Examining Gender Identity ideology and its impact on Women's Sex based rights and Gay Rights. Exploring how this has taken such firm root in Western societies (Cognitive & Regulatory Capture).
Since Riley has resurfaced, attacking Sharon Davies, for defending single sex sports, I though it would be timely to capture some of Riley’s claims to fame. Here she is allying herself with Labour MP, Kate Osborne.
Kate Osborne, a Lesbian, represents the constituency of Jarrow and this is the level of capture of the vichy lesbians. This is response to a campaign to canvas MPs views on “what is a woman” in the run up to the election. Here is Kate’s preemptive response.
Riley is a Lesbian, a former director of Diva Magazine, an erstwhile Lesbian publication. She has been involved with many of the LGBTQIA+ charities (such as Stonewall and GLAAD). She is also trustee of the Peter Tatchell Foundation and Diversity Role Models.
She also played an ignominious role in getting planning permission for a woman’s history museum; only to actually set up a museum to the serial killer, known as Jack the Ripper.
GLAAD (Formerly a Gay Rights group now a trans Lobby group) along with Antony Watson has donated to MPs like Dawn Butler and Angela Eagle. I have done posts on all three of these politicians.
Watson , Riley and GLAAD have all bankrolled U.K. Labour Politicians either in their own name or via Riley’s company Global Diversity Awards Ltd; another company which collapsed owing taxes. Eagle rewarded Riley with an advisory role
Litigation
Riley was also involved in a venture to set up Sherlock Homes museum, with family members, which resulted in a family feud and multiple court cases about money, and disputes over property and finally battles over who got to take care of their mother. You can find all these court cases on baille.org. They are a very litigious family.
There are multiple companies associated with the family. Rollerteam Ltd set up the Sherlock Holme museum and at various points different family members served as directors.
Riley became a director when her half brother served time in jail for mortgage fraud.
Given that Riley describes herself as working class there are quite a few disputes about the ownership of multiple properties and at one point Riley claims her mother was worth £20 million, a sum she claims her half brother embezzled.
The various companies for whom Linda Riley served as director, and subsequent collapse with tax debts, was the subject of an investigation by Private Eye.
One of the judges had this to say about the multiple legal cases and the feuding family members. “Whenever one side enjoys any success, the other takes steps to blunt the advantage”
On the dispute over their elderly mother: “They have no insight into her longing for peace”.
“Trans Lesbians”.
Linda is on record about the rights of men to identify as “Lesbian and decrying those who think differently. When the BBC published an article about men, who claim to be Lesbians, harassing women in purported Lesbian spaces she was dismissive despite many Lesbians contacting her to say it has happened to them.
You can articles, penned by Riley, criticising Lesbians for their attitude to men who larp as lesbians. Interestingly this was published by the Thomas Reuters Foundation who you may remember were one of the foundations supporting the production of the Denton’s Document. It hasn’t happened to Linda therefore it didn’t happen.
The best explanation I can think of for these collaborators was penned by Janice Raymond who speculated thus:
Whatever the reason they do great harm to the cause of Lesbians, women’s rights and gay rights.
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. 😉)
The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy is a membership organisation for those working in the field, as of June 2023 they had 50,000 members. I was asked to have a delve into their finances to see what motivates their stance on Gender Identity Ideology. My instinct was this would be more attributable to ideological capture than the money poured into many organisations, via “charitable” foundations that we see across the third sector.
BACP also set up BACP Research Foundation which obtained charitable status and the main funding was from the parent company, to the tune of £450,000 spread over a few years to fund one research project to evaluate the efficacy of psychotherapy. There was an early ambition to generate their own funds by hiring a company to target high net worth individuals. This proved unsuccessful and the company was eventually wound up.
I also found another company called BACP Enterprises LTD, but again no evidence of funding from the usual suspects in this company.
As anticipated the finances, for BACP are mainly driven by membership fees which hover around the four or five million. A more interesting connection was the appointment of a trans-identified man who served on the board between 2015 and 2018. Working on the theory that it only takes one “trans” person to derail an organisation I am going to speculate that this person is knowingly, or unknowingly, where the organisation lost its way.
This is “Sophie” he attends lectures dressed like this.
According to the paperwork filed for his appointment he registered his previous name was Tim Chappell up until 2014. He is married and has four children, four daughters to be sex specific. I I cannot find that he has any qualifications in counselling or psychotherapy.
There is plenty of material on Chappell should you wish to research further. Much of it on youtube and he does have a twitter account, though I soon discovered I was blocked.
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. 😉). This is a clip from one of Chappell’s talks.
I agree that “bending truth and ignoring facts suit (your) political agenda is extremely dangerous”. Is this a lack of self-awareness of does Sophie get “dupers delight” because he is getting away with this?
He is more infamous for recognising that making spaces mixed sex may result in a small spike in murders but this was of less importance than allowing some men to claim they are women. Wonder how the five females in his life felt about that?
He said this on a BBC Scotland show that now appears to be unavailable.
If you scour the annual returns from the BACP you can see the creeping references to “inclusion” “social justice”. (Remember when we used to think these were good things?).
Another window into the BACP is the bonkers document they produced which was unable to accommodate Northern, working class women under their definition of “woman”. This document t was written by Megan John Barker. I am indebted to Dr Em @PanhurstEm for this clip. What a regressive definition and how classist to see Northern , working class, women as “Aggressive”.
It has taken me a long time to wade through a UNICEF document and get to grips with the proposals. One perspective could be that just an exploratory document kicking around ideas. A more sinister take would be that powerful forces are trying to socially engineer how we think of childhood and provide leverage, to the State, to remove Parental rights. I read this through the lens of a parent who has a child undergoing medical intervention for a “trans” identity. From this vantage point I was particularly wary about references to children’s “autonomy” , especially with respect to medical decisions. There have already been cases where a child has been removed because the parents opposed their daughter going on testosterone (Australia). A case in Canada where a Father lost custody of his child for opposing medicalisation and another ongoing case in the U.S. These are just the ones that got publicity.
Save the Children
The document is produced in partnership with Save the Children. This is not reassuring. I have not done a specific post on this organisation so I had a quick look at their Annual Report and their Diversity posts. They are a well funded organisation and some of their funding comes the United Nations,World Bank, GSK and Welcome foundation. They probably merit a detailed look but this, from their “Free To Be Me”, document on diversity, tells its own tale. It’s replete with talk on Power, Privilege and the dreaded word “inclusion” and this is one of the graphics.
Evolving Capacities of the child.
The document explores child development to question whether we are empowering children to make their own choices at a young enough age. They cover topics like the age of criminal responsibility, age at which they are deemed capable of making medical decisions and the age of sexual consent, plus child labour and the right to an education. Before I look at the document I will just lay out some information about the author and links with U.K. based charities.
Gerison Lansdown is listed as the founder of a U.K. based organisation, which I had never heard of, called the Children’s Rights Alliance for England. (CRAE) I looked for official charity recognition but, after checking their website, I was directed to another which appears to be the umbrella organisation, Just for Kids Law Limited.
This is the registration details for Just For Kids Law Limited.
Before I started I trawled through the files accounts going back to 2007. Gerison Landsdown doesn’t appear to have ever been a trustee. The charity looks to be doing some excellent work, based on the case studies; helping children navigate the judicial system; supporting vulnerable children to make sure local authorities honour their legal obligations, particularly for care leavers. They also have case studies on asylum seekers /unaccompanied minors. Some of their work involves making councils treat under 18’s as children for the purposes of getting accommodation and also making sure they are treated as children when being taken through the criminal justice system. There is a conflict here with a demand that children are treated as adults for the purposes of accessing medical treatment.
I also trawled through their accounts to see who funds them. They have a lot of foundations supporting them. The Guardian supported them to the tune of £49,000 via their Christmas appeal. Paul Hamlyn Foundation, Oak Foundation, Esme Fairburn Foundation, Tudor Trust, Joseph Rowntree Trust and Barings Foundation are some of the names that crop up in their accounts. These foundations appear time and time again funding trans lobby groups.
I share this information not to accuse the organisation of any wrongdoing but only to emphasise the financial dependence, of the Charity Sector, on foundations pushing their own agenda. I can think of no greater threat to a child than having their fertility removed and their sexual function eradicated but raising this would challenge their financial situation.
In part two I will look at the document.
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.
This community interest company (CIC) started out doing some good work calling out anti-migrant media coverage but soon broadened it’s aim to cover “transphobia”. I had begun to be aware of their stance but attacking a gay man for writing about how he is alienated by the new Pride flags and the homophobia coming from within the LGBTQIA+ community prompted me to have a closer look. Here they attack Sainsburys for advertising with the Daily Mail who had the temerity to publish an article by a gay man.
You can read that article here 👇. In it Doyle raises, perfectly legitimate, concerns about the erasure of sexual orientation and the homophobia coming from within the LGBTQIA + movement. He illustrates the takeover of Gay Rights organisation by tracing the history of the Pride Flag. Once a symbol of acceptance now a sign of intolerance.
Looking at the website of Stop Funding Hate there was a clue in the form of one of their partners. Mermaids, a U.K. based charity who took a case to the Charity Commision to try to remove the charitable status of a Gay rights charity, LGB Alliance. We still do not have the outcome from that case but, in the meantime. the Charity Commission has opened an investigation into Mermaids, for alleged child safeguarding failures.
On checking the accounts of the company, registers number 10737024 I obtained the names of three principal players, Alexandra Parsons, Richard Cameron Wilson and Rosemary Ellum. Parsons and Ellum have easily traceable linkedin accounts where both women have their pronouns in their bio. Parsons teaches gender and sexuality studies and cut her teeth in the charitable sector after achieving degrees in English Literature and a PhD. She also undertook a post doctoral research post in “queer” activism.
Both Parsons and Wilson have worked for the Child Poverty Action Group with Wilson having worked for Amnesty International and Parsons for the Red Cross. Parsons currently works for the Wellcome Trust whilst also a casual worker in Academia. This is a common pattern, revolving door in the charity sector means the group think spreads swiftly through the sector.
Stop Funding Hate came to the attention of the United Nations, in 2017, quite a feat for a charity with only two employees, who both work from home.
From a focus on xenophobia they progressed to tackling discrimination against travellers but by 2019 they had expanded to cover LGBT issuess, beginning with raising concerns about Poland and its genuinely discrimstory attitudes to Lesbians, Gays and people who describe themselves as “transgender”. This is where it went awry. They begin to focus on “transphobia” which, by 2023, turns out to be attacking women who defend single sex sport.
At the same time as setting up Stop Funding Hate two of the directors were also involved with another charity, which has since ceased operating, Conscious Advertising Network (CAN). They describe themselves as an “intersectional” organisation with a similar modus operandi to Stop Funding Hate, which uses Social media to cause reputational damage to any company not towing the line. List of characteristics CAN are concerned about notice it is gender not sex.
In 2023 Stop Funding Hate produced an analysis of all types of “hate” in this report.
In and amongst genuine concerns about the views of far right groups Stop Funding Hate also identify feminists as responsible for hate because they don’t believe men can be women nor do they belong in single sex spaces, for women, or female sports. They also mischaracterise concern about highly sexualised Drag Queens reading library books to small children. Basically they are conflating basic safeguarding with “hate” and not able to distinguish the far right capitalising on public disquiet over sexualised displays with everybody who objects to DGSH is far right. This is just sloppy journalism and referencing Pink News just undermines the claim to being serious organisation.
In this document they manage to expand the definition of “hate” so broadly they sweep up Mumsnet! They also include this disingenuous attack on women’s rights campaigner. The word for this is “association fallacy”.
Unfortunately by making false assertions about one group the organisation undermine the whole report and thereby their credibility; it actually begins to look like they are manufacturing hate in order to garner income and to push their agenda.
Follow the Money.
As always we need to look at the funding. Both the Joseph Rowntree Trust and Paul Hamlyn Foundation (PHF) fund Stop funding Hate. Rowntree crop up a lot on this blog as do PHF.
PHF fund Mermaids and Gendered intelligence, both Trans Lobby Groups.
PHF also have links to the Guardian, Yaounde can read more about that here. 👇
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. Don’t prioritise me above legal cases if you have to choose.
I thought it would be timely to add Ms Eagle to my series on Respect My Sex (to get my X), especially after her contribution in the Parliamentary debate on the definition of sex.
Angela Eagle became an MP In the 1990’s and is an open Lesbian and figures prominently on the list of gay influencers. She is also all in on the biological sex denying cult.
I began by looking at her funding which you can check at the Electoral Commission.
Apart from her Union backers Anthony Watson cropped up a fair few times. In fact she has had over £90,000 from this source.
Correction it was £97,500
Anthony Watson was the first British person to sit on the board of GLAAD. This was originally a gay rights organisation (Gays and Lesbians against Defamation) but, in an all too familiar story, is now mostly an advocate for “trans” issues.
He has donated a lot of money to the Labour Party.
GLAAD collaborated with Arcus Foundation who crop up a lot on my blog because they are a key player in embedding gender identity ideology across the world.
GLAAD have a section on their website called The Accountability Project which is every bit as sinister as it sounds.
It is effectively a black list. A U.K. journalist Helen Lewis has an entry as does JK Rowling.
The organisation, Save Women’s Sport, to stop biological men taking stealing women’s prizes also gets an entry as does any politician, or Doctor, trying to put the brakes on children being given puberty blockers, cross sex hormones and surgeries. Abigail Shrier, the author of a book on the Transgender Craze, also appears as does Deborah Soh another person skeptical about the Transgender issue.
Linda Riley and the Global Diversity Awards.
Another donor is Global Diversity Awards Ltd. That company appears to be in the middle of getting wound up and the only listed director is Linda Riley.
Linda Riley is another Lesbian who has decided to betray women. These two clips, from Private Eye will give you an idea of the calibre of this person. Riley is behind the Jack the Ripper Museum but on the planning application it said it would be a museum for women’s history. Dawn Butler is another recipient of Anthony Watson’s money.
Lord Waheed Ali
She has also received funding from Lord Ali, the first openly gay peer. He doesn’t appear to be a regular contributor in the House of Lords so I drew a blank on Hansard in terms of a clear statement of his views on Hansard.
As he works in the media it is likely that it would be social suicide to depart from the script. I did find one clip from an interview he gave on a project to raise the visibility of Gay Asians.
Andrew Davenport & Lawrence Kenright
Davenport is the maker of Telly Tubbys and In the Night Garden, children’s TV. There is nothing much to say about him on this topic. Kenright is a property developer in Liverpool who is setting up an organisation to field independent candidates in elections. The movement is called Liberate Liverpool. Here are a couple of statements following a row which broke out about one of the candidates on “transgender” issues. Guess which group don’t get a mention in their statement about intersectional issues.
That’s enough about Angela Eagle. She is unlikely to change her stance.
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. Only give if you can and don’t prioritise me over important legal cases. Every little helps.
I have written about the Samaritans before, mainly because I was puzzled about why they consistently fail to hold “Trans” lobby groups to account, for their egregious use of ,discredited, suicide statistics. Here is what I found:
In the first blog I discovered their historic links to the Beaumont Society, an organisation for fetishistic transvestites, who later found a way to sanitise their erotic motivations under the “Trans” umbrella. What I wasn’t aware of was the “Brenda Line”;this was a dedicated line for men who wished to talk to the volunteers, but their purpose was masturbatory.
Samaritans was founded by an Anglican minister by the name of Chad Verah. He was motivated, to set up the organisation. after officiating at a funeral for a 13 year old suicide victim. She had begun menstruating and thought the blood indicated she had contracted venereal disease. Reportedly, this inspired the reverend to not only set up the help line but also to begin sex education for the young people in his youth club.
He was further inspired to set up a dedicated helpline for masturbating men, in response to a member of staff who asked “What to do about obscene calls?”.
His response was “befriend them” and the Brent line was born. This was later rechristened the “Brenda Line” after objections from the Brent Office.
Varah wrote a manual for staff which is now housed at the Wellcome collection. Apparently it was very amusing 😳.
Varah had a side hustle as a sex therapist and writer for porn magazines which may explain his relaxed attitude to the women who provide this service, for men, because, as we shall see, it was women who had to take the pervert calls.
There is more on this theme revealed when Varah was interviewed by the Washington Post, while on a tour of the United States, funded by Penthouse magazine. Varah had written for Forum magazine, a sister publication to Penthouse, he was also a sex therapist.
He was an advocate for using pornography and did so with impotent men which is ironic because there are now rising rates of erectile dysfunction in young men which is convincingly linked to excessive use of pornography.
So, after this context about Varah, let’s get back to the masturbators. Some of them were calling to cause distress women. He classified them into “befriendable” and those who were not and some of them were manipulative psychopaths.
Of course some of them were calling for a laugh or boys wanting to know about sex. The staff were encouraged to engage with them and teach the callers useful information, about sex, whist ignoring the ongoing masturbation. Some were classified as lonely men who were unable to form relationships with women and Varah believed the women who worked the Brenda line could help these men form respectful relationship with women. However, there were other types of callers….the fetishists and transvestites.
Another group of callers were sadi-masochists which, from my reading, has an overlap with the men who identify as “trans” identified males. This was Varah’s instruction to the phone handlers. Basically these men are using the Samaritans as free phone sex lines.
In this part of the guidance the callers could even come to the premises in person and, if I am reading this correctly, do their masturbation in person. 😳
Another group were young men who liked exposing themselves to women who reminded than of their mothers. Notice how this is framed to blame the mother for the son’s paraphilia. A story as old as time.
Reading this next bit made me think I should research whether any women who worked at the Samaritans were ever murdered! Oh, a manipulative psychopath, let’s invite him round.
I didn’t find any cases of Samaritan’s volunteers being murdered but I did find this case from 2004.
Apparently it is policy to enforce confidentiality even when callers share intelligence about crimes that have committed and, presumably, ther desire to commit a crime.
So who were the women who were talking to these men? Because it was all women. Men could not be trusted. But, in any case, the Brenda callers were invariably men and would put the phone down if a man answered.
The level of expectation on these volunteers seems like a dangerously unregulated experiment.
The manual recognised that be manipulative to get their sexual gratification and i am struck by the similarities between the mass unleashing of male fetishists calling themselves “transgender” and treating all women like an extension of the Brenda project. All women are now being coerced to be therapeutic aids for autogynephiles by emotional blackmail , suicide threats and now we are passing laws to compel this. Time for the Duluth Wheel.
The end of the Brenda Project.
The common objection was that the women felt like “unpaid prostitutes” . It seems like the “M” calls were not to be tolerated any more, which Varah thought was “prudish”. In his autobiography he describes the policy of the charit “ the Samaritans were willing to liston, calmly to tales of murder, massacre, mayhem and matricide…but not masturbation”
When the Samaritans droppped the Brenda project , a year after Varah retired, he tried to remove their Charitable registration:
Apparently the Samaritans now operate a three strikes and you are out policy, with obscene callers. You can find women talking about their experiences on line. Some are on mumsnet and other sources. Some felt violated and that the Samaritans didn’t take this seriously
Another volunteer echoes a common these about callers to the Samaritans; cross-dressing men and paedophiles. Many women commented about the rate of sexually motivated callers with some feeling the charity down played the extent of this.
Sounds as if this is another charity that needs a review.
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 it and if there are currently other causes more important for your woman tax then give there.
This is the week we finally got a debate, in Parliament, about the clarification of “sex” in law. I will do a series on the points made in that debate and some of the key speakers. In doing so I hope to develop my thinking around this topic. Lobby groups, for the “T” have benefited from the strategic ambiguity over biological sex, indeed, this was their intention. Nobody was pretending to be confused about “sex” when women’s sex barred us from the vote , certain professions, or even the ability to take out a mortgage. It seems straightforward that we cannot protect women from sex discrimination if we can’t define sex. What makes me hesitant about the revision of the Equality Act is our legislators may take the opportunity to strengthen the concept of “legal” sex and embed gender identity ideology deeper into the law. Nevertheless this debate helped showcase the arguments and it is to be welcomed.
Ultimately I would like the “Gender Recognition Act” repealed which is an argument that makes people nervous. Quite simply, there is no other class who is forced to accept the appropriation of our very existence by the group that causes such harm to women. Our society has developed an infrastructure so we can escape men, when we at our most vulnerable. Trans lobby groups, such as Stonewall, openly campaigning to dismantle female only, single sex spaces. (From the publicity campaign for the launch of a document called Vision For Change 2017 -22.)
The debate
The debate was opened by the Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi. She acknowledges how contested this issue is, dividing political parties and family and friends. She also comments that there is a real fear about speaking on this topic but, also, relief that it is finally being discussed, in Parliament.
The first intervention comes early from Liberal Democrat MP, Layla Moran, who offers a counter view that her constituents have contacted her to say they are “scared” that this is going to be discussed and claiming it will cause “a rise in hatred and violence”.
An elected MP saying that discussing women’s rights causes a spike in hate! Here is Layla answering a question about whether she would be happy to share changing rooms with a fully intact man.
Tonia responds like a grownup, something sadly lacking on this topic. At least we have some adults back in the room.
What is at stake is outlined in her next statement. Female sports, single sex spaces for women, at our most vulnerable moments. The right to have our boundaries respected whether that is in changing rooms or health care. The right for same sex attracted people to have free association with others of the same sex.
Unbelievably Lesbians in Tasmania have already lost the right to exclude men from Lesbian groups.
Tonia then explains that she has met with people from LGB Alliance and the LesbianProject to understand their concerns. As she points out, without recognising biological sex we may as well dispense with the protected characteristic of “sexual orientation”. It is noticeable that there are a plethora of “trans” only groups and nobody is going around threatening their rights of assembly, the same cannot be said for Lesbian events.
Research needs to be able to legally distinguish actual Lesbians for data gathering purposes.
This argument extends to all women. Already we have had debates , in the House of Lords, and House of Commons, which looks at the health needs of Lesbians, Bisexual and “Transwomen”. It makes no sense to look at these groups together, “transwomen” are biologically male so the correct comparator should be females that claim a “trans” identity.
Putting validation above facts doesn’t just damage women’s health, it helps obscure the health impacts of “transgender medicine”. My son now has an increased risk of multiple sclerosis nearly at x 7, added to a genetic predisposition from me. We need to research this based on biological sex. 68% of people who get MS are female, but males have a worse prognosis. I need to know if my son is l more at risk of male pattern MS and we won’t find out if our research is based on fantasy, not reality.
Tonia has also spoken to “trans” lobbyists who want the confusion in the Equality Act to remain. They claim that there is no opposition to men using women’s spaces. This is a blatant lie. 👇
So, “transwomen” are at risk if they use spaces for men so women have to budge up, no matter how uncomfortable, or fearful, this makes us? Does anyone think women deserve human rights?
This is who Tonia spoke to before the debate. Dr Paul Martin, from LGBT Foundation, who I covered in my series on the guidance he drew up for the NHS Confederation. He drips with contempt for the female sex. You can find out more about him here:
Also Nancy Kelley of Stonewall infamy. Nancy is a Lesbian who thinks you are are “sexual racist” if you don’t consider “transbians” a.k.a men, as part of your dating pool. can read more about Nancy Kelly here:👇
Male barrister, Robin Moira White, often crops up to claim that all women have accepted him in the female facilities and are not made uncomfortable with his presence. If they were, would they dare say? Here is Robin with noted trans-activists ChrisBurns, Jane Fae, and James Morton.
Robin has a tenuous grasp on reality and believes that we can believe Robin is a man but should not be allowed to express these beliefs.
Dr Finn Mackay, describes herself as a “queer male” and is wheeled out to argue that women like her are at risk of being challenged in female facilities. Nobody who has seen footage of Mackay would be left in any doubt about her sex.
Dr Finn Mackay deserves a deep dive herself. She describes herself as a radical feminist. 8 years ago she spoke out against legalising prostitution, which must make her an outlier in “queer” circles. Here she is promoting her work on a channel hosted by a man who claims to be a woman. Both Mackay and the man explain that they could not be Lesbian/Gay because they need their partner to be attracted to them as a kind of “queer male” or a “trans woman”.
This quote 👇 , from Antoniazzi’s opening statement, expresses that authoritarian nature of the trans-stasi who even have the gall to try to mandate what we allowed to think.
Antoniazzi also spoke to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) who agreed that clarification of “sex” to mean “biological sex” would bring clarity in some areas but “potential ambiguity in other areas”. I would like to see legal opinion about where this ambiguity might occur.
Next intervention is from a MP , Lloyd Russell-Moyles the honourable member for Brighton. He is keen to claim that there had always been an intention to introduce “Self-ID” policy. ( This would allow a self-declared statement of what sex you are.)
I have written about Russell-Moyles before. He made the following statement, about a young relative of his, in a parliamentary debate about what should be taught, in schools, on the topic of sex education. Somebody needs a refresher training on child safeguarding.
This MP has been campaigning against single sex spaces since his University days. He was also involved in an outfit that strategised to provide sex education, to children, behind parents backs. I wrote about that here.
This was the response to Russell-Moyle’s intervention. 👇 Tonia rightly points out that the discussion has moved on from 2004. Worryingly she seems amenable to codifying “non-binary” in law. We will need to be vigilant as we will see the horse trading and appeasement of the “trans” lobby, particularly as the Civil Service seem particularly captured.
Despite the note of caution there are some important voices weighing in and this is critical. We need to start from the basis of “shared facts” and get away from the emotive language so beloved of our political class.
I will turn this into a series covering the highlights from the rest of the debate. A link to the written record of the debate is below.
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. We need to redress the balance cos the other side have billionaires on their side. Most marginalised my a**.
This is part two looking at the organisation who published a guide to dealing with “trans” and “non-binary” patients and staff. In part one I looked at Matthew Taylor, Chief Executive, and touched upon their recruitment of ex mermaids staff. You can read part one here: 👇
Since writing part one it has been pointed out that the NHS Confederation is a charity whose members are drawn from NHS Trusts and other providers of NHS Services. Their guidance may be influential but it is not binding in any way. I notice that, until March 2022, one of the trustees was Paul Jenkin of the Tavistock and Portman, NHS, Trust.
In this post I will look at this guidance: 👇 (PDF embedded in part one).
This document drips with contempt for patients, particularly women. I imagine there are many males who would prefer same sex care but the implications for women have an additional layer of concern. That anyone who works in this sector can publicly trash women’s right to set their own boundaries is rape adjacent. The two men who wrote the introduction to this document should be held accountable.
The guidance was drawn up by the extremist, “trans” lobby group, LGBT Foundation.
The guidance begins by claiming victim status and the usual hyperbole relying on self-reports and the manipulated hate crime statistics. I don’t think we need lend any credence to these statements, they are designed to appeal to emotion. I think it’s worth including this clip which references women’s experience but, even then, elevates the experiences of “trans” and “non-binary” people to “most victimised” because of their “trans” status.
There is a nauseating section on how to be the best “ally” and how, to be effective, we must learn about the culture, language etc of this community. This bit is easy. Learn the popular phrase “Punch a Terf” and how to wield a baseball bat and the new tradition of covering yourself in Urine outside the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
The guidance also says that these discussions may make allies uncomfortable about their own identity and a good ally should just “sit with their discomfort” . This message is, no doubt, meant for women uncomfortable about getting intimate care from men.
The guidance does address to Fostater ruling because the belief in the reality of biological sex is now legally protected. The guidance does it’s best to undermine this ruling by emphasising that it is not a carte blanche to “mis-gender” anyone. They also go to some lengths to advise people how to label Freedom of Information requests as “vexatious” and to avoid compliance with these requests as well as how to deal with “hostility” on social media. That the guidance anticipates hostility, online and from patients and family members, shows they are aware that many /most people will be against these “reforms” and, in their arrogance, they decided to press ahead anyway.
Naturally training on “gender identity” is to be mandated and you can bet LGBT Foundation delivers, and profits, from this training/indoctrination. Only “gender identity” is singled out for universal and mandatory training. I guess the rest of the protected characteristics don’t need the propaganda campaign.
The provision of single sex toilets as male or female was singled out for criticism.
Though focus group discussions a preference was expressed for mixed sex facilities not to replace male /female the guidance still says that the special rainbow people can override other staff’s consent.
They add a caveat about communal showers but couch it in terms of the “trans” person’s comfort. Too chicken shit to mandate keeping men out of female facilities they argue it should be decided on a “case by case” basis. That’s not leadership, it’s cowardice.
Another example of describing the law not as it is but as Stonewall wish it to be. Now the legally protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” is to be jettisoned; aided and abetted by the useful idiots on the Women And Equalities Committee. Claiming it covers “non-binary” identities is just an outright lie; as is “non-binary” as a category of person. They also argue it covers “gender fluid”. I despair of every politician who pretends to believe there is even such a thing as “non-binary” a confected identity born out of excessive rumination.
All of this guidance centres the “trans” person and, not content with stealing the word woman they also appropriate “female”. Notice in this clip 👇 the women are positioned as the abusers not the man violating women’s boundaries. Classic D.A.R.V.O.
The guidance does cover people’s right to request single sex care but then claims there is no legal right to know the sex of the person providing you with intimate care! If a woman requests single sex care and, in the unlikely event of a man successfully passing himself off as a woman, he violates this request I would regard this as sexual assault.
They do acknowledge that a female who has been sexually assaulted, by a man, may request a female but then follow it with a concern for the “trans” person. If a woman has been requested and a “trans woman” is assigned to give the care the employee should check that the “trans” person is comfortable with providing the care! There are many issues. Firstly is the hospital is requiring disclosure of sexual assault history to even be considered for female only care? Secondly they think it is OK to still over-ride her consent but only if the man with special “ladyfeelz” is comfortable with it. What kind of sociopath would sign this off?
This next clip again reiterated that only people “thecomfort of the staff member should be prioritised” and emphasises that their “validation” takes precedence over the rights of patients.
The patient who refuses to accept treatment from an obvious man is a bigot. 👇. I should add that the document is littered with references to a zero tolerance policy to harassment and threats of disciplinary action , for staff, and exclusion from the hospital for patient’s family. Even going so far as to threaten a delay in treatment or requiring the patient to find another hospital.
As low as it is to use patients as a captive audience for your social experiment adding to the trauma of a dementia patient is next level barbarity. Note that the sinister call for this to be documented!
Here is a reminder of the Nursing and Midwifery Council.
I have read many documents for this series and unfortunately this is now common across many NHS Trusts. This is a systemic problem which has been allowed to get out of control under a Conservative government but would, I fear, be much worse under Liberal Democrats and Labour. We urgently need a new political force which is unabashed about centring the rights of women.
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. Even small amounts help to offset the massive disparity in the money, from global foundations and governments to socially engineer the primacy of gender identity ideology. Resist!
Before I delve into the content I want to revisit Matthew Taylor, the head of the NHS Confederation. He decided to listen to an extremist, “trans” lobby group; LGBT Foundation; in the news, recently, for attacking the only charity exclusively for Lesbians /Gays/Bisexuals. LGBTFoundation joined with the charity Mermaids to try to strip LGB Alliance of its charity status. We have not yet had the outcome of that case but, in the intervening time, Mermaids has been put under investigation, by the Charities Commission,
It turns out I have written about Matthew Taylor before; when he appeared on the Moral Maze, when he was CEO of the Royal Society for the Arts (RSA). He was a supercilious, arrogant man on that show and, I said at the time, it was a worry that he had moved on to the NHS. I decided to revisit his contribution on the Moral Maze before writing about the guidance.
In the introduction Michael Buerk lays out the issues pretty well. The making of female changing rooms, even “open” ones, mixed sex; the introduction of “trans” issues to children via schools; the sky rocketing referrals to “gender” clinics and concern about medicalisation of children. He also lays out the implications for rape crisis, domestic abuse refuges and single sex wards. This was when self-identified “gender” was still on the cards, After this introduction what does Mr Taylor have to say? Right out of the starting gate he shows no empathy for women.
He listened, in silence to Jane Fae /John Ozimek who told bare faced lies about puberty blockers. Ozimek is a defender of extreme porn. He also had no questions for James Caspian who raised medical ethics and detransitioners. Furthermore he remained silent during Stephen Whittle’s testimony. After sitting in silence while Stephen Whittle claimed she did not want to reorganise society to accommodate her, he decided to lob this question at the next speaker, Heather Brunskell-Evans. This comment had far more relevance to the demands of Fae and Whittle, who are demanding the world be reorganised so they can live a lie.
He continues with this, illustrating his lack of grasp on feminist thought and alignment with “trans” ideologues. Women want to liberate women from sexist stereotypes but Matthew thinks they are innate. Proponents of “gender identity ideology” think if you don’t align with the stereotypes, for your sex, you can carve them into, and out of, your flesh.
Heather comments that these “choices” are in the context of social norms. Matthew thinks that women are still choosing to be “feminine” demonstrating that he believes in these regressive, sexist stereotypes. He also thinks boys /girls, at odds with the expectations for their sex, should be able to modify their body to conform.
This was his final position. I wonder if this is how he landed the job as head of the NHS Confederation?
He clearly attached more weight to the testimony of Fae, who was disingenuous, in the extreme, about puberty blockers and Whittle who denied that she is trying to force the world to be reorganised to enable her disassociation. from her sex.
I would be very interested to know how this sociology graduate, with a Masters in Industrial relations, came to be regarded as a suitable candidate for this role.
Another senior employee has pronouns in his bio.
Most shocking of all they have an ex Mermaids employee.
Next up I will have a deep dive into the guidance which, in my view, should result in senior people losing their posts.
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. Even small amounts are appreciated to enable me to sustain me and offset the billions going to shore up this ideology.
I did not think I would be back here but it seems Oxfam have learnt nothing. To celebrate Pride they decided to commission a video. It didn’t take long for people to draw the obvious conclusion. This was yet another attack on women using the mysogynist slur “terf”. It was, of course, meant to depict Rowling, in the most unflattering light and to strip her of any appearance of being female. It was the definition of hateful.
Such was the outcry they were forced to edit the video and issue a public statement. There was every intention to depict J.K Rowling and to attack women who are standing up for sex based rights. In the U.K the right to hold “Gender critical” beliefs is protected, in law as a “philosophical belief”. This is where we are in 2023, it is a FACT that it is impossible to change your sex but, because of our naive political class, this truth is becoming unsayable. Below Oxfam make it clear that, irrespective of your sexual characteristics your “gender identity” is valid. This is signalling adherence to the #LadyPenis belief system.
They also sent an internal email claiming that overall feedback was positive 😳 but there had been some backlash and apologising that the coverage may upset some “trans” colleagues but nothing for staff who may be gender critical and labelled “Terfs”.
This is the filmmaking company responsible. They appear to be based in Bangalore and claim to be “woman led”. They have now protected their tweets.
The edited video is now up and it is hardly better. The new version promotes double mastectomies and pushes the idea of a “chosen family”.
It contains the usual transperbole and this signals a willingness to sacrifice women’s sport.
Stonewall.
So why are Oxfam (U.K) proselytising gender identity ideology? One clue is in their “Head of Influence” .
Turns out Sam Dick spent 5 years at Stonewall. 2015 is the year Stonewall took $100,000 from ArcusFoundation to add the T to LGB.
Turns out he was also seconded to the Government Equality Office during his time at Stonewall.
Govt Equality Office
Guess who was Head of Strategy at the Govt Equality Office during this period? A trans-identified male known as Alison Pritchard. I wrote about Pritchard some time ago.
Pritchard is now the Deputy Head of the Office for National Statistics who botched the (once every 10 years) opportunity to garner accurate census data, despite losing a legal challenge to their idea that you can self-identity your sex. So confusing was the census that we have ended up with an implausibly high number of “trans” people in areas with a high density of people with English as a second language.
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. Every contribution matters if we are to turn back the tide on this madness.
This is the third in my series on this man. For this blog I am going to concentrate on his work with a Bradford based charity. The charity/company in question is BRADFORD LGBTQ+ STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP LTD.(Company number 05545105). Tweedale was involved for three years so I had a look at the accounts only during the period he was active.
At that point in time they were coming to the end of a National Lottery Grant but they managed to secure some funding through the Tudor Trust; who have cropped up a few times on my block as a group who funds LGBTQ+ issues.
Here they talk about their links to Braford University; we heard in part 2 that Tweedale gave a talk at Bradford University about why the T should be attached to the LGB.
One of the trustees whose tenure overlapped. with Tweedales was a Professor from Bradford University, Ian Burkitt.
He is now an Emeritus Professor and this is what he says about his work. Researching “social contexts in which we become particular social beings”, latterly “broadened to include forms of human embodiment”.
The charity /company also received funding from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust who have also appeared on my blog a few times. Notice the forced-teaming with Black and Ethnic Minority groups and a reference to the DWP National Diversity group of which Tweedale is a member. Apparently he was piloting work on a “Trans” Equality Pledge which has signed up Braford and Leeds Health Trusts.
More partnership working with NHS Trusts, plus Age Concern, Age U.K. Alzheimer’s society and of course Bradford Metroplotan District Council.
Here we have grants from Bradford Council and our old friends the Arts Council, who you may remember stripped a grant from LGB Alliance.
More funding details. Joseph Rowntree grant was £30,000, the Dept for Public Health nearly provided nearly £50 grand and nearly £10 grand for Wakefield Primary Care Trust.
The one amount identified for a Women’s Group, donated by the Lesbian Identity Project, was a staggering £117. Yes just over a hundred pounds, to to help with room booking costs.
I had a look at the Lesbian Identity Project. This is there blurb. So not just Lesbians then.
Sure enough a trans-identified male features prominently.
Another pot of money came from the Police and Crime Commissioner and they also had input to the NHS Equality and Diversity Strategy.
The money from West Yorkshire police force pushed hate crime reporting. Remember there is no hate crime category that covers women.
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. Every amount helps me to sustain my work.
This is my second piece on Tweedale; a civil servant who proposed a motion, as part of his union work, to demonise women, defending our sex based rights, as akin to fascist. He also makes the testerical claim we are planning to enact a genocidal plan for “trans” people. See below:
This is him.
In part one I covered an interview that this man did with West Yorkshire’s Deputy mayor, Alison Lowe. Lowe has form on promoting trans-identified males and attacking LGB Alliance. I decided to make it a series because he did another interview and makes some claims about being promoted by a Permanent Secretary in the Civil Service. For those who are not aware a Permanent Secretary is the senior civil servant, who supports the Minister, in a government department, the Minister is an elected official, the civil servant is not elected and many of them appear to have forgotten this. He was also involved in a Bradford Charity so I want to look at them, that will need to be in another piece. Link to part one below.
Jade Beckles is herself involved in the Diversity and Inclusion Industry but has a background in the police. Her linkedin shows a sixteen year career in the police about which she has this to say. 👇. I find it interesting that she claims child protection as one of her responsibilities but there also appears to have been a heavy emphasis on Diversity and Inclusion. Don’t misunderstand me, we need more black women in policing and to tackle racism, I am just not convinced that this batch of race equality specialists have got the right approach.
She also set up a group for black women embarking on motherhood. That sounds like an excellent initiative giving the appalling mortality rate for black women. Following a year or so running her own consultancy she now has salaried role and it is in this capacity she is interviewing Saorsa/Simon
The introduction covers all of Saorsa’s roles as the national advisor on trans issues for the Dept of Work and pensions (DWP) and he sits on the national LGBT+ group for the TUC. He goes on to explain what these roles mean, in practice.
He proceeds to talk about his work with schools etc.
On his “rapid rise” at the DWP it’s not clear if he is referring to career based promotion or appointments as the co-chair of the local and then national Gender Network. The gender network appears to be the network intended for women because he then proceeds to complain there was no “trans” network and the LGB network excluded him because it was run by someone who wanted it to focus on sexual orientation. He and another trans-identified male set up the first “trans” network. When the organisation decided to dissolve these networks and, instead, set up a body to advise on equality issues across the board, Tweedale became a member, automatically, having been displaced from his role as chair for the gender network.
He remained on the advisory committee for four years and claims that the Permanent Secretary became aware of all Tweedale’s work he directly intervened, with his line manager, to insist that Tweedale was able to continue.
Having looked at the list of Permanent Secretaries who may be responsible It may be Sir Robert Devereaux. This is from the Financial Times, it’s behind a paywall but this preview seems a fit. 👇(He retired in 2018 after 10 years in the role).
Tweedale was allowed to write his own job description, according to him, and set his key objectives. I find his involvement in policies, which affect women, deeply sinister. He is clearly unable to hide his glee.
At this point I would bear in mind the concept of “Dupers Delight” which is the pleasure experienced when you have managed to deceive/manipulate a person or organisation.
In the next section, Tweedale is asked what are the challenges faced by the “Transgender” community and he talks of hostile forces outside the DWP. Alarmingly he then claims that he has had a role in advising senior leaders on the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act in particular in relation to “safe” spaces, by which he means, but won’t say, single sex spaces. In a revealing moment he claims “my job is not to proselytise”.
He then says senior leaders don’t know what to do when they are asked questions like this; “What is your policy on single sex spaces?” . He suggests they panic and turn to him. In response Tweedale explains he has to correct “misinterpretations” of the law! Guess which group he prioritises?
Beckles response displays a breathtaking misunderstanding of the law.
This what the company which employs Beckles says about itself.
Tweedale explains he has to emotionally detach himself to give professional advice; which must be correct. He than says the law sets the minimum but people should always strive to follow best practice. This sounds like to “go beyond the law” advice which I covered in a another piece on Global Butterflies; another organisation led by a trans-identified male, which you can read here:
He says people in leadership positions need to bridge the gap between policy and practice, they should also capture data on trans and non-binary identies and also ensure there is visibility for these staff. Then he follows up with advice on ways for applicants to hide their sex. Surprisingly he concedes that organisations should provide single sex facilities because “there will always be people who say they need them for religious or cultural reasons”. However he thinks gender neutral, a.k.a mixed sex, facilities are best practice. He also claims “this is not even controversial.. it’s just common sense”. Proving, once again, that this is a man talking.
Then he says pronoun display is important and also that you should not make a fuss if you get a new “trans” employee. How this ties in with the calls for visibility I don’t know.
I took a far different interpretation from this statement than, I am sure, was intended.
The interview ends with a touch of sycophancy and a statement about how Tweedale is having such an impact. Beckles clearly thinks this is a good thing. She needs to learn about autogynephilia. After I did the last piece I realised this was the same man I have seen in Bradford Train station, wearing ludicrously short skirts and fishnet stocking. . Apparently he is known locally as “Geriatric, Gothic, Lolita”
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. Every amount helps sustain me in this fight.
The second part of the discussion opens the question and answer session. The first one talks about “gender” and how there may be typical things described as feminine and masculine but why can’t you be a girl who likes typical “masculine” things and he wonders why Deidre thinks they are a woman and not a “feminine” man. McClosky talks about how there are overlaps in what constitutes “feminine” and “masculine and how he knows women who are sports fanatics or English men who don’t like cricket. He then segues into something about ice cream which is hard to follow but, I think he is saying we can’t question what he desires. (The marriage ended, by the way).
Next up he talks about his past as a “macho” man and how he is now a “macho” woman, like his mother.
He continues with this statement which he seems to assume will have Kathleen’s agreement.
Kathleen responds with disagreement on this point. She doesn’t see “womanhood” as something akin to training to be a lawyer. She thinks the best definition of a woman is AdultHuman Female but she does refer to a chapter in her book which talks about “immersive fictions”. Stock is aware this won’t satisfy Deidre but she is happy to go along with the fiction, in some contexts, for example using preferred pronouns, but she doesn’t think it’s literally true.
McClosky finds the concept of “immersive fiction” useful. Deidre counters with recognising they have a philosophical difference because Kathleen still thinks a rock is just a rock.He then states that this belief doesn’t make Kathleen a bad person but it does make her naive.
What makes a woman?
Kathleen goes with Adult Human Female adding that whenever a new definition is tried it tends to be based on sexist stereotypes. Deidre goes with “it’s a social construction” and then confirms Stock’s point by retailing a sexist stereotype.
Kathleen responds, to laughter, that she takes 15 minutes to buy clothing too! (Same here. I rarely buy them, I get hand me ups from baby sister and on rare forays to buy clothes my speed in doing the deed is legendary).
Thoughts on detransitioners?
Deidre: “It’s very very rare” . Kathleen points to the 10,000 on the detrans subreddit. (That group now has over 47,000 members.) She says this is not unsurprising given the social contagion and that there are people emerging age 25 with many of them regretting a medical transition and some being without genitals.
McClosky is again rude and dismissive responding to Kathleen detailing the many medical interventions that are regretted, double mastectomies, ovary removal etc. McClosky says we regret many things in life. Hethen compares it to bringing up your children without books. He thinks this is equivalent to men who lost their penises. He knows lots of “trans” people who are ecstatic about their “transition”; adding “this is what the terfs say”. (I thought he agreed that this was a slur?). Stock makes the point that there are different demographics and someone “transitioning” at 50 has a fully developed prefrontal cortex.
Do you think the state should be involved?
McClosky puts this question to Stock. He’s a libertarian so you can guess his answer. Kathleen references the NHS review that has concluded there is a very low evidence base for gender medicine. The Dutch have changed their mind, Sweden has rowed back from this model of care. The State should be regulating this area of medicine, or if not the state we need some adults in the room. She also makes the point that it depends on the State. Iran, for example, outlaws homosexuality but funds “transition”. McClosky finishes that segment with a statement that he sharply disagrees.
You can’t protect what you can’t define.
Audience members asks a question about the reality of being a female and what happens when we deny our biological reality. She mentions sports, prisons, changing rooms and the erasure of female language. She addresses the question to Deidre.
McClosky is not keen on State involvement but claims not to be worried if he’s excluded from female sorts or even changing rooms but he is very dismissive about the concerns she raises.
Kathleen asks McClosky how he would feel about protecting sex and gender reassignment but not defining the latter as changing sex. McClosky points out that he uses XX and XY which Kathleen acknowledges but points out this is unusual and trans activists would see this as “transphobic”. He then adds “I don’t know why they don’t understand biology” which he then spoils by raising the intersex gambit. Kathleen skilfully bats away the forced teaming of people with disorders of sexual development. He then brings up comparisons to racism and treating black people as “other” and the treatment of male homosexuals. Full bingo card of “trans” talking points.
Kathleen shares the concern that extremist on the far right will run with this issue of the left doesn’t start speaking up and reining in the extremists.
Dysmorphia v Dysphoria
This question asks at what level of discomfort with your sexed body should give rise to medical interventions. What is the cut off for telling /counselling someone they have to reconcile with their biological reality.
McClosky opens by stating that he was never uncomfortable with his body when he was a man. Kathleen points out that lots of women are uncomfortable with their body and indeed our culture encourages this. This is why we should be worried about girls who think they are “trans” because they will use the tools available in their culture to express their distress. Currently the tool is to identify out of your sex in the past it was annorexia and self harm. McClosky concede that this has the ring of truth to him.
Age restrictions on medical interventions
McClosky comes out in favour of puberty blockers, shocker. Kathleen wants more evidence on the medical consequences. McClosky interrupts to point out that he would have loved his growth to be stunted. As I have written before these men are using medical interventions for children as a sort of vicarious, retrospective wish fulfilment. Kathleen points out the consequences for children who start on puberty blockers which, almost invariably, lead to cross sex hormones (98% progress to CSH). The boys will have stunted genitalia and permanent loss of orgasmic potential. Stock is against puberty blockers full stop and no surgeries until age of majority. (Here, I disagree. In the U.K sentencing guidelines allow the judiciary to take into account lack of brain maturation in the under 25’s. We protect convicted criminals better than dysphoric youth).
Next question is in a similar vein about the role of the state to protect children from harm even when perpetrated by their parents. He supports the Texas ban on these treatments for children. McClosky once again disagrees.
He proceeds to compare it to passing on bad dieterary habits of transmitting racist ideas. He also, once again, denies the irreversibility of the treatments. Kathleen says the idea of being born in the wrong body is in our culture which is solidifying playful ideas about self expression and involving gender clinics. MCClosky returns to the homosexual gambit and would Kathleen be in favour of measures to limit the way culture accepts homosexuality. Stock points out that this is an unfair analogy because there is no medical route for when a kid comes out as gay.
Reality versus nominalism.
A more philosophical note to end on. Kathleen answer is grounded in biological reality and the fact of sexual dimorphism. McClosky returns to arguments about scientific racism and his suspicion of the state. Kathleen finds this argument is losing her but she presumes it must be because McClosky sees her as on the opposite side to a libertarian perspective. In that case, she argues, take the state out of the argument let medical authorities step in re medical harms to children, or prison authorities on the harms of mixed sex prisons. The key point is she wants some body to step in and prevent the harmful consequences.
The end.
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.
The debate opens with Kathleen outlining her position in her usual calm terms after she has paid respect to McClosky’s willingness to share a platform with her.
Stock begins by outlining the debate in Anglo-American culture over the definition of woman and man and male and female. Biology is being disputed and this has profoundly practical consequences; it’s not just an abstract debate. This has profound, practical, consequences on how we organise social spaces, prisons, changing rooms and also it has a significant impact for sexual orientation if we deny sex is real. Stock then makes a distinction between “trans” people and “trans” activists. She continues by outlining how far the arguments have shifted to deny sex is real and prioritise a claimed inner sense of whether one is a woman or a man. She concluded with why this issue is concerning; because it is a belief in a subjective identity is being enacted in policy and law.
I would just add a clarification about the U.K law. It’s true that “trans” activism has only latterly started demanding that men, with penises, can be women and invade women’s spaces but, even at its inception, the Gender Recognition Act allowed fully intact males to be legally recorded as women. Most people are unaware of this fact. (This is not a criticism, Kathleen was speaking to a U.S audience).
Kathleen then proceeds to outline the implications for prison policy and the fact that these (penis-wielding) men, even when convicted of sexual offences against women, are in female prisons.
Finally Kathleen covers the issues affecting children, labelled as “trans”, who, in contrast to the ideological approach to adults, are being medicated. Puberty blockers and surgeries are being done to teenagers and, in the U.S. the ages for surgeries are much younger. She then covers the cohort affected, who can be gay males /Lesbians, autistic or have a history of trauma. All groups over represented at gender clinics. Below are the statistics for the U.K. and a Professor explaining that, left alone, many would simply be gay.
Deidre opens with a comment on the BBC, who approached him to do a conversation with Stock but, eventually decided to go ahead with a different person because McClosky didn’t disagree with Kathleen to a sufficient degree. That’s the BBC who wonder why the world is so polarised on this issue.
McClosky introduces himself as a “trans woman” though he adds that he would prefer to be just called woman, adding “but that’s O.K…as long as people are courteous and treat me as they would their grandmother”. He then plugs his book “Crossing” and talks of a time in his life when he didn’t “pass” as he says he does now. He then outlines some of his secondary sexual characteristics, height and voice, that have not changed and then said men, who want to be seen as men in dresses should be free to do so, but he wants to be seen as a woman.
He then talks about the philosophy and reasons and nominalism and something about rocks with different uses.
[Nominalism= There are at least two main versions of nominalism. One version denies the existence of universals – things that can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things (e.g., strength, humanity). The other version specifically denies the existence of abstract objects – objects that do not exist in space and time.]
He continues and this raised a chuckle.
He speculates that maybe in the future we will be able to edit our genes but as long as he can be in the world as a woman…but, he adds, I am not a woman.
McClosky believes social roles are flexible and, in a free society, they should be. (He’s a libertarian). He then proceeds to declare that violence in politics comes from the left and transactivism in the U.K. also comes from the left but, in the U.K the “terfs” also think of themselves as the “left”. Stock interjects to point out “that depends” and that “terf” is a contested term. He agrees “sure it is, it’s a term of insult”. He then moves onto the Michigan women’s festival.
[The Michigan women’s festival ran for over forty years and it’s founder intended it to be female only. Trans-identified males ran a concerted campaign to gain entry setting up an adjacent “Camp Trans” and an organisation called “Trans women belong her”. One of these men would go on to murder two lesbians and their son, the trial did not happen for years and he is still awaiting sentencing]. It officially ended in 2015.
McClosky outlines the difference in the United States where the right wing see this as a weapon in a culture war and a way to attack Democrats.
On the sports issue McClosky agrees that trans-identified males don’t belong in women’s sports, though he adds a caveat about meaning only those who have gone through male puberty. Then he segues into a comment (presumably he means the Williams twins) who have large muscles and are we going to handicap female athletes with advantages? Stock interjects to counter with statistics that show the Williams sisters would lose against very low ranking males.
We then proceed to hear about McClosky’s own “transition” , at 53, and his claim that it’s not irreversible. I think he is claiming that, because he went through a male puberty, and is now a “woman” in his eyes that makes procedures reversible. This is risible logic.
Childhood “transition”
Mclosky takes the view that is described as “persistent, insistent and consistent” by gender ideologues.
If this is the case then McClsocky advocates for puberty blocking at age 9 or 10. After being contradicted by Stock, who argues this is in fact controversial, he concedes that it is controversial but he is offering an an alternative argument. He then claims “if you don’t do it there’s a high risk of suicide” . Stock interjects to dispute this claim. He responds thus 👇
Kathleen responds, calmy, “So, shall we talk about evidence then?” . McClosky claims it’s a little bit hard to talk about evidence. Stock retorts that it is not hard, she has some evidence. I though the way he replied to this showed he was rattled. (I am assuming that is as patronising across the pond as it is presumed to be in the U.K.)
Kathleen comes back with a few points. She doesn’t use “trans” child because it solidifies the narrative too early, she explains the suicide myth and that these statistics need to take into account competing co-morbidities. There is, she says, evidence of an elevated risk but the risk for anorexia is much higher. She also points out this narrative is used, by trans activists, to frighten parents into “affirming” their child. She also raises the huge statistical spike in referrals to the Tavistock which is over 5000% in girls and 2000% in boys. She also takes issue with the mythical two year old “knowing” she is a boy. She also takes issue with the idea it is progressive to affirm this and refers to the DSM (diagnostic tool) that claims wanting “boys” toys may be a sign of a “trans child”. “Why can’t we just have girls, who like boys toys, who fancy girls and break all the gender stereotypes?”.
McClosky comes back with the notion that society is just more accepting which could explain the rise in statistics for those claiming a “trans” identity. He uses evidence of homosexuality rising over the last century. Kathleen agrees that increased prevalence could be more social acceptance but also points to an element of social contagion. McClosky agrees that social contagion is also likely to be a factor.
I will leave it there and come back to the questions from the audience in part 2.
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.
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).
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.
Rugby
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.
Genocide
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.
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 “pettyfascism” . 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.
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.
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.
Discussion/Conclusion
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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. 😉)
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 JesseGender) 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-d
