I’m thinking of suing my former school for misleading me during what they called “sex education” lessons. Although it is many decades back, I distinctly recall them telling me that the way babies were made was when a sperm, provided by the male, fertilises the egg, provided by the female. They assured me that the one providing the sperm is known as the father, whilst the one providing the egg is known as the mother.

So imagine my surprise when I read a piece in The Telegraph that has cast doubt on the accuracy of those so-called biological truths. The article was about a person called “Joy”, who despite having XY chromosomes, has apparently become a female, and has just become the first transgender minister in the Methodist Church. The article informed us that Joy has been married to Ruth, who has XX chromosomes, for 24 years during which time they had two children.

But this bit was the rebuke to my sex education teachers:

“The mother of two from Canterbury, Kent, says she first knew she was different aged just five, and ‘didn’t fit in with everyone else’”.

Did you get that? Did you understand what you just read? The mother of two it was referring to was not Ruth, the mother of the two children, but Joy – the one whose sperm went into the creation of the two children. The sex education I received as an 11-year-old had led me to believe that this made Joy their father, but thanks be to The Telegraph, I now know that Joy is their mother. In which case, Who’s the Daddy?

The fact of Joy’s fathering of the children cannot be easily erased though, can it? It is a historical fact that the children were fathered by someone, and according to the article, that someone was Joy. But since the article describes Joy as the mother of the two children, it seems that we are being asked to believe that Joy is both the children’s father and their mother. Did you know of that possibility? Did your sex education teachers tell you that? Or are you beginning to wonder whether the dictionary definition of insanity is in need of an update?

I’m reluctant to say it, given my loathing for the anti-Christian, Bolshevik-inspired project known as sex education, but I think my teachers got this one right. Sperm really does come from the male. The male really is the father. A child’s father really cannot also be its mother. Joy cannot therefore be the children’s mother, for the simple reason that Joy is the children’s father. And even if The Telegraph tries to convince you otherwise, my advice is don’t you believe them. It isn’t true. It’s what’s called a lie.

Now, I fully understand that there are some who are objectively male who do not believe that they are so, and that there are some who are objectively female who do not think they are so. But if the body is objectively one thing, yet the head says it feels something else, where exactly should we locate the problem? Is it really in the objective reality of the body? Or might it just be in the subjective beliefs in the head? This is not a hard question, as we shall see if we step out of the muddy waters of the whole trans agenda for a moment or two, and set the whole issue in another context.

If a being who is objectively human insists that they do not feel human, but more a giraffe, where would you say the problem lies? With their body? Or in their head? That’s not a trick question. They are objectively human, and therefore if their opinions about themselves are a bit giraffish, it’s very clear that the problem must be with their opinions and not their humanity. It would therefore be the height of cruelty, would it not, to inject them with chemicals and hormones, and surgically mutilate them to try to make them more giraffish, rather than helping them come to terms with what they actually are, which is human.

Likewise with transgenderism. We are told that it is terribly cruel to deny people the right to change their gender. It’s hate and all that. The opposite is true. There is nothing loving about indulging people in their attempts to bend objective reality to their subjective ideas about themselves. On the contrary, treating what is a spiritual, emotional and mental problem with hormones and bodily mutilation is not exactly a very loving thing to do.

Moving on to the bigger picture, why has this come about? First and foremost, it has come about because we have by and large abandoned the concept of transcendent truth. And the more we have done so, the more we have replaced it with its opposite, which is internalised “truth”, where the individual is the creator of his or her own reality, regardless of whether it accords with what is objectively true. So we now have the potential for a million “truths”. Be a girl. Be a boy. Be a woman. Be a man. Be a bee. Or a duck. Or a paperclip if you like. Who are you to tell me I can’t be whatever I feel like, hater?

Secondly, as a society we no longer know what true masculinity and femininity actually look like, and we don’t want to be what we think they are. For example, a YouGov survey last year found that only 2% of 16-24-year-old males actually define themselves as “totally masculine”. The reason for this astonishing statistic is this: Firstly, many men have bought into the stereotypical hard-man image of masculinity as portrayed in the media and films, but because most of them aren’t like that, they end up feeling that they are not actually very masculine. Even more importantly, masculinity in general has been so demonised and ridiculed by feminism and the media, that many young men have come to feel that there is some sort of shame and stigma attached to it.

These twin follies – the replacing of transcendent truth with subjective feelings, along with a warped view of what is and isn’t masculine and feminine – are the basic reasons why for the first time in history, thousands of people across the world are having a crisis of identity over who or – even more crucially – what they actually are. Unfortunately, most of them are just pawns in a much larger game being played by cultural revolutionaries whose goals have nothing to do with helping such people live fulfilling lives, but rather the demonic aim of destroying the very idea of human identity that has existed throughout history.

We urgently need to return to transcendent truth. We urgently need to rediscover true masculinity and true femininity. Anything less will not just result in absurdities such as the idea that a person can be both a father and a mother. No, the game is much larger and it is nothing less than the question of what it actually means to be human that is at stake.

5 thoughts on “If a Father Can be Described as a Mother, You Know it’s Time for Publishers of Dictionaries to Update Their Definition of Insanity

  1. I read this article yesterday on a related matter:
    https://www.rt.com/news/410771-sweden-transgender-debate-/
    It seems that Sweden may be moving towards indoctrinating toddlers and pre-school age children with this ideology. I thought it was refreshing to read a newspaper article that presents an alternative viewpoint without being disparaging about it.

    I gave up reading British news media a long time ago. The Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, and especially the BBC pander to modern ideological fads (and also report prolifically on matters of no significance such as celebrity gossip, scandals, football transfers, etc.) These days I get most of my news from Al Jazeera, RT News, and Reuters, plus non-mainstream news agencies such as Barnabas Fund that focus on a special aspect of world events. I know all news outlets have their biases, so I don’t rely on just one.

  2. Yes, well said, Rob. You write with insight and punch.

    I read an article yesterday published by Voice for Justice UK about transgenderism and primary school-age children which I thought made a couple of very good points. When a child feels confused about his/her gender, it is sometimes a secondary condition stemming from a deeper psychological problem such as autism or depression, and that when the root problem is successfully dealt with then the gender dysphoria usually disappears as well. The other point was that when primary school-age children are encouraged to question their own sexual identity, mentally balanced children who would not normally have given it a thought start to doubt and question themselves introspectively, leading to them misinterpreting their normal feelings.

    1. Thanks Phil,

      I would argue that it is *always* a secondary condition stemming from a deeper psychological (and spiritual problem).

      So if I happened to be counselling a person with gender identity issues, I would probably spend no more than 10% of the time talking about that particular issue, and even then it would come at the end. What I would want to do is talk to them about things that are far more important in terms of why they think the way they do about themselves.

      So I would be asking them about their home life, their relationship with their father and mother, and their parents relationship with each other. I would want to ask them about their friends and neighbours and how they think they are perceived by such people. I would want to ask them what they consider to be their virtues and their vices. I would want to ask them which characteristics they associate with masculinity and which they associate with femininity, and I would want to know why they thought this.

      I would also want to know their thoughts on human identity in a more general sense, and to hear what they think is the essence of humanity, and why they think that.

      Some of that might sound a little Freudian, but actually it’s just a common sense acknowledgement that humans rarely, if ever, come to think the things they do about themselves, about others and about the world without a whole train of baggage behind them. We imbibe certain assumptions and beliefs, sometimes without even realising it, and I would want to spend most of my time with them exploring what assumptions, problems and issues had led them to their current identity crisis.

      Having gone through all those sorts of things, I am confident that whatever else the person decided to do, one thing would have been established: your thoughts about your gender are the *fruit* of a whole bunch of other issues; but they are not the *actual* issue itself.

      Best,

      Rob

  3. Very well written and perfectly explained. And of course the absolute truth.
    Those of us who are paying attention are aware of the various idiots who have weasled themselves into positions of supposed authority. The gender thing I hope and I believe, will be their ‘one step too far’ , and they will have shot themselves in the foot . They need to be ridiculed. Tyrants hate ridicule.
    A great and intelligent article. Thank you. We all know who owns the media and they only hire idiots who just want a job and whose egos are easily flattered with the term’ ‘I’m a mainstream media journalist’, and a comfortable salary. While re-writing the dictionary and looking under the word ‘whores’ , one eventually will read ‘reporter working for Rupert Murdoch and The Rothchilds Bank.’

    1. Thanks very much Gordon. I hope you’re right that this is one step too far. There are certainly more signs on this issue previous ones that many are not buying it. That may be because no sooner was the ink dry on the same-sex “marriage” act than they turned their attention to this, ignoring their own rule of a long slow march through the institutions, instead hurrying along with revolutionary zeal. And so the speed in which people have been asked to accept it has been too much. “What’s next,” people begin to feel.

      However, when it comes to our cultural Marxist rulers, I feel it wise never to underestimate:

      a) their total insanity and
      b) their ability to silence people by making an example out of a few individuals (as they’re currently doing to the young Maths teacher in Oxfordshire who said well done girls to a group of girls, including one who was apparently identifying as a boy).

      Best wishes,

      Rob

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.