Wake up, world! Wokeism is on the wane…

True greatness is undoubtedly in this obscure struggle where, deprived of enthusiasm of the crowds, a few individuals, putting their lives on the line, defend, absolutely alone, a cause around them despised (from The White Rose, Inge Scholl).

The White Rose is a tragic account of the resistance of German students to Hitler during World War II. Three of them were captured and sentenced to death for high treason. The newspapers carried reports of “irresponsible lone wolves and adventurers, who by their acts had automatically excluded themselves from the community of the Volk.”

What is “wokeism”?

Wokeism" derives from African American vernacular English and carries the definition “awake” or being aware of issues related to systemic oppression and social justice. As with many movements, it has become extreme in its precepts and activism, particularly with respect to advocacy for marginalized groups. Nowhere has it been more successful than in the field of transgenderism involving young people.

Wokeism has infiltrated key institutions that currently endorse policies of extreme political correctness, silence dissenting voices, engage in cancel culture, and even launch criminal prosecutions of braver souls who continue to state the obvious, for example, that sex is dimorphic and that transwomen are not women.

In 1895,Gustave Le Bon wrote in his prescient book The Crowd: A study of the popular mind:

Crowds, doubtless, are always unconscious, but this very unconsciousness is perhaps one of the secrets of their strength. In the natural world beings exclusively governed by instinct accomplish acts whose marvellous complexity astounds us. Reason is an attribute of humanity of too recent date and still too imperfect to reveal to us the laws of the unconscious, and still more to take its place. The part played by the unconscious in all our acts is immense, and that played by reason very small. The unconscious acts like a force still unknown. If we wish, then, to remain within the narrow but safe limits within which science can attain to knowledge, and not to wander in the domain of vague conjecture and vain hypothesis, all we must do is simply to take note of such phenomena as are accessible to us and confine ourselves to their consideration. Every conclusion drawn from our observation is, as a rule, premature, for behind the phenomena which we see clearly are other phenomena that we see indistinctly, and perhaps behind these latter, yet others which we do not see at all.

What are the forces, unconscious and unknown, that are driving gender ideology?

At a conference in Paris in 2024, psychoanalyst Roberto D’Angelo noted the “complete erasure” of the concepts of vulnerability, risk, and harm associated with gender-affirming care and the remarkable lack of curiosity about the concerns that drive young people to seek such extreme body modifications. “The psychic pain we see in our consulting rooms, and which appears in study after study, is completely exiled from awareness,” he said.

D’Angelo opined that one possible reason for the abject acceptance of the declarations of transgender-declaring young people is the unconscious guilt and need for penance and absolution of psychiatry for its previous pathologizing of homosexuality. In their righteous rush to affirm, this (unconscious) expiation dynamic hinders their acknowledgement of the psychic pain “humming beneath” trans identification.

However, while the acolytes, affirming practitioners, and politicians continue to wheel and deal around issues of transgendering minors (i.e., young people under the age of 18), something remarkable has been happening amongst the silent majority. Let’s take a look at three countries.

 

Liquid syntax error: Error in tag 'subpage' - No such page slug home-signup

United States

For the less astute, all the signs of a move away from extreme woke attitudes have been enlarging over the past two years, culminating in Donald Trump’s executive order that there are only two sexes – male and female, in case you were wondering – and restriction of gender care services for minors. The orders also included barring transgender people from military service, and banning transgender women from women’s sports.

This notice appeared on the US Center for Diseases Control website:

Per a court order, HHS is required to restore this website as of 11:59PM ET, February 14, 2025. Any information on this page promoting gender ideology is extremely inaccurate and disconnected from the immutable biological reality that there are two sexes, male and female. The Trump Administration rejects gender ideology and condemns the harms it causes to children, by promoting their chemical and surgical mutilation, and to women, by depriving them of their dignity, safety, well-being, and opportunities. This page does not reflect biological reality and therefore the Administration and this Department rejects it.

Of course, there is now the expected pushback from trans-affirmative groups and civil liberties organizations. But a view is gaining momentum that “transitioning” children and young people who have been brainwashed to think that sex can be changed is medically and morally indefensible.

Some have argued that a single campaign slogan in the Republican party may have won Trump the presidency – “Kamala is for they/them; President Trump is for you.” One post-election piece sympathised with the Democrat’s loss of the White House and both houses of Congress, stating that this defeat would necessitate a rethink of their transgender politics. The Democrats had misread the changing tide of public support for the transgender agenda. While they campaigned for greater services and higher subsidies, more gender clinics, lowering of minimum ages for young people to be prescribed puberty blockade, cross sex hormones, and sex reassignment surgeries, and government subsidies for gender reassignment for adults in the armed and defence forces, the public was quietly re-appraising their vision of the brave new, fantastical world in which sex had become a commodity to be bartered.

A Gallup poll conducted in 2023 asked Americans about their views on transgenderism. Over half (55 percent) said that it was not right to change one’s sex/gender. Even among people who stated that they knew a transgender person, 67 percent felt that it was not morally acceptable to change one’s sex. This represents a significant shift in public opinion from 2016 in which an international survey reported that 70 percent of respondents agreed that transgender people should be able to have gender-affirming surgery.

Opinions on LGBTQIA issues in the USA were split along political lines: the majority (84 percent) of Republicans believed it was morally wrong to change one’s sex compared with 29 percent of Democrats. A 2023 Pew Research Center survey reported that 60 percent of Republicans believed that society had gone too far in accepting transgender people, compared with 17 percent of Democrats.

However, views converged on some questions. For example, when asked about policies for competitive sports that have always had separate teams and competitions for male and female athletes, only 26 percent of the American public stated that athletes should be able to play on teams that matched their gender identity (as opposed to their birth sex); 70 percent agreed that playing on teams that matched their birth sex should be the only available option for athletes.

The US is not unique in showing population shifts away from acceptance and support for transgender ideology and the bizarre policies and medical treatments that have been spawned from it.

This shift in public opinion may also be reflected in downturns in the number of young people presenting to gender clinics and hospitals for gender affirming care. Note the trend in California, one of the US’s most trans friendly states.   

United Kingdom 

The British public stance on transgender rights has followed a similar trajectory as the US, showing gradually decreasing support for the pillars of gender ideology. The proposed shifts are broad-ranging. In the last election the Conservatives promised to revise the Equality Act, to revert to biologically based definitions of sex and gender, to ban trans females from single-sex spaces and women’s sport ,and to stop teaching gender ideology in schools.

Successive government surveys since 2018 have identified downward trends in acceptance and an increasing trend in scepticism towards transgender ideology and trans rights. However, the community remains split on key issues such as allowing individuals to socially identify as a different gender, and permitting them to legally change gender, although 70 percent of respondents agreed that the process for obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate should still require approval by doctors. Most Britons (74 percent) now also oppose trans female participation in women’s sport; 60 percent also felt that transmen should not be permitted to participate in male sports.

More than half of respondents opposed gender transition treatments being funded and available through the NHS. On the question of transitioning children, the British public was more united, with over 75 percent agreeing that puberty blockers and cross sex hormones should be prohibited. In 2024, the government ceased the prescription of these drugs to young people under the age of 18.

Australia

Why can't I try on different lives, like dresses, to see which fits best and is more becoming? Sylvia Plath

Australia has not travelled very far in its understanding and treatment of gender dysphoria and transsexualism since the article below appeared in a Sydney newspaper in 2004, describing the harm perpetrated by two rogue psychiatrists who medically and surgically mutilated patients because they had been, according to them, “born in the wrong body.” Their clinic did not keep adequate records and did not have any long-term follow-up of patients to ascertain how they had fared in the years after surgery.  

Sunday Herald Sun, 24 March 2004

A similar article appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald in 2009 that described in chilling detail the malpractice of gender surgeons and the irreparable damage they wreaked on young people with untreated psychopathologies.

We must ask ourselves, given the known harms of the misnamed gender affirming care, how have we arrived at the current state of gender affairs?

In comparison with numerous countries overseas that have halted the prescription of puberty blockers, cross sex hormones, and sex reassignment surgeries for minors, Australia forges on with these practices, becoming increasingly out-of-step with international developments.

Nonetheless, there are a few chinks in the armour of woke adherence to these dangerous medical practices.

Queensland announced this year that it had ceased the prescription of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones to minors pending a review. This has been a watershed moment in the struggle against medicalization of minors in Australia, with Queensland the first state to act responsibly as opposed to talking endlessly and obfuscating shamelessly.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) continues its practice of conflating the terms “transgender” and “gender diverse.” This is a grave error because gender diverse does not necessarily imply gender dysphoria, nor identification with a gender other than one’s birth sex, nor a wish to live in the opposite binary, nor a desire for medicalization. It is a nebulous construct with no clear definition and should be treated as a distinct category from the transgender population. That not being the case, estimates of this conflated population are as follows (ABS, 2022):

Some 178,900 Australians aged 16 years and over, or 0.9% of the population, identify as transgender or gender diverse: 0.3% (n= 67,100) identify as trans men, 0.3% (n=52,500) identify as trans women, and 0.3% (n=58,500) identify as non-binary. Young people aged 16-24 years have the highest proportion (1.8%) of trans or gender diverse identifying groups partitioned by age. The greatest numbers are found amongst adolescent girls.

What does the Australian silent majority think? In February 2025, the Australian Population Research Institute published the results of national survey comprising 3,023 respondents. The survey revealed that most voters did not support the “progressive values agenda”. For example, only 25 percent of Australians agreed that a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman and 74 percent did not support the inclusion of trans females in women’s sport. An earlier survey found that 73 percent of men and 53 percent of women believed that trans activists were excessively imposing their views on other Australians.

Other recent developments in Australia include the Gender transition prohibition bill proposed by Alex Antic, Senator in South Australia, and the passing of the first Australian legislation placing a ban on intersex surgery of children in the ACT. ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr stated that he was “immensely proud to be leading the nation to a better standard of care for people with variations in sex characteristics.” He said these surgeries had to be stopped because they were irreversible and therefore had to be delayed until children were old enough to provide consent to the treatment. Amid the mutual self-congratulations for the passing of this legislation lies a great irony waving its flag in plain sight!

The legislation states that intersex children cannot consent, and surgery must be halted until they can consent. But gender dysphoric or transgender declaring children apparently can consent to irreversible medical interventions and there is no need for delay. Queer theorists and advocates of transitioning childrenhave long advocated for re-evaluation of age-of-consent laws and the reduction of minimum ages whereby children may undergo life-changing, irreversible treatments.

We see repeatedly, as in this instance, the shoddy or absent reasoning in those charged with framing our legislation. In the words of Peter, Paul, and Mary (1960), “When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?”

Perhaps one day, when reasoning returns, and gender wokeness has had its day, those of us who have excluded ourselves from the Volk of gender affirmation will no longer be considered treasonous and will cease to be the recipients of vexatious and venomous complaints that cost the taxpayer many a wasted dollar. I note that Volk insiders currently face no sanctions for their conduct. 


Do you think that gender wokeness is declining?  


Formerly Professor of Psychology at The University of Sydney, Australia, Dianna Kenny is now in full time private practice specializing in child and adolescent mental health, early trauma, child sexual abuse, and gender dysphoria. She is a scholar of international standing, author of 12 books and over 300 scholarly publications, and a frequent keynote and invited speaker at national and international conferences.

Image credit: Bigstock 


 

Showing 57 reactions

Sign in with

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Emberson Fedders
    commented 2025-03-02 15:32:59 +1100
    Hmm, Mercator seemed pretty happy when moderators, as you call them, were eliminated from X and now Facebook, and they have become places of toxic misogyny, on-line trolling, rampant racism, antisemitism, misinformation, spurious attacks and harmful content.
  • Tim Lee
    Thanks for your feedback, Janet. while I see your point about “strenuously derailing comments” detracting from the content of our articles, I agree with Michael that there’s merit in showing unfiltered duels. As Comments Editor and regular commenter, I tend to be more tolerant of wilfully ignorant posts. We are less tolerant of ad-hominem attacks and persistent trolls and have deleted posts and banned commenters as a last resort.

    Some who’ve had their comments deleted have criticised us for not being consistent in our defence of free speech but moderating comments is not about facilitating shouting matches. It’s about letting people speak their minds without being unduly trolled. A moderator of a TV debate with audience participation will cut off someone who persists in disrupting the conversation with spurious attacks or self-indulgent bluster.
  • Janet Grevillea
    commented 2025-03-02 08:19:25 +1100
    Michael I have wondered what would happen if Dianna Kenny wrote nothing but a headline that said, “Have your say about anything at all that is on your mind.” I reckon that headlines would attract the same comments as the thoughtful article she wrote.
  • Michael Cook
    commented 2025-03-01 17:59:20 +1100
    Hullo, Janet. I’m not sure why you say that the comments are a mess. They certainly display a variety of views, some of which I personally think utterly absurd and wilfully ignorant. But, let’s face it, that’s the way a lot of people think. So there is some merit in the duelling of opposing perspectives.
  • Paul Bunyan
    commented 2025-03-01 16:54:30 +1100
    Thanks for showing us how religion corrupts and destroys love and compassion, Tim.

    Did you know that religious leaders wanted Queen Victoria to refrain from using analgesics during childbirth, because it was “god’s will”? Disgusting.

    If it weren’t for the Enlightenment, we wouldn’t even have Aspirin today. And please don’t bring up the Christian abolitionists who fought to end slavery. Christianity itself does not speak out against slavery as an institution. That’s why it took over 1700 years and a civil war in the US to abolish it.
  • Tim Lee
    Sigh… have a good life, Paul. May the God whom you deny bless you on your journey home.
  • Paul Bunyan
    commented 2025-03-01 16:02:58 +1100
    Thanks for dodging the question again, Tim.

    In any case, an all-loving god would not let anyone suffer, even if it was temporary.
  • Tim Lee
    Good question, Paul. Our loves – storge (love of family and the familiar), philia (love of friends) and eros (romantic love) – are imperfect. Saints who love perfectly – agape (selfless love) – offer us a glimpse of heaven. https://www.cslewis.com/four-types-of-love

    Imperfect love means there’s no bliss without pain, no rainbow without rain. More than a feeling, love is an act of will, a choice made freely. We love someone unconditionally – for himself or herself, not for ourselves. Love of God’s creatures – storge, philia and eros – teaches us to love the Creator, in whom temporal pain is eclipsed by infinite bliss.
  • Paul Bunyan
    commented 2025-03-01 12:28:54 +1100
    Tim, if there can be free will without suffering in heaven, why can’t there be free will without suffering on Earth?
  • Janet Grevillea
    commented 2025-03-01 08:28:57 +1100
    Having read Dianna Kenny’s Mercatornet articles and the strenuously derailing comments that follow I quote from a post below:

    “This article is about protecting children from being prescribed irreversible ‘gender-affirming’ surgery or hormone treatments that damage their bodies for life.”

    No, this article is about feeling perpetual victim hood.”

    The first paragraph in the quote is correct. The second is typical of those who seem determined to misread whatever Dianna Kenny writes. The comments section of Mercatornet is a mess. Michael Cook can you do something to redress this unfortunate situation?
  • Tim Lee
    Anon, the Nazis cancelled – metaphorically and literally – many groups of people, including gays and ‘trans’, Jews and Christians. This does not align them with anti-gays or ‘anti-trans’ any more than it aligns them with anti-Jews or anti-Christians. What they had in common with modern totalitarian-leaning volk is the thought police.

    On marriage, we are going round in circles. My not accepting everything some of my gay friends believe does not mean I don’t love them, any more than their not accepting my belief in Holy Matrimony mean they don’t love me. I will ask again, what is marriage? How is it different from other unions?
  • Tim Lee
    Heaven is full of Love. Robots can’t love, Paul.
  • mrscracker
    “mrscracker, why did you attempt to equate consensual sex between adults with rape?”
    **********
    Mr. Bunyan, the sexual attractions that are still illegal today if acted upon involve those between siblings & other closely related people, children, & animals. The first category may include consensual relations between adults.
  • Anon Emouse
    commented 2025-03-01 00:48:28 +1100
    “ This article is about protecting children from being prescribed irreversible ‘gender-affirming’ surgery or hormone treatments that damage their bodies for life.”

    No, this article is about feeling perpetual victim hood. It’s why the author misaligns herself with the people who spoke up against Nazis – ignoring that the Nazis burned research on transgender people, much like the Trump administration is censoring / deleting research on the topic.

    And Tim – so, again – you’re against gay marriage? You want them to have all the rights of a married couple but call it something else? I’m sorry, but that’s not “love” in my view, because there is always that underlying condescension of “less than” that you ascribe by using a different term.
  • Paul Bunyan
    commented 2025-02-28 20:52:40 +1100
    Is everyone in heaven a robot, Tim?
  • Tim Lee
    God can stop all evil in the world only by turning us all into robots. God created us with the free will to love him or reject him. A robot cannot love.
  • Paul Bunyan
    commented 2025-02-28 20:10:18 +1100
    How so, Tim? Would you simply stand by and do nothing if you saw someone being kidnapped, mugged or raped?

    I most certainly would not.
  • Tim Lee
    That makes no sense, Paul.
  • Paul Bunyan
    commented 2025-02-28 19:35:47 +1100
    Then it would seem your god values the free will of tyrants and evildoers more than the free will of their victims. Which would make him evil.

    https://www.rawstory.com/2013/01/atheist-tv-host-boots-piece-of-sht-christian-for-calling-raped-girl-evil/

    ""You either have a God who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, ‘When you’re done, I’m going to punish you,‘" Harris agreed. "If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That’s the difference between me and your God."

    “First of all, you portray that little girl as someone who’s innocent, she’s just as evil as you,” the caller shot back.

    With that comment, Dillahunty disconnected the call."

    Helping people and alleviating suffering are more important than protecting free will.
  • Tim Lee
    How did you read that passage as condoning polyamory? God can stop us from evil acts only at the cost of our free will. . Bereft of free will, we cease to be human. Old Testament traditions like the Mosaic law allowing divorce were reflective of the cultural context, and were superseded in the New Testament (eg Matt 19.4-8).
  • Paul Bunyan
    commented 2025-02-28 18:41:24 +1100
    Because King Solomon had many wives and more concubines.

    King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. 2 They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been. 5 He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molek the detestable god of the Ammonites. 6 So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the Lord; he did not follow the Lord completely, as David his father had done.

    1 Kings 11:1–6

    Strange that your god didn’t stop him. It would make more sense that the bible is a book of allegories and fables with some useful life advice, some horrible advice (keep slaves, kill disobedient children, kill women who don’t bleed on their wedding nights, kill people for working on the Sabbath), and lots of boring “begats.”
  • Tim Lee
    What makes you say that, Paul?
  • Paul Bunyan
    commented 2025-02-28 18:15:26 +1100
    Tim, the bible is in favor of polyamory (as long as it’s between one man and many women).
  • Tim Lee
    We’re already slipping down the slope, Anon.

    “Americans cannot say that they weren’t warned. When the US Supreme Court held in Obergefell v Hodges in 2015 that same-sex marriage was a constitutional right, Chief Justice John Roberts warned that this would eventually lead to protection for polyamorous relationships…”
    https://www.mercatornet.com/my-13-year-old-identifies-as-polyamorous-what-should-i-do
  • Emberson Fedders
    commented 2025-02-28 16:43:00 +1100
    Tim Lee – slippery slope fallacy. And false equivalency.

    “Why don’t we just let people marry their dogs?”
  • Paul Bunyan
    commented 2025-02-28 16:31:36 +1100
    mrscracker, why did you attempt to equate consensual sex between adults with rape?
  • Tim Lee
    Anon, that something is legal doesn’t make it right. This article is about protecting children from being prescribed irreversible ‘gender-affirming’ surgery or hormone treatments that damage their bodies for life. That such treatments are legal in some jurisdictions doesn’t make it right.

    Before we say that two things are equal, we need to know what they are. If two sexes are not necessary in a marriage, why are two people necessary? Why not one or three or four? If ‘love’ is all that is required for people to get married, why can’t someone marry his or her child? What makes a lifelong, life-giving and life-nurturing bond between a man and a woman different from other unions?
  • Emberson Fedders
    commented 2025-02-28 12:22:58 +1100
    “…has taken hold in governments, public service bodies, political parties, charities, sporting bodies, education departments, universities and even some churches.”

    So, it’s mainstream thinking across all aspects of Australian society. Perhaps you are in the wrong, Ms Grevillea.
  • Anon Emouse
    commented 2025-02-28 12:20:26 +1100
    Tim -

    Not a dodge, I think the question is immaterial to the discussion – at least in the US. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) ruled, unanimously, that separate but equal is inherently unequal. So assigning “civil unions” to gay couples implicitly means that you think their union to be less than that of a heterosexual couple. That you bring children into the discussion also implies you’re against gay adoption – again, showing that you think less of these gay marriages.
  • Tim Lee
    Nice dodge, Anon. You haven’t answered my questions on what you think marriage is.

    Paul, saying that compassion requires us to be woke is like saying that intelligence requires us to be conservative. Both are untrue.