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).
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.
This week (7th September 2021) an interview with Judith Butler was published in The Guardian. It created a bit of a furore on Terf Island twitter, for comparing Gender Critical feminists to fascists. In the midst of the backlash the article was significantly amended. For the record, I do not think her words should have been censored. As it happens many people had taken copes of the article and, as the interviewer (Jules Gleeson) boasted on twitter, it has been drawn to the attention of far more people. (Search ”Streisand effect” if you need context for this tweet).
About Jules Gleeson
The interviewer is a self proclaimed intersex activist, with an interesting body of work.
It is perfectly possible the above 👆is a factual statement and they do indeed have a difference in sexual development (DSD). There are a number of variations of sexual characteristics which fall under the term; though “intersex” is a label that has fallen out of favour for many people with DSDs. It is also worth noting that many people self–identify as ”intersex”, which is a contentious issue in these circles. The self-identifying kind of “intersex” tend to use this term because it serves to undermine notions of sexual dimorphism. Its a loaded term for that reason.
The interviewer has undertaken niche research centred on cross-dressing monastic saints and ”explanations of eunuchs as a normalised-yet-contentious feature of late Romanlife”. I would quite like to read it to see why we are normalising this, again, in the 21st Century. I am quite serious. I am not a theologian, I am a devout, atheist. I am curious about the recurrent references to the divine in pontifications on transgender issues. There also parallels with some Christian ascetic sects, which practiced castrations/mastectomy to mortify the flesh. (See the branch of Russian Orthodox Christians , The Skoptsy). It would be fascinating to see how these world views overlap. Note, I am not accusing Gleeson of being Skoptsy adjacent. 😂. That would be an association fallacy.
Here are a few of the other pieces Gleeson published, in the New Socialist. This should give you a flavour of their preoccupations. 👇
Here are some more pieces. Suprise, Suprise, they were not a fan of the Lesbians who protested Pride to defend same sex attraction. They have also castigated The Guardian, previously, for transphobia.
I am not going to link to all the articles but I will include this one, re the Labour Party Leadership contest, for sheer devilry. I particularly enjoy the way Peter Stringfellow is wedged into a critique of, female centred, feminism. Thats a smear, by association, too far for this feminist 😂.
Here the Queen of Queer wades in with her obsession for re-categorising the female sex, to include males. While the male sex still commit 99% of all sex offences, overwhelmingly against women, this is a breathtakingly naive stance. Her pronouncements about pronouns do not address the concrete realities about women’s lives. So far the advantages, for women, seem to be, checks notes, male rapists in female prisons, males competing in women’s sports, and the normalisation of dehumanising language like ”chest-feeder” or ”cervix haver”. Noticeably public information campaigns, for males, retain the word ”man” for the prostate-havers /testicle-bearers. Tis almost as if there is some SEXism at play in the gender justice movement.
She spouts the usual Butler Bollox about how we women just need to refuse to re-enact gender norms, as if nobody ever thought of this before. However, refusing to perform sex stereotypes, to liberate women, is not consistent with a choice to identify out of our sex category. In case you were not aware Butler now claims to be non-binary cos they is more enlightened than the rest of us! Are those of us claiming our womanhood deemed to be accepting the ”Gender performance” expected of us? Woman is a sex based category, this does NOT change; projections onto what being a woman means change, that is not the same thing.
Next up Judith demands that we accept a more expansive notion of womanhood which includes those who DO identify with the performance of ”Gender”. Surely this is reifying the notion of sex stereotypes and advocating carving them into flesh? If women reject them we can remove our breasts, if a man identifies with cultural norms associated with femininity he can modify his body to join the sisterhood. Doesn’t this leave us with medicalised closets for those who reject their sex, in favour of the physical embodiment of Gender Stereotypes?
Given that Butler also wishes to overthrow capitalism is she aware how much income is generated from the Gender Industrial Complex? CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) of 25% is considered at the upper end of pretty good. 👇
Back to the Butler article
Would it not be more radical for men to expand the category of maleness to celebrate alternative variants of masculinity? We have challenged the straightjacket of sex stereotypes in many different ways, historically, without claiming that Boy George was literally a woman. Isn’t that more radical? The addition of trans men here also looks a bit tokenistic. Women tend to focus on issues raised by males invading the female sex class. Men need not have the same concerns about females invading their spaces because SEX Matters. It may be annoying to have a blue-haired, female, teen who thinks she is a gay man. It is unlikely to make adult males feel intimidated.
She also goes a bit terfy in this next clip. Could it be she knows males, socialised as males, don’t entirely learn to shed their learned behaviours when in ”Girl Mode”? Doesn’t an inability to identify out of their maleness have implications for actual women and girls?
Notice Butler then moves on to describe a struggle against ”Gender Norms” which could sit comfortably within a Gender Critical argument. Rejecting sex stereotypes is integral to (my) “Gender Critical” feminism. We know women are real, our sex shapes aspects of our experience but biology need not be primary and controlling, in all circumstances. However we do have different bodies, to men, and sometimes that difference needs accommodating. Some of these may relate to our reproductive functions, some of them may be related to other, sex based, health needs. Others may be more prosaic in that simple product design, based on default man, often fails to meet the needs of women.
Below she is on the way to a good, if not original, point. From the moment our sex is recognised and recorded assumptions are made about the position we will hold in society. Girl children are left to cry for longer and fed less, we may be put in flouncy dresses which we are supposed to keep clean. We may be given toys to inculcate expectations of domesticity. Women’s liberation depends on unpicking this earlier grooming /female socialisation. It’s also beyond regressive to see medicalised identities as a “liberation” , for men or women, depending , as they do, on a lifetime on cross sex hormones. 👇
A couple of other observations. I am not a proponent of blank slate theory. I think both nature and nurture play a role in how the sexes are shaped. I am critical of the elements of female socialisation which encourage us to put our interests last. At the same time some of the qualities, nurtured by a female socialisation, are positive and it would be great if we inculcated them in our boy children.
ALL SEXES MATTER
This demand that feminism works to solve all the other problems Butler lists here, weakens women’s rights campaign. What other movement is asked to work on all the other injustices in the world. Can’t female people centre ourselves? We are half the population, except in countries that practice aborting female babies. This is the #AllSexesMatter for feminism. Wry smile at Butler claiming to be against misogyny. She has lent credence to the biggest attack on women’s rights for decades. The ideology she embraces has unleashed a wave of misogyny unlike any I have seen in my lifetime.
Here she says a white person cannot centre themselves in Black struggles but is simultaneously, maddeningly, blind to the obvious parallel in demanding women must centre males, in a movement for the liberation of women.
Lol at the navel-gazing, non-binary, theybe calling out the danger of becoming self-absorbed. 😂
It can hardly be news that the Pope believes man and woman are Godly creations. This is a rather run of the mill observation. However, one does not have to be religious to believe biological sex is real. This is what is known as “Association Fallacy” and it is a bad faith argument designed to paint women, who know what a woman is, as religious conservatives. To be fair, religious conservatives also deserve the protection of single sex spaces and even they are not neccessarily down with the Pope’s sexual politics. If all Italian Catholics followed the Church’s teaching on contraception, for example, it would not have one of the lowest birth rates in Europe.
Heaven help us we are Vatican adjacent apparently. Next up some guff about pronouns and the world of ”they”
Here is the offending paragraph. The furore, for anyone who remains blissfully unaware, is about a male who exposed his genitals, to women and girls, at a spa. He was in the female section of a Korean spa, where going naked is the norm. A woman complained and was told the person was in that section because they identify as a ”woman”. This is legally correct under Californian law. Trans activists first claimed this was a right wing hoax. When it turned out to be true some, Laurie Penny (see below) pivoted “they should not have been looking because that is rude”. Finally it was revealed that this is a man with a history of sex offending going back nearly 20 years, Cue, tweet deleting or brazen double downs!
Again the lack of self-awareness from the Queen of Contradiction herself. She has not even come up with a stable definition of “gender” and yet wants all laws to give primacy to a nebulous concept over a material reality. Yet, apparently the Gender Critical movement is full of contradictions. 😳
Below is how Butler characterises the women fighting to protect single sex spaces. I will give her this she is throwing every slur that comes to mind. This is a ridiculous mis-characterisation of the women fighting for women’s rights. Many of the women, and men, opposed to Gender Identity Ideology, are same sex attracted, many of the women have fought for reproductive justice, and the vast majority are in this fight because of the higher risk of sexual violence when we dismantle safeguards.
Here is the part where she blatantly compares women, fighting for sex based rights to fascists: ”The anti-gender ideology is one of the dominant strains of fascism of our times”.
I won’t revisit the issue of attacks on trans people. I covered the transperbole on murders of trans people (males) in this post 👇. In the UK the trans demographic is one of the safest and as a group they have committed more murders than have been victims. Globally the biggest risk factor for trans-id males is working in prostitution.
Given that Butler recommends reading Anne Fausto-Sterling, in the above clip, here is detour to look at her work. She is best known for claiming there are 5 biological sexes.
She has since explained away as tongue-in-cheek prompting this memorable twitter exchange. Superb teacher voice coming through here. 👇
Invariably when women are told to “educate ourselves” we do just that and it doesn’t end well for the sex-denialists.
I would like to see Butler render her ideas in a more accessible format because her prose style seems designed to obfuscate, rather than illuminate. There is an ambiguity in her thought process that looks tactical in its evasiveness. I am not alone in making this observation, indeed twenty years ago the Guardian itself publicised an award made to Butler on her prose style.
Butler wins bad writing contest
So, ”gender” is performative and needs to be disrupted to liberate us. Saying “gender is a destructive fiction“ is beyond the pale and makes us fascists. Gender is a problem if it is performed by the sex that aligns with the associated gender identity. So, a feminine male, in Girl Mode, is cutting edge, radical politics but a female doing the same is a boring old Cis girl. A man repudiating his sex, and becoming dependent on Big Pharma, to validate his lady feelz is going to destroy capitalism. A woman who rejects sex stereotypes can become a theybe or identify as a man. Some of these identities may need hormones/surgery but it’s not a requirement. Women need to get over their genital phobia and realise that a Woman with a penis is no threat, even if she presents herself like a man because that’s just queering the binary.
I think I’ve got it!
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.
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,
Social Media / Twitter
The first question is about the “fisticuffs” on social media. Ruth talks about her own experience here: “Ihave 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.
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 👇
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.
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.
Ruth acknowledges her behind the scenes role with government 👇
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.
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?)
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!
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”.
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.
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:
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”.
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.
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. 👇
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.
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.
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.
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…
I will leave you with this final thought from the moderator. Yes. He really did say this:
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.
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.
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.
Following on from part one I began to look at how the ChildLine youtube account and noticed it was saturated in Trans Ideology. Thus far I have not found any Lesbian content. I am still working my way through and will post any content that validates actual, same sex attracted, Lesbians. Yes, I know I should not need to clarify that same sex orientation involves biological sex.
Since 2006 ChildLine is run by the NSPCC. The NSPCC isn’t just any children’s charity. It is the only one with statutory powers to remove children from parents. This is enshrined in law to facilitate the removal of children from abusive parents. How the NSPCC decides what constitutes abuse, matters. The NSPCC is so saturated in Queer Theory and the idea that children are #BornInTheWrongBody. What happens if the definition of abuse covers parents who refuse to medicalise “trans-identifying kids? Anyone watching what is happening in Canada will know this is not far fetched. A Canadian father lost his battle to prevent his daughter accessing Puberty Blockers and Cross Sex hormones. His contact with his daughter has been, legally, restricted to on-line interactions, for three years. An initial judgement informed him that refusing to use preferred pronouns would be treated as “family violence”. You can read the full judgement here
This clip is illustrative of how far parental responsibility is being undermined in Canada. 👇
With this context in mind I decided to work through ChildLine content to see what our kids are learning from ChildLine. This is the second post on this topic. The first covers what the NSPCC/ChildLine are teaching our children about porn. Queering the NSPCC? Part One.
What it means to be Transgender?
The topic of this log is a ChildLine youtube on What it means to be Transgender. The interviewees were FoxFisher, who identifies as Non-Binary, and Mr Lewzer who identifies as a transman. Fisher is a relatively well known trans activist who has appeared in NHS guidance, School Transgender packs and in the media. MrLewzer is a Transman with a popular youtube channel. Mr Lewzer has also appeared in NHS training guidance as provided by the Transgender Lobby group GIRES. (Gender Identity Research and Education Service) 👇
A link to the video, on YouTube here. (Backed up in case of revisionism)
The video begins with an attempt at a definition of what it means to be Transgender. Fisher tells us that this means you don’t “feel connected to the Gender they were assigned at birth”. Claiming that sex is “assigned” at birth is pure Trans Ideology. Sex is simply observed and recorded in all but an, infinitesimally, small number of cases. For some people, born with disorders/differences in sexual development, it may not be straightforward. The baby may need chromosomal/ karyotype tests. Discussion of trans identity often conflates these very different issues. There is no evidence that there is a significant correlation between people with DSDs and people with a Transgender Identity. Indeed, in the U.K., research was undertaken which resulted in the discontinuation of karyotype testing, at Gender Identity Clinics. Source for this 👇 quote here
Defining the undefinable
There’s lots more incoherent & inconsistent statements about “gender” . Gender is a spectrum between male and female; but some people don’t identify with either; and it’s really an individual choice. Valiant attempts are made to separate “GenderExpression“ from “Gender Identity” but they all return to superficial signifiers like dress and hair. . Good luck codifying “GenderIdentity” into law based on these nebulous descriptions. Gender Identity is a faith based and subjective belief system. Best stick with the fact that we are Sexually Dimorphic and reserve compassion for the tiny number of people with DSDs who genuinely need some specific accommodations.
Mr Lewzer explains that some people wish to modify their body but some do not. Mr Lewzer tells us “It’s a misconception that hormones and surgery make you a man or a woman”
Sadly this display of logic was short-lived. In a further elucidation of the point we are told, regardless of any bodily modification, it is incumbent on the rest of us to accept a Self-identified gender. Acceptance without Exception!
Terminology. Keep up!
Fox: “I no longer use the term Female to Male. To me it implies that I was female. I think a lot of people find that problematic”.
Lewzer explains that they do use the term, MTF, for simplicity’s sake. Though they also add:
Amy, the interviewer, helpfully explains that using the language of “ the community“ , is all about being “considerate of what other people feel”. Tricky territory when this clip illustrates the acceptable language is contested even within the community. The interviewer is also pushing a version of the #BeKind, faux-feminism that places the majority burden, and risk, on females, forced to affirm males as literal females.
Strategic Deployment of “Transmen”
It’s also notable that post-medicalised females are often centred in particular discussions. Testosterone packs a punch on the female body so, Transmen are often “passing”. Whilst they don’t typically, present a threat to biological males , in female spaces they are likely to disrupt a social norms. They may find themselves in no-mans land. If women read you as male they will respond accordingly. At best they will feel uncomfortable. Male To Female (MTF) are less likely to pass and will be coded male in female spaces. Fox Fisher helpfully interjects to correct the, problematic terminology of “passing” . Apparently we should not use it because some people don’t aspire to pass as the opposite sex. Right. Thus far it’s as clear as mud.
Amy follows up on her appeal to kindness and adopting trans terminology by demonstrating her willingness to ignore the female community. Here she explains what Cisgendermeans, as if it’s an unproblematic definition . In fact many women reject the idea that we identify with our “Gender” which we see as a collection of , culturally variable, sex stereotypes. We don’t , necessarily, identify with our Gender. We simply are our Sex. My response to this is simply ⇓
Celebrating Gender Non-Conformity?
Another worrying aspect of this piece is the idea that playing around with your “Gender” is a harmless part of adolescent development. It is true that teenagers go through a period of personality formation; which can include conformity to, or rejection of, expectations for their sex. It is normal to be experimenting with how to navigate this the bridge to adulthood. However it is only a recent phenomenon that this has involved considering, or, undertaking, medical pathways. That concretises adolescent playfulness in unprecedented ways.
Mr Lewzer explains how mum was persuaded things would be OK by showing her positive stories of Transitioners. “They looked good, they are happy and healthy and have relationships”.Yes! Mr Lewzer. This is the age of social media when people carefully curate their content to craft a public persona. Moreover the next statement is striking for what it leaves out. Puberty Blockers have been given to children as young as 10, in the U.K. They invariably progress to cross sex hormones. They are not a reversible intervention. Confirmation from a Tavistock clinic . Britain’s main Gender Identity Clinic is covered here: TAVISTOCK PART THREE (A)
Before I leave this post I want to refer to Fox Fisher’s statement about their own bodily distress. Fox tells us they felt a lot of shame about how they felt. “Throughout my teenage years I had not respect for myself, my body, or anything like that. I’d hate for any young person to have to go through that”. There’s a glaring contradiction at the heart of this ideology. It is built on bodily rejection, but dressed up as a person liberation and a route to become your authentic self.
The other elephant in the room is that Lesbians and Gay males are no stranger to performing “Gender” in ways that confound societal expectations. Internalised homophobia can easily manifest itself as shame and bodily hatred. I have written on this topic many times. The Woke Gay Conversion Therapy?
I want to leave you with Fox Fisher’s statement at a Mermaids summer camp. Youtube original removed but here is archived content. Fox Fisher (Worth watching the whole thing which defends 3 year olds knowing they have a Gender Identity that doesn’t match their sex and a court case in which child was removed from the Mother who was deemed to be, inappropriately, fostering a Social Transition)
I cannot imagine any other activist being allowed to express this sentiment 👇and remain associated with a charity which proclaims itself as an ally of the LGBTQ+
In fact the GEO funded this project to work with 27 primary schools. At a superficial level the project aims may seem laudable, a resource to tackle bullying in Primary Schools. However an examination of the materials in this pack reveal the underlying relationship to Queer Theory and the political project of disrupting social norms. Some social norms, such as homophobia, needed (still need) to be challenged. Other social norms exist for a reason, for example, to stigmatise the dangerous sexualisation of children. This entire document is a clear example of the political project of Queeringtheclassroom. You can read and article on this here
My first red flag was a dangerous reliance on Stonewall reports.
The rise of hate crime on the basis of homophobia is disturbing. Especially since this is the least covered of the letters by Stonewall. However Stonewall extrapolates from the data to show an alarming % of hate crime, 53% in the 18-24 age bracket. However a hate crime is recorded based on the self-perception of the reporting individual and we know some of these are simple “mis-gendering”. Another puzzling claim is that this project aimed to dismantle gender stereotypes. This is the most disingenuous of claims since we are teaching children, who don’t perform sex stereotypes “correctly”, that they may be #BornInTheWrongBody.
My next red flag was a reference to this person Dr Ronz. The good doctor describes zimself as a “queer, black, androgynous, intersectional feminist”. Of course zie does. After making a good point about lack of visibility; which does impact Lesbians, in particular, she then colludes with the literal erasing of female, often Lesbian, bodies. A young woman describes difficulty walking, struggling to breathe, a hunched back and ribs popping out, all caused by breast binding. This young woman is manifesting an obvious bodily hatred. Dr Ronz fails to interrogate any underlying, psychological, issues, instead she merely advises her to wear a larger binder!
For further reading you can check out this excellent article on the different attitudes to breast ironing (bad) and Breast binding (progressive) in this article. here. What next corsets?
At last more organisations have realised they cannot get away with lying about the nine, legally protected characteristics. This is, at least, an accurate list. 👇. Brief sigh of relief but read on….they are still going to do it, just in a bit more of a sneaky way.
Later on we see the sleight of hand. They emphasise that the correct legal terms should be used except its OK to use “gender” instead of Sex & Gender Reassignment. The very same two protected characteristics now under attack can be replaced with the Stonewall preferred term. Coincidence? I think not.
Don’t take us for fools Stonewall. We see exactly what you are doing even if you have successfully hoodwinked the GEO. This is straight up Stonewall Law. Here’s Stonewall on The Equality Act. 👇
To ram home the point it quotes some of the schools involved who have proceeded to introduce mixed-sex toilets. No doubt after being introduced to this US Transgender Rights Activist who they quote in the document. 👇 Their claim to fame is destroying access to single sex toilets/changing rooms in their home state. There is quite a lot about making sure toilets are “gender neutral” in the pack as teachers fall over themselves to queer the toilet facilities.
There follows a long list of terminology for our primary school children, and likely the teachers, to learn. Why do primary age children need to know about “cisnormativity”,“heteronormative“, “pansexual” and “queer” . Kids are taught about “heterosexism” which is defined as a “belief that heterosexuality is normal and the norm”. Again this is straight out of Queer Theory. A reference to disrupting social norms which exposes the social engineering inherent in “free to be “. A long list of terminology but it only includes the word for the majority sexual orientation in the description for “heterosexism”. These Trans Ally activists seem to have studied Module 101 of how to provoke a backlash, to hard won rights for the LGB and even, ironically, the T.
A dissertation on pronouns follows. Why are we telling primary school children that an incorrect use of pronouns may constitute harassment?
Actually lying about the Law in a project sponsored by the Government! The Equality Act says no such thing! Wrong pronouns do not contravene the Equality Act!
These are primary age kids and, just in case we have all forgotten, we don’t use pronouns to anyone’s face! They are used to refer to people when they are not there!
Welcome to Dystopia. 👇
Gender Identity Ideology.
Naturally the document is saturated with teaching about Gender Identity. The pack quotes research showing that children from age three “can be aware of and talk abut their gender identity”. Children, as young as three, can show awareness of the expectations for their sex and conform to behaviours based on Gender stereotypes. This does not mean they have an innate “gender identity”. It just means boys and girls are socialised to conform from a very young age. Primary school children can indeed be aware of their sexual orientation but it is over-reach to claim that both sexual orientation and Gender Identity are innate. There is much evidence for the former but not the latter. This is not education its indoctrination.
This curriculum seems designed to inculcate a bodily dissociative disorder. The below quote is to remind us of the odious Section 28 legislation, which forbade references to homosexuality. However, Gender identity Ideology is actually the Woke Section 28. We are disproportionately sweeping up our gay youth in the Transgender phenomenon because, guess what, Butch Lesbians and Femme Gay males are a thing. We used to bully femme boys by them by calling them cissy/girl and now we are telling them they are literally girls! So, yes, we are promoting being transgender.
The document also admits that staff, who were worried about reactions from parents, initially, proceeded to teach this ideology in secret. As more parents became aware of this it generated a backlash. Recognising the days of stealth indoctrination have passed, our woke overlords resort to lying about the law and emotional blackmail. Teaching about Gender Identity is not mandated by law. Parents are objecting! And NO it is not a moral and legal duty. 👇
The document addresses questions of religious belief in the context of sexual orientation and then proceeds to answer the question encompassing the LGB & the T. This is a standard tactic. Many opponents of Transgender Identity Ideology are themselves homosexual. This is because there is a conflict between having a SEXual orientation, and demands that you include anyone with the same Gender in your dating pool, regardless of their biology. Activists know that people are generally shamed by being called homophobic so they exploit this fear to push transgender ideology.
Next up is a scurrilous attack on organisations which question the new hegemony of “Born In The Wrong Body”, or raise issues of concerns about the impact on Women’s Rights. Worth reproducing this in its entirety. Note that once again Stonewall are quoted, approvingly, as are Mermaids. (The latter is a prominent, UK based, charity, which promotes medicalising “transgender kids” . The BBC has recently removed Mermaids from the list of charities they refer to as sources of advice). This document quotes them as a reputable group.
The authors are keen to make sure that parents and schools reject these organisations and do not, on any account, read what they have to say. They then detail tactics for making sure the entire school buys into the ideology. Get the Governors on board, get parents in for friendly coffee mornings…..basically “groom” them. The document also wrongly tells parents they can’t reject LGBT education. Not true. Sex Educations is expected to be mandatory from September 2020. It is not yet. There is no obligation to teach Gender Identity in schools but note that this document makes it clear it is to be embedded across the curriculum.👇
However if the Government reverse the mandatory sex education the document outlines how to make sure there will be no escape. There are pages and pages of all aspects of the curriculum and how to “Queer” it. There are examples of Home/School contracts so that parents know what is expected of them and their child. There are books like this by Jazz Jennings, the poster child for Gender Dysphoria. 👇 The little boy who had his puberty blocked and sadly, at age 16, did not know what an orgasm felt like. Nice accessible, heart-warming stories. Nothing about puberty blocking causing a penis so small there was not enough material to fashion a neo-vagina and Jazz Jennings multiple, and continuing, corrective surgeries.
Another part of the document includes retrospectively transitioning women, who masqueraded as men to access male professions, such as Dr James Barry. Or even claiming that Plato supported the LGBT+ which is ahistorical nonsense.
They do manage to dredge up an actual transsexual to offer up as a role model for children. Robert (a) Cowell was a late transitioning WW2 Fighter pilot, with a less than savoury tale.
There is a reason why this term exists. Here teachers, it is suggested, observe pupils and keep a diary of their behaviour. Checking for implied homophobia or, heaven forfend, a style of play that assumes heteronormativity!
I have written about the way parents are treated in these guidance packs. Suffice to say that this one also advocates hiding information from parents. Affirming children at school and concealing this information from parents, This despite also claiming our children are at a heightened risk of suicide. Whilst repeating the mantra: This is not a safeguarding issue?
The references and signposting at the end tells its own tale. Stonewall, Stonewall, Stonewall. Also Gendered Intelligence and Mermaids! Not to forget the Proud Trust, proud purveyors of the Dice Game as covered by this article. here.
The forces pushing this ideology have finally come out of the shadows, they have spread their tentacles throughout councils, parliament, police forces, the Judiciary, Universities and our schools. No longer acting in stealth more and more “normies” are waking up to its more sinister content.
If you wish to support my work here is my paypal address @firstname.lastname@example.org
Parents entrust our kids to the School/Teachers to look after their safety and well-being, in our stead. Forcing our girls to share mixed sex spaces, and hiding information from parents is a grave dereliction of that duty.
Transgender Guidance in Schools.
More and more parents have begun to raise concerns about School guidance, supposedly, developed to accommodate Transgender pupils. Grass roots organisations, such as SafeSchoolsAlliance, have emerged to challenge these policies. In 2020, transgender guidance has been withdrawn in Kent, Cornwall, Shropshire, Barnsley, Warwickshire and Oxfordshire. There are challenges underway in three further schools, of which I am aware. Thus far all the guidance has been withdrawn rather than face a legal challenge.
The Oxfordshire case is illustrative of a problematic attitude to the protected characteristic of sex. A 13 year old girl challenged Oxfordshire County Council via a Judicial Review. Her case aimed to gain recognition of the conflict between the protected characteristics of Sex & Gender Reassignment. The guidance from the Department of Education argues that the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment covers pupils who identify as Transgender. Link to government guidance is here
Here is the relevant excerpt and look who is advising them! GIRES!
This is despite the fact under 18’s cannot apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate or, legally, obtain Sexual Reassignment Surgery, in the UK. The Transgender pupils are therefore anatomically indistinguishable from the rest of their natal sex.
Rather than face a judicial review the council withdrew the policy. They are clearly hoping to hide behind the skirts/trousers of the EHRC. Oxfordshire issued a statement which contained no apology, to the female pupil. Instead the Council ends with a statement about the safeguarding of its trans-identifying pupils. Nothing about a duty to safeguard, potentially vulnerable, natal girls.
In this post I want to specifically focus on the way parents are regarded in these transgender toolkits. Both the parents of children who manifest as Gender Dysphoric and the parents of other pupils. I estimate I have looked at about twenty of these guidance packs. Below are examples of what they have to say about parents.
Most of the guidance refers to the high rate of suicidal ideation, in our trans-identifying children. Yet the policies repeatedly state there is no, inherent, safeguarding risk. If our children reveal a state of gender confusion , to a member of staff, they are reminded that this is confidential information, not to be shared, even with the child’s parents. How can schools claim our children are at a high risk of suicide attempts and, simultaneously, state there are no safeguarding issues. How is it Ok to conceal this information from parents?
Suffolk council divides parents into the good and the bad ones. The good ones “work alongside their child”. Are the bad ones those who think the best outcome is a reconciliation to biological sex and not a lifelong dependence on BigPharma?
Barnsley expresses the hope that parents will be concerned for their child’s welfare but is clearly sceptical. At no point, in any of the policies, is there an understanding that parents, who express caution, are the ones acting in the best interests of our children. Every pack I have examined is suspiciously keen to emphasise actions the child can take independently of their parents.
More sinister is an open statement that a school, in this case a Catholic school, can put in place a transition plan that does not involve the parents! This is my old school and I have young relatives who attend there.
Here is another Catholic school which labels parent’s as prejudiced. It then goes on to make the claim that Parents/Guardians may not be the most appropriate people to guide their child through transitioning! Why is transitioning our children seen as an unmitigated good? A direct attack on parental duty of care and parental rights from the Catholic Church!. I am an atheist but it is quite astonishing to see the undermining of Parental responsibility emanating out of Catholic schools.
Leicestershire Council appear to see themselves as a Tavistock (Gender Identity Services) referral agent: Actually stating here that Teachers & School Nurses, even Youth Workers are able to make referrals!
Where are the parents in the Leicester guidance? Once again the confidentiality of the child is placed in the foreground. What this actually means is that the school has the right to keep secrets from the parents. Even whilst so many of these packs claim our children are at a significant risk of suicide attempts. Still it is not a safeguarding issue?
This next clip is even more disturbing. The Leicester policy sets out a scenario where one of the parents will be actively deceived about what is going on.
Of course we can all think of scenarios where parents are a risk to the safety and well-being of their child. Why are parents, who question the uptick of girls (and boys) with Gender Dysphoria, labelled as problematic. Having navigated this territory, for my male child, I was keen that he was afforded protection but not at the expense of the female pupils. Puberty can be a difficult time for teenage girls and they too deserve dignity, privacy and protection. Like the parent below I was able to navigate a careful path between the two protected groups. Unlike this parent, from the Cornwall guidance, I was not faced with a Social Justice Warrior undermining these careful arrangements.
The Cornwall policy was jointly drafted with a female police officer. I was surprised the statement on the left made it into the document. Apart from a disturbing focus on links to reporting #HateCrime it was not the worst Transgender policy I read. It is, however, a, regrettably, low bar. The document also brands parents as potentially prejudiced and again argues that the child may have a perfect legal right to exclude parents from any role in preserving their healthy bodies.
You can read about the Fraser Guidelines, and Gillick Competence, mentioned above here. Activists argue that transitioning children /teens against their parent’s wishes is in line with the rights of young people. You will start to see more references to these guidelines and Gillick competence. This is intentional and designed to draw a false equivalence to access to contraception. References will also be clothed in Human Rights speak and references to bodily autonomy.
A lot of these guidance packs go to some lengths to make sure schools know they can honour a pupil’s preferred name and pronoun. School systems can be amended to reflect this. There is no need for a legal name change. They also point out that, once a pupil reaches 16 they no longer need parental permission.
Shropshire also favours hiding this information from parents who are not “supportive”. I know, first hand, of parents who only discovered what was going on, with their own child, when a letter was sent home with a new name & pronouns. Do not tell parents can be a very dangerous message. Some parents have children with eating disorders, psychiatric co-morbidities, and other conditions which the school may be unaware about.
The pack which seems to be the template for most of the packs I have seen remains in operation. This is the All Sorts pack, from Brighton and Hove. A pupil’s right to confidentiality is elevated above parental obligations, or the rights of other pupils. Again, because they claim it is not a safeguarding issue it can be kept from their own parents and the parents of other children.
Where a parent raises a concern, about a male-bodied person in girls changing rooms, the pupil/parent’s are admonished for denying the “girlhood” of the other pupil. In this scenario, I as a parent of a trans-identifying male, agree with the female pupil and her parent’s concerns. I would not want my son to be exposed to the hostility, that would likely ensue, from such a stance. At the same time, if the guidance is followed, I would be totally unaware my child had formally claimed trans-status at the school. Who does this protect? Not my son. Not the girls in his school.
Another common feature of the Transgender Guidance is the near ubiquity of signposting to Mermaids Charity. This charity is a keen advocate for keeping secrets from parents. Here is an article on their website. It was modified so children could quickly exit the site and avoid their parents discovering they are seeking counsel on Gender Identity Issues.
The BBC has now amended their guidance to remove signposting to Mermaids and other trans lobby groups. I wonder how long it will take for all School guidance packs to do the same?
My Next blog will explore this document? Based on a project funded by the Government Equalities Office,
Here is what they have to say about parents. This is a lie. The Equality Act does not mandate pronouns.
Michael has been indomitable in his research into the use of puberty blockers on, ever younger, children. Michael is an Oxford University academic who researches social movements and ordinary people, driven to extraordinary actions. He also researches self-harm as a form of social protest. An interesting background. As you will see from his paper he was told by some woke students to Educate Himself. So he did! Here’s what he uncovered.
As always I am happy for you to bypass my commentary and access the paper directly here. Either way I recommend reading the full paper.
The pressure, on the Tavistock, Gender Identity Service (GIDs) to introduce earlier intervention is well documented. For neophytes you can can see the tensions, between Tavistock staff & Lobbyists, in this oral evidence to the Transgender Equality Inquiry. here. With contributions from Susie Green, of Mermaids, and Bernadette Wren, of the Tavistock.
The aim of Trans Activists was to get “The Dutch Protocol” embedded in Tavistock practice. This protocol advocated earlier intervention, seen as the key to a more passing Trans Community. Blocking puberty was one way to do this, since it halted the process of masculinisation/feminisation. Publicly Blockers were touted as merely allowing a delay to explore gender identity issues. Based on research this would seem to be pure Public Relations.
The paper goes into some detail on the activists involved in the campaign to institute this changed treatment protocol. One of the familiar names is Stephen Whittle. Whittle is a transman and has played a key role in instituting Transgender Ideology. The best way to pass as a man, it would appear, is to be to behave like the most regressive mysogynist and attack women’s rights. Below are some other key figures together with groups which provided funding. ( I did a double take at the Servite Sisters! My Uncle was a Servite Brother; which is a Catholic order. Sure enough, it’s a Charity run by Catholic Nuns. Why would Catholic nuns fund blocking puberty?)
Norman Spack was involved in the treatment of Susie Green’s child. Susie is now the head of Mermaids, the leading UK charity advocating for medicalising children. Parents with children, who have been through this process, are evangelical in their zeal to extend this to other children. I suspect the motivation is to reassure themselves they did the right thing. The over-investment of older Trans activists, for early transition, looks like retrospective wish fulfilment.
As stated above the argument for puberty blockers had mainly been promulgated as a “pause” providing a, temporary, halt to the development of sexual characteristics. So what happened in the Dutch study? We know that the Tavistock were aware of this study but they didn’t include this fact in their bid for funding and ethical approval. No adolescent withdrew from puberty suppression and all started cross-sex hormone treatment, the first step of actual gender reassignment (de Vries, Steensma, Doreleijers, et al., 2010) Source.
Biggs paper highlights the discrepancies in the statements from GIDS clinicians on Puberty Blockers as a pause. He even highlights near contemporaneous, and contradictory, statements on the topic. See Polly Carmichael, from the Children’s BBC programme, I am Leo, juxtaposed with a statement she gave to the Guardian at around the same time. “We just don’t have the evidence…”
Ultimately Polly Carmichael got her wish. The Gender Identity Development Service eventually received ethical approval to administer Puberty Blockers to children. A first attempt was rejected but, undeterred, the application was made again. This time the Tavistock chose to submit the application to a different ethical approval body. It was then approved. The initial study was based on participants from 12 years old. However the evidence suggests the actual age of commencement can be as young as 10. [See Michael’s paper for how he deduced this. Also Dr Aiden Kelly admitting this in my earlier piece TAVISTOCK PART THREE (A)]
The paper illustrates how Tavistock accounts of the actual number of subjects involved have varied. The figure of 44 does not remain constant . This matters because one of the failings in much of the research, in this field, is a failure to follow up patients long term. Biggs traces the various numbers used in the public reporting on the study. Damningly, despite being the custodian of the research project, the Tavistock does not appear to be keeping adequate records on the experimental subjects or taking the opportunity to rectify the dearth of long term follow-up studies. A missed opportunity or a deliberate attempt at obfuscation? Dr Carmichael admits that they lose contact with subjects once referred, at age 18 to the adult services. She also admits that they have not tracked those given hormone blockers in a single database! Thus the medium and long term consequences are not being tracked. Despite this look at the growth in numbers being given this treatment and the reduction in the age at commencement. Moreover changes to names and NHS numbers also make it difficult to track those on the receiving end of this experiment. ⇓⇓⇓. All set out in the clips below.
Also note that almost all cases led to cross-sex hormones. Just as in the Dutch Study. Therefore this was not a pauseand, 9 years on, the Clinicians involved must know this. Interestingly only in May 2020 did the NHS change its own guidance to stop referring to Puberty Blockers as “fully reversible”.
Biggs has some significant criticisms of the project. Only one of which is the failure to meet any reasonable threshold for informed consent by not revealing the seemingly, inevitable progression to Cross Sex hormones. He also highlights the risks of the use of the drub triptorelin, whose negative outcomes have either been ignored or supressed.
There is more information, in the public domain, about the treatment of dangerous sex offenders, than there is of children put on the same drug. Let that sink in.
Below are a couple of quotes. You can read the full study here Triptorelin.
More details of the impact on male children include a stunting of genitalia and negative impact on sexual function. Given that any surgeries to create a “neo-vagina” rely on sufficient penile tissue, for the most common techniques, this is another serious concern.
Other damning evidence suggests a negative impact on fertility and even sexual function.
Even from the limited evidence that GIDS has shared, mainly in Abstract Form from presentations at conferences, Biggs argues that negative outcomes have been omitted or downplayed. Some of these relate to bone density, which should be increasing during puberty. Others relate to reported psycho-social functioning and even suicidal thoughts.
In the light of the concerns raised by the scant evidence in the public domain why has their been no detailed report over 9 years since the project commenced? Biggs raises some serious questions about how a “research project” , instituted in 2011, has been allowed to progress to 2020 without publishing a full evaluation.
Increasing media coverage and the beginnings of political scrutiny may finally be about to shine a spotlight on this experimental treatment. Currently there is an ex-patient, Keira Bell, in the process of taking the Tavistock to Judicial Review over the medical intervention she received. The Safeguarding Lead is to take the Tavistock to court after being informed that safeguarding information was being deliberately withheld from her. Another former member of staff , Susan Evans, commenced legal action over the treatment of children. The Cass Review will look at Puberty Blockers on behalf of NICE. Liz Truss has signalled a change of direction over the treatment of under 18’s.
More politicians are also waking up to this issue.
An Ex- Labour peer, and Doctor of Medicine, Lord Moonie, has been raising issues on the medicalisation of kids and the impact on women’s spaces for well over a year. (Banned from twitter & resigned from Labour over this issue.) Latterly a Conservative MP , Jackie Doyle-Price has begun to speak up. Baroness Nicholson another Conservative Peer has been a tour de force in raising issues about the creeping influence of Gender Identity Ideology. Another Medically trained peer, Lord Lucas raised a question in the House of Lords in May 2019.
At the time of that question we were told the data would be available in the next 12 months. We have heard that before. However Lord Lucas is on the case and assured me he intends to follow this up.
Michael acknowledges the support he had in putting this document together which I include here:
I will leave you with the original patient who triggered the establishment of The Dutch Protocol in the early 1990’s.
Patient B has been followed all the way up to age 35. One would assume that the outcome would have been positive and indeed patient B is highlighted as a success. Indeed they say they do not regret their transition. This does not look like a good outcome to me and I fear we will have many more before someone, finally, halts this experiment. Allow me to also make the observation that if were talking about a biological male there is no way an absence of a healthy sex life would be regarded as positive.