There’s no denying the LGBT movement can be prone to overreaction when questioned, let alone criticised.

After a week where both Karl Stefanovic used the derogatory term “trannies” and the somewhat passé “transvestites”, (curiously nobody pointed out his incorrect use of “a murder of transsexuals”, which is obviously the wrong collective noun) and Sonia Kruger dared speak out on the ridiculousness scholarships for students of a trans bent, it’s time the trans lobby accept they come across as a rather fascist outfit.

I’ve nothing against the transgendered personally, but I am against those claiming to represent trans people by hiding behind an orthodoxy where they’re always right, never wrong, and we’re “transphobic” for saying so.

First, Stefanovic’s comments. In a live cross with Today reporter Christine Ahern in Rio, who’d narrowly avoided a mugging from an alleged group of trans women, Karl was right to have a joke about the ordeal. Who wouldn’t? Sure, being accosted by those wishing to do you harm is obviously an unpleasant experience but when it’s over, where’s the harm in using humour? “Tranny” may be a derogatory term, but can we really condemn Stefanovic for using the word “transvestite”? I’ve always thought transvestite meant those who dress in the clothes of the opposite gender, hence the “vest”, rather than those who go all out by declaring they really are the opposite gender.

Until recently, comedian Eddie Izzard (a heterosexual male) proclaimed to be an “action transvestite … running, jumping, climbing trees, putting on makeup when you’re up there.” Suddenly, Izzard jumped on the trans bandwagon by claiming to be “transgender” – for thirty years. Are we supposed to just ignore everything Izzard’s said in the past and validate his incorrect identity as a trans person out of unquestioning politeness?

As soon as Stefanovic made his remarks, the media held a beat-up with heavily editorialised headlines. “Karl Stefanovic Made Some V. Shitty Comments” screamed the more right-on than thou Pedestrian. “Come on, Karl, you can’t say that,” tutted News.com.au Thankfully, SBS News went with “Viewers condemn Karl Stefanovic for ‘transphobic’ language”, and a rare kudos to them for placing quotation marks around the word “transphobic” – because “transphobia” doesn’t exist, and it’s time this social correctness was truly corrected.

Just like the critic-silencing “Islamophobia”, (read Dr Tanveer Ahmed’s Speccie piece, “The protective cloak of Islamophilia“) “transphobia” is a made-up word used by trans activists that instead of promoting understanding and acceptance of those they claim to represent, is reductive, hindering and disingenuous.

Why must anything or anyone deemed to be against something be declared as phobic? I’m not denying anti-trans sentiment exists; so why not call it anti-trans instead of a big showy and incorrect word like “transphobia”?

“Phobia”, from the Greek “phóbos”, translates to “fear” or “aversion”. That bible of psychiatry, the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual, dictates for a phobia to be diagnosed, the phobia can only exist when the sufferer is faced with the object or situation of their fear. If the fear is absent in the accused’s environment, then no diagnosis can actually be made. Curiously, the DSM says nothing about the opinions of breakfast television hosts.

Naturally, it’s “transphobic” to be against the Safe Schools program. Call me old-fashioned, but shouldn’t all kids be safe from bullying, (and discouraged from bullying others), not just gay and transgender ones? The attitude of valuing one group of people above everyone else is unsurprising when the LGBT movement itself suffers from a prohibitive selectivity, and a perverse one at that, by allowing the T for transgender to overshadow the Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals of the group’s acronym.

The left has a real problem when it comes to assigning people labels and identities which contradict their basic belief of equality by being more divisive than uniting. Whatever happened to simply being “human”? Why should one’s sexuality, gender, race or politics make you more important?

Media targeted at millennial youth like myself is complicit in this lefty behaviour. I’m fed up with being presumed to condone the trans orthodoxy of “don’t question us or else” because of my age. SBS 2’s The Feed tends to present stories on trans people as if the subject’s gender is more important than the story itself, again fuelling division and ignorance. Balanced coverage can’t happen when the people being reported on aren’t prepared to answer questions, not even with a glib “No comment.”

This mindset confirms Kruger’s scholarship comments. Why should the eligibility for a scholarship be based on sexuality instead of finances, let alone merit? Why not one’s football allegiance or how many sugars you take with tea?

Predictably, owing to the trans orthodoxy’s sensitivity when questioned, the Sydney Morning Herald reported Kruger’s remarks by placing phone numbers for counselling help lines at the bottom of its article. The benefits of Lifeline’s number included as a footnote whenever a suicide is reported to prevent copycat incidents are well known; including it in case of feelings being hurt is a joke.

How sad being against society’s inconsistent behaviour gets you hypocritical condemnation and ostracism from the abusive Twitterati.

Like Islamophobia, be aware of how useless and pathetic “transphobia” is, just like its accusers.