How Transgender Ideology Is Destroying The Labour Party

On 13 March I received by email details of an investigation into complaints made against me to the Labour Party. Here follows the complaint and my response which was emailed the week after. As at today’s date, 7 April, I have had no response. There was a piece published on this in The Times today.

I was asked what I thought about the prospect of expulsion from the Labour Party. My response was:

It would tell me that the Labour Party has moved away from identifying and fighting material class-based oppression to championing the rights of the individual and their personal identity. This would position the Labour Party both socially and economically as neoliberal. It would also demonstrate that as well as being incapable of listening to women and taking their concerns seriously, the Party does not care for transsexuals.

I have redacted superfluous and personal information, not that the latter makes any difference as a bunch of transgender men’s sexual rights activists have plastered my home address and other personal details all over the internet… anyway, on with the show…I can confirm the account @TerrorizerMir is my Twitter account;

I can confirm I posted all of the above statements;

I would respond to each as follows:

“Peak transing” is when someone supportive of the ideological transgender movement, realizes their claims and demands are unreasonable, divorced from reality or unjust. This is often because of the way transgender culture defines men and women by sexist stereotypes; justifies physical or sexual violence, particularly against women; and shows unbelievable levels of misogyny. Other incidences provoking that “peak trans” moment would be, for example, “transgender women” (by biological definition, males) occupying political positions set aside to champion the rights of women, who are disadvantaged because they are female.

In the context of the Labour Party this would include such self-described transgender males taking places as Women’s Office in CLPs, taking advantage of all-women shortlists and occupying places on the Jo Cox Leadership program. Apropos Lily Madigan, it should be obvious the presence of a twenty year old misogynist male as women’s officer is inflammatory. I have attached several pages of tweets from Madigan where he described women as ‘TERF’; this is a homophobic, misogynistic and dehumanising slur against women, which has been already used to incite violence against women – as in the Speaker’s Corner assault and the recent picket-line threats against BECTU senior executive committee member Paula Lamont.

Madigan’s claim to womanhood is based upon the unprovable quasi-religious claim he ‘feels he is a woman’. In contrast, he has no material or even social claim to womanhood: his sexed body is male, and he has never experienced the material oppression from being born a member of the female class (see Engels’ ‘The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State’).

I am a transsexual who disagrees with the racist, sexist and homophobic ideology known as ‘transgenderism’, as it threatens to mandate my distinctive identity out of existence. Transgender activists want to obliterate laws which recognize gender reassignment as a protected class. For example, see 2016’s ‘Transgender Equality Enquiry Report’ or the recent leaked NEC statement which seeks to erase the word ‘transsexual’. I encourage everyone to see how toxic this ideology actually is.

The word ‘misogyny’ has been appropriated by transgender activists to claim ‘transmisogyny’ as ‘the intersection of transphobia and misogyny’. However, ‘trans women’ are male and not subject to misogyny. Ironically, some of the most obvious perpetrators of misogyny today are transgender activists themselves, who seek to redefine women into nonexistence and claim womanhood by the appropriation of cultural signifiers. Likewise, these activists have appropriated violence carried out against a high-risk population of minority-ethnic transsexuals in order to falsely claim victimhood and push a political agenda that cannot stand honest scrutiny. It is violent homophobic men who threaten transsexuals, not women and certainly not feminists. A more appropriate definition of transmisogyny would centre on it being used to identify the cultural misogyny of transgender males, like the individual identified in this tweet and the tweet above. The quotes here show Madigan using the misogynistic slur ‘TERF’, and more generally, demonstrate Madigan’s full participation in the misogynist online trans activist community.

As for the play on Madigan’s name, satire is a predictable outcome of one being involved in public life.

Biological sex is an immutable bodily fact, determined at conception. Mammals do not change sex. Madigan identifies himself as a ‘trans woman’ thus is by definition male; he is also over 18 years of age, thus an adult human male, which is the dictionary definition of a man. Further, s212 Equality Act 2010 defines ‘man’ as ‘a male of any age’, thus Madigan is both biologically and legally a man. If saying a male person is ‘a man’ is offensive, the corollary is that there’s something wrong with being a man. This is sexism.

Human beings are sexually dimorphic mammals. We have two sexes, female and male, whose bodies evolved to produce ova and sperm respectively. One definition of “gender” is taken to be sex-coded cultural stereotypes. In a reactionary and conservative way, some on the Left have decided that sexist stereotypes of men and women are important after all, so important that they supplant sex. They have decided to define men and women by those stereotypes. They then defined themselves as “non-binary” to escape the categories they’ve reified with their own ideology of gender. Any reasonable person would say none of us are walking stereotypes of masculinity or femininity; we are all “non-binary”. Adherence to this ‘identity’ is thus a kind of fashion statement:

• The individual is neither male nor female, which is unscientific as we do not have a third sex and there is no third gamete after sperm and ova; or
• The individual ‘identifies’ as being neither male nor female, which is runs counter to reality as we are all either male or female; or
• The individual’s character traits are neither exclusively male nor female. This is clearly absurd as none of us are one-dimensional behavioural stereotypes..

I stand by my words.

Please explain in what way you believe my tweets contravene rule 2.1.8 of the Party’s rulebook.

Moreover, I note this rule mentions both sex and gender reassignment as protected classes. Recognition of “gender identity” beliefs, obliterates both categories.

I regret nothing.

As a transsexual who stands with women, who has a critical analysis of gender as a power hierarchy and who believes passionately in the core values of fighting class oppression, I guarantee I shall be sharing more content like the above.

Within this reply I enclosed a number of screen captures showing Madigan’s use of the misogynistic, homophobic and dehumanising pejorative ‘TERF’.

POSTSCRIPT: RULE 2.1.8

It is worth noting the dramatic change in the Labour Party rules between 2017 and 2018. The new expanded rules appear to make someone’s claims based on the thoughts and feelings of ‘gender identity’ immune from question or criticism. The claim of innate gender identity by genderists is unsupported by science and a rule that makes this claim unassailable is akin to having a rule that others have to share someone’s faith or religions belief, as the statement by a male that’s they are female because of their ‘gender identity’ is itself a statement of blind faith. So much for progress and the material analysis of class oppression.

POST-POSTSCRIPT

This bizarre, self-contradictory letter notifies me the investigation is over with nothing for me to answer to.