His appeal to be recognised
Stonewall UK has a disappoint.
Have the courts missed a vital opportunity to send a positive message that recognises all parents for who they are? (There’s also the separate question that asks whether it’s the job of courts to send a positive message or not.) Would it “send a positive message” to let a mother legally call herself a father and thus make her child the first in human history to be gestated and birthed by its father? Would it really send a positive message to tell a child it never had a mother?
Even if you think the answer is yes, what about the next part? What about the recognising people for who they are bit? Surely the demand here is for recognising people for who they are not. Literally speaking Freddy McConnell is a woman. Physically Freddy McConnell is a woman. That’s who Freddy McConnell is. What Stonewall is really talking about is endorsing people’s fantasies about themselves, which is radically different from recognising who they are.
The more I hear the phrasing about people rejected for “who they are”, the less sense it makes to me. Of course people often get appropriately rejected for “who they are”, as opposed to being someone else. Those who use the phrase have this restricted understanding of “who they are” that doesn’t include things like physical characteristics and qualifications and history and skills, but instead only covers certain aspects of self-image, which must not only not be cause for rejection, but must be acknowledged and agreed with, perhaps even celebrated.
I thought the 1970s, the “Me” decade, with its emphasis on “finding oneself”, was bad.
The trans movement is a whole new level of self-centered bullshit.
Lady M., I blame the feelgood ’80s with all its talk of men discovering and uncovering their feminine side. ‘The ‘new man’ is what they called it: I’ll bet they never imagined just how ‘new’ some men were going to get.