What would you say about someone who thinks 2-year-old children have a ‘trans identity’? I would guess a few choice words might spring to mind—none of which I’ll guess at here—and that such a point of view could only emanate from the deepest corner of the darkest asylum. But those proposing the existence of infant transexuals, are not madmen—they’re the largest LGBT rights group in Europe, Stonewall.
The UK-based charity sparked a furious backlash with a recent Tweet which claimed that:
Research suggests that children as young as 2 recognise their trans identity. Yet, many nurseries and schools teach a binary understanding of pre-assigned gender. LGBTQ-inclusive and affirming education is crucial for the wellbeing of all young people!
The tweet was accompanied by an article from the Metro newspaper. The piece that Stonewall shared was headlined “My 4-year-old is gender nonconforming—but her nursery doesn’t respect that.” The article, penned by ‘anonymous’ and framed by an LGBT-styled Metro logo—which as of the time of writing dominates every page of their website—complained of nursery teachers who don’t think a 4-year-old is old enough to be ‘gender-nonconforming.’ The author worries about using the word daughter, to describe his own daughter, writing that: “The main reason I’m still gendering her this way is because she’s comfortable being called a girl, but expresses discomfort with being anything else, presumably because of what her teacher has said.” Before explicitly praising and endorsing Stonewall for “fighting for Transgender awareness in early education.”
It takes an artful hand to write about these people, and their views, without falling afoul of Britain’s draconian hate speech laws. To give just one recent example of the dire state of free speech in England, officers from the Wiltshire police force turned up at the home of women’s rights campaigner, Kelly Jane Keane, and accused her of being “untoward about paedophiles.” Keane’s fight to keep men out of women’s spaces, to oppose the trans lobby, is considered borderline or even actually criminal. However, your author is not particularly artful, and cannot couch in politically correct terms, the fact that those pushing for toddlers to change their gender identity—a term which describes a non-existent thing—are groomers. They are training children to conform to a sick and twisted ideology, which paves the way for the administration of life-altering hormones, and the cutting off of genitals and breasts. They are encouraging an attitude in children which could be priming them to submit themselves voluntarily to unnecessary, irreversible, and abhorrent mutilation.
What’s worse is that the vanguard of these pernicious and vile ideas are now mainstream. Stonewall boasts of being funded by the Scottish and Welsh governments, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Santander, the Government Equalities Office, and the National Lottery to name just a few of their major patrons. Banks, politicians, and civil servants marching in lockstep with the purveyors of Sodom might seem odd, but it’s perfectly understandable. Just as Stonewall and its allies want to destroy sexual and gender boundaries, banks would like to do away with national boundaries. For them, the group, the category which discriminates between that which is inside and outside, is the place from which collective strength and resilience are drawn, and are therefore obstacles to maximal profit which must be overcome. Their totalitarian perpetual revolution has now come for the children.
To date, these institutions have been wildly successful in achieving their aims, largely because they have played on our sense of altruism, and have exploited our goodwill. They have campaigned for and implemented measures under the guise of increasing tolerance, equality, and understanding. Political correctness, they said, was about being polite; wokeness, they insisted, is merely alertness to injustice. The public has turned a blind eye to this or that overreach because they think, rightly, of themselves as essentially good-natured, and want to be on the right side of history. They see the obtrusive displays of LGBT propaganda in every facet of elite society, at the Commonwealth Games, in Disney films, TV adverts, and on footpaths and road crossings. Police cars are wrapped in the ‘pride’ colours, and their officers wear rainbow helmets. They see that even the most militant, supposedly conservative institutions, like the Army, are now endorsed by Stonewall—perhaps because our top brass spent half a million pounds of taxpayers’ money investigating whether its ‘Be the Best’ slogan was “dated, elitist and non-inclusive.” We know that if schools don’t teach LGBT issues thoroughly enough, their regulator, Ofsted, will mark them down. At every level of society this ideology, which is alien to most, has been completely endorsed by our leaders, who have bestowed their approval on our behalf, and thereby normalised them, and made critique of them the preserve of the fringe and the radical.
But on this occasion, Stonewall has made a grave mistake. They let their mask slip, and revealed a ghastly visage, an exposure which has even left liberals reeling. Within days Stonewall was running damage control, assuming an apologetic posture and conceding that “it was wrong to suggest that children as young as two know they are trans.” But in my view, when someone tells you who they are, you should believe them.
And Stonewall tells you exactly who they are on their website. They brag of having spent more than thirty years “working towards a world where all children and young people have access to an LGBTQ-inclusive education,” something which is now a feature of Britain’s national curriculum. They “support” primary and secondary schools—that’s children from ages 5 to 16—to celebrate “diversity.”
Upcoming events on Stonewall’s website include a digital workshop in preparation for an ‘an LGBTQ+ Inclusive Black History Month,’ a session which they say is perfect for students and “unwaged” people (meaning the unemployed), workers in Human Resources departments, professionals, and members and leaders of other LGBT groups. They are also hosting a two-hour interactive workshop on the importance of creating a ‘Bi Inclusive Organisation’ which promises to teach attendees how “to make your existing work bi-inclusive while engaging in bi-specific work.” Their butchery of the English language is itself worthy of prosecution.
They are campaigning to ban “trans conversion therapy” which would render it illegal to tell a mentally ill person what their actual biological sex is, and they also call for “inclusive legal recognition” which is a byword for self-identification—a process where someone legally becomes a woman by virtue of having declared himself to be so.
But it hasn’t been enough, from Stonewall’s point of view, to win every battle—to legalise homosexuality, then civil partnerships, then gay marriage, gay adoption, to have transgender surgeries for free on the NHS, to permeate every facet of our culture with gay people and gay symbolism, to restrict oppositional speech, to get their ideas on the school curriculum. They are still pushing for more.
Stonewall’s obscene actions are beginning to provoke reactions. In 2019 a barrister, Allison Bailey, was found to have breached her core duties by complaining that her workplace was a Stonewall ‘Diversity Champion’ and tweeting about the subject. More than two years later, Bailey has been found by an employment tribunal to have been unfairly discriminated against. This case follows on the heels of the verdict that so-called ‘gender critical beliefs’—read: a belief in reality—is protected under the equality act, as per the ruling in a separate tribunal case brought by Maya Forstater.
But that does not mean that this is the beginning of the end; rather, it is the end of the beginning. Activist lawyers, corporations, lobby groups, and charities will not take a defeat lying down, they never have and don’t intend to start doing so now. But we shouldn’t have to fight these people, and the views they push, and the restrictions on our speech they seek to introduce—because they are wicked and vile. Female genital mutilation is, at least technically, a crime in the UK, but Stonewall and organisations like them endorse the practice, and the state will force taxpayers to fund it. These views do not belong in a civilised society, and it shouldn’t be incumbent on us, the people, to have to put up with police investigations, employment tribunals, and hate-crime charges as the potential price for saying so. There should be no place for a fifth column or an enemy within.
For decades these groups have wielded institutional and state power to lead a top-down cultural revolution. To arm oneself with facts and logic is an insufficient response. Intellectuals like Ben Shapiro, or Jordan Peterson, demonstrate with impressive verbiage and cold-hard facts all the flaws of the cultural revolutionaries’ arguments, and to no avail. If anything, the dissemination of these critiques to hundreds of millions around the world has coincided with an acceleration of radical trans and gender ideologies. Their power is above our democracy, because they are the power, or at least, have been allowed to exploit it for too long. The way to deal with insidious proponents of these views is that we should no longer entertain them in debate, or frankly, even talk about, and therefore legitimise, their destructive ideas. Instead, we should do what they have done to us, and turn the power of the state on them—we should lobby our governments to get these groups banned, and gone for good.