“Wokery” – the curse of the 21st Century?

I am conscious these days that on this particular subject I am running the risk of beginning to sound like a stuck record – and probably one of the original 78s – but I’m becoming fed up to the back teeth with the modern obsessions over issues such as equality, diversity, transgender advancement and “cancel” culture generally.

It seems as though everyone bounces into this world pre-programmed with an illogical sense of “entitlement” – as if every human who ever lived should automatically be entitled to “all mod cons” including a £300 million ocean-going superyacht, a private aircraft to take them on holidays to the Algarve, a pre-owned 2021 Aston Martin V12 Vantage and, of course, at least £500,000 (non taxable) per annum spending money.

And – if they don’t get them – it is always somebody else’s fault.

To make my point today I select two cases currently in the news:

THE CAMBRIDGE’S TOUR OF THE WEST INDIES

In recent days it has been difficult to escape the media’s coverage of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridges’ ongoing tour of the West Indies which has met with a series of (let us say) mixed responses and incidents as it has progressed.

These have included a protest by locals at the prospect of them arriving by helicopter at some field they were supposed to visit and an official ritual humiliation at the hands of Jamaica’s elite, which had already decided to dispense with the Queen as notional head of state and simultaneously claim untold amounts of cash as reparation for Great Britain’s past connections with slavery etc.

Although I am no monarchist I do harbour a high regard for Queen.

However, for me, the rest of them have failed to earn the fawning manner to which they have institutionally become accustomed and desperately need to “wake up and smell the coffee”, not least our future King Prince Charles.

That said, I’m also fed up with Britain being lectured by all and sundry around the world for the “iniquities” supposedly committed by the British Empire and its successor association the British Commonwealth.

Groucho Marx once famously remarked that he would never want to join a club that would accept him as a member and personally I’d never go anywhere that I hadn’t been invited.

In which context, how and why Royal Family decided to mount a tour of the West Indies at this point in history I shall never know [could it be that they were ordered to by the Government?].

My take upon history is that the rulers of every country/continent have always been those that have “conquered” either by war, trade or consent.

I have no idea – but wouldn’t mind knowing – exactly what proportion of Jamaica’s current population consists of descendants of (1) slaves originally brought – directly or indirectly – from Africa or elsewhere by British slave traders; (2) “immigrants, refugees or tourists”; and/or (3) any native peoples who existed upon the islands of the West Indies before those in categories either (1) or (2) above arrived.

Arguably, in my judgement, those in group (3) above are those that have the strongest case for “reparations” if anyone has. Furthermore, one way and another, all three categories have gained considerable benefits from being associated with Britain. And, if they hadn’t been associated with Britain, almost certainly they’d have been associated with some other “governing power” over the past several hundred years.

Plus, I’d venture to suggest, had they existed throughout history as (literally) an island or set of islands that had never had any contact with any other civilisation, they might not be living in whatever “splendour” they’re currently enjoying.

TRANSGENDER ISSUES

In the recent past contributors to this organ – and indeed legions of others – have covered the complicated and sometimes vexed subject of originally-male transgender athletes taking part in female sport.

On the face of it, it seems that legislators the world over are broadly in favour of “allowing” anyone who feels they’ve been born in the wrong body to transition to any other gender they choose.

However, for those (including me) who hold that essentially – scientifically and in truth – human beings are either born male or female … and that there’s practically zero that anyone can do about it … the idea that formerly male athletes or players can suddenly become “female” and then be allowed to compete at elite level in women’s versions of sports/games fails to properly take into account the physiological differences between male and female bodies.

In short, formerly “male” sportswomen have a series of in-built strengths/attributes that de facto completely disadvantages any “women” who were born female that they compete against.

Today I want to “row back” slightly on that simple statement of the position.

Earlier this week I read an article by Matthew Syed published in The Times newspaper.

His thrust stopped me in my tracks.

(Sadly, I cannot here link Rusters to his article because of the “pay wall” issue that prevents me doing so).

However, in his piece, Syed pointed out that – so far – it appears that no specific instances of formerly-male transgender athletes/players winning any gold medals have ever occurred.

This has allowed him to put the question “Is this issue really as troubling as everyone has been assuming?”

I don’t know the answer. But his query has certainly prompted me to re-address the issues.