Sam Smith is a man, He is not a woman, and he is not “non-binary” since there is no such thing in nature, at least among higher-order animals. You can see it with your own eyes. To deny it is to allow yourself to be gaslit. If a person who did not follow pop music and had never read a press release from Mr Smith’s publicist or the resulting press kerfuffle saw a photo of Sam Smith, they would say “That is a man.” They might even add, “He has a beard, but his sartorial choices don’t always suit him.”
Richard Madeley, a British TV presenter has been forced to ‘apologise‘ for not using the pronouns his eyes suggested when interviewing Mr Smith. This is plainly absurd and I wager 9 out of 10 people agree, even if they won’t say so because they have been threatened with job losses or even visits from the police investigating so-called “non-crime hate incidents“. They are threatened with losing their social media accounts by Big Tech moderation departments all of which who have been colonised by members of the cult.
We should not entertain his claims any more than we entertained the claims of rapist Adam Graham who decided to put on an a wig and assumed the name “Isla Bryson” in an attempt – almost successful – to be placed in a women’s prison. The BBC, in common with most mainstream media, even refers to Graham as “she” and gives the impression that a woman was convicted of the crimes. They believe they are of bound by the IPSO Code, which is arguably unfit for purpose in this area. It ought to be clear to anyone reading the code that it was designed to allow the few trans people at the time to live privately and with dignity away from the sensationalising of the salacious tabloid press. It does not, however, ban the accurate reporting of stories where trans-identity is both questionable and central to the story, so why editors feel they have to play along with either criminals or narcissists is a mystery.
Now, some might say the Adam Graham case deserves more serious attention, whereas the case of Sam Smith is just ‘entertainment’ and he ought to be humoured because he’s not doing anyone any harm. But this misses the point: it is humouring the likes of Mr Smith that enabled the farce around Mr Graham.
One might also say that Mr Smith is influencing vulnerable and confused youths to wind their parents and teachers up by insisting that their names are ‘Kai’ or ‘Jet’, but if there is any consolation, it is that he appears to lack the charisma and personal magnetism usually associated with celebrity. Nevertheless – unfathomable as it is to me – he remains a celebrity so our media has little option other than to genuflect in front of his throbbing persona. Perhaps the media is nostalgic for the heady days of ‘The Thin White Duke’, but unlike ‘Ziggy Stardust’, Smith is not an avant guarde musical pioneer, he is a TV talent show contestant with a pub singer’s voice. If the media are looking for the sensational days of Bolan and Bowie, it will be disappointed; the drama is as flaccid as his delusions of gender fluidity. They should throw the towel in and not get stuck in the mess.
It is more insane than it is Aladdin Sane.
This near-naked ‘Emperor’ may put on any clothes he likes. He cannot, however, put us on.
