My Old Man's A Dustman Part 1
Update 543. The Word 'She' Special. #BeMorePorcupine.
There is a hell of a lot of news and analysis to bring you, dear readers, so I am splitting this into two parts.
Pausing the current film season for a moment, in explaining this substack to new subscribers recently ( https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/a-man-of-an-angels-wit) I failed to explain that I occasionally get ‘misgendered’ ( 😂) which is all the fault of a certain Mary O’Brien who decided to choose the stage name of Dusty Springfield. Dusty is a nickname of mine due to me being a dustman for a period of time when I was a young man. The other day, to commemorate my past ‘career’, a friend bought me a Lonnie Donegan CD!
So this is for me.
And this is for the other Dusty.
Thanks to two wonderful readers for suggested pieces.
Some of the linked pieces below may be behind a paywall.
Repeal The Gender Recognition Act
Here is the Government’s annoying, waffly response to the recent petition. Fortunately the word on the ground is that they are putting what would have been the equivalent of the introduction of self-ID on the back burner at present.
The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Fully Repeal the Gender Recognition Act”.
Government responded:
The Government has no plans to repeal the Gender Recognition Act (2004).
The UK has long championed the rights of LGBT+ people at home and abroad.
This Government is proud of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) 2004 and the rights it affords to transgender people in this country. The GRA has operated for 20 years and has allowed trans people to be recognised in law. The Act enables trans people to live, work and die in their acquired gender, ensuring that trans people can live with dignity and respect.
The Gender Recognition Act 2004 is a robust piece of legislation, with appropriate checks and balances that reflect the seriousness of changing a person’s legal sex. With multiple checks, medical evidence, legal declarations and clearances, the process is extremely rigorous.
The Equality Act 2010 sets out that providers have the right to restrict use of services on the basis of sex and gender reassignment in certain circumstances where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This includes those with Gender Recognition Certificates. The Government is proud of the Equality Act and the rights and protections it affords women, and we will continue to support the use of its single-sex exceptions by providers.
In our manifesto, we committed to modernising gender recognition law whilst retaining the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. We believe this strikes the
right balance. We will also uphold the Equality Act and its provisions on single-sex exceptions. This Government is steadfast in its dedication to protecting all its citizens irrespective of their sex, gender, or any other characteristic.
Cabinet Office
Free Speech
Andrew Doyle provides us with another thought provoking piece on his substack. All thoughts gratefully received.
Does Trump respect the First Amendment?
Antisemitism is on the rise, but restricting freedom of speech is not the solution.
Mar 11, 2025
Is it possible to outlaw antisemitism? Donald Trump seems to believe such a feat is achievable, which is why in January he issued an executive order – ‘Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism’ – to address the anti-Jewish harassment on university campuses. Trump has also withdrawn $400 million of funding to Columbia University because of its perceived failure to rectify the problem. And this week Mahmoud Khalil, a former graduate student at Columbia, has been arrested for engaging in ‘activities aligned to Hamas’.
Later in the piece, Andrew states:
There is an important distinction to be drawn between free speech on campus and conduct that infringes on the rights of others. Criminal behaviour, such as threats against Jewish students, are not examples of free speech in action, and represent clear violations of university codes of conduct. To punish students who break the law is uncontroversial. But verbal endorsement of oppressive ideologies does fall within the remit of freedom of conscience and expression. Moreover, allowing even neo-Nazis the right to speak is perhaps the best way to ensure that their cause will be discredited.
Let’s consider a famous case from 1977, when there were attempts to ban neo-Nazis from marching in Skokie, Chicago. The Nazis had announced their proposed march to raise awareness of an existing legal prohibition against their demonstrations near their headquarters in Marquette Park. They had no genuine intention of going forward with the march in Skokie, and the choice had been deliberately provocative. After all, there were hundreds of Holocaust survivors in the village, and nearly half of the population was Jewish.
Yet it was the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), under the leadership of executive director Aryeh Neier, who came to the defence of the Nazis. Neier later wrote that the most common criticism he received came in the form of a question: ‘How can you, a Jew, defend freedom for Nazis?’ It seems counter-intuitive, but it was Neier’s view that the best protection against antisemitism was to allow antisemites the right to speak.
I agree with Neier. What a contrast with the present version of the ACLU!!!!
The full piece is here:
https://www.andrewdoyle.org/p/does-trump-respect-the-first-amendment
New Zealand - Education
Resist Gender Education have provided a further report on their substack about the ongoing process in NZ with regard to proposed changes to Relationships and Sexuality Education.
Keep it simple
Gender identity does not belong in schools
Mar 11, 2025
I know that many of my readers will be well aware of the arguments presented in this piece but I recommend this since they are presented very clearly and helpfully. Here is an excerpt:
It will take patience and perseverance to break through the ‘be kind and inclusive’ catchcry. Key to getting our message across is keeping it simple. The following three strong points are good places to start the critical conversations with your family, friends, school, and MPs.
Three simple messages about ‘gender identity’
#1. It is not true
School is supposed to be grounded in reality, with facts, science, and critical thinking skills to the fore. When the lie that humans can choose their sex is taught to children, trust in schools and teachers is sabotaged along with the truth.
There is no evidence whatsoever that humans have some sort of soul-like internal feeling that tells them whether they are male or female. Sex is a reproductive category, determined at conception, and cannot be changed, even if a person fervently believes they should be the opposite (or no) sex, and even if that person makes significant changes to their outward appearance.
Gender identity is an unverifiable belief that has no objective measure and should never be presented to children as fact. ‘Transitioning’ to become another sex is nothing more than individual perception and make believe that children should not be pressured into accepting as real.
How did we get from the “Girls can do anything” campaign of the 1980s to the belief that girls who like climbing, driving, and building must truly be boys?
Invariably, the ‘evidence’ for gender identity is based on sex stereotypes. When a boy likes quiet play and glitter he is told he must really be a girl. A girl who likes rough and tumble is encouraged to think she must be ‘in the wrong body’. These are regressive and homophobic stereotypes, yet they are often the only ‘proof’ provided before parents and schools start enthusiastically affirming a child’s opposite sex identity.
Instead of teaching a belief in gender identity, schools should be teaching about gender diversity - that people come in two sexes and with all sorts of personalities and should be accepted and included as the sex they are.
The full piece is here:
Biased Therapists
Pamela Garfield Jaeger has written a piece on her substack about declining trust in mental health professionals.
Why the public doesn't trust mental health professionals
A recent article by The Guardian accidentally demonstrates the reasons
Mar 10, 2025
The Guardian recently published a piece highlighting how therapists believe their political views must be directly incorporated into therapy now that Donald Trump is the president of the United States. The article is called: View from the couch: therapists on sessions in new Trump era by Tom Perkins.
This essay implies that the US was safe under Joe Biden’s leadership, but not anymore under Donald Trump’s leadership. Therapists are quoted claiming that LGBTQ rights are being erased and human rights are under attack. They feel compelled to disclose to their patients that they did not vote for such “atrocities”. Perkins wrote, “Liberal therapists say they sometimes incorporate their political views into the healing process to provide support for clients distressed by Trump’s actions.” However, is such a disclosure really incorporating healing, or is it reinforcing fears about things that an individual cannot control? Is it inducing beliefs about things that aren’t even true? Since when is declaring the objective truth about two sexes taking away human rights? When is protecting minors from harmful sex change procedures erasing people?
The article goes on to discuss the contempt these therapists have for their conservative clients. A therapist is quoted, “‘You know, I’m billing $90 an hour, and I can listen to that bullshit for 50 minutes for $90,’ she said. ‘I feel gross saying that because I do think my [Trump-supporting] clients are doing something awful, and are the personification of the problems I deal with.’”
The irony is therapists are supposed to be experts in listening to other viewpoints with compassion and cultural competence. However, those who are heavily invested in left leaning politics lack that ability. They believe those who disagree with them are either ignorant or evil, as this article demostrates. The therapists quoted in this article didn’t stop to consider that it could be themselves that lack insight. Instead, they describe their clients as ‘the personification of problems’.
The full piece is here:
She
Sarah on her substack Unapologetic provides a great analysis of the importance of the word ‘she’!
It began with “she”
Mar 10, 2025
And it only seems appropriate to come back to that this Women’s Month.
“She,” three letters that represent half of the world’s population.
“She,” a tiny word for a meaningful description and vast history.
“She,” possibly the most passively eroded and actively polluted term in the past decade.
Calling men “she” is never an innocent, neutral, or passive act.
It strips a word, our word, of any meaning and all value and hands its ownership to those who are owed none. It reduces women from a specific, complex, and inescapable reality down to a nebulous feeling, and often extremely sexist ideation, that a man can opt into as desired, though women can never opt out of themselves. It robs confidence and self worth in the young to watch their protectors give away her reality to make way for his fantasy.
Allowing “she” to become meaningless creates for the loss of earned rights, opportunities, and overall respect. This is not a dramatic leap; it is simply the next logical step when prioritizing certain feelings over others' actuality. The ongoing grand theft of our medals, awards, spaces, safety, and dignity, by reaching the depth of telling a woman to call her rapist “she,” would never have been possible without first stealing our language.
Despite this, many people equate certain, special men being correctly called “he” as an insult, as one is not going by what they personally find respectful.
But what about what women find respectful?
Somehow the former always seems to trump the latter, whether consciously or subconsciously.
Why is a man's desired language worth respecting, but not women's concerns over his appropriation of theirs?
The full piece is here:
Mr Wu
DC Isaak on her substack Modren Wisdom looks at Brianna Wu’s involvement in Gamergate and his new attempt to present himself as the ‘reasonable transexual’! All thoughts gratefully received.
John Walker Flynt: Oh, Wu Is me!
Musings on The Reasonable Transsexual
Mar 07, 2025
Here is an excerpt:
The truth is that there is no reasonable “transgender” person and Mr. Flynt expresses behavior far more in line with those with Cluster B personality disorders than a reasonable centrist trying to rectify the fact that “trans rights” are actually privileges that infringe on the rights and safety of women and children. I am hoping that in President Trump’s second term, the elevation of victimhood will subside and we will fully return to an ethos of meritocracy and American excellence so that professional victims like John Walker Flynt will fade into obscurity once he no longer receives social clout for being a victim of his own ridiculous behavior. His relentless attacks on Congresswoman Nancy Mace have once again crossed into the absurd, as he blamed Ms. Mace’s hair falling out from PTSD on being a bigot. I’m sure Mr. Flynt also believes in the falsifiable idea that “minority stress” accounts for the reason minorities are “unable to get ahead”, as opposed to other factors like the welfare state or mental illness. There’s no reason to accept responsibility for one's poor behavior if it can be blamed on everything else under the sun.
The full piece is here:
https://substack.com/inbox/post/158557832?triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
UK - Assisted Suicide
As many readers know I am extremely alarmed by and utterly opposed to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Here is a link to a piece by John McGuirk showing opposition both from the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
Endpieces
Liz’s piece will be in Part 2 😁
From Tenaciously
Click on the You Tube link 😄
#BeMorePorcupine
#EndGenderAffirmingCare
#AdultHumanFemale
#LetWomenSpeak
#GrassrootsArmy
#FightForFreeSpeech
#ByeByeStonewall
#YouAreAGuy
#LarpersKeepOut
There's a lot in there, Dusty!
I respectfully disagree with Helen above - the erosion of murder is at least as important as trans issues, and stems from the same corrupt thought processes. I'm very happy to see discussion of it here.
On the free speech issue, I'm largely with Andrew. Controlling what can be said about Jews, LGB, ethnic groups etc has done nothing to help, those groups in the long term. We would have been better hearing what people think, partly because it would reduce festering resentment (some of us have encountered it ourselves on social media platforms that don't allow certain sentiments to be expressed), but mainly so we could be aware of what some sectors of society are thinking. The desire to stop anti-Semitic, homophobic and racist speech originated with good intentions, but it was a very bad thing to do.
Thanks Dusty, I agree with Jeremy on all points. I’d just add that assisted suicide appears to be part of the whole movement of humans ‘playing God’….surrogacy, changing sex, attempting to grow babies from skin cells etc. It is therefore worth an occasional mention as part of the process where we are indoctrinating children into thinking that life can be bought and sold, that it’s easily expendable, that it can be changed and reconfigured at will, like a pick and mix store. We are normalising these thought processes in the young and this can only make life easier for transhumanists and powerful people in collusion with them. At the very least we need to talk about the issues.