Hello sailor, show us your credentials

The past few days have produced a bumper crop of daft stories which I genuinely have no idea whether to file under You Couldn’t Make It Up or Makes You Proud To Be British.

Where to start? I’ll let you know when I stop laughing.

how about the gay sauna parlour which was forced to apologise to a ‘transgender man’ booted out for having female genitalia? Sorry, run that by me again. Best if I quote verbatim from the report in her Majesty’s Daily Telegraph.

‘A gay sauna found itself in an equality row after asking a transgender man to leave its nude bath house.

‘Staff at Sailors Sauna, in east London, told a male patron, who is female by birth, that he could not use their facilities because they did not want to breach their licence, which categorised the hothouse as a “male space” . . .

‘The transgender man, who is protected from discrimination under the equality Act 2010, later told an online news website, that he was asked to leave “because of my genitals”.’ hello, Sailor! Or, rather: Goodbye, Sailor! Talk about a marmalade dropper. I wonder what the Telegraph’s legendary letter-writer Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells made of it.

The statement from the owner of Sailors Sauna, which is described as ‘sex friendly’, is classic Flowerpot Man: ‘We are only licensed for men to use the venue.

‘I understand the gentleman was male, however, his physical gender was different and as a customer had already stated that a female was using the venue, I explained that I would need to clarify with the council.’ Flobadob! If ever a story summed up the insanity of the 2010 equality Act, this is it. Whatever good intention the architects of this piece of legislation may have had, the outcome has been rip-roaring bonkers.

We’ve already had hardcore feminists rightly outraged over biological men demanding, and receiving, the right to use women-only facilities, such as toilets and changing rooms.

BUT

who could ever have imagined that one consequence of the Act would be that a 100 per cent deficiency in the trouser department would no longer bar a biological woman from enjoying the delights of a sauna established exclusively to serve male homosexuals?

Or that the owner of said sauna would have to ring the local council to determine whether someone in possession of a vagina could describe herself as a man and, therefore, demand admittance to an all-male nude bath house?

That must have been an interesting conversation. ‘er, I’ll have a word with the Mayor and get back to you.’

This is where the lunacy of the deranged ‘ trans’ agenda inevitably leads.

Yesterday this newspaper reported: ‘ A transgender soldier who became Britain’s first female on the front line has been forced to deny an affair with an Army colleague’s wife.

‘Scots Guard Chloe Allen, 26, is said to be living with married mother-of-two Sophie Gray.

‘It is understood the pair were introduced by mutual friends and grew close when Mrs Gray helped Guardsman Allen apply make-up after she told military chiefs she wanted to live as a woman.’

Fine pair of shoulders, lovely girl, show ’em off, show ’em off, show ’em off!

Apparently, Chloe Allen is now shacked up with Mrs Gray, who has recently taken delivery of a new king- size bed but denies a sexual relationship.

From what I can gather, Chloe retains ownership of a full set of credentials which would entitle her to take advantage of the steam room at Sailors Sauna, without the necessity of seeking clearance from the Town hall.

If Chloe had still defined as a man, she could have been cashiered for knocking off a fellow soldier’s missus. But Army sources told the Mail on Sunday: ‘Scots Guard commanders gave Chloe their full support and stressed they wanted her to remain in the regiment whatever was happening in her private life.’ So that’s all right, then. Look, if people want to describe themselves as male, female, orangutan or unicorn, that’s fine by me.

But they shouldn’t expect the rest of the world to go along with them. Nor should the law fly in the face of reality.

Why, when a biological male prisoner defining as a woman rapes a female inmate in a women’s jail, should we be expected to refer to ‘her’ penis? Women don’t have willies. Yet craven politicians have caved in to single-issue fanatics time and again, aided and abetted by showboating cultural warriors in the arts and broadcasting.

The only surprise about the latest Doctor Who episode featuring a planet where men have babies was that anyone was in the least bit surprised.

We

ALreADY live in a world in which two gay men can have a baby without any reference to the child’s biological mother.

And before the usual suspects start bouncing up and down, I don’t want to ban it.

But it’s not just sex — sorry ‘gender’ — it’s everything else, too. Over the weekend, I’ve learned a new expression: ‘trans-black’.

This has been used to describe a white theatre director, of Irish extraction, who managed to obtain a grant reserved for ethnic minorities by pretending to be black.

Anthony Lennon claimed to have ‘gone through the struggles of a black man’ and even adopted an African name, ekundayo.

Yesterday, radio phone- ins discussed earnestly whether he had the right to assume a black identity. Why?

Answer: no he didn’t. And if he doesn’t hand back the grant, which was made available for ‘ theatre practitioners of colour’, he should be charged with obtaining money by false pretences. Is it ’cos I is white? Maybe he took his cue from roddy Doyle’s brilliant novel, The Commitments, in which a character says: ‘The Irish are the (n-word) of europe and Dubliners are the (n-word) of Ireland.’

Or perhaps not. Still, it doesn’t resolve my problem of what to file all this madness under. how about here We Go Looby Loo!