For inadequate men scared by self-willed women, by the start of the 21st century, things were getting dangerously out of hand. The old right-wing ‘Kinder, Küche, Kirche’ method of corralling and controlling us had been woefully discredited with the second world war. (Like the old brand of anti-Semitism, coincidentally, which was also looking for a new angle – and found it in the fresh’n’funky Islamist kind.)

A ‘caring’ and ‘progressive’ way to thwart uppity women was needed, but repeated and risible attempts at ‘men’s rights’ movements were rightfully mocked. So how could men abuse women while not being accused of sexism? Simple, say: ‘We’re women too. How can we be misogynists?’ And so the shock-frock-troops of transvestism formed a pincer movement with the aggressive masculinists embodied by Andrew Tate to assault the gains made by women in the 20th century.

‘Transwomen’ are doing so well because they really do have the best of both worlds

Gains which took decades to achieve were wiped away in a few strokes of a pen: separate public toilets to uphold privacy and safety; sports to celebrate female bodies in a rare way that isn’t sexual (Sebastian Coe verified this week that sportswomen will never win Olympic gold medals again if they have to compete against men pretending to be women); opportunities at work to recompense for all the centuries of not being allowed to pursue careers – now given over to men in drag.

The work aspect gets less headlines than the first two in the culture wars, but it’s interesting in the light of what I’m writing about here; even after so long in the workforce, it seems like women are often punished with sexual harassment for daring to leave the domestic sphere. We all knew it happened in showbiz, where the casting couch was a long and shameful open secret/joke, but who wasn’t shocked to read last year’s survey which stated that nearly one third of female NHS surgeons have been sexually assaulted by a colleague, often in – for the love of Mike – an actual operating theatre?

You can’t ban women from the workplace in the West as some Middle Eastern countries effectively do, but what you can do, since the onset of mass transophilia in the foremost institutions and corporations of this country, is frustrate female progress by taking many of the most well-paid, high-profile jobs created for women. It would be no surprise to me if the first ‘female’ leader of the Labour Party had a penis.

Another way to degrade and destroy female achievement is to question the very femaleness of prominent women in history, as was done last year with Joan of Arc, now mooted as ‘non-binary’. Who’s next, Elizabeth I? Boudicca? And why is it only ever women who have to put up with this revisionist garbage? Why not great male historical figures who may well have been trans? Julius Caesar – ‘every woman’s man and every man’s woman’, as one wag called him. William ‘Braveheart’ Wallace – wore a skirt. And of course John Wayne – real name Marion. Ludicrous, yes, but no more so than the vandalism of the achievements of notable women.

Bergdorf still stinks of the male privilege he had when he was born Ian Beaumont

Both of which issues bring us to one Munroe Bergdorf, a ‘transgender model’ who has recently been appointed as the first ‘UK champion’ for the United Nations charity UN Women UK, which is allegedly dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls across the country. Before I get to the meat of the matter, I’d like to indulge in a few paragraphs’ pettiness.

Bergdorf, 36, is no stranger to cattiness ‘themselves’, having previously lost their cushy billet as an ‘LGBT adviser’ to Dawn Butler, then Labour’s shadow equalities secretary, after calling a woman a ‘hairy barren lesbian’ and boasting that they wanted to ‘gay bash’ a homosexual TV star. This followed Bergdorf being dumped by L’Oreal the year before for saying that all whites were racist, and that suffragettes were ‘white supremacists’.

If we’re name-calling here, why does someone who seeks to present as a living human woman look like a mummified boy-pharaoh? Bergdorf is one of those rich transvestites who’ve spent a fortune on facial surgery – unlike the poor ones, who tend to resemble bricklayers – but it hasn’t really worked, unless the aim was to look like something off Doctor Who. And why do the new transvestites all have names self-respecting strippers would sneer at? Paris, Juno, Munroe. You never hear of a Janice or an Audrey. ‘Munroe’ was born ‘Ian’. Why not simply change it to ‘Iona’? ‘Iona Penis’, even.

Bergdorf gives the phrase ‘failing up’ a whole new dimension, also having been stripped of their role as ambassador for Childline after Janice Turner of the Times questioned the advisability of putting ‘a porn model’ in such a role. They are the Eddie the Eagle of cross-dressing. So why on earth did the UN think this appointment was a good idea? So far as I know, Bergdorf has no record in campaigning against forced marriage, underage marriage, maternal morbidity and all those boring, uncool things which affect the lives of actual underprivileged people of the female persuasion.

It’s because the point is to mock women by giving Bergdorf a job most women – having grown up as girls rather than boys, as Bergdorf did – could do much better. Bergdorf’s UN appointment aims to diss the girls and make them cry, or at least howl with indignation, as a whopping 17 women’s rights organisations have. This might sound like terf paranoia if the UN did not have such a record of misogyny. As it is, I’d go so far as to say that the UN has found a more subtle way of continuing its war against women, displayed so shamelessly in everything from the rampant sexual abuse of women and girls in war-zones who their operatives were meant to be protecting, to the 57 days it took them to properly condemn the mass rapes of Hamas.

Unlike other halfwits, Bergdorf doesn’t question the femaleness of great women in history; rather, they play the race-grifter card on the suffragettes. It’s typical of these queer narcissists that the astonishing bravery of the Pankhursts and their girl gang – who routinely faced imprisonment and torture – means nothing to them. Aristocratic suffragettes gave up their class privilege in order to stand shoulder to shoulder with housemaids and mill-girls. Bergdorf still stinks of the male privilege he had when he was born Ian Beaumont to middle-class parents in the village of – wait for it – Stansted Mountfitchet. They probably think that ‘force-feeding’ means being slipped a few carbs before Marbs by a negligent friend.

‘Transwomen’ are doing so well – promoted and published laughably beyond their capabilities – because they really do have the best of both worlds, despite their desire to take top prize at the Victimhood Olympics. They are not concerned with feminism, so they can suck up to men in the way real women once had to. They play the dupes like fiddles, to be fair. ‘Transwomen’ are what a certain sort of angry little man wishes women were still like. Why can’t all feminists be nude models who run club nights called Pussy Palace, as Bergdorf did? What is sexual harassment for us is sexual affirmation for them, as witnessed in that super-creepy piece by Paris Lees in which they gloried in being ‘sexually objectified and treated like a piece of meat’. What a relief this must be to men who are fuming that cat-calling is no longer considered a top turn-on by real women.

But on the other hand, you can tell they are men, because those other weird men who generally fear and/or loathe women make an exception for them. They listen to them and take them seriously. As Ricky Gervais brilliantly skewered them; ‘Oh, women! Not all women, I mean the old-fashioned ones. The old-fashioned women, you know, the ones with wombs. Those dinosaurs. I love the new women. They’re great, aren’t they? The new ones. The ones with beards and cocks. They’re as good as gold. I love them.’ Andrew Tate, that arch-hater of women, has a routine where he talks about how it’s ‘gayer’ to have sex with an ugly woman than with a beautiful transvestite. Wouldn’t it be great if these two could get together and take each other off the market? Because despite their apparent differences, Tate and Bergdorf – both strange, sexually-tormented outliers of the men’s rights movement – are two testicles of the same scrotum.