top of page

Join our mailing list

Never miss an update

Recent Posts



Have you got any thoughts on this feature?  Do you want to have your say?  If so please get in touch with us using the form below:

Thanks! Message sent.

Follow Us
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square

Gender Credentials

There are great evils in this world – we all know that. We all know that there are things afoot that may cause us harm and, should we encounter any of these great evils, we must either run away very fast or confront it and do our utmost to either render whichever great evil we come across impotent and harmless, or shut it down and prevent it from doing harm.

The thing is though, just who decides what is a great evil? What qualifications are required to decide on great evils? Come that that, what qualifications are required of something for it to be declared a great evil?

Therein lies the question. Smoking used to be ‘the’ great evil of our age – in many respects it still is, with a relentless onslaught against it, usually through the ever-rising imposition of tax on a packet of fags. Yet if smoking is such a great evil, why not ban it altogether? A complete prohibition might make more sense than the continuous hammering of the smoker through tax rises and more and yet more restrictions on where one may or may not smoke, but that won’t happen anytime soon. It won’t because the tax loss to the government will be immense, to the point of leaving such a massive hole in the Chancellor’s financial plans that replacement taxes on other ordinary, everyday items would have to be put in place.

Such tax rises would inevitably have an adverse impact on those that had previously considered themselves to be indisputably good citizens, citizens who complain very loudly about those great evils. Thus suddenly, the professional protesters among us would find themselves and their all-so-wonderfully-pure lives under threat.

Currently the greatest evil is the perceived bias against those unfortunate enough to be male, but really should be female - or those who are female but should be the opposite.

Let me nail my colours to the mast very clearly at this point; I completely support those who feel they are in the wrong body and I reject any ‘isms’ or phobias against anybody based on their gender, sexuality, skin colour, faith, age or anything else. I do not do hate. Or prejudice. As it happens, on the basis of self-defining, I consider myself to be rather fortunate that I had an upbringing in which I was surrounded by people who were different; I grew up knowing people who were gay, straight or bi. I knew people whose skin colour was not same as mine and I knew people who wore different clothes to me, and people whose religion was not the same. To be different was to be normal. I liked all those differences and I still do – life would be incredibly boring if we all looked the same, talked the same way, behaved the same and believed in identical things. It is the differences we have that make us special.

And where somebody, anybody, is in the situation where, even though they may have been born male, feel that they are female, or vice-versa, then I have no problem with wanting to change it.

But am I the only one who thinks it a little creepy when a man ‘self-identifies’ as female so he can use the ladies changing rooms and ogle the girls? Am I the only one who finds it slightly odd when a male self-identifies as female for one day only so he can apply for a job that (for entirely sensible reasons) is only open to female applicants?

Am I the only one to feel there is something a little disturbing about the way in which increasing numbers of pre-teen children are being encouraged to be something they are not before their bodies are fully formed and their young minds are still developing?

It’s very simple; if you have the appropriate parts that differentiate you from the opposite gender, then until and unless you have taken the necessary steps to change what you were born with, you are either male or female.

I fully accept the strain that people may be under when, as they get older, they find themselves being torn by the conflict within. And I remain supportive of genuine effort to relieve that strain and, ultimately, do whatever is needed to change things so that life becomes more equable. And I am unrepentant about my support for anybody who is different, whatever that difference may be.

But the most disturbing aspect to current manias about almost anything is the way in which cowardly and principle-free politicians, along with others occupying leadership roles, cravenly give in to those who shout the loudest. It is those who do such shouting that do the most harm.

That harm is done because it puts those who need help and support in the front line, whereas it is often better for those who need it to get the help they need without rancour and without the attention of the headline-grabbing hysteria so loved of by the attention-seeking virtue-signaller.

Let people be people, and let them develop in their own time and at the pace their own needs tell them to. It doesn’t sound like an unreasonable request to me.

© Kevan James 2018

If you want to reply to the opinions expressed by kjmtoday’s contributors, either agreeing or disagreeing, please use the ‘Get-In-Touch’ form at the bottom of the home page and send it to kjmtoday for publication on the ‘Reader’s Comments’ page. will not promise to publish everybody’s comments and you must include your real name and address but these can be withheld if you ask.

You can read more on Kevan James’ views on life in the UK today in his book, ‘Comments of a Common Man’ available from Amazon at £9.99

bottom of page