Leicestershire NHS Trans Policy.

Featured

Here is the link to the policy produced by this NHS Trust. This one is dated September 2019. There is an updated one.

Transgender and Non Binary Patients – Supporting UHL Policy

You can access the full series on NHS “Transgender” policies at the link below:

NHS & Transgender: Series

This policy is, so far, the most authoritarian in respect of the way it mandates, both patients and staff, to comply with Gender Identity Ideology. We need a woman directly impacted to mount a legal challenge because the NHS must be forced to backdown.

I took the trouble to look at Leicestershire’s published policy on Single Sex Accommodation; which they are required to publish, monitor and have a system to report any breaches.

In that document the Trust include “sex” as a legally protected characteristic but add “gender” in brackets; even though that is not the Law. They claim the document abides by the provisions of The Equality Act but they do not address the issue of forcing women of faith to share mixed sex spaces or, indeed, the right of women to be held in single sex accommodation. This is despite producing a document that claims to be all about preserving single sex spaces. This is the NHS gaslighting women.

They know the actual law because they include the correct list of the protected characteristics within the same document. 👇

In the “transgender” policy they simply lie about the Law and replace “sex” with “gender”. The single sex accommodation policy is very easy to find on their website. It’s also easy to find the new Trans and Non-Binary policy from September 2022. I have downloaded that and will cover it in another post, after a quick look, I can only say it is even worse than the one I am covering today,

The advisor:

For the “Transgender” policy they are keen to advertise the input from a trans-identified male who sat on their Equality Advisory Group.

This would appear to be the Rebecca Shaw they consulted.

Shaw has a twitter account and posts about “trans day of visibility” and the debunking of autogynephilia. The old “my skirt lifted up”; happens to #GirlsLikeUs all the time. 😳

Vagina Monologues

Shaw also took part in a production of the Vagina Monologues and writes about it on their blog.

I like the “because I can” at the end. It has a certain sort of energy.

The Vagina Monologues were considered “transphobic” because these “new women” don’t have vaginas. Productions were halted because they were deemed to be “exclusionary”.

Now it seems zero vagina is not a bar to celebrating what you haven’t got! I like the “because I can!” at the end; has a certain type of energy.The first all male line up was in 2004. This despite the biological fact that none of these men have vaginas! Wherewere all my fellow Liberals, who leap on evidence of “cultural appropriation” when this performance took place.

One of the performers was Marci Bowers, a surgeon who performs the surgery known as “sex reassignment surgery”. Bowers is now the President of the World Professional Association of Transgender Health. Another one was Andrea James who is infamous for waging a hate campaign against Michael Bailey: the author of The Man Who Would be Queen.

The Policy.

The policy mandates the use of the patient’s preferred pronouns and name and warns staff not to make assumptions based on “appearance”. It also cautions staff to use this language even if it goes against the family. The patient is to be asked where they would prefer to be cared for and if it is a female ward, and he is male, his wishes should be respected.

They provide more guidance on this checklist.

The staff are urged to be mindful of discrimination from staff, or other patients, and warned that they should not share details of the patients real sex except on a “need to know” basis. It would be interested to know how rigidly they apply this because symptoms, test results, and medication doses all are impacted by someone’s biological sex. For example female heart attacks are often missed because medical staff are used to the symptoms in males; women present differently. Some measures of organ function are such that a normal reading, for a male, would be dangerous in a female. There has already been one case of a trans-identified female losing a baby because clinicians did not think her admission, with stomach pains, could be labour pains; because she presented and was recorded as, a male.

There is the usual dictionary to educate staff on the new speak demanded by this ideology. As you can see, just like East Cheshire NHS Trust, they include transvestites under their definition of “trans”. I draw your attention to this because, once again, they all seem to ignore the condition of “transvestic fetishism” which is sexually motivated. These men get an erotic charge by wearing women’s clothes and it comes with a side order of boundary violations and a desire for women’s participation in their sexual thrills.

The Trust has a lengthy glossary that includes agender, gender fluid, gender queer and even neutrois. Later they seem to have got cold feet about including “transvestite” and “transsexual” and issue this warning to staff. 👇. Basically they have used the term in their own policy but heaven forfend their own staff follow their own terminology,

This policy is also littered with veiled threats about which hospital policies you may be in breach; should you deviate from this, imposed, ideology. Staff are warned that they could face charges of “gross misconduct” and, even criminal charges for misgendering. This is quite draconian and, likely, outwith the law.

They at pains to be clear they will use the patient’s preferred pronouns etc even with family members. I can certainly understand the position of staff on this one, for the patient, but it seems provocative to stoke conflict with family members. However, an ideological crusuade it is and they also offer this advice, about children, which seems of dubious legality to me:👇. The hospital is instructing staff to expressly go against the wishes of parents even if the child is not deemed “Gillick competent”.

Gillick Competence

The Trust also are on the alert for “spurious” arguments about “discomfort’ to mask their “transphobia”. 👇

I am not surprised at the thinly veiled contempt for women emanating from this policy. The Trust clearly know the legally protected characteristics because they are included in their single sex ward policy. Yet, in the “transgender” policy all of this is forgotten and the Trust resort to blatant lies. The protected characteristic is “SEX” but the Trust use “gender”

So what about the Equality Impact. assessment? “No detriment was identified”.

To add insult to injury, after ignoring the protected characteristic of “sex” they had a special note that all Equality Impact assessments must consider the “trans” experience.

References:

The authors reference the work of Stephen Whittle, from 2007. Whittle is a sex denialist activist having repudiated her own sex many years ago. I think they probably are referring to “Engendered Penalties” which I covered in my series on Whittle:

Stephen Whittle

They also reference the beleaguered charity Mermaids, The Gender Trust, who advised East Cheshire, and Christine Burns.

I will follow this up with the 2022, updated policy. At first glance that looks even worse but I see they have removed reference to “transvestites”.

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.

£10.00

NHS Policy ignores Sex! (Part 1)

Featured

Those of us who have been looking at Transgender policies, at NHS Trusts, have noticed they are much more difficult to find. For a previous post, on Birmingham Hospital, I was sent an email copy of a policy which I had not found but, which was available to employees. My suspicion is that NHS Trusts know women are checking whether they are defending single sex spaces for vulnerable, female, patients. I suspect more of them are restricting their policy to their “intranet” to hide these policies from the general public. The policies for their employees are still mainly available and they tell a diabolical tale.

You can see the rest of this series at the link below. The Trans ideologues have been hard at work for decades and the women’s rights groups are notable by their absence. Men (in the main) have been allowed to write policy that primarily impacts women; just because they claim to have transcended their biological sex.

NHS & Transgender: Series

This policy is from the East Cheshire NHS Trust. I couldn’t find a pdf so I had to screen shot it. This is the link to the policy. Searching the NHS Trust website yields zero results .

Transgender support Policy

I have archived it too. Here are some clips I could find easily. Here the Macclesfield hospital, part of the Trust insist that they operate single sex spaces. This is a deliberate strategy to LIE to women.

What the trust policy actually says is that people should be treated according to how they identify, irrespective of their sex, which they cover by some guff about genital configuration; as if that’s irrelevant.

Quick reminder of the context in which hospitals are lying to women.

The policy drips with the language of the captured; tell tale sign is echoing the belief that sex is “assigned at birth”, rather than observed and recorded; which is the case for over 99% of us. The policy is drafted with one group in mind who consider themselves “transgender”. They admit, however, that the policy will impact patients, staff, visitors, and contractors. Females make up 51% of the population but, later, we will see that they are over-represented in the patient population, Most women will have a hospital experience via pregnancy and childbirth even if they are otherwise healthy. Our longevity also means we are likely to need hospital admission in later years. Did this Trust speak to any women’s groups? NO!

They did get help drafting the policy from The Gender Trust. This policy was drafted over a decade ago.

The Gender Trust

I did a bit of digging on The Gender Trust. It wasn’t entirely straight forward. They do have a website but it contained no link to its Charity status or details of who was behind the organisation. It also appeared to be inactive.

gendertrust.org.U.K.

The organisation. is a trans lobby organisation.

I managed to track down a Charity registration number but, it turned out the charitable registration had been removed, A search on the U.K. register, directly, yielded no results associated with this registration number. I did find this.

There was also a neither charity called The Gender Trust Association. I found a record on Total Giving which liked it to the same website as The Gender Trust but this charity has also been removed.

There appears to have been accounts filed up to at least 2010.

Thereafter no accounts were filed from at least 2015.

I was able to establish that our old friends the National Lottery had given grants to The Gender Trust. You can search their database for those in receipt of grants. It’s a bit of a clunky database but appears to show they had 4 grants, in total, amounting to £138,000.

Another search turned up the name of Michelle Bridgman acting as a spokesperson. This was the only name I could find; publicly linked to The Gender Trust, I searched Michelle Bridgeman. (I also got a tip off that The Gender Trust had been working with the Scout Association and a link to Bridgeman’s own website).

Michelle /Shelley Bridgeman.

Bridgeman has a website. (Thank you to my informant). Here is a link:

Michelle Bridgeman

Further digging revealed that Bridgeman is a heterosexual, married man who had fathered children, before “transitioning”. You can watch a Ted Talk by him and hear about his past as the “effeminate” son of a distant father and how his parents suffered the early loss of a baby girl. I mention this fact because the loss of a sibling, often, one of the opposite sex, seems to figure more than usual in these narratives.

Dare To Be You

Bridgmen talks at length about a court case he was involved in to oppose the requirement to have his marriage annulled, in order to get his “gender” recognised. (Or as he described it “to get equal rights with other women”.) A fight that took over 10 years and would result in a Supreme Court victory.

Bridgend explains he is registered as a counsellor /psychotherapist and works with both adults and children. He also seems to have been somewhat of a media commentator. Of course he appears on Lorraine Kelly’s show; she has been a chief propagandist for Gender Identity Ideology. [Though I believe the Kelly on TV is not the same person as Loraine Kelly, in real life , for tax purposes.]

Bridgeman has also written a book, which I have not read, but if anyone wishes me to review this let me know.

I had intended to do just one post on this policy but it ended up rather long so part 2 will go into more detail about the policy.

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.

£10.00

Fox Fisher: Trans Schism

Featured

This is another in my comprehensive or ridiculously long series on the book Trans Britain. Fox Fisher has been around for a good few years, from an early age, so is still relatively young. Fisher appeared in the documentary “My Transsexual Summer” and now has their own content creation vehicle, “My Genderation”. I first came across Fox Fisher while investigating how Childline “educated”, I would say “indoctrinated”, my son. Childline is run by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to children (N.S.P.C.C).

You can access that series at the link below.

Queering the NSPCC? FINAL

Fisher appeared on breakfast television over 11 years ago to talk about their role in My Transsexual Summer, her voice already has the tell-tale timbre of a female on testosterone. This is how she described her realisation that something was different about them.

Ugla Stefania

I write Fox Fisher identifies as non-binary and is in a relationship with a male, Ugla Stefania, who also identifies as non-binary/genderqueer. The partner was an activist in Iceland and is known to me because they wrote the introduction to the Denton’s Document.

I did a piece on the Denton’s document which you can read here: In order to understand the tactics of the Trans Lobby group the Denton’s document is a must read.

That Denton’s Document

You can also watch Ugla’s Ted Talk and lean how he came to understand his female gender identity after adopting a female avatar on World of Warcraft. This talk is also full of the usual sex denialism, claiming people with disorders of sexual development justify a “trans” category and arguing people have no right to know a man is in women’s intimate spaces. The talk is, predictably, littered with references to this rates of suicide and violent death caused to “trans” people.

Ugla Stefania

Back to Fox Fisher

As of this year Fox Fisher has undertaken liposuction to remove fat deposits that she felt were too feminine. They have also, recently, had a metoidioplasty which is surgery to create a simulacra of a penis. This involves moving skin, fat deposits /cheek cells and this creates a non-functioning sex organ. Fisher appears to be the “trans” version of a polysurgical addict. Looking for Gender Euphoria. 👇

In a YouTube to discuss the surgery, Fisher doesn’t rule out getting a phallioplasty, if the metoidioplasty doesn’t deliver.

Fisher also did a joint TedTalk with Ugla and it was fascinating how the relationship was described. Sounds like being validated is a key component.

Fisher’s chapter in Trans Britain is focussed on how non-binary people are not just oppressed by people outwith the “trans” community but by people within the “trans” umbrella who believe in “cis-normativity and adopt a binary view of “gender”.

Fisher still finds time to critique Germain Greer and women defending our sex based right.

Their is not much new in Fisher’s chapter. There are ahistorical takes on the existence of “trans” people; confusing gender nonconformity with “trans” and appropriating the way different cultures found a way to accommodate, usually male, homosexuals. Fisher also takes time to defend trying to no platform different views and denies trying to get Greer banned was a free speech issue. Elsewhere Fisher exposed her own difficulties with homosexuality. This was something they were caught saying at a Mermaids camp for “transgender” kids.

You can access a link to Fox Fisher saying this at the link below.

Fisher on homosexuality

This paragraph 👇seems like an apologia for any violent backlash to people who don’t subscribe to gender ideology.

Fisher’s chapter rehashes many of the arguments put forward by her follow travellers. It’s worth reading for the exposure of the schism emerging between the gender binaries and the new sect of the neither male nor female sect. Both Fisher and Stefania conform to male and female stereotypes in their presentation to the extend of taking synthetic hormones and having surgeries. I don’t think a life dependent on #BigPharma for your authentic sense of self is a liberating life style. I should just mention that Fisher is also under the mis-apprehension that puberty blockers are safe and reversible. This is a dangerous ideology which Fisher also pushes via children’s books.

Masquerading as written to opposes sexist stereotypes the book is a thinly disguised propaganda tool for Transgender Ideology.

The authors and the messaging: The Blue-Haired non-binaries are coming.

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.

£10.00

Helen Belcher: Trans Britain

Featured

By coincidence I have just reached the Helen Belcher Chapter at the point of the New Year Honours list which has granted him an O.B.E. Helen remains in a heterosexual marriage and has fathered two children. He reportedly began his “transition” when his daughter was a toddler. Belcher is a Liberal Democrat Councillor and has also stood for parliament. Outside of his political work he is involved with Trans Media Watch is on the trans-advisory board for Stonewall and is also involved with trans actual and LGBT Consortium.

He has fingers in lots of pies which include advising Baroness Barker and attending the All Parliamentary Group for LGBT rights. I have written on the APPG group for LGBT before.

APPG on LGBT: Publication

This APPG have had their secretariat funded /provided by trans lobby groups such as Stonewall and Kaleidoscope trust. Belcher was also name checked by the Liberal Democrat MP, Layla Moran, as recorded on Hansard. Layla Moran, you may remember, is able to see into souls and discern who they really are:

The Liberal Democrats have also taken 1.4 million from the Pharmaceutical company that manufactures triptolerin which is the drug used to block puberty for children labelled “trans”. I wrote about that here:

Liberal Democrats & Big Pharma

Belcher, like a lot of these men, claims to have always known he was “different” and tells a familiar narrative arc of denial and repression until finally coming into their “trans” identity. He remains married to the mother of his two children.

He is one of many of the contributors to reference the BBC documentary about George/Julia Grant. This statement does contain a kernel of truth about how a man can possibly know what it is to be a woman.

In this chapter he outlines the lobbying undertaken by Trans Media Watch to influence editorial decisions of key broadcasters with the most initial success in capturing Channel 4 but Stuart Cosgrove, their employee, also facilitated access to the BBC. One of the earlier triumphs for the representation of “trans” people was “My Transsexual Summer” which tackled civil rights issues like being unable to work in a Bridal Wear shop.

Trans Media Watch managed to inveigle their way into OFCOM (Broadcast regulator) and the Press Complaints Commission. Some of these meetings were attended by Jane Fae who is a man who defends extreme porn and sexual fetishes like consensual slavery. The link to cross-dressing and sexual fetish is something that trans campaigners, I would argue, have successfully suppressed in U.K. media who are terrified of accusations of “transphobia”.

Belcher was delighted to secure the support of Lynne Featherstone, M.P. who also appears in this book and, at one point, launched an attack on actual feminists, ( those who defend women’s rights to exclude all males from female spaces) telling them they were not welcome in the Liberal Democrats.

Her words were also captured on Hansard. She didn’t hold anything back.

Belcher also approached the Labour media spokesperson and by this route was able to ensure Trans Media Watch were able to influence the Leveson Inquiry to raise issues of “transphobia” in the media.

Here he lists some of the people involved in Trans Media Action which was funded by both Channel 4 and the BBC.

One of the YouTube events on the Trans Media Watch channel also includes this person who may be known to Scottish women: Jennie Kermode. Kermode identifies as both “intersex” and “gender queer” and a journalist.

Belcher takes detour to attack journalist Susan Moore and Julie Burchill in this chapter. Worth including this superb clip where he mentions Julie Burchill calling these men “bed-wetter in bad wigs” .😂😂😂

He has continued to attack female journalists in recent history most notably Janice Turner. Turner is a Times journalist who has been a stalwart in covering women’s rights issues. Belcher made outrageous claims about suicides related to Turner”s journalism. Thankfully IPSO did not uphold Belcher’s claim despite being woefully captured by Transgender Ideology themselves.

Belcher has the temerity to bleat on about false claims of threats to free speech whilst, checks notes, trying to restrict free speech. He takes a moment to praise the Louis Theroux document whilst lambasting another documentary focussed on Ken Zucker’s clinic. I wrote about that documentary here. Belcher did not approve and complaints were made to the BBC.

Transgender Kids: Who knows best?

Belcher talks of a horrific climate where media articles were allowed to question whether men like himself were “real women’ but he ends with a round up of all the positive news, like the capture of prominent politicians and the corruption of erstwhile gay rights organisation, Stonewall. He is particularly pleased with Stonewall’s Vision for Change document which committed itself to ending sex segregated spaces and the sex by deception laws.

Belcher is more revealing in media coverage and in YouTube interviews. While standing as a prospective MP, for the Liberal Democrats, he simultaneously claims he gets more hostility as a Liberal Democrat, than a “trans woman” but also that he fears being murdered.

In another YouTube interview Belcher makes a claim for his right to use female spaces. Apparently his fear of the male facilities is to be taken seriously but women seeing Belcher, an obvious and rather large, male in single sex spaces is to be disregarded.

Yes, this is what we are saying. Men aren’t women. You can watch this interview in full, below.

Helen Belcher

He also claims that the following in this interview:

Here is another interview which makes it crystal clear he has no idea about women’s lives, he is not a woman, he is a selfish man willing to expose women and girls to real harm providing we validate him as something he manifestly is not.

Belcher

He makes all the usual bonkers claims about genital inspections and then says this argument would lead to a tax on women who would have to get identity documents to prove they had female genitalia etc. I will say it again; we are not just letting any men enter women’s spaces we are selecting for men who don’t respect women’s boundaries. There are plenty of males who, feel at odds with their male sex who *still* use male spaces. The men who don’t respect female boundaries have a massive red flag over them.

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.

£10.00

Sarah Brown: Trans Britain 21

Featured

Sarah Brown is another trans-identified man featured in this book. Trans Britain by Chris Burns. Like Burns he also claims a “Lesbian” identity while he appears to have traversed the familiar path of a male cross-dresser. Brown is also an advisor to the erstwhile gay rights charity, Stonewall. He is also a former Liberal Democrat councillor and remains influential as an LGBT advisor.

Post transition Sarah Brown retained her wife and later added a third party to the relationship together with his children. Zoe is another trans-identified male who is also influential in the Liberal Democrats.

You can find an article, on Huffington post about Brown’s polyamorous relationship. In it Brown describes how the compulsion to cross-dress escalated until he was no longer satisfied by performing his fetish on a part-time basis. Instead the compulsion dominated his waking thoughts and he was so much in its grip he began modifying his body with synthetic hormones and, eventually, surgeries. Like a lot of these men he was an early adopter of the internet which allowed him to find men with similar compulsions. He recalls attending the trial of Russell Reid who was a man who aided people seeking the type of surgery commonly called “sex change surgery”. Brown writes in support of Reid even though he was sanctioned for a rather reckless attitude to his I wrote about Russell Reid below:

Russell Reid: Part One

Brown immediately became an activist and describes meeting fellow traveller Roz Kaveney in 2007.

Brown spends quite a lot of time criticising Julie Bindel’s attitude to “trans” surgeries because she had written about Reid and interviewed some of the patients who came to regret their surgeries. She used rather uncompromising words like “mutilate” and Brown took the opportunity to remonstrate, publicly, with Bindel. Brown was to meet Roz Kaveney once again and they shared their anger at the resentment against men who call themselves “lesbians”.

I have had the misfortune to read Whipping Girl and at some point I will blog on Serano. For now this will give you a flavour of his attitude to women and place Brown in their proper context.

By 2008 Brown was boasting about the success in influencing BBC Editorial decisions and starting the sex denialism that has now thoroughly infected/corrupted the national broadcaster.

He then proceeds to display his male rage at an event which excluded males. This was the Michigan Women’s festival. As Brown points out many men still insisted on attending the festival and, for those of you who don’t know, one of those protestors of this festival would go on to murder two Lesbians and their son in his rage at being excluded.

Closer to home Brown recounts protesting Queer up North for the temerity to host an artist who had also appeared at the Women only festival in Michigan. This was to be a pattern in this man’s activism. A clear anger at any woman asking him to stay in his lane. His stated aim was to embarrass the organisors of events that recognised biological sex. The next, rage inducing, incident was a London Pride that expected males to stay out of the female toilets. Brown was very angry about this and claims a “transwoman” eventually resorted to the male bathroom and was sexually assaulted. The perpetrator was never found.

Brown takes another detour to protest Stonewall giving an award to Julie Bindel. This time there was a counter protest about which Brown has this to say:

Brown then lists what he sees as the achievements of trans-activists. Not for the first time it occurs to me how self-defeating are the aims of this new wave of Men’s Rights Activists. It simply never occurs to them that they will never experience the energy of a women only event that includes them. The energy in a space, invaded by males, however they identify, will never be the same as an actual women only event. That’s the tragedy; though I am all out of sympathy. Shame on the organisors of a Lesbian event for having a male fetishist as a speaker.

Brown claims to experience homophobia now he is a “lesbian” seemingly oblivious to his own homophobia in claiming that label.

Some of Brown’s political activities do not appear in this book but have been catalogued elsewhere. Naturally he is a proponent of BDSM and served tea dressed as a maid at an event he organised.

He also campaigned against restrictions on pornographic access

At the same time as encouraging sado-masochists to have a platform and free speech for pornographers he was less keen on women’s voices being heard.

I will leave you to the more infamous odfod his tweets whilst a city councillor.

I am not really feeling the “Lesbian” vibe from Mx Brown.

My 300th Post. Goodbye 2022!


You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.

£10.00

We are the Non-Binaries

Featured

This is a continuance of my series based on the book Trans Britain. I have struggled to whip up enough energy to tackle this chapter because of an innate resistance to narcissists. One of the people featured in this chapter, Meg-John Barker, is familiar to me as someone who was responsible for a bonkers document by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapists (B.A.C.P).

Here is an article about the document, from 2018, the author was one Dr Meg-John Barker.

Women are Vain Except In the North

Here is an excerpt which was later deleted. Does Barking mad Meg thinks Northern Working class women are men!

People who subscribe to this ideology confuse rejecting sex stereotypes with repudiating your sex. At the same time they claim they are in the business of dismantling these self same sexist notions.

Megan John Barker appears to be in a heterosexual relationship with Edward Lord who identifies as non-binary; which did not stop him joining the male only free masons. Here is Mx Lord.

You may remember Lord for making the single sex swimming, at Hampstead heath, mixed sex after launching a faux poll on twitter. A poll he claimed was open access after he he had pre-emptively blocked any women who were not the new inter-Sexional feminist types. Here is Private Eye on the matter.

Lol! Edward Lord O.B.E thinks he’s is dismantling the Patriarchy. These people are insane!

Meg also has a web-site providing a lot of free materials including her section on having multiple personalities or “Plurals”. Feel free to have a gander:

Meg Barker

Let me remind you that Meg was an an advisor to the British Psychological Society. An organisation that I covered in this series. You may remember the BPS advised it’s counsellors to use their client’s preferred title even if this was “slut”.

British Psychological Society

Meg has a number of “plurals” or “alters” including Fox,Jonathan, Robin, Jack, Max and Ara. I am rather relieved that she has given up counselling. I am quite disturbed that she was accredited and is a lecturer. Ben isn’t an alternative identity and is credited in this chapter.

Also included in this chapter is another person I had not encountered before.

Disturbingly Jos was employed by the Tavistock Gender Clinic. How much damage these deluded fools have done to children is incalculable.

This is how they define non-binary. No wonder they claim non-binary is the largest “trans” category; literally everyone is covered by this amorphous nonsense.

I am out of patience with this ahistorical nonsense; which I imagine is perfectly apparent. WOMEN’s parts were played by males because women were not allowed on stage in Shakespeare’s era. 👇. For many years the women who did tread the boards were associated with prostitutes and much maligned. Anyone with a nodding acquaintance with the history of English theatre would be aware of this, but when your movement is a confection all you have is cultural appropriation and lying.

Ironically the very next paragraph cautions against the risk of “reading the present onto the past”.

After a detour to appropriate different cultures who found their own way to accommodate, usually male, homosexuals, the authors return to the British context to name our own pioneers. This was the first time I had come across the superbly named Nat Titman. (I realise my amusement is a tad immature. I blame the backdrop of a carry-on Christmas). Elan-Cane is the woman who wants to have sex obliterated on per’s documents. Sigh.

Despite the nonsensical nature of the NB movement it should no longer surprise anyone that our supine political class have bought it hook, line, and sinker.

The chapter ends with a list of demands which, bizarrely, includes access to medical transitioning for non-binary people. Luckily for the per-people some medical practitioners are ahead of the curve like the esteemed Dr Helen Webberley who still practices medicine in between her periods of suspension. Does this sound like good medical practice?

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.

£10.00

Featured

Gendered Intelligence: Part 19c

This is the third part of a series, within a series, looking at Gendered Intelligence. Taken from the book Trans Britain.

Jay Stewart, a trans-identified female, founded Gendered Intelligence, with her partner Christine McNamara. Once the charity could support a salary Stewart became CEO and now draws a salary of £50+k. To be fair this is not a hugely excessive salary, for the charity sector, and they seem keen to make sure the lower paid staff are paid well above a living wage. In the preceding post I cover the background of the trustees who have had a bit of a shake up in 2022.

Gendered Intelligence now has quite the revenue stream; mainly comprising grants and donations plus all the income from the organisations who pay them to proselytise gender identity ideology.

Here are some of the named funders based on the last published accounts. Note that Children in need and the National Lottery have made repeated grants to the charity. The foundations Esme Fairbarn and Paul Hamlyn Foundation appear frequently in those entities bankrolling trans lobby groups. Gendered Intelligence is frequently in receipt of funding via the NHS in the form of grants, joint research projects and payments to further embed sex denialism in the NHS.The same “Charitable” foundations crop up repeatedly in grant makers to this sector. Note also the involvement with Sport England, Swim England named below. We also know that G.I have close links with the Football Association; all to persuade them to make Sport mixed sex to validate the identities of men who wish to participate in female sports.

The annual reports are littered with references to organisations that have invited Gendered Intelligence to train their staff or, in the case of education, to also indoctrinate their pupils/students. In addition to the formal training, Gendered Intelligence also run youth groups across the U.K. In common with lots of these “trans” youth groups the age ranges seem wholly incompatible with effective safeguarding. Below the age range is 13 to 25. Older trans-identified role models are also invited to meet the young people. These groups are also partly funded by Children in Need.

These lobby groups access our children, from reception age onwards, via schools, under the guise of PSHE, anti-bullying work or diversity training. All of the teaching Unions are also captured and the teacher training courses. {Hence my own son’s biology teacher finding it necessary to apologise to the class for teaching facts about sexual reproduction; no doubt unwilling to offend her “non-binary” child.}

The capture of the political class has also been rapid. Even Conservative, Theresa May, presented an award to Catherine McNamara for her work proselytising to our kids.

Another technique to embed sex denialism in our culture is through media presentation; a kind of product placement to market self-commodification. If you have not seen it I can highly recommend this YouTube, by Kat Karena; which draws a comparison between Gender Abbatoirs and Business Start-Ups. 👇

The Business Model

Jay actually did their PhD on “trans on the telly”.

What I call “marketing” of the “transgender” child, Jay would regard as normalising /destigmatising a “trans” identity. For Stewart “Gender Identity” is innate and watching representations of “trans” people, she believes, allowed the discovery of their “authentic self”. Given that homosexuals are more likely to deviate from societal expectations, for your sex; is it any wonder this explanation is seductive to someone rejecting herself as a “Lesbian”? Add Internalised homophobia to misogyny and *some* Lesbians may find being a man more appealing than being a Lesbian.

Stewart was also steeped in queer theory and is an acolyte of Judith Butler, she was also studying in a University (Goldsmiths) who are major proponents of this ideology.

. This cause would eventually secure a comfortable salary and a place at the table, in the London Mayoral Office. Sadiq Khan is very keen on pushing the mantra “Trans Women are Women” and dutifully presents with pronouns in his twitter bio. It seems he learned his catechism well.

Jay explains that they had not only “found ‘my’ people” but also found “my cause”

It was also an exciting time to be embracing this new cause as the Govt had passed the Gender Recognition Act and this was pioneering legislation. Jay tells us, excitedly, that a conference on Sexuality and Gender, held in Manchester, attracted scholars from all over the world. At that conference an important point was made by one of the speakers; defending the secrecy provisions built into the Gender Recognition Act.

It is the secrecy provision that “forced” hospital staff to lie about the sex of a man, held on the female ward, even after he had raped a female patient. Staff who find out someone holds a Gender Recognition Certificate, in an official capacity, face unlimited fines for revealing that information. It leads to the ludicrous situation that a women, confronted by an obvious man in female only settings, are being gaslit by NHS staff; who are forced to lie about his biological sex. It is also an odd provision since it is illegal to obtain sex by deception and the main convictions, under this law have been females, pretending to be male, to sleep with other girls. So, in some settings it is allowable to conceal your sex but in others it is a criminal offence not to disclose. Yet here the same activist claims it is up to the “trans” person to decide whether to disclose. This is justified by a claim that revealing your sex may expose you to threatened, or actual, violence.

Despite the fact that the GRA is very bad law, for Stewart it does not go far enough because it fails to protect “non-binary” identities, or people who are gender fluid. Apparently the GRA was not sufficiently accommodating because it “reinforced our entrenched gender binary system, with heteronormative assimilationist undertones”.

On the law Stewart has this to say 👇 and she is not wrong. The law likes clarity and this law singularly fails, because nobody knows how to define “gender” without circular reasoning. Furthermore legislating on the basis of subjective feelings; which are contrary to truth and reality, and compelling others to validate a lie, is insane.

There follows some reflection on whether there is a biological basis for a “transgender” identity. This is similar to the “born this way” debate among the gay community. Apparently the notion is hotly contested with some arguing a “trans” gene might lead to selective abortion. Also there is a fear that anyone found not to have this biological marker would not be “trans” enough. I imagine some of those who don’t welcome a definitive “test” are those that have retconned their narrative to bury years of cross dressing, for sexual gratification; they won’t want their cover blown.

As Stewart is considering whether the elders, like Whittle and Burns, can support “trans” youth he gets the opportunity to bid for a grant from the Wellcome Trust. He sets up groups of “trans” teenagers to discuss their issues with professional people working in the field of “transgender” health. Stewart believes the medical experts are just as likely to learn from the young people. There was a rather candid admission from the endocrinologist about the lack of knowledge around “transgender” people. More questions than answers!

Gendered Intelligence collaborated on a conference with an organisation called transfabulous. They were delighted Kate Bornstein and other notable trans luminaries were in attendance. This is how Bernstein showed up.

Kate Bornstein

That name rang a bell so I took a detour to have a quick look. You can easily find a lot about Bornstein just from a cursory look at YouTube. Bornstein was a thrice married man who spent 11 years in the Cult of Scientology. He eventually decided to “transition” whilst a recovering alcoholic and cocaine user. He describes being welcomed by the gay community until he came out as a “Lesbian” where he was, understandably, less welcome. Here is one paragraph on his life: Had a female partner who then decided she was a man while Bornstein found his “slave girrl” side.

This quote was from this book 👇 written by Bornstein which is like Jackie Magazine meets queer theory.

Bornstein invokes the language of spirituality to describe their transformation. This deployment of language denoting a higher knowledge from the “trans” ideologues is a common occurrence in these narratives.

This is another diagram from Bornstein book which has an odd reference to the notion of consent.

Let us zone in on the sexual consent issue; “with or without consent”. 👇

We leave Jay Stewart committing to continue influencing politicians at all levels of government. The route out of this trans-totalitarianism is to yank it up by its roots and unpick the cognitive capture in our institutions and, in particular, the contagion in the mediating classes. Trans lobby groups are the Japanese knotweed of ideologues.

Next up will be a pice on the non-binary contingent. I will have to steel myself to engage with the narcissist wing of the trans-ideologues, in a competitive field I believe the non-binaries take the lead.

You can support my work below or consider a paid subscription to my substack.

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.

£10.00

Jan Morris: Conundrum

Featured

This started life as two twitter threads, one on Jan and one on his wife. Since Jan’s daughter has recently spoken out (in an article in The Times) I thought I would take the time to turn it into a blog post, or three.

Jan Morris considered himself a “transsexual” and was treated as a national treasure until his death, earlier this year. Because his name kept cropping up in “trans” world I decided to read his memoir “Conundrum”. It was quite a revelation. I had seen quite a lot of praise for Morris, from feminists, and assumed they had not read his book. On this I was wrong. My thread drew a series of outraged replies from a blue tick feminist / journalist who found my thread “patronising”. It turned out the journalist in question had interviewed Morris. A fact I was not aware of, at the time. I have never found the interview. She ended with the (not at all patronising) suggestion that I simply was unable to recognise good writing and clearly had not read as much on the topic as she, ouch! 😂. In fairness to her, many of us did not know how to spot the signs of autogynephilia and many of came out of the #BeKind stable until we realised the cost, to women’s rights.

The book begins with the usual, ret-conned narrative, that he always knew he had been “born in the wrong body”. If you have read as many of these narratives as I have this is a familiar strategy. I say “strategy” because it is an attempt to deflect from the real route to “transsexuality” for heterosexual men; by which I mean autogynephilia.

Later on Morris makes a bid to be regarded as a “true transsexual” distancing himself from the notion he was cut from the same cloth as transvestites or that his “gratification” takes the same form. He also distances himself from homosexuals, of which more later. j

Just for emphasis. Jan recognised no pruriency to their condition. An emphatic denial of a sexual motive is not uncommon. Even when that sexual desire is turned inward and you, yourself, are the object of your erotic fantasies it is still sexually motivated. Autogynephilia seems a reasonable assumption to make about Morris.

We travel with Jan through the male world he inhabits. He describes his attraction to the “feminine principle” and assigns women the traits of gentleness, forgiveness, giving and, of course, helpmate status rather than leadership. Our Jan is quite the sexist.
But #BeKind

He shares a rather weird anecdote about the school matron who undressed in front of him for reasons that were unclear, perhaps to check a lump on her breast. Completely inappropriate behaviour but Jan sees this as evidence she saw his feminine essence. Of course it could be fantasy, there is now no way of verifying it at this stage.

In his confusion he wondered if every boy wished to be a girl and it is clear he has put women on a pedestal. He has clearly missed large swathes of biblical, historical and literary pronouncements that see women as the source of all sin. He shows a paucity of understanding, or interest in, women’s lives and history; we exist only as the male fantasy he cherishes.

We learn that Jan’s earlier sexual encounters were with males. I would suggest it is significant that he mentions being “flogged” by one the week before and that he preferred to “play the role of girl”. A pre-internet version of “Sissy Porn” ?

This is also a revealing excerpt about those early homosexual encounters. He revels in his beauty and playing the “girl” role whatever that means to Morris. A passive recipient of his fellow male advances seems likely.

Jan then talks about his envy of the female role in procreation which he sees as more fundamental and closer to the life cycle. Recognising he could never be a mother he describes Fatherhood as the next best thing. He also craves the company of girls yet craved for a “man’s love”. Indeed he writes with great sensuousness about a love affair with Otto, only to be crushed, he claims, by Otto wishing Morris was a woman.

More than once Jan reflects on what it means to claim womanhood and to claim to think like a woman. His later pronouncements show he thinks like a man, who “others” women to create a refuge for himself. He creates a prison for women to satisfy his own needs.

Jan was able to find much to celebrate about his maleness. Like a lot of late transitioners he had a degree of prowess in pursuits he only associates with males. Women, he states, cannot claim to feeling this way about our bodies. A man telling women about our bodies. Shocker! {At the risk of feeding the lie we are all biological essentialists, I will just add, that I have never been as aware of the power of a woman’s body while giving birth}.

The context for this immense self satisfaction is a successful assault on Mt. Everest. Jan takes a rather paternal tone he as he condescends to describe this feeling to his “women readers”.
Women! Climbing MOUNTAINS! Heaven Forfend.
We might break a nail.

Quite a paean to masculinity, for a man who has always known he is really a woman. Is mastering womanhood just another tempting summit! once you have assaulted the worlds greatest peak maybe the next one is #PeakTrans?

Apparently women are not team players so it takes males to mount a successful expedition. Odd isn’t it that a man who think women don’t have any solidarity aspires to join the “sisterhood”. He has no idea about the strength of women, when we work together, because he never experienced it.

Next is a revealing lament for the disappearing stiff upper lip and the trend for men showing weakness. He is also not keen the breaking down of barriers between the “genders” . He is not keen on mixed sex expeditions and slyly notes no mission will ever be as successful as his. The All Male one.

There follows a lot about meeting his wife who deserves her own thread. I will return to him age 35. Married with children and preparing to embark on “transition”. Here’s Elizabeth, his wife, eventual a kind of Trans Widow but, he tells us, a “loyal” companion after divorce.

Following the death of a daughter he begins to experiment with hormones. This is a common narrative from these men who centre themselves when there is any danger of attention being focussed elsewhere. His wife would also have been dealing with this bereavement but Jan is focused on himself. He’s “despairing” , he tells us, this was the worse period of his life. Something tells me it wasn’t a barrel of laughs for Elizabeth either.

Interestingly what seems to trigger a lot of resentment about his situation is his exclusion from women only spaces. Notice that when we hear about women it is always how they gratify his need to be recognised as “feminine”. “Cisters” are there to serve our new “sisters”. He began to hate his connection to the male sex and dreaded the absence of women but was gratified when female associates validated his “femininity”.

This theme is fascinating. Men are associated with the public sphere and women with the private sphere. (Sound familiar?) The Ministers & The Ambassadors office bore Jan. He yearns for access to the inner world of females of which more later.

Jan, I think, recognised he has reached the summit of his ambitions as a man. He is by now quite successful. He turns his back on worldly success, which he equated with maleness. He is going to retreat to impotence, which he associated with being a woman. Thanks Jan.

Woman as a de-sexualised, passive member of society is what he aspires to…more of this in the post I will do about Elizabeth.

He would father three (surviving) children with Elizabeth and is living, en famille, in bliss in Venice. He relays an encounter with a blind, destitute, beggar woman to whom he was in the habit of dispensing charity. She has a walk on part in Jan’s fantasy and her only role is to sense the woman in him.

Elizabeth, rather magnanimously, we are told, is Jan’s supporter as he begins to embark on what he thinks of as “change of sex”. I wonder if anyone asked her? Or interviewed her?

Jan then turns to his own assessment of what makes a woman. He lists body parts, chromosomes and hormones and psychological sex. You can guess which he prioritises in order to force his way in to the category to which he does not belong.

“Sex is merely the tool of gender” . Jan wants an identity so “brace yourself I’m coming in” …like a crap version of foreplay, in he comes.

No more sexual favours for Elizabeth as he blithely informs us. On the bright side (for Jan). Life looks brand new. He is getting closer nature & talking to flowers. Women as the quivering sex but also simpler, closer to nature.

Jan reflects that living in female role results in being patronised / ignored and no longer being presented with the bill. I find it noteworthy that he makes a point of saying waitresses frequently gave the bill to Elizabeth which suggests an element of competition about being “more womanly” than she. (A similar competition was noted in a prominent AGP male who makes a cloaked difference at his menopausal wife and how he now boasts more “female” hormones than his wife). Also notice he comments how the “motherly” waitresses have lower expections in terms of tips. Would any other men get away with this rank sexism?

At other times Jan seems not to have understood the #MeToo movement. It’s not supposed to be “me too” can I have some of that! On more than one occasion he welcomes attentions women fight, sometimes a losing battle, against.

Clearly Jan had no intention of joining the militant feminist wing of womanhood. More comfortable in the Surrendered Wives branch of the Barbara Cartland Party.

Here he rather offensively claims his post surgery self was akin to a woman post hysterectomy. Oh the irony. So many TRAs claim GC/Radfems are reducing women to their reproductive parts..Seems this may have originated in the Granddaddy of TS In the UK. 👇#WombEnvy. None of these men seem to understand basic biology and realise that the last thing the surgery grants them is a vagina.

Along with a load of sexist claptrap about how much more womanly he is post transition there’s this corker. Actually talking about women with penis envy and why we are right to be so!!!!
Sexism on Steroids. And maddeningly so call feminist orgs. are yielding!

Honestly I think this book is being used as a training manual for TRAs about what to claim to feel as a woman. 👇. Woman as incompetent, weak, gossipy, focussed on the domestic sphere etc. Women aren’t Stepford Wives. FFS.

And

Women as children!

He throws transvestites under a bus by talking about the quiet thing outloud. Transvestic Fetishism. This now comes under the Trans Umbrella. Our politicians have no fucking idea what they are unleashing on women. Men who get off on hiding a penis in women’s clothes/spaces. 😡

I will return to Jan Morris’s book to cover what we can glean about the life of Elizabeth and his daughter.

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute.

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.

£10.00

Stephen Whittle: Q & A: Gender

Featured

Future of Gender: Part 3 : Q & A

This post covers the Q & A section of a talk given by Professor Stephen Whittle, at Durham University in 2015. We pick up the talk at 59:22.

This will be added to my series on Whittle which you can find here:

Stephen Whittle

You can watch the YouTube of Whittle’s talk here:

The Future of Gender

The first question relates to this book by David Valentine:

The book is based on ethnographic research looking at mainly MTF (Male to female “transgender” people) who he sought out in the drag balls, clinics, bars, support groups and cross-dressing organisations.

The term “transgender” was gaining currency in social settings but also in policy, medical terminology and the legislative context.

Nevertheless there was some resistance to the term “transgender” from the people Valentine encountered, in the nineties; people who preferred to be identified by their sexual orientation and not their “gender identity”. 👇

Whittle is asked if David Valentine is correct that the use of the term “transgender” creates implicit hierarchies, based on race and class.

Whittle chooses to answer the question in terms of the desire, and ability, to pass as the opposite sex, should you wish to do so. She makes an interesting observation on how liberating the computer was in allowing you to pass as the sex you wished you were. On-line “we were who said we were” . A lot of this movement is fostered by the dis-embodied lives of the internet generation. The problem arises when you take your fantasy into real life and demand that it be allowed to trump reality. Nevertheless, Whittle adds, the debate has moved on and “trans” people no longer aspire to “pass” or blend in with normative body types; because the expectation that “trans” people should disappear was “the most oppressive thing that ever happened to us”. My response: Expecting women to accept an obvious man in our single sex spaces is “the most oppressive thing that ever happened to women”.

Whittle follows this up celebrating how many “trans” people there are now in the world; how the smart phone has brought them into our living rooms and trans activists are spreading all over the world. I can think of no other condition where we would celebrate a group of people who are going to be dependent on #BigPharma for life.

The next question comes from an American who ask a question about medical focused on replicating “cis-bodies” . He /She is from the U.S where you can “buy whatever” and he wonders how Whittle feels about bodies “outside the binary”. Whittle gives a rather surprising answer to this, explaining the limitations of achieving a male body for a “trans” man and how she had to reconcile to that difference once she removed her clothes. She now looks on with alarm (this was seven years ago) at people taking flaps of skin from their arms to construct a facsimile of a penis; with all the limitations in terms of sexual function. She even goes so far as to question clinicians “Why are you doing it on kids?”

On “tran women” she is even more blunt.

Whittle elaborates on this theme admitting that there is a lot of denial/self-deception about surgical outcomes. It’s worth sharing these statements in full:

Whittle also points out that our bodies are not like flat pack IKEA furniture, something Mary Harrington calls this treating our bodies as “meat lego”.

Whittle recounts tales he has heard from mother’s who had sons left disappointed at the outcome of the surgeries and its failure to deliver the new life /girlfriend anticipated. Whittle admits a desire to be blunt about these facts and encourage more realistic expectations; though the message is somewhat undercut with the next bit about how having unrealistic dreams can be enjoyable, nevertheless.

There follows a question about how racism was tackled and the use of an essentialist position about race, as a political strategy, even though nobody really believes an essentialist position about race. Whittle is asked how that compares to the politics of “gender”. Whittle talks about how the aim should be that we don’t see “race” anymore. Then she makes an analogy with gender and the gender based violence perpetrated against you because you are a girl, or a boy. (Whittle thinks “gender” creates this violence). Whittle is not explicit about an exact political proposal but the inference is things should get better for females, and males, if we didn’t see “gender”. This ignores the fact that the kind of violence females are subjected to is, frequently, sexual violence, i.e. because of our biological sex. If we pretend sex isn’t real then we can’t see sexism and it’s naive to think this would eradicate sexual violence. Yet, at 1:17 Whittle admits they don’t even know what “gender” is.

The next question is about Facebook and their 51 gender identities. During this exchange we learn that Whittle was involved in the Facebook consultation and personally added six of these “gender identities”. As part of their answer Whittle talks about finding two women with a different style of clothing and, if he asked them to swap clothes, they wouldn’t because “it just isn’t me”. He then makes it clear that he thinks these different styles of dress are different “genders”. Whittle then claims the ability to spot 8 different woman genders based just on looking at women’s outfits! Also she finds it harder with men because their clothing is more. boring; making it abundantly clear he thinks “gender” is your sartorial choices. In the next breath, she says, if you have 51 genders it becomes meaningless and a civilised society will just get rid of the idea of “gender”. I agree we should get rid of the notion of “gender identity” and understand that we are shaped by the treatment we receive as a result of our biological sex and our behaviour, to some degree, is predicated on our biological sex. This does not mean we fit neatly into sexist stereotypes or that women should be limited by our biology, neither can we simply disregard that female bodies are different.

Whittle then talks about cultures that have more than one “gender”. There are, indeed, different cultures that accommodate men, usually gay, by the idea of a different kind of male/gender. These may be a benign way to include gay men. There are less examples of similar accommodations for females. The ones I have found are in societies hardly liberating for women. There are cultures that allow a girl to be treated as “male” if there are no sons in the family. This does not remedy the general position of girls in these societies, instead, it allows the societal structure, which renders girls as less desirable, to remain intact. Similarly societies which allow widows to don a “male” identity to provide for her family. The status of women doesn’t change and, in fact, this exception props up the existing sex hierarchy. See “Bacha Posh”

Or the Burnesha of Albania. 👇

Final question is about the different generations of “trans” people with different understandings of what it means. Does this have implications for the cohesion of the community?

Whittle answers with, firstly, that nobody needs to know your gender and most of the time you don’t need to know what sex people are. He thinks we are obsessed with knowing if you are men, or women, male or female. He adds an anecdote about having to produce documentation showing that he was a woman.

This final statement exposes the regressive nature of this cult. Whittle seems unable to imagine a world where a woman demands to be able to do anything irrespective of her sex. Instead “trans” is envisaged as a liberating project if, crucially, you repudiate your sex. Whittle seems to think the only way a woman can conceive of an occupation which is not “traditional” for women is by identifying out of your sex.

How about a world where women can aspire to transcend societally imposed restrictions, for women, and still own their sex? That would be progressive. Instead, Whittle, seems to live her life as if the only way she could love other women and storm the citadel of male domination is pretending to be a man.

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.

£10.00

Stephen Whittle: Future of Gender

Featured

Part 1

This post covers a talk given by Professor Stephen Whittle at Durham University in 2015. It’s quite a long talk and there is a lot to cover so this is part 1.

This will be added to my series on Whittle which you can find here:

Stephen Whittle

You can watch the YouTube of Whittle’s talk here:

The Future of Gender

In the brief introduction Whittle’s achievements are listed and the fact that he advises governments around the world as well as the Council of Europe, European Union and The European Commission; bear this in mind when you listen to some of the more outlandish statements.

Whittle begins with an anecdote about how the concept of “gender” was explained to their four year old son, by Whittle’s wife, a nurse. He asked his parents how they know the twins were girls. This was the answer given to him:

Many years later Whittle overhears this same son passing on the same explanation to a friend and comments “we trained him well”. Whittle then elaborates on the process of sex determination by adding this explanation:

Next people with disorders of sexual development (DSDs) are pressed into service, to prop up gender identity ideology. At the risk of repeating myself, DSDs, do not mean anyone is born without a sex, we are a sexually dimorphic species. We are all either male or female.

Whittle anticipated the audience may be confused that she is questioning the Future of “Gender” when her whole life has been a quest to live as her “Gendered self”. So, why is she? The concept of “gender” ,she explains, has only a recent history. She then asks if Gender a matter of being “male” or “female”? Apparently the answer to that question is “no” because we also categorise animals as male or female but we don’t call them “girls” and “boys”. Well, we wouldn’t, would we,because this is the terminology for human beings. Apparently, this is because, according to Whittle, we don’t think dogs have a gender identity. (Conveniently overlooking that we do have words to differentiate the sexes in the animal kingdom).

Whittle then argues this is because “gender” is not “biologically related” and the gender you have is something separate from being biologically male or female. The next question is to ask if being male or female is socially constructed. Whittle says “possibly” and we will come back to this. He then asks if “masculine” and “feminine” are culturally determined. Apparently this is worth looking at in some depth so, Whittle promises, we will come back to it.

Whittle then examines whether we are defined by our hormones /chromosomes and then throws out a question to the audience asking if anyone knows what their chromosomes are. Predictably people don’t know. Whittle asks why we are defining humanity by our chromosomes when nobody knows what they are? This is a ludicrous argument. The number of people with chromosomal abnormalities is a tiny proportion of the population. Additionally, routine karyotype tests, to check for chromosomal abnormalities, at gender clinics, were abandoned; because they are not a feature of the referrals to such clinics. 99% of people can be correctly sexed with a simple observation of our genitalia. Whittle uses this argument to question one of the fundamental organising principles of society, based on biological sex. Our sex doesn’t always matter but sometimes it does; this could be for health reasons where your biological sex is a predictor of risk for certain health conditions; or where symptoms present differently in males and females. It matters for single sex spaces so women have safe spaces from the sex that commits 99% of sex offences.

Whittle uses this same argument to question the case of April Ashley, a male, who had his marriage annulled; because same sex marriage was illegal in the U.K at the time. Ashley had never tested their chromosomes, had removed their male genitalia and taken synthetic “female” hormones for decades. Whittle uses this argument to cast doubt on April’s sex to shore up her insistence that “gender identity” should take primacy over “sex”. She does this by casting doubt on the definition of biological sex and implying that April is a woman because their self-identity should take precedence over biological reality.

At 11:30 minutes in Whittle pokes fun at Civil Servants trying to establish if a Civil Partnership for same sex couples can be annulled on the grounds of non-consummation; ultimately they decided it couldn’t. This was because they could not decide which sex act would have to be performed to establish consummation. Whittle paints herself as the rational voice educating the stuffy Civil Servants. She also claims that she had to educate the Civil Servants on the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act which, in effect, allowed marriages for same sex couples, providing one had a Gender Recognition Act. I am not persuaded this happened.

Whittle then asks if “Gender” is a matter of attribution i.e. is it when we call our children our son or daughter that we somehow define their gender? This argument is, once again, intended to undermine the reality of biological sex and Whittle used her own situation to explain how this is flawed because:

The next consideration is to ask if “gender” is a matter of psychological differences. She doesn’t elaborate.

Whittle then argues that there are journals across the sciences, the natural sciences, biochemistry, psychology and even English Literature publishing hundreds of articles discussing “gender”, because it has become a profoundly important question. This question is only of importance to the navel-gazing, gender identity ideologues. Whittle then makes a joke about how it keeps people, invested in Gender Studies, in work. She is not wrong.

I am not going to lie the calibre of this talk is making me lose all respect for the Professorial class! Next Whittle says we have got the issue “arse about face” and proceeds to ask if anyone in the room fancies David Beckham. He assumes someone does, which is a fair assumption, but then she goes into the realms of gender woo woo.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say it’s reasonable to assume David Beckham has a penis and the discovery he had not, or had female genitalia, would be a deal breaker for heterosexual women, or gay men. It’s this kind of rhetoric that leads to confused teenage girls assuming gay men would be attracted to them. Exhibit A 👇 (Our kids really believe this).

And

In case it’s not clear Whittle thinks “gender presentation” drives sexual attraction. “Nothing whatsoever to do with their body”!

Bearing in mind Whittle is talking in 2015, the very year Stonewall added the T to its remit. 👇

Part two makes it clear Whittle knows the statistic about the sexual abuse women face and she still thinks abolishing single sex spaces is morally acceptable.

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.

£10.00