Examining Gender Identity ideology and its impact on Women's Sex based rights and Gay Rights. d protections. Exploring how this has taken such firm root in Western societies (Cognitive & Regulatory Capture).
In this piece I will cover Lisa Littman’s research into detransitioners. A person who detransitions is someone who embarked on medical intervention to deal with a discomfort with their natal sex. This is a bodily disassociative disorder labelled ”Gender Dysphoria”. A person who re-identifies with their natal sex, without any medical intervention is labelled as a “desister”. Both these groups are important to understand what is going on. Lisa’s paper is below: Well worth reading it in full and sharing!
Details of the sample are contained above. As you can see natal females are a significant majority at 69%. This is what we are seeing in the United Kingdom where, over the last decade, the sex of referrals to the main Gender Identity Clinic has inverted the sex ratios to be 70% female. The majority, in Littman’s sample, (55%) did not feel they were given an adequate evaluation by the doctor /medical professional who assessed them. Significantly 23% located their discomfort with difficulty accepting a non-hetereosexual orientation.
Its worth referring to this article that evaluated what happens to children labelled as ”transgender” when they grow up. 👇
This data somewhat predates the explosion in ”trans-kids” sweeping, mostly, the western world. The conclusions were remarkably similar. Most did not wish to transition when they reached adulthood and generally turn out to be, simply, gay. This was in the days of ”watchful waiting” before the days of early medical intervention. In the U.K we now put children as young as 10 on puberty blockers and, increasingly, socially transition them at even younger ages. Are we foreclosing the path to an unmedicalised future and homo/bi-sexuality for a generation of kids?
As Littman points out the visibility of detransitioners is growing with more YouTube accounts, blogs, DeTrans advocacy groups and a growing community on Reddit. Recently these stories have started to break into the national media, especially in the UK but also, more recently in the U.S media.
There are now 23,000 contributors on the de-trans sub-reddit which you can access here: 👇
When I first started to track the numbers on this forum there were around 15,000. This was about four months ago. Here one poster is trying to gain accurate data on de-transitioners. This is a major stumbling block in garnering the attention of politicians. Typically those who regret their medical interventions do not wish to go back to the people they feel hurt them, feel embarassed or are traumatised. These clinics should be forced to follow up every patient. Loss to follow up has distorted the data for decades. Here is a post in the detrans forum on reddit.
Another poster explains how hard it is to escape media saturation on Gender Identity. We have been pushing the trans-narrative to kids, even in primary school, for at least a decade. Even Children’s BBC showed ”Becoming Leo” , about a female in flifht from her sex. Complete with the promotion of a medical pathway. This to impressionable kids without parental knowledge. I certainly didn’t know what my son was exposed to; though ChildLine (run by the National Society For the Protection of Children), was the most egregious pusher in my experience.
Another two comment get to the heart of the issue: Social contagion and late stage capitalism 👏👏.
Its an industry. Mining profit from healthy bodies. FYI CAGR is Compound Annual Growth Rate and anything above 15% is considered good 👇
Back to Littman’s paper
More clinicians are starting to raise the alarm and ask for more research. There are extensive linked papers in the study and a wealth of references.
Here are some of the reasons given, for medical transition, by those who re-identified with their birth sex:
A mal-adaptive response to trauma, difficulty reconciling to sexuality, internalised misogyny and peer pressure. An incredible 20% also cited pressure from a person/peope to transition:
What might have helped was the presence of good role models. The absence of Butch Lesbians in the media is notable:
In conclusion the author asks for much better research on the phenomenon of detransition. Gender clinics have no incentive to do long term follow-up and their ex patients may have no wish to return to the people who colluded with their mistake. Crucially they will likely disappear from LGBT+ networks enabling a denial of the scale of the issue:
Next time you see papers on low rates of regret remember to look for loss to follow-up. Bear in mind the length of time patients are followed up is also significant. Medical complications can take time to appear. The current cohort is also a vastly different demographic than the older, males, which typically formed the main clientele for Gender clinics. Also look out for conflicts of interest. Much (most?) of the research is emerging from people who are making their living from the Gender Industrial complex.
I do this research full-time and unpaid. If you can afford to donate here is how.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Just a reminder about UK Law on getting a tattoo. It is not legal even with parental consent.
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].
Note the small print on this which references the ”transsexual” child. 👇.
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.
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”.
Whoever named Pansexual after a mythical, horny old goat at least had a sense of humour: 😂
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.
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. 👇
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.
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.
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 Moralpanic 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 😂
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.
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, JohnMoney, 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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
Like many people I have ceased to donate to Amnesty following the revelation they took advice from Pimp Lobby groups before deciding to adopt the stance #SexWorkIsWork. The majority of the sold are women and the purchasers are, almost invariably, male no matter the sex of those being traded. A purported human rights organisation which prioritises male sexual entitlement over their victims is a Human Rights organisation only because they self-identify as such. 👇
As if to remove all doubt about their anti-women stance Amnesty Ireland recently castigated women for defending their sex based rights. Below is an astonishing foray into the controversy of allowing men to self-identify as women. Women who point out the conflict with sex based rights are lazily conflated with far right organisations and, Amnesty argues, should be denied representation for these views.
You can read more in this article, by Julie Bindel, below. 👇
However, today I want to talk about Amnesty’s startling intervention in the KeiraBell case. Full details of this case are below. The brief summary is that, in the U.K., a high court judgment has halted administration of puberty blockers, to under 16s, without a court order I have done many posts on the Tavistock and on Puberty Blockers. I have long expressed concern about setting children, as young as ten, on an irreversible path to lifelong dependence on the pharmaceutical industry. So why are a Human Rights organisation setting themselves against this judgement? The presiding, High Court, judges did not believe that children, under 16, could give informedconsent to an experimental treatment with such significant implications; for physical and psychological development. They further cautioned, even for those age 16 and 17, an endocrinologist may wish to get court approval. Blog on this case below:
Here was Amnesty U.K proclaiming their support for attempts to overturn the decision.
A cursory look at Amnesty financial statements demonstrate their adherence to the tenets of Transgender Ideology, Here is a statement which states a goal to protect “GenderIdentity”. No definition is provided, naturally. It is impossible to define “Gender Identity” without using circular references. How can you have an “internal sense of oneself”, as a woman or a man, without first defining your terms? Invariably they depend on sexist expectations based on stereotypes. This is why so many of these conversations are a dead end.
A cursory glacé at their accounts shows they have one project to look at sex based issues which impact on women and girls. Female Genital Mutilation and forced, early, marriage. A lot of these charities, with an international remit, recognise sex based oppression and abuse, when it occurs overseas, but deny it in the Northern Hemisphere. I do wonder who runs the cognitive dissonance department. 👇. (Dilbert)
Perhaps the explanation for the stance Amnesty U.K. takes is influenced by the chair of their LGBTI network which tells its own tale 👇
Note that, in the Keira Bell case, both Mermaids and Stonewall were refused permission to intervene in the case because their evidence was deemed to have no bearing on the case. That’s a damning indictment of their preparedness /evidence supplied in this case. Amnesty: Do you know who you are allying with?
If you are able to support my ability to focus on this full-time you can do so here.
This Judicial Review was brought by Keira Bell and a parent of an autistic girl, identified as Mrs A. Applications to “intervene” in the case were brought by Mermaids, Stonewall and Transgender Trend. Only the latter were accepted by the Judges. Mermaids and Stonewall were not added to the case because the evidence they presented was not accepted, as relevant, by the by court.
Since 2011 the Gender Identity Service , in the U.K., commonly called GIDs or The Tavistock, has been prescribing puberty lockers to children as young as 10. This was originally agreed, by the Health Regulation Authority (HRA) as a research project. The first ethics approval panel rejected the project so the Tavistock submitted to a different Ethics approval panel, who did accept it. There is a complex back story to how this experiment was launched. You can read more about this on an earlier blog:
In this court case one of the patients from the Tavistock challenges the treatment she was given. Crucially the court considers the impact of the treatment, in both the short and long term, the evidence base for this treatment and whether these young patients can give informed consent.
One of the key issues is the lack of evidence supporting this controversial treatment. Nine years on and, by the time of this court case, the findings of this research study had still not been published! Below the Director of GIDs argued that they were about to publish the research which was too late for the Court case. Why would you not prioritise this research paper to ensure the court case had the evidence? Surely you would have expedited it if you were so certain it would support your case?
More than once the judge expresses surprise at the lack of data provided by GIDS.
Furthermore the Court, below, highlighted the dramatic rate of increase in referrals to GIDs and the change in the demographic. The lack of curiosity about this change is astounding.
It had not, however, entirely escaped the notice of GIDs. Here is BernadetteWren, ex head of psychology at the Tavistock , speaking on this issue to the Women’s and Equalities Committee, on Transgender Equality. A social revolution that many have fought for! I wonder how many realised it would result in our young Lesbians medicalising themselves to the point of sterility? Or our gay sons retreating into faux-straight, medicalised closets? Some revolution!
The court also noted the proportion of autistic kids who are seduced by Gender Identity Ideology. This is why Mrs A is also part of this court case, her daughter is autistic. Once again the court expresses surprise at the lack of data available, from the Tavistock.
But the literature is available at the high number of referrals from neuro atypical children. It is so well known that Autistic charities have commented on its prevalence.
Once again we see the unexpected prevalence of autistic females. 👆 Indeed it is such a well known feature that Gender Identity Ideologues like Jo Elsson-Kennedy had this to say in a, now deleted, interview. This clip is taken from a transcript of the podcast by the controversial clinic (Gender GP) run by suspended General Practitioner Helen Webberley:
Here 👆 Olssen-Kennedy makes the extraordinary claim that symptoms of autism disappear when the GenderDysphoria is treated.
In the full judicial transcript document the court elaborates the way Gender Dysphoria is diagnosed. I won’t reproduce here but it is a list based on how a young person deviates from sex stereotypes. I fit much of that criteria myself. How much more pronounced will Gender non-conformity be in a proto-Gay kid who may otherwise grow up as a Butch Lesbian or Femme Gay male?
These are the side effects of the treatment, Fertility and, for males, stunted genitalia high will impact on sexual function. Remember we are asking 10 year olds to sign up to this.
The Tavistock did have service users who spoke well of the Tavistock and their treatment. However these were the judges observations on the witnesses. It is extraordinary that GIDs thought their witnesses would strengthen their case.
On the contrary a neuroscientist called into question the ability of even teenagers to consent to these treatments and highlighted the lack of impulse control which is evident before brain maturation. Notably many commentators locate brain maturation at age 25 but certainly it has not been completed by age 18! In the United Kingdom double mastectomies are available from age 17 and sexual reassignment surgery from age 18. What makes this even more alarming is that children not allowed to experience puberty may be arrested in the development of cognitive development and lag behind their peers in respect of brain maturation.
Another plank of the case was the court’s rejection of the idea that puberty blockers provide a pause for young children to be relieved from the development of sexual characteristic and time to resolve their Gender Dysphoria. The court highlights the almost inevitability of puberty blockers to be followed by cross-sex hormones. Therefore consent for one needs to encompass the cross sex hormones.
The full document deals with the issues of Gillick competence with reference to many other legal judgements. Many lobby groups have tried to argue this legal case throws into question rights to contraception or abortion and to smear Gender Critical arguments on this basis. This is smoke and mirrors. It is rare to find any gender critical feminists who are against the right to control fertility. We do, however, oppose the eradication of fertility in minors. This is quite a different argument.
It is worth reminding people that these children will be dependent on pharmaceutical companies for the remainder of their lives. Does #BigPharma have a vested interest in creating life long patients? Are we monetising the confusion of children, and teenagers, who have been inculcated with Gender Dysphoria by the Gender Industrial complex?
The Tavistock have won the right to appeal against the initial judgment. Mermaids and Stonewall have, once again, not been granted the right to intervene in the case. However the Endocrinology society, in the United States have been allowed to intervene as has Brook, who you may remember as a Pregnancy Advisory Service. They are now expanding their remit and cover issues around “Gender”.
You can read about Brook’s belief about “Gender” : Here
These clips should give you a clue about the stance taken by Brook. Accessed on 16th February 2021.
As you can see they have not quite got around to updating their guidance on #PubertyBlockers. Here they describe it as merely a suspension which can be resumed if the person changes their mind. As noted above near 100% progress to Cross-Sex Hormones.
And, of course, they signpost these troubled teens to GIDs.
This incoherent ideology has captured, seemingly, all the charities operating in the U.K. Brook would appear to be another one willing to squander its legacy in the alter of Gender Identity Ideology.
If you are able to support my work you can do so below.
This group was founded in 2015 and its membership is drawn from all political parties in the UK Parliament. They are also closely aligned with Stonewall as is made clear on their website. https://www.appglgbt.org/secretariat.
The APPG is administered by Anna Robinson, who has served as the APPG Researcher and Coordinator and Researcher since February 2019. The Secretariat is supported jointly by the LGBT+ non-governmental organisations Kaleidoscope Trust, Stonewall, and Frontline AIDS.
The APPG LGBT group, issued a statement expressing their disappointment with the government response. They also revealed they had attempted to broker a deal, behind closed doors, which they claimed would resolve the tensions over this issue. Unfortunately the document wasn’t published, prior to the decision. but I will cover the one they published after the fact and include it in APPG LGBT 2.
Argentina, and Ireland are frequently held up as exemplars of the policy of self-identification. Women’s groups were not consulted in either country. The Argentinian regime, then in power, seemed to be using it to distract from unsavoury elements of their government. There seems to be an inverse relationship between the countries who legislate for self-identified “Gender” whilst having less than progressive atttituded to women’s right to control her fertility. For more on Argentina see this thread: https://twitter.com/twisterfilm/status/1215336108776706050?s=21.
Anyone who has read my blogs on the Gender Recognition process may take issue with the idea that it is an invasive and onerous process. I have covered some of the people allowed to claim the status of “legal women” in a few of my posts.
HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN GOING ON? This is a case from 2009. GRC obtained whilst a serving prisoner and pre-op. Released to a female bail hostel. Attempted to rape a woman 5 days later. Recallled to prison and won a legal case to be moved to the female estate, still pre-op.
Gender Recognition Certificates Or this case. The Gender Recognition Panel turned this prisoner down multiple times. A single judge was able to overturn the refusal and grant a GRC. This to a thrice married, father of seven with a convicion for obtaining explosives with intend to endanger life. How very ladylike!
Gender Recognition Panels: A Judge talks. Here a judge speaks of her work on the Gender Recognition Panel. She describes the process as “enabling” and I agree; though I suspect I use the word in a different way to the way the good judge intends. A reminder. The fee to apply for a GRC was £140. There is no requirement for any bodily modification and applicants are not required to have a face to face interview. This latest announcement commits to reducing the cost and streamlining the process. Onerous? Invasive? Or Reckless.
Nothing is more galling than the “bad people on both sides” representation of this “debate”. It’s not women who are dishing out the threats of rape and violence. It is self-identified women, i.e. males, who appear to retain a very masculine committment to silencing non-compliant females, through fear. The idea that this is a “narrowly…held view” is laughable. Most people have not caught up with the idea that women must accept that women can have penises. When it is made clear that we are expected to give male-bodied access to female spaces it is roundly rejected. It remains to be seen whether the agression shown, even by *some* post operative transsexuals, has fatally undermined acceptance for this group. Not an outcome I wish for… Sex is a material reality. Gender is a set of reductive sex stereotypes. Males, who identify as women, have somehow internalised sex stereotypes as being natural and inevitable and this has given rise to a belief these can be transplanted into a male body. This is not Progressive and, interestingly, more and more transsexuals reject this dogma. They know they are male, or female, that sex is real. Many never anticipated that a tiny minority with real, intractable, Gender Dysphoria would be used like a battering ram to compromise women’s and gay rights.
We do not, routinely, assign a “gender” at birth. Nobody can, literally, change sex. Elsewhere the APPG LGBT argues for de-medicalising the process of “transition” which means nobody is expected to take “serious. life-changing steps to change their gender permanently“. Stonewall , their partner, include part-time cross dressers under the trans umbrella. It is clear that we are not expected to research transvestic fetishism which is sexually motivated. I expect there are half a million “trans” people in the UK due to the wide ranging, criteria. Hell! We are pretty much all “trans” or “non-binary” by Stonewall Law.
The APPG LGBT group quote the high rate of responses to the GRA Consultation, which agree with the proposal to dispense with any medical evidence and remove the requirement to “live in their acquired gender for two years”. What they fail to mention is many of these responses clearly co-ordinated by an organised Lobby Group. Indeed, rather shockingly, a children’s entertainer, on YouTube even persuaded children to get involved in filling out the GRA consultation. Now deleted but if you check out Pop ‘n’ Olly he is a childrens entertainer who is pushing this on Kids, relentlessly. This is a transcript of his content. Note it was produced in collaboration with Stonewall and Fox Fisher & Owl who are both trans activists. ( I will do a series on Pop ‘n’ Olly and will include the blog which is the source for the clip below , with acknowlegement.)
I blogged on Fox Fisher and Steph Kyriacou. Both produced content for ChildLine ( run by the NSPCC). Part-Two covers Fox Fisher, who also is linked to the Mermaids Charity for “trans-kids”/ Fox objected to being associated with Lesbians, Gay males and Bisexuals because it associated being transgender with “deviance”. A clip is included because Fox has now deleted it from their youtube.
No statement couls be complete without reference to the idea that Transgender people and suicide attempts. The statistic that 50% of trans people have attempted suicide has been debunked many times. It goes against Samaritan’s guidelines for responsible coverage of suicide. It is based on flawed data. It may actually foster suicide ideation in the very group you are purporting to be concerned about.
I blogged about it the flawed data around suicide attempts here:
The next issue that the APPG LGBT group are focussing on is a ban on Gay Conversion Therapy. This follows legislation passed around the world and of course I support a ban on any attempts to change someone’s sexual orientation. Its regressive, harmful and it doesn’t work. However, the APPG LGBT group are insisting that any legislation also includes “gender identity”. Thus any parent of a gay male or a lesbian who takes time to accept their sexuality and identifies, instead, as the opposite sex would, potentially, be criminalised for opposing medical treatment to modify their childs sexual characteristics , block puberty or commence cross-sex hormones. Geraint Davies, a Labour MP, tried to pass a private members bill which also included “Gender Identity” in a ban on Conversion Therapy.
So yes. I oppose any ban on “Conversion Therapy” when it includes “Gender Identity. This will result in a prohibition of therapeutic responses to a discomfort with biological sex/sexuality. We would not have an epidemic among young people, adopting a trans-identity, if we were not inculcating it in School teaching. I have covered many of these policies on this blog.
By banning therapeutic responses to Gender Dysphoria we may, actually, be promoting a medicalised “Gay Conversion Therapy”.
Shrier’s book is a timely contribution documenting increasing levels of concern over the rising rate of Trans-identifying Females. Young girls are having drastic surgeries/medical intervention, at ever younger ages, in a quest to become their “authentic selves”. Sadly, some of those young women are emerging, in their earlier twenties, to the realisation they were simply Lesbian or in flight from their sex for other reasons. This self-knowledge sometimes comes after years on testosterone, double mastectomies and even hysterectomies /ovary removal.
Facts and figures on the rising numbers of these girls are included in Shrier’s book. Many of the statistics are from the UK because the NHS makes it easier to keep track of the figures. In the US there are now tens of “Gender Identity” clinics to service the rising rates of “transgender” children /teens. This is a phenomenon across North America, Europe and Australasia. Shrier’s book documents this with extensive references, an excellent bibliography and conversations with many people at the cutting edge. This includes practitioners working in the field or reporting on this area. She also shares personal testimony from the young women and their parents.
I have kept quotations to a minimum because you really should buy this book! I have, however, interspersed some links/blogs to expand, or reference the UK context.
When research papers, articles or books, are published on the phenomenon of Trans-identifying children/ teens, they are inevitably followed by calls to ban them, accompanied by attacks on the author, sackings, loss of office or sponsorship. This book is no different.
Here is Chase Strangio, from the ACLU (Americal Civil Liberties Union), calling Shrier’s book “dangerous polemic” and calling for it to be taken out of circulation.
The ACLU have a proud history defending Civil Liberties and Free Speech. A legacy which has been utterly squandered by its advocacy of Gender Identity Ideology. As an organisation they appear unwilling to accept that Women, LGB people and even Transsexuals, have legitimate concerns about the extremist positions of Gender Identity Ideologues.
Chase Strangio is a Transman and ACLU Lawyer. Anyone questioning the transitioning of children seems to be perceived as an attack on Chase’s identity, as a man. Choosing to critique a book without reading it seems to be common in this “debate” but Chase claims to have actually read it. This doesn’t prevent Chase from seeking to deny other people the opportunity. This smacks of authoritarianism and is shocking from an organisation which, not too long ago, defended the right to free speech for members of the Ku-Klux Clan.
What is happening to Abigail’s book follows a familiar pattern of silencing. This happened to the work of Michael Bailey, Lisa Littman, Ken Zucker and many researchers whose work I have covered on this blog.
Lisa Littman coined the term “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria”. Lisa Littman spoke to parents with children claiming to be transgender. These children/teens had not shown any signs of discomfort, with their sex, during childhood, and their stories were also at odds with the experience / recollections of their parents. Diane Ehrensaft, a proponent of Gender Identity Ideology, made this statement about talking to parents (p.28). claiming it was akin to “recruiting from Klan or alt-right sites to demonstrate that blacks really are an inferior race”. I would contend that parents are demonised because we know when our children fabricate a fantasy trans-narrative. This knowledge is perceived as dangerous, as is (legal) parental responsibility, to safeguard our children from youthful mistakes. Parents who affirm biological sex are a direct challenge to ideologues, like Ehrensaft, who contend three year olds are competent to know their “gender identity”.
Ms Shrier’s book centres teenage girls. This makes sense because young girls are emerging as the main demographic being harmed. The causes are also different for females. As a parent of one of the boys, caught up in this, I contend that, whilst there is some overlap in the causality, this is primarily a tale of two sexes. It therefore makes sense to cover boys separately. Let us hope someone takes up the challenge to look at the Transgender Craze in Our Boys.Maybe I will.
Shrier does not shy away from covering the more controversial issues accompanying Gender Identity Ideology in our society. This includes a reference to Autogynephilia (AGP) which is a male paraphilia. The love of oneself, as a woman, is the new love that cannot bear to be named. Acknowledging AGP tends to provoke narcissistic rage and backlash and explains a lot of the testeria in this “debate“.
Shrier also talks about the erosion of female only spaces (see anecdote about the bra-fiting for a teenage girl. p.143). She also covers the potential /actual destruction of female sports due to male inclusionary policies. Shrier quotes young women who told her the social cache attached to a transgender identity is in direct contrast to the disregard for Lesbians. (p.151). Why would you want to be Lesbian when it is mainly known as a category of porn? Indeed the depiction of young women, in porn generally, seems suffiicient explanation for a flight from the female sex. Looked at one way adopting a male identity is a perfectly rational response to a hostile environment.
Shrier is also excellent on the way Transgender ideology is disseminated, particularly in schools. The same phenonemon is at play in the UK. Sometimes this is done overtly via a Transgender Policy but other times it is slipped in, covertly, under the guise of anti-bullying. To truly root it out you have to check school transgender policy but also anything referencing bullying or equality or inclusion. I am doing a series on all the policies I have found and downloaded. This is one.
Shrier’s also documents how parents are treated by these policies and by schools, generally. Parents are painted as a safeguarding risk to our children, if we don’t immediately “affirm” a trans identity. I blogged about this here 👇 covering school policies advocating lying to parents about our children and “socially transitioning” them behind our backs.
Another issue subject to scrutiny is the threat of suicide and the topic of transgender kids. Not just in the US but globally. This is despite the fact suicide attempts are actually no higher in trans-identifying children than other kids with mental health issues. Completed suicides are actually very rare in transgender youth but they are higher in the adult group post transition. One Swedish study, with the longest follow up time of any other study, found the suicide rate to be significantly higher than their comparator sex. You can read about this here:
This is one of the longest follow up studies and points to a need for more after care and a review of the outcomes for post-operative transsexuals. This area is replete with references to suicide as evidenced by the repetition of “Better a live daughter than a dead son” . Yet discussion on post-operative mental health issues is verboten.
I wrote about suicide, in transgender youth, below.
Shrier seems to have spoken to most of the prominent voices in this debate. Ray Blanchard is the man who coined the term Autogynephilia. He is very good on the psychological toll it takes to present as the opposite sex. I have written about this, which I call “imposter syndrome on steroids” , after observing and listening to adult transsexuals. Blanchard goes a bit “bad on bothsides” re Trans Activists and Gender Critical Feminists (p. 132) but then we do appear to be, or are, critiquing his life’s work.
The book is bold and unflinching on the paucity of medical research and provides case studies on the deleterious impact of experimental, medical, solutions to a trans-identity. She points out that there is no reliable test for an innate “Gender Identity”. There is no biological marker. Detransitioners met the diagnostic criteria in the same way as did those who persist, for now, with a medicalised solution to their distress. She explodes the myth that puberty blockers are a pause and emphasises the public data which shows that 100%, put on puberty blockers, will continue to Cross Sex hormones. This is not a pause, it is the introduction to, an almost inevitable, pathway to medical transition. Shrier deals with the risks of puberty blockers (p.165); the shocking statistic of a 5 times higher rate of heart attack in females on testosterone (p. 169) and the medical complications leading to the high rate of hysterectomies after 5 years on testosterone. (p.171). She is also not afraid to name leading proponents of Gender Identity /Medical transition such as Jo Elsson-Kennedy who dismisses post mastectomy regret with this flip response “if you want breasts later on you can go and get them”. (p. 172)
The book is packed with personal stories from parents, adult transsexuals, desisters/de-transitioners. The bulk of these are females, as you would expect, but she does also reference young males. This approach allows us to meet some of the young girls/women caught up in the Transgender phenomenon, putting flesh on the bones of the statistics, just as surely as flesh is being put on the line. We hear the voices of parents endeavouring to navigate a path to protect their children, without alienating them. This is difficult and not always successful. Young women share their stories, one on being a Butch Lesbian, who identified as trans. The anorexic who swapped pro-ana sites for transgender ones. Crucially she ends the book with stories of those who made their way back, to reconcile with their sex and, very often to their formerly estranged families. Because: There is a way back!
This is clearly a global phenomenon as I have tried to demonstrate. There are also some cultural differences. I don’t think therapy and medicalised responses to children/teenagers distress are quite as embedded in the UK. Though I am from the North of England and we can be a bit “haven’t you got any mates?” (Crocodile Dundee Style😉) about North American reliance on therapy. Shrier has lots to say about parenting styles and our growing impulse to step in when our children encounter difficulties. The phenomenon of Helicopter parents is less embedded in working class culture but is definitely rampant in middle class parenting. Overall this book translates very well, to the U.K. context, and it is eerie how much commonalty there is in the experiences of parents on both sides of the atlantic.
In Conclusion. This is a very important book.
Purchasing Abigail’s book via the link, below, will provide funds to a UK Parent’s group (Bayswater Support Group) who support families, with children who identify as transgender, to navigate a path to wholeness.
My copy of this book will be going to a generous donor who has purchased it to help fund my work. If you wish to support me you can do so here.
If you are able to support my work please do so. I am unwaged and all my content is open.
Investigating the march of Gender Identity Ideology. The impact on Women’s rights and the cost paid by our Gay offspring & children on the Autistic spectrum.