Corrupting our language, where care and concern for children is called ‘hate’, and mutilating and poisoning them is ‘love’

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 17th December 2024)

It was George Bernard Shaw who said: “The British and the Americans are two great peoples divided by a common tongue.” That might not be quite true, but we have had different dialects, but these, too, are merging with the Americanisation of the English language. This is nothing new. Speaking on the wireless in 1935, Alistair Cooke declared that “Every Englishman (sic) listening to me now unconsciously uses 30 or 40 Americanisms a day”.

Dr Hilary Cass with her report on NHS services for children and young people who are questioning their gender identity or experiencing gender dysphoria

When I first came to the U.K., even though I was a first generation South African from an English-speaking family, I used words and phrases that were not understood in Brighton. ‘Red robots’ and ‘circles’ in the road meant nothing to Brightonians who said ‘traffic lights’ and ‘roundabouts’. Before then, my father and his brother who were born and brought up in Stoke-on-Trent, could communicate with each other in the North Staffs dialect that the rest of us struggled to comprehend. A more famous saying, now available as an inscription on mugs, asks: “Cost tha kick a bo agen a wo an yed it til thee bost eet?” It means: “Can you kick a ball against a wall and head it until it bursts?” My aunt Dorothy, who lived in the Potteries, would call me “duck” – a common term of affection towards both men and women as in “Tow rate owd duck?” meaning “Are you all right dear?”

Our language and local dialects are being lost thanks to our arrogant cousins from across the Atlantic. We no longer have tomato sauce but ketchup. Chips are now fries (though not in South Africa where crisps are called chips). Mac and cheese, keeping you across all the news, and cookies are just a few other examples. Why can’t we say macaroni cheese, keeping you up-to-date, and biscuits? Computers have given new meanings to common words like apple, windows, mouse and cookies.

‘Sussex as she wus spoke’ is a delightful guide to the Sussex dialect by Tony Wales. I learned some gems from this book: ‘all mops and brooms’ (to be in a muddle), a ‘bum-freezer’ (short coat), and ‘so drunk he couldn’t see through a ladder’ (very drunk). Many of the words and sayings are, to me, ‘wimwams for goose’s bridles’ (something not understood). This column gets its shares of ‘balsam’ (uncomplimentary remarks) but I hope I will be spared on this occasion.

In George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four, ‘Newspeak’ limited a person’s ability to articulate and communicate abstract concepts, such as personal identity, self-expression, and free will, which were described as ‘thoughtcrimes’, acts of personal independence that contradicted the ideological orthodoxy.  Orwell explained that Newspeak is a language characterised by a continually diminishing vocabulary where complete thoughts are reduced to simple terms such as Minitrue (Ministry of Truth), and Miniplenty (Ministry of Plenty). 

Political discourse today has adopted a similar approach. The most obvious recent example has been the ability to close down debate on women’s sex-based rights by accusing someone of being a TERF (a trans-exclusionary radical feminist) or being ‘transphobic’ when questioning the ideological orthodoxy of trans-rights. 

After the publication last week of the thoughtful and authoritative Cass Report on NHS services for children and young people who are questioning their gender identity or experiencing gender dysphoria, it has been interesting to see which politicians have backtracked on their previously-held views. These same people never lifted a finger to defend the likes of Professor Kathleen Stock (hounded out of Sussex University for her gender critical views) or the Labour MP Rosie Duffield (ostracised and abandoned by her party’s leadership). These latter-day converts are yet to apologise to Kathleen or Rosie, or the countless other women and some men (like Father Ted creator, Graham Linehan) who have spoken out so bravely. Yet some of those who said nothing are now calling for a ‘kinder’ dialogue when through their previous silence they were complicit in a hateful ideology.

This ideology has, for almost a decade, captured politics and, most alarmingly, the NHS. Children have been put on toxic medication that can lead to an increase in cancers and infertility, and young people have been mutilated by the removal of perfectly healthy organs.  And here again language has been corrupted. As my friend, Helen Saxby, explained, “it’s urging caution and research in the treatment of children that has been smeared as ‘hate’, and playing fast and loose with children’s health that has been rebranded as ‘love’.” It is people like Helen who will be judged as being on the right side of history, and that history has begun to be written through the Cass Report.

Could a vote for ‘Rosie Duffield’ gain a head of steam in Brighton Pavilion?

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 20th March 2024)

Some people in Brighton Pavilion are considering voting for a surprise, unofficial, candidate. She will not be on the ballot paper, but people have told me that they might write her name at the bottom of the ballot. She is not seeking nomination here and almost certainly will not endorse this move. She might even publicly denounce it. What is more, she will be standing for the Labour Party in the Kent constituency she already represents.

So why are people in Brighton Pavilion considering voting for Rosie Duffield? She won’t be elected here, and any vote for her will be counted as a spoiled ballot and won’t count. ‘Vote Duffield’ was my wife’s proposal. Rosie Duffield is the Labour MP for Canterbury but she was vilified on social media and shunned by Labour’s leadership because of her gender-critical views. She, like many of us, does not believe that anyone can change their sex regardless of how they might choose to live their lives.  

Tom Gray and Siân Berry

I don’t know how many will vote for ‘Rosie Duffield’. It might be just a small handful or it could yet gain a head of steam. Much depends on what the official Labour candidate, Tom Gray, says on the protection of single-sex spaces for those born female, spaces such as hospital wards, changing rooms, toilets, refuges and rape crisis services.

Siân Berry has had a consistent take on this issue. Her view is that transgender women (those born male) should be allowed to use women-only spaces even if they have all their male bits intact (my words, not hers). The Greens have lost support amongst many women and men because they relentlessly prioritise trans rights over women’s sex-based rights, their failure to investigate a Green Party member, the paedophile David Challenor, and their unlawful discrimination against their former deputy leader, Shahrar Ali, who holds gender-critical views. 

Siân has said she will never compromise on trans rights. Tom Gray, on the other hand, seems very reluctant to say what he believes or if he believes anything at all!  He has been challenged on social media to say where he stands, and some constituents have written to him on the issue. I have been told that he has not replied. 

In my first column this year, I wrote about the potential for this to be an election issue in Brighton Pavilion: “Tom will need to say where he stands. The trans rights lobby, including those in his own party, is very vociferous, especially on social media, but they are not significant electorally.” I pointed out that Labour has shifted from its previous support for self-identification which would have allowed people to legally change gender without a medical diagnosis and has, instead, recommitted itself to ensuring that some single-sex services and places should be accessed by biological women only. 

I have written to Tom asking for his views on this matter but was referred to the regional press office. I wrote to the named press officer, several times over a few weeks, but have had no response. Are they still captured by the trans-rights activists? Why are they unwilling to repeat the party’s new policy? So I wrote again to Tom, as have others who have contacted me. Tom has not replied to them either. If I was still a Labour member in Brighton Pavilion (I resigned my party membership back in 1994) I would be thoroughly disappointed and disillusioned by Tom’s non-campaign.

Why can’t Tom say that he supports the policy of his Party (even if his leader, Sir Keir Starmer can’t quite bring himself to say “sex-based rights”, preferring to refer to “safe spaces”)? Perhaps he feels that he cannot go against those vociferous activists who hold a different view to the party’s policy, as does the MP for Brighton Kemptown, Lloyd Russell-Moyle. If Tom is running scared of his own Party members, what will he be like when faced with more formidable opponents and vested interests when he is an MP?

A recent opinion poll put Siân Berry at almost 50% with Tom Gray at 37%. He needs something to ignite his rather odd and lacklustre campaign. If he could harness the ‘gender critical’ vote, then the result could be closer than it is currently likely to be. But for now, imagine the scene at the election count as Siân narrowly wins the seat, aided by outraged ‘Duffield’ votes that could otherwise have gone to Labour. It would be too late for regrets.