An inconvenient reality



****************************************

What Elon Musk gets right about the plight of trans kids

Debbie Hayton

Elon Musk is the richest person in the world but it’s clear that money can’t always buy happiness. The X/ Twitter owner spoke movingly of his family, in particular his eldest surviving child, during an emotional interview with Jordan Peterson. ‘My son Xavier is dead, killed by the woke mind virus’, the father-of-12 lamented.

‘The people who have been promoting this should go to prison,’ said Musk

Musk claimed that he had been ‘tricked’ into allowing one of his children who transitioned from male to female to take puberty blockers after hearing that the child might otherwise be at risk from suicide.

The billionaire now appears to regret that decision bitterly and has vowed to ‘destroy the woke mind virus’. Whatever it’s called, the fantasy that human beings can be detached from the harsh reality of biological sex has taken root, especially among the liberal elites of California and elsewhere. Gender identity might be an unprovable and unfalsifiable idea, but it has been lapped up by politicians and policy makers who should have asked more questions and been far more sceptical.

After California became the first US state to bar schools from having to tell parents when children change their gender, Musk pledged to move the headquarters of both SpaceX and X from California to Texas. This is a man on a mission. But for Musk, and countless other families, the transgender phenomenon has been so much more than a curiosity on social media.

Gender identity ideology has the potential to tear countries apart; the impact on families, though, perhaps matters even more in some ways. Xavier is now know as ‘Vivian Jenna Wilson (the maternal surname) and, according to reports, no longer wishes to be related to Musk ‘in any way’.

“I was tricked into doing this… the people promoting this should go to prison.” @ElonMusk opens up to @JordanBPeterson about gender ideology’s impact on his son, Xavier. pic.twitter.com/1bdILGNdJE

— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) July 22, 2024

Other parents might have taken a different approach to children who expressed a wish to change gender. Some will have said ‘no’ from the outset; some will have gone along with it somewhere on a spectrum between reluctance and enthusiasm. Most worryingly of all, a few might have made the decision for their child, perhaps to deal with their own distaste of gender non-conforming behaviour.

But whatever path parents and children go down. evidence is mounting that some young people have been the victims of a medical and social scandal facilitated by doctors and promoted by politicians.

In her review of paediatric gender identity services, Dr Hilary Cass was scathing of the approach taken by the Tavistock clinic, which was also known as the Gender and Identity Development Service (Gids):

‘The rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, with weak evidence regarding the impact on gender dysphoria, mental or psychosocial health. The effect on cognitive and psychosexual development remains unknown. … Clinicians are unable to determine with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity.’

Last week, Professor Louis Appleby – chair of the National Suicide Prevention Strategy Advisory Group – rejected the suicide myth, the idea that there had been a rise in suicide rates since puberty-blocking drugs were restricted at the Tavistock in 2020. Appleby concluded that the data does not support such claims and found that ‘the way this issue has been discussed on social media has been insensitive, distressing and dangerous, and goes against guidance on safe reporting of suicide’.

My own experience as a transsexual who decided to make the change as an adult, has shown me that transition might be an answer to some issues – at least for those with the maturity to consent to the consequences. However, it is certainly not an elixir for every problem, and it leads to new challenges and difficulties in life. Unfortunately this has not always been made clear to children, and their parents, who were sold a dream that can never be realised, however much it was packaged up with rainbows and sparkles.

But for the parents who signed up to gender identity ideology, unfulfilled fantasy worlds will not end with a change of mind. The consequences of those decisions – halted development puberty, changed bodes and poor mental health – will be ongoing. For some it might be easier to maintain the fantasy than live with the knowledge of just what they did to their children. Like those Japanese soldiers who held out in the jungle long after 1945, their battle with the truth will not finish any time soon.

Ultimately, however, these parents were mere customers – and perhaps shouldn’t be blamed. For those who peddled the product, Musk was in no doubt, ‘the people who have been promoting this should go to prison’. When the lives of children are involved, that is what it might take to finally bring this scandal to an end.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/07/what-elon-musk-gets-right-about-the-plight-of-trans-kids/

******************************************************

There’s nothing ‘offensive’ about Prince Albert’s Memorial

The Prince Albert Memorial is the latest target of activists seeking to denigrate our past. The Memorial has stood in London’s Kensington Gardens for over 150 years as a moving tribute to Queen Victoria’s love for her husband. But now it has been branded ‘offensive’. Apparently, the sculptures at its base draw on ‘racial stereotypes’. Visitors were warned in a post – which has since been taken down – on the Royal Parks’ website that the memorial represents a ‘Victorian view of European supremacy’ which many today consider ‘problematic’. Really?

Royal Parks have chosen to hunt for remnants of Empire in order to condemn them

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy announced on her first days in office that the ‘era of culture wars is over’. Yet the divisive and politicised critique of our national history continues, led by a minority of activists with little regard for the views of the public. If Nandy really wishes to end the era of polarisation, she should step in to stop the long march of ideology through the institutions.

The Albert Memorial, like many of London’s historic monuments, is managed by the Royal Parks charity. They are tasked with conserving London’s eight Royal Parks, which remain the inheritance of the Crown, a job for which they are given around £10 million by the government. Royal Parks, which was formerly an agency of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), was reconstituted as a charity in 2017. In a curious arrangement, they act as a public corporation of DCMS with oversight and management of their appointments from the Culture Secretary. The Royal Parks Charity is expected to manage, protect and improve the parks in an exemplary and sustainable manner so that everyone, now and in the future, has the opportunity to enjoy their natural and historic environments. Yet it seems that, in this case, they have used the freedom their charitable status affords them to pursue a radical and contested approach to history.

In describing the Albert Memorial as an example of ‘British supremacy’, Royal Parks have chosen to hunt for remnants of Empire in order to condemn them, rather than focusing on their role as protectors of the parks of which they are stewards.

Since the summer protests of 2020, the custodians of British heritage have been repeatedly pressured to bend to the will of a small group of campaigners with no regard for the views of the public.

Responding to this corrosive pressure, last year the government published their ‘retain and explain’ guidance, informed by Policy Exchange’s paper, History Matters: Principles for Change, for custodians facing calls to remove, or otherwise denigrate, heritage assets.

The carefully developed ‘Retain and Explain’ government guidance sets clear standards for custodians who feel the need to remove or otherwise ‘explain’ the presence of a statue. Those wishing to make public comment on a statue are expected to present ‘a full and rigorous review of the historical evidence available’, including ‘peer assessment of the evidence and conclusions’. Did Royal Parks undertake any historical analysis before damning Albert? There certainly appears to be no reference to ‘peer assessment’ on the offending article about the memorial. Indeed, the comments on their website are given no specific attribution.

Rather than consider the Memorial as a product of the time which created it, they are condemning it precisely because it reflects a ‘Victorian view of the world that differs from mainstream views held today’. But why won’t Royal Parks laud the depiction of broken chains on the Memorial, an allusion to Albert’s role in abolishing slavery across the world?

What this story shows is that it is not enough for ministers to simply publish non-legally binding advice. Nandy should take direct action to hold Royal Parks accountable for their refusal to adhere to the government’s published instructions for managing contested artefacts.

If Royal Parks continue to disparage the historical assets in their care, then action must be taken. A new chair of the charity, Dame Mary Archer, takes office today. Nandy should make clear to Archer that the divisive and politicised curation of monuments will not be tolerated.

Even Royal Parks seem to recognise their mistake. The page on the website discussing ‘Albert in the Age of Empire’ has been removed, replaced by a link which states ‘you are not authorised to access this page’. A Royal Parks’ spokesperson told the BBC: ‘In light of recent feedback, we will review the online information we have provided to tell the story of the Albert Memorial.’

Nandy is not powerless. She can hold Royal Parks accountable. If the trustees of the charity refuse to preserve that which they’re tasked with protecting, then they can no longer be allowed to maintain such a precious piece of our national inheritance.

When activists seize control of history, the Culture Secretary represents our last line of defence. It is government inaction that has allowed our nation’s heritage assets to become so vulnerable to repeated denigration.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/07/theres-nothing-offensive-about-prince-alberts-memorial/

*****************************************************

Aussie Olympics star says Paris Games are so woke they're ruining athletes' chances of setting world records

Retired Olympic swimmer James Magnussen has taken a swipe at the Paris Olympics, saying they are so eco-friendly that they're ruining athletes’ chances of setting world records.

Magnussen won gold, silver, and bronze medals at the Olympic Games in 2012 and 2016. He also secured the title of 100m freestyle world champion in 2011 and 2013. Magnussen retired from competitive swimming in 2019.

He believes that the pinnacle sporting event in the world has an eco-friendly, vegan-first mentality that is damaging performance.

'There’s multiple factors that make village life far from ideal,' the dual Olympian wrote in his News Corp column.

'It’s the cardboard beds, which can’t give you optimal sleep.

'It’s the no airconditioning, which is going to play a bigger factor as the week goes. It was 20 degrees and raining yesterday. It’s going to be mid 30s in the coming days.

'That’s going to play a factor and the Australian team having their own portable air conditioners will be a welcome relief.

'It’s the crowded buses with no air flow. It’s all of the walking everywhere. The one thing we noticed in London was I was getting up to 6000-7000 steps a day, going from my room, to the food hall, to the bus stop, to the pool.'

Organisers of the Paris Games have been aggressive with their green approach, billing the event as the most sustainable ever.

Magnussen however believes they've gone overboard and that the environment that has been created for the athletes might be the toughest ever to produce world record swims.

'The lack of world records boils down to this whole eco-friendly, carbon footprint, vegan-first mentality rather than high performance,' he said.

'They had a charter that said 60 per cent of food in the village had to be vegan friendly and the day before the opening ceremony they ran out of meat and dairy options in the village because they hadn’t anticipated so many athletes would be choosing the meat and dairy options over the vegan friendly ones.

'The caterer had to rejig their numbers and bring in more of those products because surprise, surprise — world class athletes don’t have vegan diets.

'They must have watched the Netflix doco Game Changers and assumed everyone was the same. But let me tell you, Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps, Roger Federer — none of those guys are on a vegan diet.'

Conditions in the athletes village have already raised eyebrows among the Aussie contingent.

The 'anti-sex' cardboard beds went down like a lead balloon with water polo star Tilly Kearns and her teammate Gabi Palm, who said 'my back is about to fall off' after their first night.

Tennis star Daria Saville revealed the village is nothing like being in a hotel in a social media post on Tuesday.

'We don't really have hotel-like housekeeping here in the Olympic Village, so you have to get your own toilet paper,' she wrote in a caption alongside video of herself grabbing several rolls.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/olympics/article-13682595/James-Magnussen-Paris-Olympics-Games-2024-woke-world-records-eco-friendly-vegan-vegetarian.html

****************************************

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

***********************************************