The West is now in a state of psychological civil war, a war between opposing realities. Consider what happens when a man becomes a woman, enters a women’s sporting event and takes the gold. To the trans activist, this is a natural and beautiful thing: the athlete is competing in the right category and it’s a win for equality. To many feminists, it’s a reversal of equality. The trans athlete may be taller and stronger than the other competitors – they are, said the tennis champion Martina Navratilova, “cheating”.

Ms Navratilova has since apologised for using that word and adopted a favourite fallback for those who know they’ve gone too far: all I’m saying is, can we have a debate? It’s a nice idea but, no, we can’t. Because there’s nothing to debate. These realities are irreconcilable. The trans athlete says: “Am I a woman or am I not?” And as soon as one says, out of conviction or politeness, “you’re a woman”, then the golden rule of equality dictates that they must compete in women’s sports. This fight will not last very long and trans activists will win it.

I admire them. Not just for their personal courage but the movement’s ambition and speed: they are trying to accomplish in a few years what it took gays and lesbians decades to do. The key difference is that gays and lesbians were pushing at a much heavier door. Here in the UK in 1967, a very limited sexual equality was wrung out of Parliament with protest, argument and appeals to Christian compassion. One MP asked the House to show pity for a “small section of the community [that] can never have their hearts lifted by the sight of a mini skirt”. The Earl of Arran advised gays and lesbians not to celebrate the legalisation in a way that would make parliamentarians regret their vote. The Times headline read: “The Lords: ‘Do Not Flaunt’ Appeal to Homosexuals.”