Julie-Anne Curtiss: Rugby Player


Thank you to Nancy Kelley, of Stonewall for drawing my attention to Curtiss when she supported his crowdfunder to support a legal action against the RFU (Rugby Football Union); to demand to play against young women. Since this tweet the crowdfunder seems to have been removed and Curtiss has locked their twitter account, deleted their instagram, removed some of his YouTube videos and ended his blog, which now appears to have been deleted.

Curtiss is a heterosexual, late “transitioning” male, who has more than one marriage behind him, and has fathered three children. He has one who would be at least 17. He refers to his “child” in this YouTube video mourning the loss of a young, trans-identified, male, Brianna Ghey, who was stabbed to death killed (trial pending).

Brianna Tribute

This is his twitter profile, now locked.

I took the trouble to archive his blog which you can read here:

Tyler Girl blog

The blog starts in 2010 and is immediately preoccupied by “trans” issues from which he denies he derives any sexual gratification but admits some men do: well, he would say that wouldn’t he?

This is what he has to say about homosexuals. Like a lot of cross-dressers the toleration for homosexuality seems limited. This has echoes of the Beaumont Society (Society for cross-dressers who then claimed a “trans” identity)who made it clear that “overt displays of homosexuality will not be tolerated”. Remember this man has the public support of the erstwhile, gay rights, charity Stonewall yet he seems to have an issue with flamboyant, gay men, who he calls “fairies”.

He’s not keen on Lesbians either. Joanna Charity is an MP and a lesbian, her crime is to defend single sex spaces and same sex attraction. To Curtiss she is a “f**king TERF”.

He explains that he started accessing support groups, on-line, and it was here he got a tip to use occasions where dressing up was acceptable to experiment, with cross-dressing, in public. He decided to dress up as his ex-wife, which is not creepy at all, and here’s what he posted about that: The 1970’s called and it wants its jokes back.

He also set up a facebook profile in the name of Julie-Anne and used it to interact with unsuspecting women. He describes this as not allowing the “man-suit” to get in the way of interactions with the women.

His description of letting “Julie-Anne” emerge gives me the vibe of “becoming the thing he loved” like a lot of the narratives of autogynephiles. This reads, to me, as a man in the grip of a paraphilia which he can’t repress even though it will probably drive a wrecking ball through his marriage.

The Wife

During this period he is flaring the idea of coming out to his wife. She was not keen on the idea. He claims they had two conversations which left him frustrated but determined to persuade her to accept “Julie-Anne” by “chipping away”. I don’t know if Jacqui was worn down by his persistence. I imagine she had no idea about autogynephilia and was probably in ignorance of the other “woman” (Julie-Anne) in their marriage.

In his second attempt, after noticing his change of personal habits, growing his nails and shaving his body hair, and she is quite clear that she is only interested in marriage with a man.

I have not located any information as to whether their relationship survived or if, indeed, this was a factor in the break up of his earlier marriage.


Curtiss my, or may not, have persuaded his wife to accept him but he seems to have done quite a job of persuading a female rugby team. He produced a video to accompany his crowdfunder, now deleted. . Courtesy of a mutual twitter follower. I managed to get hold of the video and download it. In it, to a background of sad music, he sets out his case and features his coach expressing vehement support for him. Being excluded from the female category has made him very sad. The suicide threats are never far away from this issue.

He is also outraged that the RFU seem to expect him to use the male showers. (This strongly implies he has been using the female facilities). He also displays reckless entitlement re the risk to female players but claims he would be at risk against other men!

He also uses the “there are so few of us” argument. I see purportedly, intelligent, commentator’s use this all the time. Firstly, it only takes one man to steal medals and team places from women, his presence has a rippple effect and that’s before the explosion of men we are seeing entering women’s sports. One man using female facilities also robs all the women from a single sex space.

Next up is the apartheid gambit. Politicians, like David Lammy used this during the parliamentary debates, recording on Hansard, on passing the Gender Recognition Act.

He does seem to have some vocal support from his team members.. His coach gives an impassioned speech, on his behalf, claiming that there is no science to back up the exclusion from males in female rugby because there have been no injuries and , in any case, some girls are six foot five and weigh 70 kilos heavier than other girls. She is particularly outraged that this decision “ignores the science”.

She contributed to the video for his crowdfunder and also tweeted about to display her outrage.

It’s worth pointing out that the two women he quotes who support him are both on his team. The more pertinent community to comment would surely be the women who have played against him.


It’s worth have a look at the blog for his post, in April 2023, claiming that banning him from female sport is one of the ten steps that precede the perpetration of a genocide.

He is right about one thing though, we are not accepting that men can colonise our sex and force us to accept them as “women”. So, yes, this is about sport, but it’s also because you are not female and don’t belong in female sports or out single sex spaces

He seems to be perfectly serious about this using a Genocide Watch tool to outline the steps that are taking place.

Top of the list is the formation of LGB Alliance; a charity set by two Lesbians to defend Gay Men, Lesbians and bisexuals. Next, he lists not being allowed to compete against the opposite sex and finally the proposal to confirm that sex means (biological) sex in the relevant equality legislation. For number two he uses the example of the male rapist, Isla Bryson, who claimed to be “trans” as an example of the build up to mass extermination. The “logic” here requires some mental gymnastics but he appears to mean that because the state is granting leniency to men, who identify as women, nefarious men are using a trans -identity to harm “transgender” people. You have to have quite a twisted logic to frame a man, who raped two females, as an attack on trans-ide tidied males. There are the usual exaggerations about the murder rate for “trans” people and how vulnerable “transgender women” ,would be, in male toilets especially now there is rising rates of knife crime. There are lots of defamatory claims about women defending single sex spaces in literal alliance’s with far right /neo nazis. Apparently the proposal to better regulate access to medical interventions for gender dysphoric youth is akin to mass sterilisation. I am sure you get the drift. I did notice he also admits to reading David Icke.

The claim that any attempt to defend women’s boundaries will lead to a genocide is something I have seen numerous trans activists claim. Most recently in the statement by a “trans” identified man, Emma Bridges, because he is no longer able to compete against women. This is an excerpt from a longer post by Bridges.

There’s a reason people coined the word “transperbole”.

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 enable me to keep content open for those not able to contribute. Only do so if you have spare cash and if you don’t find a more worthy cause to support, I know it’s a crowded field.

My Substack

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


Transgender Movement & Fascism


I have only recently come across this paper which, surprisingly, was co-authored by an academic in a U.K.University. The premise of the paper is that Transgenderism is “petty fascism” . Even after following this movement for the last eight years this paper clarified some of my thoughts.

Here is the abstract. 👇. The paper outlines the strategy of the transgender movement and it’s inherently anti-democratic tactics. Instead of winning hearts and minds they have appealed to authority, change laws, often by stealth, bypassing a public conversation. Their appeal is based on a fallacious victimhood; deployed to guilt and shame people into accepting their minority world view. This is combined with a suppression of debate and repression of alternative perspectives.

You can read the paper yourself, here.

Repressive Moralism 11

The paper is refreshing in its use of the description of people who are at odds with their biological sex; making it clear that the sex is, in most cases, observed at birth and having no truck with “sex assigned at birth”.

The paper does reference violence against “trans” persons, which it immediately follows with facts about out the high rates of violence against women (even of it does call us “Cis”). The authors also highlight the extent of the research into discrimination against “trans” people; they are looking very hard for this “evidence”. Having read much of that research it tends to rely on self-reports and it is not hard to garner false positives from a community groomed into victimhood. The paper doesn’t reference the rise of hate crime legislation but this is one way of inflating societal discrimination against “trans” people. In the U.K. we have “hate crime incidents” which don’t require any crime to have been committed and rely on the self-perception of the individual. It’s worth noting that there is no category for hate crimes against women.

Free Speech

The authors focus is on the importance of free speech and how crucial this is for democracy.

They think censorship should be limited to those sentiments that advocate violence and are, themselves, a threat to democracy. Otherwise people should be allowed to express dissenting opinions, because censoring opinions leads to a decline in trust which is bad for democracy.

The authors then detail an attempt, in Germany, to facilitate dialogue between a muslim and a “trans” identified male but this proved impossible as both participants were encouraged to withdraw by their own communities. This is a common occurrence, as we have seen in the U.K.; with “trans” activists having successfully shut down debates by refusing to share platforms with feminists, who campaign for single sex spaces. The BBC were particularly vulnerable to this tactic; having a policy of platforming both sides in an important debate. By withdrawing, often at the last minute, “trans” activists were able to suppress debate for a long time; because the segments were often, then, cancelled.

The fear of an adverse public reaction is a good illustration that the “transgender” community fear scrutiny and know that the vast majority are opposed to the extreme demands made by this group. As we have seen, in the U.K. this has allowed the promulgation of gender identity ideology with limited coverage of public opposition.

The authors describe what happens when “a socially constructed reality becomes intentionally detached from its constitutive spontaneity, and is used to enforce a specific set of interests, as in commercial or political propaganda”. They continue by pointing out one of the main strategies is the undermining of the reality of biological sex.

Basically “Transgender Ideology” wants to build a world based on subjective belief and force the rest of us to validate that belief. Moreover this “belief” does not arise in a vacuum and whilst those people who are invested in making these claims have not come to the conclusion they are “transgender” on their own; in short they have been indoctrinated, groomed.

Trojan Horse

Imposing this belief on society is a huge task because the vast, vast, majority of people know biological facts and, apart from changing our minds, this ideology a,so requires reordering society such as changing how sex is recorded on databases and eradicating single sex spaces. The first step is people must be made to accept that our sexed bodies are secondary to a self-defined “gender”. Moreover laws must be passed to enshrine this ideology in law. As outlined in the Denton’s document one strategy is to force team groups and push through legislation using the social capital built by other groups, notable the gay rights movement.

If you have not read the Denton’s document then do visit my piece which links to the full document.

That Denton’s Document

The next step is also straight out of the Dention’s playbook 👇

The authors draw attention to how this differs from previous minority rights claims which are not hidden from public scrutiny but were, largely, conducted openly or at least operated with an accompanying public discourse to complement the private lobbying. What the “trans” rights activists have done is to entirely ignore the feelings /beliefs of the ordinary populace and gone directly to those in control of the levers of power.

Another strategy is to create a narrative of perpetual victim status. In this the “trans” activists have been spectacularly successful. By claiming to be the most marginalised they have elevated themselves into the primary victim, who should therefore be allowed to trample over the sex based rights of women, trash child safeguarding and call Lesbians “sexual racists” if they don’t include penis-havers in their dating pool.

This tactic works at the level of emotional blackmail, which is the stock in trade of abusive men. This men’s sexual rights movement has persuaded society that “trans” are the most vulnerable minority and women are their persecutors whilst having sufficient power to rewrite laws and problematise to all mention of women as a sex based class.

This movement is only possible in Liberal societies and because of the legacy of gay, women and disabled rights movements; all groups that have a lot to lose if “trans” lobby groups get their way. Crucially this also required the internet which serves to magnify their appeal and allows activists to hide behind avatars and filters; so that people are hoodwinked into supporting the rights of massive blokes to invade single sex spaces. It is in real life encounters, such as sport, that the full impact (literally) of these demands is on display.

The capture of academia

A huge part of their leverage is because of the capture of academia. Liberal management has bough the “most vulnerable” propaganda, hook line and sinker. All the while it is another group entirely that is actually marginalised and hounded over their beliefs, 👇

As I have said before the only way this movement can work is authoritarianism and repression because the vast, vast, majority of people know that sex is real, immutable and there are only two. Social media is the ideal vehicle for this because anonymous “trolls” can whip up a fevered hostility on line and highlight opinions that are opposed to transgender ideology, tagging in employers etc. to threaten livelihoods. As the ideology embeds itself via propaganda, in schools and universities, the corralling of public opinion can be undertaken by named trolls (Owen Jones springs to mind) and other people with large followings. No woman is immune as is evidenced by the treatment of JKRowling who, I am sure, knew exactly what she was walking into.

The paper covers the abuse that Rowling gets but I won’t go over that here because it’s well documented. Rowling’s entry into the fray began with her open support for Maya Fostater, who lost employment, in essence, for believing biological sex was real and for saying it out loud.

The authors cover the first tribunal hearing which resulted in Judge Taylor finding that Maya’s opinions didn’t pass the Grainger test, which is not mentioned in this paper. The Grainger test is detailed in this clip. Basically gender critical beliefs were deemed “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”. (This is why you will sometimes see WORIADS in some tweets. The judiciary have refused to say who trains them on this issue but I am going to guess GIRES) That decision was overturned by a second tribunal and, in the U.K, gender critical beliefs are now legally protected.

The paper then details some of the people who have suffered “cancellation” or attacks because of varying degrees of these beliefs but finds it unsurprising that men (Richard Dawkins) are also attacked. I think they missed a trick here, by not recognising that there is a bias towards attacking the female sex and men are allowed a greater degree of latitude. The authors also characterise Rowling’s essay as “weaponised discourse” which suggests this is being treated as the same as the confected victimisation of the “trans” community. Perhaps Rowling is using emotive language to make her point but, at heart, she is fighting for single sex spaces so women can heal because they are literal victims of male violence /sexual assault. I am opposed to Identity Politics hijacking the left as much as anyone but we can’t give up the rights of 51% of the population to secure this.

The next section gets to the meat of the argument by comparing the tactics of the “transgender” activists to a form of fascism.

Petty Fascism

The experience of the populace, under fascism, is reminiscent of living under the Gender borg.

The authors quote some German research showing how many people feel unable to voice their tru opinions, the figure was only 59% even to their closest friends. And what were they most afraid of saying?

They argue that this is achieved by threats of ostracism rather than the law /force. I would argue that we do have laws, by now, and the police are now checking peoples thinking as the numerous court cases attest. (See Harry Miller, Kate Scotow, Miranda Yardley etc).

In a pluralistic society we must tolerate a diversity of opinion / belief. This doesn’t mean we can’t draw the line at human rights violations, under the guise of religion but it does mean recognising that someone has the right to their faith but, crucially, not to force you to profess that same belief.

What the “trans” rights lobby is demanding is not a simple “live and let live”; there is a testerical level of demand that we profess belief in something which is simply not true. We are expected to remain silent when a man tells us he is able to menstruate or lactate or that his penis is a female organ. The crazy level of demand means we have no choice but to resist.

This paragraph sets out why we are justified in calling this fascism.


Compelled speech and thought policing are hallmarks of repressive /fascist regimes; this is what we are witnessing. We are in danger of undermining democracy and, sadly, our political class, with honourable exceptions, have not the wit to realise it. These are the rights we have to defend. Open debate and, heaven forfend, even jokes /limericks.

The author’s then reflect , with some detachment. on the rifts this has caused in feminism and gay rights movements. He also points to the divisions this has caused in left wing politics with some embracing identity politics (with some fervour, I would add) and the old Left which focuses on improving material conditions and women’s /minority rights. The former they describe as sanctimonious and self-righteous, a perspective with which I concur wholeheartedly.

He then points to the hypocrisy of our political elite who are surely lying.

They end with a call to fight to keep the public discourse on this ideology open.

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 could use some donations this month but only give if you have surplus monies that can’t be put to better use elsewhere.

My Substack

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


Leigh Finke: Legislator (Part 2)


Companion piece to another on the trans identified male, Leigh Finke, you can read part one here 👇. Part one covers who funds him and what limited, biographical, information is in the public domain.

Leigh Finke: LGBTQ Victory Fund

Leigh Finke who is now a legislator in Minnesota. Elected in November 2022 he was instrumental in passing bill HF1655 which added “Gender Identity” to the list of protected characteristics and bill HF0146 which makes Minnesota a “sanctuary state” for any child/youth now unable to get on a medical pathway to facilitate what ideologues call “transition”. Rather than cover the bills, in detail, in the first part, I decided to do a stand alone blog for anyone who wants to scrutinise the legislation.

HF1655 amends existing legislation to add the notion of “gender identity”. It also removed some discriminate measures against homosexuals. Probably the most talked about is this clause because it removed the section making it clear paedophilia is not regarded as a sexual orientation. Part one covers why this is a dangerous development even if, as Leigh Finke argues, the sexual exploitation of children is covered by criminal statutes,

As usual the definition, if you can call it that, of “gender identity” is absurd, counterfactual, circular and illogical. It allows people to claim to be men or women, both or neither, irrespective of ther sexed bodies with no requirement for surgical modification. Male and Female are unmoored from their physical embodiment and the law prohibits discrimination on the basis of “gender identity”, even though it is an internal feeling not visible to the naked eye. What this means, in practice, is the ability of men to access female only spaces even those where women are undressing or otherwise vulnerable. It is also enshrining the notion of a “woman” with a penis in law.

We are in the same territory as Caligula, who appointed a horse as senator!

The bill also contains a clause about setting up a programme of education to promote anti-discrimination, for which read re-education to make sure workers don’t rebel against this crazy legislation. Moreover they have a clause about accepting private finance to support the work of the responsible department. It would be worth keeping an eye on any cash coming into this department because it seems they are anticipating an influx of cash. Could they already have made a backroom deal? (I usually check Arcus Foundation and Open Society Foundation online databases. Arcus grants are up to 2022 but OS only till 2021. It will be interesting to see if they stop publicising this data now they are aware of a higher level of scrutiny. One to keep an eye on).

The other bill covers the Minnesota State response to other jurisdictions who are restricting or banning the medically “transitioning” children and young people. Those states may have legal powers to remove a child whose parents are undertaking these medical interventions on their children. Because of the complications around which state is responsible for the child, perhaps because one parent resides in Minnesota, they have enacted legislation to say they will not comply with an order made on this basis.

The bill sets out the usual restrictions on interfering with decisions where a child comes under the aegis of another state. These are not to be adhered to in the case of a child who would be restricted from these medical interventions in their home state. A child who is getting treatment in Minnesota, of this particular type, would be treated as a child of the state.

Legislation was passed to allow emergency custody arrangements to “protect” a child from abusive siblings or parents and my reading of this is the “abuse” may be defined as such simply because “gender affirming” care is withheld.

The document details what is covered by the phrase “gender affirming care”. It includes puberty blockers, cross sex hormones, and, while they are coy about the details, mastectomy, castration and penile inversion. Imagine having your child removed, by the state, you remove your teenage daughter’s breasts or to castrate your son? (This is already happening in Australia, Canada and some states in the United States. In the U.K there are already parents referred to social services because they don’t “affirm” their child as the opposite sex.I know one of those parents).

The other key part of the bill varies the legal rights of other states to extradite someone who has committed a felony in another state. Since some states are enacting laws to criminalise the sterilisation of children and the removal of healthy body parts Minnesota has stated it will not comply with extradition for these crimes.

I hope this wakes people up. When people claim children have agency and “bodily autonomy” we should be aware that it is not just paedophiles that want to argue children can consent to sexual activity; the medico-industrial complex want to mine our children’s bodies for profit and they are prepared to bulldoze parents out of the way. There has been a huge propaganda operation to get to this point but now they are emboldened enough for a full frontal attack on parental rights. We are inculcating “gender dysphoria” via the education system and lobby groups are buying off politicians. Why else would Ferring Pharmaceuticals, maker of puberty blockers, have given the Liberal Democrats (U.K) £1.4 million? That’s a lot of money in U.K politics and this is dwarfed by the money from the Pritzker family going to, mainly Democrats, in the United States.

For the curious. Here are the two bills.

HF1655.1 HF0146.1

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 am very grateful for those that support my work. I work tirelessly to expose the truth about this ideology and gave up a lucrative career to devote myself full-time.

My Substack

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


Andrea Long Chu: Pulitzer Prize


Today the Pulitzer prize was awarded to a man who identifies as a “woman” and has a body of work which is grossly offensive to women. I don’t want to cancel Chu, on the contrary, may he be the ambassador for “Trans” visibility until people realise what type of man is being enabled to access women’s intimate spaces.

It. is no bad thing if more women become aware of his writing because, no credit is due, he is another one who says the quiet part out loud. Here are two quotes of his: His writing is open about the sexual fetish which led him to embrace making his body a simalccre of the female form.

He has some high profile work and did a piece for the New York Times about getting his penis inverted though, in common with most of these men, he calls it getting a “vagina”.

Elsewhere he confesses that what he actually has is a wound his body is programmed to try to heal. I say confesses but it may be more accurate to call it a boas, as if this pain makes him more of a sister to the suffering sex class.

You can get a flavour of Chu’s work over on his website. This essay gives a good flavour of his motive in claiming to be a woman.

Andrea Long Chu

In this essay Chu revels in the work of Valerie Solanas and the SCUM manifesto. His writing perfectly epitomises a male revelling in his infiltration into women’s spaces and movements. His discovery of feminism is written in the breathless tones of a man getting a sexual thrill from being in a space he should not be..he is nothing if not obvious. It’s tempting to feel gratitude that he is laying it all out so clearly but this would be a mistake; he is following the age old trick of predatory males and hiding in plain sight. Like to risk taking luggage stealer he is seeing how much he can get away with…turns out it’s a winning strategy, until it’s not.

You can get a flavour of his “feminist” thinking from. this clip. It’s not exactly Sheila Jeffrey’s.

In another essay, from memory it was called “On Liking Women”, he describes the classic sexual paraphilia;autogynephilia.

He makes an explicit link to acknowledge his fetish derives from pornography; a genre known as “Sissy Porn”. Here is a review of a book he authored “Females”. Apparently he goes into quite of detail about his porn preferences. This is what we are to men like this; a porn category.

Chu is a heterosexual male who also ransacks his past for some “Lesbian” memories for his retconned narrative arc. Here 👇 he opines about being the only boy on the school bus for a girls team where his early incursions into female spaces is recalled, or, perhaps, invented. Even then his fantasy object was a girl who later came out as a Lesbian.

The feminism he espoused didn’t fool his mum and sister who told him flat out he had no idea what it was to be a woman. Good for them. He exemplifies the kind of cultural appropriation of a woman face actor who masks his masculine imperative to invade and dominate in the language of romance.

Crush also has two meanings. Infatuation but also to break, compress, subdue.

Chu has some choice words to say about Terfs. Terf stands for “Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists” and has long been used as a slur for any women, radical feminist, or not, who believes in biological reality. Here is Chu’s description; it is a slur because women who don’t consent to play along with his sexual fetish are “bigots”.

And here we have the comparison with the alt-right and the classic DARVO (Deny, Accuse, Reverse, Victim and Offender) of boundary violating men. Chu is trolling women dressed up in fancy prose and fancy lady clothes.

He quotes the feminist Germaine Greer who does not hide her contempt for men who make a fetish out of women’s rights foundational texts. He quotes this glorious, unapologetic, clip.

What lesson does Chu take from this? He thinks she is expressing disgust at “women” by being regulated at a grotesque man in a parody of womanface.

Little analysis is needed to show what Chu is identified with..but he still needs to show us what Chu thinks makes a woman but he does it anyway, it’s not enough to get away with it he is compelled to escalate his behaviour to see how much he can get away with. He quotes Sheila Jeffrey’s only to accept her description of men like him as sick voyeurs. Again, I can’t emphasise enough, he is telling you who he is 👇.

Below 👇 Chu makes it clear he thinks women’s lives are out of an scene out of Grease. He makes no attempt to deny this because where would be the fun in that? He is parading this with glee because he is enjoying telling women there is nothing we can do about it!

Notice he, a grown man, claims “girl”. Finally he admits he is the Dinosaur!

Who’s going to tell David Lammy? 😂

When someone shows you who they are believe them the first time!

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.


Graham Linehan: 2


In this piece I am going to cover an interview with Linehan on this show. The show is based in Ireland and hosted by William Campbell. I decided to transcribe it, in part, not because I am unfamiliar with Graham’s views, but in order to understand what devices are used by journalists /commentators to avoid having to confront the fact that the is one of the moral questions of our time. It is my firm opinion that if you care about women’s rights, gay rights, and the safety of children there is only one right side; purported “neutrality” is in fact taking the side of proponents of gender ideology; which is misogynist, homophobic and against child safeguarding.

Before the interview begins the introduction explains that the interviewer tried to add explanations, for the listener, who may be unfamiliar with some of the people / controversies covered. Kellie Jay Keen Minshall (KJK) was omitted from the commentary so an explanation of who she is was added at the start. We are told that she “describes herself as a women’s rights activist” Two prominent, trans-identified and male, YouTubers are quoted (Contrapoints and Jesse Gender) as “highlighting a problematic relationship between the gender critical movement and the far right”. The podcast highlights this as “exemplified by the presence of far right groups at her speaking events”. It then adds that the events are open and there is no evidence that KJK invited these groups. In fact KJK has made it clear that these groups were neither invited nor welcome. It is also interesting that KJK is cast as “self-described” as a women’s rights activist which casts doubt on the validity of this claim. The Trans Activists are taken at face value.

Below 👇 is Jessie Gender painting KJK as a fascist. Astonishing that he was treated as a reliable source. He also is celebratory about the violence on display at the New Zealand rally, positively gleeful, in fact.He spouts the lie that he lives in a country that promotes genocidal policies against “trans” people.

Jessie Gender

The interview begins with a list of Graham’s accomplishments and then moves into a borrowed line from Father Ted to ask “I hear you’re a transphobe now”. Graham explains how we got into this issue which was after he was attacked for an episode of the I.T Crowd, which featured a “trans” character. He explains that he had never encountered such violent rhetoric. for a comedic episode. The host asks Graham to explain who attacked him; this would be one of many interventions where the flow of the conversation is interrupted and Linehan is asked to pause, clarify his language or the host refers to his “passion” for this topic.

Linehan explains he was exhorted to “educate yourself” , so, he did and what he found was troubling. He is keen to distinguish between “trans-activists” and “transsexuals”. I agree that people calling themselves “trans” or “trans allies” are not a monolith. Graham does not believe anyone can change sex but he does believe that not all people, even those who identify themselves as “trans” share the views of modern day trans-activists. I also diverge on the idea of “true transsexuals” but that is a journey that took me a while. I do agree with the idea that the “trans” umbrella has now expanded to cover so many different groups and is now a virtually, meaningless term. The only way woman’s rights can be protected is by a simple focus on biological sex.

Campbell seeks clarification on whether Graham is saying the term “trans” has broadened to include too many disparate groups or is he dismissing the idea of “trans” as meaningless. He also again asks him to clarify that he is not talking about “literal violence” only “violent rhetoric”

Linehan clarifies that he is talking about violent language and offers an example of India Willoughby who claims that “terfs” are promoting a “literal genocide” against trans-identified people like him. Here a few examples of India making these claim.

Graham thinks commentators, like Willoughby, deploy this rhetoric quite cynically but believes impressionable young minds may be taking this literally. He then proceeds to criticise the mainstream media for delegitimising women’s voices who want to discuss women’s right to single sex spaces and child safeguarding.

Again the host interrupts to ask, again, for Linehan to clarify that he is talking about violent language not violent action. He recognises that Linehan is highlighting the catastrophising of the TRA side but asks if the other side are not also using hostile language which suggests “trans” people should not be allowed to just go about their lives? Graham concedes that there are extreme voices on the gender critical side but these are “fringe” and don’t equate to the violent rhetoric of the “TRA” side. (I would have asked him to supply an example at this point because it is not at all clear that calling a man, a man, is not considered, by Campbell, to be hateful rhetoric) Once again the host asks him to repeat, once again, that he is referring to violent language not violent action. That is at least three times he has asked for this clarification.

Linehan points out that there have been violent actions against women, most recently a 70 year old women who had her skull broken in New Zealand. Violent imagery and rhetoric contributes to an atmosphere that seems to sanction violence against women. This was Campbell’s, astonishing, response”I don’t want to minimise these incidents but in the context of the war in Europe…and even what you might encounter after closing time..that’s not n awful lot of violence really is it?” . Seems like minimising to me since the man who punched an elderly woman would appear to be a young man. In normal circumstances this would be unequivocally condemned. Linehan also points out that both he and Campbell are men and may not fully appreciate the impact of on line threats of rape and violence directed at women.

Graham then outlines what happened to Kathleen Stock, a Lesbian who was essentially hounded out of her job as a Professor. He also brings up the expectation that Lesbians expand their dating pool to include men who claim to be Lesbians. Graham then points out that if the same threats and violent language were used against black people he didn’t think Campbell would be quite so willing to dismiss it. Again Campbell interrupts him to say he understands Graham is passionate about this issue but he wants to put a question to him..Linehan counters with a question for the host about why he is not passionate about this issue? Is he not concerned for women’s spaces and sports?

Campbell concedes this is a reasonable point to raise but he wants to leave this question and instead he makes the point that both language on this issue is so extreme it obscures the issue. Then, inexplicably, he veers off into Californian gun laws and how they were designed to keep AK47’s out of the hands of the Black Panthers. (It is noticeable that he reaches for United States examples which is, I think, because this issue seems, in the United States, superficially, to be more dividing people on party political lines. This makes it more easy to paint it as a Left /Right issue). From Californian gun laws the host segues into the real threat that “trans” people must feel they are facing and asks if Linehan has any charity for them. This is the #BeKind argument which is really #BeCompliant.

Graham asks the host to outline the source of this feeling of being under threat. Is it Lesbians saying women don’t have penises or is it the hyperbole about genocide put out by activists like India Willoughby.

Campbell, tellingly, reaches for another U.S example quoting a Conservative, Catholic commentator, Michael Knowles. who is on record saying “transgenderism should be eradicated from public life” . He has threatened to sue people claiming this can be equated with a threat of a genocide to “trans” people.

Campbell outlines that he believes Knowles was being deliberately ambiguous so that he would have plausible deniability and evade any consequences for his words. Linehan fires back a riposte about why a right wing commentator has any relevance to gender critical women, in the U.K; who count significant numbers of Left Wing, trade unionists among their number. The answer is, in my view, because it is a lot harder to sell left wing women /Lesbians as simple bigots.

Not to be outdoneCampbell claims Knowles is portraying “trans” people as “killable”. He then brings up the spectre of a modern day Enoch Powell figure calling for the eradication of “Irishness” to be eradicated which would make Linehan feel under attack. Linehan points out that Knowles may very well attract people with unpalatable beliefs but people who share concern about “transgender ideology” are also reasonable people concerned about childhood medicalisation. Indeed. Campbell is using guilt by association to smear people with concerns about gender identity ideology.

Somehow we get into Eddie Izzard and his (laughable) claim that he would have been a victim of the holocaust. Unbelievably, Campbell claims this is not such an outrageous claim because “Transsexuals, be they white, straight, blue-eyed or not were the first victims of the nazis”. He does soon walk back the claim about being the first victims but this is a common claim of trans-activists and seems to be appropriating the persecution of homosexuals and conveniently ignores the history of cross -dressing nazis. The idea that there were sufficient numbers of “transsexuals” to round up in the 1940’s is ahistorical nonsense. There were so many pictures of cross-dressing nazis there is an entire book on them.

The interview gets a bit heated at this point. The host is not impressed with a critique of the transvestite Eddie Izzard, claiming to be a “woman”, seeking to get elected as an M.P and openly using female spaces, All the while still getting acting roles in his male persona. Here is Eddie using female toilets whilst, I am informed, there was no queue for the mens. Not sure what his hands are doing.

The host then brings up the mythical “passing” trans male and whether Linehan would insist that they should use male spaces. In response Linehan brings up three named trans id males; two of whom are on record for not using female spaces. The host does concede that few men pass as women but still insists on whether a “passing” man should not be forced into male spaces. I don’t think it will be a surprise. to Graham, that I disagree with him on the next point. Graham harks back to, in my view mythical, time when women felt an alliance with “trans women” and this has been fractured /broken by trans-extremists. A better response would be a question about whether a man has the right to over-ride female consent for a male to share a space where women are undressing. Does a “passable” male have the right to observe women undressing if she doesn’t know she is sharing a space with a male?

Graham does, rightly, point out that some trans-identified males did try to campaign for third spaces but activists don’t want this because they want to be validated in female spaces and to dominate and invade women’s spaces. Campbell’s response is to question this with “Can you see into their hearts?” To which I say “No we cannot, which is why Self-ID is such a bad idea”. He then brings up another trans-activist talking point asking of Graham wants to bring in genital inspections or chromosomal checks. Graham makes the point that all these things have operated by a social contract that most men have honoured.

On the issue of men in woman’s sports Graham uses the example of Fallon Fox who severely injured female MMA fighters and then boasted about it.

The host responds that MMA fighting is a violent sport and many women have been injured by other women though he does concede that he finds arguments to end sex segregated sports unconvincing.

Campbell again notes Graham’s exasperation at people not speaking up on this issue but asks him to consider that people are put off by the stridency of both sides of the debate. He also says that if he were in the “trans” community this tone would make him bind more closely to the “trans” community. He also accuses Graham of being indiscriminate in his criticism and again claims the “trans” community are deserving of respect in much the same way as the black community. Again, drawing an analogy to racism is a common TRA talking point, a better analogy would be Rachel Dolezal identifying as black and taking leading positions in groups set up to advance the rights of the black community.

Graham makes the good point that left wing progressives who stay out of this debate do, in fact, cede grounds to more extreme right wing elements and asks again why they are not speaking up about woman’s rights and sports…Campbell interrupts to point out that sports are “inherently unfair” , indeed they are if men are allowed to take prizes intended for female athletes.

The conversation moves to the topic of detransitioners which doesn’t get a response because the host makes an outrageous claim that Linehan’s twitter ban makes him akin to Donald Trump. Linehan is not having that and points out some of the facts of the ban and how the host is misleading the audience. Undeterred the host then brings up Breitbart news and the way they treat migrants who provide a skewed perspective just as Graham does on his blog which details the sex offenders who are identifying as “trans” and being placed in female prisons. This gives the host an opportunity to ask what I am going to say is a disingenuous question about how these crimes are in the U.K which doesn’t allow Self-Id. Anyone seriously informed about this issue would know that self-ID exists in policy if not backed up by the law. After he is contradicted on the claim that Self-ID doesn’t exist in the United States (it does in many states) he falls back on the argument that sex offenders won’t be put off by the law if they wish to access victims in female only spaces. I find that a morally bankrupt argument.

The host then brings up the fact that the virulent hard right oppose trans rights and makes the spurious claim that pantomime dames would be illegal if they get their way. Graham’s rejoinder is that there is a danger of an over-correction which is why it is important that Left Wing progressives join the fray. The hosts final sally is to blame people for appearing on Fox news to which the response is to post out that left wing news outlets are denying coverage of the issue and this is why people are appearing in the only media giving voice to these concerns.

The host, in my view, may very well believe he is covering the issues in a neutral way. However, he repeatedly interrupts important points and by asking, repeatedly, for clarification Linehan is only talking about violent language, not acts, he deflects criticism away from repeated violent threats against women, invariably from men. He claims there is extreme language from both sides but he doesn’t even feel obliged to identify similar violent language from women and he certainly can’t come up with a single instance of actual violence, f perpetrated by women, against men with a “trans” identity. When presented with evidence of violence against women he minimises it with the rhetorical device known as whataboutery (See what about the war!). He repeatedly uses examples from the United States, especially extreme right wing sources. Another tactic is to repeatedly refer to the tone of the argument and how passionate his interviewee is on the issue. I suspect he didn’t want to talk about detransitioners because a father upset at the harms done to this group paint the “passion”in a much more reasonable light.

You can read my notes here.

Linehan Here Show Final

You can listen here: 

Linehan Interview

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.


The Howard League


The Howard League is a U.K. based Prison Reform charity who formed in 1866. The previous Chief Executive, Frances Crook, had made previous observations that suggested she was aware of the kind of issues which arise when males are held in the female estate or male crimes were recorded as if they were committed by females.

I was minded to revisit the issue after seeing these tweets by the new Legal director, Gemma Abbott, qwho joined the Howard League in March of this year.

I managed to get a look at her bio, before she blocked me, and there was a clue. For anyone not aware the Good Law Project is the vehicle for an erstwhile tax lawyer, Jolyon Maugham, who, for reasons unclear, has determined that his white knighting is needed in the “trans” debate. He is also known for boasting that he battered a fox to death; whilst wearing his wife’s kimono.

Turns out that Gemma is an ex employee of the Good Law Project.

She also managed to secure a place on a government task force, run by the Government Equality Office, looking at period poverty.

She also was the director of this organisation and she can’t even bring herself to say the sex of the “children” who are vulnerable due to their periods. She is still listed as a director of Period Poverty Limited but the companies has applied to be struck of the register (source: Companies House).

I decided to have a look at the accounts for The Howard League to see if there were any clues in the Trustees, other staff, or their funders. What jumped out at me was the funding from Esmee Fairburn Foundation who have cropped up many times on this blog.

Esmee Fairbarn Foundation also and work with the Paul Hamlyn Foundationi (PHF). Paul Hamlyn Foundation have a history of funding trans Lobby Groups like Mermaids and Gendered Intelligence. PHF also shared a trustee with The Scott Trust, who oversee the Guardian Media Group. The Guardian was my paper so I did some digging to find out why they were so woeful about women’s sex based rights and I discovered the link to PHF and, via Julian Vigo, also realised that they had also take money from Open Society Foundation to do a series on “trans” people. You can read that series here:


Oakdale Trust is the foundation of the Cadbury family and have a wide portfolio of grants with one interest being in penal reform. The other trusts who have made small contributions also appear to make grants across a range of charities the usual gender identity lobby groups are not among the recipients.

Here are the trustees of The Howard League.

Professor Ben Bradford’s biography and research interests was easy to locate.

Here are details of some oof his research projects, you will see that one of them is funded by Open Society Foundations. I am told that the grants from Open Society Foundations are made in a decentralised way and it is perfectly possible that the OSF does not bring any pressure to organisations to conform to Transgender Identity Ideology but it does worry me when I see the same foundations recur and I wonder if this creates a chilling effect on staff in these charities.

Here are a couple more of his projects.

Adrian Briggs’ profile shows him to be involved with Amnesty International. Once again we cannot deduce, from this, that he endorses every position of that organisation but Amnesty International are certainly, now, on the Gender Ideologue side of the debate. I wrote about that here:

Amnesty U.K. What’s going on?

Professor McNeill appears to be a He/Him according to his University of Glasgow profile but, to be fair to him, it is Scotland so he/him may. ot have any choice in the matter.

On the other hand Lord Ken McDonald is one of the hosts of the Double Jeopardy podcast who has hosted Professor Kathleen Stock although he did, apparently, advocate for men in women’s prisons. (I did try to locate this episode but it’s not currently available).

In conclusion, it is concerning that a senior member of staff is so utterly captured. It may be that there is internal dissent and resistance to the imposition of males on female prisoners. On balance I don’t think the signs are looking too positive.They have a twitter presence and they did put out a report reflecting negatively on girls, held with boys, in youth offending units. Worth engaging with them to encourage positives and embolden any internal dissenters.

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.


Let’s talk about Victor! (Part Two)


Victor Madrigal-Borloz works as a special rapporteur for the United Nations. He acts as an independent expert and his post is unpaid. He has however taken $100,000 from the Arcus Foundation in his official capacity.

Update 27/APR/2023> Thanks to a diligent reader I have also been alerted to this funding to Victor Madrigal-Borloz via Harvard University which also came from Arcus Foundation. Another $200,000. Thanks are due to the below. twitter account:

Recommended Follow

In part one I have a look at Victor and the United Nations.

Let’s talk about Victor!

For part two I want to cover a discussion he had with queer theorists on the law. I have watched a few of his YouTubes but I wondered if he would be more open in a discussion with fellow travellers. This was the title of the talk.

I looked at a few of his public pronouncements but I anticipated he may be more open when talking to self proclaimed “queer” activists. He appeared in this youtube with an Australian called Diane Otto. Here is her biography if you want to follow her up. I only focus on the contributions of Madrigal-Borloz but she was clearly in alignment with his perspective.

Madrigal-Borloz sets the context of the discussion by talking about the controversy surrounding his original appointment, as the UN rapporteur for Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and why he thinks this conversation is important. Notice ho central “Gender Identity” is to his role and, it would seem, his thinking.

I wonder if Victor knows, at a subconscious level, that he is engaged in dismantling the protections for the female sex? He does allude to the many legal instruments which were created based on a binary understanding of sex and how this legislation protected women and girls. At the same time he wants to look beyond the binary understanding of sex and claims he wants to find a path to do this without it having a negative impact on human rights. This looks to me like an admission that he may be involved in a project that is stripping away the human rights of women.

Here he absolves himself of any responsibility for unintended (?) consequences by claiming he is inviting the creation of “formulas” that don’t end up creating conditions which are contrary to human rights. Er, like the destruction of the rights of half of humanity, the female half?

He begins by explaining that he had over 600 submissions, to a call for evidence, and because of the huge volume of responses he decided his report to the United Nations should be in two parts. It should in fact be a binary process, ironically. The first part was what he called an “inclusionary” approach.

He labelled the alternative viewpoint as “exclusionary” which frames the rights of women to include only their own sex, in the definition of “woman” and all that follows, in a negative light. The creation of laws to protect “gender identity” is fiercely opposed by those women (and men) who object to compelled recognition of people, male and female, who claim to be the sex which they are not.This issue extends beyond the rights of the female sex, though we are in the frontline in terms of consequences, it is also a free speech issue and also challenges religious belief and the protected characteristic of sexual orientation.

It should come as no surprise that Victor favours the first approach and he accuses the exclusionary agenda of being ideologically motivated and designed to create a moral panic.

This language is not an accident I did a series on documents which claim fighting for sex based rights and biological reality are designed to create a moral panic. This is the equivalent of calling women “pearl clutchers” but has generated a number of reports claiming “gender critical” women are somehow aligned with, the Pope, Victor Orban / Christian Evangelicals in the United States and anti-abortionists. These reports also suggest that women are somehow bankrolled by shadowy funders. You can read that series here: 

Moral Panic 

I have waded through hundreds of pages of these claims and the only clip based on reality was this one which admitted they had been unable to establish any direct links between these disparate groups. What they have actually discovered is that different groups, with very different aims, believe that biological sex is real and that in some contexts this matters.

Madrigal-Borloz also accuses the opponents of this ideology of dreaming up a sinister agenda and even claims that inserting gender /gender identity into law is primarily aimed at protecting women and girls implying protecting “gender diverse” persons is an afterthought.

Madrigal-Borloz fiercely defends the “inclusionary” path which he justifies because of the fact it is replicated across the whole human rights field.He explains that, for him, it is the role of Human Rights law to redress injustices even those that previous generations didn’t know existed. They didn’t know, he explains, because the history was deliberately hidden. This is a neat explanation for the rise of “trans rights” which were barely on the radar 50 years ago but have been relentlessly propagandised over the last decade. This is part of the same process which scours history for anyone who you can plausibly, or more often implausibily, claim was “transgender”. ((Joan of Arc, Queen Elizabeth and even Jesus have all been retrospectively labelled “trans” by the historical revisionists among trans-activists.)

This is how he characterises those who follow an “exclusionary” path. This is a fancy way of saying wanting to exclude men from women’s spaces is akin to favouring apartheid. This is akin to the Martin (e) Rothblatt version of history.  If you have not heard of Martine Rothblatt you must learn about him. He is a key player in normalising all this.

Martine Rothblatt

Moral Panic! 

His belief system becomes quite testerical at this point and of course he blames the opposition for stoking violence. This is quite dangerous rhetoric and othering of women who are fighting to retain legal protections enshrined in existing law! I wonder if he has been paying attention to the ramping up of threats and actual violence committed by trans-activists and hasreflected on his role in creating this climate? Especially after New Zealand and the heightened threats and actual assault ts we are seeing against men and now, twice, against gay men.

Here 👇he seems to acknowledge that this radical social engineering is creating bewilderment, especially the dismantling of “binary structures”. His language is more obfuscating than illuminating but for “binary structures” I immediately substitute female only spaces and sports which are actually being dismantled as we speak.

In this next clip Victor claims that it isthe strategy of his opponents to argue that the aim of the trans-activist side is to eradicate sex and replace it with gender. He says this as if it is a ludicrous conspiracy theory even though,its abviously true. In the U.K., for example, the group Fairplay forWomen had to take out a legal challenge to force the Office For National Statistics (ONS) to stop them issuing guidance that would have made the sex question based on your self-identity.

The resistance? 

Yet, later on he says the work for the next generation is to stop conflating “gender” with women. It does, however, appear that Victor is getting pushback at the U.N. Some (probably fascists😳) are asking for legislation to making it clear the legislation needs to substitute “gender” with “equality between the sexes”.Sounds eminently sensible, to me.

The interview is very revealing, perhaps unintentionally. There are questions at the and about being explicit that his work is built on queer theory. He complains that opponents have some catchy slogans, like “Sex Matters” and “Leave Kids alone” that on the surface cannot be disagreed with but, he infers, both conceal more dangerous intent. Unbelievably he then states that his side doesn’t have slogans just evidenced based research. Quite some chutzpah for the “Trans Women are Women” brigade. 

Why does he need to emphasise he has a “clear conscience”? 

Diane Otto compliments Victor on how he has described his agenda and he thanks her and claims, in response that he has a clear conscience which seems to me, a revealing reply which perhaps betrays that he is uneasy that he maybe operating against the human rights of women and girls.

You can watch it here: Queer Jurisprudence

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. Please only give if you can afford.

My Substack

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


Margaret Atwood: WTF!


Margaret Atwood is a Canadian author and I think I have read everything she has ever written. If ever I expected an author to be on the side of women it was the author of the Handmaids Tale. For anyone unfamiliar with this book, film, or the television adaptation here is a summary.

Written in 1985 the novel is set in a futuristic dystopian America now renamed Gilead. Gilead is a theocracy, women are subordinate to a new ruling class (new?) of males known as Commanders. There is a fertility crisis so fecund women are both prized but treated like breeding stock. The fertile women are assigned as surrogates to the commanders to provide offspring who will be taken from them to be delivered to the Commander’s wives.

Real Life 2023. Male rapists in female prison, the creation of a new “eunuch” class to infiltrate /police women’s space; ( Soon the eunuchs will be joined addition by the penis retention class). A certain class of women will give new meaning to the phrase “too posh to push”; by hiring surrogates to carry their babies; they will, almost invariably, be working class and legal contracts will use dehumanising language like “gestational surrogates”. In the public sphere women are called “breeder”;”gestator”;”uterus-havers”;”chestfeeders” or worse, One publication assigned men (wannabe women) ownership of the term “vagina” and described actual women’s vaginas as “front-holes”.

This is the living dystopia before we even get the sterilising of autistic, proto-gay and other vulnerable children at gender abbatoirs. 👇. Marci Bowers public statement while President Elect of the World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH).

Handmaids tale.

These two images delineate the hierarchies in the fictional tale. Replace “Commendars” with “Trans Overlords” and it almost seems Atwood’s book could be the instruction manual.

The women are divided and allocated roles as handmaids, wives, domestic servants, brothel workers or women assigned to keep their sisters in-line. In real life the “Aunts” dominate the NGO Sector.

Atwood is I believe in her ninth decade, she is rich and successful and, you would think, uncancellable. However, she also lives in Canada. Recently she posted this about her beliefs on “trans” issues.

Margaret Atwood speaks

Here are a couple of clips: 

She begins with a reference to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. Not much to disagree with there…but then

She makes an extraordinary leap to centre “trans” people. Of course, she propagates the mythical epidemic of trans murders. What is actually happening is that 68% of those deaths are males involved in prostitution and mainly in South America. I looked at this for the U.K. context and this demographic committed 12 murders while there were 9 victims. One of the victims was killled by another man who identifies as a “woman”. (Since I did this analysis there has been one more death but no details about whether this was related to their status as “trans)


Russia are laying claim to a territory they claim was always “theirs” much like men who claim they are “women” and here Atwood sides with the invading force. She ends with a mindless platitude.

Women didn’t vote for this. Most of the legislation was passed in stealth, tacked onto popular causes and activists warned to “avoid press coverage”. They needed to circumvent democracy to strip women of our sex based rights because they know forcing women to share intimate spaces with penis owners is unpopular, to say the least.

Well done Ms Atwood.

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.


Rachel Levine: Trans Lash Media.


An interview with Dr Levine who is a “trans-identified man who is now assistant secretary of health for the Biden administration. This is part of a series looking at a podcast which received a large injection of cash. from Open Society Foundation.

The host is a “trans-identified” male. You can read about the foundations who bankrolled them in and some of their contributors in part one.

Translash Media Podcast.

This podcast certainly attracts some high profile interviewees. For anyone who may be unaware of Levine here is a bit of biographical information.

His personal life follows a predictable path for a late-transitioning male. Levine lived ina heterosexual marriage, fathered children and only adopted a “trans” identity very late in life, 2011 to be precise.

It was not long before he was gaining accolades for being the “first female”

He was also conferred the title of Woman of the Year in 2022.

The interview spends some time discussing Levine’s role during Covid, but it gets more interesting around the twelve minute mark. The interviewer, Imara Jones, asks about how Levine felt about his confirmation hearing and the line of questioning from another senator, Rand Paul. He does not pull his punches. You can watch it here:

Rand Paul v Dr Levine

Levine goes to some lengths to avoid asking a direct question about whether he supports medical interventions, such as puberty blockers, for minors. Rand repeats the question.

Rand Paul also points out that Levine is on record stating that he would accelerate the process for street kids; that is for homeless kids with no parents protecting them. Again Levine evades the question.

Imara Jones describes this as an aggressive line of questioning and commends Levine for his stoicism. He also points out, erroneously, that there has been forty or fifty years of research. This is not true. The only research covers the use of these drugs for kids with precocious puberty and even there we have lawsuits because of the negative consequences.

This article by Jennifer Bilek covers Levine who, like the elected representative in part one, was also backed by the LGBTQ Victory Institute.

Jennifer Bilek on Levine

Levine defends the care for “transgender youth” by quoting the Lobby group WPATH so now is a good time to remind ourselves of what Marci Bowers said about puberty blockers while he was president elect for WPATH.

Levine claims these are evidence led care standards and, sadly, he is able to back up his claims by listing how many organisations are using these medicines and how well supported they are by many, I would argue captured, organisations. He then proceeds to lambast bills which try to protect single sex sports and to limit these interventions on children. He also describes the treatment as “potentially life saving”. Imara Jones agrees that this is life saving treatment and is pleased that President Biden is promoting this intervention. Jones than also references a series he has done on the “Anti-Trans Hate machine”.

The interview continues with Levine talking about how proud he is to serve his country and how hopeful he is that he can educate people about “trans” people and help people overcome their fear of what they don’t understand. Jones then asks how Levine navigates being in such a high profile role as a “trans” person and how they coped with being misgendered. It ends with a paean to Levines leadership and role in the LGBTQ community. You can listen to the episode here:

Translash interview with Dr Levine

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. Only give if you can afford to do so.

My Substack

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


Let’s talk about Victor!


Victor Madrigal-Borloz works as a special rapporteur for the United Nations. He acts as an independent expert and his post is unpaid. He has however taken $100,000 from the Arcus Foundation in his official capacity.

<Update 27/APR/2023> Thanks to a diligent reader I have also been alerted to this funding to Victor Madrigal-Borloz via Harvard University which also came from Arcus Foundation. Another $200,000. Thanks are due to the below. twitter account

Recommended follow

The Arcus Foundation has expended huge amounts of money bankrolling the spread of Gender Identity Ideology. I have written about this foundation before on this blog which you can read here:


The United Nations has been the the target of huge amounts of money paid to third party organisations to lobby the U.N on “transgender” issues. Here are just a few of these grants.

You can search the grants database here:

Arcus Grantees

Madrigal-Borloz spoke recently to the Scottish Parliament where he set out his support for the Gender Recognition Bill which has been blocked by the U.K parliament. In this he objects to the toxicity of the debate, claims allowing men to self-identify as women confers no new rights and laments the conflation of discussion of “safe spaces” for women he calls “non transwomen” wit thr rights of men to self-identify. Furthermore he claims that it is “trans women” who are most at risk of sexual violence in this astonishing statement.

He also objects to the toxicity of the discussion and the description of trans women as predatory men. This was in response to a question asking if barring convicted sex offenders from obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate is not a reasonable safeguard.

Madrigal-Borloz is also asked to comment on whether women are self-excluding from purported single sex spaces and if any data is being gathered to see if this is a consequence of policies based on a self-identified model. He seems very reluctant to concede that the policy should be reviewed on this basis and merely reiterates that he has not seen any evidence that this is happening. At the same time he intimates that any attempt to garner any data on this issue is basically looking for a problem when the outcome has been pre-determined. Finally he rounds up his evidence by repeating a thought terminating cliche.

There you have it. Trans Women are Women.

You can watch him in action here:

Victor’s evidence to the Scottish Parliament

Victor finishes his contribution by asking that people end the moral panic he feels is being stoked by irresponsible politicians. I will just leave this graphic representation of the statistics of sex offenders based on Ministry of Justice data.

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. Please only give if you can afford.

My Substack

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


Oxfam: Inclusive Language: Part 2


Before I covered the Oxfam’s new “inclusive language” guidance, I first provided a bit of background on the investigations over the behaviour of Oxfam staff in overseas locations. Oxfam were rocked by allegations of serious sexual misconduct by its male employees. Staff were found to be using women as “prostitutes” even on Oxfam premises. Allegations that some were underage were not investigated and, as a consequence, remain unsubstantiated. Allegations were made against workers in Haiti and Chad.

The Charity Commission published an investigation into Oxfam in 2019. There was also an Indeoendent report specifically looking at Oxfam and safeguarding.. I cover these investigations in part 1, below 👇

Investigation Oxfam

The investigations make it quite clear that the perpetrators were mainly male and the victims female. It was for this reason one of the recommendations was for female only meetings, designed to facilitate women to make allegations without fear. As we will see Oxfam now appears to have decided “Gender Identit” , as opposed to sex, is the primary basis for defining what makes a woman.

Recently Oxfam has published a style guide illustrating how deeply captured they are by Gender Identity Ideology.

Firstly, let us look at the author of this guide; an Oxfam employee, Helen Wishart, who was also a former employee of Annesty U.K. She describes herself as an intersectional feminist.

Amnesty U.K. has also been corrupted. I wrote about them here:

Amnesty U.K. What’s going on?

Wishart Was educated at various universities including Sussex; who allowed Dr Kathleen Stock to be hounded out of her post.

You can get a flavour of her thinking from an essay which remains on line. Here she is pretending that people who carve sex stereotypes into, and out of, their flesh are a symbol of hope and will destroy the patriarchy. Sigh. She also uses the usual appeal to emotion about violence against the “trans” community which is designed to silence your critical thinking skills.

Wishart basically argues that sex denialism will destroy the patriarchy because how can we be sexist if we don’t know what sex somebody is? This is an argument only acceptable for a juvenile to advance. The rest of the essay is similarly puerile. She has a lot to say about attacks on bisexual/pansexual individuals and how we are driven by heteronormative assumptions.

If I have not annihilated your will to live you can read more here:

Queer Resistance

The Guide:

The author is allegory concerned about erasing the experiences of women whilst it proceeds to problematise words describing uniquely female experience and centres the alphabet soup in violence against women and girls, a term it finds insufficiently “inclusive” !

Some of the newspeak

They also oppose the word “mother”

Oxfam also redefine same sex attraction to same gender attraction.

In the mix are some language changes that are not inherently objectionable and many are already in common usage and relatively uncontroversial. An example of this might be the assumption of chair man and the use of chair /chair person. I think these examples are used to disguise the top down imposition of Oxfam’s newspeak. Considering their history of using women and girls for sex, in poor countries. I find their rebranding of sexual exploitation deeply sinister. Who benefits when you say “people” who buy sexual access to poor women? We all know it’s invariably men who hand over money to get over tricky arguments about “consent”.

There’s quite a lot about privilege and white saviours and white feminism amd a warning that if you are infected with this privilege you might get defensive. This located any disquiet about the blatant social engineering in your own personal failing. Call me old fashioned but I think Oxfam should focus on their core mission, ameliorating poverty, and not proselytism for the gender borg.

I am particularly reminded about what Oxfam had to say about “white feminism” and carceral feminists who report rapists to the police. I wrote about that in 2021; thread linked below.

In this thread


Here are some of their references. Of course they have been Stonewalled.