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
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”.
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”.
The document was written by Gerison Landsdown who is named as the founder for a U.K. based charity as covered in part one.
From her linkedin she appears to have a sociology degree from Aston University. You can find YouTubes where she discusses the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC) and child safeguarding. She talks about the impact of the CRC in terms of listening to the voices of children as individuals and as a collective. It is every child’s right to be heard but the weight attached to their testimonies must be assessed, by adults, having regard to the protection of children, as minors.
The document takes an international perspective noting that there is no international consensus on what rights and protections are needed and from what age.
Recent developments in thinking about children she describes as challenging the notion of “ownership” by the parent. One positive development could be the decline in acceptability of a parent using physical punishments as a form of chastisement.
The document has a lot to say about protecting the rights of parents to guide and educate the child but makes a crucial addition; this must be “consistent with the evolving capacities of the child”
As she points out this has a profound significance for the role of the parent because the State now establishes a direct relationship with the child independent of the child’s own family.
This has all sort of implications but foremost in my mind are the state enforced access to “transgender” health against the wishes of the parents. As I said, in part one, there is more than one jurisdiction who have forcibly removed children, from their parents care, to enable a child to access testosterone.
She talks about the need to foster the cultural change necessary and how this must be reflected in law and policy. Is it possible that this “cultural change” to protect children has contributed to the very political climate that has led to the sterilising of minors and the ruination of their sexual function?
The concept of “evolving capacities” has other ramifications. The age of criminal responsibility, marriage and sexual consent among others. Access to the media is a whole different ball game in the era of the internet. Those of us who are digital immigrants were wholly unprepared for the amount of grooming taken place by proponents of “Gender Identity Ideology”. Who knew your kids were getting spoon fed “trans kids” on BBC children’s programmes or via Childline’s YouTube channel?
This paragraph lays out the consequences for the role of parents. It is worded here as a transfer from the parent to the child and “age” was deliberately omitted from the amendment to article 5. I can think of another group of people, who have a vested interest in destabilising the boundaries between adults and children; paedophiles. There is overlap between gender ideologues, and paedophiles, via the vector of queer theory.
It opens the way to an adversarial relationship between parent and child but also allows bad faith actors to manipulate /groom the child to further an ideological mission. See the use of “trans” kids to desexualise /sanitise the actions of adult males in the grip of autogynephilia.
What is she driving at here? I think she is saying that some children mature early and then engage in behaviour (sexual?) that may attract the label “deviant”.
It is correct to see this as a hugely controversial issue.
Veiled attack on motherhood in the age of commercial surrogacy?
The paper then discusses competing theories of child development and notes that there is risk attached to decision making up to 16 years old. Yet we allow children as young as nine to take puberty blockers. A 16 year old won’t by aware of the need to have “trans” kids to prop up an ideology and the vested interests of #BIgPharma in getting a lifelong medical patient.
The author claims Piaget has been largely discredited but still concedes it is impossible to disregard the biological underpinnings to child maturation. In the U.K the courts have sentencing guidelines that allow leniency for criminals up to the age of 25 on the basis of lack of brain maturation. We protect criminals better than the teenagers who are getting double mastectomies.
I found this an odd argument to include, exposing a girl to prostitution aids maturity? My mum once looked after a pregnant thirteen year old whose sister was in prostitution and, allegedly, sold her baby sister to a man. First thing she did after giving birth was ask for her teddy. She was older than me but very childlike. Girls being sexually exploited have likely been groomed and this is the danger in taking their word for how they feel about paid rape.
In the age of the internet global corporations and charitable foundations, as I have discovered, can saturate immature minds with propaganda and persuade them to buy all sorts of ideologies. They bear no responsibility to our children and are unaccountable. Our children with a “trans” identity are an opportunity to mine profits from their bodies. In this environment removing the protective layer of the family is a human rights catastrophe.
British Columbia where a man profiting from “gender care” boasts about how many looked after children, over 500, he has on his books. BC is one of the most ferocious jurisdictions pushing this ideology and they need children to be able to legally consent so they can be put on a. experimental pathway. Toddlers can’t consent.
The paper examines different models for determining capacity. Some practitioners in the Children’s Rights field, she tells us, advocate for the removal of fixed age limits in favour of a blanket presumption of ability to consent which can be litigated in case of objections by the parent. Others don’t favour a blanket presumption of capacity but the child can make a legal case in terms of “consent”. They do recognise the need to make sure the child is not being manipulated by a bad faith actor when it involves sexual consent. What about the insidious grooming by global corporations /charitable foundations who have invented the “transgender” child?
In all I think this paper pays insufficient regard to the protective role of families and seems unaware of the emergence of an ideology which seeks to weaken family bonds and gain direct access to our children. You bet there’s resistance, this is radical social engineering by unelected and captured organisations.
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 worthwhile legal cases.
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.
Peter Bottomley is a conservative MP. He has certainly done his homework and has raised this issue in the house before now. As a lifelong leftie I don’t know where we would be without the concerted pushback, from Conservatives. Not to disregard the women on the left speaking up but, for Rosie Duffield it has to have been a lonely experience. Peter begins by acknowledging his debt to the work of Helen Joyce, author of Trans: When Ideology meets reality and Kathleen Stock, author of Material Girls.
The MP took the opportunity to call out a vicious bully who labelled Kathleen Stock an extremist, Liam Hackett, who runs an anti-bullying charity called Ditch The Label. I remember this guy. He had a meltdown because he was not allowed in a female only area while having breast screening.
Here he is calling Stock out for being a dangerous extremist and juxtaposed with an illustration of his hypocrisy.
See also Hackett gleefully arranging for a delivery of a TShirt to Kathleen Stock. This man is a vicious bully and takes delight in it. There’s loads more of this stuff on twitter.
After dispatching Hackett Bottomley is unequivocal about the primacy of sex.
He ends with this example from Sport: 👇 and the right to the provision of care by the same sex if requested.
Rosie Duffield (Labour)
Duffield acknowledges the toxicity of the debate and the impact on women who speak on this issue. She recognises how important this is for ordinary women. These are just some of the reasons the law protects sex. 👇
Duffield raises the matter of safeguarding, single sex wards and female sports; all of which The Equality was intended to protect instead it is being interpreted as the right to compel belief.
She finishes with a pleas for clarity in law and a reiteration that she will continue to speak up p, death threats or not..
Nick Fletcher (Conservative)
Fletcher begins with a safeguarding concern and uses his experience in construction to make analogous comparisons with the growth of health and safety practices.
Legislation was enacted to avoid incidents like this and now the queer theorists obsession with disrupting social norms is creating a whole new area of “near misses”. Fletcher outlines the real risk that female sports will be destroyed by the increasing presence of men identifying into the female category. We are also putting women at risk of actual bodily harm.
On pronouns Fletcher illustrates the starting point, and end point, of this ideology. Our kids are being sold a lie and the rising rates of detransitioners tells its own sorry tale.
He finishes with the reality that those promoting this ideology won’t be there to pick up the pieces and will simply move on to the next grift. The government need to act.
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 have just had to pay £109 for virus protection so anything to help.
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.
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.
Angela Eagle is a Labour MP and a Lesbian. She has been a Labour MP since 1992. Before I cover her contribution to the debate I just want to share some history about her funding. She has taken £95,000 from Antony Watson who is an LGBT activist on the board of GLADD, another gay rights organisation gone rogue. (Source: Electoral Commission)
Bear this in mind when you listen to Eagle. I will add a full profile about Eagle to my Respect My Sex series.
She opens with this statement which attacks the contribution of Miriam Cates as “provocative”. The fact that homosexuality is under attack with having being redefined as “same gender attraction, most prominently by Stonewall, was amply covered by the MP, Joanna Cherry. (See Part 2). Lesbians, in particular, are castigated for not including obvious men in their dating pools. To deny this, at this point, is extremely disingenuous. Eagle, herself, is in a same sex relationship and not forced to fish in these new dating pools.
Joanna Cherry attempted to intervene at this point but Angela Eagle was not going to allow facts to get in the way of her hyperbole. She continues, claiming that the current legislative situation is fine as it is and to clarify what is meant by sex would lead to incoherence! Gender Grievance warriors need the current lack of clarity it is “strategic ambiguity” and it has worked well for the activists; better than an all out assault on women’s single sex spaces, until now.
There is no paradox here, only a clear intention to ring-fence single sex spaces to the sex they are intended for, also an appeal to international human rights obligations no longer cut any ice since those same bodies are captured by gender identity ideology. Eagle presses on to suggest women are getting bees in their bonnets about a tiny minority and it is these men who would be left humiliated and damaged. We are talking about men, the females are only rolled out when the men need cover, there is little incursion into male spaces by “trans men” and they are not likely to be intimidating; while still an intrusion the consequences are vastly different.
The next statement is hysterical so she employs DARVO to label her opponents of exhibiting the behaviour of which she is in fact guilty. She burnishes her credential to demonstrate that she has always been a feminist blah blah blah.
Joanna Cherry is also a Lesbian, and Eagle here is smearing her using a stream of judgemental words; bigotry;prejudice;misogyny and homophobia. She also deploys another common tactic which is to shift the debate to the U.S context and imply that abortion rights will also be under attack if we allow this state of affairs to continue.” Let men in your bathrooms or abortion rights get it”. The legislation that Eagle is referring to are efforts to protect women from unfair competition in sport and stop children being sterilised and having mastectomies whilst they are in their teens, or younger.
Eagle finishes with this to which I would counter if we are honest that the legislation already meant biological sex we would uphold the law as it was passed. Women and girls would have the right to spaces for their own sex. We are not just talking about post operative males, with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), because there is no requirement for surgery, but surgically unaltered males who will also appear to be the men they are , on sight. Women and girls should not have our boundaries violated in this way, it’s inhumane and unacceptable.
Angela is a conservative MP. She points out that while we’ll intentioned the attempt to bring all the different characteristics together, in one single act, has led to a lack of clarity which is harming people. (I have seen people argue for legislation on one axis because whenever you put women into a group with another minority it’s the women who get forgotten). She also makes an excellent point which undermines Eagles pretence that we are making a fuss about a tiny number of people. We are not. We gave an inch and they took a mile.
As Richardson points out we are now in a position where, even where services are advertised for one sex, women don’t know if they are truly single sex. A GRC does not confer an automatic right to breach women’s boundaries.
I am still trying to understand how, even with sex clarified, in law, service providers can be confident about enforcing this while the Gender Recognition Act exists and people are allowed to get sex falsification certificates (GRCs), from the government.
Richardson has a “radical” solution. Provide separate services for males and females were sex matters. Accommodate people, as far practicable, who are not comfortable in spaces for their own sex. What is not acceptable, and has happened, is that the mens remain mens, because urinals, and the women’s is converted to unisex.
Richardson finishes with the revolutionary idea that men, inflight from their sex, are not the same as women, we have different needs and by attacking single sex spaces it is clear that our interests are often diametrically opposed to the men colonising women.
This was interesting from the woman who was a sponsor of a bill to promote the idea of men being allowed to make “gender identity” a protected characteristic in lie of “gender reassignment” into the opposite sex category. She also opposed the spousal exit clause, which allowed women to seek divorce before their truth was rewritten in favour of their husband retconning his narrative:
I have written a longer piece on Jess Philips here.
You will see why I was skeptical about her intervention but she did in fact embrace the need for clarity. My interpretation is that she is seeing a change in the direction of travel and has decided to join the winning side. Send is still allowing herself wiggle room seemingly uncomfortable about saying she is on one side or another. She also says that every “trans” person she knows doesn’t deny their sex. This is not the same thing as saying no “trans” person denies their sex is real. We all know that sex denialism is a key feature of trans activists rhetoric.
Yes, we know you did, which is why it has been a puzzle to see you so reluctant to speak up.
So Jess finally speaks up and acknowledges that sex discrimination is because of biology, the Equality Act is not working, and women need services for women only. Women who offer single sex spaces are also being decommissioned because they don’t also run services for men (and she doesn’t mean “trans-identified” men. She covers herself by saying she has, while working for Birmingham council, commissioned services for LGBT people. I will leave you to read the rest of Phillips contribution on Hansard. For me, it’s too little, too late, but at least it suggests she has seen the writing on the wall.
Next up Peter Bottomley, Rosey Duffield and Nick Fletcher.
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. 😉)
After the debate is opened a Conservative MP, Ranil Jayawardena, the first to speak. I had not heard of him before but, it turns out he voted against making LGBT teaching in schools compulsory, in 2019.
As a mum of a gay son I entirely share his position. Parents should have the right to opt out of sex education, it is the means by which our kids are indoctrinated into “gender identity ideology” and, as I never tire of saying, this is very harmful to proto-gay kids.
His statements are clear and unequivocal.
He has also done his homework. I suspect most parents aren’t aware that schools have abandoned single sex facilities on this scale. I have written extensively on the corruption in the NHS but even I am shocked at the starkness of hospital policies which think it’s O.K to abandon single sex services.
It is particularly enraging that these are the same hospitals that have such a lamentable record on sexual assaults on their watch.
He is very clear what is at stake and how the march of this ideology, through our institutions, is harming the most vulnerable in our society. He is also right that women’s rights are being stolen out from under us, with some foolish women aiding and abetting them.
He calls for clear, common sense language and clarity in law, he also comments that it should not take bravery to say these things. I imagine the reaction to this next statement would have induced conniptions in TRA twitter.
Useful idiot, Layla Moran, interjects to throw in one of the TRA misdirections about “intersex” ; which he bats away, effortlessly.
Next up is SNP, MP, Joanna Cherry. Cherry argues that the law is muddled and we urgently require clarity that sex means biological sex but not sex as modified by a Gender Recognition Certificate. I disagree on this next point but she is a politician and a lawyer so she may just wish to get people to understand that GRCs are handed out to men with penises. She is on the Advisory board of Sex Matters and her position is not for repeal.
Cherry gives a bit of legal background to the way confusion has been built into the law but her focus moves onto the impact this has on the protected characteristic of sexual orientation.
Cherry goes on to take aim at Stonewall who have unilaterally amended the definition of sexual orientation to “same gender” attracted which has had the effect of men who cross-dress identifying as Lesbians. She calls out the homophobia implicit in this stance.
She also has a pop at one of Scotland’s “Trans” lobby groups with a name that suggests it’s for equal rights for all. Cherry makes it clear they don’t speak for her:
She finishes by referencing a few of the women’s groups that have supported her.
Cates is a Conservative MP, and a former biology teacher.
Cates then brings up a legal case which lays out the issues in a stark bollocks naked kind of way. 👇
She rightly points out how destabilising this is for society.
This next statement is about to trigger one of our Scottish MPs. She’s not holding back.
Hannah Bardell, of the SNP, is not happy with this language calling it unparliamentary and anti-democratic!
In part three we see Angela Eagle and Jess Phillips.
You can support my work by takingr 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 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.