Why sex matters
I hate it that the left has gone all-in on fantasy so we have to turn to The Telegraph for reality.
The Science Secretary will on Tuesday unveil a review into the “utter nonsense” of public bodies being urged to collect data on self-identified gender rather than biological sex.
Speaking at the Conservative Party Conference, Michelle Donelan will sound the alarm at what she calls the “denial of biology and the steady creep of political correctness”.
It’s not even political correctness though. It’s not correct and it’s not political. It’s some other brand of bullshit – a noxious mix of idenniny and fannasy and narcissism. What in hell is “left” about any of that?
Ms Donelan has been moved to act by examples such as the NHS sometimes using a person’s stated gender rather than their biological sex in data records.
The NHS might as well carefully record patients’ favorite tv shows and music instead of their medical histories. That would make just as much sense.
The intervention comes as the Conservative Party hardens its position on the importance of biological sex being recognised amid the debate about transgender rights.
The issue has played an increasingly prominent role in British political discourse, with all parties facing pressure to make clear how they would strike the right balance.
Balance? What balance? Men aren’t a little bit women; men aren’t women at all.
In 2005 the Athena Swan charter was established to encourage commitment to advancing the careers of women in higher education in areas such as science, engineering and maths.
At first, it monitored the gaps between men and women in recruitment and career progression. But in 2016, Athena Swan recommended that data collections should be based on gender identity rather than sex.
Miss the whole entire point why don’t you.
Sometimes it’s very hard not to see a conspiracy in stuff like this. Could everyone involved in human rights really have become simultaneously stupid? Or have clever sociopaths and narcissists been quietly getting themselves into positions of influence over time, patiently waiting for the opportunity to dismantle hard-won rights to give themselves access to all the places and prizes?
I’m so tempted to go with the latter, simply ecause it makes no logical sense to remove sex as a criterion in assessing health and matters of discrimination, does it?
If these people succeed in dismantling sex boundaries, you can be certain that race and religion will fall very shortly afterwards. Sex is hard and fast, empirical reality. There’s no ‘spectrum’, let alone the continuum of human features from one ‘race’ to another.