Joining The Dots - Day 5

Good evening, everybody. It's getting a bit complicated there at the end yesterday with this whole issue about language, but it's really important. As I said, this follows a controversy that goes all the way back to the Greeks. What's the relationship between a word and the real world in which we live? Is there some intrinsic meaning to words, some real relationship, or is it just arbitrary? The Greeks said it was just arbitrary, but that's just one view. Then there's this big discussion with Wittgenstein and Derrida, who I talked about. This is the position now of the post-structuralists who dominate a lot of the discourse in universities and culture today.

Post-structuralists insist that words and texts have no fixed intrinsic meanings. This means the meaning of a word and the meaning of a text is just arbitrary. That's important; it's arbitrary. In that sense, every interpretation is as good as any other interpretation. There are no fixed or intrinsic meanings, and there is no transparent or self-evident relationship between them and either ideals or things. Now, basically, there is ultimate correspondence between language and the world. So certainly, there is a question of how language relates to the world.

The conclusion is that language has been used to create binaries. Post-structuralist feminists see these binaries as artificial constructs created to maintain the power of dominant groups. When we looked at Pythagoras, that's what she said: everything is arbitrary. I looked at a little passage from Alice in Wonderland where Humpty Dumpty says, 'When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' In other words, I can arbitrarily decide what words mean. Of course, if you do that, it becomes a problem. How can we communicate if people aren't using words in the same way?

Even within a scientific idea of a language group, people within a particular community are able to communicate because the words have a particular meaning that is shared between them. They all agree on the meaning of a particular word. Humpty Dumpty says, 'I can just choose these things arbitrarily.' The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things. The question is that I'm Dumpty, which is to be master, that's all. This idea about questions of mastery is prevalent today. People are trying to change the discourse, create a narrative, and force the language to have a particular meaning that they want those words to have, which is different from the traditional meaning of those words. There's a lot of that going on.

I don't know how many of you have read this book by George Orwell called 1984, but if you want to understand what's going on...

In the world today, it's really a very good book to read, and I fully recommend it. In this book, there is a conversation that someone called Winston is having with another person, whose name I can't recall. The key point made is that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought. Winston is working as a kind of editor, going back and rewriting history to ensure that the history books conform to what the party wants. If you've lived in a communist country, you'll know that this sort of thing goes on.

George Orwell understood how communists operate because he fought in the Spanish Civil War alongside the Republicans and Marxists. He gained a deep understanding of Marxism, communism, and socialism, even though he himself was a socialist. This experience led him to become very hostile to communism due to their methods, including the idea of rewriting history and changing narratives to fit contemporary ideologies. Many people today engage in similar practices, editing texts and airbrushing photographs of those who have fallen out of favour.

Winston's conversation partner, an important person in the party, states that the aim of Newspeak is to make thoughtcrime literally impossible by eliminating the words needed to express dissent. The emergence of political correctness reflects this idea, as certain words and expressions are no longer allowed, effectively striking parts of our vocabulary. If you use these words on platforms like Facebook, you risk losing your account. This trend is moving towards a reality where certain thoughts are deemed criminal, and being politically incorrect can lead to severe consequences.

By removing many words, the party aims to make even thoughtcrime impossible, as there will be no words to express dissenting thoughts. Every concept that will ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all subsidiary meanings erased. This process will continue long after we are gone, resulting in fewer and fewer words and a continually shrinking range of consciousness. Currently, there is no justification for committee and thoughtcrime; it is mainly a question of self-discipline and reality control. However, by the year 2050 at the latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand the kind of conversation we are having now.

A lot of this is happening now, and what these post-structuralists are reacting against is the binary opposites that were tabulated by Pythagoras. These opposites have permeated European culture and society, where one side dominates and oppresses the other. This has been the experience of people throughout European history, as attempts to eliminate dissent and heretics have been made, often pushing women down and trying to straighten everything out. This oppressive dynamic continues to permeate our society.

Language is permeated by myth, and the objection I have to binary opposites is that they are inherently in conflict with each other. Good and evil are included in these columns, where one column is regarded as good and the other as bad. This binary thinking leads to the idea that you are either one or the other. We can see this in the extreme conversations happening in today's political landscape, where opinions are often denigrated and those who disagree are labelled as foolish or malicious. This kind of language creates a dominant column that seeks to silence the other, which is a significant problem with binary opposites. As we observe, this binary thinking has permeated European culture and is becoming increasingly extreme in today's world, particularly in the polarisation of political views and discourse. The current situation in America exemplifies this extreme discourse.

If we recognise that Pythagoras was wrong, post-structuralists argue for the elimination of binaries because they are inherently oppressive. However, I would suggest that what we truly need is a new ontology. Pythagoras described a world characterised by patriarchy, conflict, and a zero-sum game where one side must win at the expense of the other. This description reflects a fallen society, and while it may accurately depict the world as it was, it also becomes a myth that supports the status quo. This status quo has persisted for thousands of years in Europe and has only recently been challenged, particularly by feminists who find it intolerable.

David Hume pointed out that just because things are a certain way does not mean they ought to be that way. Pythagoras's view, which supports the status quo, conflates the way things are with the way they ought to be. We see this not only in Pythagorean thought but also in the caste system in India, supported by the myth of reincarnation, and in Plato's noble lie, which persuades people that the current state of affairs is how it should be. The language we use, influenced by Pythagorean dualism, has perpetuated these ideas, leading to a society where positive is equated with good and negative with bad.

Abraham's response to the injustices he observed was revolutionary. He recognised that while the world was filled with evil, it did not have to be that way. His determination was to address the injustices he encountered and to envision a world that could be different. This perspective led to a rebellion against the fallen status quo, aiming to establish a kingdom of heaven and a God-centred society. Abraham's conception of reality involved an analysis of human problems and the belief that evil is a mistake that can be rectified. From Abraham, we see a historical progression through Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Jesus, gradually expanding God's influence from the individual to the global level, working towards the elimination of oppression and the creation of a liberal democratic society.

The next question is about the nature of reality. Abraham stated that God created man in His image and likeness, male and female. This introduces a new ontology: reality consists of pairs. Every entity possesses dual characteristics of masculinity and femininity, which require a reciprocal relationship for existence. While there are binaries, such as masculinity and femininity, they are not opposites but rather exist in a complementary relationship. This means they are mutually attractive and equivalent in value, challenging the Pythagorean view of opposites. Understanding this reciprocal nature of reality is crucial, as it highlights the importance of balance and equality between these dual characteristics.

You can't have one without the other. Instead of being on point, as in Pythagoras's table, one tries to eliminate the other. Your characteristics cannot exist without the other; they need each other and are complementary. This is the table that you've seen a thousand times: particles are either positive or negative. When particles combine together, they form an atom. Atoms have a valency that allows them to combine together into molecules, and more complex molecules combine to form organic matter, which includes plants and animals that are male or female, as well as human beings who are men or women. The principle states that every entity has dual characteristics. The question is, is this true? Does this proposition correspond with reality? If you can come up with an entity that doesn't have dual characteristics, then you have disproved the principle and the understanding of the nature of reality. Is it coherent? Does it all fit together logically? Personally, I always ask people to prove it wrong when I teach. If you can't prove something wrong, it's probably right. That's a good scientific method: if you can falsify something, then it's wrong.

In the olden days, if you looked up what a swan is in a dictionary, it would say it's a white bird with a long neck. That was the definition of a swan. We never came across a swan that wasn't white unless it was a young gosling, and it didn't have a long neck. Then one day, someone went to Australia and found black swans, which proved that the definition of a swan was wrong. So they had to change the definition of a swan. That's how you disprove something: you find something that shows it's not correct. I haven't managed to find anything myself that disproves this principle. Another important point in this diagram is that there is no good and evil; it's just a description of the nature of reality. There is no moral overlay for positive and negative, or masculine and feminine. Some of you may know that when you teach guests, sometimes they get upset because negative is on one side, and they may think that means women are evil, which is built into the language. However, the principle understands that this is just a neutral description of the nature of reality. It's not that one is better than the other; they are just different and complementary, mutually attracted.

The principle states that a thing comes into existence when these dual characteristics have formed reciprocal relationships, both within the thing and between it and other things. If you look at an atom, you can see that it has a nucleus made up of protons and neutrons, with electrons whizzing around the outside. An atom doesn't exist unless there are protons and electrons. If there were just protons, there would be no atoms; if there were just electrons, there would be no atoms either. In the same way, with the human species, if there were just men, the human species would soon disappear, and if there were just women, the same would happen. For any species to exist, it has to have masculine and feminine entities; otherwise, it cannot exist. Therefore, in order for something to exist, it must have dual characteristics in a reciprocal relationship, both within the thing and between it and other things.

For example, consider a water molecule. There are two hydrogen atoms, each with one electron, and an oxygen atom with six electrons, which has space in its shell for another electron. When they combine, they form a very stable molecule: water. When we breathe the Divine Principle, we encounter abstract sentences and must consider whether they correspond to reality. When you look at reality as expressed through modern science and atomic physics, you can affirm that this is indeed the way it is. I would say that the statement in the principle is true. Every sentence in the Divine Principle can be unpacked into a book, often.

Another way of looking at this principle of yin and yang is that everything has an inside and an outside. You can't have an inside without an outside, a front without a back, or higher without lower. You can't have convex without concave; you can't have one without the other. You cannot try to eliminate the other; it's just the way things are. Good and evil do not fit into these dual characteristics because good and evil are not like positive and negative. First of all, they are not complementary. Good and evil are not attracted to each other; good people and evil people generally repel each other and feel uncomfortable in each other's presence. When they meet, there is often conflict. It is impossible to have good without evil. When God created the world, He created good. It is possible to have good without evil, and we can appreciate the good without knowing evil.

Imagine you enjoy eating in a nice restaurant. Most people would like to go out for a meal in a pleasant environment with family and friends. We can appreciate good food and good company without needing evil. Some argue that you can't appreciate good without knowing evil, but consider this: if you are in a restaurant and just about to eat when suddenly the pictures on the wall change to photographs of starving children, does that enhance your enjoyment of the meal? No, the evil destroys the good; it spoils it. Therefore, good and evil are not woven into the fabric of the universe. You don't need evil to appreciate the good. The principle suggests that God is good, and evil is a mistake. We can eliminate evil and create a world of goodness. In the biblical view, as stated in Genesis, God did not create good or evil; He created the world and declared it good. Good and evil are not entities; they are judgments and descriptions. They do not exist independently.

This is contrary to Plato's view, which posited that the good exists in some Platonic heaven. In the biblical view, good and evil do not exist; they are adjectives, not nouns. When we talk about good and evil, we are making judgments about certain actions or states of affairs. We label actions that lead to harm as evil and those that lead to well-being as good. Good and evil are judgments, not independent entities. Just as beauty does not exist independently, we can show beauty through examples, but we cannot show beauty itself. The same applies to truth; we can declare statements as true, but truth itself is a value judgment. This is why there are laws in the Bible against actions like murder, stealing, and adultery: to prevent harm to others and oneself. When you do something wrong, you are not only hurting someone else; you are damaging yourself.

In the Bible, the general principle is to love God, love your neighbour, and be kind. There is no single 'good thing' to do; there are many ways to be good. God told Adam he could eat from any tree except one. There are myriad activities that can be considered good, but only a few actions lead to harm, which is why there are laws against them. Just like the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, if you eat from it, you will face dire consequences. The Divine Principle states that an act or the result of an act is considered good when it fulfills God's purpose of creation. Again, this is a judgment: an act is good if it leads to fulfilling God's purpose. Conversely, an act is considered evil when it violates God's purpose by forming a foundation under the dominion of Satan. Regardless of the actions in the world today, people often think good and evil are merely matters of opinion, relative to individual perspectives. However, the question remains: is there a universal absolute standard of right and wrong?

To address this, we can consider what the worst crimes are. Normally, I would ask people to respond, but I will share my thoughts. The worst thing that could happen to you is getting murdered. Universally, everyone would agree that they do not want to be murdered. Even those who might commit murder would not want to be murdered themselves. In that sense, you can ask any human being if they would like to be murdered, and the answer would be no, unless they are mentally deranged. Murder prevents a person from fulfilling the first blessing because their body is in the ground, and their spirit is in the spiritual world. Therefore, murder is wrong, and everyone can agree on that. This serves as an absolute standard of wrongness. What about getting beaten up? Most people would also agree that violence is wrong. Gradually, we can work our way up from this basic standard of morality. Murder is immoral, violence is wrong, and we can extend this understanding to actions that generally hurt people. The principle is that hurting others is wrong, as Father said, and we should not hurt people. So, we can establish that hurting people is wrong. Now, what about the second worst crime? I believe that most people would agree that rape is one of the worst things that could happen.

Around but they don't want to be raped themselves. Rape, especially against women, is the worst thing that can happen to a woman, but it is also a terrible thing to happen to a man. It damages one's entire sense of self. When people experience being raped, they suffer a complete loss of self-worth and feel worthless. The loss of self-esteem is incredibly devastating, making it very difficult for someone to recover from such an experience. This makes it very hard, if not impossible, to fulfil the second blessing.

When a person is raped, they become incredibly damaged, which makes it very hard to trust or love someone else. It becomes difficult to receive love, and having a loving sexual relationship with someone else is challenging because all the traumatic memories resurface. This damage corrupts and harms the conjugal relationship, making it hard to give oneself to another person. The impact extends to the relationship between husband and wife, affecting their relationship with their children and passing on fears and issues to the next generation. This is why Father spoke about the violation of lineage, as it brings a stain or damages the lineage. The damage easily affects relationships with spouses and then extends to children and grandchildren. People who are sexually abused as children often go on to become abusers themselves, which is a significant problem.

Everyone can agree that murder and rape are absolute standards of evil; they are not relative but absolute and universal. The next issue is robbery. Nobody wants to be robbed or have someone break into their home and steal their belongings. The third blessing is to become a true owner, and if someone steals your property, you cannot fulfil that blessing. Therefore, robbery prevents people from realising the third blessing. This is why theft, stealing, and robbery are all wrong; they hinder people from achieving their rightful blessings. Father spoke about this in terms of violations of private or public property, but it essentially applies to any violation of someone's property.

The three most important laws any country can have are laws against murder, rape, and robbery. The real problem arises when the state itself engages in murder, and armies often commit atrocities when they invade other countries, leading to rape and robbery. This creates a hell on earth. We can establish an absolute standard of evilness, which allows us to build a framework for understanding a range of good activities. While it is challenging to define an absolute standard of goodness that everyone must conform to, it is much easier to discuss absolute standards of evilness. This is something everyone can agree on, regardless of their belief in God or atheism.

The purpose of religion is to help people fulfil and protect the three desires: to live, to have a family, and to earn. According to the Divine Principle, good and evil actions may take the same form, but their true nature can be discerned through their fruits. For example, if you see a photograph of a man and woman engaged in a sexual act, how can you tell if it is good or evil? One scenario may involve a husband and wife expressing their love, possibly with the hope of having a child. In contrast, another scenario may involve a man raping a woman. Although the act looks the same, the true nature is revealed through the fruits of the relationship. The fruits of a loving relationship between a husband and wife yield joy and happiness, while the fruits of rape are damaging and destructive.

It is crucial to remember that good motivation is not a justification for an action. Some people may argue that their good intentions make their actions acceptable, but we must evaluate actions based on their fruits and consequences. There is a common English expression: 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions.' During my time in Russia, I met many elderly communists who were genuinely good people, yet the communist regime committed terrible atrocities. Many of these individuals believed they were acting with good intentions, but the consequences were horrendous. Therefore, we must be cautious about equating good intentions with justifiable actions.

The laws are about the actions, not the person. Certain actions, such as murder, rape, and robbery, should never be violated. Even if someone has the best intentions, it does not make their actions right. A classic story in Dostoevsky's 'Crime and Punishment' illustrates this point. An idealistic student believes that if he kills a wealthy old woman, he can use her money for good deeds. However, the act of murder is still wrong, regardless of his motivations. The consequences of breaking the law are significant, and these laws exist for a reason. Just because someone has good intentions does not justify violating moral law.

Another important aspect is that it is the action that is designated as evil, not the person. We must love the sinner but not condone the sin. This is a fundamental Christian idea: it is not the person who is evil, but the actions they take. There are many ways to be good and do good. Returning to the main part of the principle, every entity possesses dual characteristics. Even though atoms can become positive or negative ions after ionization, they still consist of a positive nucleus and negative electrons, maintaining stable unity. Similarly, each animal, whether male or female, sustains its life through reciprocal relationships of Yang and Yin elements within itself. This principle also applies to plants and people.

A feminine nature is found latent in men, and a masculine nature is found latent in women. It is essential to recognise that men are not purely masculine, and women are not purely feminine. Within every man, there exists a feminine aspect, and within every woman, a masculine aspect. Carl Jung's psychoanalysis discusses this concept, highlighting the anima and animus—the feminine aspects in men and the masculine aspects in women. The expression of these characteristics varies among individuals. This understanding is different from Pythagoras's view of opposites; it acknowledges an intermingling rather than a strict binary. We are looking for a new ontology that accurately describes the nature of reality, moving beyond the outdated Pythagorean paradigm.

When discussing identity and gender politics, we must question the binaries we are using. Are these categories arbitrary? For instance, is it truly the case that protons and electrons have different charges, or is that just an arbitrary classification? The same applies to male and female distinctions in animals. Conservatives and radical feminists alike are often trapped within the Pythagorean paradigm of binary opposites. When engaging in conversations about these issues, we need to clarify that we do not operate from the assumption that binary opposites are the nature of reality. We reject the notion of binary opposites as a false description of reality. Instead, we accept that there are dual characteristics, which we refer to as binaries.

When discussing binaries, we are not advocating for one side against the other. We are not reactionaries defending one side or revolutionaries trying to overthrow the other. We need to be clear that we are talking about binary pairs that are complementary and hold equal value. It is challenging not to get drawn into conversations that take one side or the other, but we must avoid that. In discussing these binaries, we acknowledge that one is the subject and the other is the object. However, it is crucial to understand that we are not discussing oppressors and the oppressed. The concept of binary opposites implies one side is dominant and the other submissive, which is not the dynamic we are addressing.

According to the Divine Principle, in a relationship between a man and a woman, the man is the subject partner giving love, while the woman is the object partner returning beauty. The subject partner is the one giving love, not controlling or dominating. This understanding is often misinterpreted through cultural assumptions. When we read the Principle, we must avoid projecting our inherited assumptions onto it. The man, as the subject partner, gives love, and when a woman receives that love, she feels good inside. This happiness radiates beauty, making her even more attractive. Thus, the relationship between subject and object is one of mutual benefit and respect.

Relationship dynamics are not about dominance and submission; they are about love and beauty, love and respect. As stated in the Divine Principle, when a subject partner and an object partner become completely one in harmony, love is found within beauty, and beauty is found within love. This means that the person who loves you appears beautiful, and beauty is perceived as love. In this context, love and beauty are intertwined. When a subject partner and an object partner engage in a circular movement, they sometimes switch roles, leading to a dynamic conversation where one person initiates a topic, and the other responds, creating a flow of communication. This interaction embodies the essence of love and beauty, illustrating that relationships are not about one partner oppressing the other.

The relationship between the subject and object partners is not a violent hierarchy, as critiqued by Pythagoras, but rather a circular harmony based on love. This allows for the exchange of roles; sometimes a man will initiate the relationship, and sometimes a woman will. Through this love, they unite and create a higher level of existence as a couple. When two individuals enter a church and undergo a ritual or ceremony, they leave not as two separate beings but as a couple. Although they may appear the same on the outside, their relationship has transformed into a different ontological reality. This principle view aligns more closely with the scientific understanding of masculinity and femininity.

When discussing the building blocks of life, it is important to note that every living creature, even asexual organisms like amoebas, is made up of chromosomes. These chromosomes consist of DNA, which is structured as a double helix. Within this structure, there are base pairs formed by four different molecules. Even at the most basic level of life, we observe dual characteristics. DNA replication is semi-conservative, meaning that as the strands unravel, they create new strands that are identical to the original. In humans, we possess chromosomes like all living beings, with 22 pairs of identical chromosomes and one pair of sex chromosomes, X and Y. This leads to the question of what these sex chromosomes represent.

Human chromosomes are fixed; women have two X chromosomes, while men have one X and one Y. This binary classification is not a spectrum; it is a reality that cannot be changed. While some individuals may have chromosomal abnormalities, the vast majority of the population falls into these two categories. The notion of changing sex is complicated, as one cannot alter their chromosomes. Cosmetic surgery may change external appearances, but the underlying genetic reality remains unchanged. The determination of a baby's sex is based on the chromosomes contributed by the parents, resulting in either XX or XY combinations. This biological reality raises questions about fairness and discrimination, particularly in light of health disparities such as those observed during the coronavirus pandemic, where men are statistically more likely to die than women.

Physiologically, there are notable differences between men and women. Studies have shown that male brains typically have more connections running between the back and front, which may account for better spatial skills and motor control. In contrast, female brains often have more connections between the left and right hemispheres, potentially leading to superior verbal skills and intuitive abilities. These differences extend beyond mere physical appearance; they influence how individuals perceive and interact with the world. For instance, male and female babies exhibit different preferences, with female babies tending to prefer faces and male babies favouring moving objects. These distinctions are evident in social interactions, as mothers and fathers engage with their children in different ways, and men and women often express emotions differently.

Despite these general trends, it is essential to recognise that not all individuals fit neatly into these categories. There is a spectrum of characteristics within both genders, and many people possess traits that may be considered traditionally masculine or feminine. The principle asserts that within every man, there exists a feminine aspect, and within every woman, there is a masculine aspect. This understanding aligns with the reality of human nature, which encompasses dual characteristics. However, societal stereotypes often oversimplify these complexities, leading to rigid classifications that do not reflect the true diversity of human experience. The principle view of reality acknowledges this complexity and challenges the binary thinking that often dominates discussions about gender.

In contemporary society, discussions around gender issues often revolve around challenging binary classifications. Many individuals identify as non-binary, prompting a deeper examination of the nature of reality. Regardless of personal beliefs, the biological foundation of human existence remains unchanged, with chromosomes defining male and female identities. While societal perceptions may evolve, the underlying genetic reality persists. This has implications for various fields, including psychology and social sciences, where gender roles and expectations continue to be debated. Ultimately, understanding the dual characteristics inherent in all individuals can foster a more nuanced conversation about gender and identity, moving beyond simplistic binaries to embrace the rich diversity of human experience.

Over the years, people's views about gender roles have changed significantly. In the past, many believed that a man's job was to earn money while a woman's job was to look after the home and family. However, these proportions have declined considerably, and there is now a broader disagreement about traditional gender roles. This shift in perspective has led to a more nuanced understanding of what gender means. I'm not an expert on this topic; I am merely trying to create a framework for thinking about these issues, and I don't expect everyone to agree with me.

So, what is gender? It is typically defined as a state of being male or female, often in reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. One aspect of gender is our biological sex, which is fixed and cannot be changed. This includes how we experience our own bodies and how society genders our bodies, influencing what kind of clothes we are expected to wear and how others interact with us based on our physical appearance. Our identity, on the other hand, is our deeply held internal sense of self, which can be male, female, a blend of both, or neither. This sense of self develops as individuals grow up and figure out their preferences and likes.

Another important aspect is gender expression, which refers to how we present our gender to the world. This expression is shaped by societal, cultural, and familial perceptions and expectations. While biological sex is fixed, gender expression can be fluid and is often influenced by societal norms. When society imposes strict expectations on how men and women should behave, it can lead to problems. The world we live in is a fallen one, and these social and cultural expectations can be oppressive, dictating how individuals should conform to their assigned gender roles.

Gender identity develops through a series of stages, and it is crucial that children are allowed to explore their identities without imposed categories. Unfortunately, there is a growing trend where children are told that their interests or behaviours dictate their gender identity. This can lead to confusion, especially for those who may not fit neatly into traditional gender categories. The fallen culture we live in perpetuates stereotypes that can be harmful, as they often do not account for the complexity of individual experiences. The idea that there is a 'right' way to be a man or a woman is rooted in outdated philosophical concepts, such as Plato's ideal forms.

A lack of understanding regarding the distribution of sex-related personality and behavioural differences has led to confusion, particularly for children who may identify with characteristics typically associated with the opposite gender. For instance, a boy with feminine traits might think he is a girl trapped in a boy's body, while a girl with masculine traits might feel she is a boy. It is essential to expand our understanding of what constitutes normal male and female behaviour, as this can help children appreciate the wide range of personality preferences that exist beyond traditional stereotypes. The problem arises when individuals feel they do not fit into these binary categories, leading to significant distress.

According to an integrated household survey conducted by a branch of the British government, around 93% of people self-identify as heterosexual. The proportion of individuals identifying as gay or lesbian is just over 1%, while those identifying as bisexual is less than 1%. A small percentage, about 4%, either do not know how to identify or choose not to answer the question. Among the 2.5% of the population that identifies as LGBTQ+, 61% identify as gay or lesbian, and a smaller number identify as bisexual or pansexual. The figures reveal that the proportion of the population that identifies as transgender is quite small, contrary to the perception often portrayed in the media.

The media often amplifies the voices of a minority, leading to misconceptions about the prevalence of certain identities. For instance, articles discussing the 'gender fluid generation' suggest that this is a widespread phenomenon, yet the actual numbers indicate it is a very small proportion of the population. This discrepancy raises questions about why society should reform its language and systems to accommodate such a small percentage of individuals. The demand for societal reform based on these identities can create tension, particularly when it comes to issues like sports and competition, where fairness and safety are at stake.

The case of transgender athletes in competitive sports has sparked significant debate. Critics argue that allowing transgender women to compete against biological women creates an unfair advantage, as the physiological differences cannot be entirely mitigated by hormone treatments. This issue extends beyond sports and touches on broader societal implications, including freedom of speech. For example, a tax expert in the UK lost her job after questioning government proposals regarding self-identification for transgender individuals. This incident highlights the challenges faced by those who hold gender-critical views, which assert that there are only two biological sexes, and raises concerns about the implications for free expression in society.

In a landmark judgment published yesterday, Employment Judge Taylor decided that Mrs. Forrester's view is incompatible with the human dignity and fundamental rights of others. Judge Taylor concluded that if a person has transitioned from male to female and possesses a Gender Recognition Certificate, that person is legally a woman. This is not something Mrs. Forrester is entitled to ignore. Her position is that even if a trans woman has a GRC, she cannot honestly describe herself as a woman. This belief is not worthy of respect in a democratic society, highlighting the shutting down of opinions and the emergence of newspeak once again.

People are not allowed to express such views; they are not even allowed to think them. Even in regard to the qualified right of freedom of expression, individuals cannot expect protection if their core belief involves violating the dignity of others and creating an intimidating or hostile environment. This issue is also prevalent in America, where some teenage girls are condemning discrimination against trans girls. Families of three female high school runners have filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block transgender athletes in Connecticut from participating in girls' sports. They argue that allowing transgender athletes undermines fairness in competition.

For instance, Selena Sol, a senior at Glastonbury High School, and another student are represented by the conservative non-profit organisation Alliance Defending Freedom. They contend that allowing transgender athletes to compete in girls' sports creates an unfair advantage, as the outcome of the race is often predetermined. The logical unfairness does not disappear because of someone's beliefs about gender identity. All girls deserve the chance to compete on a level playing field.

In Britain, a 13-year-old schoolgirl successfully forced her council to scrap plans for transgender toilets in schools, which would have allowed students to use whichever bathroom they preferred. This girl argued that such policies threatened her safety, privacy, and dignity. If a child born as a boy identifies as a girl, they would be allowed to use girls' toilets and changing rooms. The girl took the council to court and won, leading to the withdrawal of that advice. These are real issues that are currently unfolding, and they raise significant concerns about the direction society is heading.

When addressing these issues, it is essential to recognise that every human being is a son or daughter of God, possessing unique and eternal value. Those struggling with their gender identity deserve compassion, love, and care. However, the question arises: should society be reoriented to conform to the needs and desires of a small minority, or should facilities like toilets and changing rooms cater to the majority? It raises the issue of whether the 95% should have to conform to the wishes of the 2.5%. Perhaps separate facilities could be provided for those who struggle with their identity, but it is problematic if the majority must change everything to accommodate a minority.

Another challenge is the rejection of binary opposites. While society needs to change to acknowledge the historical mistreatment of women, it is equally important not to dismiss the existence of binaries altogether. This dismissal can lead to a meaningless understanding of gender. Women must consider the future of their organisations, such as shelters for domestic violence victims, which exist for very good reasons. Women's prisons have historically been separate from men's for similar reasons, as mixing could lead to significant issues.

The implications extend to women's sports and facilities. For example, Muslim women may face challenges in swimming pools that allow men. If policies change to permit men who identify as women into women's spaces, how will this affect Muslim women? This is a significant issue for the feminist movement, which seems to be struggling to address the complexities introduced by transgender rights. While I do not claim to have all the answers, these are pressing issues that society must confront. The rejection of traditional categorisation, influenced by Pythagorean thought, has created a vacuum where alternative frameworks that recognise equality and the complementarity of masculine and feminine are needed.