Panel on Anti-Trans Backlash.

Featured

This forum is hosted by Amnesty International and referenced by the Council of Europe, below. I watched it to see how it supported the claims COE made about physical attacks.

11A6AC56-4F86-42B8-BE50-788641407FDE

The link for note 51 goes to a long Youtube video which I watched to see the physical attacks referenced. The discussion is in two parts. The first part is a panel talking about freedom of speech, cancel culture, J.K. Rowling and the backlash against trans people. Women resisting Gender Identity ideology are referenced as ”so called feminists” or “Terfs”. It was quite interesting to see different views on cancel culture and no-platforming and one panellist even said something skeptical about accusations of transphobia. (#cancelled). There was quite an interesting discussion about algorithms on social media. The example they give of hate on social media is about a Drag Queen who got “hate” on their TikTok. Oh, and they were very upset that only fans was going to regulate on-line porn, which they were concerned would negatively impact sex workers.

The second panel comprised of various trans organisations, representing trans adults and one representative from Finland’s equivalent of Mermaids. One of the panellists describes women opposing males in our spaces as privileged and white and says they need to educate the younger teens to keep TERFs in a minority. They also say that nobody can be educated about a trans persons life if they have not lived it, this by a a male denying women’s experiences by the way. A blue-haired, they/them says TERFs just want to retain our status as rulers. A questioner from the U.K asks how to defeat the tactics of Women’s Place U.K (WPUK) which they claim as a target victims of sexual assault, as part of a recruitment drive. A trans-id female criticises this tactic as suggesting women are weak and argues that this is an anti-feminist position. They also claim there is no evidence women are afraid as we are often really aggressive. They also say women, fighting for sex based rights, collaborate with the far right, or at least the right. As always there is scant evidence to back this up. WPUK is led by women out of the left and trade union tradition.

This panellist tells the audience that Norway allows gender recognition for children as young as six and also talks about the historic position that required trans-identified people to be sterilised. Says they still have not won compensation for this, all while demanding access to medical solutuons for “trans kids” which will, in effect, sterilise those children.

CC0CF126-E230-472A-A4D1-6D07B8AD87B1

Next up a they/them female updates the panel on the position in Sweden and expresses concern that some feminists are raising concerns about the impact on women. Deidre finds it a bit disconcerting that some women still centre women in their feminism.

7AB6E946-1A7C-40DB-A1DD-F42D32D91EB0

Next up is a female who is a blue-haired non-binary type, pronouns ”them/theirs and comes under the trans umbrella. She also raises the issue of Finnish requirements for ”sterilisation” to access legal recognition. This is a common tactic which avoids saying they want legal recognition for penis-havers to be women and instead argues against it by calling it forced sterilisation.

2A696DC3-C70F-4EC2-B903-26554584D2A9

Final panel member is a She/Hers who echoes the concerns of the panelists but also wants to focus on the particular challenges faced by “trans people” of colour, asylum seekers and especially those engaged in what is referred to as ”sex work”. Paulie is also concerned about access to hormones for non-binary people.

F0C94461-6D09-41D5-8D2C-9BE7A44592D5

You can watch the whole thing below but I just want to leave you with these thoughts. The panel are disgusted with women standing up for sex based rights. They oppose sterilisation for adult males but defend medical interventions which will make children sterile. They consistently defend prostitution as ”sex work” despite the horrendous statistics coming out of the trans-murder monitoring project.

62% of deaths occur in prostition

8A39FF9E-B1BC-4369-9A87-CCDB084B3C96

You can watch it here:

Watch here

You can support my work here:

Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women & girls as well as the consequences for Lesbians, Gay males and autistic kids. I do this full time and have no income. All my content is open access and donations help keep me going. Only give IF you can afford. Thank you to my generous donors.

£10.00

Witch Hunts: Erasing Women. 1

Featured

People who get called Witches

I was prompted to do a series of threads on the European Witch Hunts after I came across this paper (linked below) which seemed to studiously avoid any reference to the sex of the Witches.

witch_trials

I remain irked by the failure to interrogate why the overwhelming victims were women but, on revisiting the paper, I think it offers a vantage point which explains the current witch-hunts against ”Terfs” and “Transphobesand the campaign against LGB Alliance. Bear with me while I explain.

The author’s hypthesis is based on the idea that the geographic distribution of the witchcraft trials correlated with rivalry between different religions. Catholics and Protestants were competing for market share. They provide a lot of analysis to examine other theories such as weather, income and state capacity.

D3AB7D40-EF5C-4D5B-A2E9-596D0AC521CD

The Woman Question

Throughout the paper the witches are described as people or persons, never women. The author has clearly read some of the same texts I covered in my dissertation; on feminist approaches to the with hunts in England and Wales. However he mentions this theory only in a tiny footnote.

7EB628C8-F5E5-4353-8559-0AD16A419EFB

Mary Barstow and Christina Larner analyse the phenomenon through a woman’s lens for a reason. Here is a clip from Larner’s book which I will cover in part two. The figures are quite stark. The percentage of females shows some variability within the United Kingdom, but the vast majority were female. It does not however invalidate their theory of religious rivalry, it just illustrates that women’s bodies are the main casualties in power struggles. It also sheds light on why men, raising concerns about Gender Identity Ideology, don’t get the same, aggressive, responses.

7613DCA4-A88F-474B-8BC7-1944568C3E74

Religious Rivalry: Market Share

Let’s leave aside any feminist theories, relating to widespread misogyny, I will unpick that in part 2. It is perfectly possible that the battle, for religious market share, was the main cause and that the main victims were female, because of misogyny.

In mainland Europe there was a battle for market dominance between the Catholic and Protestant churches. In England and Scotland the battle was between the Anglican and Presbyterians, given they had already broken, pretty decisively, with the Catholic church. In the battle for congregations a belief in witches was leveraged, by both sides. Here the author links this to political campaigns to attract undecided voters. Is this why Labour MPs are picking Gender Identity Ideology over the women they call dinosaurs and bigots?

5B228410-F4CB-4E43-A836-59ACD2A84E72

The authors present wide-ranging data to show correlations between areas of intense religious rivalry with high rates of witch hunting. They also interrogate data showing links with bad weather, a weakened state and the rise of judicial torture. They conclude that their own hypothesis is more strongly supported, by the data, than the other theories.

5D5EEE99-7132-4305-8462-5907BC5FB49A

This is the conclusion from the data they analysed. Religious market contestation was the key cause of higher rates of witch hunts,

ED70D8EC-9BE7-4E45-AE57-1CAA65FD5D6C

Here are some of the ways in which religious groups compete for dominance, bear this in mind when you consider the ways in which pseudo-secular, Gender Identity lobby groups, compete for market share. Protestants leveraged their relative youth to badge the Catholic Church as corrupt they also followed the age old seizure of young minds by colonising education. Catholics followed suit and also began a series of give-away Saints and beatifications to enhance their market appeal.

57E9DBCD-3F82-46A3-9996-697755627027

Gendered Souls & Gender Apostates

In a more secular world political parties, who identify as left progressives, have embraced Identity politics with alacrity; including Gender Identity Ideology. The doctrinal differences, which have emerged in the last two decades, centre on a belief, or not, in the idea of an innate Gender Identity. We can think of this as a Gendered soul, since it is unverifiable and relies on a faith like belief system. In the United Kingdom the main opposition parties have thrown their might behind belief in Gendered souls and prioritised this above the bodies of actual women. They have also cast out the unbelievers, the witches, from their political parties. The glee with which our Left Wing comrades have hunted down the apostates is eerily reminiscient of accounts of the Witch-Finder Generals, or as the Scots called them Common Prickers. On the left our Matthew Hopkins is Owen Jones.

The quasi-religious belief that a man can be born with a female soul and vice versa has swept across the globe and Trans Women Are Women has become an axiom of the British Left. The belief in an innate Gender Identity has been promoted by Stonewall, Mermaids, Gendered Intelligence and LGBT Foundation, among others. However, latterly we have seen the emergence of another group, LGB Alliance who assert a belief in biological sex and how it is central for the protected characteristic of sexual orientation. LGB Alliance has stormed into this debate like a veritable Martin Luther in the religio-gender wars. Are we at the outset of a Gender Reformation?

1525D8DA-37E3-42BE-8BFC-ED60FAF9AFFB

So what did our religious forbears do to oppose the upstart new competition? They improved their offer, offering indulgences and used education to inculcate belief in our children. The used a belief in witches to hold up a common enemy and punishment to discourage non-believers. The authors also draw a comparison between the Stalinist purges and the Chinese Cultural Revolution: The treatment meeted out to JK Rowling, Maya Forstater, Helen Scotow and even Miranda Yardley (transsexual, male) is all designed to crush dissent in the same way. Resistance is punished.

B782645B-5D49-41EB-A1FC-3F3838B13E6D

Monopolistic religions had another tool in their armoury.

Coercive Exclusion

28731495-DA7F-4D27-92F7-1836A6FA94AA

LGB Alliance is the Martin Luther of the biological sex believers. They must be removed from the arena lest they get more followers and threaten the hegemony of Gender Identity Ideology. Targetting terfs and transphobes and metaphorical witch-burning has not proved sufficient. LGB Alliance must have its legitimacy removed. One way to do this is to strip them of their Charity status and brand them a hate group. This is what a collection of Trans ideology disseminating charities have banded together to undertake:

C475CF8A-9480-45C7-88D8-9735E7AE7F8C

Amidst the usual transperbole about LGB Alliance these are two revealing statements: First up their belief that it isn’t fair, that LGB Alliance are engaging in cruelty, and the deliberate falsification that a belief in the immutability of biological sex equates to a belief in biological essentialism.

316FE489-DD29-46AD-9D34-DC1D18E45172

Its about money and market dominance

Once you cut through the hyperbole and mis-representations we get to the heart of the matter. LGB Alliance threatens Mermaid’s market share. Here they admit this:

A0493F9E-4657-414E-8BEB-5B90AC4228E2

Mermaids want to annihilate the opposition by de-legitimising LGB Alliance and diverting resources away from activities to provide assistance to Gender Dysphoric kids who may, if left alone, turn out to be simply gay males or Lesbians.

I will leave you with the immortal words of Talcum X. Not often I agree with Owen Jones 1984 but he is spot on here:

5D63349C-E665-47BF-9BA8-F00C54A58A6A

I do this full-time and have no income. If you can support my work this keeps me going.

Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women & girls as well as the consequences for Lesbians, Gay males and autistic kids. I do this full time and have no income. All my content is open access and donations help keep me going. Only give IF you can afford. Thank you to my generous donors.

£10.00

Manufacturing Moral Panic: 3

Featured

56E508FC-37C1-4C84-9B71-A290C3A7EA16

This section outlines the authors thoughts on a “Gender Restrictive Worldview” which is how they characterise those resisting Gender Identity Ideology.

Anti-Gender Identity Ideology: Its a spectrum.

The conundrum facing the authors is how to demonise a group which includes women fighting for sex based rights; Lesbians opposing the colonisation of their spaces by males and parents opposed to medicalised responses to their Gay / Lesbian offspring expressing discomfort with their biological sex. The answer is to single out Anti-democratic forces or religious conservatives and suggest we acting in concert. Naturally the report does not address any of the legitimate concerns of these, overlapping, groups. Instead they claim Gender Critical/Radical Feminists are in an unholy (or Holy) alliance with Right wing, authoritarian regimes / Religious Conservatives or any group that they can weaponise as a smear. Writing from within the U.K context its hard to characterise this as anything other than unhinged. But, for the sake of argument, let me proffer an alternative perspective. The proponents of Gender Identity Ideology have handed a gift to right wing players, anti-democratic forces / authoritarian regimes. Of course they have grasped it with both hands! The reason it works for them is because this ideology is built on a foundational lie.

As the paper relies on “forced-teaming” with children’s charities they begin by accusing the “opposition” of leveraging faux concern about children. They repeat this accusation throughout the report and it seems mainly to be focused on the child’s bodily autonomy to express (medicate?) their ”Gender Identity”. It is presumably on this basis that they were determined to form an alliance with Children’s Charities.

Gender Justice

The title they have chosen for their own movement is the lovely sounding ”Gender Justice”. This allows them to infer they are on the side of women when their real aim is to elevate Gender Identity, above SEX, in law. This has significant implications, particularly under U.K Law because women are a protected characteristic as a sex class NOT as an identity.

0650B85C-5D8A-4086-88E1-69FF7113C68E

The claim that Gender Justice has done anything positive for women’s rights is an egregious lie. Heres a short list of what this means for women: Women are facing the return of the urinary leash as toilets are made mixed sex. We are watching the beginning of the destruction of women’s sports, male rapists are being located in female prisons. Male crimes are being reported and recorded as female crimes. Men, who claim to be women, are running, party political, women’s groups (see the Green Party), a disproportionate number of places on the Jo Cox ”Women Into Leadership” programme were also taken by males, There are ZERO gains for women if we are redefined as an, all-inclusive, gender category.

The authors proceed to identify three factors which have contributed to the success of the backlash to Gender Identity Ideology. Here they claim that Gender Identity Ideology is being used as a substitute for ”Women’s Rights”; ”Equality”; ”the best interests of the child” all at the behest of the Vatican 😳. The reality is that women are fighting for our sex based rights and aghast at the erasure of female language and our dehumanisation as a collection of body parts. We raise child safeguarding because we do not believe it is in a child’s best interests to consent to Puberty Blockers and Cross-sex hormones, which will leave them sterile. I can assure you that the Pope is not in league with feminists of a radical persuasion. His opposition to women’s reproductive rights has set the Church on a collision, not a collusive, course with feminists for decades, nay, centuries,

16459E28-E636-4EEE-8DD8-5BB8980AAE83

It is a neocolonial movement when you import this ideology to parts of the world where women, and homosexuals have little or no rights. As catastrophic as this ideology has been for women, and gay rights, in the west it has the potential to be far more deleterious in other parts of the globe. In Iran, for example, it is already seen as preferable to transition gay males, and Lesbians, rather than accept homosexuality. Exporting a belief in Gender Identity Ideology has the potential to be seen as a ”cure” for homosexuality.

CFF2A7A5-BE01-41A0-9F78-2B2CAE387BB4

Leaving to one side the way opposition to Gender Identity Ideology has been seized upon by right wing dictatorships let us examine what kind of world view has managed to mobilise opposition from disparate, and NOT ALLIED groups. 👇 This is how they characterise Gender Restrictive Ideology.

70FF4AE0-85F9-4B09-96BA-A334B489E60B

  1. A belief in two biological sexes: Spoiler alert Humans are sexually dimorphic. A recognition of that fact is not the same as biological essentialism, no matter how many times you repeat it. There are shades of opinion about the way women and men are shaped by nature/nurture but Gender Critical Feminists recognising biological reality is not a belief in biological essentialism.
  2. Women who recognise biology are not accepting an inferior position in the sex hierarchy. Quite the opposite.
  3. Many of us are parents of gay males or Lesbians who do not believe our kids need to retreat into a faux-straight, medicalised closet.
  4. The idea that Lesbians / Second wave feminists embrace a heteronormative view of the family and its reproductive mandate is beyond ludicrous.
  5. The idea that a bunch of, often atheist, feminists are cloaking our religious motivation in secular language is another testerical falsehood.

Next up the association fallacy. The Pope believes in the family, the reproductive role of the biological female in news that suprises nobody. I think he would be suprised to know he is in a covert alliance with any brand of feminism, but radical feminists?

5AAF0985-DACF-4C6B-8BF2-419DFAEA3D2F

The authors deploy Donald Trump, Viktor Orban and Jay Bolsanaro as well as 4Chan fascists to smear by a non-existent association. What the Gender Justice Warriors have done is to hand populists an open goal by embracing the science denialism of Gender Identity Ideology.

E640CFBB-7CC9-4DD5-A9B5-812502A2527A

Not content with this they accuse parents of denying their children’s rights by a refusal to grant bodily autonomy on the basis of gender and sexual identity. Let us unpack that. My son came out to me, as gay, age 11 as this is well below the age of legal consent my role was to accept his sexuality not support under age expressions of that sexuality. At 14 my son declared himself ”transgender” my role was to protect him from life-altering decisions until he reached maturity, not to allow Gender Identity Ideologues affirm his belief there is something wrong with his sex/sexuality. This entire movement seeks to drive a wedge between parents and children on this issue. You can draw analogies to Mao’s cultural revolution and Hitler Youth. Take you pick.

D7524B83-50BC-42DE-96BD-4C8BD04A5050

So, assuming they don’t mean bodily autonomy in respect of sexual behaviour, I can only assume they refer to affirming that our children are #BornInTheWrongBody and affirming this belief by a social, or medical, transition. It is quite shocking to find a group of charitable organisations signed up to this.

Here they reference Spanish Socialists who opposed 2020 bill which would allow teenagers to access hormone treatments without a diagnosis. The bill was also opposed by a far right group so they use this to smear the Spanish Socialist Worker’s party.

2E569239-64AB-49F2-888C-EC2E63987403

Note the final comment which demands funding organisations exclude feminist organisations which centre women in their work. This makes it explicit that we are watching the new anti-feminist #Backlash. If women don’t include males they are to be financially penalised. This is already happening, in the UK, with women only shelters and even rape crisis services cut off from funding if they are not Trans (meaning male) inclusive.

Next up they take aim at the U.K which is of course Terf Island. Yes, there are numerous cases of male predators using a “trans-identity” to penetrate women’s spaces and bodies. Yes #BigPharma stands to make a killing from hormones by creating life ling medical patients. There has been a 4000% increase in females presenting to U.K Gender Clinics and early detransitioners are predominantly female and, frequently, Lesbian.

E999B0C9-5E6B-4222-BE64-2536BF7C425D

All of the above issues are based on facts which are easily established.

The next target is the Women’s Human Rights Commission. Here they describe women with the acronym “Terf” . As I am sure the authors are aware “Terf” serves as a stand-in for bitch or witch and it is often accompanied by threats of violence, including rape.

5D5AAA63-0C77-49EE-BEDD-5D052F431310

You can check out the declaration by WHRC and sign it here: 👇

Declaration of Sex Based Rights

Minor Attracted People (MAPs)

Another worrying reference is to claim there is no movement to normalise paedophilia as another sexual orientation. You don’t need a PhD to find that MAP has become an acronym shared by many twitter accounts. Gay Rights campaigners fought for decades to dispel any association with pederasty. Recently there are high profile organisations seeking to disassociate a sexual interest in children from any intention to sexually offend. See Protasia Foundation, who even have a twitter account. They market themselves aa committed to the prevention of child sexual abuse whilst promoting BDSM, Age-role play and Only fans. I am not convinced.

A647B406-0A1C-4107-A6F4-9F313AB99B6A

You can read more about this movement in this article. Below is an extract which documents an attempt to add paedophilia, as a sexual orientation, to the Manual of mental disorders. 👇. Happening in plain sight.

The normalisation of Pedophiles

525316B3-85E4-4A04-92EA-1FDA8B7A3932

Show us the evidence

The document attacks parental responsibility for our own children, denies the documentedpromotion of paedophilia as a sexual orientation, claims stating simple, biological truths are anti-trans. It repeats manifest untruths that are easily debunked. Attempts to smear women through association fallacy will fail.Buried in the 131 page document is this acknowledgement : They found NO EVIDENCE of any direct collaboration but they still accuse Gender Critical Feminists of being allied with a mythical Gender Restrictive Movement.

81F8DC54-EFBB-431F-B81F-FB146B6EE355

I am unwaged and do this full-time. If you are salaried and able to support my work it will be gratefully received. 

paypal.me/STILLTish

Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women & girls as well as the consequences for Lesbians, Gay males and autistic kids. I do this full time and have no income. All my content is open access and donations help keep me going. Only give IF you can afford. Thank you to my generous donors.

£10.00

Manufacturing Moral Panic 2

Featured

Why is a network of Charitable funding bodies fuelling a backlash against women’s sex based rights? Why are organisations, set up to protect children’s rights, teaming up with organisations promoting Gender Identity Ideology?

For part one see below 👇. My previous post showed the links between these foundations and links to some of my earlier work examining the activities of *some* of these organisations. It also contains the link to the, 131 page, document endorsed by Global Philanthropy Project and Elevate Children’s Funders Group.

Manufacturing Moral Panic

In this post I want to cover the opening letter explaining why this coalition was established. I will also highlight some of the terminology they use in the glossary of terms. This is how they characterise women defending our sex-based rights. We are ”Gender Restrictive”. Heaven forfend we are simply called feminists because then it would be abundantly clear they attacking Women’s rights!

1733696C-EE69-48C3-A0AC-348D9F2B0619

The coalition makes sense in one respect. Much of the opposition, to the spread of Gender Identity Ideology, raises concerns about the medical interventions perpetrated on children. By which I mean blocking puberty and introducing cross-sex hormones, all to cement a Transgender Identity; this despite the same ideologues arguing that “Gender can be fluid”. I have covered Puberty Blockers many times on this blog. For neophytes, or as a reminder; in the U.K we are giving Puberty Blockers to children as young as ten, on the NHS. They, almost, invariably progress to Cross Sex Hormones and as a result they will be sterile. It therefore a significant concern that a coalition of children’s charities have signed up to this document.

The authors recognise that childhood is defined as up to the age of 18 by the Children’s Rights Coalition (CRC). It nevertheless claims ”adulthood” is influenced by the social context in which the ”child” lives. As far as I am aware we don’t defend child marriage, or child labour, even where a child is based in a country, or culture, which normalises these practices. This blurring of the boundary between child/adult is necessary when arguing children have the right to bodily autonomy in respect of accessing “Gender Affirming” care. I believe this is why Children are being reframed across a myriad of public /campaigning bodies as mini-adults.

A0333A69-2C1D-4FEA-AC2C-0B26CA63894C

I am glad they reference brain maturity because credible research states that brain maturation continues up to the age of 25. One of the key battle grounds, for the promotion of Gender Identity Ideology, is to argue for the empowerment of children. This allows arguments, for children, especially teenagers, to access medical interventions to cement a trans-identity, without requiring parental consent.

Brain Maturation

Here’s the abstract for that research.

C0CC1BD0-3942-4E46-B09D-9AA9C01D9229

Just a reminder about UK Law on getting a tattoo. It is not legal even with parental consent.

7C428299-122D-4A5F-8DF0-4FDBDEC2DE12

Next up the document quotes the Committee for the Rights of the Child (CRC) again. Note that the document explicitly references sex but the author’s quote another document to claim that this also covers ”Gender Identity”. Once again, this is a common tactic a sleight of hand to claim the law is in your side, even when you are arguing for it to be changed. A good example is the public campaign to allow anyone to ”Self-Identify” as the opposite sex and the more covert campaign to abolish single sex spaces. When it appears these laws are not going to change (outside of Scotland) campaigners are simply lying about the law to get it built into policy. [Hence the twitter hashtag #StonewallLaw].

665B20CC-0A0A-457D-8351-64E63AC762B2

Note the small print on this which references the ”transsexual” child. 👇.

402529D9-0FD8-4965-8475-74EA37188FBD

Heres another interesting aside. The rights of the child must take into account the child’s views. They also posit the view that the argument of “Best Interests” cannot be used to justify actions “inconsistent with child rights”. In the context of Gender Identity Ideology this is often deployed to argue children/adolescents have the right to bodily autonomy and to access ”Gender affirming” medical interventions. This takes us back to the notion of “transsexual children”; a description usually avoided.

3584886A-C431-4B4D-88F9-DBFED0AA8AAF

Glossary of Terms

The glossary of terms at the beginning of the document are illustrative of the ideology under-pinning this document. It includes the newspeak of Cisgender, Transgender, Heteronormative, Assigned Sex at Birth etc. Intersex also makes an appearance despite this not being favoured terminology among those with Disorders of Sexual Development (DSDs). The term ”intersex” won’t be given up without a fight because the Transgender movement use people with DSDs to muddy the waters and suggest there are more than two sexes. (Humans are, in fact, Sexually Dimorphic).

I won’t treat you to the entire glossary but its worth including a couple of examples. Under Gender and Sexual Diversity can be found the definition of sex. This recognises biological sex only to claim it is randomly ”assigned” . They also claim sexual dimorphism is based on a common belief in a binary sex classifications. This equates scientific accuracy to a faith based position. In this section 👇 the author’s also feign allegiance with the interests of people with DSDs; who often campaign against unnecessary surgery on infants. Note that some surgeries are in fact medically necessary, DSD activists oppose only cosmetic interventions on those under age.

The section dealing with SEXual orientation is below. Of course they define it as a Genderal Orientation. And we must have a category for the oppressed asexuals or as I call them ”the shag anything that moves brigade”.

7AE43F75-71D9-4B24-B665-67AD9CCA77C8

Whoever named Pansexual after a mythical, horny old goat at least had a sense of humour: 😂

403ABD27-FF76-451F-9EE3-F8163AFD35A2

So far, so predictable. Now we get to the definition of Gender Justice”. Note that the definition includes (cis) women’s rights. Yay, we actually get a category of our own! Don’t get too excited, it is prefixed with the insulting ”cis” and, read on sisters, they graciously deign to consider redressing the power imbalance between men and women “if necessary”! I think it is FUCKING necessary since you are re-defining us against our will.

01D52390-F589-464D-9015-BCDDC5F743B6

Introductory Letter

Now we get to the letter accompanying the document which purports to explain why they felt it necessary to join forces to expose ”Gender-Restrictive” folks. This is newspeak for Witches, by the way. 👇

F9BEB02B-2473-43D0-AC5D-8FF5968E33E0

It is hard to credit the claims made in this document and the level of testeria fuelling the authors of this ”research”. For those of you familiar with DARVO (Deny, attack, reverse victim and offender) this is a classic of the genre. Apparently WE are distorting huMAN rights. Which is a bit rich coming from the Gender Ideology lobby who are all about the MAN in human.

We are also being accused of ”anti-democracy”. I cannot think of anything more anti-democratic than following a blue-print that encourages the passing of laws, by stealth and avoiding press-coverage. (See the Denton’s document. Blog below). More D.A.R.V.O.

That Denton’s Document

Gender Critical Women as an “Alarming Trend”

4F363240-E68C-4A94-94F4-00C330CB67BF

Women defending sex based rights, Lesbians refusing to accept males as sexual partners, mothers fighting to stop the medicalising of, among others, gay and autistic kids, are planning State Seizure! They actually sound crazy! Below they even claim women, fighting for sex based rights, are actually the ones attacking women’s rights.

4ECF161F-4D54-4584-842C-3CF03A1CE4F7

Yes, there is a threat to children’s rights as activists are inculcating “Gender Dysphoria” in our kids and teens. Schools are teaching children a lack of adherence to sex stereotypes equals #BornInTheWrongBody. We are coaxing our gay youth into faux-straight, medicalised closets.

They also fear this Moral panic is effective. If it is effective this is because it is rooted in truth and (biological) reality. For the avoidance of doubt they do mean us! Here is a reference to ”So called ”gender critical” feminists. Nobody is arguing against human rights for trans identified people, in GC circles, we are fighting for sex based rights for women. No Conflict They Said. So, why does every fight for women’s rights garner an “anti-trans” label.

  • E6C465B5-ED72-4738-B95B-9E89F8C08EC2

Seriously they think we are well funded and have been planning this for 35 YEARS! I wonder why they didnt choose Terf Island (United Kingdom) for their country analysis? Could it be because it really doesn’t help their case? What with so many of us being Left-Wing, Trade Unionists.

48FACF4C-06A5-4A73-9E26-5E84475DF18C

The authors sound a warning to its disciples that they must unite to oppose the evil terfs and band together. Right side of history and all that.

DA5B6EAD-4D62-444E-8503-36F5306912A5

I will leave this post with a list of the organisations that contributed to the document which includes Comic Relief whose funding is regularly used to promote bodily rejection.

6D860974-49E8-4751-BC79-C7BF4670AB8E

I am going to do more on this document especially on the scurrilous attack on Womens Human Rights Coalition (W.H.R.C). I also have sisters from Bulgaria, Ghana and Peru looking at the country specific sections.

Finally those of you who are clearly sitting on the mounds of cash spare a bit for a sister! I seem to have missed out on the Swiss Bank account enrichment. 😂

paypal.me/STILLTish

Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women & girls as well as the consequences for Lesbians, Gay males and autistic kids. I do this full time and have no income. All my content is open access and donations help keep me going. Only give IF you can afford. Thank you to my generous donors.

£10.00

Manufacturing Moral Panic

Featured


This document, titled Manufacturing Moral Panic, claims feminists, indeed anybody opposed to Gender Identity Ideology, are aligned with sinister, anti-democratic forces. It claims we are well funded (😂), highly co-ordinated and involved in a global conspiracy dating back 35 years! It uses the technique of ”association fallacy” to spotlight right wing opponents of Gender Identity Ideology and imply /state that all opposition comes from the same ideological stance. The aim is to associate grassroots feminists with proponents of anti-abortion, anti-gay, authoritarian regimes.

The document was produced by organisations who are either actively promulgating, Gender Identity Ideology, or acquiescing in its dissemination. A coalition of hugely resourced, charitable foundations have banded together as the Global Philanthropy Project and joined forces with Elevate Children’s Funders Group; a coalition of charities focussed on children. It is particularly disturbing that an organisation representing children’s charities has been persuaded to endorse a document critical of the language of child safeguarding.

Recently more attention has been paid to the charitable foundations committed to spreading Transgender Ideology and exposing the huge corporate machinery promoting a medicalised “identity”. This document would appear to be a co-ordinated response to the Gender Critical resistance which has had some success, particularly in the United Kingdom.

You can read the full document below. Warning, it is very long and extremely repetitive. Also thin on evidence, which does not surprise me.

Manufacturing-Moral-Panic-Report

Gender Restrictive Ideology

It will take a few blogs to cover the different sections of the 131 page document. It purports to provide an overview of an ideology it labels ”Gender Restrictive”. It does not use the term ”Gender Critical Feminists” because it needs to smear us as biological essentialists who believe in traditional gender roles. This is ludicrous. Even a cursory analysis of the Gender Critical feminist analysis would conclude that they are critical of traditional sex stereotypes enfoced by the imposition of traditional gender roles. The authors cherry pick country case studies to set up an association fallacy claiming an alliance of authoritarian regimes and second wave /GC Feminists. They focus on countries which support their central thesis; which is that there is a sinister, anti-democratic, anti LGBTQ+, cabal driving opposition to Transgender Ideology. The entire thesis is a textbook example of D.A.R.V.O 👇

897462F9-73FE-4DF6-B3F2-D7E2811296EF

The normalisation of a rejection of our sexed bodies is no accident. It is driven by a hugely profitable industry which is mining our children’s bodies for profit. Biological sex denialism also has unintended (or intended?) consequences for women’s sex based rights. This is the root of my objection to Gender Identity Ideology. Philanthropic foundations drape their motivations under the “Charity” umbrella but are they really a beard for the Gender Industrial Complex?

I Intend to cover the report in three, further blogs, I also have women from Bulgaria, Ghana and Peru who have agreed to cover the country specific sections. It is significant, in my view, that the authors did not use the United Kingdom as a case study. The grassroots fight back in the U.K. originates largely on the political left which is an inconvenient fact for those calling us right wing, fascists.

Background

Global Philanthropy Project

I think it is worth examining who is behind this document. First of all I want to look at who is behind the Global Philanthropy Project. Here is their website:

Global Philanthropy Project

This is what they are about

9C2C1A64-B4C8-4E03-AD75-F20266A17103

They have 22 members, who are listed below:

1722EC5E-3C4E-44D6-BEF8-2CCEDDDD9FE3

Many of the members were familiar to me and I have blogged on a few, or referenced them in my earlier work.

Barings Foundation 1

 Barings Foundation 2

Astraea Lesbian Foundation

ARCUS FOUNDATION GRANTS

I have also looked at Open Society Foundations who make significant grants to foundations involved in the dissemination of Transgender Ideology. Open Society Foundation, and other members of GPP, fund areas which, as a woman of a Left Wing persuasion, I heartily support. If you are neophyte this is important context; it can be disconcerting to find yourself criticising organisations which also do important, and worthwhile, work. However the spread of Gender Identity Ideology, and the promotion of a medicalised identity to a generation of kids, is doing real harm in our society while it has been promoted as a social good.

Many of the grant-making from these foundations demonstrate concern about the rise of Authoritarianism in countries such as Hungary, under Orban. I share that concern. The Hungarian administration is in opposition to Gender Identity Ideology, however the backlash is indiscriminate. This has resulted in legislation that harms Lesbians, Gay Males, Bisexuals and women’s rights. I do not support any legislation that hurts those who are in flight from their sex and identify as “Transgender” or “Transsexual”. My concern is to protect single SEX spaces for women and girls and to end the promotion of a medicalised identity to children, and teens. Historically, medical interventions were restricted to the most serious, intractable, cases of Gender Dysphoria. That is not the case in 2021.

The document is a result of a collaboration between the Global Philanthropy Project and Elevate Children’s Funders Group, a group I had NOT encountered before. I was especially concerned to see a coalition of children’s charities signed up to this document. Could it be that this organisation is being “forcedteamed to support an agenda? Do they appreciate what they are getting involved with? I don’t know.

You can read more about Forced Teaming in the book: The Gift of Fear. Here the focus is on interpersonal forced teaming but this also translates to collaborations between organisations. It’s not accidental, it is deliberate and a sophisticated manipulation

D28F03E5-659E-460E-A800-C0D62059E275

The Elevate Children’s Funders Group 

163A93AE-9AF0-4953-B416-7008C8781B31

Here is the history of Elevate Children’s Funders Group:

Here are the membership details for Elevate Children’s Funders Group. Common link seems to be the Oak Foundation and Open Society Foundations. As an aside Comic Relief are deeply implicated in funding groups promoting Trans-Ideology.

7EEF4158-7BBA-4BB4-8B51-D69AA7E082EB

This group have clearly been persuaded that women, who are concerned about Gender Identity Ideology, have some unsavoury alliances with anti-democratic forces. Rather than see us as parents, with safeguarding concerns, they seek to paint us as the actual safeguarding risk. Here is a clip from the report which tells a collection of organisations, centred on children, to be wary of people using “child protection rhetoric”.

9B221589-E0E0-40CF-ABFB-E99CB7371D3A

Here are some clips from Elevate Children’s Funders Group 2021 Strategic plan. This contains some familiar terminology such as intersectional and challenging norms.

C0603A7F-0CBF-4B7B-8A1C-BBBEA0099212The emphasis on children exercising their rights may be entirely innocuous but it immediately raises alarm bells for me. Based on everything I have read in the last five years it has echoes of campaigns for “bodily autonomy” for children with Gender Dysphoria.  Note the reference to “Gender Justice”. 

The reference to “intersectional” also sets of my spidey senses. The excellent work on intersectional feminism, by Kimberle Crenshaw, has been co-opted by proponents of trans-ideology. What was originally a plea for feminists to recognise the intersections between race, sex and class has now morphed into something quite different. Crenshaw’s work is now used, against women, to claim that female only spaces are akin to racial apartheid.

 “Sexual Apartheid” is even the title of a work by Martine Rothblatt. Rothblatt’s is a billionaire, trans-identified male who dreams of a world where we eradicate sex as a classification. I wrote about him in this post THE APARTHEID OF SEX: Rothblatt

The reference to challenging attitudes and norms also echoes Queer Theory idealogues who believe in smashing heteronormative culture and disrupting social norms. Some of those norms are indeed founded on prejudice but some, such as defending sex based rights and protecting children from making irreversible changes to their body ,are norms rooted in child protection. 

I hope they mean supporting “evidence based interventions” because currently they appear to be siding with an ideology with a poor evidence base. 

There is of course always the chance that I am reading too much into this, so I had a look at their publications and this was the first one I came across on “Looked After Kids” in the care sector. I have done a few posts on children in the care sector because they are over-represented in referrals to Gender Clinics. I cover this in 3 blogs.

Looked After Children & Gender Dysphoria 1

Looked After Children & Gender Dysphoria. 2

Gender Dysphoria: Looked after Children. Part 3. U.K. GIDS

So, am I being paranoid? You be the judge.

C7CD7002-A23A-420C-8957-A28C5C2DC63F

So this is the background before I get to the meat of the document. There is a lot of money to be made in fostering unhappiness with your body. This is just a new branch of the self-commodification industry. Selling it as a Social Justice moment is genius. It is also a LIE. 👇

85AD386D-1A3D-4FAB-8E13-A162E37D3D7E

As always any financial help would be much appreciated. I do this full time and have no income. This helps me purchase books and journal articles, where necessary, and to keep going.

paypal.me/STILLTish

Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women & girls as well as the consequences for Lesbians, Gay males and autistic kids. I do this full time and have no income. All my content is open access and donations help keep me going. Only give IF you can afford. Thank you to my generous donors.

£10.00

PETER TATCHELL

Featured

First of all kudos to GB News for tackling the issue of Gender Identity Ideology and having a, desperately needed, public debate. In this programme the perspectives of a Trans-Identified male, a Women’s rights campaigner, Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshall (A.K.A Posey Parker), Beverley Jackson (LGB Alliance), Gary Powell (Gay man) and Peter Tatchell (Human Rights campaigner) were interviewed. The U.K Charity, Stonewall, were invited to participate but, to no great surprise, declined to participate.

Today I want to unpack the contribution of Peter Tatchell. You can watch his contribution below.

Peter Tatchell : Gender Debate

Transcript here:

PETER TATCHELL GB NEWS

Peter Tatchell is a, self-styled, Human Rights campaigner, best known for his Gay Rights Activism. His high profile arrest, in Putin’s Russia, for protesting against draconian, anti-gay legislation garnered headlines across the world. He also known, especially in Zimbabwe, for attempting a citizens arrest of Robert Mugabe. Latterly, he is better known, in some circles, for situating himself at the centre of conflict between Trans rights & the rights of Women. He has also attracted criticism from Lesbians and Gay males for his stance on “trans-rights” for ignoring the impact on homosexuals, especially the Lesbian kind.

Peter seems quite keen to speak on this issue. So many Trans Lobby groups refuse to debate the issues so it is, perhaps, unsurprising his views were sought. What is less clear are his motives. Why is he inserting himself in the middle of such a controversial topic? He is, however, especially keen to dispel any notion that he has anything to gain, though a cynic would observe the topic garners a lot of publicity.

A2E62B4F-548B-4F01-B0DD-8C9408EE118D

Perhaps it is an elaborate penance for a letter he signed, defending free speech, on the controversial topic of Trans Rights? This resulted in, by his own account, the worst abuse he has had in decades of campaigning: Article below 👇

Peter Tatchell and the Trans Backlash

Perhaps he is driven by an ideological commitment to disrupting /queering social norms? Whatever the reason he does seem overly invested in an issue which is unlikely to impact him, personally. Tatchell is keen to neutralise criticism that he is elevating his voice above trans-people. It is noticeable that he does not show a similar concern about speaking over women.

This latest intervention comes after he withdrew from a debate, with Kathleen Stock, on this topic. Trans activists were vocal in their condemnation of him for agreeing to debate Professor Stock. They did not want him lending any credibility to Kathleen’s (quite moderate) stance on this issue. Many women were also unhappy about debating the issue, specifically with Tatchell, but his withdrawal from the debate was driven by Trans Activists, not the pesky women folk. 👇

43C59D11-EF4D-437B-8108-98992CEA7327

Alex, the interviewer, opens the debate with two questions. Both relate to the practical implications of biological sex denialism; it’s impact on women’s privacy and the medicalisation of children who display “Gender” non-conforming (GNC) behaviour. Lesbians and Gay males often deviate from performing sex stereotypical behaviour which is why this question is a good one to ask a Gay man with a reputation for defending gay rights. He doesn’t respond to the question about medical interventions on children.

[Both proto-gay males and lesbians can present,early, with atypical expressions of femininity/masculinity, sadly that issue was not explored in this segment. This was a shame because I would like to see Tatchell oppose the Gay Conversion Therapy on his doorstep but he probably knows the headlines would not be as good].

Tatchell opens with a (nervous?) statement about the capacity in which he is speaking. He is, emphatically, not there to speak on behalf of the trans community. He is there as a Human Rights campaigner to speak up for the rights of both women and transwomen. By which, he means, for the rights of males to be included in the category of women.

He demonstrates his neutrality, beautifully, by directing his ire at the previous speaker, a woman. Kellie-Jay, made it abundantly clear that the category of woman is based on SEX not Gender Identity. Tatchell used the, common, tactic of associating women, defending the colonisation of our existence, with homophobia meted out to Gay rights campaigners. He also accused Kellie-Jay of whipping up hysteria about the dangers posed by “transwomen”.

Firstly, Gay men did not demand to be re-categorised as “women” and granted access to spaces where women are undressing, or merely associating, in a female only space. The legal recognition of same sex attraction had ZERO impact on the protected characterstic SEX.

Secondly he has no data to suggest males, who identify as transwomen, present a lower risk to women than other males. It is perfectly possible this category houses more predatory males because it includes those with the paraphilia “autogynephilia”. Also because of the queering of the boundaries, between males and females, we are being asked to accept the notion that some women have a penis . He is defending an ideology which promotes the idea of be-penised women and that a Lady Dick can be distinguished from the average penis. This kind of Phallus in Wonderland, magical thinking, sadly, was not exposed in this interview. I suspect the interviewer may be unfamiliar with the more radical claims of the Gender Identity Ideologues. Or, she may believe the general public are not quite ready to deal with the more outlandish claims. Sadly these beliefs are gaining traction among the political and Chattering Classes.

The various segments were not done in a format that allowed a right of reply so Kellie-Jay was not able to respond to the claims, made above. I wonder if Tatchell knows he is echoing the #NotAllMen phallusy of Men’s Rights Activists? Women exclude males, as a SEX class, because we know that some males are sexual predators. We should not, however, have to invoke fear of sexual violence to demand a right to exclude males. We should be legally protected because we have a right to bodily privacy. We should be, legally, able to congregate, in female only spaces, to discuss issues that affect our sex and only our sex. We don’t want to include males in these discussions.

6ADC687C-FCF1-464C-BF91-E0C514AD133D

The “handful” argument is belied by the increased media reports of sexual offenders gathering under the Trans Umbrella. When we finally get actual data monitoring this category of males, specifically, I fear it will confirm women’s worst fears. Presently, the prevalence of trans sex offenders is difficult to ascertain. We do know that under U.K law Rape is an offence specifically involving a penis and that there are over 400, allegedly, female rapists in UK crime statistics. I imagine the number who are actually female is vanishingly small.

It is also only possible to get information by trawling through mis-leading media reports which consistently report Male crimes as if they were commissioned by Women. This is because media guidelines demand female pronouns for male sex offenders. Thanks IPSO! It is IPSO who produced the media guidelines which encourage the media to hide male crimes. Below is a short piece on these guidelines 👇

#TheseAreNotOurCrimes

Below is another diversionary tactic; the substitution of arguments about race to imply they are analogous to the issue of trans rights/women’s rights. By using this argument, Peter, tries to associate feminist arguments with racists. Instead of falling into this trap journalists should demand the interlocutor remain on topic. Argue the merits of your own case directly rather than implying that society needs to throw off the shackles of our backward Sexual Apartheid because it is bigotry akin to racism. For the avoidance of doubt, I don’t care what colour your dick is, for the purposes of women’s single sex spaces:

#AllDicksMatter

Tatchell then deploys another strategy. He claims the thing that women are complaining about has been going on for years and dismisses the “fuss” women are making. This is mendacious. The Transgender Lobby have just LOST (in the U.K) a very public campaign to allow any male to self-declare he is a woman. The new tactic is to claim males have been using women’s spaces for decades and we just didn’t notice! Sadly, for Peter, testosterone packs one hell of a punch and passing remains a pipe dream for most trans-id males, even those with resources to undergo significant surgery. Women are socialised to #BeKind but we do, in the main, recognise biological sex, evolution is such a Terf Bitch. Our safety depends on knowing if we are in a space with a male. Do we say anything thing? No! I refer you to #BeKind and our personal safety. We have all seen the Narcissistic rage of TRAs called “sir”, our lives depend on silence. Peter may interpret this as #Kindness but he is wrong to equate our silence with consent. It is more likely a result of #BeKind/ Doormat feminism or good old fashioned FEAR.

All the countries which have passed Self-ID legislation did so without holding a public debate. It was the public debate that did for this legislative change in the U.K. Grass roots resistance, led by a new group of women’s organisations, alerted ordinary women and we fought back. Women in Ireland, Malta and Argentina and the other countries were less prepared and this legislation was passed by stealth/ tacked onto popular causes. Professional women’s rights organisations were complicit and, consequently, women in these countries are only now waking up to the nightmare scenario the political classes have unleashed on women.

8070E478-5F08-4475-8DA4-954D57315B49

I have written extensively about the current process for obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) in the U.K. We have already given them to fully intact males, even where they have convictions for sexual assaults. For this reason I am not a defender of the status quo but allowing self-declaration would remove any gatekeeping. I would repeal the GRA and provide any protection needed, for refugees from masculinity, on some other basis. I would not allow males to identify into the legal category of woman, because it has been a disaster for women’s sex based rights.

Nobody can just declare they are “trans”

I assume Tatchell is here 👇 talking about the proposed changes to enact a self-id regime in the U.K, or the process in other countries. Here he is saying nobody can just “declare” they are trans by er, checks notes, outlining the process by which anyone can just declare they are trans!

Genius!

I do like his confidence. It seems such a shame to interrupt his confidence with some FACTS. Let me think of a few. Men in women’s sports, a man running a rape crisis centre and telling rape victims, afraid of ALL males, they need to unlearn their transphobia! Rapists in women’s prison, men taking a disproportionate number of places on the Women in Leadership (Jo Cocks) programme…I could go on.

Oh No! He said “Trans Women are Women”

Chanting a thought terminating cliche is beneath an intelligent man. I don’t doubt there are many issues faced by males who adopt the prescribed social norms for women. I don’t doubt they face sexual assault and harassment. Peter may not be aware that Hate Crime legislation doesn’t include the category of SEX, but does protect the category of “Transgender”. So, yes, he can produce the Hate Crime stats and all I have to counter it is a list of, not of the dead-named, but of the actual dead women. Misgendering is the least of our concerns.

EC6CA749-2769-4841-8B5C-46F7B51A18D3

This next bit is some forced-teaming from Tatchell. Come on girls, expend your energy being support humans to my undercover brothers, you know you want to! There is a concerted effort to invert the privilege hierarchy and place white males at the bottom of the pile, rhetorically speaking. To convince us black is white transperbole is deployed and, once again, he leverages the much discredited hate crime statistics. Not buying it.

FC1F0079-8D5D-4BDF-AF54-78FA0AB332DC

The interviewer interjects at this point to thank Tatchell for his cogent and rational arguments. I instinctively bristle at a man being called rational. Fairly or not, what I hear is, rational as opposed to the hysterical women. Another pet peeve is the way this “debate” is portrayed as #BadOnBothSides. It is a War on Women. We are defending ourselves from the neo-colonialism that is Trans Activism. It is playing “nice” that has allowed the #BeKind Brigade to be, well “brigaded”. Women have been trans-jacked and fighting back is what you do when your rights are under attack. Additionally, anyone paying attention would see the threats of violence, much of it sexual violence, comes from the male people. Women’s counter “attack” is, at its worst, refusing to use female pronouns or commenting on masculine features.

So let’s hear more from a man white-knighting for this most marginalised community. Fact free assertions about inner identity, parroting the authentic selves narrative, bla bla bla, hate crime, marginalised etc etc. Also Peter is a libertarian dontchaknow. If people want to be lifelong medical patients they should be allowed. (I don’t think many people have argued for an end to all surgeries, though I would argue it should be a last resort AND still not grant access to spaces set aside for another sex) Peter is tilting at windmills.

Breathtaking arrogant assertion is his next gambit. People (by which he means women) are making a mountain out of a molehill. Women objecting to having our sex redefined to admit any male are over-reacting! These hysterical women are projecting onto a vulnerable community. So vulnerable they have managed to roll back gains women made over a hundred years ago. So marginal they have captured, nearly, the entire political class.

Safeguarding 101

Also👇the central plank of safeguarding is the need set to a bar high enough to protect vulnerable groups from the BAD APPLES! That’s 101 of safeguarding, design your policy with a focus on the BAD APPLES! Because predators will migrate to where the loopholes exist and this ideology is dismantling safeguards left, right and centre.

A92782BC-9135-4162-BF05-40078717B29F

He can’t get any worse can he? Yep. He can. 😳. No we don’t ban cars Peter. We do make you pass a test, we make learners wear an L Plate, we fine people for motoring offences, we can ban you from driving and even imprison offenders. We also have social norms (and laws) against drink-driving. This is not the gotcha you think it is.

821D80C8-B3F3-44D3-851D-4F2C3B4C154D

I like to think Alex had enough at this point. Here the interview should end, and it nearly does. I don’t think it’s a shame the debate is polarised. When someone proposes to socially engineer society, based on a toxic ideology, there is no compromise to be had. We can’t let men have some of women’s rights. The answer is NO! It is a shame that women are being forced to concede our hard won gains in 2021!.

C516B3BD-12BD-43B6-90E4-741A2992EC88

Does Peter go gentle into his goodnight. No! he carried on and makes it, if you can believe it, much, much, worse.

His heart is breaking!

Gloves are off now. How FUCKING DARE you! I will decide who my sisters are thank you very much! We are not SUPPORT HUMANS, there to tend to those males you can’t bear to have in your sex class. YOU DO THE WORK! Maybe have a bit of a think about why you can’t tolerate variant masculinity in your spaces?

We are all Biological Essentialists (apparently)

Next up the old accusations of “biological essentialism”. The argument, he is making, is that Women are allowing ourselves to be defined, and limited by our biology. No, Peter, the “Biology is not Destiny” was an attempt to resist being defined ONLY by our reproductive functions. It did NOT mean we deny the basis of sex based oppression, which originates in our ability to gestate babies. Hence a significant amount of feminist activism has been about controlling our fertility in case you hadn’t noticed.

We were not marching for the right of Laurel Hubbard to lift weights with us!

69561A8D-76F1-4617-8DEE-985DB5B8CF9E

Hijacking statements about women’s liberation to re-purpose them for trans idealogues is a tactic we have seen before. It lends credence to your argument, at a superficial level, if you can use our words against us. Way to put the MAN in HuMAN rights Peter.

Tactical Obfuscation

Next up he is claims being a woman is a psychological / emotional state. The last bit is nonsensical. No males are members of the sex class of women, irrespective of their intake of artificial hormones. The bit about reproductive capacity is nonsensical. What is he trying to say here? Even if the franken doctors manage to develop artificial wombs to validate a trans ID male, it STILL won’t make them a woman.

AEEE055C-FCF1-426E-86B2-DC369B3CC2FD

He surpasses himself with his sign off. He doesn’t mean hate us, he just knows better than we do. It is the smug, holier than thou, tone that is really enraging.

F9517847-3DB6-4FDC-8E14-A2EEC7AE9150

Thanks Peter. I feel I may be in danger of adding to the toxicity of this debate because all I have to say to you is FUCK OFF and when you get there FUCK OFF some more. (And I rarely swear on here but everybody has their breaking point.)

Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women & girls as well as the consequences for Lesbians, Gay males and autistic kids. I do this full time and have no income. All my content is open access and donations help keep me going. Only give IF you can afford. Thank you to my generous donors.

£10.00

RUTH HUNT: Culture Wars 2

Featured

This is part two of a post on a lecture, given by Ruth Hunt, on how to build bridges amidst the Culture Wars.

You can read that piece below :

Ruth Hunt: Culture Wars. 1

I have also transcribed it, after a fashion, below. Quotes used are verbatim but it was a long interview with some repetition so I have just summarised some parts.

Ruth Hunt Building Bridges

Building Bridges Amidst the Culture Wars

Just to recap. Ruth Hunt actually chose the title and topic for this lecture. 😳

Questions and Answers 

When she has completed her “prevarications” (I don’t think she knows the meaning of this word, by the way) she invites questions. I am confident this offer was delivered in the certain knowledge disagreement would not be forthcoming. People know what the limits of free speech are on this topic. I didn’t expect any dissenting voices and I was not disappointed. This group think is precisely why Ruth Hunt remains isolated from contrary opinions,

70412426-8CEE-4068-BC8A-9BD6B8543E39

Social Media / Twitter 

The first question is about the “fisticuffs” on social media. Ruth talks about her own experience here: “I have had a relentless kind of kicking”, which seems to be related to her, now deleted, twitter account. She goes on to lament the fact that nobody is taking “collective leadership” to reinforce a better culture on social media. Here she justifies silence about the social media attacks on others. Call me cynical but I don’t think she is talking about routine threats, of sexual violence, which accompany the term “terf”. She does, however, make an important point about people unwilling to jump to others defence.

E9D2FFE3-5966-423B-ABB9-E613BE7B9401

What Hunt fails to extrapolate from this observation is what it says about how people use social media. Women attract, arguably, the worst abuse when standing up for sex based rights. There are twitter rules that officially allow women to be banned for referencing biological reality. Women have been removed for stating the legal definition of Rape, for correctly sexing abusive males and simply for quoting the official crime statistics on sexual offences. (At least 98% of perpetrators are male). If someone, with her social position, and organisational backing, admits to shying away from “a toxic debate” what does she think happens to women without these resources?

It is also worth pointing out the vast, vast, majority of people are not on twitter. Those of us who retain a connection to real life, and move in less elite circles, know most people have no clue about Queer Theory. The magical thinking of the Genderists may have corrupted the powerful but ordinary people do not (yet?) believe that Lesbians come equipped with penises.

Ruth then tells us of some research Stonewall commissioned, from a peace-keeping charity, to help the organisation on “trans issues” and social media. This was their finding: Apparently the opposition came from a “nest” of 700 accounts who were found to be linked up with Liz Truss. As an aside, I found her choice of words, and body language fascinating, through this interview.

So what conclusions did Ruth draw from this exercise? It seems the organisation determined they were giving too much credence to the unhelpful opinions of the, predominantly, female people. The nasty wimmin were a distraction 👇

CE63995E-DA04-41C1-963D-14479B585496

There is a significant time given over to discussing the incivility on twitter and the failure to establish a culture of respectful dialogue. Hunt compares this to the conduct in the House of Lords and in Academia. (As an aside she expresses surprise that the House of Lords don’t regulate her conduct on social media). She clearly thinks legislation has a role but offers us the benefit of her experience on legal remedies. An observation which is daily more demonstrated by increasing public awareness of, and rejection, of the notion of women with penises.

Political Strategy 

0EDA2B94-CDB8-4640-8391-B55F1A67E0A5

Hunt rightly identifies the change of heart from Conservative Ministers was on the basis of the perceived benefits to capitalism. Not a principled stance but governed by hard cash.

7CAC17D3-C31B-4441-AF42-041D7542A374

Ruth acknowledges her behind the scenes role with government 👇

6543D9DC-7606-49B7-8D35-266DAC6F84DA

Decline in Trust in organisations 

Ruth Hunt, below, talks about the loss of faith in our institutions. Many of us would entirely agree with this observation and link our own disillusionment, directly, to the widespread adoption of policy based on Stonewall’s “misguided” advice on the law. My own council replaced “sex” with “gender on its public information, as did the Crown Prosecution Services in a guide for schools. Here Hunt identifies a direct line from a decline in trust in once respected, institutions to the emerging of terrorism.

720A8E87-6789-40FC-9F55-DE885F058051

It is not clear whether Ruth anticipates the emergence of balaclava clad bitches running riot across the land with bombs strapped to our bosoms, because we surely have lost faith in, the U.K. charity, Stonewall.

Sex Not Gender 

In this aside Ruth cannot even bring herself to say the protected characteristic of SEX. She also prefers to imply that the nebulous concept of gender has some special status which needs to be enshrined in policies to tackle societal inequality. Gender is not, for the people at the back, a legally protected characteristic in U.K. Law.

President Joe Biden 

All is not lost though, she reassures her audience. Joe Biden may be our saviour. Britain needs to trade with the United States and we may need to throw off our reputation for being “transphobic” to maintain our alliance with Uncle Sam (or should that be Auntie Samantha?)

3ACA2E32-BCAD-4B87-A1C8-4F7D3F8C9B00

Biden, as we know has embraced the rise of medically constructed identities with alacrity and elevates “Gender Identity” above biological sex, in his rush to appease the Gender Industrial Complex. This in a country that has failed to protect access to abortion or paid Maternity Leave. (See the draconion anti-abortion legislation passed in Texas). Just today Biden’s twitter account claimed this would affect “people”. Neither him nor the female Vice President acknowledged the “people” would be women!

F9C38020-F87C-4C61-B89F-07589EF57E22

Next she launches a broadside against The Sunday Times for shedding some much needed light on the activity of Stonewall and her own role in its, plummeting, reputation. For Ruth there is no legitimacy to the critiques, the media coverage is just click bait to appeal to shameless populism.

However, all is not lost. We may have fallen behind in passing legislation to elevate the transgender community but, she claims, to have the support of Boris Johnson’s wife.

Evidence Based Data 

Here, without a trace of irony, she makes a plea for data based on the health and sexual orientation. In a world where women die, needlessly, because we don’t research sex based differences in health she is happy to undermine data on the category of SEX. She collides with the eradication of research, for women, but wants evidence based health care for herself. This is quite hypocritical because she has repeatedly bemoaned the people who think only in terms of “Me” and not “We”.

F9B0517C-49B2-42C7-A476-27F8303441A1

So where else will Ruth wander in the Q & A session? She is most proud of her caped crusader stint at Stonewall, where she spent 14 years “righting wrongs”. Stonewall do indeed have a proud legacy, right up to her tenure. Hunt took the helm and set in motion the new sex denialism, despite the fact biological sex is foundational to defending same SEX attraction. It is difficult to judge whether this is naïveté or knowing complicity.

19EA2E2E-7479-45E9-9079-9334C3F0D657

Corporate Campaigns 

Her next proud achievement, is, she claims the gullible companies, and public sector organisation who were co-opted as “campaigners” without them realising they were part of her cunning plan:

DD52F753-6E88-4AE4-B900-640720A24962

The question of regret garners some thoughts about reflective practice, learning all the time, constantly re-evaluating etc. Yet, the regret she focuses on is her adoption of a “heroic leadership” model when she became Stonewall CEO. Note the blame is shifted and described as mandate by Stonewall. Note also the consumer driven terminology as she laments the negative impact on the Stonewall “brand”.

ED055E02-3E67-4F7D-8FAA-8326C47035B5

She had another regret which was the failure to teach the Judiciary about “trans” asylum seekers which, helpfully, gets it on record that the CEO of Stonewall was training our judiciary.

D6EB991D-F890-429C-B2D2-9F48C783BB98

“Terf” Island 

The questions return to how transphobic the British are and the moderator asks Ruth to explain how she measures this and what are her benchmarks? Of course she goes straight to the, discredited, Hate Crime statistics. For the neophytes she is taking about “crimes” that are automatically recorded as “Hate Crime Incidents” based entirely on the perception of the “victim”.

Further evidence of our nation’s “transphobia” relies on the way we are percieved by Americans (by which she seems to mean the U.S because she has a habit of referring to “America” when she clearly means the United States). Yes Ruth it’s not science. 👇

EACC399D-7DFF-4C1E-A59D-BCEB2F4AC367

Peppered with observations about British exceptionalism, a post Brexit society and our delusions of still having a great Navy she compares and contrasts the nature of the debate in the U.K with the United States. She waxes lyrical about our sophisticated “American” cousins. We, in the U.K, are aggressive which, she argues, is so “unBritish”. Well worth watching her body language at 1 hour 8 minutes, when she talks about the bigoted women worried about pesky details, such as the destruction of female sports and males invading rape crisis centres.

5DEBADA2-F232-4F36-AD96-38FEBABD50B1

Academic Freedom

Finally she weighs in on the issue of Academic Freedom. Notice she substitutes and example about race for trans issues. She does this on the spurious grounds that people get so confused about trans issues and if they look at it in the same way as racism the course of action will be much clearer. This is a deliberate strategy. It would be a rarity for anyone in British public life, or private individuals, to advocate for racial segregation. The idea that women and girls don’t need sex specific spaces is far from won which is why she uses another example.

9590FD83-00DB-4D2A-8751-0EE55FC559EC

Academics discussing the importance of sex based data, rights to single sex spaces, accurate teaching about biology are not the descendants of the Klu Klux Klan FFS!. This is dangerous and irresponsible framing.in my opinion.

Pride 

Some thoughts from Ruth on PRIDE. Given she has courted big business and establishment figures, as a central component of her advocacy, I would take this with a pinch of salt. In an era when Lesbians are ostracised, at Pride events, for declaring the exclusion of males from their dating pools, and when a gay man is rounded upon by a 🌈🌈 draped mob there is nothing to be PROUD of…

Divine Wisdom

I will leave you with this final thought from the moderator. Yes. He really did say this:

01E6118E-0141-4674-92F0-265A1EFB8144

He also commends Ruth for her kind and compassionate lecture. There is something interesting about the appeals to the divine in this debate and the faith like certainty that they are on the side of the Angels. One thing is clear there is a lot of resentment that the days of backroom deals are over. The scrutiny of the media/social media has, hopefully, limited the stealth activism which has served the advocates of this ideology so, so well.

Ruth Hunt: Culture Wars. 1

Featured

You can watch this here:

Ruth Hunt: Bridge Building

I have also transcribed (most of it and will add it here when I have finished Part 2.

After a potted history of her career (Baroness) Hunt made attempt at levity re the zoom times and engaging an on-line. She tells us she enjoys a live audience and, in the absence of one, she is going to get out her lego figures and pretend her Jodie Whittaker figure is here to appreciate her words of wisdom. As this is Ruth Hunt I fact checked this and there is indeed a lego figure for Whittaker.

I found it a rather painful introduction but I am not the target audience and it may have gone over quite well with “da yoof”. Ruth explains that she wishes she could see the faces of her audience. Trust me, she doesn’t want to see mine as I watch her pontificate on social justice issues.

She first provides some personal background information and we learn that her mother is a trained Nurse, midwife and a retired Professor of women’s health and midwifery. I wonder if her mum agrees with terms such as “bleeder”, “birthing person” and the attempts to pretend women’s historic position in our society has nothing to do with the fact we are of the reproductive sex class? She also shares a very personal revelation about the death of her young aunt, in childbirth. For both these reasons I find it hard to understand why she has allowed herself to be persuaded that biological sex is no more than an “identity”. Hunt also explains her Christian faith and realise she was a Lesbian. She talks about the books she read and which she doesn’t recommend, and that Lesbian kiss in Brookside.

Another revelation was that Hunt began writing for “Diva” magazine at age 16. She describes herself, at this stage as very much “Cock of the Walk”.

Diva magazine, as you may be aware, was started by Linda Riley who has an interesting background. Private Eye cover some of her chequered financial history and also her notorious involvement with the Jack the Ripper Museum; which claimed to be a Women’s history museum on it’s planning application. 😳

Ruth then treats us to a potted history of her progress through Oxford University where she became the first Lesbian to become the President of the Student Union following her grammar school education and being Head Girl. She relates how she was subsequently head hunted by prominent companies and how she was attracted to the idea of joining the Army. In the end she rejected all of these options because “they won’t want me, they want someone prettier, with longer hair and swishy head, brooch wearing and ears pierced and loveliestness (sic)” So, instead she took a job at Stonewall (U.K.) .

Ruth gives us a whistle stop tour of the achievements of Stonewall up to 2010 and how she felt they were “banking” success during this period. She also deliberately uses the phrase “Gay Rights” and explains, to her audience, that Stonewall was, in those days, campaigning for Lesbian and Gay rights and had not yet included the bisexual and trans groups in their advocacy. All that was about to change when Hunt became CEO, in 2014. Hunt’s appointment coincided with the legislation to introduce the right for Gay marriage so a cynic might say Stonewall was casting around for a new remit. Hunt describes this in a somewhat different way and seems to think her projective was all about collectivism and a move away from individualism. I find this deeply disingenuous. The neoliberalism on cross sex hormones, that is Gender Identity Ideology, is deeply individualist with a strong streak of narcissism.

Hunt contextualises the environment in which Stonewall pivoted to campaign for trans rights and makes an interesting slip in this clip. She begins to describe legislation about “Gender” and then corrects herself to acknowledge the legislation was actually to do with Sex discrimination. She makes a similar slip when she takes about the Trade Union movement being led by White male misogy…but she stops herself from acknowledging misogyny.

F29CBEEC-85B4-4853-9C25-18AC8F89CF91

Ruth then talks about opposition to “trans-inclusion” which is really an opposition to the sex denialism of Stonewall’s position with the concomitant impact on Women’s (sex based) rights and Gay rights. Like many commentators she situates this conflict of rights in the context of the advent of social media and the rise of Donald Trump. Indeed Trump which may explain some backlash, in the United States, but has zero to do with the Leftwing and Trade Union women who established, for example, Women’s Place U.K. This is how she characterises the debate on social media:

1AD24A0A-29CE-42A9-AEE1-54FAEFB4F270

Ruth Hunt clearly found the responses very challenging. She is keen to point out that she has many times sat in rooms with people who disagreed with her stance on a range of issues. It is, by now, abundantly clear it is in back rooms in which Stonewall has been operating. The people who were not around this ever inclusive table, which Ruth likes to refer to, were the female people with a second wave feminist analysis. Ruth prefers to lament a lack of social cohesion and a decline of acceptance to the Brexit vote and the rise of Trump. That serves her narrative better than the truth which is the opposition of simple, grass roots, women’s rights campaigners and Gay rights activists. Never let truth get in the way of a good story, eh, Ruth?

This next clip takes some chutzpah. Ruth thinks we don’t have FACTS! Ruth has deleted her twitter account ostensibly because it was an unproductive and agrees i’ve medium. I think she has deleted it so she can avoid scrutiny and accountability for the damage she has done to Women, especially Lesbians and our Gay youth of both sexes.

She characterises the opposition to Stonewall version of “trans rights” as “cruel” and “mean” . Yet not one word does she say about the violent threats, often sexual in nature, which accompany attacks on “Terfs”. It also doesn’t seem to occur to Hunt that is precisely the awareness campaigns, pushed by Stonewall, that have informed more and more people about Gender Identity Ideology.

65A95882-69FA-428E-827E-F7B88CA9EB35

In all this Hunt looks to the United States for inspiration and remind us that President Biden has his pronouns in his bio and appointed a trans person to a senior position in his administration. The trans-identified male, appointed to policy-making positions around health issues, is a heterosexual, late transitioner who publicly refused to oppose puberty blockers for children. Where Hunt feels hope there is only despair. She is right that there is a danger in our need to trade with the United States, especially post Brexit.

So where does Ruth stand on the bridge building? She concedes that there is a need to speak to the “enemy” but then goes on to say this:

F30F254B-C25C-47CA-922F-20E923E5D5BA

So it seems Ruth Hunt has declared WAR and yet she seems in utter ignorance about why so many people, within the Lesbian and Gay community, are also at odds with the Stonewall agenda. It also seems the Lady is not for turning. There is no golden bridge for those of us who are not won over by her arguments. So how does Baroness Hunt propose to win the war?

She will be using her position in the House of Lords and also her new initiative Deeds not Words. She will be withdrawing from those talks to more backroom discussions with government departments. What is becoming clear is that this agenda doesn’t have widespread public support and Hunt likes to operate in stealth. Using the precise tactics advocated for by the Dentons Document which I cover here:

That Denton’s Document

She the. proceeds to reference research on how to effect social change and I think she is referencing the work covered in this article.

 Tipping Point

The article explains that you only need 25% of committed activists to reach a tipping point and, ironically, the hypothesis was first tested on eradicating sexist behaviour in the workplace. The authors do however identify a danger in this type of activism. It can also be used by “organisations trying to control people”

All of which brings to mind the many articles that abound in the demonic power of self-righteousness. Maybe Ruth needs to consider the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. I am not in possession of religious faith but I get a strong sense of Messianic zeal from the Baroness. Pride comes before a fall.

C50D05F2-5981-439B-8C9D-C0F1AA435C36

Ruth then expounds on her theories of declining power of our politicians and presents a theory about different kids of activism and how to use your power for good. One of the ways Ruth intends to use her power in the house of Lords is to effect legislative change to help “trans people” or to destroy women’s sex based rights, depending on your perspective. She also claims it is important to be unafraid of uncertainty which is something she may also wish to reflect upon.

Next up Ruth shares her views on forgiveness. She recounts a tale about a good friend of hers being confused about the important of pronouns. Saint Ruth realists, she tells us, the temptation to lecture her friend by, er, lecturing him on any pronouns are important t until he adds pronouns to his email.

The Q & A will be covered in Part 2.

Ruth Hunt on Hard Talk

Featured

In this interview Ruth Hunt talks to Sara Montague about her time at Stonewall and, in particular, her decision to expand the remit of Stonewall, traditionally a Gay rights charity, to include the Trans community. Link to interview here. It’s audio only so the pictures are taken from images on-line. I may have over-used the ones that make her look like a Bond Villain. 😉

Ruth HuntL Hard Talk

I transcribed the interview here. RUTH HUNT HARDTALK

The interview takes place after Ruth Hunt has announced she was stepping down, after 14 years at the helm of Stonewall. This was during a period in which more voices were beginning to speak out against the, extremist, positions the organisation was taking. After a brief introduction Sara gets straight to the heart of the conflict around the Gender Recognition Act.  

EDDDF995-DFDE-4C0F-AACA-EC2202A3CF8F

It is certainly the case that Stonewall took the more extreme position on reform of the Gender Recognition Act. They advocate to allow anyone to self-identify, as the opposite sex, and have this belief ratified by the State. This changing legal landscape has occurred in countries such as Argentina, Malta and Ireland with little public debate. In Ireland this took place, notably, before Abortion was legalised and piggy backing on the bills for Gay marriage. This is a common tactic, a kind of forced-teaming. Very difficult to oppose a bull when a significant part of it is progressive and opposing it, because of the Self-Identified sex would have been easy to discredit as a cover for homophobia. The exact same tactic has been used with legislation agains Gay Conversion Therapy. The real intention is to out law therapy for gender confused teens, many of whom, if left alone, would simply be gay. A deeply sinister tactic.

The current position in U.K Law, is that a panel, made up of judges, determines whether an applicant can be granted a change to their birth certificate to retrospectively record a different sex from that recognised and recorded at birth.

I have covered the Gender Recognition Panel (GRP) based on an interview by one of the members , a Judge.

Gender Recognition Panels: A Judge talks.

As you can see, from the above, the system was designed to be “enabling”. It is also perfectly legal for a SINGLE Judge to overturn refusals of Gender Recognition Certificates, made by the GRP. I covered one such example below. Here a thrice married, father of seven, with convictions for obtaining explosives with intent to endanger life, was granted a legal certificate to say he is a woman.

Gender Recognition Certificates

Sara presses on with this line of questioning:  Here she makes it clear that Stonewall had other alternatives to the line they have chosen. 

4A790F30-96C7-446B-91A8-5790915C85FC

Ruth’s response was illogical. Apparently this is already the position and few people feel the need to get a Gender Recognition Certificate and self-identify already. Yet, she squandered Stonewall’s reputation go campaign for certificates which, by her own argument, few people feel the need to obtain! So which is it Ruth? A vital change? Or superfluous to “lived experience” ?

0E6A1D19-4040-497A-A832-0E1247645158

Next up Sara outlines what she thinks are the problems with the current process. I strongly disagree with this interpretation, as outlined in the above linked posts. I believe Sara has bought into the Stonewall narrative.

1A0FD400-EE48-4815-94C3-62ADAA30E6E7

Sara does, at least, follow up on why Stonewall determined to lobby for the most extreme accommodations to be enshrined in law pushing for Hunt to say something about the process she proposes.

Ruth Hunt fleshes out the desired process for a man, who wishes to be recognised as a woman “for all legal purposes”, should go through. Sign a fucking form! Make a pinky promise! I am being a tad sarcastic here but there are no recorded cases, that I wcould find, of any prosecutions for lying on a Statutory Declaration. She seems similarly unaware of what that would mean for detransitioners. There is already one young woman having trouble because she was advised to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate to revert to her biological sex, in law. Problem is that it requires a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria and she cannot get one. BECAUSE SHE IS DETRANSITIONING due to the abatement of her Gender Dysphoria.

Hunt is also mandating how we are to even “think” about this. Because they say they are a woman, “that’s how they should be regarded”. Again, you can’t dictate an instinctive recognition of biological sex. Women need to respond to recognition of sex to ascertain our safety in certain circumstances. You can’t unpick evolution with a piece of paper, we are hard wired to recognise biological sex.

3CC3685F-57B5-40ED-8114-37E5D7A8ACE3

It is quite chilling to hear Ruth Hunt dictate how someone should be regarded when all the evidence, especially for biological males, is likely to contradict the way someone sees themselves. Testosterone, on females, packs one hell of a punch and it is likely they will be more “passing” but for biological males this is rarely the case. Trans-ID females, of course, are unlikely to present a threat in male spaces. Though there are more females demanding to be included in Gay Male spaces which is likely why we are seeing more Gay Men with Gender Critical positions.

Sara moves on to explore the cases of males abusing the self-declaration process to access vulnerable women, especially in prisons. First up Christopher Hambrook. This case is in Canada. Christopher Hambrook assaulted women in two homeless shelters in Toronto.

Christopher Hambrook

Ruth’s, disingenuous, response is to say that changing to a self-identification process would not make this any more likely to happen!

D18A6D55-ED3B-431E-9C0D-2DD5426B1946

The above statement directly contradicts the advice of the British Association of Gender Identity Specialists, reproduced below, who had this to say in their submission to the Transgender Equality Inquiry. They called this stance naive.

Next up Sara confronts Ruth Hunt about the issue of female only spaces, generally. There are many reasons why women may wish to meet without any males present, however they identify. Some of them may relate to bodily privacy but others may be to discuss and advocate for women’s rights. Lesbians may wish to socialise with same sex attracted females. All of these things are under threat due to the domination of the Gender Identity Idealogues.

3E5AF53A-FE3E-46AF-9779-F26B557AA4F3

Ruth’s response is to advise that experts have been risk assessing the trans people (males) coming into female spaces for “a very, very, long time”.

Sarah’s rejoinder is to bring up the infamous case of “Karen” White who, according to the judge “used her transgender persona to put herself in contact with vulnerable persons”. Notice the judge grants the male rapist female pronouns but erases the raped women as “persons”.

Ruth’s defence of her position is to waffle on about risk assessments and how they clearly failed in the context of Karen White. She lays the responsibility firmly at the door of the Ministry of Justice. What she omits is any reference to who advised them in formulatig their policy. This was Jay Stewart., also from the queer theory stable. She even has the cheek to say we need to focus on safeguarding, which is the first casualty of this bonkers ideology.

6C39F11F-2970-4DFF-9A95-2388B46E5129

The next exchanges cuts to the heart of the problem with the Gender Recognition Act and it’s privacy provisions. You are not allowed to ASK to see a GRC, and if you come by the knowledge of someone’s biological sex, in an official capacity, you are not allowed to disclose it. The penalties for this have been set very high, it is a criminal offence which attracts a level 5 fine which is unlimited.

This accounts for the bizarre position public officials find themselves in. A patient detained on a mental health ward sees an obvious man and a Nurse is forced to lie to the patient about the sex, of an obvious man, in the next bed. Even when he is exposing his genitalia. This actually happened by the way!

Asked about if she understands why some women “who feel very, very, concerned about the ease with which somebody could now say “I am now a woman”…Ruth interrupts with more guff about assessments which we are now seeing regularly “fail” across the Prison system.

3A491F0F-9449-429C-8B4C-EB996E7AE9BC

The above amounts to Ruth telling us the privacy provisions set out in the Gender Recognition Act are already inadequate to protect female spaces so why not make it even easier?

Sara the. introduces the voice of transsexual campaigner Kristina Harrison. KH makes the point that Stonewall are enshrining the most extremist positions in law and the lack of any public debate. KH also takes aim at the stealth policy and legal capture and the “toxic authoritarian atmosphere and the dissenting voices being sidelined are particularly women”. I am not suprised Sarah uses a “trans” voice to articulate these points, which have been made by many, many women. This looks like a human shield tactic but nevertheless KH summarised the position well.

The astonishingly arrogant reply from Hunt is this. Apparently Parliament abolished sex in 2004 and there was a debate and everything…

53C77D6F-3F1A-4290-BEA9-87161B1BE729

Next up, without referencing Posey Parker /Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshall by name, Sarah talks about the billboard campaign involving the shocking use of the dictionary definition of women. Does Ruth find the words Adult, Human, Female offensive?

Ruth says no, she doesn’t find it personally offensive and says it’s not within her power to decide what goes on billboards or not. She then deflects with an astonishing bit of DARVO, (Deny, Accuse, Reverse, Victim and Offender).

69C5C010-02F7-45FC-B3A6-2763219F593A

I notice Ruth has now deleted her twitter account but she knows this bad on both sides argument is tosh. The rape threats, the obvious males posting with weapons, the die in a fire “Terfs” are ubiquitous from trans id males and allies. Women are generally much more restrained. Its almost as if this is a tale of two sexes. So, YES I agree with her, it is toxic. I part company on her delusional perspective which is wilfully obtuse.

0265D6E6-A601-46DB-B317-EFD455ECD19C

Next we hear about one of the founders of Stonewall, Simon Fanshawe, who has publicly broken with the organisation. Eventually he will be followed by Matthew Paris and latterly Simon Callow. When asked about this he is dismissed because “he hasn’t been involved in Stonewall for over thirty years”. Hunt also repudiates any suggestions that Stonewall has shut down debate. This is interesting because they had a whole campaign saying #NoDebate. Hunt then claims that Stonewall have been involved in constant debates on this issue. That’s a whopping great lie for a woman who likes to bang on about her faith.

Undeterred Sara presses her on the fact that Stonewall have refused to debate and pulls people from panels when the topic is the GRA and the impact on women’s rights. I would argue that it is not entirely coincidental that the BBC have cancelled women speakers when Stonewall have refused to appear. The BBC claim “balance” wouldn’t be achieved with only one side willing to appear. I would say this is strategic and the BBC have either been played (or played along?). They should have “empty chaired” rather than amplifying the myth that Feminists are too terrifying for Trans people to appear alongside.

B1A334A9-6A53-4A42-82E5-6AC2BEB0155F

Sara then moves on to question Hunt about the opposition from Lesbians and Feminists including the public repudiation by a Lesbian and former donor. Maureen is a writer and a had been a high profile and generous supporter of Stonewall.

83253199-D356-41A2-B9FA-26FCAEC16D32

Ruth’s answer to this quetion is very revealing she immediately justifies Stonewall’s stance by referencing how lucrative it has been for the organisation.

0A7449E9-C5B6-4452-8B8A-AF01FBDEE2F1

I do wish that Sara had spent a little bit more time exploring Maureen’s concerns and mentioned the famous penis bearing “Lesbian” who is one of Stonewall’s advisors. Ruth should also have been confronted with the bodily modifications young lesbians and gay boys are being groomed to think are “natural”. It’s not “playful” when you sit, as I have done, with young women post testosterone, double mastectomies, hysterectomies and ovary removal. Women in their early twenties who realise, in the main, they were just lesbians.

And what does Ruth pivot to? MONEY and, below, their support from the establishment.

AF0EF328-5091-4EEE-9A7F-4DD0D6B201B8

Ruth makes it clear that Stonewall have followed the lead of United States charities who added the T well before Stonewall. Nobody brings up the £100,000 the organisation took from Arcus Foundation to add Trans advocacy to their agenda. This was in 2015 and I am sure the fundraising  department soon realised they were looking at a Cash cow if they added the T. She also makes it abundantly clear that this course of action was approved by the entire board, as the actions of her successor confirms.  1C26C996-9CDD-4969-99D1-B3280272CCE8

Elsewhere Ruth has stated that they knew some people would be opposed to the addition of the T. They went ahead anyway. Who is paying for this?  The bodies of our Gay boys and Lesbians who are being mined for profit by the Gender Industrial Complex.  I don’t believe for a second she doesn’t know what she has facilitated.  I hope she enjoys purgatory because, for me, nothing will expiate her sins. Luckily I am not God. 

Ruth Hunt interview by Talcum X

Featured

Introduction:

Ruth Hunt may believe that she got out of, the UK Charity, Stonewall, reputation intact, I am here to state that she did not. More public, and private, bodies are declining to renew membership, of the Charity’s many, money-making initiatives. Hunt may be congratulating herself that this did not happen on her watch. She is in for a rude awakening, this is her legacy. I intend to capture as much evidence as I can while we wait for the public accountability as the dominoes begin to topple.

Now that Hunt has been elevated to the the House of Lords I want to remind her that it took decades for Lord David Steel to be held to account; over his failure to deal with the child predator, and MP, Cyril Smith. How many more children could have been saved from abuse had he spoken up? Similarly how many of our, young, gay males and Lesbians will have been unnecessarily medicalised before Gender Identity Ideology is defeated. David Steel, eventually, resigned from his party and stood down from the House of Lords. His status did not save him. Stonewall had a proud history of standing up for Gay Rights but have now trashed their reputation. They bear a significant share of responsibiity for the harm Trans ideology has visited on young Lesbians and Gay Males. As CEO Ruth Hunt is similarly tarnished.

Ruth Hunt will indeed have a reputation, even a place in history, but it is one likely to take the proud out of PRIDE! Queer Capitalism indeed!

412589D8-0ED3-485C-AD75-AD434782A1CD

Primary Source:

Here is the interview. I have saved a copy. There will be mass deletions of tweets, interviews, newspaper articles. We need to archive as many of these as we can. We must NEVER forget who is reponsible for the promotion of this ideology. (Ruth Hunt has already deleted her Twitter account).

Owen Jones interviews Ruth Hunt

Here is a transcript. I have tried to reproduce it accurately but I did have to correct some parts, the intent was clear, but it didn’t translate to the written word. You can cross check the interview for yourself.

owen jones and ruth hunt

The Interview:

The interview takes place when Stonewall were campaigning for a review of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA). The GRA allows someone to obtain a revised birth certificate to reflect a “sex change”. The legislation was designed to facilitate a legal fiction for, we were told, a tiny number of people who we commonly considered to be “transsexual”. What Trans Activists, supported by Stonewall, wished to do was to allow anyone to identify as the opposite sex on a “self-identifying” basis. This would remove any gatekeeping and, as I have shown in previous blogs the process, as it exists now, already allows fully intact, male, rapists to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate.

In the U.K, this proposed “reform”, triggered alarm in many women and led to the formation of Women’s Place U.K and Fairplay For Women as well as other, groups like Standing For Women. Other groups like Object and Filia had existed prior to the GRA.

The strategy Stonewall used to enable this legislative change was to avoid debate. We were told there was no need for one and we should just “skip it”. This approach was perfectly represented by this campaign material.

Stonewall and other Trans Activists also opted for a policy of #NoDebate on the spuriousgrounds that we “debated” Gay Rights and we should simply #Skipit this time. This strategy was exemplified in BBC Radio 4 Women’s Hour attempts to cover the issue. Those representing the Trans Lobby would refuse the appear, on the same programme as Women’s Rights campaigners, claiming this would render them unsafe. This propagated the myth of a vulnerable community and also avoided any, direct, challenge to their arguments. Sometimes Woman’s Hour used taped segments, other times Trans activists refused to appear, at all. Many segments were simply cancelled because nobody, for the Trans Side, would agree to contribute.

Freddy McConnell (Trans-identified Female) outlined their stance, re debate, for the Guardian. Note the framing, discussing this issue is presented as a literal threat to life. It is also notworthy that females are often put up to oppose Women’s rights campaigners to avoid people concluding, correctly in my view, that Trans Lobby Groups are dominated by Men’s Rights Activists. It is a lot easier to get away with the hyperbole of “vulnerable” trans people when using a female with a small build.

Ruth Hunt remembers Stonewall Strategy slightly differently. In this interview she claims the problem is that they had over-estimated the capacity of the general public to engage in the debate in a mature enough fashion. Elitist claptrap. I would, however, agree with Ruth on one point they legal/policy proposals are indeed “naive”. I would suggest the truth of the matter is that Stonewall thought that they could adopt the strategy of passing legislative change by stealth. (See my piece on The Denton’s Document. Thankfully the days of them operating in the shadows are over. We See You, as they say, and we don’t like what we are seeing..

F3512F67-D18A-4099-AEAF-9275DF028B0C

Owen’s response is to profess bafflement. Who are the people (can’t even bring himself to say “women) who want to discuss the conflict of rights between Women and Men? They would be WOMEN, Owen. This illustrates how out of touch Owen is with the Working Class on whose existence and lives he has built his career and income streams. Not one thought for the women in prison’s forced to share space with male rapists? Naturally he frames this as “anti-trans” rather than pro-women. He is grossly ill-informed.

4D79C13E-5BD5-4A84-B5F0-0D6026D5B06D

Ruth also knows perfectly well she is talking about people with no desire for a “medical” transition. She even claims that women, opposed to male-bodied people in their spaces, are in danger of putting pressure on the NHS who would not be able to cope with the demand. On this point I can set Ruth’s mind at reast. Surgery does not convert a man into a woman and women still have the right to single sex spaces irrespective of surgical status.

This is how Ms Hunt frames the discussion about the Gender Recognistion Act. It is well worth watching the footage to see the jocular way she and Tiny Owen discuss this proposed amendment to the GRA. “It’s just admin”.

0AE70E1D-EE27-42C4-B9A2-310DB990E940

Owen cannot contain his glee at the opportuniity to laugh at all those silly women, kicking up a fuss about nothing.

A32AB0BA-3918-498A-81C9-99F70D372F1A

Ruth then goes on to share her opinion on the existing, legal position. This is what is known as Stonewall Law. Repeat the law as you wish it to be not as it is. If the law already allowed all these things there would have been no need for the amendment. What she is doing here is making sure, even if the law does not change, they can continue training organisations across the land that single sex spaces are illegal.

06641AC3-556D-4BAD-A0FE-B7B4E676747A

Below is a clip from the Reindorf Report which investigated the no-platforming of Feminist academics from Essex University. Here’s what the author had to say about Stonewall.

78894345-0CB2-458F-B50D-8D668CF50B3B

Ruth then goes on to make a statement worthy of Goebels level propaganda. The breathtaking audacity of the following statement flabberghasted me to the point of a Benjamin “butter gasp”!

D01164D4-457D-43CB-9E1B-B25FEADDC9BD

Yes! It’s not as if we don’t already have male rapists in female prisons, competing in women’s sports, taking Women’s Officer roles in the Green Party and Labour. Its not as if a male, who lied about his sex, is now running a Rape Crisis centre for women. Its not a if Mental Health Nurses are telling a female patient, undergoing a psychotic episode the person who has just exposed his penis to her is a “woman”. Its not as if a man in Monkey costume complete wearing a Dildo is going into Nurseries to read books for children!

Hurdles versus Loopholes.

This is a major social engineering process which requires females accept males in every conceivable space. I cannot resist sharing one final screenshot of this interview. This is where Ms Hunt made a (freudian?) slip and substituted the word “loophole” when, from the context, it seems she meant to say “hurdle”. Daft!

4894114D-2EB0-406E-86C1-7F63884C1047

I am looking forward to looking at how Ruth squares this with her Christian Faith and why she claims she would be a good person to navigate the so called “Culture Wars”.

paypal.me/STILLTish

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth. Support is always appreciated (I have no income). All my content is open access so if you can’t speak publicly, and you have spare cash, this helps me keep going.

£10.00

Material Girls: Review

Featured

Full disclosure: Kathleen, very kindly, donated a signed copy of her book which she took the trouble to post to me. This was done despite Kathleen being aware that I was unlikely to agree with every one of her ideas or conclusions. It is true that I diverge on some issues but, nevertheless I highly recommend this book.

Kathleen (Professor Stock) writes from the perspective of an academic, philospher, whilst currently holding a post within a UK University. She has been subjected to a campaign of villification, from within her own discipline, and the university sector more generally. Even the main union for University staff, UCU, has not stepped up to protect women in Kathleen’s position. I cannot begin to imagine writing this book, from within academia, and I commend her courage in doing so. As Kathleen points out there is a huge struggle to get dissenting voices into the literature on this topic. This book represents a significant milestone in breaking this silence.

My reception of the book probably needs some clarity about my own perspective, or biases, if you will. I am not pure enough to claim the label radical feminist but I would say I am radical feminist adjacent; since their analysis makes the most sense to me. In a twist of fate I now find myself the mum of a trans-identified male and caught up in a fucked up, post modern, version of Sophie’s Choice. I am expected to hand my (gay) son over to the medical profession who, I am assured, will return a living “daughter”. My perspective is thus informed by both my feminism and the impact on my son. This is not easy terrain to navigate when you are also a stalwart defender of women’s, sex based, rights. It also makes me more, perhaps too, inclined to want to understand motivations for homosexual transitioners. My compassion should not be taken as compromise where women’s rights are concerned.

A brief history of Gender Identity

The book traces the origins of Gender Identity as a concept and covers feminist voices who argued that feminism could be advanced by a more extreme belief that sex differences were wholly “culturally constructed”. She covers Simone de Beauvoir, John Money, Anne Fausto-Sterling (of “five sexes” fame), Judith Butler and also cites Julia Serano as one of the trans voices covered. I would have added the work of Janice Raymond to this list because “Transsexual Empire” is a seminal text on this area. Its omission may have been tactical because Raymond’s book tends to inflame those who see themselves as activists for the “Transgender” community.

John Money and Robert Stoller concieved of the idea we each have a “gender identity” which, as we have seen, is now being embedded in society and rapidly being privileged over biological sex.

1E4DDB5D-564C-4D60-B6CE-1971AEED8D2E

This chapter also covers the Yogakarta principles which are essential to understanding how activists envision a world where gender identity is embedded in the law. There is also a section on the origin of the term “Terf” ; which is useful for those of you unaware of the history of it’s coinage.

What is sex?

The What is Sex chapter is a good debunking of the common arguments claiming it is difficult to define sex, that we are not sexually dimorphic and conflating issues of intersex (disorders of sexual development) with a trans identity. It may seem ludicrous but some, self-identified, serious academics proclaim we didn’t know to which sex to deny the vote. Apparently it was all a random act of disenfranchisement based on the nebulous concept of “gender identity”. If only Emmeline had come out as Edward Pankhurst the women’s rights movement could have been exposed as a complete waste of time. Below is a seaside postcard from the time.

For those of a philosophical bent this chapter will particularly appeal. I have rehearsed these arguments with trans-activists over many years so much of the content was familiar. One of the key issues that resonates with me is that we must not simply reduce everything to XX chromosomes. I am thinking of women with no abiliity to process testosterone. Their chromosomes will be XY but they will have had a female (oestrogen led) puberty They often have no idea they have male chromosomes until they fail to menstruate. (I am thinking of twitter user @ClaireCais when I type this and some of the painful things she has had to endure). If only for women with DSDs this chapter is important. It is also a useful source to debunk the false conflation of a transgender identity disorders of sexual development.

Why Sex Matters?

Stock then goes on to make a compelling case for why sex matters. She covers medicine, sport, sexual orientation and sex based statistics on crime. Women are still fighting for a world which doesn’t treat males as the default humans. Denying that sex is a significant variable in many areas will further, negatively, impact women. For more on this you can read Caroline Criado-Perez.

Though it is possible that somebody at the Guardian has read Kathleen’s book since the clarification, below, is from the Guardian in July 2021!

063D8FFF-2B37-4BBC-904A-69E85DED4A55 

Now we are starting to see males competing, at the Olympics, in the women’s category will more people start speak out. Laurel Hubbard , who is competing in the 87kg women’s weight lifting category, may prove a tipping point.

Legal cases such as the issue of males in women’s prisons and the recording of male sex crimes as if they were committed by women is also covered in this chapter. I have covered many such cases on my blog about this so I am pleased to see this.

What is Gender Identity?

The topic on Gender Identity I found a difficult read, for personal reasons. As a woman I instintively recoiled from Monroe Bergdorf locating the film “clueless” as prompting their thoughts of transition. After watching this film they state: “Oh my God, this is where I fit in, these are my people”. Stock does not include some of the more controversial utterances from Monroe Bergdorf; one of them being to demand that women stop centring reproductive rights on a women’s march. This won’t please all readers but I think she is wise to avoid more sensationalist copy.

The recollections of Paris Lees and other gay trans people echo what I know of the impact homophobic bullying can have on self-acceptance. Interestingly this is a Paris Lees quote from an article (London Review of Books 2014). This was quite an honest assessment and pre-dates Lees adding “Adult Human Female” to their twitter bio:

On the topic of homosexual transsexuals I , inevitably, find myself conflicted. I want boys like my son to be protected in all their variant masculinity. I don’t want to enshrine “gender identity” in law and legitimise the sterilising of, likely gay, males. Neither do I want those gay males, who do fail to reconcile to their sex, to be unprotected. What I do know is that “gender identity ” must never take primacy over biological sex, for the sake of women. Enshrining “gender identity” in law would be disastrous for women’s rights. Sex also matters for trans-identified people. It is dangerous to become so immersed in an identity you deny that sex matters for your health care.

I was pleased to see this statement in the book: in my view there are no cirumstances in which minors should be making fertility and health affecting decisions involving blockers, hormones or surgery”. Personally I take a harder line re decisions to embark on medical pathways. Achieving the magical age of majority is not sufficient for me. I know, from personal experience, our teenagers are being handed prescriptions with no counselling and no interrogation of what motivates a flight from their sex. I would ban it for under 25’s which we know is the average age of brain maturity. Whether it would deflect many from this path we can’t foresee. We do know many de-transitioners embarked on surgery, in their early twenties, only to regret it. Persuading legislators of this is likely to be an uphill, near impossible struggle, at this moment in time. Alarm bells should be ringing as the number of detransitioners in increasing daily. Sadly I fear many more broken bodies before this madness gets reined in.

In this chapter the author also attempts to elucidate the position of various schools of thought on Gender Identity. This is no mean feat giving the contradictions inherent in Gender Identity Ideology. This chapter uses the terminology of Trans Idealogues comparing “Cis” people to “trans people” and even using “non-trans”. That will irk some readers. However I see this chapter aimed at an audience (academics? politicians?) who have wholesale adopted the nomenclature of Gender identity Ideologues. The chapter does end with an unequivocal statement warning of the danger in accepting something which is “in danger of looking unverifiable as when Stonewall tells young people “” Someone else can’t tell you what your gender identity is – only you know how you feel””. This is not a sound basis on which to enact legislation, and perhaps using trans-approved language will convince more people?

What makes a woman?

There follows a long chapter interrogating “What makes a Woman” and looking at the definition of Adult Human Female versus Woman as Social Role. I suspect some people view this chapter as capitulation and some as compassionate. I subscribe to Adult Human Female but welcome the recognition that some people have built their lives around the narrative “Trans Women are Women”. These quotes sum up the difficulty, with the demand that the word “woman” is handed over to males in flight from their sex.

Marilyn Frye is quoted on page 152:

“If a woman has little or no economic or political power, or achieves little of what she wants to achieve, a major causal factor is she is a woman. For any woman of any race or economic class being a woman is significantly attached to whatever disadvantages and deprivations she suffers be they great or small” In response to the (much longer) quote Stock argues “Getting rid of the concept WOMAN would mean we couldn’t desribe, explain, predict or manage these distinctively caused phenomena”.

To those who have built their lives around the idea they are really women, Stock has this to say:

“People have built their lives around this narrative. Perhaps it feels as though I’m ripping all that away, and that causes you pain”.

I have seen this pain up close and its not the performative, twitter, transperbole: though that certain exists. It can be raw and very real. I think compassion has a very real place on this topic and it needn’t include abandoning a very clear view about the necessity for sex based rights and a male exclusionary feminism. We don’t need to be inhibited from centring women in our feminism, indeed it is a necessity if women’s rights organisations are to serve women, as a sex class.

Once again, I quote Miranda Yardley (male transsexual): “Refugees from masculinity exist” and add my own caveat “it is not women’s job to run the refugee camps”.

Immersed in a fiction

This chapter begins with some commentary on the passing of the Gender Recognition Act, 2004. This enshrined to idea of a “legal fiction” allowing males, then the majority sex visiting Gender Clinics, to have their birth certificate amended to show their sex as female. Its astonishing to see the quality (or lack thereof) of contributions to the debate on the passage of the bill in the House of Commons. Below is a link to historic archives on Hansard. I find myself in the unusual position, for me, of recommending Norman Tebbit’s contribution which Professor Stocks also references in this chapter.

Hansard Archive on GRA

Stock them goes on to discuss the difference between fiction and reality and quotes both Miranda Yardley and Fione Orlander. I met both Fionne and Miranda on the same night and it was the first time I spoke publicly about my situation. Here Miranda clearly states ” I now disavow use of the word “woman” for myself and other transgender males, preferring to use the term “transsexual” or “transsexual male”. I should also point out that both Miranda and Fionne used male facilities at the meeting.

Stock covers the therapeutic benefit , to the individual, of being immersed in a fictional belief about your place within the sex binary. She also expresses concern about the risk of losing capacity to think rationally about your biological reality. This detachment from reality can be maladaptive and harmful. Moreover what latter day trans activists are increasingly demanding is the coercion of others to overtly participate in this fiction. This can result in the controlling of others around you. I was particularly pleased to see this sentence“Yet it isn’t reasonable to expect the person who gave birth to you, or the person who married you, or your own children to permanently relate to you mentally as of a different sex when they know you are not”

In addition the author sounds the alarm about the corruption of data which occurs when “gender identity” is substituted for sex. A particular danger is to criminalise speech such as “misgendering”. Something, by the way, which is already criminalised in some of the United States.

How did we get here?

This chapter is an excellent overview of how trans-activists have been allowed to lobby government to set the legal agenda whilst politicans were negligent, in seeking contributions from women’s groups. Stonewall figure prominently, as do Mermaids, and The Guardian newspaper does not emerge covered in glory. Jess Bradley of Action for Trans Health is also consulted. Professor Stock refrains from any reference to the sacking of Jess Bradley. He was the first Trans Officer at Manchester University and departed for sharing a bit more his anatomy ,at work, than would be considered decent.

This chapter has an excellent overview of the propaganda deployed to further Transgender Ideology. One of these is the egregious use of suicide statistics, which are based on dubious data. Hate crime statistics also create a false narrative about widespread abuse of this population.

This chapter also looks at the pornified representations of women and those public “transwomen” who draw on these depictions to demonstrate membership of the female “gender”. These performances reify dehumanising representations of what it means to be a woman; another reason why women are not served by any alliance.

The chapter on autogynephilia is where our attitudes diverge. In part this because my empathy goes to the women who find their husbands are autogynephiles. These women are now getting a voice by organising as “trans-widows”. I have read enough of these accounts to see commonalities with men who coercively control their wives. Many of these women found themselves subject to degrading and humiliating treatment. At the extreme end it involved forced participation in sexual acts which validated their husbands alter ego. At the milder end women report having their personal style and friendship groups co-opted by their husbands almost as if they were replicating, or replacing, their wives.

Even, seemingly, benign, behavioural autogynephilia includes males inserting themselves into female spaces, and conversations, to gratify their need to assert their membership of the female group. The wives, or trans widows, then find themselves excluded from the support of women because their erstwhile husbands have colonised their places of refuge.

Kathleen asks why the lack of coverage, on the gender critical side, relating to trans-identified females. This is surely because, whilst it exists, androphilia (sexually fetishising a male identity) is relatively rare? Women tend to focus on “trans-men” as female and are concerned that many would, if left alone, simply be Butch Lesbians. Gay males are latterly, waking up to the encroachment of those females who identify as gay men on their spaces. Defending gay male spaces is surely the job of gay men and they do seem to be, belatedly, joining the debate in growing numbers.

A better activism in future.

Those not immersed in this debate may regard this chapter as even-handed and reaching out to those who have feared to dip their toe in the water. Others may bristle at the criticism of Radical/Gender Critical feminists.

Julia Long came in for some criticism by name. For the record I am an admirer of Julia Long’s uncompromising stance. I think we need straight-talking women who reject the mantle of “Be Kind”. As a (heterosexual) woman who lives with three males I think Lesbian feminists, of a separatist persuasion, have often been the clearest sighted about the threats Gender Identity Ideology poses to women’s rights. I wish I had listened to them sooner. I also find Julia funny, she has Ovaries of steel; and is unafraid to offend in her direct action. She appeals to my Yorkshire bluntness and I admire her, albeit from some ideological distance. She is unashamedly woman-centred and some of the terminology used is reminiscient of attacks used by Men’s rights activists. For me we need the range of activists challenging this ideology and some of the women shifting the overton window won’t be invited to the top table discussions but will have opened the doors for the women who do get a seat.

At the same time Julia warns about using terms, such as “transsexual” and “transwomen”. I no longer use the latter but I do sometimes use the former whilst also sometimes, speaking plainly about “men”. I am inconsistent in my application and I don’t advocate for my, selective, approach as a basis for any women’s movement. It just happens to be a response to my personal circumstances. I choose to use less alienating language for those I love, or like and respect. I therefore do perform “polite fiction” on this issue and live with some cognitive dissonance.

Kathleen also warns about the alienating use of words like “mutilated” when describing the surgical harms to girls; subject to double mastectomies and other surgical procedures. Again those of us with our offspring’s skin in the game, literally, adopt different tactics in this area. I do regard these surgeons as butchers who are mining my son’s body for profit. I am angry about this. At the same time we need to find a welcome back, into the sex class they never left, for detransitioners. I was irritated by blue-tick feminists (not Kathleen) getting the vapours about some graphic images of phallioplasty procedures. Simultaneously nobody wants to exacerbate the regret of those who have found their way out of the gender cult. This is extremely difficult terrain to navigate because we want people to stare directly at the reality and not minimise by using euphemisms like “top surgery”.

The chapter outlines some ways in which these disparate groups might make common cause. I honestly don’t know if the extreme sex denialism, of the Trans lobby, will allow for compromise. Will it allow women the right to define ourselves and exclude males in any settings?

At an individual level, I find some of the more ruminative transsexuals, suprisingly, find meaning in a radical feminist analysis. They see common elements in questioning sex based expectations and are reflective on how they may have followed very diffent paths had they encountered this framework. At the same time I know of transsexuals who found Kathleen’s analysis of their path as an immersion in a fiction meaningful. Invariably these are homosexual transsexuals who are not quite so invested in the need to validate the “woman” they wish to consecrate their lives to….

It is possible therefore that some of the linguistic concessions, in this book, will reach a new audience who would shrink from the plain speaking of a Janice Raymond. It is also a book written from within existing employment in academia and that surely has an impact on which audience it is intended to reach.

One page 272, there is a really useful list of all the areas which need more exploration (data) and research. She devotes three pages to these areas and it is quite shocking to consider the policy decisions taken without this data. Stock argues that their is a “surfeit high theory” in activism and public discussion. This includes Trans Studies. She goes on to say “High theory is abstract, totalising, seductively dramatic in its conclusions and relatively insulated from any directly observable empirical consequences – which ….makes it harder to dislodge”. She then returns to a critique of Judith Butler whose conclusions are “reached through a byzantine set of theoretical manoevres”. I think it fitting that a critique of the High Priestess of Gender Bollox is in the conclusion.

My conclusion. I think this is a very important book. I imagine every single reader will diverge at some points with the book’s stance. We all are in this with varying perspectives and we need to navigate a path to enable disagreements to be voiced from within feminism. I am one of six sisters and only one of them feels able to agree with me. I still love them and hope they will come round. Thanks for writing this book Kathleen. I hope I have done it justice.

paypal.me/STILLTish

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth. Support is always appreciated (I have no income). All my content is open access so if you can’t speak publicly, and want to support those who can, only IF you have spare cash, this helps me keep going.

£10.00

THE APARTHEID OF SEX: Rothblatt

Featured

Who exactly is writing policy for the Ministry of Justice?

This blog is going to focus on what Rothblatt had to say about prisons. Rothblatt has a lot to say about a range of issues; as a late-transitioning transsexual with an interest in Trans Humanism. I will do a series looking at Rothblatt’s ideas across a range of topics impacting women. Women are a SEX CLASS not an “identity” for men to claim whether it is done as an act of dominance or as a refuge. We can support males who reject their masculinity but no ally would claim to be the same as a woman; especially now the damage, to women, of Gender Identity Ideology, has become apparent.

Martine lays out his vision in his manifesto for a new “sexual revolution”. I find that an interesting choice of title because, from my vantage point, this is the perfect description. This a Men’s Sexual Rights movement masquerading as the civil rights issue of our time.

A261B8D5-E068-4276-A6F6-CB58DF8E93C4

In this book he argues that the categories of male and female lead to a sort of apartheid, which is how he categorises sex segregated spaces. Martine argues that this proposals have emerged from feminist thinking. When a man like Rothblatt starts, approvingly, quoting feminism, he is either going distort it beyond recognition, or he is quoting Dick pandering, Doormat Feminism.

I did a long thread, over on twitter, about Martine Rothblatt which you can find here:

@STILLTish Apartheid of Sex

A modest proposal for the Prison System.

What does this Martine’s vision have in store for women in prison? Martine argues that the justifications for sex segregated prisons are postulated on the basis of women’s “frailty”. He argues that these claims are suspect.

B6FBD5DF-E896-44C9-B526-23FB2AE1167F

Before I continue here are some facts about the U.K Prison estate. These were published in 2020 and represent the data as of November 2019. Please be aware that, stark as the sex differences are, some of these offenders are males allowed to blame their crimes on women. Despite this, state-sanctioned, gaslighting, the male-inclusive, category of women is still a tiny proportion of the prison population. Women are less likely to be imprisoned for crimes against the person and only 2% are recorded as imprisoned for sex offending. Note that some of those “female” crimes are actually committed by males. Thanks to a recent court case we now know that there is an over-representation of male “women” incarcerated for sex offences. With such small numbers even one male added to this category of criminal offences can make a huge difference. Hence we have an entire programme on the BBC expressing horror at an 84% rise in female paedophiles. Are they female? Really? Shamefully the BBC chose not to question the data, Fairplay For Women did, see link below.

Female paedophiles rise by 84%?

He goes on to argue for his own solution to prison accommodation in a novel version of carceral feminism. Unbelievably he argues sex segregated, prisons have done nothing to stop rape in prisons. What he fails to mention is he is talking about male on male rape! (See below). Of course the Prison Industrial Complex, especially after the introduction of the profit motive, keeps costs low by providing low staff to prisoner ratios. I don’t disagree that the prison system fails to protect vulnerable, male, prisoners in the male estate. Prison reform campaigners have long argued single occupancy cells would reduce the numbers of men raped and murdered. Yet the solution selected has been to place, actual, and so called, “vulnerable” males, claiming a female identity, in the women’s estate. This has resulted in male sex offenders being housed with women, illustrating the naivete, or worse, nefariousness, of the architects of the policy. A system which denies women’s need for sex segregation and prioritises the needs of males, is a blatant example of institutional sexism.

1526B04F-FD9C-48C3-87ED-62485F1B42CB

Even worse is that final sentence. Men are to be allowed to mix with women because it may help with their rehabilitation. This is woman, as support human, territory.

FARMER V BRENNAN

Here Martine quotes a court case from 1994 where a be-penised inmate, who Rothblatt calls “her”, sued the government to be moved out of the prison where he was held. Ruth Bader Ginsberg was also involved in that case, but didn’t act for the prisoner.

CBD0ED8E-C3FD-4B24-82DD-08861E2AA17C

I took a little detour to look at the Farmer case. Dee Farmer had a twenty year sentence for credit card fraud. They appear to have been moved to a higher security prison following further offences in the prison estate. They were a pre-operative “transsexual” in terms of being penis-intact. They had been transferred to the higher security prison because of a continued pattern of criminal offences. (No violent ones were reported or sex offences against women).

62C67A74-443C-4AE7-814C-0EFC2307D1F2

Dee was moved to administrative (segregated) detention due to engaging in consensual sex, whilst HIV positive. Farmer was seeking a move to a lower security prison with less violent offenders. Ruth Bader-Ginsburg drew attention to other groups of vulnerable male offenders in the oral arguments. In my darkest (or more realistic?) moments I think the madness may end when other (Gay?) males claim discrimination because they are being treated less favourably. Maybe men will be listened to and effect some change? Policy makers and politicians are clearly comfortable with ignoring the negative impact on women.

They were not asking to be moved to the female estate having dropped an earlier petition as detailed below. Undoubtedly, were this case to be brought today, the claimant would have targetted a move to the female estate.

4D05614D-D910-4620-8156-1193DCC5F6A9

BACK TO ROTHBLATT.

Now we come to some of the practicalities of this new utopia. Here Martine has to deal with the fact that women exist, as a sex class, and the fact it is the female people who get pregnant. How does he propose to get around this? We will forcibly implant contraceptives in the women and suppress sperm production in the men. The risk of pregnancy, he argues, can be remedied by a pharmaceutical solution which he is quite happy to be “mandatory”.

82E97D85-B6D9-47E4-A057-C1E4FA77F689

Here he avoids the use of woman but reduces the inmates to their “genitalia”. The use of “accidental pregnancy” also avoids having to confront whether these pregnancies would be the result of rapes; a distinct possibility when female prisoners are forcibly confined with men. Nowhere does he address the fact that 98% of prison convictions for sexual offences are committed by the male sex or the fact the female population will be vastly outnumbered by the men.

6EBAA27B-2A03-4D94-B342-A24300975F07

In summary, Martine constructs an argument which ignores the significance of biological sex in determining likely predators and prey. He leverages the clear vulnerabilities of a pre-op transsexuals. He conveniently ignores likely vulnerability of other young males; who may be gay and also deviate from accepted performances of masculinity. Worst of all he is prepared to expose women to serious risk because he cannot bear any division between his imaginary female identity and actual women. This is the misogyny peculiar to autogynephiles.

He then proposes the barbaric, and likely illegal, mandatory contraception for women. He shows little concern this is necessitated by the higher risk of rape. As an aside he claims that mixing the sexes may encourage lower rates of recidivism, a spurious claim given that you are providing sex offenders with captive prey. These men are not known for their restraint.

This book is from 1994. Had I encountered it at the time I would have dismissed this as merely the work of a deranged mind. Never could I have imagined it as a blueprint for the future. In 2021 it is eerily reminiscient of official Ministry of Justice policy and that should enrage us all.

Foster Care: Trans Guidance

Featured

Part 4 of my series on the over-representation of Looked After Children and Gender Identity Issues.

 LOOKING AFTER TRANS YOUTH IN CARE

This post will look at some guidance provided for professionals working with children in Foster Care.

You can read the full document here:

Trans+Youth+in+Care+-+A+Guide+For+Social+Care+Professionals

The kit is aimed at Social Care Professionals. It is produced by an organisation called Three Circles Foster Care who are a private limited company. They are involved in the delivery of foster care services across the North West and in Yorkshire. They offer a range of services which include respite care, long and short term placements, pre-adoption placements and a service for unaccompanied minors.

They also offer services from a partner organisation, The National Teaching & Advisory Service which has a common director and offers courses for Foster Carers and Social Workers amongst others.

Here is a link to their website: https://www.threecirclesfostering.com/

The guidance was produced in collaboration with the LGBT Foundation and advice was taken from Trans Activist and NHS employee, Tara Hewitt following a consultaion with The Proud Trust. For those of you unfamiliar with Tara below they are boasting, to Trans Lobby group, Mermaids, about safeguard referring children if the parents are deemed to be unsupportive of a “trans-identity”. The second clip is a newspaper article at the time that Tara was on the candidate list for the Conservative party. Tara has been quite open about their niche sexual interests: BDSM, Bondage, sado-masochism and pet play, which I believe is known as “Furry” fetish. Can’t think of a better person to be advising on an issue that comes under child safeguarding.

As well as The Proud Trust the acknowledgements also thank Susie Green, from Mermaids.

As you can see from the clip below the guidance is deeply wedded to Gender Identity Ideology. Gender, we are told, is assigned, it includes transgender, non-binary, no gender, gender questioning…but this is not an exhaustive list. As an aside, I notice that even groups entrenched in Transgender belief systems cannot keep up with the ever expanding “identities” under the Transgenda Umbrella. There is a nervous tone to the disclaimers that other identities exist.

BF5343FB-0828-4F84-8402-48266DEA90A0

Children in care /Looked after children are wards of the state for multiple reasons. These children are likely to be among the most vulnerable in our society. It is likely those without a background of trauma/abuse are in a tiny minority. I would go so far as to say that any child, no longer with their birth family, has some issues of “identity” to reckon with because of their background.

The director is Jacob Sibley. In his biography it is noted that he has links to the LGBT Foundation, who, in turn are partnered with the new Gender Identity Clinic (Indigo). The Indigo Clinic was set up in Manchester to provide an affirmative pathway for trans-identified folks. Indigo Clinic provide care for those 17 years and above; though its website says this is an initial client group which implies they wish to expand their services. I presume this means they wish to provide access to younger age groups. I will return to Indigo Clinic in a future post.

75E5912E-BD2F-44F2-BE2B-37194E03EFCF

Three Circles also partner with charities and help support them. Here is one of those Charities. The Proud Trust.

B9C37279-F987-4727-A0E6-9570AA11533B

You may have heard of The Proud Trust. They got into some public relations trouble through their controversion sex education. (You can do a search on “the dice game” + The Proud Trust should you wish to be exposed to this). This charity took money earmarked for women and girls yet seem entirely devoted to promoting gender ideology. I can highly recommend this post on The Proud Trust. https://www.transgendertrend.com/proud-trust-nothing-proud/

Educate Yourself!

The guidance for professionals dealing with “trans” youth has strong totalitarian overtones. Professionals are directed to educate themselves in Gender Identity Ideology and also propagate these beliefs. They make it clear that their aim is much broader than reaching professionals working with youth in care.

They also produce a leaflet which is even more direct about its “mission”. Full copy below:

Trans+youth+in+foster+care

Here is a quote:

CFEE8210-7367-47F1-AB18-87795CCDCA79

They have an ambitious aim of “educating the masses”. Why does an organisation for foster children appear to have an agenda to socially engineer society? Below are a couple of quotes which are explicitly propagandising a belief system. I would not approve of the religious indoctrination of vulnerable kids and this, I argue, is a much more sinister (and de-stablising” ) ideology to be proselytising.

I can’t think of anything more de-humanising than the adoption of “it” for a pronoun. Indeed in the age of the misery memoir there was a popular one of the genre called “A child called “It” which detailed the abuse of a young boy whose mother labelled him “it”. I would be seriously concerned if any child insisted on “it” as a pronoun. It cannot possibly reflect good self-esteem.

At some point we have to examine the possiblity, rather than child-centred care, what we are witnessing a marketing campaign to embed an ideology.

650BDDAB-7716-4B8D-BB88-445771B78A56

Kids in care are also being handed a powerful weopen to challenge the staff/foster parents charged with their care. More than once children are urged to contact the organisation if foster parents, social workers or Doctors show any resistance to their demands. They provide a phone number so that the child can call their organisation direct if the Foster Carer’s fail to accept their “gender identity”.

Starkly they advise the child that the Foster parents are wrong and the child is given a phone number so the organisation can “put it right”. I can only imagine how intoxicating this power would be to a child, who may have felt pushed from pillar to post /disempowered by becoming a ward of state. The guidance unequivocally assumes these vulnerable children are able to make “adult” decisions about their “identity”. They also ensure foster carer knows they are under scrutiny by the organisation, their source of income, which is bound to create a chilling effect.

In another quote the guidance seeks to conjure up the spectre of a police force at your door for using the wrong name, or even “mis-pronouncing” it! Use of a child’s previous name is referred to as “deadnaming” . I have seen similiar statements in school guidance. Sadly, as orwellian as this sounds, you can indeed be reported for a hate crime on similar spurious grounds. The offence is defined by the “victim” so if they say its a hate crime it has to be recorded as such.

F59C08E6-02ED-4EB1-BD80-A36830CFF9A7

In addition the guidance makes it clear that recruitment strategy should also seek to screen for “transphobic” foster carers and make sure prospective employees are on board with transgender ideology.

2C336AAD-21FB-4543-B982-56AF55CE5023

I also want to highlight the pro-medicalisation stance, for kids, in this guidance.  They make it clear that Foster Carers should facilitate access to trans groups for their charges. They provide information on how to make referrals to Gender Identity Clinics.  They also link to shops to buy “equipment” for kids to enable them to perform their gender identity.  Equipment such as breast binders, prosthetics (breasts and penises) and a link to a shop where they can be purchased.  Gendered Intelligence are another trans lobby group. 

The guidance also includes a graph documenting referrals to GIDS over the preceding years.  If this does not make people sit up and notice I despair.  Look at the growth.  We are referring kids as young as 3! This is not unconnected to the fact that we have let this propaganda be disemminated across our education, medical sectors, all amplified by a media which seems obsessed by “transgender tipping points”.. 

B46E1CD1-2F37-405B-AA3D-763F5E07B557

No guide would be complete without propaganda around the life of a trans person. Selling your wares via victimology is a strategic move when advocating for social justice issues.  It cannot help the mental health of young people who have been persuaded their issues will be resolved by “transition”.  Below is a list of the fearmongering claims from lobby groups.  Treat all of this with the scepticism they deserve.  Most of them are self-reported incidents and via a self-selected group of transgender people. The use of  suicide is a particularly egregious tactic I have debunked one set of data in an earlier piece: Suicide in the Trans Community

Here is a quote from a young person used in the booklet.  The silence of the Samaritans is less suprising when you know they have been trained by GIRES (Trans lobby group). Their current CEO came from Girl Guiding and was in post when they agreed that self-identifed “women” could access shared spaces with female children.  I have also been sent confirmation about some of the activists delivering training to Samaritans.  That is for another blog. 

2881047B-F90C-43AE-AE4B-F4D3E857B471

I find so much that is alarming in both the leaflet and the full document I could add many more clips to this piece.  I would recommend you download it and would be pleased to see twitter users doing their own threads highlighting other disturbing aspects of this guidance.  

I have had phone calls from Social Workers and Teachers concerned about this topic. I am also hearing from Canadian women that they fear this is disproportionately impacting on indigenous communities. I have no doubt I will be returning to this issue in future work. 

Any support is gratefully received.  Much of it gets recycled into funding legal cases, organisations helping expose the propaganda in respect of Transgender Identity Ideology.

Gender Dysphoria: Looked after Children. Part 3. U.K. GIDS

Featured

This post is based on a 2019 paper which looks at referrals to the U.K. Gender Clinic, GIDS, based at the Tavistock. The focus is on Adopted & Looked After Children (LACs). The full paper is included below. You can also access it via the link below:

Gender Dysphoria in LAC kids

Gender Dysphoria in looked-after and adopted young people in a gender identity development service – Tom Matthews, Victoria Holt, Senem Sahin, Amelia Taylor, David Griksaitis, 2019

Data Source:

The paper is from 2019 but uses data covering Tavistock patients during 2009 to 2011. It is unclear why the data doesn’t extend beyond this date. It may be significant that the data was extracted from clinical notes and, possibly, the researchers were required to harvest it manually. There appears to be a paucity of data collection, within GIDs, on the vulnerable groups referred to their service. Lack of ready access to data is frequently used as a reason to justify lack of compliance with Freedom of Information Requests. The law allows an organisation to deny an FOI if there is deemed to be an excessive amount of hours required to extract the data. GIDs have used this exemption multiple times on their FOI log. If you are familiar with the Keira Bell case you will recall the Judges who expressed surprise multiple times that data was not readily available.

If you are not familiar with the Keira Bell case I cover it below:

Kiera Bell: Judicial Review

Vulnerable Children & GIDS. 

The researchers note the high rate of GIDS referrals from Looked after (LAC) and adopted children. They note that LACs make up 0.58% of the general population but 4.9% of GIDs referrals. Adopted children account for another 3.8% of referrals.  The data, therefore, illustrates a significant over-representation of these groups in the GIDs patient population. 

DD068344-6F1A-43EE-A0EC-D35EDDAF88E1

It is worth noting that children living with grandparents are counted in the category of children living with their biological family (YPBF). In my experience every child I know, who is living with grandparents, has some trauma in their background, often related to bereavement or alcohol/drug dependent parents. I would have preferred to see disaggregated data on this group of children. The children from disrupted family backgrounds are therefore under-estimated in the population defined by the researchers.

Below is a clip from the David Taylor report which raised concerns about GIDs back in 2005. The David Taylor report was eventually released 15 years later folllowing an information request. The GIDS service, at the Tavistock, resisted publication and they only capitulated when they lost an appeal to the Freedom of Information Commissioner. David Taylor also noted the GIDs referrals from vulnerable children with troubled backgrounds. Child abuse, multiple caregivers or otherwise deprived or injurious upbringings are more likely to present with Gender Identity Issues. This is not new information. (I have a copy of the Taylor report and intend to do a piece on it, shortly)

C6BDAA0E-E8C3-4424-A04A-701C17119C63

Adolescence is a time of profound identity exploration. This can be a difficult time even for adolescents within a stable family context. What Gender Identity Ideologues demand is that we affirm a “gender identity”, in children/teenagers as if it were a concrete, stable identity. They further argue that this represents an “authentic” self which nevertheless needs the administration of life altering medications/surgeries. At the same time we are told to bear the concept of “gender fluidity” in mind which instructs us to recognise that gender identity is subject to change.

0AFC8863-FEEB-4EE8-8AF1-0B416F1728C2

Gender fluidity allows the ideology to account for the emergence of middle aged males who claim a female Gender Identity at a late stage. Many of these men are heterosexual fathers and often emerge from male dominated professions. There seems to be a preponderance of,ex-army, late transitioners which is an interesting phenomenon. Blanchard’s theory of autogynephilia seems to best describe these males. A midlife crisis, where Barry becomes Belinda, is a phenomenon with little in common with “transgender children“. However gender dysphoric children distract from the sexual motivations of adult males, validate their inner woman and serve as the equivalent of “beards” for AGP males.

I know! Sometimes I wish I did not know any of this stuff too.

6F64473F-F185-453B-A554-74F9F7912CDD

Homosexuality

Another glaring omission from this data is the absence of any figures on how many are proto-gay kids. Coyly the researchers avoid the word “homosexual” and, instead talk about diverse sexual identities.

3154478E-1204-4557-B110-679DEE655B69

Co-morbidity in referrals to GIDS.

Another feature of children referred to Gender Identity Services is a higher than expected rate of autistic children. Children who had experienced bullying and were self-harming are also noted. Data from Finland shows extremely high rates of co-morbid psychiatric conditions. A whopping 68% were found to have had prior engagement with psychiatric services for reasons other then their Gender Dysphoria.

The research also looks at rates of referral to endocrinologists between the different groups. The Looked after group, who obtained a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria, had the highest rates. At the same time they had the lowest rates of meeting the threshold for a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria.

51798AA5-7E1D-48DD-8FAE-72BDA73E4EF9

Parents of adopted children show the greatest reluctance to embark on medications and are described as exhibiting nervousness about how they would be perceived. The report authors’ perspective is that a lack of parental advocacy, for LAC/Adopted children is impeding treatment for Gender Dysphoria, for children not residing with their biological family.

F807952F-A6B4-4D6A-9F76-D1B31D13C9C9

Their preferred solution is to improve access to diagnosis/treatment by accelerating pre-treatment counselling. It is recommended that more frequent appointments may be necessary to ensure that LAC children are not disadvantaged. I share the concern about the lack of parental advocacy but from a diametrically opposed viewpoint. Parents have a key role in protecting their children from irreversible medical decisions they may come to regret. In Canada a father has recently been imprisoned after refusing to remain silent about the fact his teenage daughter has been put on testosterone and is on a path to double mastectomy. (I will cover that case in a later blog)

F7BA58D0-1239-44F7-9699-5C7F3B1F3DAF

The GIDS based research illustrates a huge over-representation from children already identified as a vulnerable group. It is notable that the data in this paper is from 2009-11 and before the huge surge in referrals we have seen in recent years. Research in Finland produced an even higher figure (13%) for referrals in this group.

8C32AFB7-AFE5-4387-8E67-E742F04F637F

After I published my first piece I was sent a link to the Irish article, posted below, which raised similar issues re the profile of children referred to Gender Identity Services.

Irish Referrals for Gender Dysphoria

95345E6B-230E-46A1-A1EC-C5B2AB7C34BD

Transgender Equality Inquiry 

The issue of looked after children has appeared in submissions to the Parliament’s Transgender Equality Inquiry.  Susie Green, of the controversial charity Mermaids, issued a typically hyperbolic statement: 

6525B421-DBC5-4F62-AA98-3E731F1E374D

Bernadette Wren, of the Tavistock, issued a more moderate statement but implies that Looked After Children may not find their way to GIDs services and that Social Workers need to be confident in making sure they know what these children are entitled to…

3622B056-D771-499B-8F8F-8961E813E96F

Its time we started looking more critically about the idea of an innate gender identity and why this belief system has gained so much traction in (very)recent history. Children in care/ adopted children are among the most vulnerable in our society. There is little doubt in my mind that we are witnessing social engineering and the unintended (?) consequence is negatively impacting vulnerable children/teens. Foster children and those adopted are another group that needs safeguarding.

Once again we are seeing of issues of vulnerability in the children/teenagers harvested by Gender Identity Ideology.

Any donations welcome. Please don’t do so unless you can afford. I do this full-time and it enables me to pay for software, books and to recycle any monies to relevant causes.

TRANS MURDER MONITORING

Featured

I have done numerous tweets and threads to unpick the propaganda about the murder rates of Trans People. Here is a post to counter the narrative that trans people are an extremely vulnerable demographic. This argument is an inversion of the truth designed to posit women as “cis-privileged” whilst casting aside safeguarding, for women and girls. This also serves to deny the extent of male violence against women by artificially inflating statistics, of female crimes, by including those committed by trans-identified males.

The source I am using for this data is a site run by Transgender Europe. This is a Trans advocacy site which has received nearly 1 million dollars from the Arcus Foundation; an organisation I cover in my previous blog. 👇. This is the grant given specifically for mapping “transgender murder rates”.

1DC6F787-966A-48BD-8D2F-A430EBAE7B31

Here is my blog on the Arcus Foundation which documents their grant making. 

ARCUS FOUNDATION

Based on the U.K. data there were 11 unlawfully killed trans people. All were all trans-identified males, all killed by males, though one identified as a transwoman. In common with the general pattern of violent crime this data reflects the fact that homicide is, overwhelmingly, an expression of criminality associated with the male, not the female, sex.

You can access the trans-murder monitoring site here: https://transrespect.org/en/trans-murder-monitoring/

Here is their map of the extent of this type of crime in the U.K.

15DFD87A-8816-4229-BAD1-B6F8E255E414

There’s some confusion about the figure of 11. It appears to, erroneously, include two individuals, for 2008, Here an organisation, transcrimeuk.com casts doubt on their inclusion in these statistics.

http://transcrimeuk.com/

Here’s what they had to say:

A0691A9A-EB81-40B0-AD63-F0B8CD4C4576

Based on this clarification it would appear that this list, which is available on Karen Ingala Smith’s website, is the correct data: https://kareningalasmith.com/2021/04/21/counting-dead-trans-people/

As you can see the situation is a little bit more complicated than just “transphobia” 👇

Which takes me to the real issue that trans activists seem unable to honestly reflect upon. Globally a staggering 62% of those murders take place in the context of prostitution. Maybe exit strategies and drug rehabilitation would save more of those lives?

8A39FF9E-B1BC-4369-9A87-CCDB084B3C96

Instead there seems to be a constant refrain of #SexWorkIsWork alongside the insistent refrain of #TransWomenAreWomen. The link between endorsing prostitution as liberating or empowering needs to be broken if we are not to expose this community to needless risk. Here is Janet Mock on their time working in prostitution.

2D1D224B-0341-4159-80FC-036B6E14EB96

There is a fundamental incompatibility with women’s, sex based rights, when someone, who wishes to be considered a woman and a feminist, explicitly endorses the objectifying, male gaze. For Mock this validates their “womanhood”. Many women are sick and tired of fighting against being objectified and reject male-identified feminism as a mockery of the real thing!

The other side of the coin to this debate is the idea that males, who identify as women, don’t have the same pattern of male violence as other males. The statistics would appear to contradict this. Notwithstanding the fact that, in the U.K, male crimes are now being reported, and recorded, as if they were committed by women we know that up to 2016 there were 12 murders committed by trans-identified males. Again I am indebted to transcrimeuk.com for this list.

D1AE135B-C1AE-428A-A904-5D35DFC0C0FE

Facts matter. Next time we see the near ubiquitous outpouring of (performative) grief from organisations, seeking to rainbow wash their brands, bear this in mind. There are more murders committed by this demographic than victims. Remind them also that women are subject to an epidemic of male violence and remember the excellent work of Karen Ingala Smith and Counting Dead Women at femicide census below.

Femicide census

If you want to support my work you can do so here.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth. Support is always appreciated (I have no income) but I would be equally happy if you contributed to a relevant legal case, a crowdfunder for Lesbian and Gay News or Safe Schools Alliance

£10.00

Looked After Children & Gender Dysphoria. 2

Featured

Wallace Wong 

Wallace Wong is a Gender Identity Specialist based in Vancouver. He boasts that, of the 1000 children in his care, 500 are children from the looked after system. That is children who are, in some way, wards of the state. Wallace Wong works for the Ministry of Children and Families and also has a private practice.

8A0F31F7-F5D8-4974-A974-45088D1473CD

He arrived at his current career path after noticing how many “transwomen” were impacted by the HIV/AIDs crisis. He initially began working with adults but soon noticed that the age of those with “Gender Identity” confusion was becoming increasingly younger.

196D72AB-3656-4B63-8AB8-262631EC3E56

You can listen to the full audio at this site. I imagine that many of you may diverge from their larger aims (as do I) however, given the dearth of coverage in other media outlets I will link to their research. This is the only way to honour my commitment to provide primary sources, where possible. The link is below.

Wallace Wong

The clips in my piece were included in the vimeo embedded in the above link. I have listened to it, in its entirety, and can attest to the accuracy of the transcribing. It is a long presentation and I can’t do justice to all of the issues it raises but below is a brief overview.

Wong argues that we must not confuse gender incongruence/roles with being Transgender but most of the examples supplied are of boys who like “girly” things. Expect lots of references to princesses and pretty things. He dismisses research showing high rates of desistance in children who, historically, claimed a trans-identity. He argues that “gender” is innate and quotes some research about hard-wired neurological causes based on MRI scans proving #LadyBrain. He also quotes some self-reported adherence to sex stereotypical behaviour, typically associated with the opposite sex. I suspect Wallace has not heard of the, Shakespearean, quote “the wish was father to the thought” (Henry IV, Part II). We are treathing retrospective wish fulfilment as if it is peer reviewed evidence. Laverne Cox & Caitlin Jenner are wheeled out to confirm the idea that children know they are trans age three. Caitlin, you may remember managed to father five children and win Olympic medals during his male life. Laughably, at one point a video commentator appears to think the existence of Facebook “genders” has some sort of evidential significance.

He is also at pains to dismiss any concern that confusion could arise between emerging homosexuality and a proto transkid. Similarly he argues that high rates of autism can be expected because both autistic traits and transgender traits are biologically determined. High rates of co-morbid mental health issues are to be expected, he argues, because being transgender is hard.

EAF47212-6FA9-472E-86BF-7833D83D2D9D

Below Dr Wallace seems keen that we should know he is seeing patients as young as 3. He also makes it clear about the fast pace of this change and the fact that research has not kept pace with this development.

56612443-A99D-4A93-9A99-17C877E40AD4

Below is where Wong makes the startling admission that 50% (500 out of his 1000 referrals) are from the Ministry of Children and families. This means they are somewhere in the care system and commonly referred to as “Looked After Children”. Dr Wallace doesn’t appear to have much professional curiosity about the exponential growth in “transkids” over this period.

Jenn Smith (also based in Vancouver) is a male who expresses “feminine” and ascribes this to his experience within the care system. Jenn argues that children in care are particularly vulnerable to “identity” issues which also extend to “gender identity”. It was Jenn Smith who first made me consider this aspect of the debate.

You can catch up with Jenn Smith on his YouTube channel and here Jenn Talks specifically about this issue here:

Jenn Smith: Foster Kids

Listening to Jenn Smith talk it is hard not to be concerned about an estimated figure of one in ten LAC (Looked After Children) identifing as transgender. This is contrasted with an estimated figure of one in 200 of children residing with their birth families. Another disturbing dimension is whether the indigenous children, over-represented in LAC settings, are also being medicalised as “transgender”. This has dangerous echoes of the scandal of sterilisation of indigenous peoples which is a stain on Canada’s history. If they are included in this population, of transkids, that is a damning indictment of those tasked with the welfare of children in British Columbia.

Wong does identify the dangers of social contagion in his presentation. I suspect this is now such an obvious phenomenon he feels obliged to address it. He prefaces the quotes below with some arguments that the internet has allowed “trans children” to develop an awareness of their identity and find acceptance, and knowledge, in on-line communities. Below, he at least acknowledges the dangers of kids, particularly those “on the spectrum” (referring to Autism I assume) to be swept along with trans-ideation.

Astonishingly he acknowledges that 20% of Transgender kids are autistic but this is simply dismissed because autistic kids and transgender kids are “born this way“. This is not an uncommon feature of arguments from Gender Identity proponents. Once you embrace the belief of an innate gender identity you can find evidence everywhere and fit facts to confirm your hypothesis. Conversely if, like me, you are a sceptic the ideology has more holes than a string vest.

He introduces videos throughout his presentation and one is a parent whose child came out to them at three years of age. I have not included the parent’s quote but suffice to say, like a lot of these tales, it is a boy who likes pink and sparkly things. We are told that her original therapist counselled a watch and wait approach and quoted an 80% figure for expectations of desistance. The same presentation proceeds to rubbish a study based in the Netherlands which supported this observation.

B7813443-69F4-4082-898F-6063A62BD24A

What the audience are not told is that there was only one Gender Identity clinic in the Netherlands so the researchers made the, entirely reasonable, assumption that loss to follow up could reasonably be correlated with desistance. The alternative was that the child had been taken abroad, and paid for treatment, rather than access the free treatment within the Netherlands.

Wong also rubbishes another study which found that most of the boys grew up to be gay. The unfortunately named “Sissy boys” were identified for their Gender non-conforming presentation. Here Wong argues that the study was flawed because they did not use boys who said they were actually girls. It does not seem to have occured to Wong that it was the 1970’s. Identifying as the other sex was not a social norm at the time. It is the near ubiquity of teaching about Gender Identity in our schools (especially in Canada) that has left a generation thinking you can choose your sex.

14CB146C-7A19-4130-BF3C-E0F184BD0AC0

Wong then utters this statement which shows he is utterly disregarding any research that suggests he may be making an egregious error. To much laughter he dismisses any caution with this facile statement. Apparently, if the 80% is correct he is lucky enough to be seeing the 20% who would persist. Crassly he also argues that some of those kids may not appear in the figures because they will have committed suicide. As I have said, many times, there is just no evidence for this epidemic of transgender suicides in adolescents. Wong may feel blessed and lucky but it was bad luck for any child who walked into his office.

548C0860-FB80-46C3-BD84-5545B3968623

All of which takes me to the more egregious aspect of the advice Wong is dishing out. The question of how to overcome barriers to access to Gender Identity treatment was raised. Wong requests that this part of his presentation is not taped and then, after a side swipe at the gate-keeping goverment, he advises: “Pull a stunt. Suicide, every time, they will give you what you need

 This series is looking at the vulnerability of Children in Care; who have no parents to speak up for them.  Not all the parents in Vancover are absent.  It was also Vancouver who imprisoned a father who opposed the provision of testosterone for his  teenage daughter and refused to remain silent. It would be interesting to see who was the Gender Identity Specialist involved in that case.  Is there a connection? 

3823F6FB-DF96-4754-BE83-CD65D0CA436F

I could not say but I certainly want to do a series on parents caught up in this nightmare.

If you can support my work it will be appreciated.  Below is one way to do so until we get more media outlets willing to cover the issues I cover on my blog.  Only if it is affordable and regardless my content will remain free. 

My next piece will be on the percentage of kids in care referred to GIDs, in the U.K. Are the researchers concerned that these, vulnerable, kids have no parents to question the medical interventions proposed? Or. Are they worried children in care are not being treated fast enough? Watch this space. 

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth. Support is always appreciated (I have no income) but I would be equally happy if you contributed to a relevant legal case, a crowdfunder for Lesbian and Gay News or Safe Schools Alliance

£10.00

Looked After Children & Gender Dysphoria 1

Featured

The first alarm bells rung for me when this court case was heard. Lancashire County Council tried to withdraw the case but the foster parents involved insisted it went ahead. The parents argued a public airing was the only way to to remove any slur on their reputation. I am grateful for their stance because it has allowed us to see the arguments played out in public.

Here is a link to the source for the legal judgement and a PDF copy.

Foster Parents and GIDS

Lancashire County Council v TP & Ors(Permission to Withdraw Care Proceedings) [2019] EWFC 30 (09 May 2019)

It’s a complex judgement involving multiple interested parties; hence the number of legal representatives. The concerns centre on two of the children, one biological and one fostered, though wider issues were raised about the other 3 foster children in the family. The case raises concerns in respect of medical diagnoses, hospital visits and the role of the parents. I will, however, only focus on the issue of Gender Dysphoria. The extract below gives a flavour of the concerns raised:

8FCE30E7-F136-4684-85A9-B10D5FD76AA1

Notwithstanding the judgement, which found in the parents favour, some witnesses expressed concern about the precipitate nature of the social transition of the two male children. Identified only as H & R, one is a biological child and another a foster child. So, they  not biologically related. Already, by age 7, R is socially transitioned and has had a formal name change. H was socially transitioned at age 4.  The parents are confident  this is a permanent state of affairs. 👇

4ACDA706-2824-40F5-8B74-49988BCF6CA3

Furthermore, the court case reveals, the couple had an earlier foster placement who also had “Gender Identity” issues. The case notes that a number of the foster children had development or health issues. In the interests of balance it is important to remember these children had been removed from parental homes and suffered neglect / abuse prior to their arrival in this family setting.

371AFD76-69A4-4C19-A847-8EAB637C26DD

One of the concerns was raised by an anonymous party who is described as a member of the extended family. The Local Authority received this referral which expressed concern about three members of the same family, presenting with Gender Dysphoria. Only two of the children remain in the care of this family and it is not clear whether the previous child had been treated, medically or otherwise, for their gender Identity issues.

895A8014-D3DA-4573-A1CD-427389E76899

It is also noted that contact had been made with the Tavistock (the U.Ks main Gender Identity Development Service) who had, in turn, referred them to Mermaids for additional support. Below are details of another case which sheds further light on the role of the judiciary in these complex cases.

The case of J (A Minor)

Mermaids is a UK charity who campaign on the issue of “transkids” and provide networking /support for parents and their children. It is worth noting that Mermaids also appeared in an earlier judgement, which they hotly contested. There were a number of similiarity in that case and the Judge, in that case made a series of criticisms about the parent, the Local Authority and the social workers involved in the case. In that case the mother lost custody of her male child. I include a transcript and some excerpts from that case below.

J (A Minor), Re [2016] EWHC 2430 (Fam) (21 October 2016)

Here is a sample of the judges criticisms in that case.  These concerns were not negligible.  Failure in safeguarding, naivety and professional arrogance. 👇 Damning! 

Below is an ipso ruling over a complaint, from Mermaids, about press coverage of the above case. This is also worth reading.

Mermaids v The Times

The Times made a number of points and one of them was based on a facebook post made by Mermaids. In the post they expressed outrage the judge was alleged to have ordered the parents to cease engagement with the charity. Below are two excerpts from the Ipso ruling. Not the clean bill of health they may have been hoping for…😳

Back to the Lancashire case. 

The court heard from a previous report, echoing that of Lisa North, who described the parents (CP & TP) as “highly manipulative people” and expressed concern that the Gender Identity issues were the result of the parent’s behaviour and part of a pattern of seeking medical diagnoses.

0910CD04-CAD1-4ACE-9DBD-41FC364B6F64

Ms Sayer, quoted below assigns more benign motivations to CP’s attitude to the Gender Dysphoria diagnosis. Nevertheless she expresses concern about how they could revert to their “assigned gender” after being socially transitioned.

611DDDB9-0640-4CCF-A619-28A8D58C00A8

The court next heard from an expert in the field of Gender Dysphoria. Dr Pasterski is one of a handful of experts who appear regularly in these court cases. One of the difficulties for the judicial system is a reliance on people who work in this field and, by definition, believe that Gender Identity is innate.

Dr Pasterski is familiar to me as she made an appearance in an earlier court case. This case was of a thrice married man, with seven children, and a conviction for obtaining explosives with intent to endanger life, who nevertheless manages to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate. (Remember this case when people argue how difficult it is to get legal recognition. In this case a single judge overturned the decision of the Gender Recognition Panel)

You can read about that case here: 👇

Ms Jay

Here is an excerpt, from the judicial transcript in the Ms Jay case, in which the Gender Recognition Panel cast doubt on the reliability of Dr Pasterski’s evidence. 

CA73B1A2-A7FA-4D86-9F56-88F17EC3D4F0

Dr Pasterski is introduced, in the Lancashire case, with an emphasis on her 23 years of experience as a chartered psychologist and a gender identity specialist. I imagine the judge placed great weight on her testimony.  Here Dr Pasterski rubbishes well established data on the number of children who desist from a trans-identity.  She does this  using the argument that anyone who desists from a trans identity was wrongly diagnosed. De-transitioners commonly face this argument.  Despite having an actual diagnosis of “Gender Dysphoria”, from the Tavistock, it is frequently argued Keira Bell was not really “transgender”.  The same people insist any diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria  is so reliable it can be used to justify early intervention.  Both these things cannot be true.  Dr Pasterski also dismisses the idea of extensive co-morbidities in this demographic. I wish the Judge had asked for evidence of this because it contradicts all the research I have undertaken. (Something I will cover later in this series, specifically in relation to Foster Children).

1B811B9E-AA4A-45C4-BC5E-137C43BC9A15

During the case we also learn the family fostered a child from June 2004 to 2007 and this child also had “gender identitiy issues”. We don’t discover if this child had persisted, or where they are now, or whether they left simply due to reaching age of majority.

9DD286F2-84D7-45A3-B368-25A053251265

Dr Pasterski refrains from commenting on the third child but dismisses concerns about the likelihood of their being two (which as we know was really three) children with a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria, in one family. Pasterski emphasises that the condition has a basis in neurological or biological functioning and claims she has seen multiple cases in one family. This is a claim which could have done with more interrogation. Firstly the evidence for a neurological or biological basis for an innate Gender Identity is by no means settled science. (There are numerous articles debunking this claim which I cover elsewhere on this blog but the common element seems to be the concept of neuroplasticity.) Secondly it seems important to note that these three children were not biologically related all they have in common is the environment in which they are being brought up.

1EE7FD1D-0384-48F2-A18F-4B8AE3841320

So, what prompted the School to make a referral to Children’s Services? There were concerns of fabricated and induced illness in respect of four children in the care of CP and TP and a reported concern about a casual reference to “here’s another one for the Tavistock” by TP.

48677517-73C8-42D4-B2F1-004F8D6833C0

In the final analysis the judgement determined that the children should remain in the care of these foster parents. A successful defence was mounted in relation to the hospital visits. These, it was argued, could be attributed to hyper vigilance, especially because at least one child had pre-existing conditions. The other incidents were designated as not more than a normal rates of accidents. Gender Identity experts dismissed concerns about why there would be two ( in reality there were three) foster placements who developed Gender Identity Issues.

This court case has been covered many times before, hence I have not, previously, included it on my blog. I cover it now because it will form part one of a series on “Looked After Children”. I will be looking at research based on GIDs data. I will also look at British Columbia (Canada). I will also cover published guidance given to foster carers. Since I indicated I would be covering this, my in-box is filling up with useful research and first hand accounts. I am being sent replies indicating this is a problem in Brazil, Australia and the United States and that it is a particular issue in indigenous communities.

My content remains open and free but if you can support me it would be appreciated. Please only do so if you can afford and don’t choose me over legal cases if funds are in short supply when divvying up the #WomanTax.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth. Support is always appreciated (I have no income) but I would be equally happy if you contributed to a relevant legal case, a crowdfunder for Lesbian and Gay News or Safe Schools Alliance

£10.00

ARCUS FOUNDATION GRANTS

Featured

The Arcus Foundation is heavily invested in the dissemination of Transgender Ideology. To learn more about this you can do no better than reading Jennifer Bilek on this topic. This article here is a good summary.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/02/20/rich-white-men-institutionalizing-transgender-ideology/

Here is another one by Jennifer Bilek which is specifically focussed on the Arcus Foundation. 

ARCUS

The Arcus foundation has an online tool to check its grantees which you can find here:

ARCUS GRANTEES

Some foundations have a tool to extract the data to an excel spreadsheet which facilitates analysis. Unfortunately the Arcus Foundation don’t have an obvious way to do this so I manually populated 400 + lines of data, so I could pivot table and analyse where their Social Justice fund was allocated. I tracked from 2016 to April, 2021. I only looked at the Social Justice category but Arcus Foundation funds across many other areas. The scope of their largesse, arguably, means many organisations, who don’t propagate Gender Identity Ideology, may, nevertheless, be compromised by the financial benefits they derive from this association . (Bear in mind this is a live database so I noticed even historic descriptions of activities seemed to change. )

As you can see there was a total approaching $74 million dollars spent promoting Social Justice issues, during this period.  The majority had some aspect which promoted Gender Identity Ideology.  Where there was a focus 
2021-04-22 (7)on a particular region I noted it.  Where the project stated it’s aim was global I coded it to identify this ambition.  Where the project  identified international activity for specific regions I badged it “international” . I also noted the countries, identified as the focus, in the comments.  Note that many of the Arcus grantees  in turn, are also dispensing grants.  Thus, if a country you are interested in, does not appear to be a direct recipient it may, nevertheless, have received monies indirectly. 

For convenience I badged the funding as LGBTQ but, in reality, some of the grants omit the Q and others emphasise an I (for intersex). Some project detail is clearly focussed on sexual orientation but the project is still badged as variations of “LGBT”. I assume the Q is dropped, in some projects, because “queer” doesn’t have any currency in the countries where they are funelling funds.

Here is the spreadsheet.

ARCUS FOUNDATION GRANTEES

A notable feature of the grants illustrates the tactic of forced teaming. This is where Trans Ideology proponents feign (?) alliances with established movements to establish “common cause” and piggy back on their reputations. The most obvious one is gay rights. Indeed Arcus donated $142,000 to Stonewall (Former Gay Rights Charity in the UK). This was just before Stonewall added the T to LGB and expanded their remit to cover Transgender issues. This was one grant. They also provided an additional $42,000 to support a project called “Rainbow Laces” to bring the LGBTQ into sport.

Arcus also gave Stonewall $75,000 to be involved in roundtable discussions to convince Business to back the LGBTQ because it was “good business strategy”. The aim was to “swing” these countries to their agenda.

2021-04-20

At the time Stonewall changed direction it may have appeared, to their organisation, that the battles had been won in the United Kingdom.  I disagree.  The homophobia directed at our proto-gay youth has not gone away.  It may not have been as lucrative a cause but they could have done some good work in the U.K. They could also have campaigned to fight for the rights of Gay Men and Lesbians abroad.  They could have worked to stop the horrendous abuse of Gay men and Lesbians, in Iran, who were not accepted as homosexual but could have their surgery funded if they adopted a Trans-Identity.  Instead they opted for a more lucrative (?) path. 

It does not seem to have occurred to the bigwigs at Stonewall that the fight to defend same sex orientation depends on acknowledging that sex is a material reality. Transgender Ideology denies the reality of sex and therefore sex based attraction. That’s one of many conflicts between Trans rights and those of other groups.

But back to the Arcus Foundation:

Looking at the detail of these projects it was rare to find one that focussed on sexual orientation exclusively. Even where the project looked at same sex orientation the project was still labelled a variant of “LGBT” or “LGBTQ” to, effectively, join the causes together. By contrast there was a sizeable sum spent on exclusively “transgender” issues.

2021-04-21 (6)

9 million dollars allocated to exclusively Transgender causes. Interestingly if you search for the mention of “transmen” specific projects you will not find any. However some of the projects detailed do focus on “Transwomen” usually Transwomen of colour.

As I have noted before “transmen” tend to get deployed when they are pregnant or when it is easier to argue aganst the, sex based, rights of biological women. Their omission from any specific projects aimed at the needs of “transmen” screams good, old-fashioned, sexism to me!

It appears another tactic was to join with women Fighting for reproductive justice. This means that women’s fight to control their fertility is hijacked with trans organisations hitching their wagon to these long running campaigns. This grant is pretty transparent about its “strategic collaboration”.

683B7DAB-254F-4BB8-A9E6-A48616231C7B

2021-04-21 (1)

Another surprise, to me, is how much of a proportion is going to religious organisations including Evangelical Christians and Muslim organisations. Next time anyone tells you that you are in an alliance with religious groups heres a screenshot to share! Over $10 and a half million to religiouis organisations. These organisations were not simply those who you might have expected to hold liberal, progressive views on homosexuality or Gender Identity. Instead many in the United States were explicity Evangelical Christian Organisations deep in what we may have come to know as Trump supporting territory.

A couple of examples appear below from Atlanta, Georgia and Texas.

You will find similiar examples of “forced teaming” if you look at the grants focussed on racial justice or homelessness. There are also lots of grants to organisations looking at strategic litigation in the area of LGBTQ or exlusively “Transgender” organisations. A few projects are also engaged in educating/lobbying employees of the United Nations.

Many of the entries also talk of funding to “grow grassroots” activists. Somebody should explain that grassroots movements emerge organically. When you are targetting millions of dollars of funding to “grow” a movement you are engaged in Astro-turfing not grass roots activism.

The media narrative also comes in for some skilful manipulation. These are the organisations involved in journalism or documentary film-making who are taking the Arcus Cash. The explicit aim is to ensure media coverage is shaped by the Trans Lobby.

2021-04-22 (9)

This is an example of the way these grants are described: To “ensure that coverage is either neutral or positive”. Also to be organised to ensure a response to any negative media coverage. Journalism? or Advocacy?

B22411DA-8641-4011-AD44-F333C30E940A

As many of us are trying to point out to radical leftist groups who are screaming “transwomen are women” ,or other mindless mantras, mainly at feminists of the left, you are being manipulated by billionnaires. This is not a grass roots movement its an elite project and there is a lot of money to be made in fostering a bodily dissassociative condition that unmoors us from our sexed bodies.

If you can support my work it would be greatly appreciated. If you can’t please share.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth. Support is always appreciated (I have no income) but I would be equally happy if you contributed to a relevant legal case, a crowdfunder for Lesbian and Gay News or Safe Schools Alliance

£10.00

Astraea Lesbian Foundation

Featured

This group crops up quite frequently when following grants, made by private foundations, that promote Gender Identity Ideology. The title and history of this group suggests its original focus was on Lesbians. Since it’s inception there has been a shift in focus. Let’s have a wander through it’s early history.

1F88A3EA-E106-42F4-A5A3-092ECDDA92C7

The historical artefacts preserved on the website for Astraea show a focus on issues affecting Lesbians as mothers, artists and musicians. They engaged in struggles to get funding and recognition as well as custody battles. There was an early clue in the use of “queer women”, though I don’t know if this was quite the all encompassing word it has become by 2021.

E70A8F7C-4760-4C9D-BE37-E7666C889829

Tempting as it is to assume the Lesbian founders would object to subsuming (I would say subjugating) Lesbian concerns under the LGBTQ umbrella I can’t find evidence of dissent. Achebe Powell, for one, seems happy to embrace the march of Queer theory through the organisation. Here is a link to an interview with Achebe and a brief clip.

Queer Left F83866AE-F6B0-4B30-B3E6-B958963629AC

By 1996 they had morphed into an LGBTQ group and were committed to spreading their ideology globally.

E194C545-B761-43DB-8B1C-640437BCE486

So, where are Astraea Foundation now? Here is a very illuminating post by Influence Watch.

Astraea Foundation   

As you can see Astraea was in receipt of much state funding in the United States. It’s largest donor is the Arcus Foundation but it’s not wholly transparent about all its donors.  The State funding emerged under President Obama.  Obama  was bankrolled by Penny Pritzker, whose brother is a billionaire, trans-identified male, reborn as Jennifer, after a high flying military career. 

 Below is an article in the New York Times which profiles Penny Pritzker’s her role in propelling Obama to the presidency. I wonder if the price he paid was the promotion of LGBTQ rights, or Gender Identity Ideology, during his time in office? 

NY Times

727FABDC-CA4F-4211-A632-4D63AE19FB81

As you can see the Obama Administration pushed for LGBT acceptance and Astraea Foundation became deeply embedded in the project.

E4F15A27-F725-4E99-AA39-DDE69A230079

Astraea Foundation came to my attention by following the U.K. based Barings Foundation 2.  and there foray into funding LGBTQ funding on the African continent.  You will notice that the grantees funded by Baring have significant overlap with those funding by Astraea.

D06A488E-819A-41F7-9EE8-48BCFE04402B

The organisations that fund Astraea also crop up regularly when following the money. Arcus Foundation and Open Society Foundation are named in their 2019 annual report as is Ellen Page.

C5639252-6797-4CE4-B0CE-2FF85AAFBA48

They also recognise the pushback as women, especially lesbians, realise the implications for our sex based rights; right to exclude male people from Lesbian spaces and the right to single sex spaces for all women. So what does Astraea have to say about this backlash? Surprise surprise we are accused of paranoia and being aligned with a Conservative agenda. The fact that UK Gender Critical women are largely (though not entirely) left wing tends to confound commentators from the United States. As usual many cannot quite fathom any cultural context but that of their own. We didn’t win abortion rights and paid maternity leave by following U.S feminist strategies.

71013513-D954-4DB3-B834-FC4067953B77

I have drilled down into the funding provided by The Arcus Foundation. To understand why the billionaire heir to a medical company may have a vested interest in spreading Gender Identity Ideology I refer you to Jennifer Bilek’s article, below.

Stryker and Arcus

Arcus commenced funding of Astraea as far back as 2007.  Here is a snapshot of the amounts and which region of the world they focus their efforts.  They are overwhelmingly focussed outside of the United States.

2021-04-10 (2)

Here are the amounts that the Open Society Foundation has ploughed into Astraea Foundation. Since 2016.

2021-04-10 (3)

You can search their grants database here. It only provised data to 2016.

Open Society foundations: Grants database

I am unwaged so any support gratefully received. 

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth. Support is always appreciated (I have no income) but I would be equally happy if you contributed to a legal case or a crowdfunder for Lesbian and Gay News.

£5.00

Barings Foundation 2

Featured

Barings Foundation 1  is here if you want the background. 

This foundation not only funded the administrative support for the All Parliamentary Group for LGBT they also supported salary costs to embed a Stonewall employee in the Department for International Development. Curiousity piqued I resolved to have a look at what else they fund. I looked at all 163 grants given in 2020 but, for the purposes of this blog, I started drilling down to the funding allocated under the label “International Development”.

The issue is not one of a lack of transparency. All their grants are searchable. Guidance to setting up a Private, charitable foundation highlights the advantage of this vehicle for philanthropy: it allows the foundation to have complete control in terms of their funding priorities.

From 2013 this 👇 became the focus of Baring Foundation’s allocation for “International Development”.

“This programme aims to support civil society organisations to address discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) individuals and communities in sub-Saharan Africa. It focuses particularly on lesbian and transgender communities”.

Prior to 2013 the foundation had spent over ten years targeting issues of “gender” and many of the grants were available to women and girls. This is their new focus as the above quote illustrates.

This is a list of all the grants. All of them are either entirely focussed on Transgender causes or at least reference Gender Identity Ideology. Only the Forum for the Empowerment of Women seem the most focussed on actual lesbian issues. Looks to me as if they were included because it is transphobic to imply that Lesbians can’t be “transwomen”.

3E6E8CAD-6CD4-4025-AF6B-D2292EBE34D2

I have examined every one of these organisations via their websites. Even those that appear to be about Lesbians seem to have rather an elastic definition of what constitutes a “lesbian” and talk of diverse sexual identities.

Social, Health & Empowerment: Feminist Collective

Let’s look at the Social, Health and Empowerment , Feminist Collective. This group, they advise advocates for African transgender and intersex women and claims to employ a feminist framework.

D23F4D5C-B6B0-4C97-A89E-05421AADE5A6

Centring themselves in a discussion of women’s reproductive rights: Check ✅

Making sure the feminist message is rammed home by celebrating er, Beauty Pageants. 😳

642F86F1-0C4B-4057-8E49-058954DA4DDB

Of course no self-respecting feminist group would be complete without undermining the rights of the same sex attracted people. This is how they redefine homosexuality.

1145DB88-77FA-478E-B71D-2E02920BDE3F

The idea that a London based organisation is funding a group who are denying sexual orientation, on a continent where it remains illegal in many countries, should concern you. See my earlier post for the state of play re Lesbian and Gay rights on continental Africa.

Lesbian & Gay Rights in African countries

Website here for S.H.E here 👇

S.H.E

Let us look at another the Forum for the Empowerment of women. This website mainly focuses on black lesbians but nods to the Gender Identity Ideology with a reference to SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity). It is difficult to ascertain if this organisation takes the money and does the bare minimum to demonstrate allegiance to any conditions attacked to their grants. Fair play to them if they do!. Website below. Most of the initiatives relate to Black Lesbians and are concerned with violence against this community and forging networks and up-skilling women to gain a footing in the corporate world. Website below. 👇

F.E.W

The largest sum went to Uhai.Eshari. They have a very unresponsive website but Barings published a case study on their organisation. Here is a clip. They have been given £760,000 since 2018. All to support queer and gender diverse communities.

000C3DD6-199F-4F3F-98C3-C19269090980

Every one of these organisations promote Gender Identity Ideology. Projects are in Ethiopia, Malawi, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo and this is by no means an exhaustive list. This is what the are doing in Kenya. Maybe there are some more pressing needs in these communities than rolling out “Gender Affirming Care” to some of the poorest nations on earth?

Kenya is often hailed as a success story in terms of its economic development over the past decade. It is not the poorest country on the continent. Here a couple of issues highlighted by Oxfam Kenya.   Gross inequality and 40% are without access to basic health services. C73C523C-F54E-44D8-B9BB-9E4F930F0FA6

Sexual violence remains a significant issue and has surged during the Covid Pandemic. AE07F33B-CCC8-48EA-BF61-D2D525E618C6

Another organisation funded by Barings Foundation is  Gender Dynamix.

They also focus soley on Trans and Gender Diverse Communities. What struck me about this organisation was the link to a consent form for accessing masculinising or feminising treatments.

You can see the document here:

Consent Form Feminising 2019.pdf – Google Drive

Here are some clips which jumped out at me.. First up the possibility that your sexual orientation may change temporarily or permanently. This is reminiscent of Gay Conversion Therapy.

A723754B-54DE-4ECF-9A1A-6C6006F5CAA5

Secondly a list of side effects from feminising treatments. These list the impact of hormone treatments only. 

788C195D-A306-4E2D-A17E-B6DD3ABDABF9

Arundhati Roy called charitable foundations a way to “parlay wealth into power”. We should look at what those badging themselves pro-social justice with as much suspicion as any wealthy individual/group forcing through social change on the basis of their own ideology.

Is it wise to export this ideology to countries with no, or only recent, acceptance of homosexuality?

2021-04-04 (3)

I am unwaged so any support much appreciated.  If you are in a similar position a share is just as good.  Thank you! 

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth. Support is always appreciated (I have no income) but I would be equally happy if you contributed to a legal case or a crowdfunder for Lesbian and Gay News.

£5.00

Lesbian & Gay Rights in African countries.

Featured

In order to contextualise the exporting of Gender Identity Ideology to the African continent it is necessary to look at the current legal position in respect of Lesbian and Gay rights. In many countries it remains illegal to be homosexual and , even where it is legal, this is relatively recent. Furthermore where laws have been enacted it doesn’t necessarily correlate with social attitudes within countries. It is possible that laws favoured by metropolitan elites do not necessarily translate transform prejudice overnight. It is also important that any data looks at the treatment of Lesbians and Gay males separately. As you can see they are not always treated equally.

3F5FBC7F-4AD6-4EB6-AB18-CACC3E952348

Source

Furthermore where laws have been enacted it doesn’t necessarily correlate with social attitudes within countries. Passing laws, favoured by metropolitan elites, do not necessarily transform prejudice overnight.  A point made by an organisation (ILGA) who are one of the main drivers for the propagation of Gender Identity Ideology which, from one perspective, is increasingly at odds with Lesbian and Gay rights. 

8B638599-A0F4-4D32-84CA-C80C4973ECC7

he same site also tracks Trans rights across the same geographic area.  Note the number of countries that allow legal recognition, on the basis of “gender” with no requirement for any level of commitment re bodily modification. 

8581A36F-828D-49CB-BB2A-168652E39D71

Thus there are large swathes of territory in Africa who have approved, effectively, introduced a form of Self-Identified “gender” as well as areas where there is a degree of ambiguity or, at least, no prohibition. One can only fear the consequences in a country which outlaws homosexuality but allows a form of “transition”.

A case in point would be Iran: Homosexuality is illegal and subject to extreme punishment.

39B4F0D3-5D0A-4592-A66C-7CB018246BC3

In contrast.

7C1DB69B-92B0-42FD-A7EC-709C171BBB67

This article, from 2014, shows the unintended (or intended?) consequences of that disparity in treatment between the LGB & The T.  In this article a Lesbian talks about how she was subject to discrimination for failing to conform to sex stereotypical modes of dress and expression.  Her route out was seven years of cross sex hormones until she finally accepted that she was simply a Lesbian.  

Trans Away The Gay

It seems astonishing to me that more campaigners for Gay Rights do not see the inherent danger of promulgating Gender Identity Ideology in countries with a fragile, or no, acceptance of homosexuality. However, lest we feel smug at the enlightened nations of the West, see this blog on our own version.

The Woke Gay Conversion Therapy?

Posting this to document the situation on the African Continent in preparation for part two of my piece on a U.K. Foundation promoting Gender Identity Ideology, across Africa, under the badge of funding for International Development.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth. Support is always appreciated but I would be equally happy if you contributed to a legal case or a crowdfunder for Lesbian and Gay News.

£5.00

Barings Foundation 1

Featured

For those too young to remember Barings foundation was linked to Barings bank, who were ruined by the combination of an expansion to Asia and the reckless speculation of an employee: one Nick Leeson. The foundation, however, survived and allocates funding which it identifies as Arts based, Strengthening Civil Society and International Development. Barings is a private charitable foundation so whilst this gives them control over the allocation of their funds it does have obligations, as a charity, to submit information to the Charity Commission.

This is legal advice about the responsibilities of charities 👇

A16EA939-0E6B-4D79-9CFB-433815A40A59

This is the link to the Baring Foundations website where the information about its priorities is available. 👇

Baring Foundation:Grant Making

The inspiration for my inquiry was the revelation that Barings Foundation fund the All Parliamentsry Group on LGBT issues. This group is chaired by Crispin Blunt and its vice chair is Michael Cashman. Crispin is an MP who came out, as a gay man, relatively late in life. Cashman is one of the original founders of Stonewall, a once great organisation now better described as a controversial lobby group.

Crispin Blunt was recently sanctioned for attempting to broker a back room deal on the controversial proposals to reform of the Gender Recognition Act. This despite opposition from feminist organisations concerned about the detrimental impact on women’s sex based rights. You can read an account of this here 👇. (You can also sign up as a supporter Sex Matters to defend sex based rights on the same site)

Sex Matters

3210C2CE-A96A-4A78-8B3D-38C8D350ECCF

So I determined to have a look at the funding Barings made to this APPG, Stonewall and the Kaleidoscope Trust since they all figure in this story.

Barings have been funding Kaleidoscope Trust since 2015. 👇 (CHOGM is the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting).

31BDEAF7-2B7A-41C5-94DE-8B45DDF1D628

They also provided £40,000 to the Kaleidoscope Trust to fund administrative support for the APPG LGBT. In addition they provided a further £148,415 direct payment, to the APPG LGBT+ group, to cover coordinator costs from 2020 to 2023.

This makes it clear that Stonewall were closely linked to APPG LGBT from the beginning. Also take a look at the origins of the person providing the support!

32928DEF-824A-47A6-B7F9-5E5C4373D7B7

Anna Robinson was co-chair of the youth wing of IGLYO. You can learn more about this group in an earlier blog I did on The Denton’s Report

That Denton’s Document

A quick look at the links ,the Barings Foundation has, with Stonewall shows the international reach of its activity in embedding LGBTI issues in government infrastructure.

Funding for Stonewall ,from this Foundation, also allowed them to embed a Stonewall advisor in what was then the Department for International Development. (DFID).

34A76389-354C-4290-8B7C-CBC4D0EF56F6

Paul Twocock reports on the project. Paul was interim CEO of Stonewall after the departure of Ruth Hunt. The funding allowed them to lobby the government to further their agenda.  A4396DAC-3F70-4503-B318-496ADEF57875

Arundhati Roy called charitable foundations a way to “parlay wealth into power”. Charitable Foundations, with a pro-social justice agenda should be subject to as much scrutiny as any wealthy individual/group. When they are working with Lobby Groups who are committed to social engineering, on the basis of their own ideology, they should be investigated with as much vigour as #BigPharma.

Many former supporters of Stonewall are extremely concerned about the impact of Transgender Ideology on our gay youth. I cannot begin to imagine how this might play out in an International context where the rights of Gay males and Lesbians are fledgling or non-existent. Organisations working across different cultural contexts should be aware of the perils of this neo-colonialism.

Next up I will scrutinise all 163 grants from the Baring Foundation but, in particular, I will be looking at what they are funding under the heading International Development.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth. Support is always appreciated but I would be equally happy if you contributed to a legal case or a crowdfunder for Lesbian and Gay News.

£5.00

APPG on LGBT: Publication

Featured

The All Parliamentary group on LGBT rights is a cross party group established to raise issues affecting Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans rights. Like many of these organisations which begin supporting all the letters Recently they made a statement about the current administrations response to a consultation on the Gender Recognition Act. Crispin Blunt is the chair of APPG LGBT and nails his colours to the mast in this article. He actually calls women’s rights campaigners “strident” . Straight up, 1970’s style sexism.

https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/after-his-furious-public-spat-criz-truss-trans-rights

APPG LGBT say their focus is principally international but they also include domestic issues in their remit. To this end they work with citizen groups, private and third sector organisations or, to give them another name, “Lobby Groups”.

Here I look at a document they produced in 2016. Here is the full document.

APPG LGBT report 2016

The chair of the group is Crispin Blunt. Vice chairs are Baroness Barker, Lord Cashman, Green party MP, Caroline Lucas and the SNP’s Stewart McDonald. All very familiar names for anyone who has been watching the march of Transgender Ideology through our political establishment.

At the outset the group identify 6 recommendations which lays out their strategy for embedding their policy aims across the various arms of the state, private sector and raising issues in both houses of Parliament.

  • Coordination across government  departments to include; 
  • Foreign & Commonwealth Office 
  • Department of International Development 
  • Home Office 
  • The Private Sector
  • APPG LGBT & Parliament 

The document advises that the group conducted an enquiry to which they invited those they identified as stakeholders. Stonewall are in the list of acknowledgements and their influence is immediately obvious in how the group define sexual orientation. 👇. I will unpack this statement because it encompasses a lot of the ideas of the Gender Identity idealogues in one paragraph. 

09962481-2B04-42FB-8740-EEC0BF48F1B9

The document, written in 2016, adopts the Stonewall definition of sexuality which claims sexual orientation can be based on Gender Identity. Since someones Gender may be at odds with their biological sex this undermines the idea of , exclusive, same sex attraction but we are not supposed to notice this.

It also uses the loaded term “sex assigned at birth” which is a give away that the group are captured by Transgender Ideology. The idea that the assignment of sex is, somehow, problematic is a smokescreen. It is used to create an association between the trans community and people with differences/disorders of sexual development (DSDs). Once again, sex is observed and recorded in 99%+ cases. People require more investigation are subject to karyotype tests: to determine any chromosomal abnormalities. Gender identity clinics abandoned these tests because research showed it wasn’t a factor in their patient population. This phrase is designed to imply there is a biological basis for Gender Identity which is, to say the least, a hugely contested claim.

The above statement normalises bodily modification to match your Gender Identity, whilst simultaneously defending the right to claim a Gender Identity, irrespective of bodily change. This is why we now are expected to accept concepts such as a #LadyPenis and why Lesbians are called transphobic for not accepting phallus in their wonderland.

A later statement endorses another plank of the ideology.