By Jack Faulkner.
“Voters don’t want neutral politicians. They want politicians who will fight for their causes, their beliefs and their morals. If this is not something our parliamentary representatives are willing to do, what on Earth are they doing in politics?”
The progressive movement is relentlessly attempting to push transgenderism to the front of discourse, and politicians are increasingly being bullied into declaring on which ‘side’ of the argument they stand.
Leading political figures continue to pussyfoot around the subject, but neutrality won’t appease either gender ideology critics or its advocates – and it certainly won’t win votes.
Commentators and voters alike are dismayed at politicians’ lack of ability to define what a ‘woman’ is, as arguments around women’s rights and transgender ‘acceptance’ intensify.
However, it is not so much an inability to define what separates men from women. Rather, it is a reluctance to indulge in the controversial discourse around women’s rights and the demands of the progressive movement. Politicians fear that to declare their position would be to unnecessarily risk harming their popularity – but in reality, it is remaining neutral which will cost them support the most. It is not that politicians can’t define the fundamental differences between the two sexes – it is simply that they won’t.
Politicians fear that to declare their position would be to unnecessarily risk harming their popularity – but in reality, it is remaining neutral which will cost them support the most.
In the US, athlete Lia Thomas – a biological man (pictured below) – has been the subject of intense scrutiny and debate by continuing to compete in women’s swimming competitions whilst ‘identifying’ as a transgender woman. A major bone of contention, the question is: should biological men compete in sports competitions against biological women, irrespective of their gender identity?
But this is not just an American social and cultural issue. It is also a problem here in Britain because, most regrettably, American social and cultural issues tend to carry themselves across the pond regardless of how much our two countries differ politically and culturally in some respects.
Much like in the US, there is also a seemingly relentless debate over women’s rights and gender ideology in the UK. Emily Bridges, a male athlete who ‘identifies’ as a transgender woman, was blocked by the Union Cycliste Internationale from competing in the women’s British National Omnium Championship, on the grounds that Bridges is still registered as a male cyclist.
Indeed, the gender debate is most intense when considering the subject of sports – and understandably so. This is not merely a simple question of how best to avoid hurting feelings, because it is not so much a simple issue. Progressive politics demands ‘inclusivity’, but at what price does this cause a detriment to, dare I say, more important issues surrounding it? Is ‘inclusivity’ worth pursuing if it is going to have a disproportionate effect on women’s rights and opportunities, which in the instance of sporting competitions, is very much the case? Is it right that, in Lia Thomas coming first in swimming competitions, those who finish second and third are robbed of a more deserving place on the podium? Or, indeed, that a woman who finishes fourth is robbed of the achievement of standing on the podium at all?
These are all important questions that need pragmatic answers, and it is vital that these issues are addressed by those in positions of power to enact change. What is important too is that the public have a right to know where politicians stand on controversial topics such as this – because if politicians won’t voice their opinions on such issues, what is the point in electing them?
Unfortunately, because of the nature of politics, politicians are reluctant to wade in out of fear of alienation or criticism – but in remaining silent or attempting to appear ‘neutral’, it is voters who will be alienated. In particular, it is women who will feel cast aside by our elected representatives, because the push for transgender ‘inclusivity’ disproportionately effects women’s rights and opportunities – less so (if it all) men.
What is fundamental to the issue of gender ideology is that the demands for ‘inclusivity’ harm women’s rights and opportunities far more than men’s – which is why it has caused a huge divide between what could be considered ‘traditional’ feminists and intersectional feminists.
During Labour’s 2021 party conference in September, Rosie Duffield found herself on the receiving end of abuse for referring to transgender women as “male-bodied biological men” and liking a tweet authored by Piers Morgan stating that only women have cervixes. Consequently, a huge row erupted and it prompted Sir Keir Starmer to contradict these pretty uncontroversial views. The uproar also resulted in David Lammy lambasting women’s rights campaigners for being “dinosaurs” who want to “hoard rights”. This is deeply problematic.
Starmer again found himself engulfed in the gender debate when he was unable to explain the definition of what a ‘woman’ is to LBC’s Nick Ferrari.
Starmer again found himself engulfed in the gender debate when he was unable to explain the definition of what a ‘woman’ is to LBC’s Nick Ferrari. In the same week, Angela Rayner suggested that it would be inappropriate to believe that a woman cannot be defined by her genitalia. The presumption, therefore, is that the same must be true of men.
This is completely absurd, and it is equally ludicrous to suggest that politicians can’t define what a woman is; the fact is that they won’t. They know how to define what a man and what a woman is – no less, how they are fundamentally different. The notion that it is “wrong” to suggest that only women have cervixes, or that what a woman is cannot be defined by genitalia is absolutely outrageous.
Additionally, it is ridiculous that through politicians’ refusal to engage, the debate has actually reached this extreme, in which the discourse is dictated by an argument over whether the two biological sexes can be defined by what reproductive organs they possess. Do not be mistaken: politicians are refusing to engage not out of an inability to provide comment, but out of fear of losing support or being ‘cancelled’ by progressive activists – narcissistic, autocratic bullies – who demand that every person conforms their regressive worldviews on gender.
But this is not a party political issue. Last year the Conservative Government was embroiled in a sexism scandal that led some, such as Labour MP Nadia Whittome, to accuse Parliament of being “institutionally misogynistic”. Whilst this of course is an entirely separate issue in itself, and that accusation is entirely up for debate, what is fair to say is that Parliament – and politicians – have a women problem. From the unattributed MP who briefed the Mail on Sunday about the ‘tactics’ used by Angela Rayner to distract Boris Johnson at PMQs, to MP Neil Parish who was caught watching pornography in the Chamber, it is clear attitudes need to change. And these instances led to the staggering, and frankly disturbing revelation, that 56 MPs across different parties are currently under investigation for sexual misconduct.
And these instances led to the staggering, and frankly disturbing revelation, that 56 MPs across different parties are currently under investigation for sexual misconduct.
It is the lawmakers and parliamentary representatives who we, the people, must entrust with the power to govern responsibly. So, is it any wonder that voters find themselves increasingly disenfranchised from the political system when the politicians who represent us won’t even indulge in a basic discussion of biology – and, ultimately, women’s rights – completely out of fear of their popularity waning? It is embarrassing for them, and as pointed out, it is embarrassing that we have reached this extreme point in the discourse surrounding women’s rights. It is not that politicians are incapable of providing the simple definitions for what a ‘man’ and what a ‘woman’ is, but that they refuse to.
Ironically, it is a reluctance to engage in debate that will cost politicians votes come election time, as opposed to any weak attempts to remain somewhat ‘neutral’ in an increasingly intense discussion, which is worthy of addressing by none other than politicians themselves.
Voters don’t want neutral politicians. They want politicians who will fight for their causes, their beliefs and their morals. If this is not something our parliamentary representatives are willing to do, what on Earth are they doing in politics?
© 2023 Jack Faulkner
Photo credit: CNN Screengrab
