Trans ideology still has a dangerous grip on our elites – and here's the shocking proof
After the Supreme Court revealed to an astonished nation that women are female, a reader emailed me to say that we seem to be living though a 21st-century re-enactment of The Emperor's New Clothes. The parallels are certainly close. But I would say there is a crucial difference between the original fairy tale and our bold modern retelling.
In the old version, after the little child has pointed out that the emperor is naked, all the grown-ups immediately accept that the child is right. In our re-enactment, however, quite a lot of little children spent years pointing out that the emperor was naked – only for lots of furious grown-ups to cancel them, while continuing to reassure the emperor that he was fully clothed, and that his lovely pink frock suited him down to the ground.
But there's more. Because even now, after the Supreme Court's historic ruling, all too many grown-ups are still defiantly gushing over the emperor's finery. And, incredibly, some of them are doctors.
Yes, that's right. Doctors. Baffling though it may seem, our hospitals are apparently staffed by people who, despite holding degrees in medicine, refuse to accept the most rudimentary facts about human biology. Or so I conclude from the staggering statement issued last week by a group of 'resident doctors' (formerly known as junior doctors) from the medical trade union the BMA (British Medical Association). In the statement, these doctors condemned the Supreme Court's ruling as 'scientifically illiterate' and 'biologically nonsensical' – because, according to them, it 'has no basis in science or medicine while being actively harmful to transgender and gender-diverse people'.
Amazing. All I can say is, I hope that this sort of thinking – for want of a better word – is not endemic throughout the medical profession. Otherwise, the next time I need to call my local surgery, I might ask for an appointment with a Supreme Court judge rather than a GP, because at least the former can be relied on to know the difference between a man and a woman. Which is something that tends to be rather important, in medical matters. After all, if I go in complaining of stomach pains, I don't want a doctor to tell me I must be going through the menopause, or book me in for a hysterectomy.
Well, you can't rule it out. Three years ago, this newspaper reported that an NHS trust had taken to asking men awaiting MRI scans whether they might be pregnant. At the time, though, I assumed that this approach had been instigated by some trendy twit in HR. I didn't think that actual doctors went in for such nonsense.
Anyway, even if the BMA statement is drivel, we need to realise that it's also highly significant. After the Supreme Court's ruling, many ordinary people will have breathed a sigh of relief, and told themselves that the toxic gender wars are finally over.
But they're not. Far from it. Because, regardless of what the law says, large numbers of people in influential roles remain fervent adherents of gender identity doctrine. You'll find them throughout universities, the BBC, publishing, the arts, politics, the Civil Service – and even high-street cosmetics chains. (Staff at Lush, it was reported this week, slipped booklets promoting 'trans allyship' into party bags for seven-year-old children – so that they too could learn about the joys of being 'gender-queer, gender-fluid, agender, nongender, third gender, bi-gender…'.)
All of this is troubling enough. But when you see doctors – people who are supposed to be grounded in rationality and fact – promoting such fantastical beliefs, and claiming that any disagreement is 'scientifically illiterate', you know we're really in trouble. The truth is, trans ideology still has a dangerous grip on our elites – and this is the shocking proof.
On the upside, though, perhaps I can turn it to my financial advantage. We keep being told that Britain is suffering from a terrible shortage of doctors. So I'm going to throw on a white coat, sling a stethoscope round my neck – and look forward to collecting my fabulous NHS pension. Admittedly I don't have any medical qualifications, but I don't see why that should stop me. If I say I'm a doctor, that means I am a doctor. And if anyone from the BMA disagrees, I'll call them scientifically illiterate bigots.
Besides, I'll be able to tell which patients are women. So if anything, I'll be over-qualified.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
33 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Supreme Court to hear case on IQ tests and death penalty next term
The Supreme Court will hear a case next term centered on the role of multiple IQ scores in determining an Alabama murderer's eligibility for the death penalty, according to a list issued by the court late Friday. In Hamm v. Smith, the state of Alabama is arguing that Joseph Smith — who was sentenced to death for a murder in 1997 — should be executed because he has not proved that his IQ is 70 or below, as required by state law. However, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama vacated Smith's death sentence after ruling he is intellectually disabled because the score on one of his IQ tests could fall below 70 when accounting for margin of error. Smith had obtained five IQ scores that ranged from 72 to 78. The Supreme Court justices agreed to hear Hamm v. Smith to determine a limited question: 'Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim,' referring to the 2002 landmark decision Atkins v. Virginia, which ruled that executing those with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In November, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision to remand the case for further consideration. In it, the justices said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — which had affirmed the lower court's decision to vacate Smith's death sentence — had been unclear in why it had issued that decision. In February, the state of Alabama again asked the Supreme Court to intervene, saying the Eleventh Circuit 'watered down the most objective prong of the test, overrode Alabama's definition of intellectual disability, and shattered Atkins's promise to leave meaningful discretion to the States.' 'This case was not close: Smith scored 75, 74, 72, 78, and 74 on five full-scale IQ tests. There is no way to conclude from these five numbers that Smith's true IQ is likely to be 70 or below,' the state of Alabama argued, also adding that evaluating multiple IQ scores is 'complicated' and that the Supreme Court has not specified how to do it. 'Smith could take hundreds of IQ tests, score 75 on all of them, yet his IQ still 'could be' 70, according to the panel [the Eleventh Circuit], because every test could have erred by 5 points. The panel failed to appreciate that multiple tests together can provide a more accurate estimate than each test alone,' the state argued. The Supreme Court's next term is scheduled to begin in October. The list of new cases was not expected until Monday morning, but email notifications about the list were inadvertently sent Friday evening because of a technical glitch, so the court chose to release the list of cases earlier than scheduled. In a statement that accompanied the early release, court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said the notifications were sent prematurely because of an 'apparent software malfunction.' Justin Jouvenal contributed to this report.
Fox News
39 minutes ago
- Fox News
How Justice Clarence Thomas led SCOTUS to kill DEI
Clarence Thomas has spent his professional life trying to return American law to the Declaration of Independence's founding promise that individuals should be judged as individuals rather than as members of racial, gender, or ethnic groups. It seems that his peers on the high court have been listening. Thomas' belief in individual rights precedes his time on the court. For example, in a 1985 law review article, Thomas discussed his daily responsibilities of enforcing the nation's civil rights laws as chairman of the EEOC. He wrote: "I intend to take EEO enforcement back to where it started by defending the rights of individuals who are hurt by discriminatory practices. … Those who insist on arguing that the principle of equal opportunity, the cornerstone of civil rights, means preferences for certain groups have relinquished their roles as moral and ethical leaders in this area." SUPREME COURT RULES UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF STRAIGHT OHIO WOMAN WHO CLAIMED DISCRIMINATIONJustice Thomas has reiterated that American law protects individual rather than groups rights throughout his three-and-a-half decades on the nation's highest court. In 1995's Missouri v. Jenkins, for instance, Thomas became the first Supreme Court justice to directly criticize Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Although he called state-mandated segregation "despicable," he said that the Court was wrong in 1954 to rely on disputable social science evidence to declare segregation unconstitutional rather than invoking the "constitutional principle" that "the government must treat citizens as individuals, and not as members of racial, ethnic or religious groups." Justice Thomas has made similar pronouncements in many other judicial opinions. His concurring opinion in 2007's Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 is perhaps the strongest articulation of his conception of equality: "The dissent attempts to marginalize the notion of a colorblind Constitution by consigning it to me and Members of today's plurality. … But I am quite comfortable in the company I keep. My view of the Constitution is Justice Harlan's view in Plessy: 'Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.'" More recently, Justice Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion in the Supreme Court's 2023 decisions holding that colleges and universities cannot consider race in admissions decisions that "While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination, I hold out enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles so clearly enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law." Last week's Supreme Court decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services signals that proponents of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs should stop pretending that they are complying with the law. After all, one of the most liberal members of the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote in an opinion for a unanimous Court that the "background circumstances" rule imposed by several lower courts of appeal requiring members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII discrimination claim is inconsistent with the text of Title VII and the Supreme Court's anti-discrimination precedents. CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINIONJustice Jackson's opinion for the Court reversing the lower courts might as well have been penned by Justice Thomas himself. Justice Jackson quoted the text of Title VII that makes it illegal to take an adverse employment action against "any individual." She further quoted a 2020 Supreme Court decision, Bostock v. Clayton County, that held that the "law's focus on individuals rather than groups [is] anything but academic." She added: "By establishing the same protections for every 'individual'—without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone."Justice Thomas joined Justice Jackson's opinion for the Court "in full." But he also issued a concurring opinion in which he suggested that the "background circumstances" rule is not only inconsistent with the statutory text of Title VII but is "plainly at odds with the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection." Most important for present purposes, Thomas made clear that if proponents of DEI are hoping that the Ames decision has nothing to do with their DEI programs, they are sorely mistaken. "American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans," he wrote. "Initiatives of this kind have often led to overt discrimination against those perceived to be in the majority." CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPWhen Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016, Court watchers openly speculated about who would replace him as the intellectual leader of the conservative legal movement. Clarence Thomas has unquestionably filled that role. After all, in Ames even Justice Thomas's liberal colleagues on the nation's highest court conceded that American law protects individual rather than group rights.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Right-wing protester shattered Supreme Court window with air gun, police say
Police, Shin Bet, and court security are investigating to identify the suspects, the police stated. Security footage from the Supreme Court revealed that around 9:00 p.m. on Friday, during a protest outside the building, one of the court's large panoramic windows was damaged, Israel Police announced on Saturday. Security forces believe the window was shattered by a non-lethal weapon, such as an air gun or slingshot, Israel police confirmed. Police, Shin Bet, and court security are investigating to identify the suspects, the police stated. The damage was discovered following a large and heated right-wing demonstration held outside the court on Friday, which drew an estimated 10,000 participants. Protesters voiced strong criticism of the judicial system and the government's legal advisor. Following the incident, Opposition Leader Yair Lapid stated, "The government organized the demonstration during which the Supreme Court window was smashed. This incident is a direct result of their incitement. I warned over a month ago—if the prime minister doesn't stop this, it will end in political murder." Democrats Party Chairman Yair Golan added that a justice minister "who does not recognize the authority of the Supreme Court President, and a prime minister under criminal indictment who attacks the rule of law," have paved the way for violence against the judicial system. "The shooting at the Supreme Court is a grave and unprecedented act, driven by a campaign of incitement. The instigators sit in the government. The responsibility lies with them. The duty to fix it lies with us."
