This is Not a Man
Where to begin…
Cllr Keeling has made it abundantly clear that they (singular) is not/are not (?) a him. They (again singular) is a non- binary person.
You might be under the misapprehension that the Green Party councillors are lobbying for improved environmental protections, to make Newham a safer place, to ensure the very best standards of insulation in new homes and improvements to the Victorian stock that is across so much of the borough. But you’d be wrong.
The primary focus of our only opposition councillors is “gender reform”.
Mind you, they’ve been quite successful tugging Newham’s Labour Group by the nose on this particular journey, a bit like the Labour MSPs in Scotland, Newham Labour councillors were whipped into supporting a “Trans-Rights” motion (motion 3) at January’s council meeting.
The motion starts:
This Council states that: Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Non-binary people are non-binary. We believe in the dignity of all people, and their right to respect and equality of opportunity. We value the strength that comes with difference and the positive contribution diversity brings to our community. Our aspiration is for Newham to be a safe, welcoming, and inclusive borough for everyone, no matter their gender identity.
We now know from the 2021 census that some 0.2% of the population identify as trans or non-binary. According to the Green Party, Newham has one of the highest trans populations in London. We would echo the aspiration of the movers that the borough is welcoming and inclusive to them (plural). What we are less sure about are the assertions at the beginning of the paragraph.
In the ancient past, you remember, before 2020 persons born with XY chromosomes were called male. Those with XX were called females. The appellation, ‘boy’ was given to a child with XY chromosomes, and generally this was easy to do because he had markedly different genitalia to those of a girl. If the child was equipped to produce sperm (in due course), he was male and this was synonymous with boys and men. If the child had ovaries, she was a girl.
The revision of the glaringly obvious was never the focus of a national debate. Instead, it was the subject of frequent assertations that acquired the quality of enforced religious dogma.
As the opening statement of the motion says, “Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Non-binary people are non-binary”.
You don’t need to be a best-selling author of children’s books to recognise that this is nonsense. Yet, such is the current climate in political circles that this nonsense has become part of the creed of a secular religion.
Nonetheless, Newham Council were quite content to agree to what is arrant nonsense, (see the rest of the motion for all of it).
It appears that the Green councillors wanted to take the unusual step of amending their own motion by adding reference to the murderous shootings in Colorado.
The motion goes to some lengths to stress the dangers faced by trans and non-binary people. It must have been something of an embarrassment to discover that the Colorado killer was themselves (singular) non-binary.
“Public defenders Joseph Archambault and Michael Bowman filed several motions on Tuesday night that included a footnote about their client’s identity.
“Anderson Aldrich is nonbinary,” the footnote states, the Denver Post reported. “They use they/them pronouns, and for the purposes of all formal filings, will be addressed as Mx. Aldrich.”
Further research over 10 years in the UK has shown that trans-people (mostly biologically male trans-women) are more likely to be murderers than they are to be the victims of murder. In the period 2008-2017, some seven trans people were murdered in the UK. Some 12 murders were committed by trans people.
It seems that the main danger to this group of people is not from hordes of aggressive heteros, but from other trans and non-binary people. Which does seem to suggest that the target of these motions is somewhat misdirected.
Indeed, the dangers faced by trans people in the UK seem to be somewhat less than those faced by the rest of us. Research conducted by Channel 4 stated that “the average trans person has a one-in-200,000 to one-in-500,000 chance of being murdered in the UK over the course of a year”. This was compared to one-in-100,000 for the rest of the population.
The same report goes on to state “that 19 percent of trans people say they have experienced domestic abuse from a partner in the last year. That’s higher than the recorded rate of domestic abuse among the wider population – 7.9 percent of women and 4.2 percent of men”. (Further details here)
This does suggest that transgender and non-binary people are far more dangerous and aggressive than the population in general and indeed, the question should be raised as to what the council is doing to protect the rest of us from this aggressive and murderous bunch?
Nonetheless, Cllr Higgins was able to say with a straight (sorry, no offence intended) face that, "Trans people are some of the most vulnerable and discriminated against members of society and they deserve specific attention and support, especially in this transphobic climate we're experiencing now.”
We have entered a world in which objective reality is eschewed in favour of opinion masquerading as fact. The Labour Group on Newham Council has bought into this nonsense.
And, just what was meant by a “transphobic climate” was revealed a month later on 27th February.
The Evening Standard reported the incident (and this link contains the videos).
Cllr Vaughan was in the chair. He apparently, inadvertently referred to Cllr Keeling as “him”. When this was pointed out he immediately apologised. Unfortunately, as he was making amends, he again referred to Keeling as “him”. Twice!
At 2:13 on the video, Cllr Ali recognises the contribution of Cllr Keeling on an issue and says, “I am grateful to him”.
Cllr Keeling then got up and walked out.
“Fellow Green councillor Nate Higgins said: "We have now seen Danny Keeling misgendered again to the point where they have now left the room because they feel unable to participate in one of the most important parts of being a councillor.”
This is now a hate incident!
Cllr Ali says thank you to Cllr Keeling. Cllr Keeling looks like a male. We assume that at some point in the not-too-distant past, they (singular) was a male. We’d hazard a guess that they (singular) has XY chromosomes. They (singular) uses a first name (Danny) that we associate with a boy’s name. They was/were (singular - does anyone see a grammatical problem here?), they was thanked for their contribution (singular), but was offended when referred to as “him” by Ali.
There are several points to be made here.
Keeling was not being attacked by Ali, if anything, Ali was seeking to build bridges.
His tone reflected nothing beyond a friendly reference.
He made a mistake (according to the current orthodoxy) for which he very quickly apologised.
Vaughan made a similar ‘mistake’ for which he too apologised. Unfortunately for him, (the ‘him’ in question being Vaughan), he also referred to Keeling as “him” twice more whilst making his apology.
Keeling walked out because he was being mis-gendered.
If the use of ‘they’ is actually that important as to occupy council time discussing their own faux pas, so is a bit of common sense. No-one viewing Vaughan or Ali can reasonably suggest that they intended harm or offense. The worst that they did was make a cock up, for which they swiftly apologised.
In a sane world, and we recognise that a world in which biological males are called women and in which women rape other women using their penises, that this might not be an entirely sane world any more; in a sane world, the incidents at the council meeting would have been laughed off. Vaughan and Ali are still getting used to the newly prescribed forms of speech and they stumbled. Let’s have a laugh at their expense and they’d probably join in. But we now live in a world of manufactured offence. Victimhood and being offended are the currency of political and moral superiority and demonstrating one’s outrage is more important than doing the work for which they were elected.
Which brings us to the last point. Keeling walked out because Ali referred to him in the male singular. They (singular) threw what would have been called in the antediluvian days, a “hissy-fit”. Let us assume that there were matters of some importance being discussed on that Monday night. Keeling’s response to two clumsy but innocent references was to walk out. We really should expect rather more of our elected representatives.