Stephen Whittle has been involved in trans-activism for decades. If passing as a man involves dismantling women’s, sex based, rights then Whittle is right up there with the worst of misogynists. Self-hating females are like homosexuals who spend years promoting Gay Conversion Therapy. They pursue the socially engineering of society, around their identity, with a prosecutorial zeal.
The document I am about to look at is called ”Engendering Penalties”. It is 122 pages long and is dated February 2007. Christine Burns was also involved. Copy of the document linked below 👇
The document aims to outline all the ways transgender / transsexual people are mistreated and discriminated against.
How do they define ”trans”:
The document makes it clear that pre-operative, post-operative and no-operative people, those who have no intention at bodily modification, are all included as ”trans”. This also covers part-time cross-dressers/transvestites.
This means men with transvestic-fetishism are included, that is men who get sexually aroused from wearing clothing associated with females. Closely linked to this paraphilia is autogynephilia. Whittle does not mention either of these paraphilias. A wise move when advocating for these men to enter female spaces.
The document was put together after surveying 873 people who claimed a transgender identity. The survey was conducted on line. 40% of respondents were not living, permanently, in the sex role stereotype of choice. Many admitted to being transvestites. Whittle estimates 1 in 20 males admit to being transvestites. *Some* of these men will do so for sexual gratification. Some of them will have autogynephilia (AGP) which is a sexual compulsion built on the need to breach women’s boundaries. This is paraphilia is poorly understood. When you see a trans-identified male adopting sex stereotypical pursuits, for their target sex ( e.g trying to join knitting circles, or the women’s institute or even feminist organisations) he is likely to be AGP.
Whittle argues that the internet brought new impetus to the fight for “trans rights” as so many trans-identified males were at the forefront of information technology. Trans people were now networking and also playing a leading role in policy-making up to government departmental level.
As far back as 1996 activists were trying to influence prison policy. I have tried to locate a copy of this report and, if I locate it, I will cover it:
Trans activists have allies in parliament. Here is Dr Lynne Jones raising the issue of allowing, pre–operative males into the female estate. (Hansard. 1996).
At that time Jones received a reply stating that there were many , complex issues involved and one of them was how other prisoners would react. Whittle expresses frustration at the delay in prison guidelines but Press For Change, who Whittle worked with, were consulted on five separate occasions.
Harassment of ”trans” people
Whittle covers harassment in the workplace which places a significant emphasis on being accepted in toilets and changing rooms for the opposite sex.
Whittle makes it abundantly clear that none of this should be predicated on any permanent, surgical, commitment to “living as a woman” (whatever that means). Whittle makes much of the role ”Real Life Experience” plays in gathering proof you have been accepted in your “gender role”. Part of that requires use of facilities for the opposite sex, therefore anyone objecting is hampering a successful ”transition” and guilty of discrimination.
Other examples were being placed in a side room while in hospital, rather than on a female ward. A trans-identified female also claims the complications from taking testosterone were not dealt with appropriately because the problem with her, female, genitalia led to a suggestion she attend a women’s clinic.
Other examples of violence Whittle felt were under-reported because the trans-identified person did not ascribe the motivation to ”transphobia” because they ”passed”. Whittle argues this is a coping mechanism and therefore the harassment reported , or lack thereof, cannot be assumed to be accurate, it is, Whittle argues, under-reported. As an aside this also confirms the delusional belief which can accompany an opposite sex identity
Whittle then appropriates homophobic abuse as really ”transphobia”
This is the inevitable consequence on building your ideology on a victim narrative. Any acknowledgment of societal improvement removes a central pillar of trans-activism.
Whittle admits trans-identifed people are over-represented in prisons but argues this is because they are forced to resort to criminality to fund surgeries. We are also told three trans-identifed males were arrested when they defended themselves after a violent attack. They were each acquitted after Press For Change helped with their defence. Whittle uses this anecdote to suggest the CPS consider whether it is the public interest to prosecute trans people, who may be responding to a crime against them. At the same time transphobic crime should be recorded.
In drawing conclusions Whittle seems to get a burst of testosterone. Most of the incidents described are perfectly reasonable responses when faced with a male wishing to access female only spaces. The spectre of trans suicide rates is first invoked to set the scene for the demands which follow. Not sure post ”transition” suicide rates help the case in quite the way Whittle intends.
However, Whittle, is not prepared to let women defend our boundaries at the expense of trans identities. No, we must be forced to accept the eradication of women’s rights to validate people who deny their reality. Whittle claims to want only our “goodwill” but the language is of enforcement and learning the new rules. !
Warming to the theme, Whittle continues.
The full force of the law must be brought to bear. This is not #BeKind it is #YouWillObey
You can support my work here. All my content is open access but I do incur costs.