Activism.
This chapter covers the move from transvestite to “trans” activism. This clever ploy to desexualise men who cross dress is why heterosexual men have been emboldened to demand to be called “Lesbians”; like a bad Bernard Manning joke. This chapter illustrates the tactics of the “trans” lobby, advance by stealth, strategically litigate, cultivate (groom?) people of influence.
This is how far out of the shadows (blatant) the author of Trans Britain is in 2012. He’s now claiming, not only the word woman, but lesbian and mum. Pride at this stage should be renamed (We have) “No Shame”.
You can watch him say that here: Worth watching for the exaggerated, high pitched, voice which sounds like no woman I know.
They accomplished this by claiming to be a Human Rights movement. It much harder to sell transvestism to the public while ever there was a recognised paraphilia called “transvestic fetishism”. The general public would never be persuaded if it was admitted, openly, that cross-dressing, for at least some involves masturbating into women’s underwear. Beaumont Society, let me remind you, was formed by transvestites and expressly banned homosexual men lest, they claim, a whiff of “gay” occasioned reputational damage.
In reality this movement is an attack on the human rights of women, by entitled men. They wish to be validated as the sex they are not and strip the rights of women to exclude fetishistic males from our spaces and our activism. The fact they achieved so much is because women’s rights are always precarious, in a society predicated on the idea that men are the default human. This is why Rachael Dolezal was pilloried for identifying into another racial group but men can call themselves “women” and our political and media elites trip over themselves in the rush to accommodate their demands.
One of the tactics has been to claim to be a vulnerable, marginalised, minority hence the testerical claims about an epidemic of murders within the “trans” community. I debunk those claims here:
What began with an uneasy alliance between those who acknowledged their transvestism and those who adopted the identity of a “transsexual” led to a transsexual rights movement. The split led to the formation of the superbly named “SHAFT”.
{However this, in turn, to led to the modern LGBTQ+ rights activism which includes “cross-dressers” once again and heterosexual people who practice BDSM and claim the label “queer”}.
Judy Cousins.
Cousins was a major in the British army and later a sculptor. He was a married man with children. This did not stop him from faking his own death.
He resurfaced in a woman’s magazine. According to this source this new female persona came as a surprise to his family.
As usual he had a history of secret cross-dressing. He also described how he selected his girlfriends more because he wanted to be like them; which must have thrilled his wife. Jan Morris (U.K “Transsexual”) said something similar in his book Conundrum.
It’s a compulsion and once you have it…
”Judy” was traced and appears to have returned to the family. He switched to the ladies golf tournament (of course he did) and rose to the high ranks of amateur Ladies competitions.
SHAFT eventually changed its name but then fell apart but, according to Burns, it pointed to the vital need for a group more focused on “transsexual” people.
Alice Parnall
Alice Parnall is another “trans” activist credited with setting up the Gendys conference.
The first conference happened in the 1990’s and thereafter was held in alternate years. “Trans” people now had a coherent narrative and could hold clinicians to account.
The conference ceased in 2004 but there is an archive and some of the papers are reproduced in full.
Alice has a rather sad back story which likely had an impact on his rejection of his sex. Sexual abuse and his parent’s messy divorce during his teens. By age 15 he had invented a female persona.
Although under the care of a gender clinic he refrained from surgery, married his lover and fathered children; an option not available to the children sterilised at “gender” clinics.
He deferred surgery until the breakdown of his relationship and trained as a nurse. He also became involved in the European chapter of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH); a lobby group that seems to have a stranglehold on guidelines for dealing with “Gender Dysphoria”.
Corbett v Corbett
Next we move on to some of the legal cases in this area. The Corbett case was in respect of the late April Ashley. April was a trans-identified male and the case related to a divorce settlement from the man he married. Ashley lost the case, the implications of which, according to Burn’s perspective, were catastrophic. Here Burn’s makes it clear his interests are diametrically opposed to women’s because we DO want the law to act in circumstances where sex matters. Housing men in women’s prisons is one of those circumstances.
Burn’s lists the disadvantages accruing to men who wish to lie about their sex. Notice he switches to reference “gender” in this section about unequal marriage legislation. Same sex attracted people still could not marry but heterosexual marriage was an option for heterosexual men who claim to be “lesbians”.
He makes an interesting observation about the prevalence of heterosexual men hiding in the LGBTQ+ movement. This is why the T is in conflict with the Gay rights movement and Lesbians, in particular, as well as the actual class of women that they seek to usurp.
Notice the cocky way he claims women for himself and uses (non-trans) as a qualifier for actual women. The misogyny drips off him however much helium he uses for his baritone.
Mark Rees.
Rees is an FTM who took a case to the European Court of Human Rights to allow marriage to their female partner. It was not a successful case but Burns acknowledges that there is an ability to weigh the rights of the many against the few. 51% of the population agree and we would like Burns to stop appropriating women’s rights.
This statement is provably false. This entire movement demands “special privileges” to force us all to validate a delusion; even one driven by a sexual fetish and directly encroaching on women’s right to privacy, dignity and safety.
Denton’s Strategy.
This is perhaps the most revealing statement so far. Below Burns reveals the strategy deployed by trans activists to get their own way. The truth is the “trans” community needed to accomplish legal changes by stealth because the majority of the public oppose their extremism once they know what it entails. TRAs have groomed politicians for decades, behind closed doors and used the strong arm of the law when it suits them.
Here they are influencing senior politicians and the wife of Tony Blair, then Prime Minister.
The claim they use “facts” to educate people is laughable when the entire movement is an elaborate con trick.
In 1999 they had a significant win thanks to their successful infiltration into the Civil Service. (I covered this in part 8, with a link to the relevant law).
The 2000 report on “transsexual” people I cover in this piece. All the usual “trans” lobby groups were consulted but it seemingly never occurred to politicians that women might have thoughts on being redefined by men.
GRA: Transsexual Working Group
Then in 2004 the disastrous Gender Recognition Act was passed. Again working by stealth, men plotted with other men, and a useful handmaiden, to strip women of their basic human rights.
Part ten will cover legal strategy. I am following the way Burn’s structured his book.
You can support my work below or consider a paid subscription to my substack.
I appreciate times are difficult but all donations are gratefully received. My content will remain open for those who are not able to fund my work.
Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.
£10.00
