Gender critical beliefs — a jargon-buster.

Gender Critical (GC) feminists are essentialists, viewing sex as a binary, rejecting the view that gender identity exists, describing trans healthcare as unnecessary, treating transgender people as members of their gender of birth and demanding their exclusion from the single-sex facilities of their new gender of choice. Recently, this ideology endowed itself with a particular terminology that allows an atmosphere of fear around transgender people and those who stand in solidarity with them to be created. That terminology will be under our microscope.

Let us recall, very briefly, the main justifications for transgender healthcare and rights in the UK, to put the gender critical (I will call them GC from now on) terminology into a context.

Trans healthcare is an evidence-based harm reduction strategy. A doctor, having examined a patient suffering from gender dysphoria, may diagnose that their condition puts them under such mental anguish that the only way to make them better and improve their quality of life is to let them undergo SRS — sex reassignment surgery — take cross-sex hormones or, in the case of a child, puberty blockers to delay the onset of puberty. Despite the side effects of all three, despite also the irreversible nature of some of the treatments, it is sometimes decided that this is the route of the least harm — all the alternatives being worse.

Those medical treatments are only sanctioned in extreme cases. In others, the transition is purely social — the patient merely changing their identity and presentation. Whilst not involving drugs and surgery, it is equally controversial due to the allegation that the transition may not be genuine, and possibly undergone by the patient for nefarious ends. The vast majority (around 85%) of patients diagnosed as gender dysphoric never transition even socially, choosing to desist, i.e. stay in their gender of birth.

Once someone transitions, they gain the rights of their new gender, almost identical to those born into it. They can be legally recognised by their country as being of that gender, gain the appropriate documents and use the appropriate single-sex spaces. The logic behind this is our belief in individual choice and individual rights. One core tenet of our society is the freedom of the individual to shape their lives as they see fit, to set themselves a goal and to strive towards it, proving the naysayers wrong in the process. And changing gender is an example of such a goal, such an individual choice. Our society has an innate respect for those kinds of strivers.

Critics often point out that transgender people should be content woth all the rights they had prior to transition and not ask for new ones. This is a fallacious argument — it is similar to the US conservatives claiming homosexuals before gay marriage were not discriminated against as they had exactly the same rights to marry a person of the opposite sex as anyone else. It is accepted in the UK that minorities face challenges unique to them, and therefore need bespoke rights: indeed it was a 2002 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights to that effect that pushed Tony Blair’s Labour government to legally recognise change of gender in the Gender Recognition Act of 2004.

What about conflicts of rights, such as those between the rights of trans women and women? Those do exist, but are resolvable. The Equality Act of 2010 suggests that, when rights are in conflict, organisations may trigger an exemption that treats transgender and cisgender people differently. For instance, a woman requesting a cis woman carer or counsellor should be able to have one. But, this exemption is voluntary in that it is solely up to the provider to invoke.

Here is how GCs attempt to dismantle the above narrative, trivialise the reasons for it and cast aspersions on the people at its centre:

Access. The assumed aim of every trans woman in regards to ‘women’s spaces’ is ‘access’. Supposedly, they are not there to just use the space, no. They are there to deviously ‘gain access’ to it—to either ‘validate their womanhood’, or, according to other more extreme versions, with a nefarious aim of ‘accessing women’. This is, of course, an unprovable accusation and so an alternative reason is suggested: Trans women, according to GCs, have to be barred from ‘women’s spaces’ to stop this ‘access’ because a small minority might commit a crime there. Interestingly, this logic is never applied to situations in which cis men are in close proximity to women. No one is asking for all male taxi drivers to be barred from driving women or for all male supervisors to never have one on one meetings with women. No one is talking of taxi drivers or supervisors ‘accessing’ passengers or coworkers. But, even though statistically the biggest by far danger to women is from cis men, GCs almost exclusively focus on risk to women in situations where trans women can expect to be involved.

Adult Human Female. The definition of woman in ‘GC speak’.

Affirmation. The (untrue) idea that any cisgender person who reveals to a psychologist that they are transgender will be immediately put on a pathway to transition regardless of whether their gender dysphoric feelings might be triggered other underlying psychological conditions. Indeed, anything that does not involve the psychologist challenging the patient’s gender identity and actively suggesting other underlying causes for it (such as autism) counts as ‘affirmation’ to a GC. The reality is different: firstly, all psychological issues can be and are explored whilst affirming the gender identity (when they are not this is generally due to a lack of resources rather than ideology) and secondly, the vast majority of patients diagnosed with gender dysphoria desist, as already mentioned. Of course, mistakes are made and people slip through the net, as pro-GC detransitioners point out, however they are exceptions, not the rule.

AGP (Autogynophilia). AGP is a niche condition in which a man is sexually aroused by the idea of having the body of a woman. It is assumed by the GCs to be a ‘fetish’ secretly possessed by every lesbian trans woman. It is needed by the GC ideologists to resolve the following logical gap in their narrative: that the very people they call misogynists (See: Misogynist) in fact desperately wish to become women. So, they pretend they are also fetishists aiming for devious pleasure.

Anime. Japanese animation popular in the West. Because anime has a trans sub-genre and plots of body-swapping, it is assumed by GCs to be one of the ‘cultural’ factors ‘brainwashing people’ into being transgender.

Anorexia. An ‘analogous’ illness to gender dysphoria in the world of GCs. Anorexics starve themselves because are unhappy with their body and, supposedly, since gender dysphoric people are also unhappy with their bodies, affirming the latter is akin to affirming the former. The logic of harm reduction is ignored: deliberate starvation will eventually kill you by itself whilst sex reassignment does not. In other words, the harm associated with affirming anorexia is death, the worst possible outcome, whereas the side effects associated with sex reassignment surgery, whilst having the potential to be life-changing, are not terminal and so have to be offset against, for instance, the risk of suicide due to acute gender dysphoria.

Appropriate. Trans women are said to ‘appropriate’ women’s rights purely by the notion of wanting to enjoy the same rights.

Approval (male). The quality that any cis woman trans ally must be seeking. Because trans women are identified with men, anyone attempting to speak up with them must be looking for male approval!

Attacking. Any trans ally speaking in defence of transgender people is assumed to be ‘attacking’ either women or homosexuals (see Homophobia).

Autism. Studies confirm there is a large overlap between autism and gender dysphoria, however GCs use this to infer a whole conspiracy to ‘trans’ ‘autistic kids’ by affirming their transgender identity and downplaying every other condition (see Transing, Affirmation).

Beardy. Any cis male trans ally is assumed to be ‘beardy’. Presumably, this is a referance to hipsterdom, the idea that people support transgender rights because it is a trendy fad, and not because of any deeply held convictions.

Be Kind. When asked to tone done violent rhetoric and offensive speech. GCs will always reframe such requests as misogyny, it being, supposedly, a notion that, as women, they are being expected to ‘be kind’ to men. Not only does it present the opposition as misogynistic, it also portrays them as brave voices ‘speaking truth’ to those trying to ‘shut them down’. Likewise, businesses who introduce rules that ban misgendering in the workplace to facilitate group cohesion and mutual respect can be presented as expecting ‘women’ to ‘be kind’. This is an age-old trick: find a common-sense rule, deliberately violate it and portray yourself as a victim when there are, predictably, consequences.

Big Pharma. The shadowy paymasters of ‘gender ideology’ (See: Gender ideology), the big pharmaceutical companies supposedly promote transgenderism to make money by selling drugs and medical treatments.

Biological sex. The sex you are born with.

Biology (1). A science GCs often refer to, but never bother studying beyond a certain level (except for the work of some cherry-picked fringe experts who share their view of transgender people). GCs will often reference the biological facts relating to chromosomes and gametes, but would totally ignore those to do with the chemical processes in the brain and psychology.

Biology (2). A perceived set of realities that wholly define men and women’s lives, from which there is no conceivable escape, no matter how hard one tries. The ability of human beings to surpass what nature gave them and shape reality to their will is derided. Like other feminists, GCs see biology as a trap Nature has set up for women, but whilst some feminists focus on letting women escape this trap, GCs heavily prioritise stopping trans women from setting foot inside it.

Bravery. Any individual who stands up and vocally supports the GC point of view, on social media, in a meeting or in any other forum, is automatically assumed to be ‘brave’. Any individual who fails to do so is ‘captured’ or a ‘coward’. Various wild theories regarding the nature of this ‘capture’ — alleged transgender relatives, political and/or financial interests, brainwashing — freely circulate. GCs hate the idea that any sound intellectual argument opposing their position can exist, preferring to make up reasons for why people do not rush over to see the world as they do.

Boundaries. A trans woman who, for instances, wishes to use a changing room, violates ‘boundaries’. GCs love to conflate personal boundaries (which apply irrespective of sex and gender) with the use of women’s spaces by trans women.

Cancel culture. The act of any GC facing consequences for what they say and do. When ‘cancelled’, a prominent GC is expected to do a tour of TV studios, radio shows, podcasts and newspaper articles detailing how they have been ‘cancelled’ and ‘silenced’ — much like Suzanne Moore or Kathleen Stock have done. When, however, GCs themselves attempt have people removed from jobs because of what they have said, this is not classed as cancel culture, as the case of Joanne Harris has shown.

Captured. Any organisation, government body or political party expressing support for transgender people is deemed to be ‘captured’ by the ‘gender ideologist’ conspiracy.

Censored. When a prominent GC is not able to write about transgender issues wherever and whenever, they are said to be ‘censored’. The notion that publications might have an editorial line and the fact there are plenty of publications with a pro-GC editorial line do not seem to be mentioned. It seems to be assumed that GC issues must be written about on every single platform constantly, and any platform that does not allow this is engaging in ‘censorship’.

Centering. The act of including trans women into the set of women, as equals. A favourite dishonesty of the GCs is to present such inclusion as ‘favouring’ the transgender person, even if the inclusion is, as it is always, on entirely equal terms.

Choice. What every transgender person, in the GCs’ eyes, exercises when they ‘decide’ to ‘become’ transgender. This is similar to homophobes thinking homosexuality is a ‘choice’.

Cis(gender). A horrific insult to a GC. In fact, ‘cis’ just means ‘not trans’. However, GCs oppose this by claiming that they ‘do not identify as cis’. The idea here is that GCs want to juxtapose ‘woman’ with ‘trans woman’ and ‘man’ with ‘trans man’ and the adjective ‘cis’ gets in the way of that. So, GCs choose to become tactically offended.

Colonising. Yet another emotive term for the simple act of a trans woman using a bathroom or a changing room.

Compelled speech. Any speech that involves using correct pronouns or not misgendering one’s interlocutor is viewed as compelled speech and as an attack on freedom of speech.

Compromised. See Captured.

Concerns. Demands. Also used: ‘valid concerns’.

Cosplaying (see also: Larping, Womanface). A central pillar of GC belief is that trans women aren’t genuine about their feelings of being women. So, they are accused of ‘cosplaying’.

Costume. A frequent GC accusation towards trans women is that they are ‘wearing’ womanhood like a ‘costume’ rather than genuinely feeling they are women. The word is used to further the typical ‘impostor, wolf in sheep clothing’ myth about transgender people.

Creep. Any trans woman trying to use a bathroom of their gender. GCs always try to use language that suggests that transgender people are deviant and not normal.

Cult. Trans allies. Another slur GCs use to imply that their opponents opinions are not rational but an article of blind faith.

DARVO. ‘Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender’ — a textbook GC accusation that is designed to draw parallels between transgender rights and sexual assault. Originally, DARVO describes the reaction of sex offenders who blame their victims. In their desperation to link transgender people with anything at all, GCs use DARVO at any suggestion that transgender people might be mistreated or hard done by, implying they are reversing the victim-perpetrator relationship. To them, a transgender person is never a victim, even if lying on the floor of a ladies’ bathroom in a pool of blood!

Dating pool. A fictional concept that is invoked whenever a trans woman wants to use a lesbian dating site. Common usage: ‘forced to accept men in their dating pools’. The aim is to conflate personal choice with group inclusion, to present the latter as a violation of the former. Once again, the aim is to draw parallels between transgender rights and sexual assault — the act of entering a space (a dating site, in which many people are present) is equated to the act of forcing all lesbians to date trans women.

Debate. Something all GCs claim to be desperate to have on the issue of transgender rights. And yet, much of the vocabulary you see on this page is designed precisely to stifle and complicate debate, to accuse and misrepresent their opponents who support transgender rights.

Define a woman. The go-to question for people to jump to whenever they are stuck for a reply. They hope for this gotcha to work because they only ever accept simplistic definitions, see Definition.

Definition. In GC world, anything that doesn’t have a clear and concise definition does not really exist. Typically, they will claim that inability to define what a woman ‘erases’ women and leaves them unable to either fight for rights or to effectively oppose violence against them. However, rights are held by individuals and violence is committed against individuals, and so defending an individual woman’s rights in no way relates to being able to precisely describe the set of all women around the globe. For instance, the fight for abortion rights is a fight for the rights of people who can get pregnant. The fact trans women are viewed as women in no way affects it — yet GCs insist it does, ‘because they can no longer define what a woman is’. This clumsy leap of logic is required to resolve a paradoxical situations for GCs — that trans allies have on average a more progressive position on non-trans related women’s issues, most famously on abortion rights, than many of the GCs’ own conservative allies. They therefore have to be accused of interfering with those women’s issues.

Delusion. In GC-speak, any transgender person is automatically deluded. This is furnished with strawman caricatures of the transgender experience. It is always, for instance, assumed that transgender people really think their chromosomes change to those of the opposite sex. In reality, hardly any transgender people really think the changes are anything but cosmetic, but GCs don’t listen to those objections.

Detransitioner. People who had been transgender and transitioned medically, but then reverted to their original gender. Most detransitioners are quite accepting of transgender people and state that the fact transition did not work for them does not mean it will not work for others. GCs ignore those, and concentrate on a small minority of the detrans who call for transition to be made harder and harder because of the potential someone may regret it. The most famous of those in the UK is Keira Bell, who took the Tavistock trust to court attempting to ban the use of puberty blockers and failed on appeal.

Dignity. Something trans women take away from women by the simple act of using women’s spaces.

Dolls. In the GC world view, as soon as a little boy is seen playing with these, he will be whisked off to the doctors, persuaded he is really a girl and ‘transed’. It never happens (playing with the toys traditionally associated with the opposite sex is only one of a around a dozen symptoms of gender dysphoria), but they repeat it as a mantra.

Dresses. See Dolls. GCs also believe that any boy found wearing a dress will be swiftly sent to a gender identity clinic, put on puberty blockers and ‘transed’.

Dualism. A philosophical concept that postulates mind and matter to be distinct. Invoked in order to trivialise the notion of gender identity. Because having a gender identity not matching birth sex implies a conflict between the mind and the exterior, GCs need to claim that notion to be anti-scientific, even though there is no sound argument to that effect. Indeed, it is not uncommon for different components of the human organism to be in conflict, take for instance auto-immune responses. Therefore, they declare the notion to be ‘dualism’ and thus ‘outdated’. They will usually go on to allege it is akin to the concept of soul in religion (see: Gendered Soul).

Eliminate. What trans women’s inclusion will, supposedly, do to women’s rights and ‘status’. Quite how the tiny numbers of trans women joining the set of ‘women’ affects either is never explained, just asserted.

Encroach. See Access.

Entitlement (male). The simple act of a trans woman attempting to live her life. It is an assumption of GCs that trans women retain all of their male privilege in its entirety after transitioning.

Erasing (women). The idea that the existence of transgender people somehow ‘destroys’ womanhood implies on the notion that a group of people can only exist and fight for rights if it is able to be defined with no ambiguity whatsoever. If one accepts this notion, then, by introducing such an ambiguity, trans women ‘destroy womanhood’ and ‘erase women’ purely by being accepted as women. Most groups are not so rigidly defined and yet have no problems fighting for rights. The word ‘erasing’ also plays to the notions of female fragility so popular among some Conservatives, portraying women as an endangered species in need of ‘white knights’.

Equality. Supposedly, equality for women is destroyed by the inclusion of trans women. Quite how ‘equality’ can be ‘destroyed’ by expanding the set of people it applies to is never ever explained.

Essence. See Gendered soul.

Experiment. Any attempt to accommodate the wishes and rights of transgender people, whether medically, legally or socially. The word ‘experiment’ is chosen to emphasis the ‘abnormal’ and ‘dangerous’ nature of transgender people’s existence.

Feeling. Another way to trivialise the transgender identity is to talk of it as a ‘feeling’.

Feminist. The only feminists GCs accept as ‘real feminists’ are, unsurprisingly, themselves.

Forced Teaming (1). Any show of solidarity between transgender people and other minorities is derided as ‘forced teaming’. Most frequently invoked when trying to split LGBTQ+ into ‘LGB’ and ‘the other letters’.

Forced Teaming (2). A principle to be invoked whenever one compares the current prejudice against transgender people to that faced by homosexuals in the past.

Fought for so long. Refers to the ‘single sex spaces’ which women have ‘fought for so long’ and are now being ‘taken away’ from them by ‘trans-identified men’ and ‘trans rights activists’. Fails to explain how it is usually the patriarchy that has traditionally insisted on segregating by sex (e.g.: nunneries) and so women historically fought against segregation as much as for it.

Gamete. A cell which, according to GCs, wholly defines a person’s sex. Chosen because classifying people by their reproductive potential is deemed too sexist.

Gaslighting. Any objection to GC ideology is automatically ‘gaslighting’. They believe they are always right and that everyone who disagrees is trying to deceive them. See also Lying.

Gender. To a GC, gender is a set of gender stereotypes (sometimes also culturally determined beliefs and roles, see Harmful gender stereotypes). Since they do not recognise innate feelings of belonging or of identity, they insist ‘gender’ consists solely of stereotypical sexist cliches about men and women — to do with clothes, lifestyle, manner, behaviour or make-up. The irony is that the GCs also pride themselves on being examples of ‘women’ being a cohesive, mutually helping community of people. In which case, surely it is easy to understand the emotional side of wanting to belong to such a community? Which should in turn tell them that, no, transition is not about stereotypes, it is about, for instance, wanting to belong.

Gendered soul. A redefinition of the notion of ‘gender identity’ in religious terms, to portray belief in transgender rights as a religion. The argument here is that the ‘gender ideologists’ believe in ‘souls’ that have ‘ended up in the wrong body’. In reality, of course, the phrase “born in the wrong body” is an oversimplified explanation of how being trans feels, not a literal statement. It relates to a conflict between someone’s mind, feelings, the chemical processes going on in their brain and the exterior of their body. It has therefore nothing to do with the religious concept of ‘soul’.

Gender ideology. The catch-all term for any opinion about gender that does not conform to the GC axioms (see afterword). In particular, anyone who asserts that gender identities are real, that trans women are women and trans men are men or that the primary danger to women is oppression and violence by cis men, not by trans women, is labelled a gender ideologist. Like ‘TRA’ (see TRA), the term exists in order to draw a line between ‘ordinary transgender people’ and ‘those damn activists’. In reality, criticism of the latter is usually criticism of the former with a different label stuck on top. The main aim of ‘gender ideology’ is to present transgender people and their allies as ideological and abnormal, and the gender criticals themselves as mainstream and common sense.

Gender identity. A concept that, according to various GCs, does not exist, is equivalent to gender stereotypes, is a feeling or is a religious belief (see Gendered soul, Harmful gender stereotypes).

Gender non-conforming. Anyone who does not conform to the stereotypes of their gender. GCs think that transgender people are ‘just gender non-conforming people who have been brainwashed’. In reality, being a tomboy is not the same as being a trans man and being a boy who likes dresses is not the same as being a trans woman. But for GCs, this distinction does not exist.

Gender woo (also used: Gender woo-woo) (See: Gendered soul). When it is not enough to present transgenderism as being similar to an Abrahamic religion, it is compared to occult and superstition. The aim, as usual, is to trivialise and demean transgender people, portray them and their allies as a cult, avoid a debate on scientific facts.

Genitals. Organs of much interest to GCs, especially ones of the male variety, which are mentioned non-stop. My commitment to not include certain words in this blog prevents me from exposing the reader to the full linguistic depth of the GC discourse on the subject. Common usage: ‘We do not want (male genitals) in the changing room’. GCs knowingly exploit people’s disgust with such matters to generate an emotional response allowing them to portray transgender people as ‘abnormal’.

Grooming. Anything ranging from offering help and advice to trangender children and young adults to actual treatment. GCs are usually desperate to somehow draw parallels between transgender people and paedophilia and, separately, imply that trans people have been brainwashed by some conspiracy. This term achieves both aims. It has parallels with past conspiracy theories about homosexuals ‘grooming’ children into becoming gay.

Grovelling (to men). Any attempt to show solidarity with transgender people is called ‘grovelling to men’.

Handmaiden. Any (cis) woman who objects to GC dogma. One of the many examples of GC misogyny.

Harmful Gender Stereotypes. A truly Orwellian GC turn of phrase that suggests that it is the trans women — who perform the ultimate breaking of gender stereotypes by changing gender — who actually reinforce the said stereotypes. The notion is that ‘rather than be brave and gender non-conforming, transgender people merely swap one set of regressive stereotypes for another’. Based on the false belief that trans women are just ‘boys who liked to play with dolls and then were misled by the gender ideologists’. Based also on the notion that all trans women go out of their way to look feminine and all trans men go out of their way to look masculine (not true). Ignores the consistent support of trans women for a number of causes empowering women.

Hijabi women. A group supposedly oppressed by trans women because their cis male relatives discourage them using bathrooms which trans women may also use. As usual, the cis male oppressors are given a pass.

Hoarders of rights. Trans people are said to be ‘hoarders of rights’ for demanding the same rights as everyone else. The trick is the same as the one homophobes use — saying that ‘homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else — to marry a members of the opposite sex’. Likewise, GCs insist that ‘trans people have the same rights as everyone else — to use the spaces of their own sex’.

Homophobe. Transgender people and trans allies are assumed to be homophobic because of the implicit assumption that transgender people are just misunderstood and ‘ruined’ homosexuals. The second go-to accusation of GCs, after ‘misogynistic’. See Transing the gay away.

Honey. A misogynist way that GCs often address women who disagree with their ideology.

However they identify. A transphobic phrase used to intentionally conflate cis men and trans women. Implies that trans women are pretending they are trans. Usage: men, however they identify.

Ideological. Any defence of trans rights is held by GCs to be ideological. This is in opposition to their own beliefs that are held to be natural and common sense.

Indoctrination. An ongoing process, on social media, mainstream media and in schools that supposedly stops everyone from immediately accepting the GC world view.

Infiltrate. Another verb that suggests that trans women are part of a conspiracy to ‘infiltrate’ and ‘access’ women’s spaces in order to hurt and/or harass women (as opposed to doing the normal things such as using the bathroom or changing).

Insert. See Infiltrate.

Intersex. Intersex people pose a problem to GCs, as they destroy their main narrative of the ‘sex binary’. This is skirted around in various ways — from alleging intersex people ‘do not want to be dragged into this’ to claiming intersex people are always ‘either men or women’.

Invading. Still another alarmist word to describe trans women using bathrooms or changing rooms. Trans women do not wish to ‘invade’ those: they most of all want to belong. But accusing people of wanting to ‘belong’ is not sufficiently accusative to most GCs.

Lipstick/lippy. What all trans women, according to GCs, use in copious amounts in their (futile) attempts at womanhood.

Loving your body. A fictional cure for being transgender. Supposedly, people who are transgender just haven’t learned to love their existing body enough.

Lying. An opponent of the GCs is never wrong, mistaken, or having a different opinion. No, they are always LYING. It is yet another word to portray GCs as brave fighters against a sinister conspiracy whose aim is to prey on the ‘gullible’. Say a trans woman is a woman, in your opinion? You are a liar. Say that gender is not about stereotypes? You are a liar. And so on.

Magical — see Gendered Soul, Gender Woo Woo. When it is not enough to compare trans allies to a religious organisation or to a cult, but a GC needs to pretend they are witches as well.

Male-bodied. Any trans woman is, by definition ‘male-bodied’. Another example of GCs being obsessed with the body over the mind. See also Genitals.

Male supremacy. Trans women standing up to the constant abuse they are receiving. Since ‘women’ is defined as ‘women of gender critical beliefs’, any opponent must be implication hate women and believe in male supremacy. As usual, the real male supremacists — the white cishet patriarchy— get a free pass because they are fellow transphobes. Whilst they are acknowledged as women-hating as well, this is constantly downplayed in favour of talking about trans women.

Male pattern of violence. A statistical fallacy that works like this:

• Take the trans population in prisons imprisoned for serious crimes.
• Count the percentage of those that are imprisoned for sex crimes.
• Compare with the same statistic for cis men prisoners.
• If the first percentage is greater than the second, imply that all trans women have ‘male pattern of violence’ and are therefore dangerous.

Anyone with even a little knowledge of statistics will know that you cannot make conclusions about the risk from a law-abiding trans person based on those imprisoned. But statistics and GCs are uneasy bedfellows.

Making it all about them. Any transgender person standing up for their rights is assumed to be ‘making it all about them’. Clearly, no such accusation would be acceptable about any other minority.

Mansplaining. Any male trans ally is, by definition, mansplaining purely by disagreeing with the GCs. This is one of many instant accusations that contradicts the GC claim to ‘want debate’. If you truly want debate, you don’t call male trans allies sneering mansplaining misogynists and you don’t call female trans allies traitorous handmaidens.

Material reality. A nebulous term that can be best described as ‘the world and science according to the GC dogma’. Invoked at every opportunity, usually to pretend one is ‘real’ and ‘scientific’ fighting against a ‘cult’.

Medicalising. Any medical treatment given to people in order to transition, in particular in the case of puberty blockers given to minors is ‘medicalising’ people/children. The notion is that all those gender dysphoric people can just lead normal lives with some counselling and some lessons in how to ‘love their bodies’.

Men. The people whom, supposedly, trans allies serve. If ‘women’ are identified with ‘the GCs’ (see Woman (1),(2)), then ‘men’ have to be identified with the trans allies. Supposedly ‘men’ want women’s rights destroyed, which is why they encourage transgenderism to ‘erase’ women and ‘stop them fighting for rights’ (see Erasing). More than than women, statistically, are transphobic, and every male-dominated, misogynistic society is also homophobic and transphobic, but those facts never stop GCs claiming that it is ‘men’ who are behind the movement for trans rights.

Men’s Rights Activist. Trans ally. The notion that most of the real ‘MRAs’ — the right-wing misogynists in the patriarchy — are on the side of the GCs does not stop them from reserving this term for those championing trans rights, even though they are far more progressive and pro-women. They will of course acknowledge that the conservative Right do not support women’s rights, but will mention that fact as little as they can get away with it.

Mentally ill. The more hardline GCs will claim all transgender people are mentally ill and should be sent to mental hospitals and cured. The more moderate do at least recognised transgender people as legitimate functioning members of society but insist they cannot be recognised in a different gender.

Misogynist(ic). The first go-to accusation of GCs. Trans women and trans allies are misogynistic by default, just by existing, because they want to ‘destroy womanhood’ and ‘erase women’. Quite how does one destroy a group by trying to join it? That is never explained. It is a constant source of embarrassment to GCs that trans women have on average a far more progressive outlook on women’s rights — such as the right to abortion or gender equality — than many of the GCs’ conservative allies. Hence, the constant need to allege that their very way of life is misogynistic. And yet, how could someone desperate to join a group possibly hate it?

Mother. A person able to bear children. The ‘women’s sex-based rights declaration’ literally talks of a ‘women’s unique capacity to gestate and give birth to children’. This, of course, excludes many natal women who are mothers, for instance through adoption. But such is the obsession of GCs with reducing women to their reproductive capacity that this is a price they are willing to pay just so that a trans women cannot be called a ‘mother’.

Mutilated. GC description of anyone who undergoes SRS (sex reassignment surgery). GC do not recognise the ‘harm reduction’ aspect of trans healthcare, that in some cases surgery is needed due to the patient’s transgender identity causing them acute mental anguish, up to and including feeling suicidal. They see trans healthcare as a deliberate plot to create more transgender people.

Narcissist. Any transgender person who asserts their rights is, by default, a narcissist. So is any trans ally that makes a forceful argument in support of trans people. This is yet another accusation to throw out when short of arguments.

OK, Groomer. A dismissive reply to any trans ally to be utilised when a GC is out of arguments. Paraphrase of ‘OK, Boomer’. This insult finally got ex-Father Ted scriptwriter Graham Linehan banned from twitter.

Override. Yet another word portraying the giving of the same rights to trans women into the set of women as putting them into a dominant position over women.

Pandering. Any woman trans ally is said to be ‘pandering’ to ‘men’.

Paraphilia. (see also: AGP). Paraphilias are persistent and recurrent sexual interests, urges, fantasies, or behaviors of marked intensity involving objects, activities, or even situations that are atypical in nature. For GCs, they are the main motivation behind men transitioning to be trans women. GCs struggle with having to claim trans women to be misogynist despite the clear and obvious fact that trans women want most of all to be women: how can you hate a group and wish to join it? So, they dress it up as a fetish, pretend there is a sexual interest for transitioning.

Patriarchy. Trans allies. It is acknowledged that transphobic conservatives are also part of the patriarchy, but this is constantly underplayed to stress that the patriarchy one should really care about are the trans women and their allies. The few high-placed transgender people (the Wachowski sisters, Rachel Levine, Jennifer Pritzker) plus the centrist liberal elite backing trans rights (such as the Democratic party in the US) are presented as ‘part of the patriarchy’. How they can coexist in this ‘patriarchy’ with overt transphobes such as Bolsonaro, Trump and Putin is never made clear.

Peaked. The act of converting to GC beliefs. GCs maintain that the vast majority of women are totally ignorant ‘of what is really going on’ and will take their side whenever things are properly explained to them. Sometimes, a GC will falsely claim that they have ‘peaked’ only recently, to create an impression their numbers are steadily growing.

Pedestal. Any person insisting that transgender people deserve to be treated the same as anyone else of their new gender of choice is said to be putting them on a pedestal.

Predators in Skirts. Trans women who use a women’s bathroom or changing room. Echoes the narrative against male homosexuals from the 80s, as a danger in changing rooms to boys.

Prioritise. Any trans woman is assumed to be ‘prioritised’ over cis women just by the virtue of existing and wanting to use women’s bathrooms and changing rooms. Another example of GCs representing equal treatment as preferential.

Pronouns. The act of stating one’s gender by requesting to be referred to using certain pronouns. GCs see pronouns as an attack upon them, ‘because they are being compelled to ignore reality’. They feel they should be able to misgender people at will and any business, organisation or society that imposes internal rules that ban misgendering should be sanctioned, enabling the GCs to preach their ideology everywhere and to everyone. The ‘Declaration of women’s sex-based rights’ is clear on this: ‘States should prohibit any form of sanctioning, prosecution or punishment of persons who reject attempts to compel them to identify others on the basis of ‘gender identity’ rather than sex. ’Notions of basic respect, of politeness, of kindness associated with keeping up workplace harmony are derided as ‘oppression of women’ (see ‘be kind’).

Pronouns In Bio. A cheap way to ignore an opponent who says uncomfortable truths is to act out over them having their pronouns stated in their bio.

Protected. GCs vow to ‘protect’ the ‘ordinary people’ from ‘the gender ideologists’ and from the ‘trans-identified people. This includes ‘protecting’ ‘women and girls’ from the ‘predators in skirts’ and ‘protecting’ children from any adult that might give them information on the transgender way of life, explain the transition process or might affirm their identity. The fact that the ‘women and girls’ are most at risk, statistically from cis men, and the fact that forcing experts to withhold information from children will lead them to the wild west of the internet instead is usually lost on the believers in this very one sided form of protection.

Protected belief. Following on from the Maya Forstater case, the asserted notion that GCs can express absolutely any view they like without any consequences whatsoever. When they invariably fall foul of employers as a result, they act with bewilderment every single time.

Porn-addled. Obsessed by pornography. Another brick in the ‘social transition narrative’ that GCs often employ. Supposedly, trans women are just ‘men who watched too much weird porn’, where ‘weird’ possibly stands for ‘trans’.

Queer. GCs hold ‘queer’ to be an insult. The reality is, the word ‘queer’ used to be a homophobic insult but has since been reclaimed by the LGBTQ+ community.

Queer Theory. A US concept, the supposed theory whose ‘tenets’ are presented in high schools as ‘the truth’ with the aim of ‘indoctrinating children’. The ‘gender’ equivalent of the CRT (critical race theory) conspiracy theory. In reality, instead of the ‘tenets’ there is only the mere assertion that sex is non-binary and there are multiple genders. Indeed, queer theory is based on that assertion, among others, however it is not an assertion that is unique to queer theory. But terms like ‘Queer theory’ sound a lot more scary than merely ‘sex is non-binary’. It allows GCs and conservatives alike to blame societal changes on a ‘conspiracy of teachers’.

Redefined to the point of meaninglessness. What trans inclusion supposedly does to women, lesbians and/or gays. To most of us, it’s still quite clear what all of those are, with or without transgender people. But not, it seems, to the GC, who seems unable to any longer tell what a woman is if trans women are also seen to be women. A very bizarre affliction indeed.

Regressive. The opposite of ‘progressive’, this word is used to pretend that transgender rights are somehow a step back in the inexorable progress in which more and more minorities gain rights. It is not explained what this is a step back too — it is not like there was a past time in which transgender people were fully accepted in society to think back to.

Regressive Stereotypes. See Stereotypes.

Religion. In their vain attempts to deny the hard scientific and legal bases for transgenderism, the GCs will resort to calling it a religion. The belief in transgender rights, of course, has no resemblance to any real religion whatsoever, but who said facts ever stopped a GC? See also: Gendered soul, gender woo-woo.

Revel. Transgender people are always said to ‘revel’ in the idea that their rights clash with those of women. Once again, the GCs are presenting transgender people as guided by emotion and by fetish rather than by the basic right to exist in their gender of choice.

Rights. See Sex-based rights.

ROGD. Rapid onset gender dysphoria — a speculative theory that claims that among girls gender dysphoria is a result of social contagion. This theory has not been accepted by the mainstream due to lack of reputable scientific evidence. It is however often treated by GCs as truth.

Rushing. Any politician trying to pass trans-friendly legislation is always said to be ‘rushing’. This is the case even when the legislation in question — such as the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill — has been discussed and argued about for years. No, such legislation is always, by default, ‘rushed’ no matter how much consultation has taken place.

Same-sex attraction. Being attracted to a person of the same natal sex. A concept constructed to differentiate ‘the true homosexuals’ from trans-inclusive gays ‘who are really bisexual’. Supposedly, the narrative goes, ‘TRAs’ want to force homosexuals to sleep with trans people. This creates a need for ‘same-sex attracted people’ who are define by their ‘genital preference’.

Safeguarding. The idea that a whole group of people poses a risk, is collectively responsible for that risk, and is to be excluded from public facilities as a result. It is the justification for barring a whole group of people because of a tiny minority that are criminal. GCs appropriate a vital concept from child protection, from the protection of vulnerable people, and misapply it to public spaces. Safeguarding in child protection means that anyone wishing to work with children needs to have their background checked: a certification of being ‘upstanding’ based on one’s past actions. GCs reinterpret this into a concept in which one’s moral character is defined by the accident of birth. You are no longer judged on your own actions, but those of the arbitrary set you are assigned to (‘men’ in the case of trans women). A similar argument is used by racists against black people (citing their crime rates, caused by economic inequality), and also by islamophobes against Muslims (citing the extremists among their number to allege every Muslim poses, statistically, a security risk, and therefore all have to be barred from the West). Interestingly, this concept is not applied to scenarios in which women are left alone with cis men. GCs will insist that even the slightest chance that a trans woman will infringe the rights of a cis woman in a changing room is enough to bar all trans women, but will not, for instance, call for male taxi drivers to not drive lone women. In the first instance, no risk is acceptable, but in the second, one not vital to a trans woman’s basic rights, some risk is ok.

Safety. Something that only trans women can ever threaten. GCs devote very little time to the epidemic of sexual violence by cis men against women, focusing on the ‘safety’ of women from a tiny trans women minority almost all of the time.

Safest Demographic. The claim that transgender people are not discriminated against in the UK based on the fact quite few of them are murdered for being transgender in this country. Transgender people are of course clearly discriminated in many ways that does not involve murder, for instance in the workplace.

Same rights as everyone else. When asked why it is they want to deny rights to transgender people, the usual GC reply is that the transgender people already have ‘the same rights as everyone else’ because everyone has a right to live in their natal sex. This has been compared to conservatives telling homosexuals that ‘they have the same rights as everyone else. Everyone can marry a person of the opposite sex’.

Self-ID. Gender self-identification is a process that allows people to determine their legal sex without needing medical certification. It is law in 18 countries. To GCs, self-id is a carte blanche for ‘men’ to ‘identify into’ women’s spaces (see Predators in skirts, Women’s spaces). They will, at different times, accuse trans women for having an ulterior motive for ‘invading’ those ‘women’s spaces’ or allege that cis men will pretend to be trans women to sneak into them. Problematically for them, neither scenario has happened with any sort of frequency thus far in the places that allow self-id or, like the UK, allow transgender people to use their spaces for their gender of choice even before legal transition. GCs respond by claiming that ‘even one example is too many’. The answer to which is that there are plenty of situations in which women are at risk from cis men, and yet we do not demand collective responsibility of this kind (see also: Safeguarding).

Self-respect. Something that no trans ally, especially a cis woman, could ever have, as they fail to stand up to the ‘misogynist and homophobic TRAs’.

Sex-based rights. A set of women’s rights supposedly violated by trans women. Stated in a declaration, created about a year ago, that, since then, has not even managed to attract 40,000 signatures at the time of writing this blog, those ‘rights’ essentially consist of re-writing women’s rights in ways that are explicitly trans-exclusive.

Sexualising children (1). The act of taking children to a drag show (in which the performer will be usually far less scantily clothed than say a cheerleader).

Sexualising children (2). The act of explaining to children what transgender people are. Quite how being transgender relates to sex is not clear here, as it is not a sexuality. But it is asserted nonetheless.

Shoving… down throats. The promotion of any material that the GCs disapprove of. Usual response to any transgender people appearing in promotional material, on the cover of glossy magazines or in the media is to complain that ‘they are shoved down our throats’. This is despite the fact that cisgender people and cisgender stereotypes are by far the ones most frequently promoted in the mainstream culture.

Sissy Hypno. A type of pornography in which men dress up in women’s lingerie and act in the role of women. A central plank of the GC belief system is that a transgender identity is not innate but is instilled into people by some conspiracy. They see these types of pornography as part of this supposed ‘brainwashing’.

Social contagion. The way people supposedly become transgender. GCs believe that people only become transgender because of ideas somehow planted in their heads, for instance as result of a fad among their peer group. This is a carbon copy of similar narratives about homosexuals made in the past.

Stereotypes. GCs associate gender with sexist stereotypes. As their narrative goes, trans women are just ‘men who like wearing dresses an lipstick and conform to misogynistic stereotypes of women’, whilst trans men are just ‘women who want to escape the misogyny and be men by adopting the traditional stereotypes of maleness’. Thus, transgender people are just ‘gender non-conforming people’ who, rather than break stereotypes swap their set of stereotypes for another. There is next to no evidence that any transgender person actually thinks that way.

Stolen (taken away). Something transgender people do to cisgender people’s rights and spaces purely by existing.

Stonewall. The equivalent of the Rothschilds in the GC conspiracy theory folklore, Stonewall is assumed to be all-powerful and all-encompassing. The GCs are the brave insurgents striving against this elite organisation. Even though Stonewall routinely do vital work for gay people around the world, saving some from murderous regimes, they are constantly accused of being homophobic and sell-outs.

Stunning and brave. A sarcastic description of trans people, which suggests that the discrimination they face daily isn’t actually very severe.

Submitting. What cis women trans allies supposedly do all the time to men (see Men).

Suicide. An action gender dysphoric people supposedly threaten to ‘get their way’ to persuade the doctors to sanction transition. The use of this, quite alarming, line of reasoning is, among other things, a contradiction: the same people that the GCs claim are, supposedly, gullible and vulnerable victims of the doctors and of the ‘gender ideologists’ are also, at other times, presented as conniving and evil blackmailers. GCs resort to this because the risks of suicide and self-harm are key factors in formulating a harm reduction approach and so would destroy much of the GC case against SRS if not somehow thrown into doubt. It goes without saying that any suggestion that suicidal people are ‘faking it’ is vile.

Take over. Any trans woman using a ‘women’s space’ is automatically ‘taking it over’. Another instance of participation being presented as control.

TRA (Trans Rights Activist). The caricature villains of the gender criticals, ‘TRAs’ are the transgender people and their allies. The concept is analogous to that of a ‘SJW’ (social justice warrior) or a ‘BLM (black lives matter) activist’. Hate groups everywhere cottoned on to the fact that criticising minorities leads people to support the underdog — the minority in question — so they pretend they are not criticising the minority, but some political and ideological body of people connected to the minority. Then, anyone who speaks up can be accused of being an ‘activist’ peddling an ‘ideology’.

Traitor. Any cis woman or homosexual who is a trans ally is said to be a traitor to women or ‘LGB people’ respectively.

Trans Identified Male (TIM). Trans woman. A term intended to misgender.

Trans ideology. The totally of scientific, legal and social science research that motivates the current standard practice underpinning the rights of transgender people. Almost always misrepresented, it is presented as an all-powerful conspiracy. The choice of the word ‘ideology’ is used to suggest that, rather than being a theory grounded in experimental medicine based on experience with patients, it is a rigid dogma imposed in the same way Lenin imposed Marxism in 1917 on what would soon become the USSR. Also referred to as Gender ideology.

Transing. A supposed process through which innocent cisgender kids and young adults are seized hold by the Evil Trans Lobby and turned into gender dysphoric people, demanding transition. Any parent who does not profoundly reject their trans child’s identity is also said to have ‘transed’ them.

Transing away the gay. The same hypothetical process as above but with the person at the centre being gay. Supposedly, trans allies are so homophobic that they particularly focus ‘turning homosexuals straight’ by making them transition. In reality, homosexuals and people whose gender identity does not match their birth sex are very different, but this is happily ignored. Quite often, it is alleged that ‘homophobic parents’ will ‘trans’ their gay kids because they prefer having a trans straight child. Very little real evidence is offered, as usual.

Trans widow. Any woman who used to be in a long-term relationship with a man who then transitioned, with the said relationship having broken up due to their transition. To be pitied and presented as a victim of ‘selfish, narcissistic behaviour’. No doubt, a breakdown of a relationship due to one partner transitioning is tragic, but only inasmuch as any breakdown is. However, GCs need to constantly present transgender people as self-centred and egoistical. Ironically, if more people are given a chance to explore their gender in youth, possibly to transition, fewer will enter into long-term relationships whilst being in the ‘wrong gender’, decreasing the numbers of trans widows. And yet, GCs rail against young people transitioning ‘because they are too young’ and then rail against older people transitioning ‘because of their poor partners’.

Transwoman. A deliberate misspelling of ‘trans woman’, to emphasize the belief that trans women are not in their opinion a subset of women, like black women or tall women, but a distinct category.

Trashed. What any high-profile trans ally is said to do with their reputation. The aim is to portray transgender people as tainted, beyond the pale, not to be mentioned in polite company or in the mainstream. Utilised whenever a high-profile celebrity expresses support for transgender people.

Undermining confidence. Any organisation that publishes a statement in support of trans people is said by the GCs to ‘undermine confidence’ in itself, affecting its ability to perform its normal services. This helps the GCs intimidate such organisations into not supporting transgender people.

Validation. What all trans ally women must be looking for from ‘men’.

VAWG. Violence and against women and girls. Another problem that, despite being almost solely the responsibility of cis men, is constantly connected to trans women. The logic usually goes like this:

• Women in Afghanistan are brutally oppressed because of their sex.
• They cannot ‘identify out’ of being a woman.
• Therefore, we should not allow ‘men’ to ‘identify into’ being a woman

The answer to which is, why are you not spending your energy campaigning against VAWG rather than against transgender rights? Is it because cis men get a free pass from GCs?

Vichy gays. Any homosexual that shows solidarity with transgender people.

Vulnerable. Women and children likely to come into contact with trans women in ‘women’s spaces’ are sometimes described as ‘vulnerable’ for extra effect.

We Can Always Tell. The notion that GCs can always tell a trans person apart from a cis. Usually utilised in response to ‘will you introduce genital checks to check trans women don’t use the ladies’. Patently false, as increasing numbers of cis women report being mistaken for trans women/men and severely harassed.

Witch. GCs love representing themselves as seventeenth century ‘witches’ who are being hunted and burned at the stake ‘merely for calling a trans woman a man’. Needless to say, nothing of the kind happens, indeed prominent GCs have cushy spots in the media and well-paid jobs with platforms from which they can continue to spout their beliefs.

Woke. The conspiracy theories about transgender people, Big Pharma, Stonewall and teachers in schools neatly fit into a bigger set of conspiracy theories about ‘the woke’, ‘the left’ and ‘the libs’.

Woman (1). For a GC, a ‘woman’ is precisely the set of women who hold gender critical views or are ‘about to be peaked’ (see peaked), i.e. to adopt the said views. They are ‘good’ women, the ‘real’ women, the ‘natural’ women — as opposed to ‘traitors’, ‘activists’, ‘ideologues’, words that describe women who are trans allies. It is a trick straight out of a populist handbook — the one that divides the people into ‘the real people’ and ‘the fifth column’. GCs will rarely say ‘I think’ or ‘I demand’ — they will say ‘women think’ or ‘women demand’. Thus, they always pretend to speak for the ‘silent majority’, for ‘womanhood’ who are always assumed to share their views.

Woman (2). For some of the less extreme GCs, who are able to see the fallacy of the argument that they speak for ‘women’ when plenty of women call them out of transphobia, the above definition changes to ‘women who we are acting in the best interests of’. Supposedly, trans ally women are young, naive and deluded, and the brave, noble GCs will rescue them. (The GC movement has never been short on arrogance and delusions of grandeur.)

Woman (3). Adult Human Female, the set of people from whose numbers GC want to purge trans women. According to Sheila Jeffreys, ‘“when men claim to be women…and parasitically occupy the bodies of the oppressed, they speak for the oppressed. They become to be recognised as the oppressed. There’s no space for women’s liberation”. Quite why should one see converts to a group as being more dangerous than the actual people trying to oppress it is never ever explained, just asserted. In addition, many GCs see womanhood as a ‘closed shop’ to which entry must be ‘earned’ by being born and growing up as a female: according to Robin Morgan ‘thirty-two years of suffering in this androcentric society, and of surviving, have earned me the title “woman”; one walk down the street by a male transvestite, five minutes of his being hassled (which he may enjoy), and then he dares, he dares to think he understands our pain?’

Womanface. The act of a trans woman presenting as a woman. Sometimes also applied to cross-dressers and drag queens. Using a flawed analogy between womanface and blackface, GCs will claim that any trans woman is misogynistic just by the virtue of being transgender. This pretty much declares trans women’s whole existence to be misogynistic.

Women and girls. People of the female sex who identify as cisgender who are supposedly in danger from the evil trans women in women’s spaces. The ‘girls’ are appended for extra alarmism. Sometimes ‘vulnerable’ is appended for yet more emphasis.

Women’s groups. Gender critical organisations. When a GC talks of ‘women’s groups being ignored’, they are referring to the viewpoint of the gender critical organisations not being wholly accepted.

Women’s services. Services such as women’s shelters, women’s refuges, or RCCs. As the GC narative goes, those services were ‘set up by women for women’ after ‘women fought for them for many years’, but were later ‘hijacked’ by ‘men’ who put on ‘skirts’ and ‘invaded’ them. A big problem for GCs is the millions of women who disagree and object to their, frankly, unacceptable rhetoric and conspiracy theories about transgender people and believe in trans inclusion. This includes many of the decision-makers in ‘women’s services’, a significant subset of which provide services to trans women. By the Equality Act of 2010 they are allowed to do this, as the decision on whether to include or exclude trans women is left to the provider. Rather than work on setting up alternatives of their own, GCs prefer to take women’s services to court demanding ‘single sex provision’ making the cash-strapped services spend on lawyers money that could be used to help vulnerable women. The justification for this is to allege a ‘stab in the back’ narrative: supposedly women in the long-forgotten past set up those services only for cis women but their cause was later betrayed by more recent administrators who ‘sold out’ to the ‘TRAs’. No historic evidence is offered that the people who set the services up were trans-exclusionary.

Women’s spaces. Any physical space traditionally used exclusively by women. This includes, but is not limited to: women’s public lavatories, women’s changing rooms, women’s shelters and support groups, women-only hospital wards and so on. Ejecting and excluding trans women from those is the life’s ambition of GCs. Never mind the fact that trans women have used them for years with minimum fuss and few incidents, never mind that in many countries with ‘self-id’ there have been few incidents… they want them gone because of what might happen.

Working class. It is an assertion by some GCs that transgender people and trans allies are overwhelmingly middle class, whilst the GCs themselves are ‘working class women standing up to them’. There is no solid evidence for either assumption. It allows the populist narratives about ‘the true people’ against ‘the metropolitan liberals’, so effective during Brexit, to be re-purposed. This line of reasoning is needed to deal with the fact that many women are trans allies and immune to GC ideology. They still need to be somehow discredited and smeared, and this is done by presenting them as ‘middle class’, ‘wealthy’ and ‘out of touch’, protected by their money from the problems of the ‘real people’. In reality, working class people, especially working class younger women, are all too likely to be aware that the real dangers to their safety come from cis men and that even if transgenderism were entirely eradicated their lives would not significantly change.

Afterword. The GC axioms.

GCs language is designed to promote seven broad axioms:

1. The ‘medical conspiracy’ axiom challenges the harm reduction approach. In the place of doctors carefully applying evidence-based medicine, GC’s imagine a conspiracy of ideologically motivated ‘gender ideologists’ — an unholy alliance of the medical profession with ‘Big Pharma’ and ‘trans rights activists’ — people propagandising supposedly cisgender people to transition. This is, for all intents and purposes, a conspiracy theory.
2. The second axiom is the ‘social contagion’ argument — a suggestion that being transgender is a choice and a fad — put into the heads of the gullible and the vulnerable by ill-intentioned activists, for instance teachers or social workers.
3. The third axiom is the transmisogyny axiom. One of the main attack angles for GCs is to juxtapose ‘women’ with ‘trans women’. Supposedly, trans women are misogynistic, which is why they use women’s bathrooms and changing rooms and make women feel unsafe. Likewise, the ‘trans rights activists’ — essentially allies of transgender people — support transgender people’s rights out of misogyny. The problem is that it is not easy to argue that trans women hate the very group — women — that they try so hard to join. Moreover, trans women tend to be more progressive on the actual women’s rights than many of the ‘natal’ (or cisgender, cis) women. Therefore, various logical meanderings need to be utilised to show there is a conflict between women and transgender people and hence ‘prove’ that trans women and trans allies are, in fact, misogynistic.
4. The fourth axiom is the trans-homophobia axiom. It works very similarly to the third axiom but in this instance trying to find a conflict between the rights of gay people and the rights of transgender people.
5. The fifth axiom is the safeguarding axiom — that can also be called ‘the indivisibility of manhood’ axiom. ‘Safeguarding’ means excluding trans women from women’s spaces because, as ‘men’, they pose a risk. The problem for GCs is that, statistically, women are far more at risk of attacks by cis men than anyone else. In the era of #metoo this is universally recognised, whereas there are relatively few known transgender people who have attacked women. Which leads to the obvious question: why is so much attention focused on the handful of trans attackers and not on the main sources of violence? Why is so much energy expended on stopping the reforms in Scotland, for instance, and not on ensuring the CPS prosecutes more people for sexual assault? It is a very problematic loophole for GCs, and they respond to it by insisting that trans women are ‘just men’, i.e. that the set of men is wholly indivisible.
6. The sixth axiom is the ‘definitional axiom’, that states that unless a group can clearly define who is and isn’t its member, it cannot fight for rights and against discrimination and violence. Thus, for instance, the Women’s Resource Centre has claimed that ‘replacing sex as a legal category with ‘gender identity’ undemines their fight against sex-selective abortions, FGM, child marriage and sexual exploitation of women. It sounds bizarre that those causes should be in any way hampered by trans women defining as women. The idea of this axiom is to turn the tables on those who, quite rightly, question the importance of fighting trans women at a time women’s rights are threatened by cis men and to imply none of the struggles against the patriarchy are possible if trans women are accepted.
7. The seventh and final axiom is the insistence on the abnormality of transgender people. GCs react particularly strongly to any promotion of transgender people in the media and also to any suggestion that transgender people are normal and commonplace. They are, conversely, at particular pains to tie transgenderism to behaviours seen as criminal, such as sexual abuse and voyerism.

As a final note, it should be said that the outward degree of animosity GCs are prepared to show towards transgender people themselves varies. Indeed, many GCs steadfastly insist that they have nothing against them and only oppose the ‘trans rights activists’, a politicised group of ideologues. Many other GCs however admit that they see transgender people as fundamentally unacceptable, mentally ill and in need of treatment, much like anorexics. How many in the first group are really in the second group but consciously moderate their language? I do not know: however what is important is that the GCs exhibit remarkable unity and avoid criticising each other. The former group will happily coexist with the latter, being comfortable with the overt transphobia whilst claiming not to share it.