Thursday, 2 November 2017

Third world Europe

Most people think societies progress over time. Britain and Europe took centuries to change from a feudal agricultural society to industrial democracies, and created many of the greatest inventions now in use, from the car, the telephone, television and radio. People take for granted this progress will go forward over time and continue permanently. Taking a snapshot when I was young in Britain in the 70s, most families had the father working and the mother looking after the family, not because they had to but because they could. Mortgages were capped at around 2 1/2 times income, and people either rented council houses or privately, with subsidies or rent caps or owned their own houses.

Fast forward to 2017. Mortgage limits were removed, ten times income were common till the 2008 crash, and despite the crash today's average prices in England are now 7-8 times income, with a house rising from 30% of income for mortgage payments to up to 80%. This means well under half ones incomes are now spent on housing and far less is left for general spending, meaning the actual economy is being reduced by so little being spent on non-housing areas. Of course governments tell you higher house prices make you rich, so will never reduce them, although in fact if your price goes up 100% (which is typical over about 10 years nowadays) as soon as you move you'll just spend even more on the new one than you would have originally as they have gone up even more than yours assuming you trade up.

So we can see that in Britain (where I live) people now have well under half as much purchasing power as they did 40 years earlier. That is a dire economic foundation considering most politicians say we've never been as well off as we are now. The next issue is freedom of movement. I remember in the 70s how sorry we felt for people in the USSR who couldn't afford cars and needed permits to travel and many were unable to move outside their own country. We had free parking outside city centres, and new roads were regularly being built, along with improving existing ones, exactly as you'd expect. Run forward to today. The roads are far more crowded (there have been more immigrants to Britain since 1970 than between 1066 and 1970) and instead of improving them many councils are narrowing them and reducing the speed limits, giving priority to public transport, bicycles and pedestrians. Of course as the majority of traffic is private this means the combination of more people and deliberately worse roads makes the same journeys far slower than they would have been in the 70s. Now when we see urban road works it's nearly always to make the roads narrower or close them altogether. And when you do finally get where you need to it'll cost you 10% of your shopping bill for parking in many places.

Of course the governments make excuses for every awful thing they do, mainly global warming, the 'solutions' for which were making energy costs more expensive, driving and parking a lot harder and more expensive, and restricting many household appliances such as light bulbs, hairdryers and vacuum cleaners. The immediate loss is instant and measurable, while the future benefit is and can never be measurable nor knowable. Pedestrians don't belong on roads so slowing cars down for the idiots who walk into them is letting the tail wag the dog, while if they want bus and cycle lanes then build them, don't take them from the already limited road space. But without an excuse how would the authorities get people to accept these draconian measures, let alone stop actual riots?

Immigration has managed, regardless of the propaganda from the media it enriches our culture, to simply import millions (one million every three years in recent years) of immigrants, most from third world countries, who also bring their own cultures with them, to predictably turn huge parts of Britain into places which almost exactly resemble the places they left. Criminals such as pickpockets, bank card frauds, drug dealers, human traffickers etc. are also imported and carry out their professions here almost unhindered. Despite having centuries to reach our western standards in their own countries, instead of working to build them up as we did here, as China is now doing (despite an almost total absence of human rights), they simply move somewhere which has already done the work and let their own countries rot. Of course this is 100% the fault of the governments, as without their new open door policies it wouldn't have been possible for them to come here, as it was till the Blair era of the 90s.

As a direct result, despite the fact that anyone in authority will call you a racist for saying so, our schools, medical services and roads are crammed full and compounded by the fact many new arrivals barely speak English, with some forming tight communities where they all employ and mix with each other, with some never bothering to learn it for their entire lives. A few countries like Israel force all new arrivals to learn their language and make them leave if they haven't after attending compulsory full time courses. It can be done. And it doesn't help the third world either as they lose lots of their labour force and have no incentive to develop to the level of the countries they are flooding to. Although most people would prefer to live in their own homes, the pull of economic prosperity and political freedom are too strong to avoid for many, although bear in mind Europe was exactly the same in medieval times with rule by the aristocracy, mass poverty and regular bloody massacres. We evolved out of it, and these many countries are simply allowed to let their population shift en masse to instantly benefit from other people's efforts. But what they overlook is because many do not assimilate and take on modern values all they are actually doing is make more and more areas like the ones they left and the only difference being they get many free state benefits, which they have not contributed a penny to, which they can not in their original countries.

So in 40 years Britain has changed to a country where despite marvellous improvements in technology our successive governments have worked to undo more and more of the benefits brought with time, to return many roads to Victorian standards where they were only fit for horses, make it so expensive to house people that most of their money is spent on that with little left for anything else, shrinking the economy directly by reducing the money in circulation, and overwhelming the system with people who do not even fit in the society they are moving to and often stay as such for generations to come. Of course, as I pointed out already, people would prefer in most cases to be at home, and if they can not, then they make their new surroundings as much like where they lived before as they can. Meaning growing enclaves where shops, people, doctors, clothing and schools become almost the same as they would be in places like Pakistan or Poland. Leftist liberals may claim to welcome this and vilify anyone who objects at all, but when you are a minority in an area there is a massive difference between being a willing arrival who chooses to become an instant minority, to those born in a country where their area means they have become one without any say in the matter.

It is totally wrong to allow government and media pressure to stop our freedoms, and the fear of being labelled a racist or worse still being charged with hate crimes, as they do in most third world countries (including blasphemy), although everyone suffers the same fates, and only a handful of dreamy eyed liberals enjoy queueing for two hours where they are the only people who speak English at a council office or hospital, few dare to speak out in public, allowing the policies to continue unabated. Combine that with the irrational fear of 'climate change' (varying weather patterns) and the public are restricted from fighting back through their own imaginations that they will get into more trouble for complaining than allowing the actual trouble they already have. Unless this stops we will end up where every country in the world is eventually a variation on the others, with no native race or culture, and like the USSR, needing a permit to travel. And do even the leftest of liberals really want that?

Wednesday, 8 March 2017

Climate change, religion and Munchhausen's by proxy

What have the above got in common? Those familiar with my material will have worked out undeveloped people have to have faith, and the lowest faiths of all attack everyone outside the faith. I'll also add body dysphoria to complete the set. What do they all have in common? Handing over your authority to others, and hating yourself or other people not part of the group.

The 21st century has the liberal left supporting all of these, including religion as long as it's only Islam. Do you wonder why the so-called progressives support the most backward, dangerous religion on the planet? Because at the back of all of them they're terrified of other people, and want the strongest authority to protect them from it. Islam hands over their entire lives to Sharia law, while the left hand it over to the state. One uses God while the other uses politics, but the lives led under such totalitarian regimes are reassuringly similar to those who feel the need to live under them.

The body dysphoria and Munchhausens by proxy come in as a direct replacement of the religious sharia law of Islam for hate of other people for the left. Munchhausen's by proxy overlaps the false religion of climate change, totally based on trusting others and hating humanity for causing it. They believe everyone else is killing them and their unborn grandchildren, so has become the most misanthropic movement since the Final Solution. It is only a modern variation of it after all.

The climate change cult ticks all the boxes of the cult tests, exclusivity, demonising outsiders, refusing to accept other views and taking vast amounts of money. Technically until the internet allowed people to check if scientists said the average temperature was slightly higher than it was in 1850 you had to accept it, and were virtually unable to check yourself, and totally unable to know it directly as no one can ever tell from personal experience. Despite three decades of nothing happening besides some melting Arctic ice (and growing Antarctic, the one we never hear about), everything else, especially the sea level, is doing just fine. It can all be checked from official data. But the regressive left, following the divisive hate of Marx, sees others as the enemy. Muslims are the notable exception as I have explained, as ultimately despite the totally different motivation life in Iran is very similar to a life of hard left government. The religious leaders are replaced by large monuments of Marx, Lenin and Castro but all equally idols to Satan.

And when you turn your Munchhausens or hate for others inwards what do you have? Body dysphoria. As yet no one has demedicalised anorexia. People who hate themselves so much they cut themselves or starve themselves are still accepted as mentally ill. But if they hate their bodies because they are the sex they prefer not to be they can cut themselves and drug themselves with the collusion of doctors because this one single illness has been isolated as normal. And then if anyone like Germaine Greer or Jenny Murray dares to say a man can never change sex they are again demonised, using Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals by using collective ridicule to maintain authority.

The left love anything negative. They jump on the perverted and decadent, just as they celebrate mental illnesses, talking about equality and minority rights, ultimately virtually worshipping people who see reality differently from the consensus. Under the illusory umbrella of human rights they single out fractions of a percentage of unfortunate people who have complex mental disorders and use them to assert their authority on the 99% without such disorders to make us bow to the abnormal. They are actually no different to the Asian beggars who maim their own children for sympathy to earn more money. It's just a far more sophisticated version, by looking for the most unfortunate and disadvantaged people and then forcing the rest of us to make allowances and see them as the normal ones. It's a form of attempted mass mind control, which can never last for long as each new generation of children will say 'Why has that woman got such a deep voice' or 'Why is that man wearing a dress?'. Try as you like you can't stop innocent children being honest, and in the end, as even Jesus said, the little children will save humanity from itself.

Tuesday, 3 January 2017

Everyone's different

A lot of what I do here is stating the obvious. A combination of wishful thinking and deliberate deception has created a situation where scientific truth is rejected based on failed ideologies and downright frauds.

The greatest one may be the claim that all people begin exactly the same. I've already pointed out the proof this is wrong by extending it to its extreme, as people with Down's syndrome can never improve regardless of their environment. Just because other differences are more subtle doesn't mean they don't exist. Dogs and cats are quadruped mammals, both are born into similar environments when domesticated, but dogs like to go out and are happy to travel and follow their masters, but cats rarely enjoy being moved and prefer staying in their territory and can come and go as they please, never straying from home. Then different dogs have been bred for their specific characteristics, and a labrador will rarely vary from being friendly, gentle, intelligent and inquisitive, while a rottweiler will usually be a handful and need a lot of training to control. Where an animal is born won't make any difference to their inbred natures, and working dogs will do the same work such as hunting or guiding while others will never manage it given the same training.

I hope everyone can accept the proof regarding animals and people with mental defects, and if so then why can't they accept individuals within the same race have an inborn range of IQ which is a potential, so reaches its limit with the best environment, and such characteristics can be seen in families, and as races are simply much larger families as proved by DNA similarities, then people within races have to share their own ranges of all characteristics whatever they're environment.

Because this upsets many people there has been a long running effort to deny the innate differences between individuals, races, sexes and anything else by the left wing of ideology, which insists given the same conditions people will be the same. This rejects the fact siblings are brought up together and completely different, while identical twins who have been brought up separately grow up very similar to each other. Yes, we can learn and be made better or worse by our environments, but we can't turn into different people, including a man becoming a woman or vice versa. That is one battle the left have won for now but can never stick as it isn't real.

Thursday, 22 December 2016

International government fraud.

Market fixing is both immoral and illegal. It involves controlling price and output artificially to gain excess profits. There are two roots to this picture. It begins in the post-war Common Market, whose Common Agricultural Policy forced food prices up by restricting its production. This wasn't all based on fallow land, where fields were subsidised not to produce to restrict supply, but on getting rid of food when the quota was reached. Once farmers produced the amount of wine, butter or wheat the policy dictated (as in the USSR planned economy), the rest would be destroyed. The wine lakes and butter mountains were the remainder of the amount beyond the quota which was thrown out. The EU destroy food to keep prices up. Is it illegal? Not under their own rules. Is it immoral? Totally.

Part two goes to Ponzi schemes, moving money around with no real product. In the 90s Enron created one based on CO2 trading. They invented future profits in CO2 reduction which were then traded as faux currency, and made them millions for a few years before they were caught out selling imaginary products which were essentially worthless. Was it illegal? Yes. Was it immoral? Yes. But a couple of years before they were busted for the greatest organised fraud in history, they sold the idea to President Clinton and his right hand man Al Gore. Clinton went on to develop carbon trading (tax on CO2 emissions) and Al Gore set up a private carbon trading company which made him a billionaire.

In order to do this Clinton had to change the law, as when Enron were convicted it was for carbon trade fraud. Clinton simply made it legal, so he was free to legislate, and Gore was free to set up his company, identical in all ways to Enron, but now legal. And the EU run carbon trading compulsorily, so we all have to be taxed on our emissions which are then traded on the markets, and in true EU fashion not only sell immoral but legal nothing, they set a minimum (floor) price, so have actually fixed the market by making a minimum price to sell, well, absolutely nothing. Immoral and previously against international law. And could they ever have got away with doing it with the voters? Only if they believed it was for a good reason. Hence the imagined threat from CO2, people saw this fake trading as one of the solutions to the fake problem, and it was coined.

And without international cooperation (globalism), led by the UN panel on climate change, it won't be possible to organise. The fraud must be universal otherwise the money will shift to the free countries. So they all sign up to the Kyoto Protocol and every treaty since (with exceptions who still apply the same rules outside it), and bingo, we have a world mafia style government.

And who comes along responding to the citizens' calls to fix it? Donald Trump. From 20th January 2017 the entire system will begin to collapse.

Friday, 14 October 2016

The left want to go against nature

Before politics and in the remainder of the animal kingdom nature rules. Darwinism, social and biological is the only law, and men and women have roles not decided by politicians but by what is practical. If you give everyone in a country £20,000 then in five years some will have made it into £100,000 and others will have wasted it all. If you keep taking the money the better off have earned and give it to the others then they will continue to waste it and suck off the successful like a parasite. Of course a basic income would solve poverty overnight, so everyone had enough to live on and then whatever else they earn could be taxed at a flat rate to provide the general income, and there is your only needed welfare state.

The roles of women are not imposed in nature, they arise naturally. Until the 70s, when British house prices started becoming too high for one income then the previous (consensual) role of the housewife was lost to the vaults of history. How many women with a family given the chance would work full time till retirement unless they had to? Then we have the artificial construct of same sex marriage. The original difference between a lifelong partnership and marriage was raising a family. What did you say? Gay couples can raise a family? No, they can't, it's impossible. They can adopt a child sired by one partner and condemn it to be brought up without a parent, but of course nature does not allow for that so in order to twist so called equality law gay couples are now allowed to deliberately bring a parentless child into the world rather than adopt one that was already unwanted. Helping an orphan is totally different from creating a child from scratch and eliminating one of the parents by choice.

The amazing decision by the psychiatric community to remove one single type of body/personality dysphoria from being a mental illness but keep the others means politics has gradually crept into science. Not content with changing century long names for syndromes such as spastic, moron, backward and mongol, which were all recognised medical terms, they had to actually succumb to the insidious force of political correctness, and claim a person who actually believes they are the opposite sex are as normal as anyone else. They are still delusional, and had they believed they were an animal or another race and had surgery to look more like it no one would believe they were sane, as they aren't, but slicing off your equipment and calling yourself Mary with a voice and chin still like Marvin is no different however many psychiatrists say they are.

Equality is a total joke as well, as alluded to with the financial example. Every life is equal, every person is different. Family members are similar, and whatever the PC brigade want to order you to believe every racial group is a larger family and will naturally get on with and understand each other better than outsiders. It's not the obvious visual differences either. Being Jewish some people do obviously look Jewish, and many more do not. And throughout my lifetime I've got on well with many people for some time long before discovering they were Jewish. I had no idea till they told me, and when I meet Jews abroad we get on like long lost family, much like when I'd spent a few days in France and finally met my first family of English tourists. It wasn't the language as I could reasonably understand French and we went there to see our French friends there, but foreign is foreign and we all know how that feels when we're somewhere very different and feel totally lost.

So claiming it's fine for the entire third world to flood into Europe, as the EU countries have unanimously decided, is not in anyone's interests. How can it be racist to disagree with it? No large groups of people from abroad spread evenly in their new countries, but simply transplant from one country to an area in another where they are with their own people, often speak their own language, and open shops to supply themselves with the food and items they are used to, as we all would in the same position. It isn't short term with the next generation start to assimilate, but normally long term to permanent. They may move up in society but when they move they move together. And the so called liberals who attack anyone disagreeing with mass immigration to Europe forget nowhere in Asia or Africa has it, and no one complains, except a few far left academics who are determined to make Japan multicultural. Why? Because they hate the fact the Japanese are the strongest national culture on the planet and sets and example to everywhere else who wants to maintain theirs.

Nature is bigger than you and me and politics. The left hate it and want everyone to get the same benefits whoever they are, and claim given a few years of exposure to western values they will always rub off. Well of course the evidence shows the opposite. Career criminals who move abroad simply export it there, and the knife and gun culture of the West Indies (ask a Jamaican, it's not a racist claim) is now a regular occurrence in London, as are the Romanian robbery gangs. You can't turn anyone into something they are not, and the claim I first heard at school was that intelligence is down to your environment awakened me to the sheer denial of reality inherent in leftism. Siblings have very similar upbringings but are all totally different in their academic ability, and when they do well often take different subjects as they are all different people. Thank goodness with genetic profiling they have finally started to prove more and more qualities are decided at birth. Mensa made it fairly clear, you can always reduce intelligence with the wrong conditions but can never increase it. Just look at the extremes. If you have Down Syndrome then you are locked at that level. I can't see anyone arguing with that is it's so obvious. Just because it isn't so obvious with anyone else doesn't mean the subtler variations are any different.

Accusations of hate when anyone tries to use nature as the ultimate rule in life is because the left hate the fact we aren't all equal as individuals and totally different as groups. That can and will never change, and just as dogs are bred to have different qualities deliberately, so have human beings naturally, and trying to force that out of existence is a crime against humanity for motives of sheer and utter stupidity and immaturity. Understand reality and accept it. Nature isn't fair, it just is as it is, if you don't like it then find another reality to inhabit, don't try and spoil this one.

Tuesday, 16 August 2016

Working through the mud

There are many ideas accepted by society as a whole which only a minority of people stop and think to work out for themselves, and once they do they follow the logical thread through the mud to the conclusion. Has the establishment made a plausible claim, like high house prices are good for you? Use my formula and you will be able to work these out for yourself and be armed with every reason to stand up to claims to the opposite by the sheep and perpetrators of the lies and illusions they peddle for vested interests.

I have a few examples but the same process can be applied to every single example of societal groupthink, times when normality is turned on its head and people are expected to follow others regardless of their own views, and insulted if they openly disagree. But when they stop becoming opinions (which are all equally valid) and become facts then they are finished as claims and become open lies being exposed by logic. Even the cases that fall in between and can be seen as opinions (which the proponents present falsely as facts) can be treated the same way. Even if they can't clearly be discerned you can still work through the facts to get to what I'd see as the inevitable result for each.

The flavours of the month for the current two examples are transgender and gay marriage. On the surface both are blindly accepted by what I can only call the masses. However if you actually dig through the layers of both you start seeing through the smoke and mirrors illusion and reach the probably sole conclusion lying at the end for all people.

This is how I personally worked through each and can see many others around who have found exactly the same conclusions.

Transgenders are probably the clearest example. Nature offers two standard alternatives, male XY and female XX plus a few errors which provide rare variations. But transgenders are people who want to be the other of the two usual genders, which is fine if they want to dress and act as it, but cannot by definition actually become one. Firstly we are all made of two things, primarily our awareness and secondarily the bodies which carry that awareness. Anyone in a primitive society unable to think beyond what is there is unlikely to feel their body is any more than a body, much like an animal would. It is only in our more sophisticated society where people question and challenge everything the notion of wanting to be someone or something else comes into being. Does anyone really think stone age men were equally afflicted by the idea they wanted a woman's body and couldn't be themselves till they had one, especially as till the 1960s the operations and drugs required weren't available so besides changing their clothing were stopped at the second hurdle.

Using no more than direct experience, ask a man what it feels like to be a woman and vice versa. They can't know, it's not possible to experience anyone else let alone the opposite sex. Yes, someone can have dysphoria and imagine they'd rather have a different body, a thinner one,  one with a missing limb or the opposite sex, but this is a mental not a physical aberration. Able or disabled, your body is the only one you've got, and besides the usual physical improvements you can make through exercise and diet is doing a good job and unless you look at it in a mirror or directly does not actually come into your awareness much during the day as you are looking outside it at everything else.

Looking at the cosmetic and medical treatments once someone has been determined to change, one actually inflames the issue as if a man feels female surely the best hormone treatment would be male, to see if the feeling could be corrected. But the medical profession instead will medically emasculate the man and reverse the effects (or in the case of a child neutralise them) of puberty. The oestrogen will then force their male bodies to grow breasts, although many can never change their voices once they have broken, so whatever the outer view the voice will always give the truth away. Nature must force itself over nurture every time however hard people work to try and override it. Then they whip off healthy organs (surely against the Hippocratic oath?) to make a hash of pretending to make their male or female organs look like the other, and cut out the gonads altogether like you would a cat. But if they were burnt to death in a fire the DNA test would always show male if they were born male. Every single cell.

So just because you force the existing organs to try and look like others, including hideous scars where women have had their breasts removed, it is no different to pinning pointy ears on a dog, flattening its muzzle and saying it's a cat. However convincing it may be now or in the future you are not fooling anyone, it is a wrapping and under the wrapping is exactly what was there before.

I could go on, but besides having addressed this specifically here already, you can see how I worked round the initial article in the Observer Magazine back in the 60s where they said a man has had a sex change, and as a child I assumed they meant he had become a woman. I worked from that childish assumption as an adult, realised the reality, and came to the only possible conclusion that a man is a man, a woman is a woman, and a dog is a dog whatever they want to be or can be disguised (and mutilated) to look like. Unlike opinions, there is no other view, a man can't become a woman until they can swap their DNA and change form naturally as a result.

Moving on to more artificial and opinion based views, marriage is an entirely human based idea, although it follows many animals who pair for life with a human version carrying a legal status.

That status was always extremely simple. A man and woman marry (fit) together for life where they can (not 'must') raise a family. Gay people, once it became legal, wanted similar lifetime contracts so were given civil partnership, because only opposite sexes could marry. Until David Cameron (a Conservative in name only) decided (without consulting a single voter as it was not in the manifesto) the same sexes could also marry, and now half the world has followed.

Of course marriage can be among groups, animals or anyone else as a marriage itself is simply a lifetime status of partnership. But the first requirement is consummation of the marriage, absence of which is not a ground for divorce (meaning the marriage is dissolved) but annulment, ie you were never married. As marriage means fitting together, like a plug or joint, two men or women simply can't (besides anal sex for men, which is unhealthy and potentially dangerous), so as it's highly unlikely legal marriage can be extended to rule out consummation as a primary requirement, in which case they may as well just be long term friendships between any two people, it fails at the first hurdle, and is recognised in the law that in same sex marriage consummation is not a cause for annulment as it is physically impossible to do so. That should point you to the status of same sex marriage in relation to marriage in general.

But the thought process which takes you from an apparent given, accepted by all on the surface, to digging through the layers and answers till you reach the conclusion, like any maths problem, will take the claim to either the yes or no pile, and should then be impossible for anyone to win an argument against you once you have gone through the process of working out whether a claim is valid or not properly. Keep doing it, watch my examples, and learn how to apply it to anything else like low interest rates, high house prices and socialism which all seem good to children but are toxic to all but the few percent who profit from them.

Friday, 27 May 2016

Common sense and body dysphoria

I have been investigating all the aspects of the current trend for transgenderism, something which till recently was considered one of a family of many similar mental illnesses exhibiting the delusion you believe you are something you are not. These had been treated in the usual ways using therapy and exceptionally surgery, but despite offering sex change surgery it was still the result of trying to settle the mind of the sufferer, using in my view excessive force by excising healthy functioning organs and administering toxic hormone treatment which causes sterility.

Now although body dysmorhpia itself has not changed the transgender aspect has been removed from the spectrum, claiming men really can be women and vice versa. One study even claims this is because the sufferers (as they really suffer) have different brains. I don't think anyone really accepts this much as a brain is a brain and doesn't vary enough from men to women in ways we can yet detect. I will post the links at the end. Before this ground breaking decision there was a long and potentially unlimited list of alternative beliefs about ones identity. Transgender was clearly the commonest and others are very unusual but equally real to the individuals concerned. This can include identity (Jesus and Napoleon were favourites), fatness (anorexia), amputeeism (your limb is not yours and you want it removed, some surgeons actually will), species, race, and anything else you can think of.

I challenged one of these activists recently. I said I am a genius, and they said you're a liar, you're not a genius. I said using their logic if I decide I am a genius then you must accept it, it is no different from deciding I am a woman. Apparently subjective identifying only works for them on some areas so far and not others. Which of course using their logic is discriminating against other types of identity delusions. Of course I don't lie as I had a test in 1971 which put my IQ at genius level, otherwise I'd lose all my credibility in a single statement. But the side issue it raised very usefully was these people only accept delusions when they fit their own political agendas, and not any others equally genuine to the individual.

Of course gender is a political phenomenon. You have 99% of people XX female and XY male. If they are burned in a fire the DNA will always tell you that, whatever operations the person had had to make the surface appear something else. There are no sliding scales, and the in between are XXY, XYY is super-male with no obvious symptoms besides aggression, and a few other intersex disorders irrelevant to transgenderism as they have no obvious gender at all. A man or woman is free in a free society to dress and name themselves however they want, and nowadays few will not get a job as such, especially as it would be illegal not to let them go to work dressed as the opposite sex. But insisting a man who may or may not have had cosmetic surgery to create the rough (and it is very rough) impression they have a woman's body is a woman is a pernicious lie and one even the least discriminating people are beginning to wake up to.

Using psychology, something I am qualified in so beyond the level of a mere blog, your identity has various aspects. If for example you apply for a job or take an exam you do not normally decide the results yourself, but hand it over to others. The same applies to what sex you are. Some of the hulking body builders with a wig and a dress who call themselves Susan or Jackie and appear on television presenting themselves as women will not swing the credibility of a single person, they are just too polite to say so in public. A few, like Paris Lees, happen to have the sort of features which can fool you from a reasonable distance, but penetrate far enough (literally) and the reality will be apparent.

Using the logical argument, does a twin brother know what their twin feels like? Or a parent? Or a male friend? Not really, we only know for certain how we feel. If we are blind we feel a body but we don't know what it looks like, and what men or women look like, so purely take our information from others. A blind man would probably be less likely to be transgender as he isn't able to see a difference in the first place to feel like the other person. But besides the physical awareness, when we are not looking at our bodies to remind ourselves we see everything in front of us instead, our bodies usually disappear. Look in front of you and it's vanished. A child who grows up on a small island or isolated community who was never told wouldn't even realise it had a gender. It is a taught area, with your sex being biological. Transgender activists want to tell you the biology has also changed along with the disturbed mind, as if belief can change every strand of your DNA to XX. And sprout breasts and a clitoris etc naturally in response.

Yes, that is what they want us to accept. However, feminists, for possibly the first time ever (artistic license), have provided a useful input (sorry feminists). They quite rightly point out unless you've always been female, had a female body both outside and in, been treated as a woman, had periods and maybe children, you can't come in half way through the party, zip up your winkle, lop off your bollocks and join the sisterhood as if you were there at day one. And returning to my initial point, if you can't feel how a friend or family member, or pet, feels, how can you know what a woman feels like to be if you're not a man? Not feeling comfortable as a man (the main official symptom) means like every other complex, you are not comfortable as yourself, and as a result, wish you were someone else. Superman, Jesus, a horse, or even a woman. Currently the Superman, Jesus and horse beliefs are still mental illnesses (unless they've wiped them as well since I checked), but strangely not women, even though all are equally provably wrong.

All forms of dysphoria are ultimately dissatisfaction with who you are, for a combination of biological and environmental reasons. In the past these were generally successfully treated with therapy, and as anorexia kills sufferers if a doctor agrees with a patient they are fat and they need to diet, they won't be lopping off their tits, but helping them to die, which in law is manslaughter. I would given the power ban sex change surgery as grievous bodily harm as well, as they are removing healthy organs causing lifelong potential problems and massive scarring. That aside, colluding with a deluded patient is normally considered malpractice, so persuading one to accept who they are is the universal therapeutic goal, and any other is dangerous and encouraging the patient to believe their delusion and ingrain it for life. Adding dangerous disfiguring surgery on top is to me a serious crime, but either way it is impossible for a man to know what it feels like to be a woman and vice versa, and singling that delusion out as OK from the long list of others is both irresponsible and will lead to further legalised errors in society, including the soon to come mixed changing rooms. Many men of course will be counting the days till they have free rein to enter female changing rooms and may even be the end of the porn industry as they will be able to see it in reality for nothing, but nothing comes without consequences and we know exactly the ones which have flowed from this already. Most people have common sense when they ask themselves and read with their heart, but often won't dare to share it with others as not many have such thick skins to cope with the venom shot at them from the establishment zombies. But you can push the line too far and this is where they have crossed it and will be pushed back. Sooner or later for all the reasons above and more it is inevitable.