I’ve long known that sexual orientation is a complex thing, because so much of what people perceive as being “male” or “female” is looks or behaviour that isn’t intrinsic to one or other sex and is not present in some societies. In particular, I would look at the ugly models presented on TV as “beautiful” and wonder in whose eyes are they the most beautiful women in the world? They weren’t, yet the commentators would go on about how beautiful they were … almost (on reflection) as if they were being paid to say it. And then rather than the anorexic models of the west, I saw African beauty.  Another example: the perception of the attractiveness of large breasts vary dramatically between societies. If the global manhood cannot even decide on a single model of “beauty” then clearly sexual identity is an extremely complex issue with no single answer or cause. So, obviously it is easy to get confused, especially if there are groups deliberately trying to muddy the waters.

But, does it really matter if someone considers themselves male or female? It doesn’t as far as I am concerned, until they try to tell other people they have to be treated as their none biological sex (which is largely but not always physically just one of two). If someone in a woman’s body tries to behave as a man, the only time it seems to matter is that they cannot use a urinal. Obviously, it might be more awkward to use a urinal in front of them, but most men prefer the convenience of a urinal to bothering to worry about who is looking. In most regards, it matters very little to a man if a woman pretends to be a man. So, most men have little problem with women being treated equally on their merits with a man. But, so long as it is based on capability and they get no “push up” because they are a women (or sleeping with the boss).

There may be differences in the male-female brain that mean that women always have an advantage in some jobs. So, if a man wanted to go for those jobs, equality law requires a less fit man to be taken. However, most men would prefer the best man for the job even if that is always a woman.

I do not know what happens in a female toilet, the only time I have been in one is by mistake and met startled looks and quickly retreated. So, as men spend as little time as is practical in a male toilet, there seems to be absolutely no reason for women to be concerned if a man goes into a female toilet especially since they use cubicles. Yet it does seem to matter to them.

Also, as women as a whole have less muscle, it is also clearly unfair for a biological man to be allowed to compete in a “women’s” arena, where muscle matters. Women’s sport is designed to give biological women an arena where they can win as women. If men are allowed to compete because they claim to be men, then there is no point having women’s sport. Men will always have an “unfair” advantage of their biological sex – which is the only reason for having women’s sport (although now I think about it contact sport would be an issue).

So, sex, or who participates in sport or goes into the toilet, does matter to women. It also matters to men who are trying to find female partners, who do not want to be mis-sold someone’s biological sex. Thus at one time people were barred from pretending to be the other sex. So, although it doesn’t practically affect me, today many people still do not like someone pretending to be the “wrong” sex. But, I also see that many people could consider themselves to be the “wrong” sex.

Where it would matter, is if I meet a man dressed as a woman or a woman dressed as a man. That wasn’t a problem, when I met someone with common political interests, because I was forewarned by them, they were clearly not intending to take any offence and because I tried to ignore the situation and just get on with the discussion. And, if I made any mistakes, they were not offended. However, in all other cases, I would assume any mistake would be used against me, so, as I have no confidence of not making any mistakes, I would not talk to them … in the same way I would not talk to a woman if they arrived in the pub with a loaded assault rifle. The present law and vile hatred of the campaigns, makes it impossible for me to make mistakes, so, although their intentions may be benign, unless I know that for a fact, the situation is always best avoided.

Whilst I have no sympathy at all for the vile people attacking everyone else for not agreeing with their own perverted views of society (and they do not have just one perverted view), I have every sympathy for those for whom sex matters as well as those confused about their sex … which arguably is everyone. Because so much of what we call “sex” isn’t intrinsically biological. It’s a confusing subject and in an ideal world we’d all be tolerant of that confusion. However, the present laws and vile hate campaigns against anyone with a different view or making any kind of “mistake” mean people like me want nothing at all to do with the subject or those involved. And, just a people put safety pins in their noses in order to upset “the silent majority”, so now some people deliberately cross dress for the same reasons. Deliberately to provoke confrontation, very much to the detriment of those where cross dressing isn’t a choice of an obnoxious person trying to provoke others, but a genuine heart felt need which has my sympathy.

So, what is the right course? Since women spent most of my life attacking men and denying men any rights to be men, I am now of the view, that women who have made men’s life so bad, can fight their own corner about whether or not biological men go into female toilets or compete on the field as “women”. There’s enough of them for me to not get involved. Women, through their own selfish fixation on promoting women, created the issue that “everyone must be treated equally” and so removed any barriers in the bathroom, so having attacked men so relentlessly, they can now fix that.

However, when it comes to people who are confused about their sex and so concerned that they consider bodily adaptations to mimic the “other” sex, I run into problems. First, if you are not happy as your biological sex, there is a fairly high chance you will not be happy as the other either. The second is that any significant change has a high chance of creating problems, not “solving the issue” and being irreversible there is no way back from that mistake. So, if I were a surgeon, I would be strongly against any difficult, complex or irreversible surgery unless I personally were convinced over a long time that it was entirely right for the person I was dealing with and that they would never change their mind. Which, would require them to have done everything else to live as the “other sex” for a long period as an adult. Which is what I thought the situation was, before the obnoxious politicisation and profiteering came in to the subject.

The only time I would definitely consider such surgery for a child, is in the very rare cases where biology did not make up its mind, and where common sense and the evidence of experience from experts indicates the “right” course. And, indeed, anyone arrogant enough to believe there is “right” probably should be barred from the job, because it would always be difficult and one where the arrogant surgeon would be a disaster. However, I could be swayed by evidence if that evidence showed that surgery for children produces better outcomes for that child as an adult. So, I have no fixed view, except that the bar has to be rather high … a lot lot higher than the nasty political activists and profit driven people want it to be.

The profit & other motives

Unfortunately, Big Pharma that lies to us about the safety of “vaccines” and blatantly lies about the benefits and deaths from the covid jab, cannot be trusted at all. And, when I see that Big Pharma stands to profit so much from people taking drugs to change their appearance, I know that the profit motive of evil Big Pharma will be one of the largest factors pushing the “cause”. Also there are some pretty vile perverts in society who are very keen to change society to make it easier for them to prey on children. And, when I see a sudden large push for something that makes Big Pharma a lot of money, I rightly believe that it is their profit, and not the people who get their expensive drugs, which is driving the issue. Big Pharma are very evil and thus I believe that much of this recent “fad” is driven by their evil and not by real need.

Is there a physical cause?

But, to totally change tack, what no one seems to be asking, is whether there is a real physical cause behind the apparent rise. And specifically is the female contraceptive pill leaking into water and foods and causing the rise? That is a real issue, which no one seems to be concerned about. Just as no one is concerned about low dosage anti-biotics fed to animals … all of which have the feature that the lack of concern is profitable to Big Pharma!!!

However, if female contraceptive in water were the issue, it wold suggest that people in London who drink recycles urine should be at a far higher risk of issues than people in Glasgow who drink water straight off the hills. It would also suggest that people who ate food grown in the fields and not fed recycled human urine water in a battery farm should have less issues.

So how does Robert’s policy fit with my own views?

Like most people I am against damaging irreversible surgery driven by the Profit motive of Big Pharma. I understand, but am not quite certain I accept, the view that biological men cannot go into a women’s bathroom … because in the few times I’ve been to concerts and seen the queue outside a women’s toilet it seems crazy that the women don’t just make use of the cubicles in the men’s loo. Thus, if there were a mostly men concert and men were queuing I think it sensible for them to use the female toilets. But not everyone would accept that.

I also accept that someone who was allocated the sex of “male” at birth could become “female”. In some cases where there is physical ambiguity, that change should be unconditionally accepted by society. In others, where it is men pretending to be women, there is no change and there is no way anyone should be forced to accept them as a “women”. Although personally, people ought to be tolerant as far as reasonable of their feelings, even if they are not “women”. In between there are competing needs to which I have no simple answer … except to wonder why sex matters and why women are so concerned about their toilet spaces and … also how to distinguish the male pervert from those men genuinely needing to live as women. Indeed, how would I know the difference, or the many variants or even if there is a meaningful way to distinguish a difference?

In contrast, I have heard people express views, firstly the ridiculous one that sex is just what you feel like being at the time. And, the equally absurd one that there are only two sexes and no one can ever change. Those are two polar opposites and such polar opposites are almost always wrong. So, I would be extremely concerned if anyone in government expressed either as their view. So, I am pleased to see what Robert endorses is something between the two. What I do like is that Robert focuses on the risks and irreversible nature of some interventions, without ruling them out. That too is important. Also, where intervention is seen as the best option, that the decision is made according to the patient’s need and the evidence. What is important is that there is a concerted effort to push back against what I see as the profit motive driven campaigns of hatred we have recently seen. So, I am pleased about the direction and pleased to see it still seems to encompass appropriate treatment for the few children where the evidence shows such treatment would genuinely improve their adult lives.

What is lacking is any investigation of the causes …. like the contraceptive pill leaking into drinking water and the food supply.

HHS sent a letter to health care providers, risk managers, and state medical boards urging immediate updates to treatment protocols for minors with gender dysphoria based on HHS’ comprehensive review that found puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries have very weak evidence of benefit, but carry risk of significant harms, including sterilization. Providers should no longer rely on discredited guidelines that promote these dangerous interventions for children and adolescents based on ideology, not evidence.