Matthew Parris, GC gay man speaking out.

32 replies

CallMeSirShotsFired · 04/01/2019 23:22

Matthew Parris, writing in this week's Spectator, has shown his GC side.

Just a couple paras in to his latest article, he comments: "...it has been particularly sad in 2018 to see the ‘trans’ movement, with its hopes of modernising and liberalising public attitudes, walking straight into the same trap.

Sticking names on things and badges on people, and spouting corrosive nonsense about ‘crossing’ from one sex or sexuality or ‘gender’ to another can only warp self-knowledge and our knowledge of each other...."

He also names the "trans lobby" in his final sentences, showing an understanding of the type of people he means by these actions.

www.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/we-dont-need-new-categories-for-sexuality-we-need-to-abolish-categories/

OP posts:

Scissor · 05/01/2019 08:31

Saskia I thought he was referring to AIDS, which was a death sentence at one point in history.

SonicVersusGynaephobia · 05/01/2019 08:26

How has he managed to write that whole very sensible article, and leave out the two categories of sex? Is he being cowardly or ignorant?

SaskiaRembrandtWasFramed · 05/01/2019 08:24

In the 1960s and 1970s, as I matured and experimented, what I’d been told did not tally with what I encountered. I was never very promiscuous (or I’d be dead)

And I'm really hoping he isn't implying what he appears to be implying here.

SaskiaRembrandtWasFramed · 05/01/2019 08:22

But before the Victorians, sex was described more by verbs than nouns — as something people did rather than were — and sexual leanings, mainstream as well as minority, were appetites to which almost anyone might on occasion be prey. Those earlier ages had been vicious in their approach to morally disapproved behaviour but relaxed in their understanding that many, perhaps most, could feel the pull.

That's because before the 19th century, people had little understanding of biology and it was generally believed, as per Galen, that male and female genitalia was identical, but women's was inverted and therefore women were faulty versions of men. To be fair to pre-modern people, even when modern people did figure out the differences, they used the information to make gender stereotypes even more rigid and constrictive for women so it can't be argued they used their new knowledge for good.

Also, people were not relaxed in their understanding of sexuality. They were most definitely unrelaxed, especially towards female sexuality which was seen as voracious and aggressive.

NonExistentFox · 05/01/2019 08:20

Um… did you read the whole article, OP?

TimeLady · 05/01/2019 07:59

"My firm belief is that in trying to categorise sex, sexuality and — yes — even gender, the late 19th, 20th and early 21st centuries have taken the medical and social sciences down a massive blind alley. No such categories exist."

Yes, they do, Matthew. There are two distinct sex categories. Jeez if someone like him can't get his head round that, we are in trouble.

hipsterfun · 05/01/2019 02:14

Nothing useful to add, but Matthew Parris has been very high on my rather short list of loveable Tories for years.

Unflip

1 2