10 reasons why Biology Denial is homophobia 2.0, not gay rights 2.0

Biology denial pretends to re-enact gay rights. It's not. It's mocking it.

Above: LGB Alliance making a point no charity should ever have to make

Of all the many absurd frauds perpetrated by gender ideology/biology denial the most egregious is the audacious lie “This is just like gay rights”, or the common riposte from the hard of thinking: “That’s just recycled homophobia”.

Such phrases are normally uttered by some risible gender borg, more often than not in answer to an actual homosexual daring to voice even a mild objection to the increasingly eccentric and dangerous demands of a creed whose main aim seems to be the re-medicalisation of homosexuality by force of gender.

Paradoxically, of course, Gay Rights 2.0 is actually the fight against biology denial, not for it and, with unerring symmetry, homophobia 2.0 is of course the fight to seriously sustain the argument that children playing with the wrong toys (normally gay) require surgical correction. For the sake of practicality and utility if nothing else, I propose here to set out why biology denial’s claim to our history, heritage and social position as gay rights activists is a fraudulent and sinister mockery of what our movement is, and what it stands for. Gender is a fraud by abuse of trust, most commonly a linguistic sleight of hand or a superficially plausible mapping of one issue onto another.

It’s easy to be fooled of course. Biology denial is a sort of hateful gay rights re-enactment society for bored bourgeois kids, some no doubt genuinely believe themselves to be fighting for “trans rights”, famously, none can specify the particular right when pressed. None can or do deal with detransitioners or inconvenient facts like homophobia being raised by the head of safeguarding at the Tavistock as a concern. Biology denial is a voluntary cyclops with one hand covering an eye which might otherwise survey the human collateral damage of this strange and failed aesthetic flesh cult. But then the acceptable casualties tend to be gay of course. That alone should provide you with a telling clue as to what is really going on.

Above: The absurd reconceptualisation of gay people as privileged beneficiaries with no history of pain.

The 10 reasons biology denial is not Gay Rights 2.0:

(1) Biology denial regards gender non conformity as a medical issue

Biology denial position: Playing with toys atypical to societal gender roles should be regarded as the diagnostic criteria for experimental drugs with known results (underdeveloped genitalia, bone density deficits etc.) and as yet unknown results such that Nordic countries and France have now banned/seriously restricted their use. These drugs lock children into medical pathways with studies showing 97%+ graduation from puberty blockers to cross sex hormones.

Gay Rights position: Let children play with whatever toys they happen to like. Gender non-conformity is perfectly normal in our community. Children should not face lifelong medicalisation because homophobia is not taken seriously as a safeguarding issue at facilities engaging in gay conversion by gender.

Above: A mocked up satire on heterosexual MPs unwittingly supporting gay conversion by gender having not properly looked into the safeguarding of young gay people

(2) Biology denial is well funded, well connected and supported by left and right

Biology denial position: The profoundly religious and unevidenced suggestion that everyone possesses a gender soul enjoys huge corporate support and is also the de facto position of almost all trade unions in the UK. That consensus is largely mirrored in politics where the classic alignment of a political party is not a reliable indication of where it’s members stand on biology denial. While the right wing are in general terms more resistant to mass medicalisation of children, some of the most prominent gender borg acolytes in the UK are found on the Conservative benches. Ancillary to both is a monocultural charity sector where numerous “LGBTWTF” charities in effect act as proxies for one another. This leads to intellectual stagnation and discourse characterised by mantra like repetition of absurd phrases in place of arguments.

Gay Rights position: The gay rights of old and today is a grassroots phenomenon containing actual homosexuals. A comparison as between the funding arrangements for LGB Alliance, Gay Men’s Network, Lesbian Labour etc. and the leviathan biology denial outfits would be like comparing a local sports team to a televangelising mega church. Corporations and unions in the past had limited affinity with classic gay rights and support from both left and right was earned through open debate and discussion, rather than by diktat, shaming or dubious membership schemes requiring payment and adherence to a set of doctrines. Where BD is organised, lavish and entrenched in power structures the gay rights of old and today was and is a movement of private individuals giving up free time to fight homophobic hate.

(3) Biology denial rewrites science, language and history to appear organic

Biology denial position: Intersex/DSDs (Differences of Sexual Development) conditions should be dishonestly leveraged to argue sex is a spectrum despite such conditions being differences of either male or female development. Language control should become normal with a privileged class requiring forced/coerced language socially and in written communications. New words should be fabricated for an ever increasing range of biology denial identities and parties not adhering to new speech codes should be punished/ostracised/humiliated as “hateful”. Gay people may present a threat or object to the misuse of their movement as a vehicle for these aims so should be humiliated and demoralised by being told they owe all their rights to biology denial, their history should be extensively and audaciously rewritten to minimise/erase achievements by gay men and lesbians. History should further be raided and recrafted such that a claim to the long term existence of biology denial can be dishonestly made.

Gay Rights position: (Science) Human beings are not sequential hermaphrodites so cannot biologically change sex. Intersex/DSD conditions are not a debating prop nor is it fair or right to deploy these conditions when those with them loudly and repeatedly ask you not to. (Language) Coerced language is wrong and is simply a show of social power verging on bullying. In Gay Rights the advent of gay marriage was not accompanied by a demand that heterosexuals started saying “cis straight marriage”. Changing words is wrong and imperious. Homosexuals are not “homogendered”, nor is it morally acceptable to summarily redefine us in this way. The only language we’ve ever asked someone to accept is to get used to “his husband” or “her wife” and funnily enough most people are completely fine with that. (History) The achievements of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals should not and will not be forgotten. No social force/philosophy or cult has the right to rob people of their heroes. Our history should be accurately described according to facts, not rewritten to suit an oppressor class exploiting our movement and erasing our historical agency. Truth matters and gay history matters. We are a minority and minorities have more need of heroes that majorities. Children should not be taught lies about the Stonewall riots to suit the political objectives of biology denial and no movement should normalise the practice of trafficking in falsehoods.

Above: A sadly accurate assessment of how biology denial repackages historic anti-gay hate

(4) Biology denial believes in cancellation, silencing and harassment

Biology denial position: Disagreement of any kind should be met with pile-ons, attempts to get people sacked/driven from their jobs through stress, doxing and dishonestly representing their positions in the worst light all the while simultaneously maintaining that “there is no such thing as cancel culture”. Women in particular, like Maya Forstater, Professor Kathleen Stock and Professor Jo Pheonix are to be particularly targeted as they will engage in a reasonable manner and attempt to show kindness. As many BD adherents are fundamentally cowardly by nature, they will just about be able to add to the voices harassing these women where they would likely steer clear of a biological male. Only in this field, paradoxically, will the faithful unerringly recognise the biological demarcation between male and female. These public humiliations should chill freedom of speech and people should be afraid to say what they want with accusations of “hate speech” or “phobia” being made at the least provocation and on a hair trigger in order to silence any dissent.

Gay Rights position: An equal age of consent, gays in the military, equal marriage and employment protections required precisely zero women to lose their jobs nor did they require that anyone who opposed these measures be cancelled. We engaged in freedom of speech and a debate which is healthy and proper in a democracy. We note two of the women (Professors Stock and Phoenix) named above are lesbians, that is no accident. Lesbians were the first target of the biology denial movement particularly in the form of the demand they stop being lesbians and start sleeping with male bodies persons. That is homophobic. Chilling freedom of speech more generally and harassing people brings the gay rights movement into disrepute and squanders the goodwill brave lesbians and gay men built up over decades as it recasts itself as a bullying, authoritarian enemy of free speech.

(5) Biology denial believes in legislative change by deception

Biology denial position: There is no popular mandate for medicalising mostly gay kids or introducing the concept of gender souls into legislation such that the concept of “woman” is reduced to a self-declared feeling. If the public are left with a normal functioning legislative process, most would be horrified about matters such as homophobia as a child safeguarding concern at gender clinics or the reality of female prisoners forced to share cells with male bodies persons. The democratic process should therefore be subverted and far reaching legislative changes should be snuck into the law by abusing the close and unhealthy connections biology denial lobby groups have with legislators. Speaking to the public or actual gay people should be avoided as gay people in particular are likely to recognise and highlight the homophobia of biology denial. A vivid example is Stonewall’s campaign for there to be no public consultation on the “conversion therapy ban” (in reality a charter for gay conversion by gender).

Gay Rights position: Legislation in a democracy should be made on the basis of evidence, not ideology and normal consultation processes should be followed. The public should know what legislation contains and debates should be open and clear about what is being proposed. When the Gay Men’s Network and many other organisations responded to the government’s consultation on the “conversion therapy ban” we made the case that it amounted to conversion by gender. This is what gay rights organisations should be doing - fighting homophobia wherever it threatens gay people. Any policy that has to be snuck through a legislative process is, by definition, a change with something to hide. Gay rights movements have nothing to hide and we have never had to lie or obscure our policy objectives.

(6) Biology denial targets children for indoctrination

Biology denial position: Despite there being no evidence for this proposition and its far reaching consequences, children should be taught at school that they have a gender identity and this spiritual belief should be reinforced across youth media and through as much mainstream television as possible. Children are pliant and impressionable and less likely to ask questions. They should get the impression biology denial is fun and fashionable and present in ever increasing numbers at gender clinics so this movement can sustain a moral civil rights / safeguarding claim. Any suggestions of social contagion or harm should be met with as per (4) above with the claim that such concerns are hate.

Gay Rights position: Teaching children unscientific pseudo-religious dogma about gender souls is morally wrong and tantamount to using education as a way of proselyting a new religion. It is no accident the number of children presenting at biology denial clinics has risen in the UK in one instances of 5000% and in Scotland 1000%. To imagine that this increase is purely coincidental with these matters being taught in schools stretches credulity far beyond breaking point. Many of the children targeted in this way are gay. It is homophobic to teach gay children that they have the wrong bodies because they do not fit a sex stereotype. This is thus simply another homophobic religious belief which has no place in schools and it amounts to a serious safeguarding concern.

Above: The CEO of Stonewall equating lesbianism with a “societal prejudice”.

(7) Biology denial is racist

Biology denial position: Black people are a subset of the sex class to which they belong. The interests primarily of a group of white men with biology denier related identities come first. Countries that were colonised did not have a concept of male and female before white Western imperialism and were in a noble state prior to such corruption. What they now need is a new group of (mainly white) biology deniers to explain this to them and they should be re-educated in the ways of biology denial.

Gay Rights position: Allison Bailey was right to say in her keynote address at LGB Alliance conference that she had never known racism such as that emanating from biology denial / gender ideology. Her quote “if black women can be women, why can’t I” is a shocking illustration of the obvious racism of this movement. The targeting of Allison Bailey , Sonia Appleby, Kiera Bell and the public vilification of Baroness Kishwer Falkner is beginning to suggest that women of colour who speak out against biology denial face particularly harsh consequences. White men adopting biology denial identities seem to be at the forefront of this movement and many of them appear to be heterosexual.

(8) Biology denial is misogynist

Biology denial position: The word “woman” has no fixed definition and anyone who says they are woman is one, except adult human females who may only say that they are “menstruators”, “cervix havers” etc. Women should have no sex-based boundaries at all from toilets to bathrooms to prison cells or rape shelters, women who challenge this position at rape shelters should be called “bigots” who should “reframe their trauma”. The concept “woman” should primarily be understood with reference to sexual stereotypes and the performance of a particularly porn-based understanding of femininity. Women in particular who dissent (see (4) above) should especially be targeted for cancellation and silencing.

Gay Rights position: A woman is an adult human female. As homosexuals, same sex spaces and boundaries are not just necessary, they are the existential framework of our minority community. It is demeaning and morally wrong to existentially acid strip meaning from the word “woman”. The male Gay Rights movement has no interest in, or desire to compromise, female sexual boundaries or spaces. The lesbian Gay Rights movement has no interest in, or desire to compromise, male sexual boundaries or spaces. That is what makes us gay. The fact biology denial is preoccupied with this quintessentially heterosexual endeavour makes it a straight rights movement, not a gay rights one. The open harassment and abuse of women that goes on in the name of biology denial should be a source of shame to it. The fact it is not demonstrates aptly the contempt in which it truly holds women.

Above: A statement so utterly homophobic of course the author wasn’t cancelled

(9) Biology denial is homophobic

Biology denial position: Gay people are second class members of the movement who lack the determination to embrace one of biology denial’s ultimate goal, the surgical transformation of homosexuals into ostensible heterosexuals. Gender nonconformity should be medicalised. Lesbians and gays who disagree with this should be cancelled and excluded from their movement, charities and any social spaces where they might organise. Those who go along with this should be rewarded and encouraged to engage in woke conversion therapy propaganda.

Gay Rights position: Homosexuality is not a medical problem, our same-sex attraction is in fact a protected characteristic pursuant to s.12 of the Equality Act 2010 in the UK. Gay people owe it to the next generation to speak up in the face of our political vehicles being taken from us and we must make our own new organisations where necessary and form such groups/alliances as are necessary to protect our community. Biology denial is an existential attack on our minority community and it regards us as second class citizens. We must challenge and defeat it. We have to.

(10) Biology denial makes only pornography, not art

Biology denial position: As this in an inorganic, top-down movement it stunts creativity and blunts free thinking because both are threats to cult-like religions. Self-expression is limited to pre-designed identities and flags, each of which constrain and categorise human creativity while giving the illusion of choice. Biology denial produces a vast army of adherents who check and double check each other’s language/adherence to the core doctrines so will produce endless videos as to categorisation (what one can and cannot say without causing offence for example) and identities. This will keep followers in a state of fear where the primary concern is regulation of thought/language all the time purporting to celebrate authentic expression while completely annihilating that by the bureaucratic allocation of people into pre-approved conceptual categories. Because adherents will be in a state of fear and incapable of art, they will have less sex than the generation before so pornography and anime should be deployed to fulfil such needs as obtain.

Gay Rights position: Every era of gay rights has produced artists, poets, playwrights, singers, etc. who have produced world-changing art, music and prose. Gay Rights has never encouraged or been of a mind which makes or recycles mediocre memes. The free expression most gay people treasure from their first ever trip to a gay bar is mirrored in the free expression many treasure in our words, paintings or music. We have nothing in common with a bureaucratic allocation exercise endlessly obsessed with labels and we are very far away from a world view which deprecates or diminishes the perfectly normal appetite for sex.