I think I just realised why the cipher of ‘trans rights’ (which few seem to be able to define in concrete terms) has become the sine qua non of human rights.

Unlike inclusion of women or ethnic minorities, Jolyon et al. know they won’t need to cede any spaces in boardrooms.

They could not care less about women’s sport or frontline care.

And in the event that they have to include trans people where they do care, loyalty to the brand (Penis) is almost guaranteed, by birth or by individuals who have proven their commitment by mortifying their flesh.

It really is slam dunk as far as Foxy et al. are concerned. ‘Trans rights’ (the undefinable kind, not actual commitments to concrete goals) is the perfect memory hole for male supremacy. It’s like a Tardis for privilege guilt.

And the joke is that they can outsource the actual adjustments to women; the largest minority (in the sense of how much a person’s voice is heard) in history, and the ‘costliest’ one to accommodate (since making space for a demographic that large does involve budging over).

I should clarify that this is a judgement of the powers that be, not trans people. I do not fault anyone for campaigning for their point of view.

I’m talking about how the issue is and has been received in corporate and political circles - the corridors of power.

Make no mistake - actual, proportionate inclusion of women and ethnic minorities is a threat to the powers that be that is felt at the personal level. Of course it is. There are only so many seats at certain tables. It means more competition and *competent* competition, at that.

This has been brewing in my mind for a long time.

Why has this particular social justice struggle been adopted by so many very well-positioned people who are not trans with such messianic zeal?

The numbers don’t stack up. The rationale doesn’t pass critical investigation.

I keep wondering why so many people who are ‘actually’ trans, in the sense of having and often struggling with persistent dysphoria to the point of seeking pretty drastic treatment for alleviation, don’t seem the focus for all the campaigning. Why ALL definitions are so nebulous.

The fervency of corporate and political commitment to these sweeping goals for a demographic so nebulous it cannot possibly be concretely defined stands in sharp contrast to the broad public view: of course trans people should walk safely among us and enjoy the same human rights,

but there are spaces and services where gatekeeping is in place for good reasons (prisons, sex-specific healthcare, services where women are in particularly vulnerable positions, and of course women’s sports). I don’t see all that many trans people disagreeing, either.

It is the most bewildering debate I’ve seen, and I say that against the backdrop of 2016, which was a headf**k and a half. Which brings us to the question ‘why now?’

I can only guess, but the financial crisis of 2008 brought a paradigm of endless expansion into question. It was particularly seismic in the Anglosphere, which had lived well on being ‘the right side of history’ since WW2, and revealed all sorts of cracks.

Offshored wealth vs. austerity economics, intergenerational tensions, BLM, #metoo , climate change, globalisation angst and a host of other challenges have rumbled in the background of Life As We Know It in the Anglosphere for a decade.

I think that’s the backdrop, sort of.

Is this debate (as a phenomenon only tangentially anchored in the actual lives of actual people) an immune reaction of the Anglosphere powers that be? A roomy hold-all for privilege guilt and an opportunity to reinforce Patriarchy 2.0 (both with extra glitter)?

Anyway.

Apologies for grammar gremlins and rambling thoughts.

I guess it was a very long-winded way of saying I just cannot stand these sanctimonious gits. They feel like emissaries of something very old and blind that lives in the dark.