Single truth permitted

It is a mark of a totalitarian state that only one truth is permitted. Dissenting opinions and honest argument is not permitted. It is also of course a sign of a weak mind that you cannot accept other people have honestly held opinions which differ from your own. The liberal-progressives who only allow a single-truth on a range of topics of the day (usually connected with sex and gender) are not yet the sole party of government. Though in the US at least it is clear that the Democrats will stop at absolutely nothing to ensure that they are the only party of government. For example; their attempts to remove Trump by legal mechanisms, prosecutorial methods, paying ex British spies for dirt to be dug-up and published in a ‘dossier’ (or made up: much of it was by the admission of the author), fixing elections (postal voting), accusations of “Red under the Beds” and all the rest of it.

This post will contain examples from the media of single-truth thinking. Mostly these will be from the US pages of the Guardian where such thinking abounds. If this kind of thinking becomes embedded as the official policy of the state we should be worried. That would herald a totalitarian state.

Example 1. This is from an article about demonstrations in Los Angeles about a Spa which permits “trans women” (men ‘transitioning’ or perhaps ‘self-identifying’ as a woman) to use the female facilities:

Calls to defend “female spaces” and “women’s shelters” have become rallying cries of anti-trans groups, who have falsely suggested that trans-inclusive policies endanger cis women

It is of course the “falsely suggested” that I am picking up on. There is, obviously, a debate going on here. Should ‘trans women’ be allowed to use female-only spaces such as refuges. In the UK there is a question over whether such people who are sentenced to prison should be sent to female or male prisons. It is evident that there is a question here. To re-iterate the position of those who are against permitting trans-women into women-only spaces; this can allow men who simply say “I am a woman” to enter a space which traditionally has been reserved for vulnerable physical women. And this creates a special potential for abuse. Against this is an ideology which cannot accept any limitation on the idea that “gender” is self-determined (not determined by the body you find yourself in). This side of the argument cannot give way on this precise point because it is at the heart of the ideology. At any event we can see that there are different positions and (one would hope) that it can be seen that those who express concerns are doing that from the point of view of protecting women (as they see it) and not out of some hostility to another group. There are two sides. A debate. We can even understand how one side in the argument may want to take up an uncompromising position. But what is interesting is how journalism (that is liberal journalists) finds it necessary to a priori dismiss – as if it were a simple matter of fact – one side in this argument. If we are to have a society where different points of view can be heard and discussed then the media is the forum in which that discussion can take place. If the media, and not just an interest group, adopts a position that the other side in a debate is wrong, or “false”, so that there is no need to even hear them, then what is happening is free discussion is being shut down. As in a totalitarian state.

Author: justinwyllie

EFL Teacher and Photographer