Homeland Security

The present Government and the resurgent Labour Right are both vigorous enforcers of gender self-identification and of the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism, although the Conservative Party, as such, has never adopted that latter, as you probably did not know. But what might those two causes have in common? I have been thinking about this, and I have a feeling that I have worked out part of the answer.

Zionism began in the nineteenth century, but the State of Israel was not created until after the Holocaust. Europe no longer actively wanted to kill the Jews, but it did still want to put them somewhere else. In a prelude to subsequent debates about immigration, they had to be "sent to back to where they came from", even if these particular Jews had only arguably ever come from there, and had done so an extremely long time ago, if at all.

Today, while there is far less active physical violence than there used to be against men and boys with gender dysphoria, there is still the desire to put them somewhere else. Women's spaces have become the Land without a People for the People without a Land. Except, of course, there were People in the Land then, and there are People in the Land now. But those People were brown, so nobody cared. And these People are female, so nobody cares.

Having been socialised as members of the European bourgeoisie, the colonists of the 1940s simply presupposed that what they wanted took priority over what poorer or darker people needed, and indeed already owned. And having been socialised as Western males, the colonists of today simply presuppose that what they want takes priority over what women need, and indeed already own.

Then, the first knew that they had the powerful backing of people who wanted rid of them and who did not care who else had to be dispossessed to that end. And now, the second know the same thing. In both cases there is the denial of obvious physical reality, with white people presented as the ancient indigenous inhabitants of the Levant, and with biological males presented as women.

But there had always been Jews in whatever you wanted call that territory, and they strongly resisted the imposition, not least for the danger that it would pose to their own safety. And there have always been gender-nonconforming people in women's spaces, where they are strongly resisting the imposition, not least for the danger that it is posing to their own safety.

From increasingly early ages, they are being cajoled into a kind of population exchange, which in turn also involves an element of colonisation. There may not be the safety issue in quite the same way, but men and, especially, boys have the right not to have to look at female body parts in their changing rooms or in their showers, and they have the right not to have their own intimate areas seen there by the owners of those parts.

And yes, this is about body parts. There are two sets of facilities for reasons that have nothing to do with identity. No one cares what you are wearing when you go in. You are going in specifically in order to take it off. No one asks your name, or your pronouns. If you have a penis, then you go one way. If you have a vagina, then you go the other way. In 50 years' time, when it is just possible that I might still be alive, then no one then under 30 or possibly even 40 will believe that anyone ever disputed any of this.

Happy International Women's Day.