Did Jacinda Ardern inspect David Seymour’s genitals before calling him “an arrogant prick”?

As far as I’m aware, calling a person a ‘prick’ is a pejorative still reserved for a man. Prick, in the pejorative sense, refers to a penis, which only male people have.* The use of the word as a term of abuse for a man is attested to 1929, almost one hundred years ago. Although it may occasionally get used in a gender-neutral way now, unlike the ‘C’ word which gets bandied about for all and sundry, ‘prick’ is for primarily for boys. Even those who pretend that women can be men if they say they are, know that only male people can truly be pricks.

So, when the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, was accidentally caught on mic muttering that David Seymour, leader of the ACT party, was “such an arrogant prick” after he rigorously questioned her, how did she know David was a man? Was he wearing a pronoun badge, or did Jacinda inspect David’s genitals to make sure she was using the right pejorative for him? Just because David looks, walks, talks, and dresses like a typical man (maybe it would be harder to tell if he wore a dress), should Jacinda have assumed he was one? Perhaps she should have asked him how he identified that day before taking the risk of mis-pejorativising him. After all, he might have been in ‘girl mode’ in his head that day. Going forward, Parliament may have to start each session with all the MPs giving their pronouns.

PLEASE DON’T TAKE ME SERIOUSLY, NZ PARLIAMENT.

Interestingly, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern was unable to use the words “girls and young women” for girls and young women when rolling out the free period products scheme (a great initiative) and referred instead to girls and young women as “young people”. Presumably, this is because in the headsphere where anything can be made to sound ‘rational’ - even if it’s bonkers in reality - boys can have periods, too. Yet, when in the moment, and not carefully curating what she does and doesn’t say, Jacinda makes an instantaneous and probably unconsciousness judgement that David Seymour is a man. I mean, has he ever said to her “I’m David, my pronouns are he/him, and I identify as a man”? I’d take a punt that he hasn’t, but somehow, she still knows he is one.

Right from the time we’re born we’re absorbing information about the world around us, and that includes absorbing cues and clues about women and men. By the time we’re adults we’ve probably absorbed around a million of them, mostly without being very much aware of it. However, trans activists and their allies seem to think that the only way we can really tell women from men is by a genital inspection. A lifetime of being in the world amongst women and men is apparently not enough to be able to discern differences without looking at genitals. Unless we do that thing of unconsciously acting on all the cues and clues we’ve absorbed over our lifetime, and just do it.

In Scotland, which is a long way from New Zealand in terms of kilometres but not in gender-identity nuttery, JK Rowling has financed and launched a help centre for female victims of sexual violence. Needless to say, trans activists and allies lost their shite about it, because it’s not for men who say they’re women. The ensuing inanities about inspecting genitals as being the only way to tell who is female were entirely predictable.

I’m sure the sarcasm of referring to genital inspection must sound good in some people’s heads, but when it’s brought out into the real world it sounds kind of mad.

When caught off-guard, Jacinda Ardern knew that David Seymour was the correct sex to be called a prick without needing to ask him for his pronouns or how he identified or inspect his genitals. If inspecting genitals is the only way that some people say they know how to discern between women and men, they’ve probably been ‘educated’.

Yeah, about that …..

*As always, the “whadabout intersex” choir chimes in about now, but that one-song choir has been out of tune for a long time.