Paul Chase, who wrote in the Daily Sceptic last week about the abrupt pulling of his article in Propel Opinion on trans ideology and the fallout from it, responds here to a critic, Ann Elliot, whose article Propel published in response to his, which he says is wrong on the science and wrong on the law. Propel also published articles by Kate Nichols and editor Paul Charity addressing this controversy which you can also find at the above link.
Well, Ann, like all of my critics you have chosen to attack me for writing the article Propel published on January 6th 2023, without engaging intellectually with what I wrote. And there is a reason for that: you haven’t got an argument. You fall into the lazy trap of assuming that criticism of an ideology, a belief system, in this case gender ideology, is an attack on trans people. This simple category error serves your purpose of misrepresenting what I wrote as hate speech without the inconvenience of having to explain why you think that. So, if you ever decide to speak to me personally, try to think what it was I wrote that you disagreed with, and identify anything that was factually wrong. I’ll wait…
While Kate Nicholls made only a couple of references to me personally, and Paul Charity busied himself eating his third slice of humble pie, you were clearly tasked with conducting the hatchet job. I may be mistaken here, but I don’t recall ever meeting you, so I am puzzled as to what motivates your malice, which oozes from every sentence you wrote. The sadism of gender ideology, and its activist supporters, is one of the defining characteristics of this modern social pathogen. For many it is merely a vector, a useful vehicle into which is poured the envy, bitterness, spite and aggression of people whose status relies on being permanently offended, and who have inchoate concerns and hang-ups they can barely articulate.
Despite your brief being to attack me, you spend the first two paragraphs of your article praising yourself. You describe yourself as an “ardent feminist” and a “supporter of all women regardless of gender, race or religion.” We will come back to your implication that women have more than one gender in a minute, but you go on to say you have suffered discrimination for being a feminist, a woman and a working-class northern lass.
You declare yourself opposed to all forms of prejudice, including transphobia. And then this: “That people should suffer, be persecuted, rejected, assaulted or murdered for who they are is horrendous.” Unless, like me, they hold gender critical views, in which case they are apparently fair game. And in the very next sentence you write: “So, the Paul Chase article in last week’s Propel felt totally abhorrent to me.”
That clearly implies that my article supported or justified prejudice and might in some way validate the persecution, rejection, assault or murder of people subject to prejudice. That is a lie and a disgusting smear. You compound this by stating that what I wrote was not free speech but hatred. I am advised this is defamatory and invite you to publicly withdraw these inferences and promise not to repeat them. I don’t mind robust debate, but to trash my reputation by implying that I engage in hate speech that might support violence towards, and the murder of vulnerable people is utterly disgraceful.
I came out as a gay man in 1971 – 52 years ago – when attitudes to same sex relationships were very different from today’s. I experienced prejudice and bigotry. The idea that I would hate on another minority group is absurd and offensive to me. So, forgive me if I don’t take any penny lectures from you on this subject.
You go on to say that my article was misinformed, with scientific evidence to dispute all my claims. You also make a number of statements about the law that are simply wrong. So, let’s examine each of these in turn.