No Apologies. No Galilean Recantations.
Outed as a gender identity heretic at work.
The not-entirely-unexpected phone call opened with a downright bizarre, reverse-Shapirian “This isn’t about scientific facts, it’s about feelings” admonishment. (Plea? Appeal to emotion entirely diverted to gaslit female rape victims, cheated and injured female athletes, and mutilated children?)
Honestly, I can’t conceive of a worse way to start a conversation with me, an INTP. (Yeah, yeah, I’ve heard Myers-Briggs has poor re-test reliability, but it’s a convenient shorthand; if I thought my Zodiac sign described me well enough, I’d share it too.)
I laughed when asked if I would apologise. The following pacifying statement was the resolution:
I am writing to you in relation to [redacted], in which Angela Volkov asked questions in the chat sidebar which implicitly expressed her personal views on the binary nature of sex. A number of people were offended by Angela’s comments and I communicated this to her. Angela has read all of the [kettle logic and half-truths] provided to her, and consulted some broader [nonsense someone was actually paid to write] to ensure conformity with our policies.
Will I conform? I’m honestly not sure how to achieve that; the policies are deliberately vague. The policy would have to be explicit for anyone to be able to conform to it. Scrutinise it. Criticise it. Dismantle it once and for all. At least it still lends itself to ridicule.
You see, gender identity ideology is a kind of vampire, insubstantial as mist, safe only while skulking in the shadows, burning up when dragged into the light. Imagine putting down that sex denial or compelled speech is a workplace requirement—what a disaster that would be.
I prefer the vetoed detailed version of my statement; you may as well benefit from its pearls of wisdom (a certain proverb comes to mind). You can also skip ahead to my psychological profiling of “The Woke” i.e. the regressive, extreme contingent of the Left.
I am writing to you in relation to [redacted], in which Angela Volkov, in the chat sidebar, questioned why “he or she” was not equally as inclusive as “they”, asked for the claim of “neither male nor female people” to be substantiated or clarified, and asked whether “people with a sex-specific disorder of sexual development” were perhaps erroneously thought to be neither male nor female.
Three people were offended and this has been communicated to Angela. Angela is also extremely offended by what she perceives to be unjustified censure.
In humans, sex is binary being that a) in placental mammals, the Y chromosome is sex deterministic and b) there is no third gamete produced by our sexually reproducing species. People with a degree of phenotypical atypicality or those with chromosomal anomalies (e.g. XXY males or XXX females) are also genetically male or female.
Angela was using “he” to refer to the male sex, “she” to refer to the female sex, and “they” to refer to people of either sex. “Male” to refer to “of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring”. “Female” to refer to “of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes”.
Further, Angela was under the impression that “gender non-binary” referred to a person’s self-image label irrespective of sex. She was under the impression that “they” is the preferred pronoun for only one specific of gender identity (“gender non-binary”), thus excluding people of all other gender identities and associated neopronouns.
Angela further communicated that she does not conflate sex with gender identity, and avoids the word “gender” as she believes it has three uses a) as a synonym for sex, b) a term for the way society treats us based on our sex, and c) as short for gender identity, a subjective appraisal of one’s level of masculinity and/or femininity as per regressive stereotypes.
The conflation of sex with gender identity is, in Angela’s opinion, the cause of the confusion on her part as she has rarely experienced “male” and “female” as terms for gender identity rather than sex (e.g. referring to a genetic male as “female” or “biologically female”) outside of fringe internet communities.
However, she also believes that a lack of acquiescing to sex erasure was the real point of contention. As well as not deigning to use a term—“intersex”—preferred purely because it enables activists to forment confusion around the binary nature of sex. Angela does not feel included in the workplace as someone who believes she is a woman (adult female human) and female based only on sex.
Angela does not subscribe to gender identity ideology, or to many other ideologies, but feels her colleagues are free to do so without her participation or validation. She believes a workplace should be reflective of broader society and inclusive of people with a diversity of views.
As to the second point, “disorder of sexual development” is the correct term for “congenital conditions in which development of chromosomal, gonadal, or anatomic sex is atypical” as decided by the consensus conference in 2006. Only people with a level of phenotypic sexual ambiguity were relevant to the statement made; these comprise ~0.018% of the population and not 1.7% as has been asserted to her.
Angela has communicated that “disorder” was used in its dictionary definition sense of “an illness or condition that disrupts normal physical or mental functions”, and not in a pejorative way as has been uncharitiably insinuated. Without acknowledgement of a disorder, the medical establishment would not be incentivised to provide hormone replacement therapy for “congenital disruptions of sex hormones which would otherwise cause metabolic, psychological, or fertility issues”.
Angela also communicated that she believes referring to a person as “being” rather than as “having” a condition is ableist*. Further, many (45.5%) young patients and parents in a focus group study found the term “intersex” problematic. “Disorder of sexual development” was also dispreferred as individuals naturally refer to their specific medical condition or its description, rather than using an umbrella term.
However, Angela was attempting to refer to a group of people characterised by sexual ambiguity in development using scientifically accurate language.
We have treated this matter [more] seriously [than it deserves] and reviewed a number of polices based on the language used and the statements made. Angela has read all of the [religious texts] provided to her, and consulted some broader [gender identity twaddle to mercilessly skewer— I mean seriously, have you seen them try to disambiguate bisexuality and “pansexuality”? It’s a hoot!].
This profound waste of time put me in mind of a most excellent Stephen Fry quote (also vetoed):
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."
It seems the Woke time vampires have some very odd peccadilloes and predilections. Chief among them is the “need” to have every fleeting feeling acknowledged and validated by a third party. You feel moist and cake-gendered? I hear you. Someone said that was silly? Your slighted feelings have been noted. (What a time suck.)
Have you noticed how quickly those patient, beneficent saints turn into the Roman Inquisition once they’ve realised your assumed benighted ignorance is seething contempt for their dogma? My, my, how they love to “educate” in the simpering tones of a Sunday school teacher setting their little pupils straight.
For the Woke, it’s as though asserting their hallucinated moral and intellectual superiority is life’s sole pleasure. That’s their prerogative, but why not seek the knowledge and grapple with the facts that grant you the discernment necessary to act in a kind and compassionate manner? Why the pantomime and platitudes?
Then again, what else can we expect from entitled Dark Triad types? Chameleons who shift seamlessly between social predator and parasite, bully and “victim”. What forces compelled these individuals to seek out my Twitter account to wallow in more self-righteous indignation over my lack of orthodoxy? Only their bloodthirstiness.
Galileo was right to recant: the Earth does not revolve around the Sun. Instead, everything revolves around the Woke as they go around on the euphemism treadmill. (“Disorder” is not a dirty word—get over yourselves.)
The utility of the euphemism treadmill never fails to amaze me. Hop on, and you too can feel the supercilious thrill of having memorised the politically correct term du jour. Lord it over the plebs. Aboard the conveyor belt, you don’t have to engage with the underlying concepts that make you uncomfortable or deal with complexity. I suppose that’s the point of woolly or scrubbed and sanitised terms. Unfortunately, reality persists; you cannot simply plaster over it with neologisms, then sit back and admire your handiwork.
Case in point: I once sent a man a link to an article proving the legalisation of prostitution results in an influx in human trafficking, particularly in democratic and high-income countries with the requisite purchasing power. The type of legalisation doesn’t matter, only “whether prostitution is legal or not”.
I also sent him a study by Farley and colleagues (2004) examining prostitution in 9 countries (including Canada, Germany, and the US) which found prostitution was not qualitatively different from trafficking. And, further, legalising or decriminalising prostitution did not reduce its harm, creating only a veneer of safety. Moreover, “89% of these respondents wanted to escape prostitution, but did not have other options for survival” and “68% met criteria for PTSD”, no doubt because “71% were physically assaulted in prostitution” and “63% were raped”.
Did this “sex-positive” wonder take these findings on board? Respect the—to use his redundant nonsense phrase—“lived experience” of the people he claimed to support? Adjust his views based on new information? Goodness, no. Instead, the smug, sanctimonious prig ranted about the researchers’ so-called bias as “evidenced” by the use of the word “prostitution” instead of “sex work”.
Madness. It’s time we retired the weasel words and quit the slogan slinging and tut-tutting tautologies. And most of all, it’s time to stop apologising to the Woke—it only makes them hungrier. And, well, I hear they even eat their own.
Please consider buyingmeacoffee or becoming a paid subscriber to help fund my early retirement to a villa in Arcetri where I won’t be besieged with bullshit.