Archive for the ‘Morality’ Category

Spectre of Dune’s Axolotl Tanks as Professor Suggests Brain Dead Women Could Be Kept Alive as Surrogate Mothers

February 4, 2023

I found this horrendous issue being debated by Leo Kearse and the rest on GB News this morning. A philosophy professor in Oslo has suggested in a paper that brain-dead women could serve as surrogate mothers for women who were unable or unwilling to go through pregnancy themselves. The general reaction to the idea was revulsion, though the presenter said that philosophers often make extreme or outrageous suggestions just to start a conversation. There were also jokes about how mixed any children would be, born of a corpse. Of course, such women wouldn’t be corpses, just living women artificially kept alive through life-support machines. But one of them makes the serious point how you can tell if someone is braindead. The professor has made the comparison between his idea and organ donation. This is a reasonable moral problem – how is harvesting the organs of the dead any different from using the bodies of the braindead to bring children into the world? I suspect that the professor’s suggestion is really part of an attempt to explore the moral dimensions around donor organs. In that sense it’s a deliberately provocative statement intended to stimulate debate, not a serious suggestion.

But for readers of Dune it immediately raises the spectre of the Tleilaxu and their axolotl tanks, as one commenter pointed out. The Tleilaxu are one of the races in Frank Herbert’s Dune series. They specialise in genetic engineering and the creation of a form of clones, known as gholas. But they’re also clones themselves, born from the axolotl tanks. Only men are seen, which makes the other peoples of the galaxy suspect that the axolotl tanks themselves are the remains of their women. It’s a truly horrendous idea, and is part of SF’s tradition of exploring the shocking and dystopian. If the unnamed professor’s suggestion was serious, it would come a step closer to becoming reality rather than science fiction. But I don’t think it is serious, and if it was, it would face a number of serious moral objections.

On the other hand, the story is reported in the Heil, many of whose journo are, I believe, products of genetic engineering themselves. People that right-wing and bonkers are surely the products of deranged technology.

An Artist’s Image of the Tleilaxu axolotl tanks.

Jeremy Bentham’s Radical Political Beliefs

January 13, 2023

Jeremy Bentham was a British 19th century philosopher. He was the inventor of Utilitarianism, a moral philosophy that states that something is good if it creates the greatest happiness for the greatest number. This, however, fails as it neglects the fact that some things are inherently good or evil even though they may be popular. One of the examples of this would be a case where a mob demands the execution of a wrongly accused man. It is still wrong to execute an innocent person, even if this is massively popular and demanded by the majority of people. Bentham was also interested in prison reform and design. In his view, prisons should be laid out so that the prisoners and their activities were all under surveillance from a central hub, the panopticon. This constant surveillance would, he believed, lead to prisoners acquiring the habit of behaving decently and legally and so reform their characters ready for release back into society. Modern critics consider it a chilling, totalitarian surveillance society in miniature. Another of his ideas is truly bonkers. He believed that people – presumably members of the aristocracy and people accustomed to public service and social prominence – should preserve their ancestors after death through mummification and embalming, and put them on display as ‘autoicons’. The intention behind this bizarre idea is that people, surrounded by their dead relatives and antecedents, would then feel themselves encouraged to emulate their virtues. Bentham had himself preserved, and is on display in a glass case at Oxford University, except for his head, which is a waxwork. His real head is in a case somewhere, and not displayed.

However, the Utilitarians were behind the early 19th century hygiene reforms that cleaned up Britain’s cities by demanding proper sewage and the removal of waste from the streets to improve the inhabitants’ lives and health. And he was also a very much a political radical. He outlined his democratic views in Democracy – A Fragment. He believed that people weren’t naturally virtuous and public spirited, and that they acted primarily in their own interest. This meant that those governing also acted in their own interest, which was to expand their power against everyone else. They could only be kept in line through democracy and all adults possessing the vote. And he meant all adults. The franchise should be extended to include not just all adult men, but also women. He also wanted the abolition of the monarchy, the House of Lords and the disestablishment of the Church of England. This was in the 1820s, and it was nearly a century before British women acquired the right to vote. As for the abolition of the monarchy, the Lords and the disestablishment of the Anglican Church, Tony Benn was reviled as a Communist for advocating them, plus nuclear disarmament in the 1980s. They’re not policies I support, though the House of Lords needs radical reform as at the moment it has more members than the ruling general assembly of the Chinese Communist Party. But I am impressed with his staunch advocacy of democracy, especially at a time when many would have regarded it almost as seditious because of the excesses of the French Revolution.

And unfortunately he does have a point about the corruption of the governing class. We’ve seen it in the way the Tory administrations of the past eleven years have passed endless laws to benefit their class at the expense of Britain’s working people, and themselves personally. As when one of their number decided to relax the planning laws while angling for a lucrative property deal in London.

There have been voices on the internet claiming that democracy is in crisis and that people are giving up on it. If that’s the case, then it’s because we don’t have enough democracy in Britain. Last year we saw three prime ministers come and go, but were not allowed to elect any of them. It’s high time this changed.

More democracy, Tories out!

The Lotus Eaters Reject Objective Moral Values

January 8, 2023

This is a bit abstract, but as it involves issues about the objective reality of moral values and justice against moral relativism, it needs to be tackled. A few days ago the Lotus Eaters published an essay on their website by Helen Dale, which denied that there were such things as objective moral values. This followed an conversation on YouTube between Carl Benjamin, aka Sargon of Gasbag, and the philosopher Peter Boghossian, in which Sargon was also arguing that objective moral values don’t exist. People, including myself, have taken the mick out of Sargon, pointing out that he’s not university educated and that at one point his standard response to his opponents seemed to be to ask if they hadn’t read John Locke. But Sargon’s bright and is well-read in political philosophy, albeit from the Conservative, Libertarian perspective.

Which seems to be where his denial of objective morality comes. Conservatives since Edmund Burke have stressed the importance of tradition, and from what I remember of Sargon’s debate with Boghossian, he was arguing that concepts like human rights and democracy are the unique products of western culture. These notions are alien and incomprehensible to other culture, such as Islam, which have their own value systems, notions of justice and ideas about their ultimate grounding. Now Sargon does have a point. Human rights seem obvious to us, because we have grown up in a society in which such notions have developed over centuries, dating back to the 18th century and beyond, going back to the Roman idea of the Lex Gentiles, the Law of Nations. This was the idea that there were fundamental assumptions about justice that was common to all nations and which could be used as the basis for international law. And the Enlightenment philosophers were confident that they could also discover an objective basis for morality. This has not happened. One of the problems is the values which are to be regarded as fundamental also need supporting arguments, and morality has changed over time. This can be seen in the west in the changing attitudes to sex outside marriage and homosexuality. Back in the early 20th century both were regarded as immoral, but are now accepted. In the case of homosexuality, moral condemnation has been reversed so that it is the persecution of gays that it rightly regarded as immoral. The philosopher Isaiah Berlin was aware of the changes in morality over time, and deeply influenced by the 17th century Italian philosopher Vico. His solution, as someone who bitterly hated Stalin’s USSR and its tyranny, was to argue that although objective moral values didn’t exist, there were nevertheless moral values that acted as such.

I can see some positive aspects to Sargon’s position. If it is accepted that western ideas of truth and justice are just that, localised western notions, that it prevents them from being used as pretexts for foreign imperialist ventures like the Neo-Con invasions of the Middle East. It brings us back to the old, pre-War American conservative values that held that America had no business interfering in the political institutions and concerns of other peoples. But it also leaves the way open for cultural relativism and the justification of despotic regimes. If there are no objective moral values, then there can be no firm moral objections to obvious injustices, such as the genocide of the Uighurs in China or the Taliban’s recent decision to deprive women of university education. From what I’ve been reading, Chinese nationalist communists dismiss such ideas of democracy and human rights as baizuo, which translates as White liberal nonsense. And the Fascists and Communists Sargon despises were also moral relativists. Both Mussolini and Hitler also declared that each nation had their own set of unique moral values and that liberal notions of justice and humanity did not apply to their regimes. In a number of his speeches Lenin denied that there were any eternal moral values, but that these changed instead with each historical epoch, as determined by the economic structure of society at the time. This opened the way to the horrendous atrocities committed by the Nazi and Soviet regimes.

The Lotus Eaters are also staunch enemies of wokeness, but Critical Theory in its various forms also relativizes traditional morality and attitudes arguing that these too are merely the local intellectual products of the west, and specifically White heterosexual elite men. This has led to Postcolonial Theorists betraying feminists and human rights activists in nations like India, by refusing to criticise these cultures repressive traditions, or instead blaming them on western imperialism.

My own belief is that there are indeed objective moral values although human moral intuitions have changed over time. Notions of democracy and human rights may have their origin in the west, but they are nevertheless universal and universally applicable. This does not mean that other cultures may not adopt and adapt them according to their own cultural traditions. In the case of Islam, there are any number of books by the Islamic modernists arguing that modern notions of human rights are perfectly in accordance with Muslim values.

For the sake of genuine humanity and international justice and the eradication of tyranny, we have to believe that there are objective moral values protecting human life and freedom.

Governor of California Discussing Paying Reparations for Slavery

January 2, 2023

Last week Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, proposed that the state should pay reparations for slavery. This would consist in a payment of $220,000 to Black Californians descended from slaves. Newsom had previous passed or proposed legislation for the payment of a monthly amount to homeless trans people for a fixed term of one year. This was because there was a disproportionate number of trans people living on the streets, and the payment was to allow them to begin to purchase or rent a home. Newsom’s proposal to pay reparations for slavery was discussed by the Lotus Eaters over here and there’s a video by Black Conservative Perspective in America criticising it. The Black Conservative was not impressed, calling it divisive and playing a clip of Black speakers before the California state legislature or whatever demanding more. One man wanted the payment to be in a fixed amount of gold for each enslaved ancestor. An angry man wearing the red fez and tie of the Nation of Islam ranted about how God had a particular hatred of America and if the money wasn’t paid, He’d destroy the country with an asteroid or something. The Black Conservative considered that these payments would be inflationary, that the money would go on cars and cocaine, and that it would never be enough. People would always come back asking for more.

These are legitimate criticisms. Simon Webb, of History Debunked, made a video attacking the reparations for slavery campaign a few months or so ago. He also thought that it would cause racial divisions rather than solve them, and illustrated it with this example. Say there were two people living next to each other, in identical houses and with the same amount of wealth, but one was Black and the other White. If the Black man received £40,000 simply as compensation for his ancestors being enslaved but not for anything he personally had done, it would cause the White man to become resentful. It might not be true everywhere and of every White person – some may well share the opinion that it’s right Blacks descended from slaves should receive reparations for the suffering of their ancestors. But many others may well become extremely resentful. It could easily result in insults, abuse and worse. When Bristol city council passed a motion a year ago calling for the payment of reparations, Deputy Mayor and head of Equalities Asher Craig received an enormous amount of abusive messages.

I’m also sure that the Black Conservative also has a point about some of the prospective recipients squandering the money. I don’t doubt that some Blacks would use the money wisely to improve conditions for themselves and their children. But I can also see others wasting the money on expensive luxuries, like top of the range cars. There have been a number of stories in the past about people who’ve won millions on the National Lottery and who’ve then spent it all with nothing to show for it so that they’re back as poor as before. This has been done by people regardless of race, White and Black alike. I am also afraid that if these sums were paid, the gangster element in the Black community would use it to expand their violence and drug dealing, as criminals of any colour would if suddenly given a massive cash boost. Perhaps some would use it to leave the gangs and crime behind and try and establish themselves as respectable, law-abiding citizens. You’d hope so. But I think rather more criminals would simply use it to finance more of their destructive lifestyle, which would cause further damage to the Black community. And I am also afraid that whatever was paid would never be enough, and that they would always come back for more.

Thomas Sowell in one of his books argued against slavery reparations. He felt that the people, who were victimised and responsible for it are now dead, and so beyond our ability to help or punish. He also argued that whatever profits America had made from slavery had vanished in the bloodbath of the American Civil War. Furthermore, the guilt for something as terrible as slavery could not be absolved simply by paying money. He also made the point that no society could survive a moral viewpoint in which it had to be constantly criticising itself and paying compensation for the acts of the past. I think these are excellent points.

When Bristol passed its motion calling for reparations, the practical measures made it seem more like a call for further affirmative action for the Black British community as a whole justified through the connection to slavery. The motion ruled out payments to individuals. Instead they should be paid to Black-led organisations which would work to improve conditions and create sustainable, prosperous Black communities. All Blacks were to benefit from this, not just those of Afro-Caribbean or slave origin. While it’s better than Newsom’s proposal in providing for their real, collective benefit of the Black community rather than just the compensation of individuals, there are real moral problems with this as well. By including all Black, it also makes the British state morally responsible for people we did not enslave and who may themselves be descendants of the very slavers who sold their human cargo to us. It also ignores the fact that other nations, like the Arabs and Indians, were also involved in the African slave trade and the fact that White Europeans, including Brits, were also the victims of enslavement in the Turkish conquest of the Balkans and the Barbary pirates. I sent email messages to Craig and Cleo Lake, the Green councillor who proposed the motion, but got no reply. This, in my opinion, shows their absolute contempt for those challenging the notion.

In the British context, it could be argued that any profits Britain acquired from the slave trade were spent on our efforts to stamp it out through the activities of the British West African squadron and its patrols as well as a wider campaign against slaving and slavery during the Empire. There is also the problem that some of the countries responsible for kidnapping slaves also want reparations paid to them, even though some of their chiefs became extremely rich from the trade’s profits. The Caribbean nations, or some of them, have also demanded reparations. Some of this has been to deflect attention from the failings of their own rulers, while I don’t doubt that the venal kleptocrats are looking at a source of further money they can steal and loot. There’s also a question of the amount paid. Britain paid £20 million in compensation to the slaveowners at abolition, something that has been bitterly resented by some Black activists, just as it was by some abolitionists at the time. This translates into billions in today’s money and we only stopped paying it off a few years ago. If we were to pay a commensurate amount today, I think it would bankrupt us. And I can’t see that being to anyone’s benefit in Britain.

So far I think Newsom is on his own on this issue, and it remains to be seen whether he goes ahead with it. But this could be one issue to watch, as it’s possible other states will take it up, as well as activists over here.

Australian News Report on Premature Baby Incubated in ‘Artificial Womb’

December 22, 2022

This is further to the video I put up earlier about the possibility of artificial wombs and EctoLife’s wretched proof of concept video promoting their plans for a hatchery. This is another video that came up for me on YouTube. It’s a news report from Sydney’s 7 News posted by the Women and Infants Research Foundation about a very premature baby, who was kept alive and brought to term through being incubated in an artificial womb. In fact the womb is a plastic bag filled with oxygen to help the baby’s lungs develop naturally. It’s clearly related to the biobags developed at the Philadelphia Children’s Hospital, although those were filled with amniotic fluid. The video looks forward to further experiments on baby lambs where the bags would be filled with amniotic fluid. As it is, although the bag used was described as an artificial womb, it’s not that far from a conventional incubator.

While I’m obviously pleased that this technique was able to save the baby’s life, and hopefully other babies like him, I have very strong moral reservations about the development of true artificial wombs and the type of hatcheries that EctoLife are keen to develop. The fact that this technique has not become mainstream suggests that it either doesn’t work as effectively as predicted or else medical authorities are extremely worried about the ethical implications of this research.

Video on the Development of Artificial Wombs

December 16, 2022

Hashem al-Ghaili posted this fascinating and chilling video on his channel on YouTube two years. It begins with a description and images of a hatchery of birth pods containing human babies, almost exactly like that unveiled this week by EctoLife as a proof of the concept. It then goes back and traces the scientific development of the technology. The first artificial womb was designed in the 1950s but not built. Then researchers in Japan built and test one using goat fetuses. It then moves on 2017 and the experiments with infant lambs in biobags at Philadelphia Children’s Hospital before ending two years ago with very elaborate pods which also monitor the baby’s vital signs. The video states that artificial wombs have been designed to help premature babies, especially those born before 24 weeks, whose survival rates are almost negligible.

The similarity between the pods in the video and EctoLifes is very close, which suggests to me that the people developing this concept have been doing it in one form or another for a very long time. While I have no arguments against helping premature babies to survive, there are huge moral questions over the way such technology would lead, such as the complete abolition of natural birth and the mass manufacture of human beings in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.

CBC News Report on Infant Lambs in Experimental Artificial Wombs

December 15, 2022

I found this video on YouTube after the reports the other day about the company, EctoLife, unveiling its concept of a mass hatchery for the artificial gestation of human babies. This video is five years old and comes from the CBC/ the National, and is on experimental artificial wombs, ‘biobags’, created by Dr Emily Partridge and her team at Philadelphia Children’s Hospital. These appear to be clear plastic bags filled with a fluid closely approximating the amniotic fluid of the womb. The animals being gestated in them are infant lambs taken from their mothers by C-section, and fed through an artificial umbilical cord. The experiment is being done to see if this technique can be used for severely premature human babies that have been born after 23 weeks. At the moment a great number of these babies die, and those that survive need special care, such as being put on ventilators because of their delicate, undeformed lungs. They may also experience health problems for the rest of their lives. The report notes that the lambs in the biobags appear to be breathing normally, even developing wool. After being used in the experiment, they are euthanised and the bodies dissected as part of the experiment.

I knew that there were experiments on goat fetuses in this direction, as it was discussed in a ’90s issue of Scientific American, but was unaware of this experiment. While this isn’t as chilling, nor as far-fetched as EctoLife, and there is a genuine, medical purpose behind the research – the artificial gestation of premature babies, rather than the mass manufacture of human infants – it still nevertheless brings the prospect of the artificial hatcheries of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World a step closer, with all the ethical questions that brings.

Brave New World Comes Closer as Company Launches Concept of Artificial Womb Facility

December 13, 2022

This is really chilling. Interesting Engineering, a YouTube channel devoted to news about cutting edge science and technology, put up a piece today about a company, EctoLife, launching the concept of a mass artificial womb facility, that could produce 30,000 births a year. The channel said that the use of the term ‘produce’ was deliberate, as the company also intends to have tools that would allow parents to customise their children.

For more information, go to https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEuiOszNd6msGgqsD0f9YAQ/community?lb=Ugkxv37SPqDJAmrUqHasXxF3p0NVguxZewuj.

This is really chilling, as it seems some moron has read Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and thought it was a good idea. Huxley’s SF classic is set in a community 200 years after the Fordist Revolution. The family has been abolished and children are born from hatcheries, genetically manipulated and conditioned for their predetermined roles in society. Sex is purely recreational, and parental terms like ‘mother’ and ‘father’ are considered obscenities and unspeakable insults if directed at people. Drugs are used recreationally, and it’s a hedonistic culture directed towards pleasure in which genuine cultural progress has ceased, and art, literature and so on aren’t valued. I think it’s been filmed at least twice. There was a miniseries in the 1980s/90s, if I remember correctly, and another TV version at the beginning of this century.

People have been predicting the development of artificial wombs for a long time. Way back around 1984/5 the Observer ran a piece about them and what they would mean for the people born from them. They were also included in one of the articles speculating about future scientific discoveries and how they would impact humans in a 1990s issue of Scientific American. This included a photo of goat embryos being grown in a lab.

There are any number of ethical issues about this. The most immediate is the divorce of human reproduction from biology. I can see how the development of such techniques could help those women, who want children but are physically unable to carry a child. But this also raises the spectre of the mass industrial production of humans, the withering away or abolition of the traditional family and its replacement by the company or the state, as well as the genetic engineering of humans to suit the wishes of the parents. This is really dark, dystopian stuff, and recalls some of the fears that were discussed with the development of test-tube children back in the 1970s.

On the other hand, I do wonder if this is actually a serious proposition. A number of companies have announced very ambitious scientific schemes in the past. Back in the 90s once again, one American company declared it was seriously interested in developing a space elevator. That’s a giant lift that would take capsules up into space so they could be launched using far less energy than on Earth. That’s an idea made famous by Arthur C. Clarke in his book The Fountains of Paradise. It also needs far tougher materials than are available at present. In order to withstand the immense weight and stresses, the elevator would need to be made of a material 80 times stronger than steel. There have been interesting developments in the creation of tough carbon fibres, but at the present level of technology the construction of such an edifice is impossible. There was a piece in one of the popular science mags, I think it may have been New Scientist, in which the author predicted that we’d see space elevators in perhaps two or three decades’ time, given recent progress. Well, perhaps. But I’m still sceptical, just as I’m sceptical about this ever becoming a reality. Note that they’re talking about ‘concept’ rather than reality. That says to me that this may well be just hype, and they’re actually a long way away from creating it.

38 Degrees Petition to Expel Tory PPE Profiteer Michelle Mone from the House of Lords

December 2, 2022

As you can see, I’m clearing the backlog I’ve built up of various emails from the petitioning organisations and activist groups. I got this one on Monday about Lady Michelle Mone, who pocketed a very tidy sum from recommending to the government a company producing faulty PPE. This has caused immense outrage, and people want her out. I concur, and I’ve signed the petition. If you’re as annoyed at this piece of Tory cynicism and venality as I am, I hope you will too.

David, it’s all over the news. Conservative Peer Michelle Mone is under fire for reportedly pocketing £29 million from the taxpayer by supplying dodgy PPE during the pandemic that was deemed totally unfit for purpose. [1]

Ministers are being asked to explain how they let our nurses and NHS staff go without proper PPE, all the while handing over hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers money, to a reportedly dodgy company linked to a friendly Conservative Peer. [2]

What’s missing is pressure from us, the British public who want her kicked out of the Lords and taxpayers who want our money back.

Since we launched the petition a few days ago, more than 85,000 of us have added our names calling for Michelle Mone to be kicked out of Parliament and to hand back EVERY PENNY of the £29 million that she reportedly took from the taxpayer, at the very least.

Right now, your name is missing, David.

Will you help make it to 100,000 signatures by the end of today and send a message from the British public that they can’t ignore? Add your name with one click by hitting the button below:

To: The Lords Conduct Committee

Expel Michelle Mone from the Lords immediately

ADD MY NAME

Corruption has no place in politics. Conservative peer Michelle Mone is reported to have secretly pocketed £29 million of public money during the pandemic for unsafe PPE that couldn’t even be used – all while our NHS heroes were putting their lives on the line – including by wearing DIY PPE to protect themselves and the public during the pandemic.

We – the undersigned – are calling on the Lords Conduct Committee to investigate and expel Michelle Mone from the House of Lords and ensure that every penny in profit that she took from the taxpayer is repaid immediately.

ADD MY NAME

Or if don’t want to sign, you can tell us why here:

I’M NOT SIGNING THIS PETITION BECAUSE…

Thanks for being involved,

Tom, Jonathan, Ellie, Kate and the 38 Degrees team

NOTES:

[1] The Guardian: Revealed: Tory peer Michelle Mone secretly received £29m from ‘VIP lane’ PPE firm
[2] The Guardian: Ministers face pressure to explain PPE Medpro contracts decision
The Guardian: PPE Medpro declines to say how it would repay millions if told to do so

EDIjester on the Pro-Trans Ideology to Be Taught in Welsh Schools

November 18, 2022

EDIjester is another gender critical gay YouTuber. He produces video specifically tearing into the gender ideology and how it is corrupting medicine, education and legal practice. In the video below, he turns his scathing attention on the RHSE curriculum for Welsh schools introduced by the devolved Welsh government. It is the subject of a damning report compiled by a group of concerned parents and m’learned friends, whose conclusions the jester summarises.

The report found that the curriculum, which corresponds to the personal and social development curriculum being taught in English schools, is based Posthumanism and Queer Theory, and is aimed at primary school children as young as three. It is part of a general project of queering and is based on the vile theories and research of John Money, a monster who experiment on children, and that of the French postmodernist philosopher and paedophile Michel Foucault. This raises the important issues of belief and safeguarding. The new curriculum views children as sexual beings from birth and safeguarding and child protection as inhibiting rather than protecting their proper growth. It promotes a sex positive attitude, including criminal sexual activity for and among children. One particular point of concern is that the child’s sense of self is referred to as ‘gender’ rather than personality. Its ideological basis in Queer Theory is prioritised over real human experience and characteristics. It erases the reality of biological sex and diverges from established definitions of sex and sexual orientation and this in turn erases the existence of gay men and lesbians. Moral considerations are viewed as irrelevant to this sex positivity and parents cannot opt out. It is also not based on factual evidence and stakeholders, such as the educators who actually teach children – nursery nurses, teachers, teaching auxiliaries and so on – were not consulted. There is also the implied assumption that any opposition to this curriculum comes from the New Right. The jester states that the people responsible for curriculum are so far left that to them everyone is the New Right. The curriculum also views legitimate safeguarding concerns as dismissible. It also promotes the mental alienation of parents from their child’s education, disregard for family life, of which the jester notes there are all types. It sidelines protected beliefs such as religion in favour of its own quasi-theological ideas.

The jester is absolutely horrified by this, and urges people to reblog and retweet the video, write to their MPs, and consult the resources on the report and the curriculum it critiques to which he links on the YouTube page with this video.

This all sounds very alarmist and exaggerated, but I have absolutely no doubt he’s fundamentally correct. Unfortunately, the gender ideology is very strongly influenced by the two academics the video names as well as others, who wanted to erase the boundaries between adults and children. I admire the Welsh government, but here the educational curriculum they are promoting is absolutely horrific.

He is also worried by a report by the NHS which removes sex as a protected characteristic in favour of gender, and so allows the treatment of women patients, for example, by trans-identified men. This carries real dangers, and not just in the NHS. One woman who was due to have colorectal surgery at a private hospital was refused treatment because she made it clear she didn’t want trans-identified men treating her. This created a scandal, and the hospital company has found her an alternative in one of its other hospitals.

The relevant links

The NHS Seven Principles and the Erasure of Sex https://www.gov.uk/government/publica…

The Report on Welsh Schools from Safe Schools Alliance – PDF for Report at Bottom of Page https://safeschoolsallianceuk.net/202…

Write to your MP – Do It Now https://www.writetothem.com/?gclid=Cj…