Regulatory capture is when special interest groups capture state apparatus.  The interests of these groups become so accepted by, and entwined with, the establishment the state becomes a tool of  special interests.   In respect of Transgender rights the cognitive capture of the political, legal, corporate and medical establishment seems pretty much complete. From politicians tweeting the mantra  “Transwomen are Women” (I notice “Transmen are Men” is less popular, almost as if this is a tale of two sexes) the capitulation to trans ideology is evident across the political spectrum.  The virtue signalling is merely irritating, what is happening in law and policy, much of it by stealth, is more sinister.

The  attack on women’s sex based rights has not arisen in a vacuum.   This is much more widespread than Local Government but I  will start with Leeds City Council. Living here is to have a bit part in a West Yorkshire spin off from the Handmaids Tale: Woke Gilead.



Let us first start with the widespread falsification of provisions in The Equality Act 2010.  This is a piece of legislation which protects “sex” and “gender re-assignment”.  These are the two legally protected characteristics which are pertinent to this discussion.  The latter category was enshrined in law, by the Gender Recognition Act (GRA). At the time, we were assured, it was to protect transsexuals, regularise their legal position and afford some protections by granting a “legal fiction” status. This allowed some, limited, recognition of their target “gender”.  This does not mean the state, legislated or determined that a transsexual had literally changed sex.  It did however confer some of the protections of the “target sex”.

Like a lot of women I was supportive of the legal change.  We were told it would help a small number of disadvantaged people and was a positive change, in keeping with a positive commitment to Human Rights. Until the government proposed a move to abolish the, already minimal, gate-keeping and allow anyone to “Self-Identify” as the opposite sex, I did not see the difficulties.  For a good article on that see here Oxford Law: Reform of the Gender Recognition Act   .

It was in this context of that women started to notice government agencies were getting ahead of the law. Many are acting as if Gender Identity, as desired by Trans Lobby Groups, has superseded the legally protected characteristics of Sex and Gender Re-assignment.  Local Councils have an obligation to uphold The Equality Act and are legally required (Public Sector Duty)  to monitor the impact of policy on legally protected, groups. Crucially they also have a legal obligation to foster good relations between the different, protected, characteristics.  In my view they are failing in this.

Women’s rights groups, like A Woman’s Place UK started to see the eradication of “sex” as a protected characteristic in government policies and publications from a wide range of organisations. Prompted by their work,  I checked Leeds City Councils website.  What did I discover?


Sex was omitted.  Gender was added.  Almost as if the wish was father to the thought.  Notice also that the protected characteristic is actually “Maternity” not “Maternity and Paternity”. Leeds City Council told me that it was their Equalities Team that maintained this part of the web-site.  I would be sacked if I did not get such basic information correct.

Leeds is a Labour Party dominated council and I was, at the time, a party member who campaigned for some of these councillors.  I decided to do a bit of digging to see who was advising them.  What has become clear is that politicians, at all levels, are outsourcing their critical thinking to lobby groups and, it turns out, my council is no exception.  Stonewall & Mermaids are acknowledged as advisors.  Stonewall, for those of you not aware, make explicit their aim is to remove “sex” segregated spaces and enshrine the notion of “Gender Identity” instead of both sex and Gender Reassignment.  Never did I think I would find myself opposing Stonewall.  I do now. They have betrayed women. (They have also betrayed  Lesbians and gay youth.  I will return to this in a later blog) Below is a clip from a Stonewall statement.


I could see why Stonewall are still, sadly,  seen as trusted advisors and they have traded on their past reputation to good, or, more accurately, ill effect.  Less understandable are some of the other groups that have had dialogue with Leeds City Council and, in some cases demonstrable input to their policy.

The Leeds branch of Action for Trans Health tweeted out a thanks to LCC LGBT to thank them for meeting up.  By this time I was already blocked, by my own councils LGBT twitter handle, so the replies are not visible.


I had to rely on citizen journalism to confirm that they do indeed liaise with this “client”. This account below is run by an HR employee of LCC who was the Chair of the representative for LGBTQ+ staff. (more on the man who runs this twitter account below)



For anyone not familiar with Action for Trans Health I intended to  insert a copy of their manifesto. Before it was suspended, for violating wordpress terms and conditions,  this used  to be available here 

Jess Bradley (First Trans NUS officer) was a founder member. Jess was suspended for allegations of lewd displays in the workplace.   Due to the dearth of coverage in our “progressive” press I am afraid I am now obliged to link to the Daily Mail. Action for Trans Health

You can find more about Jess Bradley on the youtube account of Rose of Dawn: Rose of Dawn: Jess Bradley

Here is a sample of the kind of extreme views set out in the Action for Trans Health manifesto which I had archived.


Demanding mandatory education, taught by trans people, for children even at nursery age, raises concerns about grooming.  At best this may mean vulnerable children being inculcated with “Gender Dysphoria” . The words safeguarding  and cult comes to mind. Note also that the recording of biological sex is seen as an act of state coercion and a violence against trans people.  If you think this sounds like some fringe extremists note we currently have a government funded project exploring the replacement of legal sex with gender. Kings College London

Action for Trans Health also have specific concerns about incarceration rates for trans prisoners.  I am no fan of the prison-industrial complex myself but a demand for a blanket release demographic is, at the very least, problematic.


Below are a further list of further demands.  I can hear distinctly my mother saying “Ooh. They don’t want much do they”.


Before I leave Action for Trans Health  confirmation below that  Jess Bradley and ATH are mentioned in Hansard (House of Lords)  debates on this issue. The named individuals, and groups, a check list of all the people and organisations  worst placed, in my view, to advise members on this issue. This is the Liberal Democrat, Baroness Barker, in Hansard, December 2014.  The debate was on the health of Lesbian, Bisexual and Transwomen. Even this grouping  illustrates the cognitive capture. Biological sex can be extremely relevant in medical settings and here male identified people with female biology are omitted, whilst female identified people are included.


I will leave Action for Trans Health there. Now we move on to TransLeeds, We do, in fact, have evidence that this group have achieved material policy change.  Policy change which, impacts women and girls.  Policy which has been developed with no consideration for, or consultation with, women’s groups.

You can read about them here

Worth having a look at the tone of the articles on that site.  Total misrepresentation of women’s use of Adult Human Female, which they define as a “hate-term” used to attack Transwomen.  When the dictionary definition of women is badged a “hate crime” something has gone seriously awry. Regulatory capture now extends to the corporate world who are so keen to appease the Transactivists and seem to forget women are 51% of the population. Here an abject apology is made for allowing women to proclaim the dictionary definition of woman.


Accusing women of defining ourselves only by our reproductive capacity and of “bio-essentialism is another spurious argument which TransLeeds advance.  Most women, involved in the fight for our sex based rights, reject biologically determinist arguments. This is the idea that  sex based stereotypes or “gender” are biological in origin; this is a central tenet of Trans ideology and therefore a blatant reversal to pin this on second wave feminists. For a movement built on the idea that you must modify your body to mimic female/male sexual characteristics, to express your “gender”, its laughable to describe women’s rights activists  as bio-essentialist.

 TransLeeds also offer a “binder” library for girls to compress their breasts.  Its not clear  if they inform parents.  Binding constricts breathing and has other negative implications for health.  An organisation that provides these should be explicit about the safeguarding of young girls and clear that they are not  usurping parental responsibility. Why, in 2019, this is being normalised is beyond my comprehension.  Here is an excellent article comparing the treatment of Breast Ironing (“bad”)  to Breast Binding (“progressive”).

Breast ironing V Breast Binding

Published in Culture, Health and Sexuality 2016. Here is an accessible version of a survey of the health consequences experienced by girls undertaking this: Breast Binding  

Skip forward to 2019 and Leeds City Council embark on another initiative, specifically formulated at the request of TransLeeds.  Seems they  are determined to get ahead of the law. The council have  introduced an on-line “Gender Change” to allow anyone to alter their details and ask for their “gender” marker to be changed from Male to Female and Vice Versa.  This is the guidance for the process and Leeds City Councils requirements for a “gender change”.  This paragraph leapt out:


First of all cross-dressing can be a harmless enough past-time. Not every man who cross-dresses has an explicitly sexual motivation. However for some this is a paraphilia. It is done for the purposes of sexual arousal and can be accompanied by a desire to breach women’s boundaries.  (NB Regardless of whether, or not, this is a sexually motivated means of expression, the notion this makes you a “woman” is deeply regressive, sexist and insulting).  This exposes women to the risk that males, who fetishise females,  will seek to access women’s spaces to enforce participation in this “fetish”.  So will this new “gender identity” give males access to female spaces? Single sex spaces are allowed, providing they serve a “legitimate & proportionate aim”.  Presumably Leeds City Council consulted widely?

FOI requests were submitted and , it turns out, Leeds City Council consulted with TransLeeds and TransLeeds only.  They were, specifically, asked if they had consulted any other groups (Duh…Women!) and they confirmed they only consulted with Trans people because it would not impact the rights of any other group.   Anyone who knows why women fought, and won, the right to sex segregated spaces would assume this would be considered.  Nope.  No Equality Impact statement was undertaken or deemed necessary.  The reason given, unbelievably, is that Leeds City Council state “The Council do not apply any sex based exemptions as no requirement has been identified”.  I think that will come as a surprise to women. I am sure most women thought we had the right to sex segregated changing rooms in Council run facilities.

As a final point some of you will have been following the debacle at Bradford Pride when Lesbians were surrounded by angry males, upset that Lesbians were declaring their same sex orientation.  It is now deemed Transphobic for Lesbians to make clear statements about their SEXual orientation, at a Pride March!  Account here:Lesbians In Chairs. Drinking Coffee

And who is one of the angry males featured in the above account?  HR employee of Leeds  City Council, until last Friday the Chair of LCC staff group for LGBT+ group.  Also the man behind the account above which confirms meeting with Action for Trans Health.  I won’t share his name even though I have had this done to me to silence me from speaking out against TransActivism.

Update with new information supplied by @LeedsCitizen.  Leeds City Council also have links, via an employee, with MESMAC.  A Policy advisor, at LCC,  is also a MESMAC Trustee.  You can read about this charity here MESMAC.  Digested read: Charity allowed workers to sleep with clients. Former Trustee jailed for child sex offences.

Here  is a link to a  government report on MESMAC Government Charity Case report

Report outlines  failures to report a serious incident to the Charity Commission and, as a result of an investigation, further historical cases came to light.  As a result of the investigation working with vulnerable young males was suspended.

Leeds City Council are  providing significant funding to this organisation.




Leeds City Council would appear to have been cognitively captured.

I will return to regulatory capture because there is so much of it! I will also do something on Gender Dysphoric Kids and anyone who wants to contribute, anonymously, or otherwise feel free to DM me on Twitter.









One thought on “COGNITIVE & REGULATORY CAPTURE : Local Government.

Leave a Reply