern era.

Indeed, this looks to me like a campaign by middle class British feminists to further their credentials as perpetual victims; there are fewer more middle class pursuits than attending festivals and complaining about the behaviour of the people they encounter. Another sign this is more about advancing the political aims of feminists than women’s rights is the immediate demand the national government makes new laws criminalising men. Never mind how they are to be enforced: how is upskirting to be defined exactly, and what is deemed admissible evidence? The woman in the video snatched the offender’s phone and ran off with it, which is usually described as theft. Existing laws cover the creation and distribution of pornographic content especially where minors are concerned, and there are already laws regarding voyeurism. But the people pushing this don’t care, they just want more laws with which to threaten men who might be behaving in ways they disapprove of. How long before some poor sap is arrested for taking a picture on the tube while sat opposite a radical feminist in a short skirt, or for taking an innocent photo beneath an escalator?

The other issue is that feminists are in many ways responsible for what’s going on here. In order to fend off Cathy Newman, I am not saying women deserve upskirting for wearing revealing clothing. Instead, I’m saying their relentless campaign to emasculate ordinary, decent men and insist traditional gender roles are obsolete relics of a bygone era has left them vulnerable to the inevitable weirdos that prowl any society. I’ve written about that recently:

From what I can tell the main beneficiaries of feminists’ efforts to remove traditional male roles from society, and the collapse of common-sense policing, are sex-pests who are free to operate without fear of either.

There was a time when peeping Toms and upskirters would have been swiftly dealt with by those in the immediate vicinity of the offence; basically, a couple of blokes would have given him a good kicking and sent him on his way, and if he persisted or targeted children he’d have got a lot worse. Indeed, this is pretty much how it works in places where men are generally still expected to behave as men. But modern women decided they were strong and independent and didn’t need a chaperone. Only actually they do, just nowadays the chaperone is the government. Notice the first thing the woman in the video did is run to a policeman: having decided men no longer have a role to play in society as protectors of women’s decency, modern women rush to find a policeman as soon as they’re subject to what they believe is an indecent act. How this is supposed to demonstrate progress is beyond me.

It’s also revealing when she says “the authorities that were meant to be there to support me, now weren’t”. Well, yeah – imagine how the girls in Rotherham felt. One would have thought British feminists concerned with women’s rights had learned a harsh lesson in not relying on the police and other authorities to protect them, but it appears they haven’t. Instead, having seen the authorities utterly abandon working class girls to be raped by gangs of men from an alien culture, they think things will be different for them, presumably because they’re nice upstanding middle class girls with Instagram accounts and home counties accents.

Despite the defeat of the upskirting bill thanks to a Tory MP who thought the opposition shouldn’t be making laws, this will likely be railroaded through the legislature by Theresa May; this sort of thing is right up her street. We’ll see much celebration from wealthy, middle class feminists which will drown out the ongoing and actual sexual abuse of women up and down the country, followed by some token prosecutions of hapless men who took a photo at the wrong time in the presence of some deranged harpy. Otherwise, things will carry on much as before and soon we’ll be hearing how the childlike faith women put in government was misplaced, decent men have largely abandoned them, and we need yet more laws.


Gloves Off!

As a transgender female I have often been bullied, intimidated and harassed. These experiences left me with mental scars.

moans one Melissa Griffiths in The Guardian.

And much of this assault happened in public. One day I was walking through a train station towards an escalator when I was approached by a man. As we both went down the escalator he put his hand on my leg and moved it up towards my genitals.

Any man who goes around putting his hand up the dresses of transgendered women in public is likely to be mentally ill and in dire need of help.

“No!” I said. He stopped and moved away from me. I was too stunned, scared, and shocked to do anything more about it.

Perhaps not as shocked and stunned as he’d be if he moved his hand up a little higher, but his reaction is fully consistent with one who isn’t in possession of a full set of marbles.

I went home thinking there must be something wrong with me.

Lord no.

I began to believe that being treated like this is part of being a woman, when it is not and should never be.

So you never consulted with any women about what being a women entails before transitioning? You just went right ahead and learned on the job, as it were? Sounds like something a reasonable person would do.

We must value ourselves and recognise we are worthy, because we deserve dignity and respect.

Dignity and respect are earned, not demanded.

People can say you “brought it on yourself” or the perpetrator is “known” for it, or is “just joking around”. When you mention it to someone or even dare to complain about it, they try to dismiss it, telling you to move on, forget about it. But you can’t. The damage is done.

The damage is done all right, but I’m not sure some nutter’s hand up her dress is the main culprit.

This ends now.

If part of being a woman means seeking out high drama, Ms Griffiths is taking to her new role like a duck to water.

We can no longer allow our schools and workplaces to act as breeding grounds for bullies.

Sorry, is this about bullying at school or sexual assaults on escalators?

If we stand back and do nothing, well, nothing will change. This is why I decided to become involved with Now Australia: I want to change society and the workplace for the better.

Society must change at the whim of a bloke in a sun dress.

Too many people suffer in silence. In my community, the rates of suicide and attempted suicide are among the highest in the country.

That’s because your community is rife with mental illness and rather than getting treatment their fantasies are indulged. When reality inevitably bites, they can’t cope. Now, are you helping or hindering?

Interestingly, the true figures around sexual harassment in the transgender community are yet to be measured.

The true figures around sexual harassment of bluegrass-loving cricket fans are also yet to be determined.

There is evidence to suggest that particular groups, such as young people, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people, lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) people, people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds and people with a disability may experience higher rates of sexual assault and sexual harassment than the general Australian population.

This appears to be saying that sexual assault of minors in Aboriginal, Islander and foreign communities is rife.

I have heard many stories of what transgender people go through, in job interviews or the workplace.

Questions regarding their abilities? Concerns over the mental health? Doubts over whether they can work in a team or handle criticism?

Imagine being a transgender woman in an interview situation, nervous yet excited about the prospect of finally gaining employment.

I’m trying, but I keep getting hung up on what I’ve been doing to date if not working.

You arrive only to have the information sheet on a clipboard chucked on your lap.

Are you sure you’re not confusing this with a public hospital?

Once you fill out the form, it’s picked up by an employee wearing gloves. GLOVES.

Really sure?

If this is not intimidation, then I don’t know what is. This happened to somebody I know who prefers to remain anonymous.

The horror. Only now is the full trauma of living life as a transgender woman becoming apparent.

When one goes through these experiences, there is often nagging self-doubt. Sadly, stories like these are not uncommon.

Another interviewer was wearing socks?

We must create workplaces free from bullying, intimidation and sexual harassment.

And gloves, apparently.

We now have an opportunity to do this, as well as support those who are suffering in silence.

Could their silence also not be a sign they are quite content and don’t need your “support”?

The mission of Now Australia is to clean up toxic workplaces.

Nothing in the article indicates she has any experience of Australian workplaces, unless the interview room counts.

Our message will be heard across the land.

Including those Aboriginal towns, which doubtless you’re intending to visit? Do let us know how that goes.

(H/T William of Ockham, who asks in relation to the picture which accompanies the article: Session musician for The Sweet, Mud or Slade?)


An Illustration of a Changed Society

This thread was worth a read but it’s now protected, perhaps because of the reactions the author was getting to it. Basically, the lady in question was on the train in the UK and some creepy older guy sat down right beside two girls in their late teens and started harassing them. The lady intervened and the man spent the next few minutes yelling at her and became very aggressive, but ultimately left them alone. The girls thanked the lady, who lamented that nobody else in the carriage intervened. Now good on her for stepping in and rescuing the girls from this sex-pest, but there are good reasons why nobody helped her.

British feminists – of which the author is one, according to her Twitter bio – have spent decades eradicating traditional gender roles, and have been so successful that the role men now play in society is a mere shadow of what it once was. Indeed, many aspects of what was normal male behaviour is now illegal thanks to feminist lobbying. Now this may be a good thing for women in some ways but, like everything involving societal trade-offs, it came at a price. Men, having been told women don’t need their protection, having been accused of being rapists and sex-pests simply for being male, and having been told endlessly their natural behaviour is “problematic” to the extent young boys are given powerful drugs to control it, are now behaving very differently to how they used to. They are no longer chivalrous, they are no longer willing to assist strange women in distress, and are extremely risk averse. Feminists have worked extremely hard to emasculate men, and now they’re paying the price of living in a society where their efforts have been successful. Unbelievably, many seem to think their work is only just beginning and men are still a problem, but here we are.

In addition, men are now well aware that common-sense policing has long since disappeared and any interaction with Plod could well leave them in a world of trouble. If a man had intervened and a fight ensued, he would probably have been arrested. If he has a wife, a family, a job, or a mortgage the process in front of him might be very costly indeed. Why risk it? And how does he know what the circumstances are? For all he knows this might be a domestic dispute, and any intervention involving kids might see the idiotic police and feminist-driven CPS conspiring to put him on a sex-offenders register. Wasn’t there a story some years ago about a man being charged as a sex-offender after grabbing the arm of a young girl who was about to run into a busy road? Again, why risk it?

A few generations ago plenty of men would have done something in the situation described by the tweet’s author but society has changed, and this didn’t happen at the behest of the sort of men who would have come to the girls’ aid. Rather, the shift in societal behaviour was demanded by those who now lament the current state of affairs.  From what I can tell the main beneficiaries of feminists’ efforts to remove traditional male roles from society, and the collapse of common-sense policing, are sex-pests who are free to operate without fear of either. Well done, folks. Well done indeed.


On Race and Nationality

This tweet is worth discussing:

What this shows is how different the concept of race and nationality is viewed by Brits compared to much of the rest of the world, particularly eastern Europe. To a Romanian, a British person is not someone who merely holds a British passport but who has what they consider British ethnicity, i.e. they’re white. When I lived in Sakhalin, the idea that third-generation ethnic Koreans were Russian was preposterous, even if they’d never been to Korea, were born in Russia, and held Russian passports. Much of the world views people by race rather than nationality, and this is what this Romanian is doing: they can’t understand how an ethnic Indian can possibly be British. It also seems in this particular case they don’t understand how Brits can view white European people as much different from them, i.e. as foreigners.

There is much to admire about the British view of race and nationality, but we shouldn’t think it is universal. More worryingly, if politicians and their cheerleaders continue to shove us down the road of identity politics, we’re going to become a lot more like those places in which one’s ethnicity is more important than one’s nationality. I don’t think that will be good for anyone.


Campaigning for Attention

Via Simon Cooke, continuing a current trend:

Parliamentary candidate Zoe O’Connell, 37, is bidding to be Britain’s first polyamorous MP – which means she lives in a three-way lesbian ­relationship with her two canvassers Sarah Brown, 41, and Sylvia Knight, 39.

And if that seems to be as far fetched as a Tory manifesto, then consider this: Zoe and Sarah used to be MEN. And Sarah and Sylvia were once a straight married couple before her sex change.

But of course.

The complex personal life and happiness of her and her lovers is at the forefront of her campaign.

Because this is what matters to constituents.

She says: “We’re content together and that is what matters to us. I’m running for office to change things. Twenty years ago this would never have happened.

“I’m standing up because I don’t think anyone should be treated differently because of gender or sexuality or the way they choose to live their private lives. We live together.

“We’re in a relationship and we’re not ashamed of that.”

So running for office is simply a way to publicise your relationship? And why would you want to do that?

But they’ve all been on a long and difficult journey to reach their unorthodox domestic bliss.

Okay, but as the following paragraphs show, the difficulty mainly lay within their own heads over who they were and what they wanted to be. Nowhere is it suggested they were prevented from doing as they pleased, as they might have been a generation or two ago. So what are they publicising it for?

Zoe is more concerned that increased attention will be levelled at [her chidren] on a national scale if she becomes an MP.

Then maybe don’t do it?

She says it is “inevitable” that she will become a flagbearer for gay and transgender issues if elected, and will fight to have them included in any equalities legislation that is passed during the next parliament.

What legislation? You have a woman and two trans-men living together in a polyamorous relationship, one of whom is running for elected national office. Isn’t this proof of how open and tolerant Britain is, why do we need single-issue lunatics campaigning for more legislation? Do they want to make it compulsory?

But while Zoe likes to think the best of everybody, Sarah says she fears national politics will expose her partner to abuse from bigots online.

“There are people who will go for you if you’re transgender and you stick your head above the parapet,” says Sarah. “They’re not very nice people.

Then why’s she running for office? She doesn’t seem interested in representing her constituents, only in being a “flagbearer” for gay and transgender issues.

But Zoe, who is contesting her family home constituency of Maldon, Essex, against sitting Tory MP John Whittingdale – certainly isn’t frightened of how people react to their relationship.

I expect what terrifies her most is that people will roll their eyes and largely ignore it. This whole thing looks to me like an exercise in attention-seeking which, as it happens, is a useful description of most polyamorous relationships.