The interview took place after one of the fourteen founders of Stonewall, MatthewParris, criticised the organisation. He is not along among the founders but joins SimonFanshawe who also believes the former gay lobby group has lost its way. Here is why Parris is disillusioned. 👇
Kelley is dismissive of his concerns.
It is worth remembering that Stonewall was formed to defend Gay rights during the era of Section 28. This piece of legislation was introduced under Margaret Thatcher’s government with the intention of stopping the “promotion” of homosexuality. The legislation was repealed in the year 2000, in Scotland, and in 2003 in England and Wales. This has been very hard to live down for the Conservative party and is partly explains why there has been a slow response to the promotion of Gender Identity Ideology in schools. To neophytes it looks as if any opposition is akin to eighties style homophobia. In reality, the idea gender non-conforming children should be medicalised, via puberty blockers, followed by cross sex hormones, disproportionately affects proto-gay kids. These are the statistics on referrals to the U.K. Gender Clinic. Natal females are in blue, males in orange.
After the repeal of section 28, Stonewall still had work to do, to provide legal protection for gay couples. In 2004 legislation was passed to enable gay couples to enter a Civil Partnership; prior to this gay couples could find themselves unable to inherit their husband, or wife’s, assets or even to be in charge of funeral arrangements.. In 2010 the Equality Act was passed; which made sexual orientation a legally, protected characteristic. Finally in March 2014 the same sex marriage act passed into law. Stonewall found itself with less headline grabbing work to do. In 2015 the gay rights charity accepted $100,000 from the Arcus Foundation, money which was conditional on Stonewall adding the T to LGB.
You can read more about the Arcus Foundation here;
So, when Nancy Kelley became CEO, of Stonewall, it was a very different organisation to the one her predecessor, Ruth Hunt, inherited.
Stonewall now finds itself having the defend the idea that Lesbians have a penis and it is no longer “SEXual orientation” but “same gender attraction”. Unsurprisingly many people oppose this and after trying to impose a blanket ban, arguing for #NoDebate, on discussing Gender Identity Ideology, Stonewall now find themselves opposed by many who would have been its natural supporters.
Stonewall now find themselves opposing the Equality and Human Rights Commission who, somewhat belatedly, came out in favour of women’s right to discuss this issue. (The previous Chair of the EHRC, David Isaacs, came via Stonewall, which may have coloured his views).
Stonewall were clearly rattled by the intervention of the EHRC, who also cautioned the Scottish government about their plan to allow “self-identification” as the sex you wish you were. This was a provocation too far, for the Trans Lobby group, who appealed to the United Nations to intervene. The EHRC is accredited, as a Human Rights organisation, by the United Nations and, it seems, Stonewall wished to see this removed.
Kelley’s response to the EHRC is displayed below:
Writing this in the wake of Salman Rushdie’s stabbing gives new urgency on the right to defend free speech. 👇
Nancy denies that Stonewall are giving bad advice to the members of its protectionracket, oops, Diversity Schemes.
The new spin from Stonewall when they are caught lying about the law.
Here is what Akua Reindorf said in the above mentioned report: “the law as Stonewall would prefer it to be rather than the law as it is”.
The attempt to label womens rights campaigners as akin to one of the most egregious forms of racism is rather too common in Trans Supremacist circles.
It is no accident. Accusations of “transphobia” have been denuded of their power, likely through their over abundant use, hence the escalation. Here is Judith Butler comparing us to fascists. 😳
Nancy Kelley is what I call a Vichy Feminist. How any self-respecting Lesbian could be the midwife for this regressive, mysogynistic, lesbian hating ideology is beyond my underst££ding.
If you can afford to support my work it would be gratefully received. I have just had my annual bill for software and I am working up to get my stolen garden gate replaced. 😳. Only if you have ££ to spare. Irrespective my content will remain open access.
The interview opens with a soft question about why Kelley wanted to become the CEO for Stonewall to which Nancy gives a predictable answer about wanting to “give back”. During the course of the interview we learn that Nancy is in a fifteen year marriage, to an American woman . They then covers a Lesbian couple and their fight to get access to in vitro-fertilisation. Then the interviewer, Emma Barnett dives in to the most controversial topic.
Nancy’s agrees that the BBC needs to be seen to be impartial but this part of the answer might be called disingenuous /damage limitation give Stonewall, at this time was haemorrhaging participants in its various, money making schemes. 👇
Barnett is not letting Kelley get away with that and responds “But, the sense where you said the BBC doesn’t agree with itself, well it obviously did, it pulled out”. She then goes on to make a really good point that all these organisations are actually paying money to a lobby group, to be lobbied. It is worth a reminder, at this stage, of how Ruth Hunt described these schemes. It was not flattering to the participants, it made them look rather gullible.
Nancy plays down the role of Stonewall schemes explaining that they have one strand of work to help firms become more “inclusive” (She uses this word repeatedly and I would have preferred for her to be pushed on what this means. To me, now, it means make sure men can invade female spaces). Then they have a “completely separate” team the lobby politicians and work with the media. Barnett presses her on this and Kelley conceded the two teams nevertheless have the same goals.
Next Kelley is tackled on the detail of the Workplace Equality Scheme and, in particular that Stonewall evaluate submissions from the scheme participants and suggest ways they can get an improved score. Following Stonewall “suggestions” helps get your company higher up the rankings and there will be entire teams who are set a performance objective to complete for an improved place on the Workplace Equality Index.
Nancy is also keen to emphasise that membership doesn’t compromise editorial integrity, at the BBC, which stretches credulity to breaking point. Kelley denies that the BBC is aggressively pro-trans rights and, in fact, argues it tips the other way. Nancy maintains their role is only advisory and they do not have control over what an organisation does. Furthermore she says she only wishes she had more influence.
Stonewall and the Scottish Government.
Next Barnett tackles Kelley about a leaked Freedom of information request, that illustrates how Stonewall encouraged the Scottish government to drop the word “Mother” from its maternity leave policy. Kelley insists that she doesn’t want the word “mother” eradicated, as a mum herself. She claims the FOI document is historic and Stonewall give a range of advice leaving it up to their scheme members to decide the course of action.
Barnett points out that the document is only two years old and that Stonewall did push to remove “all gendered language” from the Maternity policy and raises this with Kelley:
Next Nancy denies that Stonewall have an interest in changing language and illustrates this beautifully by talking about “cis” and “trans”. This was in response to a direct question about whether she believes people can change their biological sex. She avoids saying no or yes by talking about changing sex characteristics and claiming that everyone knows that “trans” bodies and “cis” bodies are different.
Next Kelley is asked about Stonewall’s acceptance of male lesbians or “transbian’s” or females who identify as gay men. This section covers what Nancy had to say about lesbians who exclude males from their dating pools. Nancy lumps a belief in biological sex, women’s rights to exclude men from our spaces and Lesbians refusal of “lady penis” is on a par with anti-semitism”. 👇
This speaks to the right of lesbians to exclude men from their dating pools and has particular impact on dating apps and attempts to have Lesbian only events. This is no longer a hypothetical scenario: Tasmania a Lesbian groups has recently been told their women only, Lesbian nights are now illegal.
Nancy alleges that she was not talking about dating practices and that her wording was rather clumsy. This would be believable we’re it not for the fact that numerous trans-activists have used exactly the same argument.
Barnett then digs up another quote from Nancy :
Then we get onto Kelley’s dating preferences. A moot point because she is safely married. She claims to respect either people’s dating preferences and that she is “trans-inclusive”. Pretty confident this is a big fat lie and she knows she won’t have to walk the walk. This is the most despicable betrayal of Lesbians, especially newly out, young Lesbians.
Nancy slips in a “trans women are women” during this spiel and Barnett asks her if she is talking metaphorically. Kelley simply answers “literally”.
There follows a brief reference to the protection of Gender Critical beliefs which is clearly about the Forstater case but Barnett does not name it. Nancy ties herself in knots acknowledging that “Gender Critical” beliefs may be protected but there are limitations in how you express them. What Kelly would like is to create a world where you are allowed to think these things but you should not verbalise them.
Is JK Rowling a transphobe?
This section interrogates Kelley’s views on the world famous author. She tries to duck the question but ends up going round in circles about whether Rowling is a “transphobe” but, in the end, claiming that she had a large platform and had said things that had “caused harm” to trans people. Barnett does quite a good job in this section as she pushes Kelley to explain what she has said that was “transphobic”. Kelley pretty much ends up agreeing that an individual woman has the right to a single sex service if she has been raped or suffered domestic violence but still implies there is something wrong with saying this in the public square. I think she skewers Nancy in this bit and she does sound a bit petulant in places.
This section was less satisfactory. Nancy manages to come across as reasonable and she expresses empathy for what Kathleen went throug, but, there are some very big buts. Barnett seems unwilling to raise the fact that Kathleen is a Lesbian, who Stonewall should protect. I think this made this section weaker than it should be. Stonewall’s CEO should have asked why they were silent on the harassment of a Lesbian.
Kelley affects to know little about the Stock case and falls back on the idea that Universities are responsible for adjudicating on staff issues. The Stonewall model seems to be built on encouraging their clients to over-extend/break the law and then running away when they’re are consequences. Any organisation still paying to be in this protectionless, protection racket needs to get a new head of Human Resources.
The interview ends with some general talk about how Stonewall are working to protect LGBTQ+ kids in school.
Barnett ends the interview but added a couple of postscripts. Confirmation that Stonewall had attempted to get the word “mother” dropped from a maternity leave policy. The Scottish government claim they have not removed the word. Finally a, dignified, “no comment” from the Rowling team.
This piece is part of a series on Nancy Kelley’s public utterances. There’s not as much in the public domain as there is on Ruth Hunt. You can find the Nancy Kelly series and Ruth Hunt, former CEO, below.
You can see earlier parts of this series on this page:
We rejoin Wren explaining about the rising referral rates to GIDs and the witch from predominantly male referrals to 75% female. Wren repeats the statement, made earlier, about the poor research base for the treatments for which she makes referrrals.
At this point Wren tells us that adults who have undergone these treatments do have a degree of continuing mental health issues, based on studies (which she does not name), but with small amounts of regret. For children and adolescents she references a Dutch study (again no specific reference provided) which followed a small group of “treated” referrals who were all doing well. She does, however, concede that this group tended to be very well functioning and arrive at the clinics at an older age. It is worth noting that the Tavistock were ideally placed to have conducted their own research. The childhood and adolescent branch of the tavistock was set up in 1989. They began administering puberty blockers in 2011. This talk was in 2019.
The next slide shows the diversity of the Tavistock’s clientele.
Finally we get to the question of evolutionary biology. Wren begins by pointing out that evolutionary biologists assume that humans are motivated by the aim of reproducing and leaving partial copies of ourselves on this earth; we are assumed to have an imperative to pass on our genes. She then breaks off and makes an interesting comment.
She continues by focussing on research re homosexuality which, she is careful to point out, she is not conflating with gender atypical presentations. She then says “Obviously, like Gender Dysphoria we assume like homosexuality has existed throughout history and in all known cultures” . I would say that is a highly contested statement, the latter yes, but “Gender Dysphoria” is a relatively new concept which has pathologised people who do not conform to expectations for their sex, many of them homosexual.
Wren continues by acknowledging that homosexuals are a statistically small section of society but then swiftly moves on to argue that sexuality can be fluid, particularly in females. (Is this how she is able to ignore the targeting of Lesbians who do not wish to entertain “male lesbians” as partners?).
Wren expresses caution about looking for a biological explanation, for both homosexuality and gender identity, because it risks being oppressive. If we seek explanations we could also seek the means to “cure” or “suppress” these experiences. This is where lumping homosexuality in with “gender minorities” is deeply unhelpful. The former does not need a lifetime’s dependence on cross sex hormones or risky surgeries.
Theories of adaptive advantage to homosexuality, she continues, are that they may confer advantages to relatives who do reproduce. Gay Uncles and Lesbian Aunts helping with child rearing, I assume she is referring to.
Next she turns to considering whether there is a biological basis for “gender identity”. Her hypothesis is that an explanation will not be located in a single gene but will be multi-factorial. She then switches to point out a third of their referrals have features of autism so, I assume she is making the link to autism as an inherited trait.
Heritability of “Gender Identity”.
Most of the evidence comes from twin studies. One such was by Holderman et al, in 2018. They looked at eleven studies. She breaks off to add a not of caution that these studies run the risk of conflating gender non-conforming behaviour with a transgender identity. [You don’t say! Exactly what we think has been happening at the Tavistock!]. Despite expressing reservations about the methodology, such as using sex stereotypes to determine whether a child displayed “opposite sex behaviours”, she repeats the conclusion that gender identity shows a pattern of heritability around 28% to 40% for identical twins, half that for non-identical twins.
Next she explores the work of Melissa Hines who looked at girls with disorders/differences of sexual development. They tended to show toy preferences aligned with “boy” choices but she concludes this was because they were less responsive to social cues directing them to “girl” toys.
There is research looking at whether “transgender” individuals have brain structure more aligned to the opposite sex, with which they identify, or their natal sex. The criticism of these studies, that I have encountered ranges from small sample sizes ; failure to control for homosexuality; failure to consider the impact of opposite sex hormones and failure to account for neuro-plasticity. Wren concludes that the picture is uncertain.
Wren concludes that the explanations are likely to be multi-factorial, possibly a genetic predisposition, an interaction between social and biological factors and the role of culture; whether an individual lives in a society that encourages or suppresses atypical “gender identities”.
Wren also points out that if a biological maker were identified that may limit treatment for those who do not have that marker. That’s quite the statement. What it means is that Wren is happy for people to be medicalised even if it is discovered that they do not have the condition! She justifies this by reference to bodily autonomy and Human Rights.
There are a lot of “ifs” in this next statement. I guess when you have presided over the sterilisation of children you believe what you need to so you can sleep at night.
In the next bit Wren postulates that gender non-conformity in “cis-gendered” people may be an attractive feature signalling genetic superiority and this somehow leads to the idea that we may replicate gender diversity for some sort of evolutionary advantage. This, to me, feels like clutching at straws.
Leaving evolutionary biology, Wren moves on to cultural evolution. This is the idea that these things can be “culturally transmitted” which, to me, seems dangerously close to the idea it is a social contagious.
She further reflects on how this might impact, in particular, adolescents for whom “there may be complex social forces shaping the formation of an atypical gender identity”.these social forces, she continues may be: 👇
In other words all the features of a typical adolescence that few people escape.
By jove she’s close to getting it!
But, not quite. She speculates on the interconnected ness of this generation and the speed of the transmission of ideas and how our youth are “a generation who are , almost routinely, asking themselves if they might be “trans”or differently gendered to explain their feelings their bodily alienation and discomfort and they are resistant to cultural norms for male and female behaviour and heteronormative sexuality”
Because of the above some people, she concludes, will feel they are “abetter fit for another gender or indeed to attempt to be a different sex” . So, not to challenge societal norms at all, just take drugs and surgeries to better fit with the sexist stereotypes associated with the societally enforced, norms of behaviour you are putatively rebelling against!
Is it me or does she look haunted as she finishes with this statement?
There are questions about autism and how an inability to read social cues might lead to feeling of gender dysphoria. Wren answers this with reference to how their autism and their emerging gender identity may play a role. I don’t know the intention of the questioner but, to me, the concern is that autistic girls, and boys, may latch onto “Gender Dysphoria” as a more palatable explanation for not fitting in.
Another man asks a question which relates to cultural issues giving rise to “Gender Dysphoria” . This question very nearly hits the mark.
Wren thinks it is a very good question about “whether there are aspects of our culture that are amplifying gender dysphoria” and furthermore, in respect of the dramatic increase in numbers “as a service we are really on the backfoot in relation to these numbers” . She admits there are issues around the question of the high number of females referred to the Tavistock. She conceded that the pathways to the clinic may be very different for “people born into female bodies” ! Of course there are!
The next question centres on future directions for research. Wren can’t resist a side swipe at the Daily Mail who, she says, would have you believe the “trans lobby is very powerful” . Research, she answers, is very much focussed on the brain as preferred by “trans” people who see it as a route to validation. She talks about a focus on the suffering of those with “gender dysphoria” and whether the problem is an individual problem or societies for a lack of acceptance. (It does not seem to occur to her that if we tolerated behaviours that don’t match sexist expectation, for your sex, we could work to transform society instead of putting children/adolescents on a path requiring drugs and surgeries). She herself does not have a preferred area of research but does state that the Tavistock have just obtained a very large grant to track the people that have been through their service, for long term follow up for ten, twenty or thirty years. (Which is interesting because the Tavistock have previously claimed that is too difficult because people have changed their NHS numbers). Here was her answer.
The final question asked if a biological, or other cause is found and a treatment to resolve Gender Dysphoria (absent drugs and surgeries, I assume he means) would it be ethical to take this route? Wren answers with stories of people who reconciled to their sex after having been, initially, certain about their gender identity. She is careful to say they would not practice “Conversion Therapy” but ifthe young person was willing they would work, therapeutically with that person. This sounds as if a young person was so certain and would not co-operate then they would not get the chance to reconcile their sex /sexuality.
Looks like we have our answer about which way the service is heading.
If you are able to support my work you can do so here. All gifts gratefully received.
We return to Wren discussing the variety of ways societies have accommodated, mainly men, who do not conform to cultural expectations, for their sex. Many of these accommodations look, to me, as, potentially, benign ways to accommodate men who wish to have sex with men. The Hjira, who Wren references, though, may have a darker underbelly in that young boys may be groomed into these roles to provide a sexual outlet for older, married men who wish to have sex with boys. Likewise gay men may be left with little choice. This may be the only way for homosexuals to survive in India. See this account here. 👇 (Homosexuality was only legalised, by India, in 2018)
Wren continues with this statement about “cisgender” people.
I am going to assume she means that people who identify with their birth sex can also be resistant to sex stereotypes, which of course is true. There have been people, I would argue the vast majority, who depart from sexist expectations for their sex. Despite Wren’s obsession with “de-pathologising” she has played a role in problematising behaviour at odds from cultural expectations for your sex. This has specific implications for gay people who can display “gender non-conformity” at an early, pre-sexual age. This deviation is not, however, confined to homosexuals, there are many, straight women, who have dominant personalities and there are “theatrical” straight males. The situation we have arrived it is one where the only “real” women are deemed to be the ones who conform to sexist “gender roles”. If this keeps up the vast majority of women will need to exit our sex class for not “womanning” correctly.
After a wander through other cultures, Wren returns to the U.K. context to explain that Western nations are catching up with the issue of “third genders”. [I sense she is building up to explaining the meteoric referrals to the Tavistock with her “look there are an estimated one million Hjiara people”. ]
On referrals to the Tavistock, Wren advises that many young people arrive with total conviction about their pathway. They feel it is an “un shiftable” part of their self ; some of those people went on to detransition.
Some clinicians also share this believe system 👇. Those of with children who are part of the gender church will recognise the phrase “true self” or “authentic self”. Both recurrent phrases from the true believers. [The evidence for a biological under-pinning to “gender identity” is very poor, by the way ]
Wren is careful not to exclude anyone from the trans umbrella so she quickly adds this 👇to encompass the part-time larpers. She also avoids saying “healthy body” by using the term “non anomalous” for the bodies she sends to be cut up.
Non-Binary people claim to be neither male nor female but this does not preclude them from going under the surgeon’s knife. Wren advises that they want more “tailored” surgeries. To get an idea of the more extreme manifestation of “tailored” surgeries you can have a look at what is in offer in the United States. Nullification is the removal of all genitalia like a Ken Doll. Men can also opt to have a “neo-vagina” but retain their penis. Non-binary females can have a double mastectomy.
Referral Rates to the Tavistock, Children’s Service
All that scene setting was to prepare the audience for the following slides.
Unlike the earlier slides, Wren does not appear to want to linger on this one. As you can see there has been a dramatic increase in girls.
This is as good a point as any to break off, even though I have only made it to the 20 minute mark. Part 3 to follow. Now the Law suits are rolling in, I want to provide detailed coverage of the belief system underpinning practice at the Tavistock.
Article in The Times.
You can support my work here: Don’t prioritise me above legal cases. I get by but donations help me to keep going. Irrespective my work will remain open access.
Wren opens by explaining this is a highly contested field, she is habitually nervous when speaking on this topic but she is confident the people in the room are too scholarly for there to be any uncivil discourse. She explains that she, herself, is curious about the topic and does not take a particular stand.
Here she comments on the issue of uncertainty in the practice of “gender medicine” ; emphasising the lack of a firm foundation for the management of “gender variance”.
She expresses the hope that an evolutionary perspective could reduce stigma for those who are “transgender” and perhaps this will lower the temperature in the public debate. On the referrals to the Tavistock she has this to say: 👇
The Tavistock, she advises, see people who are questioning the assignation of their “gender” and “gender roles” insofar as “they embody a set of expectations about how someone will live and how they will feel about being in the body”. Wren talks about their intense distress about their sexed body and suggests, in the past, this may have been a hidden distress. She argues that these feeling are not new but what is new are the numbers and the certainty with which they present, accompanied by demands for urgent medical intervention and pushy parents who she calls “assertively supportive”.
She described the Tavistock approach as “broadly affirmative”. They take the distress seriously and don’t assume a “psycho-pathological” causality, however, she claims, they do bear in mind if the onset of distress is linked to any trauma. She adds a caveat that they do not lose sight of an “unconflicted trans and gender diverse experience”. This is quite telling. Previous clinical practice would have maintained that anyone feeling as if they are “born in the wrong body” requires serious exploration of the underlying causes. Now we make a default assumption this is a natural development, a variation, unless evidence is presented to the contrary. This has major implications for how patients present themselves, perhaps downplaying psychological issues to swiftly access medical treatment? It also has consequences for how Gender Clinics respond to this condition and, it is my, firmly held, view that this is why we are seeing an explosion in the numbers of detransitioners. Here 👇 Wren still sees their service as “gatekeeping” medical intervention.
This is a list of names involved in a Tavistock working group looking at the, potential, role of evolutionary biology in “gender variance”. I have not encountered these names before so, I am merely including this slide for archival purposes and in case their names recur.
Next Wren shares some Gender New Speak and makes it clear she does so without apology. Check out the definition of SEX!
Next, Wren puts up a slide with estimates of the prevalence of people diagnosed with this condition. The slide is less interesting than what she says while it was on screen. I will include it for completeness. Surprise, Surprise, once you start talking about and publishing on “transsexuals” the prevalence increases.
Wren now cites the work of an evolutionary biologist “herself a transwoman” to muddy the waters about sex/gender, so let’s take a little detour to learn about the biologist whose insights she shares. 👇
While the above slide is on screen, Wren treats us to the above named 👆 scientist who has spent time cataloguing the lack of sexual dimorphism in the animal kingdom. Joan was Jonathon up until the age of 51. You can find a Ted Talk of his on YouTube. Here’s a statement he made in that talk.
Roughgarden takes us on a whistle stop tour of diversity in the animal kingdom including, of course, the clownfish. He has also written a book, Evolution’s Rainbow: Diversity, Gender and Sexuality in nature and people. Below are a selection of quotes:
Roughgarden acknowledges we are divided into biological males/females based on whether we make large or small gametes.
He accepts the universality of the biological distinction but throws in a reference to claim a difference between sex and gender.
To insist on the salience of biological sex is a mistake called “essentialism”.
Instead we can choose who counts as a male or a female; how convenient for Joan/Jonathon.
He then adds some TRAlinist revisionism by re-classifying Joan of Arc as a “transgender man”; claiming we had a wealth of transvestite saints in the middle ages and that eunuchs were early transgender people.
Finally, before we leave Roughgarden to his musings, here are his thoughts on how to deal with “transphobia”; eerily reminiscent of calls to Lesbians to seek help to get over their hang ups about Lady Penis.
Intersex: Via Fausto-Sterling
Of course no discussion about biological sex would be complete without weaponising people with disorders/differences in development (DSDs). There are many conditions which lead to atypical chromosomal development, funnily enough these conditions occur in either males or females. They carry with them differing levels of severity in terms of the medical consequences. Fausto-Sterling famously claimed there were 5 sexes and “intersex” conditions were as common as red hair.
Worth a detour to share some of Fausto-Sterling’s thoughts. 😳.
Cultural Genitals to Lady Penis in women’s sport. 😳
Was Anne just having a laugh? (Worth including this just because of the tone of this public admonishment 😂).
All of which leads Wren to make this observation, which demonstrates that societies have handled the identification of the sexes reasonably well, even prior to karyotype tests.
I will leave part one on this talk, at this point. What you need to take away from this is that Wren and her fellow travellers really do think the world would be a better place if we stopped recognising biological sex. In their fantasy world this would eradicate sexism and make the world a better place.
To believe this you have to disregard facts like sex selective abortion *still* happens (even in the United Kingdom), at least 98% of sex offenders are male which is one reason WHY women fought for single sex spaces. Even after multiple surgeries men are still recognisable, as men. The fantasy of “passing” males means blocking male puberty and, as we know, this means the eradication of the ability to orgasm.
In the U.K, have had the vote for less than a 100 years *1, we still don’t have equal representation in parliament and, unless one party comes out for Women’s, sex based, rights, unequivocally, our votes will be rendered meaningless.
. (*1 women were granted the vote in 1918 but it was not extended to all women, over 21, until 1928).
You can support my work here, should you feel so inclined. Rumours to the contrary, women fighting this are not awash money. Unlike the organisations receiving the billions funnelled into spreading Gender Identity Ideology, by “Charitable” Foundations.
This media outlet first came to my attention when one of their writers blocked me on social media, a good while ago. I guessed it was because of my “Gender Critical” stance but gave it little more thought. I did spot that they were very much proponents of Gender Identity Ideology and I had a cursory look at the usual suspects among the Charitable Foundations that fund heavily in this area. Then I forgot about them, till this. 👇
I was moved to have another look after this exchange was shared on twitter. This was sent to feminist policy analysts based in Scotland.
This is all very reminiscent of the long documents I covered in my Moral Panic series. Here various foundations banded together to delegitimise U.K. Feminists, in particular. They also talk of an “anti-gender” movement and attempt to associate U.K. Feminists with far right / Christian groups and even Viktor Orban, an authoritarian dictator who is not a fan of women’s rights or gay rights. You can find that series here 👇
Not content with going after Murray, Black, McKenzie they also sent another, even more outrageous request to Forwomen Scotland.
Who funds Open Democracy?
Most of their income comes from grants.
Tracking the Backlash Project
This is the amount of funding they have had for a project called Tracking the Backlash Project. This is for 2021. 2.5 million to attack women’s rights organisations whilst, disingenuously, claiming this project is actually in defence of women’s rights.
I tracked all their 2021 grants as detailed on their website. Here they are, in full. I get the full figure to higher than 2.96 million.
I have said many times that once you believe in an innate “Gender Identity” the pathway to normalising bodily modification becomes easier. What is astonishing, to me, is the fundamental mischaracterisation of those of us who are loosely identified as “gender critical”; as if we are the ones who cannot tolerate diversity of personal expression. Let us unpack this introduction to the paper. 👇
Children and adolescents are presenting, in ever increasing numbers, with “GenderDysphoria” which manifests as a rejection of “conventional gender expectations”. There has long been a feminist project to reject sexist stereotypes, my feminism has never argued, if you don’t conform to those expectations, you should modify your body so it is more “congruent”. It astonishes me that some of the same women railing against “beach body” propaganda 👇 can see the regressive nature of “gendered expectations” ,in this campaign, but not in the idea the way you feel about yourself necessitates, not just a diet and a spray tan, but serious, life-altering, drugs and surgeries.
It would seem to be a reasonable line of enquiry to wonder whether these excessive pressures on teenage girls, in the age of the “selfie”, might have contributed to rise in females presenting at gender clinics? This is the scale of the increase. 👇. Notice that the paper adopts the captured language of the gender industrial complex by referring these girls as “birth assigned females” .
What did one of the paper’s authors, Bernadette Wren, Tavistock employee, have to say about this phenomenon? Here she is speaking to the Women’s and Equalities Committee. (Source Hansard). 👇
The cutting edge of a revolution.
Notice here Wren reveals the influence of trans lobby group Gendered Intelligence. She is not a neutral observer, this is what she is calls a “revolution many of us havereally fought for”. Yet, what we have witnessed is a new form of bodily hatred, in the female sex, and we have responded by taking the cutting edge of the scalpel to young girls’ breasts.
In another admission Wren says her service has never turned anyone down for physical intervention.
Wren also ponders on whether we may find we have embarked on a path that is very “unwise”. Yep, you can say that again!
The Paper also recognises the pressure within the service to embark on medical treatments. This looks like an admission that there examples of this within G.I.Ds.
Elsewhere Wren acknowledges the influence of the internet and a growing tolerance of bodily modification, as a factor driving referrals.
This 👇 exposes a fundamental contradiction (one of many) within Gender Identity Ideology. If we were really more tolerant of “diverse gender expression” surely we would not be encouraging hormones and surgeries so your body confirms to stereotypical expectations?
Apart from the over-representation of females there is a startling percentage of autistic kids at gender clinics. This is so noticeable many people argue there is some connection between the condition, being neuro diverse, and “gender dysphoria”.
A more plausible explanation, to me, is that many of the ways we express ourselves as women, or men, are not innate but depend on our ability to pick up social cues. I am not a proponent of “blank state”, but we do learn, culturally determined, expectations, for our sex. Since this is something more difficult, for people with autism, the resultant feeling of incongruence could be predicted. Add in a typical propensity for black and white thinking and it’s the perfect storm for autistic people. I should add that I am no expert but I have an autistic nephew and have found it so instructive to see how he navigates the world.
That Stonewall tweet.
Another issue that lays bear this ideology is illustrated by the age range of referrals to the Tavistock. The youngest referral, to the Tavistock I have found, is age three.
Recently Stonewall sent out this tweet, which caused a lot of controversy. I believe the term is they were ratio’d
This sparked a lot of backlash but it’s not an unusual belief in the gender ideologue sector. Here’s what this paper says about the age of presentation of “gender incongruence” . It simply never occurred to me to judge my two boys, when aged two, according to gender conformity in their play.
Here the authors lend credence to “non–binary”, “gender fluid” and “gender neutral”. I cannot take anyone seriously who buys into this nonsense. Sadly our political elite openly spouts this ridiculous ideology, even in parliament, and some seem to think it’s a solid foundation on which to make public policy and enact legislation. How these people can express a belief in the fluidity of “gender” while performing irreversible, medical, interventions in kids as young as ten is beyond my ken.
The people doing this to our kids don’t know what they are doing. How are these two statements, in this paper, compatible? You simply cannot claim something is physically reversible and that the effect of locking puberty is “largely unknown”. 👇
Another admission in this excerpt 👇 and they really do suggest the answer may be to start kids younger?
The paper spends some time discussing the issue of capacity to consent, informed consent and Gillick competence. They then outline scenarios where a child is not able to consent and this must be given by a parent /guardian. So, what if the parent doesn’t agree? Sadly, we know the answer to this from the experience of parents in Australia, the U.S and Canada; the State will remove the child from your care!
They proceed to recognise that the effect of blocking puberty, in the male sex, stunts genitalia and may compromise the ability (it does) to perform “traditional” surgery to construct a “neo-vagina” . I am going to go out on a limb here and say they should have thought about this before they started blocking puberty! It’s also a lie that they can create a clitoris in males. Sadly, our boys really believe this and if I sound merely angry I am failing to convey my white hot rage at these charlatans!
Not only is it not possible to make a clitoris out of penoscrotal skin it is becoming clear that these boys will not have the capacity to orgasm. I make no apology for including this quote, from Marci Bowers, again. Bowers should know they had the surgery as an adult man and have made a living performing these surgeries, including his most famous patient, Jazz Jennings.
They also know that the vast majority of these kids, if left alone, would desist and many would simply be homosexual.
Something tells me these excuses for a failure to do long term follow up are because they know what is down the road and are terrified to find out that they were indeed “unwise”. Remind me again who campaigned to change NHS numbers?
No conflict of interest?
I want to say a word about how journals accept it when these authors blithely claim they have no conflict of interest. Not only are they ideologically blinkered, their professional reputation, and salaries, rely on the Gender Industrial Complex. Additionally, now the law suits are coming, they have to pretend they didn’t know all of this, even though it’s increasingly apparent.
Our children have been lied to!
Scholars with a background in medicine/medical ethics will do a more expert job tackling this paper, I am neither. I am not a neutral observer, as long term readers will know. All I can see is the harm to my own one and I while I have to refrain from expressing this, in so many settings, I cannot repress the knowledge. Like too many parents I have a ringside seat to the self-harm my own GP is colluding with…
You can support my work here, only if you have surplus income and don’t prioritise me over any legal cases trying to bring this ideology crashing down.
Morgan Page is a member of the Stonewall Advisory group (STAG).
I have deferred this blog until the end of Alison Bailey’s Employment Tribunal, because Page featured in that case. Alison is a Black, Lesbian, barrister who is taking her Chambers to court alleging discrimination. The case hinges on whether Garden Court Chambers colluded with Stonewall to dish out treatment designed to have an adverse impact on Bailey’s career / income. You can read about Alison’s case here 👇
Morgan is a trans-identifed male who made an appearance in the tribunal because he infamously ran this workshop. 👇. The “Cotton Ceiling” refers to the underwear of Lesbian’s who, naturally enough, don’t wish to engage in sexual activity with men, even those who think they are women. Note also that this workshop was only open to men, here referred to as MAAB, meaning male assigned at birth. This is a queer theory version of the Pick Up Artist with added creepiness.
This was Alison Bailey’s comment on that Workshop 👇 (from the employment tribunal transcript).
This generated outrage at Garden Court Chambers who described it as “bloody shocking”
“Trans” social group: Toronto
You can also read about the time Page ran a ”trans” social group in Toronto and the experience of a young Lesbian, who was then trans-identified. This article appeared on the 4thWaveNow website. Below are a few key quotes.
In what appears to be a now deleted YouTube, Page talked about being a former prostitute and providing blow jobs. Despite all this being in the public domain Stonewall took issue with a description of their staff member as a ”stripper”.
Morgan was invited to speak at Slut Walk in Toronto and used the platform to attack radical feminism and claim that ”transwomen” were literally dying on the street because they were refused access to female only rape shelters. During this talk, to rapturous applause, Page referred to women as ”Cis” and explained this meant ”none transwomen”.
Page also did an elaborate thread, since deleted, attacking Janice Raymond, author of Transsexual Empire, accusing her and all Gender Critical Feminists, of stoking a genocide of trans people.
For those of you who have not read Janice Raymond’s work, or followed women resisting Gender Identity Ideology, this is a gross mischaracterisation. A medicalised identity, involving a life time of cross sex hormones and varying levels of surgeries, should be a last resort. Nobody sane would wish to create a class of people dependent on #BigPharma.
No other, purported, human rights, movement has allowed one class of people to claim the identity of an oppressed group. Furthermore the new eunuch class have proceeded to invert reality in order to claim that women; the people being colonised, are actually the ones harming our new overlords. This movement only makes sense if you fetishise the idea of women as a “victim class”. More victimised = more of a woman. By this twisted logic women have “cis-privilege” over men who identify as women.
A few samples of ”trans” feminism from prominent “trans” activists. You can be forgiven for thinking it kind of looks like a men’s sexual rights movement because, er, that’s exactly what it is 👇
You can read the outcome of Alison Bailey’s case here.
Puzzled by the Guardian embrace of Transgender Ideology and lack of concern for the impact on women’s rights, I decided to have a look. As a lifelong Guardian reader the piece that prompted me to have a look was a campaign to move a ”transgender” prisoner to the female estate.
Marie Dean & Tara Hudson
I wrote a piece on that here 👇 below is a clip detailing the sexual nature of the offences.
The Scott Trust have oversight of the Guardian Group’s editorial policy in the event of any disagreement. They also have hiring and firing control over the Editor.
One of the Trustees also sits on the Paul Hamlyn Foundation. This foundation funds a number of trans-lobby groups including Mermaids.
Thompson Reuters Foundation
For those of you familiar with the Denton’s document you will be aware that the above foundation supported its production. The document is provides to strategic advice on how best to embed Gender Identity Ideology in institutions, the media and the political elite. I wrote about this here:
So, let’s take another look at the People who are trustees for the Scott Trust. 👇
As you can see one of the Trustees, appointed in 2021, also sits on the Thompson Reuters Foundation. She also used to work for twitter.
Open Society Foundations
I am indebted to Julian Vigo for this next section. I had been looking at the funding handed out by the Open Society Foundation. The OS Foundation funds many initiatives which are pro-democracy and many that , at least at a superfical level, appear to be laudable. At the same time they funnel money to organisations which are pro-prostitution and Gender Identity Ideology. Their database, of grantees, is on-line and searchable. This is what came up when I searched the Guardian.
It would be interested to know if anyone else think the Guardian coverage crossed a line in coversge of ”transgender” issues in the run up to the consultancy on the Gender Recognition Act.
Here are some other foundations funding content at the Guardian.
Revolving door in the Charity Sector.
Just as an aside the other way this ideology gets embedded is the revolving door between posts in the Charity Sector. This is Nancy Kelley’s CV; MIND, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Refugee Council and Barnados.
Also Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Stonewall Champion.
You can support my work here. Only if you have surplus. Don’t prioritise me over the legal cases.
After a long preamble, replete with many false/exaggerated claims (debunked in part one) Lamont goes in 👇
He addresses the question to trans activist, Christine Burns, who feigns bafflement and, after a little chuckle, claims it’s a mystery.
What Burns omits is the over-reach of trans-activists who right around this time were making ever more extreme demands. The specific issue that woke a lot of women up, especially lesbians, was the campaign to de-medicalise ”transition” and allow bearded, penis-wielders, to self-identify as women.
Burn’s then outlines how much progress had been made in protecting ”trans” rights including their own role in getting the Gender Recognition Act passed, in 2004.
Nancy Kelley then jumps in to make somewhat contentious claims about public acceptance of ”trans” people. She is right that there was a widespread acceptance of people we used to call ”transsexuals”. If they thought about the issue at all, people assumed we were talking about, a tiny number of, people who were post-operative. When it is explained that many/most retain their penis and are heterosexual there are significant qualifiers to that “acceptance”. Nancy also implies it is a matter of education.
Back to Burns to explain why our media are so out of step with views Kelley claims are held by the majority of the British public.
In reality most people had no idea activists were involved in a social engineering project; to reorganise society on the basis of ”gender identity” and ride roughshod over women’s sex based rights. Once that became clear opposition began to mobilise.
Lamont then reads, in a skeptical tone, some of the U.K headlines. They all seem rooted in reality to me 👇
Nancy wades in about the proliferation of articles in the media. Nancy thinks it’s too much and would really rather it wasn’t covered. Of course she does, thats the advice from the Denton’s document.
Lamont then asks Burns why so many of the criticisms come from women who ”identify as feminists”.
Burns is having none of it and invents a complete fiction that second wave feminists were working with men, like Burns, because we had common interests. 🤷♀️
Then Burn’s pivots to ”White Supremacists” . Bit of a leap there Christine, love. 👇
After he takes it upon himself to define feminism he then advances the argument that these feminists, many of whom are Lesbian, are trying to separate the T from LGB so that the rights of the other letters can be attacked.
The interviewer pushes back, a little bit, to ask Burns for his thoughts on ”Terfs”. [BTW No self-respecting woman, let alone a “Terf” accepts the appellation “cisgender”. ]
Christine, like sexist men from the beginning of time, thinks we have misunderstood.
Lamont now turns to Nancy:
Nancy doesn’t dare, outright, deny this.
Next Nancy, conveniently, overlooks that even Stonewall didn’t include advocacy for ”trans” rights until 2015.
It’s women’s rights, stupid!
The interviewer is from the United States and, to give him credit, he does not assume U.K politics is a mirror of the political landscape of our American cousins. However after raising the source of the ”transphobia” on Terf Island (It’s women’s rights, stupid) he immediately pivots to how dangerous it is to be ”transgender”.
Burn’s arguments are all about the difficulty of looking like a man and being unable to use female changing rooms. Worrying about being recognised as a man when going to get a pint of milk. This, right there, tells you he has no idea of what it means to be a woman. Men who identify as women are well on their way to having more rights than actual women. That’s male privilege Christine.
You can support my work here. Only if you have surplus, after the many worthy crowdfunders and if you are not panicking about your fuel bills.
YouTube add a note to the Al Jazeera YouTube channel to highlight their financial backers.
Gay Rights in Qatar
A reminder of the state of gay rights in Qatar. 👇 The punishment for homosexuality is death.
The alleged context for the interview.
The segment focus is on the rising ”transphobia” in the U.K. To explore the issue Christine Burns, “trans-identified” male and Nancy Kelley are invited to a discussion. In truth Burns is given much more air time than Kelley. Burns is a key trans-activist (TRA) in the U.K. Nancy Kelley is the CEO of controversial, lobby group Stonewall. You will also notice the interview takes place against a background draped in the transgender flag.
The presenter is Mark Lamont Hill, a former journalist with CNN who was, reportedly, let go for his views on the Israeli-Palestine conflict. He is also a Professor of Media Studies.
Lamont Hill introduces the segment by claiming that Hate Crimes against trans people are rising, there is hostile media coverage and he singles out the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, for failing to introduce a ban on ”Conversion Therapy”.
These are the numbers charged with a hate crime defined as ”transphobic”. As you can see it was 49.
Its important to note that misogyny is not considered a hate crime so offences motivated by animus, toward the female sex, is not monitored. If we consider rape /domestic violence as a proxy for misogyny the statistics below are for one quarter of the year. The statistics are taken from the Crown Prosecution Service.
Complaints are made about the volume of media coverage with little attempt to explain why this became a contested area in 2017. Neither Nancy or Burns explain that Stonewall only began to campaign on “Transgender” issues in 2015 and this has been accompanied by an escalation in demands. TRAs openly began to demand that any man could ”self–identify” as a woman and campaigned vociferously for access to female only spaces. Here is Stonewall’s open statement that they wish to see the end of single sex spaces. This 👇 is a blatant attack on women’s rights to dignity, privacy and, crucially, safety,
In truth papers like the Guardian, Independent, Pink News and free paper, Metro, are cheerleaders for the Transgender Lobby. The Guardian in particular, much to the dismay of this erstwhile reader. I wrote about the Guardian links to lobby groups here:
The demand to ban conversion therapy includes both gay conversion therapy and ”gender identity” . The main place where gay conversion therapy takes place, in the United Kingdom, is at U.K gender clinics. These are the statistics for referrals to the Tavisticock, looking at sexual orientation.
Here is a reminder of what Professor Villain had to say about this. He is one of a growing number of experts raising the issue of Gay Conversion Therapy in relation to Gender Clinics.
Including ”gender identity” in the bill would hamper therapeutic approaches to treat “gender dysphoria”. This context it important but the audience will gain no understanding of this from the interview.
Framing the question
After this disingenuous framing the interviewer turns to his guests. At least he doesn’t project a U.S perspective onto the U.K political context by assuming we are right wing, Evangelical Christians. 👇. He does recognises the concern’s raised about women’s rights before pivoting to the vulnerable, transgender people. An editorial decision was taken to invite a trans-identified male and Nancy Kelley on the show, even though they agree with one another. Noticeably they failed to invite anyone with an opposing viewpoint.
Burns is a trans activist who appears here with the book Trans Britain; which they edited, in the background as well as the M.B.E they were awarded.
Burns is asked to define ”trans” and ”cis” . I won’t insult your intelligence by repeating the usual verbiage.
Lamont now references a Council of Europe report which conflates the attacks on gay rights and reproductive freedom in Hungary and Poland with UK feminists opposed to Gender Identity Ideology. I covered in this blog, below 👇. In brief they completely mis-characterise the debate we are having in the U.K, quoting the controversial lobby group, Mermaids amongst others. You can read more about this here: 👇. Short read: Blatant propaganda.
Burns, is asked to explain why if has got so bad for ”trans” people in the U.K. Burns professes bafflement and, claims everything was going in the right direction up until 2017 and implies this came out of nowhere. “It’s a mystery“ says Burns.
Burns fails to mention that people were unaware of what was happening in our schools, prisons, NHS wards and all our major institutions because it was a deliberate strategy. As set out in the Denton’s document, a guide to embedding Gender Identity Ideology in law and in life.
Of course, Burns doesn’t mention the campaign to let any man self-id as a woman; putting male rapists in female prisons; the sterilisation of children and the other horrors, which galvanised women and generated this backlash. Here’s a clip from a chapter in Burn’s own book illustrating Burn’s complicity.
The mendacity is strong with this one. Burns was one of the architects of the Gender Recognition Act , which set the stage for this debacle, and proudly boasts of it in this interview.
I will cover the details of the interview in part 2.
You can support my work here. Don’t donate unless you have surplus cash, I know there are lots of important legal cases going on at the moment.
Researching Gender Identity Ideology to expose the fact it is a social engineering project which hurts women’s rights, gay rights and the bodies of our young gay, lesbian, autistic and other vulnerable children and teens/ young people.
Ever the optimist that a post Stonewall world may be on the horizon I want to get on record the role its current CEO has played in besmirching the reputation of a once great organisation. I will begin with this interview, from two years ago, which she did with Linda Riley of Diva Magazine.
For those of you unaware, Riley has somewhat of a reputation herself as covered by Private Eye. None of these revelations concerned Dawn Butler, who appointed Riley as LGBT advisor to Labour.
The interview took place four weeks into Kelley’s tenure as CEO of Stonewall and Riley selected questions, put to her from Diva readers.
One of the earlier questions related to a question on whether Kelley had intended criticism of her predecessor, Ruth Hunt, in a Guardian interview. She had stated Stonewall would no longer insist everyone needed agree with their stance on “trans” rights. I am confident that this was the interview in question and the comment Riley singles out for questions is linked below: 👇
Kelley is keen to dispel any notion that she is being critical of her predecessor:
She proceeds to outline her own position which reflects the Stonewall dogma, right down to forgetting about ”trans” men, I might add.
She, then, professes to accept that not all feminists will be intersectional and it is these people she would like to reach. It all started so reasonably.
The next question asks if she can elaborate about her impressions on taking up the role and the thing that surprised her the most. Her answer is very revealing and somewhat ironic at this point; as we watching Stonewall’s influence drain away.
Later she follows up the issue of Stonewall’s influence, revealing that they are acfively lobbying the NHS over healthcare issues and why they are uniquely placed to be successful; because of the high number of NHS trusts in their protection racket, oops, sorry, I mean their Diversity Champions scheme.
Asked to let the audience know what she is currently up to she says the quiet bit out loud about her liaison with Stella Creasy and the attempt to class misogyny as a hate crime. Of course they are trying to make sure it covers trans-identified males; no doubt making some litigious trans activist salivate over the prospect of the maximum validation attainable in prosecuting a woman for the crime of misogyny against a “transgender woman”
She also reveals she has been doing a bit of Northern outreach to address concerns they are too London centric. This would be the same Andy Burnham who has remained studiously silent about the aggressive “trans” (men’s) rights activists in his city.
Nancy’s conciliatory tone didn’t last as illustrated in a superb article by Jo Bartosch.
The BBC finally covered some research about Lesbians being pressured to have sex with trans-identified males.
Nancy responded with an astonishing outburst about Lesbians who are ”gender critical”. i.e. think being a Lesbian means you can refuse to date men who identify as Lesbians (Nancy, is not vulnerable herself, as she is in a long term partnership with an American woman).
It then emerged that Stonewall had attempted to suppress the report on Lesbians being sexually harassed.
Five Year Plan.
I was disappointed that Nancy didn’t acknowledge Stonewall’s intention to indulge in a bit of historical revisionism about the riots which inspired their name. Pretending the entire Gay rights movement was kickstarted by ”Transgender Women” and ignoring the role of Lesbians and Gay men would have made even Stalin blush. This 👇is abject capitulation from a once proud organisation. She is bending the knee to a Men’s, sexual, rights movement and throwing the gay community, particularly, Lesbian under the “transgender” train.
Lest Kelley tries to airbrush herself out of the trans debacle and the fall of Stonewall she condemned herself with this statement.
You can support my work here. Only if you have surplus after all the worthy legal cases. Every penny helps but I know everyone is feeling the pinch.
I examined this document to see how the United Nations navigates different contexts when purporting to care about sexual violence against women. This ties in with my series on promoting Gender Identity Ideology in African countries.
What is a woman?
This is how they define gender, explicitly tying it to a “social role” rather than ”biological attributes”. Naturally they assume that women are a “gender identity” class, not a sex class. Yet they also don’t think they are perpetuating ”harmful stereotypes”. 😳.
The glossary warns people not to treat “gender” as a synonym for sex. 😳. If you’re basing membership of ”gender” categories on something you acknowledge shifts temporally, geographically and between cultural contexts is that not rather an unstable category? Could I be a woman in Yorkshire but fail to meet the criteria in the Yemen? So tired of arguing with this nonsense; we have educated the University class into stupid.
Elsewhere the report does advocates for specfic measures to protect women and girls, this includes separate facilities. How are we separating these facilities? By sex or lady feelz?
If gets more muddled when they include a requirement to collect disaggregated data based on sex. I am sensing that they got some pushback in the drafting of these documents and some common sense snuck in.