 A growing hole in the middle ... Existing societies are disintegrating. In western societies an increasingly diverse and very vocal periphery runs with all the attention, while one has no eye for the erosion of the middle. The expansion is so powerful that the periphery is also divided into countless, incoherent bits. Split in all sorts of special interests and identity groups in a hastily expanding periphery. Almost like an exploding doughnut. They are the noisy, loud, wildly gesticulating self-righteous collections of powerful focused opinions, all seeking maximum attention, and aiming impress and force their views on the rest of society, regardless of the consequences. “The laden phrase “identity politics” has come to signify a wide range of political activity and theorizing founded in the shared experiences of injustice of members of certain social groups. Rather than organizing solely around belief systems, programmatic manifestos, or party affiliation, identity political formations typically aim to secure the political freedom of a specific constituency marginalized within its larger context. Members of that constituency assert or reclaim ways of understanding their distinctiveness that challenge dominant characterizations, with the goal of greater self-determination.” (stanford.edu) The self-proclaimed progressives belonging to the expanding periphery have been morally, ideologically and frenetically preoccupied with marginalized minorities and isolated issues of politics and ideology, and ignored the majority left behind in the middle by the expanding periphery. In the rapidly growing hole in the middle of the expanding doughnut we find the forgotten parts of society. People without organization, without the ability to gather in powerful movements, without the ability to articulate their desires and demands in well-formed explanations and justifications. Common to the expanding peripheral groups is a strange self-hate of the West, its history, culture and existing ideology and values. Somewhat bizarre, when realizing that it is only in this Western society that it is possible for these opinions to exist and create an impression of progressiveness. Realizing that it will prove difficult to provide a comprehensive picture of the internal decay of the West, it may at least be possible to provide a rhapsodic collection of illustrations showing the upheavals that destroy cohesion in Western societies and ultimately accelerate the overall decline of the West. The rhapsodic collection in part one includes these topics: Fighting racism and white supremacy Transforming gender under the rainbow symbol Demolishing symbols and foundations of Western societies Fighting racism and white supremacy In 2013 three Black women in the U.S. founded the movement known as Black Lives Matter (BLM) after witnessing the “not guilty” verdict against George Zimmerman, who had shot dead the unarmed Black youth Trayvon Martin in a Florida community. While this may be the formal start of the BLM, it was a video posted by the Black teenager Darnella Frazier on Facebook on Tuesday 26 May 2020 that led to the almost explosive expansion of BLM. It was a video from the day before of a White Minneapolis Police officer with his knee on the neck of the Black George Floyd Darnelle’s video ignited protests against racism and police brutality all over the Western World. Under the banner of “Black lives matter” and with cardboard signs saying “I can’t breathe”, “No justice, No peace”, “Silence is violence,” “Don’t shoot,” “Stop killing us,” “Defund police” etc. While some protests were peaceful, others were marked by violence, vandalism, looting and even death and injury, and the violence of course made it to breaking news media, taking up much of the news in the coming days, perhaps becoming an inspiration for even more violence and general mayhem. BLM protests spread all over the Western World and led to maniacal attempts, not the least among enthusiastic young white people, to find and fight against what they saw as evidence of racism and white supremacy everywhere in society. The fight against racism has taken many often rather bizarre forms. Not just in the shape ever so popular, but rather meaningless and inconsequential actions of “taking a knee.” Here just a few illustrations: Racist stamps? The Spanish Postal service Correos used the anniversary of the death of George Floyd and the European Diversity Month to launch campaign to raise awareness of racial inequality and promote diversity, inclusion and equal rights. The campaign carried out in collaboration with the Spanish NGO SOS Racismo and the Spanish rapper El Chojin went under the name “Equality Stamps” and brought out 4 postage stamps in different colours and values, as seen in the official announcement.  Note, the darker the colour, the less the value. How these stamps were meant to raise racial awareness and promote diversity was explained in a statement: “The darker the stamp, the less value it will have, therefore, when making a shipment, it will be necessary to use more black stamps than white ones. In this way, each letter and each shipment will become a reflection of the inequality created by racism.” While the different colour of the stamps might in itself signal diversity. The message conveyed by giving the darker coloured stamps a lower value than the lighter coloured stamps was to put it mildly rather ambiguous. To the unwary eye it might signal that the dark colour had less value also in relation to people, thus sending exactly the opposite message of what the initiators had intended. The campaign was met with ridicule and criticism “When Correos, SOS Racismo and El Chojin come together, they seek to carry out an anti-racist campaign, but the message that has been transmitted was racist." The stamp campaign illustrates one of the countless bizarre ways in which the fight against racism it fought. Guilty as accused More serious is another and perhaps even more ambiguous in it its effect is another case. Two adjunct professors at The Georgetown University Law Center were staying on a Zoom videocall after conclusion of an open class session, unaware that their private conversation was being recorded on video. In the conversation between the two, Professor Sandra Sellers was recorded as saying: “You know what? I hate to say this,” … “I end up having this angst every semester that a lot of my lower ones are Blacks — happens almost every semester. And it’s like, ‘Oh, come on.’ You know? You get some really good ones. But there are also usually some that are just plain at the bottom. It drives me crazy.” The 40 second clip was uploaded on Twitter by a student and shared among students. The Black Law Students Association complained “These racist statements reveal not only Sellers’ beliefs about Black students in her classes, but also how her racist thoughts have translated to racist actions. Professor Sellers’s bias has impacted the grades of Black students in her classes historically, in her own words.” They demanded Professor Sandra Sellers immediate dismissal. Soon after the Dean sent out this massage: “I informed Professor Sellers that I was terminating her relationship with Georgetown Law effective immediately.” Was what Professor Sellers said in the recording a vocal expression of extreme racism? So evident and extreme that she had to be terminated? Hardly! She expressed her angst of having again to find Black students at the bottom when they were graded. An expression of racism? It might have been if the poor grading was a consequence of prejudice against Black students and how they performed in class. But the Law School grading would usually be blind, with students being identified just by a number, meaning that the identity of a student is not known and certainly not whether he or she is White or Black. With this being the case one might rule out that Blacks are ending up at bottom because of just her prejudice. The complaining Georgetown Law School students demanded not only Professor Sellars immediate dismissal. They also demanded a critical assessment of the current grading systems, indirectly alleging that the grading system in itself created a disadvantage for Black students. Making one wonder if they are saying that the grading system is inherently racist, and that the criteria would have to be changed to be advantageous for Black students. Furthermore, the students demanded the hiring of “more Black professors who will be better situated to fairly assess Black students in a non-biased manner.” Thus, actually saying that only Black professors would be able to treat Blacks students fairly. This sounds like the students are really advocating a kind of reverse racism. Strange one might think. Was the idea not to give up discerning according to race at all? Apparent Black students want to abandon this idea, advocating instead preferential treatment, not equal treatment. Somehow the whole story of what happened leads one to suspect that one cannot utter genuine concern over the poor performance of Black students without being accused of racism, which of cause would be abhorrent. And the woke reaction from a prestigious Law School certainly does not bode well for a genuine understanding of why Black students do not perform better. The one-sided hyperawareness of possible evidence of racism shown by the students and the woke reaction may contribute to growing wildfire, where people and institutions are guilty of racism simply by being accused, especially if there are numerous accusations. That at least seems to be the reasoning behind some of the knee jerk reactions we have seen. Racism in math, applied science and medicine At a townhall meeting at Harvard’s department of Mathematics the participants wanted the department to “Identify and push back against ways in which a discriminatory evaluation of mathematical ability is created and reinforced. Work toward building a community predicated on the recognition that mathematics harbors a diverse ecosystem of experiences and interests, all of which are valuable.” One wonders if this actually means that students from certain minorities should be assessed and graded according different standards than the rest. A suspicion reinforced by a proposal for removal of the GRE [Graduate Record Examination] as an admission requirement. (A GRE test score is used to provide graduate and business schools with a common measure for comparing applicants). And the Math department is listening. Among a series of strategies to achieve diversity, anti-oppression and equity we find this “Increase the representation of those with marginalized identities in all areas of our department. In particular hire, admit, and make space for more people of color, black and indigenous people, those who identify as LGBTQIA+, women, non-binary people, people with disabilities, people from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds, first-generation students, and any other identities underrepresented in mathematic.” Not only math may be racist. Harvard Medical School’s mission statement also sees racism embedded in science: We will develop new classes for master’s and PhD students to acknowledge the ways in which racism is embedded in science and scientific culture (emphasis added) and work to redress these longstanding issues.” Examples of what constitutes racism in science and scientific culture are not given. But the value apparently lies in signalling the anti-racist attitude, at least on paper. Harvard’s John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) has also jumped the band waggon with a 37page strategic plan for diversity, inclusion and belonging (shortened to DIB). One of the goals being to provide “events and programming that highlight the concerns and experiences of diverse groups in STEM (Science, technology, engineering and Mathematics).” But also details like providing information about “the locations of gender-inclusive restrooms and lactation rooms on the website.” The proclaimed strategies for achieving a greater degree of diversity, inclusion, and belonging may in fact hide a much grimmer reality of discrimination. Using a superficially politically correct, or should we say woke façade, to hide other forms of problematic discriminations. In addition to reverse discrimination of Asian students, there are other forms of preferential admissions that may be seen a seriously discriminative. According to 2017 study by a former Harvard professor Raj Chetty “Harvard has had as many students come from the top 1 percent of the income distribution as the bottom 60 percent.” Indicating perhaps that taking into account general socioeconomic factors in admissions would be fairer to all ethnic groups than focusing on a certain racial preferences to raise the admission of Black students. Seeing racism everywhere may be counterproductive. The old, rather peripheral legal movement around Critical Race Theory (CRT) has suddenly gained interest in the fight against racism. Being used to support ever more bizarre ideas of a harmful inherent systemic racism and of white supremacy. CRT sees racism as ‘embedded in the structure of society’ and having a material foundation. It purports to build a scientific foundation for understanding and combatting racism. While white supremacy being understood as “a political, economic and cultural system in which whites overwhelmingly control power and material resources, conscious and unconscious ideas of white superiority and entitlement are widespread, and relations of white dominance and non-white subordination are daily re-enacted across a broad array of institutions and social settings.” Such postulatory, but forcefully propagated ideas are beginning to affect the whole of society as the above examples indicate, but one wonders about consequences for the minorities seen as subject to racism, for so-called white supremacy and for society. The ideas have resulted in a bizarre outgrowth of demands to teach CRT in schools, not the least in the U.S. and to plethora of whiteness- and white supremacist studies. To attempts by organizations and businesses to conform in strange ways to such ideas, enlisting the help of an anti-racism consulting industry. Sometimes leading institutions and businesses shoot themselves in the foot though, as in the case of The National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington D.C. The museum displayed a page on whiteness and white culture in a portal on racism. Here part of the page:  Showing the White culture traits as containing Rugged individualism: You get what you deserve; A traditional family structure with husband, wife and 2.3 children; Emphasis on scientific method. Continuing with a number of subject traits like Respects for authority and putting value on owning goods, space and property; Justice based upon common law; Competition with a striving to be number one; A must always do something about a situation attitude, etc. Are we to conclude from the exhibit that these characteristics, or perhaps the term virtues would be more fitting, are part and parcel of White supremacy and that these virtues would not be seen as virtues by Blacks? Indirectly leading to ridiculous notion that Blacks do not value virtues like: You get what you deserve, nuclear family, scientific method, respect for authority etc. If this is the interpretation, the implication would be that the fight against racism might lead to an overall decline in the whole of society. A society that has been upheld exactly by virtues like those found in the portal. An over-interpretation you might say, but compared with the arguments for Blacks to treated to a different non-racist mathematics, medicine and applied science, not accepting to be graded by a white teacher and arguing for GRE’s to be removed as admission criteria, one might get the idea that these demands are conflicting with the virtues found in in the poster. Well, after criticism The Museum of African American History and Culture apologized and removed the page with whiteness virtues, explaining “We erred in including the chart. We have removed it, and we apologize.” The introduction of teaching of CRT in schools has inflamed public protest among parents and politicians. A recent example being the culture war on education raging in the Virginia’s governor’s race. With a parent alarmed by anti-racism discussions at her son's school, believing that it is forcing White children to feel bad about their race. Perhaps leading to a kind of reverse racism, where everything characterizing whiteness may interpreted as being racist. Do Black Lives Matter to Blacks? Provocative in the heated atmosphere of today, but a discussion of police brutality and racism may show the seriousness of the question. Evidently there is an overrepresentation of Blacks that are being shot by the police. There is also an overrepresentation of Hispanics, but it is less marked. In the simple mindset of the recent protesters this would be irrefutable proof of racism in the law enforcement. Is that so, or are there other explanations for the overrepresentation of Blacks shot by police? What do crime statistics tell us? Do they show a different picture, and if so, what would that be? A table from FBI from 2018 show the total number of arrests by race for the most serious offences:  A simple comparison shows that total number of offences by Black or African Americans make up around 40% of the number offences by White offenders. For violent crime like murder and non-negligent manslaughter the number of Black offenders make up around 120% of the number of White offenders. In both cases a very significant overrepresentation of Black offenders. Notable is the fact that 70.3 % of the violent incidents committed against Black victims are committed by Blacks. A proportion more than 5 times higher than their share of the population. The proportion of violent incidents committed against Black victims by Whites in comparison were only 10.6 %, and thus much smaller than their share of the population. What all this means? That Blacks are mostly at risk of violence from Black people. Leading to one to ask somewhat provocatively if Black Lives really matter that much to Black people themselves. What we have seen from the data presented here would seem to indicate that Black and African American’s share in violent crime like murder and manslaughter is very much higher than their share of the population. One would of course expect that to be reflected in the number of Blacks arrested and brought into custody by law officers. From which it also follows that the overrepresentation of incidents involving police killings of Black people may not be surprising, and cannot in itself be taken as irrefutable proof of police racism. Incidents of violent crime against Blacks are mostly committed by Blacks. The Washington Post’s police shooting database shows that 18 unarmed Black men were shot dead by police in 2020. But apparently around 10.000 black people were killed by someone else than a policeman. In fact, Black people are mostly in danger of being victims of violent crimes from Black people. Which certainly doesn’t point to White racism, but perhaps to serious problems within the Black population in the US. The recent violent BLM protests and demands to defund police may not reduce the plight of Blacks in mostly poorer communities. In fact, the demands to defund the police may have contributed to a rising wave violent crimes in the U.S., at least in the big cities. According to The Wall Street Journal an analysis of NYPD data for 2020 showed that 1,440 of 1,495 shooting victims between Jan. 1 to Oct. 1, or 965 were either Black or Hispanic. While facts are hard to come by, the breakdown in relations between the police and certain parts of the community may have had an impact. “Maybe police, afraid of coming under criticism through the next viral video or acting in protest of the demonstrations, pulled back on proactive practices that suppress crime. Or maybe much of the public lost trust in the police, refusing to cooperate with them — making it harder for police to lock up offenders who go on to commit more crimes, and also possibly leading to more “street justice,” as more people distrust the legal system to stop wrongdoers and instead take matters into their own hands.” (vox.com). Even in the light of a rising crime wave The city of Minneapolis will soon be voting on whether to abolish the police department for Public Safety department. An ideological crusade undermining society Arguments for systemic racism perpetuated by white supremacists and the ideological postulates of Critical Race Theory is sweeping all arguments and evidence to contrary aside, as illustrated in the illustrations given here. From the ridiculous attempt to fight racism with coloured stamps, Coca Cola’s “try to be less white” hints, to accusations of cultural appropriation when Whites adopt Black hairstyles or manners, to an expanding stream of diversity, inclusiveness and equality programs in businesses and organisations, like the UK Parliaments “Value everyone” training, to CRT curriculums making children feeling bad about being White, to critical studies in “whiteness,” to the demands for preferential treatment, read less stringent, of Blacks, not the least in university programs, and all the way to the disastrous “Defund police!” demands. All these initiatives and demands do not seem to be founded on rigorous evidence, but on explosions of feelings and opinions, supported by the postulates of the irrefutable ideology that white Western societies harbour an invisible, inherent systemic racism and a sense of White supremacy. With characteristics like individualism and “you get what you deserve.” It leads to seeing racism everywhere, exemplified for instance by the work of Robin DiAngelo, a White American author, in her book “White Fragility” which refers to ‘state in which even a minimum of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves’ by white people. Thus, teaching White people to feel bad about their whiteness, while infantilizing Blacks. What does all this mean for society? Will it promote a sense of community or led to separatism, promote equal opportunity for all or force kind a kind of equity, result in less racism or lead to reverse racism and animosity among people? Will it lead to higher achievement or lower standards, lead to less crimes or result in a new wave of crimes? The illustrations we have seen may indicate that the ideological and thus irrefutable approach may in fact have results that are contrary to what is intended. Transforming gender under the rainbow symbol A giant poster put up on a billboard during Labour Conference in Liverpool on 2018 showed this definition:  Not a Labour feature, but a protest action by a female blogger and member of the “Standing for Women” campaign, Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, who had paid £700 to have the poster put up.
Almost immediately there was trouble with transgender activists in online forums. A Dr Adrian Harrop, who described himself as an "ally of the transgender community" claimed that the poster, with its seemingly self-evident definition, constituted a "symbol that makes transgender people feel unsafe" and further "It creates an atmosphere that makes transgender citizens of Liverpool feel unsafe and unwelcome in their own city." He protested to Primesight Direct, which had installed the poster. On Twitter, he wrote "Are you aware that "Human Females" - aka "Standing for Women" - is a transphobic hate group, disguising itself in an adulterated version of feminism in order to spread its propaganda & hate speech w/ impunity?" The protest prompted a swift response from Primesight, which promised to remove the poster by the same evening. Followed by this apology: "Hands up, we have been misled by this campaign's messaging. Thanks to you, this campaign has been stopped and the posters will be removed from our billboards as soon as possible... we are proud to support the LGBTQ+ community." Sounds too bizarre to be true. It must have been fake news on social media. But no! We are in the absurd situation that the self-evident definition of "woman" has itself become hate speech in the eyes of an aggressive minority of LGBTQ+ activists and certain politicians. But wasn't that exactly what Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull would object to with the poster. For her the definition of woman was adult human female. “If we expand that definition to say that 'woman' includes men who claim to feel like women, so as not to hurt their feelings, the word will become meaningless. As will the rights that generations of women before us fought for." She called the decision to remove the poster "absurd" and "Orwellian" and accused Primesight of breaking the contract with her. The campaign group “Standing for Women” also protested: As you may have read the billboard has been deemed transphobic and is being removed in an act of grotesque misogynistic rage, we are seeking legal advice and will make a full statement in due course." The row about definition of a female demonstrates that listening to a single very vocal gender activist may lead to self-censorship. This also applies to another example. At the University of Durham, a student retweeted a Spectator article with the startling title: "Is it a crime to say women don't have penises." After a revolt among LGBT activists who called the Tweet "Horrific transphobic," the student in question was fired from the job of assistant editor of the university's philosophy journal. His own response: "I may be wrong and women might indeed have penises, although I don't believe that to be the case... No effort was made, beyond name-calling, derogatory comments, and ad hominem statements, to convince me of the truth of the other side's position." Here we see something that seems to be characteristic not only of transgender activists, but of much of what we have called "the chattering class" of left-wing activists, self-declared humanists, and other good people. "The right opinion" means everything. There is no need for any further reasoning, let alone evidence of the correctness of "the right opinion." Gender self-identification Women have argued that new proposals to allow "self-identification" of one's gender "threatens the legal status of the category "sex," which is a protected characteristic under the UK Equality Act 2010, and provides the legal basis for the exclusion of males from female-only spaces for the safety, privacy and dignity of women and girls. Sex, which refers to the category each person belongs to on the basis of their reproductive organs, is a protected characteristic because sexism is directed at women because of their reproductive sex, not because of their "gender identity." The protesting women therefore argue that watering down the definition of a woman in the sense of "the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes, " will in practice mean that women are exposed to new risks from men who self-identify as women, thereby gaining access to places that have been reserved for women. Not without reason. Evidently for both in the UK and Canada there are apparently examples of rapists self-identifying as women being incarcerated in women's prisons where they have continued the assaults. ""A rapist and pedophile who was transferred to a women's prison after claiming to be female and assaulted four inmates there made no more effort to be a woman than wearing wigs and dresses." (The Times). https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rapist-karen-white-in-women-s-jail-was-trans-faker-lbcwjp8jc No wonder that a claimant in a High Court case has challenged “the policy in relation to the allocation to a women’s prison of transgender women who have been convicted of sexual or violent offences against women.” The claimant lost her case with the judge arguing that to exclude transwomen from women’s prisons would “would be to ignore, impermissibly, the rights of transgender women to live in their chosen gender.” Plans by Theresa May’s government to allow people to officially change gender without a medical diagnosis are not being adopted by Boris Johnson’s Conservative government which is instead just cutting the cost of applying for a gender recognition certificate (GRC). “Under the current gender recognition legislation, which was passed in 2004, in order to change their birth certificate an individual must be over the age of 18 and apply to a panel providing medical evidence of a diagnosis of gender dysphoria as well as proof that they have been living in their preferred gender for at least two years” (the Guardian). https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/sep/22/uk-government-drops-gender-self-identification-plan-for-trans-people Here the UK is lagging behind other countries. In Norway it has since 2016 been possible for the 16-year-olds to self-define their gender and apply for legal recognition, while children between the age of 6 and 16 can do so with parental consent. If parents do not consent, an external body will decide in the child’s best interest. Late in June 2021 the governing Socialist Party (PSOE) and its junior partner Unidas Podemos in Spain approved the draft of a bill to allow anyone over the age of 14 to change gender legally without a medical diagnosis or hormone therapy. According to El Pais the bill would allow “people 16 and over to legally change their name and gender on their identity documents without undergoing hormone therapy or securing medical reports indicating “gender dysphoria.” The change is also possible for 14- and 15-year-olds with the consent of their legal guardian, and for 12- and 13-year-olds with court approval. Younger children are excluded.” (El Pais). https://english.elpais.com/news/2021-06-30/spain-takes-giant-step-towards-gender-self-identification.html A Rainbow regime going too far? Apparent the current Hungarian government thinks it has, when the Fidesz party this summer submitted an addition to an Anti-Pedophilia bill, with these provisions: No content featuring portrayals of homosexuality or sex reassignment can be made available to minors School sex educators can no longer “promote” homosexuality or sex reassignment Sexual education classes can only be held by registered organisations, limiting more liberal NGOs. Restrictions on ads with LGBT content This led to flood wave of protests and criticism from rainbow organisations and the majority of the EU countries. In response to what they saw as a backsliding of LGBTIQ rights, MEP’s in the European Parliament declared the EU to be an “LGBTIQ Freedom Zone,” whatever that means. The resolution was passed by 492 votes in favour, 141 against, with 46 abstentions. There we have it, the regressive governments Hungary and Poland want to shield minors from portrayals of homosexuality or sex reassignment, while the ultra-progressives (at least according themselves) want to promote the kind of self-identification what we have seen in Spain and Norway. Voices of concern In Germany “Doctors and psychologists are registering more cases of children and adolescents who feel strange in their bodies and want to change the gender of their birth. The number of treatments in the Munich University Clinic for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry alone has quintupled since 2013; The special outpatient clinics in Hamburg, Berlin and Frankfurt recorded similar rates of increase.” (Die Zeit) A sign that more relaxed attitude has finally made it possible, or an indication that it has somehow become hip to change gender, especially perhaps among youngsters. That this may indeed be the case may be shown by the fact that in some schools several young people have almost simultaneously identified as transgender. In the view of child psychiatrist something that goes against all experience. In the 2018 The Times has reported that “In nine months last year more than 2,000 children were referred by GPs, schools and support groups to GIDS (Gender Identity Development Service), the only NHS clinic offering medical treatments such as hormones to suppress puberty and cross-sex hormones to develop different sexual characteristics.” A 20-fold increase since 2009 when it was just 97. A Spectator article describe “a cultural change on the issue of gender in the last few years. What started as a fringe view that being a boy or a girl is just an idea is moving into the mainstream; today, even the government wants to help three-year-olds to ‘explore’ and question their gender identity.” Bernadette Wren, consultant clinical psychologist at the GIDS clinic in London warns ““If a school just gets a whisper of a child who may be querying their gender and within minutes they are doing everything to make sure that child is regarded as a member of the opposite sex right from the word go — that may not be the best for that child.” To the rainbow warriors “the transgender community is bound together by faith in gender identity — the idea that we all have a soul-like essence that determines whether we are men or women. Its doctrines — for example, Trans Women are Women — are held as tightly as a Christian might declare that Jesus Christ is the son of God made man. Apostates — whether they de-transition or merely become disillusioned — are treated with contempt.” This view is also found in the so-called Yogyakarta principles. According to which “Gender identity is understood to refer to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical, or other means) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech, and mannerisms.” Accordingly, when a man self-identifies as a woman, he somehow becomes a woman, with all the rights of biological women, and vice versa. Or one might self-identify as non-binary. With bizarre consequences Will women have a chance in women’s sports? At the Tokyo Olympics the transgender weightlifter, Laurel Hubbard, has been allowed to compete in the women’s weightlifting contest in the category over 87 kg. This is in accordance with the IOC’s transgender guidelines, which stipulate that: Those who transition from female to male “are eligible to compete in the male category without restriction.” “Those who transition from male to female are eligible to compete in the female category under a set of conditions, among which is found the following: The athlete has declared that her gender identity is female. The declaration cannot be changed, for sporting purposes, for a minimum of four years.” So, no spurious gender changes. There also some conditions relating to total testosterone levels and testing. Progressives see these rules as proving the power of inclusion. Strangely some biological women and men argue that this may at the very least confer a very unfair advantage on transwomen, thus being unfair towards biological women in women’s sports. A view supported by science “The British Journal of Sports Medicine found that even after a year of hormone therapy, transwomen on average had an advantage over cisgender, or non-transgender, women.” Recognizing this World Rugby is considering a ban on transwomen in women’s rugby. According to the Guardian World Rugby acknowledges “that there is likely to be ‘at least a 20-30% greater risk’ of injury when a female player is tackled by someone who has gone through male puberty.” A similar movement to accept transgender girls in sports, has led to conflicts in the US. When President Biden came into office, he wasted no time in catering to the progressives. Rescinding Trump’s efforts to the contrary. In an executive order to combat discrimination on the basis of gender identity he states: “Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports. “ An order giving rise to protests, with states hurrying to forbid transwomen and girls to participate in girl’s and women’s sports. Idaho was first to ban transwomen and girls from women’s sports leagues in schools and colleges, although the law is now suspended as a result of a court challenge the trend continues. At least 30 other state legislatures have proposed similar bans. Indicating an ongoing conflict between LGBTQ activist groups and their supporters and Women’s organisations, who are supported by conservative parties and religious groups. Conflict is also found in relation to “Bathroom” bills, which allow transgender people to use bathrooms according to their self-identified gender. Are women disappearing? Will the actions of small minority and its supporters make the category of biological women disappear? LGBTQ+ and people seeing themselves as the progressives are at least doing what they can to force biological women to accept transwomen as real women. As exemplified in the case of Maya Forstater in the UK. Ms. Forstater was employed as a researcher for the think tank “Center for Global Development” (CGD), when she argued that transwomen still are males in a series of Tweets, as in this tweet: “Bunce does not 'masquerade as female' he is a man who likes to express himself part of the week by wearing a dress. I have no problem with men wearing dresses, but we don't need to confuse acting in a stereotypically feminine manner with being a woman!” Following complaints by colleagues she was dismissed from the think tank. Not accepting her dismissal she went to the Employment Tribunal, where she lost her case. Among the reasons giving by the judge, we find arguments like these: “Human Rights law is developing. People are becoming more understanding of trans rights … Calling a trans woman a man is likely to be profoundly distressing.” “I conclude … that the Claimant is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.” One may wonder if it isn’t the judge who is absolutist and arguing against biological facts. Ms Forstater apparently thought so and went to The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) The judge here found that An “acquired gender “for all purposes” within the meaning of GRA [Gender Recognition Act] does not negate a person’s right to believe, like the Claimant, that as a matter of biology a trans person is still their natal sex.” The belief “may well be profoundly offensive and even distressing to many others, but they are beliefs that are and must be tolerated in a pluralist society.” Then he almost excused for the verdict by saying “We acknowledge that some trans persons will be disappointed by this judgment. Ms. Russell [representing CGD] submitted that it would create a “two-tier” system between natal women and trans women, with some trans women fearing that it will give licence to people seeking to harass them.” These reservations will certainly to give rise to future conflicts between those who believe that sex is a biological category, and those for whom self-identifying as a woman is enough to define a woman. What are the numbers? In a publication from 2020 The Williams Institute at UCLA had collected the latest available numbers on the adult LGBT+ population in the U.S. They indicate that: Around 11 million adults identify as LGBT or around 4.5% of the legal adult population. of these 1,397,150 are estimated to be transgender, which would represent around 0.54% of the adult population. Surveys published by Gallup in 2021 show that among the younger part of the population, born 1997-2002 1.8% self-identify as transgender. For Millennials born 1981-1996 it is 1.2%. Among the older population only around 0.2% identify as transgender. A similar marked difference between the younger generation and the older generation is found in relation to self-identified sexual orientation. Leading Gallup the speculate on possible explanation for the marked differences. “The pronounced generational differences raise questions about whether higher LGBT identification in younger than older Americans reflects a true shift in sexual orientation, or if it merely reflects a greater willingness of younger people to identify as LGBT.” The UK Government Equalities Office tentatively estimates that there are approximately 200,000- 500,000 trans people in the UK. But they say they do not really know the number. While 0.4% of respondents in surveys dating back to 2011 indicate that they think of themselves in another way than male or female. Leading to the assumption that 0.4% of the population may self-identify as transgender. The March 2021 UK census for the first time contained the questions: 'is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?' But results from the census are not published until 2022. In Germany cases related to the “Transsexuellengesetz indicate that in 2011 there 17,255 persons who identified as “transsexuelle,” With a population of around 81 million this would represent just 0.02% of the population. These numbers cannot be compared with the numbers found in the U.S. and UK as they only show the number of openly declared “Transsexuelle.” A Danish survey from 2019 show that only 0.10% self-identified as either transmale or transwoman. (Projekt SEXUS 2017-2018). The difference between U.S./UK and German and Denmark may represent either greater acceptance in U.S. and UK, or an indication that it may have become a hip in the U.S. and UK to change gender, perhaps seeing it as possible solution to other personal problems? Given all rainbow fanfare, colourful rainbow rallies, pride weeks and companies taking pride in demonstrating their support for LGBQT in more or less subtle ways in the commercials this at least is a relevant question. Perhaps what we are seeing is a rainbow regime gone too far, What may have started as a movement to give voice and rights to a minority forced to live in the shadows, is now succeeding in impressing theirs views on the whole of society. The success of garish rainbow warriors and self-proclaimed progressives supported by left leaning media may be threatening the lives of youngsters, erasing the category of biological women, making mockery of women’s sports, changing language into a kind of Newspeak and ignoring the legitimate concerns of a majority. Demolishing symbols and foundations of Western societies In March 2016 a young black student, Zyahna Bryant, wrote petition to remove the statue of the famous confederate general Robert E. Lee in the city of Charlottesville in Virginia. “When I think of Robert E. Lee I instantly think of someone fighting in favor of slavery. Thoughts of physical harm, cruelty, and disenfranchisement flood my mind. As a teenager in Charlottesville that identifies as black, I am offended every time I pass it. I am reminded over and over again of the pain of my ancestors and all of the fighting that they had to go through for us to be where we are now. … I am calling on city council along with my peers and members of the community to remove the Robert E. Lee statue because it doesn’t represent what Charlottesville is all about. It is offensive to not only one group of people, but essentially it can be offensive to all people.” (Zyahna Bryant). Others had voiced similar feelings over the years, and after a year’s deliberation the city council in February 2017 voted to remove the statue from Lee Park, gave rise to protests and a court case. Meanwhile the city council renamed the park Emancipation Park. In august 2017 the “Unite the Right” held a rally in city protesting city council’s decision. The protesters decried as white supremacist, skinheads and Nazis, was met with counter protests with the confrontation turning very violent and leading to the death of a counter protester. The violent events in Charlottesville re-ignited a national debate about the role of Confederate monuments in the United States, and opinion turned against those who wanted to keep the historical monuments. In June 2021, The House of Representatives voted to remove all Confederate statues on display in the U.S. Capitol. With a lonely Republican voicing protest, arguing that it was a matter from each state to decide whom the wanted to honour with a statue in the Capital. “I support federalism and a state's right to decide for itself who it should honor.” On July 11 2021 the statue of Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville was carted away securely fastened to a truck. The Black Lives Matter activists and their supporters from the political left want to remove all vestiges of people and institutions who had stood for slavery. Why stop with the tumbling of statues? Why not erase the memory of Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of “The Declaration of Independence, given on July 4, 1776, where we find these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But Jefferson himself was a slaveowner, enslaving during the cause of his life more 600 human beings. Shouldn’t he be erased from history? And what about “The White House” itself. The white colour and the subsequent name being the result of lime-based whitewash in 1798 to protect its sandstone exterior. Over 200 enslaved individuals build the original White House and the new White House after the war in 1812, together with the Capitol Building. The National Archives has wage rolls listing the African Americans who worked on these projects as carpenters and brickmakers. Among these a 1795 promissory note for the hire a slave, "Negro Dick at the Capitol, from 1st April to 1st July 1795, 3 Months, at 5 Dollars per Month.” Doesn’t that lead to “Thoughts of physical harm, cruelty, and disenfranchisement” with Black Lives Matter activists and their supporters and the pulling down of this monument to the sufferings of what is now called enslaved people. Rhodes must fall The wave of pulling down symbols of slavery, and a colonial past has swapped over from the US to Europe, first and foremost of course to UK, with smaller splashes in other countries. At Oxford University different petitions has renewed a call for the fall of Rhodes. Cecil Rhodes, who gave name to former Rhodesia, was Prime Minister of the Cape Colony and left provisions for the prestigious Rhodes Scholarships for exceptional students at Oxford University, and a statue of Cecil Rhodes adorns Oriol College. Here arguments from a petition in June 2020 calling for the removal of this symbol of British Imperialism and colonialism. “We, the undersigned, are once again calling for the removal of the Cecil Rhodes statue which overlooks the Oxford High Street… We find it deplorable that Oriel College continues to glorify an international criminal through its uncritical, deeply violent iconography. As long as the statue remains, Oriel College and Oxford University continue to tacitly identify with Rhodes’s values, and to maintain a toxic culture of domination and oppression. We believe that the colonialism, racism and patriarchy this statue is seeped [steeped?] in has no place in our university … of the imperialist legacy on which Oxford University has thrived, and continues to thrive.” Twenty Oxford city councillors supported the demands for the fall of the Rhodes statue, seeing it as “incompatible with our city’s… commitment to anti-racism”. An independent commission was set up by Oriel College, and in the 2021 the majority of its members expressed the wish to remove the statue. The Governing Body did not follow the recommendation, with excuses like “the regulatory and financial challenges, including the expected time frame for removal, which could run into years with no certainty of outcome, together with the total cost of removal.” The decision not to remove the Rhodes statue of course led to renewed protests. 150 Oxford lecturers in a statement declared that they would boycott part of their work: “Faced with Oriel's stubborn attachment to a statue that glorifies colonialism and the wealth it produced for the college, we feel we have no choice but to withdraw all discretionary work and goodwill collaborations.” In a muted reaction the Oxford University’s vice-chancellor said: “Oxford’s brilliant academics are rightly renowned for their dedication to teaching, so I am deeply disappointed that some of my colleagues would choose to punish students, and prospective students, for the actions of their college’s governing body, especially after the prolonged disruption of teaching during the pandemic.” Others have been more aggressive and pointed out that some of the 150 lecturers have benefitted from financial legacies built on forced labour. “Four of the academics who signed up to the boycott have received funding from the Leverhulme Trust, which was created with funding from Lord Leverhulme, a soap magnate who set up plantations in the Belgian Congo in the 1910s using forced labour.” http://www.samfordcrimson.com/20210611-oxford-dons-boycotting-oriel-are-themselves-funded-by-imperialists.html Statues are may highly visible symbols of the past, but if the protesters who want them pulled down because they are offended every time they pass ithem or who “consider it a personal violence” really wanted to pull down symbols of the past, they would have to pull down much more than statues, not only the White House and Capitol in the US and scores of buildings in the UK and elsewhere. They would actually have to reject and pull down the societies build upon this past. Perhaps this illustrates the idiocy of decrying an imperialistic and colonial past by pulling down statues, while living in a Western society that would never have come about were it not for its imperialistic, colonial and warring past. When BLM activist and their supporters, or protesters of imperialist and colonial past won’t acknowledge that, they may in all their zealousness open up deep divisions in Western societies, weakening their foundations, and ultimately contribute to self-destruction of Western societies, their democracies and values. Minorities forcing their views upon a disorganised majority Observing how small minorities, allied with self-proclaimed progressives, are forcing their views upon society, and woe betide those who dare to question their views, one may s come to see it as the religious zealousness of a new religion. “A religion is first preached by a single person or a small body of persons. A certain number of disciples adopt it enthusiastically, and proceed to force their views upon the world by preaching, by persuasion, by the force of sympathy, until the new creed has become sufficiently influential and sufficiently well organised to exercise power both over its own members and beyond its own sphere. This power, in the case of a vigorous creed, assumes many forms” (James Fitzjames Stephen, 1873). In the present case we just have to refer back our illustrations and discussions to see how minorities seeing themselves as the progressive elite force their ideology upon a boorish backward looking, lukewarm and disorganised majority. Shining example of democracy in action or a sign that existing societies are disintegrating? Split in all sorts of special interests and identity groups in a hastily expanding periphery, with a clueless and powerless middle left behind? |
