Time To Think: Hannah Barnes. (4)


I am reading this at in chunks so I do the review justice. This one will cover chapters 7 & 8. You can read the rest of the series at the link below. Do buy the book. My review is no substitute and it is an important historical record. Also order it at your Library.

TIME TO THINK: Hannah Barnes

Chapter 7 is aptly titles The Bombshell as there are growing numbers of staff expressing concerns, a huge surge in referrals and staff are failing to meet targets over waiting times.

The decision was taken to invite an external consultant to review G.I.Ds and, for a brief point, it looked as though significant change was on the horizon. For some staff this change couldn’t come soon enough as one commented.

The consultant, Dr Femi Nzegwu, made her recommendations which included reviewing the criteria for referrals, a minimum standard for report writing and even a temporary cessation of the service.

Anna Hutchinson shared her recollections of this time.

According to Hutchinson it was Polly Carmichael who ended the discussion about closure, in her view all it required was “brave leadership”.

There is no evidence that NHS England were ever told of the report, certainly the chief executive of the NHS Trust, where GIDs was based, not: He had to find out from the media.

Meanwhile, in 2016/17, when the report was commissioned, referrals were still increasing and the staff doubles from 40 to 80 and still they could not keep up. The criteria was not tightened up and there were multiple agencies able to refer children.

At around this time the first reported outcomes of the Tavistock experiment with puberty blockers started to emerge. The preliminary findings showed a mismatch between positive reports by the patients which were not borne out by the psychological testing. Amazingly there was no improvement of the Gender Dysphoria or the self-harm. Subjects also had higher degrees of suicide ideation.

Despite this no halt was called to the live experiment which included 162 children by 2016. Carmichael actually argued that this progression rate might mean that some children who would have benefited may have missed out! Though she did conceded it was possible that the puberty blockers influenced the trajectory for these kids. Almost as if going through a natural puberty helped resolve bodily rejection.

There was more. The researchers revealed that near a 100% of the children had progressed to cross-sex hormones. Only one stoped treatment citing issues with bone density development. For some clinicians this was a wake up call.

Hutchinson sounds absolutely horrified by what the clinic was doing to some of the more vulnerable children in our society. A horror I share.

For natal boys there is another consequence. One of the arguments for blocking puberty had been the prevention of the development of secondary sexual characteristics would avoid unnecessary surgery in the future. For males, however, the stunting of their male genitalia actually increased the likelihood they would have to undergo an even riskier type of surgery. The Tavistock staff knew that one of the boys in the Dutch study had died following complications of this type of surgery. We know also, from Marci Bowers, a “trans-identified” man and a surgeon, that these children will likely grow up and be not only sterile but inorgasmic. It shocks me everyday that we are still doing this.

Some of the clinicians describe how there practice changed after this research but the clinic itself issued no directive and did not change practice. One of the clinicians drafted a leaflet, to be shared with patients and their families, warning about the issue with future genital surgery. The leaflet needed approval from Carmichael who did not respond to the requests; a decision described as unethical by one 👇 clinician.

The reluctance to commit this to paper invites speculation as to Carmichael’s motives. This was one suggestion.

Chapter Eight.

This chapter covers the fallout for the staff and how some began to modify their practice in line with the new information. Stress levels were high and staff were offloading to one another but the service itself had not reviewed its treatment protocols. Discussions across GIDs, were they occurred were described as polarising.

This chapter also covers what seems to be the dysfunctional relationship with CAMHS (Childhood and Adolescent Mental Health Services). It appeared that the impact of economic policy “austerity” had placed intolerable pressure on CAMHS who were referring to GIDs partly to relieve pressure on their service. It was not that these children did not express unhappiness with their sexed body they did, but they often had co-morbid mental health issues which were left untreated by a referral to GIDs.

A further difficulty was that it was ideologically driven lobby groups, like Mermaids, who stepped in to provide support to parents and children. Mermaids , as we know, believed in the idea someone could be born in the wrong body and pushed the idea that if you did not medicalise these kids they would commit suicide. There involvement would, inevitably, drive up referrals and make existing referrals anxious for the medical pathway.

Matters were not helped by the number of agencies able to refer children to GIDs.

The feeling I am left with is a service spinning out of control and a leadership team unable to take the hard decisions and, at the heart of this problem, children bing irreversibly damaged.

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. 😉)

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.


Lydia Foy:

Given that “Lydia” is to be foregrounded as an inspiring “woman” on “We all Hate Women Day”. Let us take a look at Lydia.

I have had the court transcripts about Foy for some time but seeing him being lauded and invited to give a talk for the laughable #InternationalWomen’s Day, it seemed timely to have a look at this “trans-identified” man who had quite the influence in the Irish context.

You can read the court transcript here.

Foy v. An t-Ard Chlaraitheoir & Ors [2002] IEHC 116 (9 July 2002)

Born Donal Foy he is a heterosexual man who married and fathered two children. He was born in 1947 but by 1991 he decided that he was really a woman discarding / losing his family along the way. As usual in these cases we do not have the testimony of his wife and children so, we have no way of his case was preceded by a history of transvestism, in the marriage, which is the norm for heterosexual men. By 1997 he was engaged in legal action and sought to have his birth certificate changed to state that he had been mis-sexed owing to a congenital abnormality.

What Foy was demanding was that this birth certificate be falsified to indicate he had always been Lydia and he wanted both his name and sex amending. Despite having married he claimed that the refusal to grant him this change was an infringement of his human rights, including to marry! This was peculiar because he had every right to marry and had already do so and, if he had now determined to marry a man that was not then legal in Ireland. .

Because this claim had a bearing on the status of his children they were attached to the case and afforded legal aid; his wife, though a witness, was not afforded any legal representation. The judge said this was regrettable as clearly the case had a bearing on her situation as well.

The judge admits to knowing little on the topic but does make the bold claim that the condition had nothingness to do with sexual gratification.

He was one of seven children all boys bar one sister. He claims that he always know he was mean to be a girl and describes his attraction to his sisters clothes. Men with autogynephilia (AGP: sexual attraction to oneself, as a woman) often have these retconned narratives so they should be taken with a pinch of salt, in the main, especially when the claim is childhood onset. Fetishising female clothing is a familiar hallmark of an AGP male.

The judge shows some skepticism about some of the narrative presented in court.

He went to a boys school were he claims he with either bullied for the presumption he was gay or, he claims, treated like a girl in recognition of his “femininity”. It was there, he claimed, that he began to furtively cross dress. Proceeding to University, to stud dentistry, he discovered the story of Jan Morris, another late transitioning, heterosexual male. I covered Jan in this series.

JAN MORRIS: A Conundrum

Despite his inner turmoil Foy was to marry in 1997 and there is no testimony about whether he continued to cross dress. Two children were born and Dr Foy spent two years working in Saudis Arabia, with visits home. By 1981, shortly into the marriage, he claims that the internal conflict intensified and he became depressed. By 1989 Dr Foy simply informed his wife he was taking female hormones and refused to discuss it with her.

A joint appointment followed and Soon led to the breakdown of the marriage and Dr Foy vacating the family home.

There followed further legal steps and after initially being granted access to the children Foy was barred from access, his wife was granted sole custody, and the property was signed of to Mrs Foy. The applicant remains aggrieved at this outcome. If I find these judicialmorders I will cover them. It would be interesting to know what events led the courts to take these steps.

The Judge, in an understated way, recites some brief testimony from Mrs Foy about their marriage and notes that he found Mrs Foy a more credible witness and lacked traits which would call into question her evidence. It is not known whether he found the reverse to be true about Dr Foy.

A key part of her testimony fits with a diagnosis of autogynephilia. He was very “masculine” in his pursuits and behaviours.

Then comes the confession.

There follows a long section about sexual differentiation and disorders of sexual development which needn’t detain us her. The judge may be a proponent of #LadyBrain dictating “feminine” behaviour however I can forgive him for his astute references to autogynephilia and fetishistic cross-dressing.

The next section goes into quite a lot of detail about diagnosis, how distressing the condition is the risk of suicide etc. Foy was referred to Ireland’s expert on the condition but that relationship appears to have broken down because Foy wanted him to intervene in respect of visitation to his children, to which the Dr refused.

There is a long section dedicated to Foy’s determination to obtain surger and inability to sustain relationships with clinicians and confusion of how he obtained the surgery referral when he did not appear to have followed the necessary treatment protocols. This aside seems genuinely motivated to send a warning bell about a failure to rigorously assess patients. One of the people who appears to have failed is Dr Russell Reid who would be sanctioned for this failure in a separate case. I wrote about this here:

Dr Russell Reid: Part One

We then meet Professor Gooren who introduces the idea that we all have a psychological sex. The innate “gender identity” of its day.

A further expert was called to attest to the fact that Dr Foy had no chromosomal abnormalities. In a later interview Foy appears to also have undergone an examination to ascertain whether he had a vagina. 😳 I did not know if this is a fantasy when I first watched the interview but it is confirmed in the court records.

There follows a lengthy section governing the law about registering births and links to relevant cases. The demand for a replacement birth certificate is rejected and the Judge noted the consequences for Foy’s children and wife were it to have succeeded.

I will return to Foy because there is another court case and lots of appearances and interviews. Here he is with President Biden.

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. 😉)

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.




In part one I covered a report detailing how young activists strategised how to disseminate gender identity ideology and normalise talking about sex with the under twelves. In that I illustrated the links to Lloyd Russell-Moyles, a British Labour MP . You can read part one below:

Rainbow Resources 1

The document I am going to look at today is a later edition of the Rainbow Resources. I have searched, in vain, to get a PDF of the first version to which Russell-Moyles put his name. If I track it down I will cover it in this series. You can read the full document here:


The document recognises that the first edition was by Russell-Moyle. This was part of International Falcon Movement -Socialist Education International. Later we are told that the document was funded by the Council of Europe.

The organisations rely on the U.N declaration on the Rights of the Child and , to this end, they claim that children have as much ability to teach as to learn and that children are involved in the decision making process. This is quite fundamental to the ideology and why it conflicts with the idea of child safeguarding.

Here they claim they have been working with children on gender and sexuality for forty years.

In this edition they wanted to focus more on “trans” issues. They are also keen to stress that sexual rights are human rights and that children are not too young to discuss sexuality.

Allow yourself a wry chuckle at this next statement.

Naturally the oppose what the call conversion therapy but they include not just homosexuality but also “gender identity”. What this means, in practice, is that we end up “converting” gay kids to faux-straight adults by enclosing them in a medicalised closet. Also, because this is inspired by queer theory, they want to destroy social norms around different expressions of sexuality which brings us a world where we are not allowed to kink shame.

They next reference a pamphlet about child sexual development which has, unfortunately, has now been removed so I cannot interrogate the content.

There’s a section on being aware of your own privilege and biases and making sure you are self-aware and questioning your own adherence to stereotypical behaviour. In the next paragraph they advise that your identity is constructed not just by yourself but in dialogue with how others see you. (Tell that to the male “Lesbians”).

The next section tells us that everyone has a “gender identity” and uses the discredited statistic suggestion that 1% of people are born with a disorder of sexual development (DSD) which they call “intersex”. They provide the usual claptrap about “cisgender” and redefines sexual orientation to pretend that people are attracted to “gender identity” rather than biological sex.

The booklet then (sigh) uses the Gender Bread diagram to demonstrate their bonkers belief system.

Their definitions include “transvestite” without any recognition that some men cross-dress for erotic purposes.

Next up they confirm that they are informed by “Queer Theory”. It’s interesting to note that since 2014 we have seen an explosion of spicy straights claiming to be “Queer” that they argue undermines the LGBTI*.

Here is what they say about the family. 😳 They are clear that there needs to be empowerment of the child; the family may need “educating” and outside organisations have a role in shaping the child.

There’s a reasonable section on bullying and patriarchal language structure erasing women but, inevitably, they ruin it by opting for gender neutral language, preferred pronouns, and imposing their ideology by way of exercising the privilege they claim to be committed to eradicating.

As we know, from part one, the proponents of this ideology actually strategised that one way to overcome resistance, about talking to children about sex, is to hide the content of your “education”. They don’t repeat that (yet) but instead make the patronising assumption that resistance is borne out of ignorance.

Here’s the bit where they strategise to get the kids away from their parents, allay their fears by co-opting trusted professionals or charities and bury the content in wider issues.

There is a whole section on bullying which, ironically, uses bullying and public humiliation of any child who does not subscribe to their belief system. Finally these are the people they point to as role models.

Monroe Bergdorf who lost multiple appointments because of a failure to understand child safeguarding, who is on record making discriminatory comments about Lesbians and who parades himself as a pornified princess. Travis Abalanza who thinks teenage girls should be forced to share communal changing rooms, with him, at Top Shop. Or Fox Fisher who is still surgically mutilating their body twelve years after starting their testosterone journey.

It’s a no from me!

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. 😉)

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.


Rainbow Resources 1


I came across this document while I was looking at Rainbow resources after I was sent a tip off about the involvement of Labour M.P Lloyd Lewis-Moyles in an organisation called International Falcon Movement – Socialist Education International. Document below. 👇


Here is Lloyd Lewis-Moyles confirming his involvement with this organisation.This is from an old blog from his days as a student at Bradford University where, you will see, he has been pushing biological sex denialism since 2007.

Here he is welcoming the production of Rainbow Resources in 2011.

You may be familiar with Russell-Moyle because he shouted down Miriam Cait M.P and then moved to sit, menacingly, near her in parliament, because she has been raising issues about school teaching on sex and relationships. Here is Russell-Moyle sharing a personal tragedy and using this argument to suggest we should teach niche sexual practices to children.

This document was produced in 2012 and there is no audit train to suggest that Russell-Moyle was present but it does illustrate the waters he was swimming in. He did attend other events, hosted by IFM, including the Queer Easter events. This is a picture of one of the Queer Easter events found online.

The event itself was for youth leaders to reflect on how the Rainbow Resources could be improved. The event and production of the document was funded by the Council of Europe. The Coincil of Europe predated the formation of the European Union and is able to elect judges to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

The document itself covers a group of Youth Leaders who ran events for children. They boast about their desire to teach children from an early age about issues of gender and sexuality.

In this document they lament the lack of resources for children and their aim to work with children “from a very early age”.

Furthermore they want to develop tips on how to introduce this teaching “against parents wills” . This has echoes on the Chinese cultural revolution.

The Youth Workers are being trained to go back into their organisations and disseminate their ideas to others and, of course, the children in their care. Because they know opposition to teaching children about their sexual rights is still widespread they shared tips on how to overcome opposition from parents, colleagues and institutions.

The participants were from education settings or worked in youth groups or were involved in LGBT groups and otherwise had access to children to educate /indoctrinate. Many of them work with the under 12s which is the target age group.

These are some of the issues they discuss. They believe children who take openly about sexuality will be better equipped to respond to sexual jokes and defend themselves against sexual harassment. They also believe it’s a good thing if children feel confident to approach adults about sexual matters.

Additionally they talk about children’s rights to love whom they will.

To accomplish their aims the participants are advised to be economical with the truth when parents or teachers ask about the lessons. Tell them the method but not the content.

Frame your work as anti-bullying and discrimination and then introduce gender and sexuality.

Disturbing section on children’s sexuality and confirmation that a sexologist was invited to talk about chikdren’s sexuality. Remember we are talking about an under twelve age group.

Anticipating resistance one participant decided to run an event where parents were deliberately excluded. This is another one of their recommendations.

Additionally participants leaned that they did not need to make the nature of their content, on sexuality rights, explicit.

I am not suggesting these materials are being produced with conscious malign intent but they seem woefully naive, at best, about child safeguarding.

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. 😉)

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.


Time To Think: Hannah Barnes (3)


This is a ground breaking book even after all the media coverage about the Tavistock.I think I have written about twenty pieces about the U.K’s main Gender Identity Service but I still finding this an absorbing read and learning things I didn’t know. I am writing this series as I make my way through the book.

I will cover chapters five and 6 in this piece. You can catch up with the series here👇:

TIME TO THINK: Hannah Barnes

The clinic had entered a new era now that Dr Polly Carmichael had taken over the helm. Bernadette Wren also joined during this period as did many new staff as the operations of the clinic expanded. The NHS had commissioned G.I.D.s to provide a national service and referrals were increasing at unprecedented rates. It seems the previous head, Domenico Di Ceglie should have heeded the warning which did, in fact, make him laugh. We are not laughing now.

The picture pained by Barnes, based on her interviews with former Tavistock staff, is of exponential growth in referrals, a complete change in the demographic, and a leadership team seemingly unable to manage the risks for this new client group. Therapeutic work was difficult to schedule and some seem to have embraced the “affirmative” model resulting in more than one account of puberty blockers being offered during the first appointment.

Apart from the time constraints the availability of the medical pathway was changing the nature of the relationship between the clinicians and the children referred to the service. One of them describing a “fundamentalist mindset”.

Newer clinicians relies on the more experienced staff to guide them, in the absence of any formal training. This meant they were all being trained in the “affirmative” model as described by Anna Hutchinson.

Many of the clinicians describe the complexity of the cases they were faced with, including one who had three alternative personalities (known as “alters”) two of them with Australian accents even though the patient had never set foot there. Others had competing mental health conditions and suicidal ideation. Yet for all these patients there was just one treatment pathway, medical intervention to block puberty.

More than one interviewee expressed concern about the influence of lobby groups like Mermaids and GIRES. Rather than resisting this pressure Hutchinson felt that the Tavistock were buckling. The impression given is that phone calls and emails from staff at these organisations were often made to Dr Polly Carmichael.

Hutchinson describes how, originally, she was not too concerned about the use of puberty blockers having assumed /been led to believe, there was a strong evidence base behind their usage. In the next chapter this would change.

This chapter ends with another case study of a gay man with extreme Obsessive Compulsive Disorder that practically kept him housebound. He had been subject to homophobic bullying for many years and now began to question his gender identity. His mother describes how a senior clinician, from the Tavistock, travelled to see him at home and how she reacted to the pressure she felt under, going so far as to describe it as “insane”.

Luckily this gay man escaped the clutches of the Born In The Wrong Body brigade.

In chapter six we meet Matt Bristow, a gay man, who considered himself a “trans ally” and was thrilled to join G.I.Ds. Right off the bat he makes an astute ovservation that so many of the referrals are from traumatic background he wondered if they wanted to reinvent themselves via a new gender identity. Bristow also describes the hostility in some of the therapeutic encounters with patients who resented the assessment period prior to receipt of drug treatment. Patients were also predisposed to be dishonest fearful of being deemed ineligible for treatments.

Those of us with children caught up in this know that our kids are being taught a script on line to dish out to gullible, or complicit, clinicians.

By 2014 the Tavistock had determined that they would lower the age for medical intervention to allow prescriptions for those under twelve. Carmichael referred to this as “stage not age” and announced it in the press.

Carmichael is not being quite accurate in this statement. Further interrogation by the Newsnight Team, which included Barnes, forced an admission that no study had been completed and evaluated at the Tavistock, instead they were relying on the Dutch study. The problem with this was that the Dutch had not experimented on those under the age of 12.

The decision was taken by the senior staff and some staff had misgivings as Natasha Prescott recalls.

While Prescott takes a charitable view of the intentions she does question why the therapeutic aim seemed to be to eradicate any stress or discomfort rather than to teach their patients coping strategies. Other staff members too a more cynical view.

The chapter covers both Mermaids pressure for a reduced age for prescriptions and public statements, by Bernadette Wren, on why GIDs were resisting the pressure. In the end Mermaids got their way.

Barnes questions why NHS England agreed this change in the treatment protocol when no formal evaluation has been published on the ongoing study on these over the age of twelve. She also points out that the Dutch study was not an unalloyed success and even resulted in the death of one of the participants. There had also been a loss to follow up of more than 20%.

This chapter gives a good critique of potential flaws in the way participants were evaluated; in particular the way the patient was assessed for satisfaction with their biological sex, at the outset, and, after surgery, asked if they were satisfied with their target sex. Could the positive results be attributed to this methodology?

All this was taking place against a background of increased rates of referrals, inexperienced staff and a complete inversion of the sexes who were present ing at the Tavistock. From a small number of mainly boys with long standing “gender issues” they were now seeing mainly teenage females who had suddenly emerged as “trans”. This is how one clinician described the waiting room👇. This is what social contagion looks like.

Staff were still under the impression that the puberty blockers being administered were fully reversible. This was despite Carmichael making different public pronouncents for different audiences. She can be found describing PBs as a “pause” for childrens BBC but admitting they are not elsewhere.

This is Carmichael to the guardian.

Against this background the Tavistock was still expanding and doubling its contribution to the NHS trust. They were garnering positive press attention and encouraged to expand its staff, reduce assessment periods, and prescribe to everyone more, and ever younger children. We’re they unchallenged because they were a significant source of revenue?

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. 😉)

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.


Time to Think: Hannah Barnes (2)

Part of a series on this excellent book. Waterstones may be hiding it but it’s too big a scandal to cover up and those of you cheering on this harmful ideology are going to pretend you didn’t!

You can find part one here:

Time to Think: Hannah Barnes.

Chapter 3 examines the pressure on G.I.D.s to embrace what has become known as The Dutch Protocol; namely the use of puberty blockers in children presenting with “Gender Dysphoria”. We have seem that there were tensions within the Tavistock as different ideologies were competing for dominance. Crudely, some clinicians were familiar with people presenting with distress, expressed as a bodily rejection, which could manifest as anorexia, self-harm, alcoholism or, in more extreme cases the rejection of a limb. (A condition known as apotemnophilia). The other camp, again crudely, believed in innate gender identity or a “Born In The Wrong Body” narrative. For the latter camp forcing a child to go through the “wrong puberty” was akin to abuse. I have said many times that once you believe in the existence of a “gender identity”, at odds with your biological sex, the next steps seem obvious and, perhaps, inevitable.

Pressure to prescribe came from all quarters, from parents;the kids themselves and lobby groups. The use of threats of suicide often accompanying these demands. Older people with a “trans” identity also seemed to use these kids as a kind of retrospective wish fulfilment. Those of us who cover the topic of autogynephilia see another motive; creating the idea of the “transgender child” to deflect attention away from trans-identified males with a sexual fetish; an accusation that can’t be levelled at a child.

Of course by the time we were in the 2000’s there were plenty of Lobby Groups pushing for earlier, medical intervention. We must not overlook the profit motive; Ferring Pharmaceuticals, the makers of Puberty Blocking drug, Triptolerin, funded the initial research into using Puberty Blockers, at Gender Clinics, and they have also donated £1.4 million to the Liberal Democrats, a U.K political party,

The claims made for the “Dutch Protocol” do not appear to be justified by the paucity of research.

In this chapter we find that clinicians were aware that most of these children, left alone, would reconcile to their sex and turn out to be gay males or Lesbians. Nevertheless despite the risk of “false positives” they would, eventually, capitulate.

In 2005 the association for Paediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes (BPSED) came out against this early intervention.

People were sounding a note of caution but one of the more shocking statements would come from an ex member of G.I.D.s staff about the role the possibility of medical interventions may have played in the strategy of its Director.

Elsewhere Barnes speculated that De Ceglie saw his role as making sure G.I.D.s survived as an organisation and that this may have taken priority over other concerns.

Whether due to the pressure from behind the scenes / public lobbying the outbreak of sanity at BPSED would not last. When the guidelines came up for review in 2008, they changed their stance.

For good or ill the NHS were now sterilising children.

The chapter ends with a reflection from Phoebe, a trans-identified male who had surgery to remove his genitals at age 18. Phoebe’s back story is that of a surviving twin whose sister was lost in uteru. Phoebe was a gender non-conforming male who had extensive homophobic bullying. Clearly he is same sex attracted but, age 28, a man who accepts him as a woman has proved elusive. Despite regretting the loss of a chance at biological children, Phoebe claims to have no regrets about his path but also has not managed to quell all doubts.

I am inclined to agree with Barne’s assessment that Phoebe is quite charming. He is also wary of rushing access to medications and surgeries.I am correctly sexing him here, because it’s important not to yield our language, but I wish him well and hope he never has cause to regret his surgery.

By Chapter 4, De Ceglie has been replaced by Polly Carmichael and G.I.Ds had, after a refusal, obtained ethical approval for a research project to block puberty for some of the children in their care. This chapter is a must read to understand why the staff at G.I.Ds chose not to use a control group so they could compare those given puberty blockers against a cohort who had not received them. It questions the results of the Dutch Protocol and whether the Tavistock were honest about the effect of the puberty blockers. In particular they describe them as granting a “pause” when they knew almost 100% of children progressed to cross sex hormones, as did ALL of the children in the Dutch Protocol. It also questions the impact on boys who would require a riskier surgery, using intestinal tissue, because of a stunted penis. (One patient in the Dutch protocol died from complications of the surgery). Moreover it points out that the fact all of the children who take PBs + Cross Sex Hormones will be sterile and not just have reduced fertility as the subjects were told. This is a must read chapter and while the revelations are explosive it is told in a calm and measured way by Barnes.

Barnes also revisits the first patient that started the push to use puberty blockers, patient B. This does not sound like an unmitigated success. It’s worth a long clip of this section.

Barnes references the excellent work of herself and Deborah Cohen for the Newsnight team and Professor Viper’s response to some of the relegations.


The chapter ends with another case study of a trans-identified female from the foster care system. Jack had a disrupted childhood with a family dealing with alcohol issues. She was a tomboy and attracted to other girls. The foster care broke down when they began to insist Jack ceased hanging out with boys and dressed more “feminine”. Jack had mental health issues and spent two years in a psychiatric facility. She describes a slow and careful assessment at G.IDs which was frustrating at the time. She also did not want to be a Lesbian.

Jack became attracted to the notion she was “trans” after watching the product placement of a trans character on a U.K soap aimed at teens. She also makes a startling observation on a further stint on a psychiatric ward shen she was older.

She also thinks the testosterone may have influenced her sexuality and now identifies as a gay man, attracted to males. In the end Jack took cross sex hormones and had a double mastectomy, neither of which she regrets. She does, however, think safeguarding young people from making a mistake is important.

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. 😉)

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.


Time to Think: Hannah Barnes.


Are we hurting children?

I will probably make slow progress whilst I work my way through this book because it is such a painful read knowing that my own GP referred my son to the Tavistock. I fought a valiant battle to keep my son out of their clutches, because I had done my research. I did actually speak to Hannah but my son was not referred to the children’s unit and, I suspect, she spoke to me more out of compassion than for anything I could add to her research. This series is dedicated to her for doing the work and the Swift Press for publishing. I have purchased the electronic version for review purposes but my birthday gift will be a copy for myself and a copy for me to take to my GP. I will also order a copy for my local library.

This series will probably include more links to my earlier posts as I have covered much of the same territory as this book. It’s is also full of excellent footnotes so I will do detour to follow any of those I had not seen.

The first chapter has a headline grabbing title. I should just say the Hannah avoids sensationalising in all the interviews she has given, which is good to see, we don’t need to over-claim for the harms being done the plain, unvarnished, truth is bad enough.

Concerns were being expressed around the dramatic increase in numbers but also the demographic of referrals. Natal girls had inverted the sex ratios of referrals and bore little resemblance to the previous cohort of, mainly, gender non-conforming boys. Now referrals had an over-representation of natal girls, same sex attracted of both sexes, , autitistic children/teens as well as 25% of referrals of children who had spent time in care. I wrote about the Gender Clinics and looked after children here: 👇. One of the articles is based on the Tavistock’s own data.

Foster kids & Gender Clinics

Concern was often focused on the administration of puberty suppressant drugs to children as young as ten.

These medical interventions were, and still are in some organisations, described as “reversible” and administered to allow a “pause” : Time to think, if you will. However, we knew from the Dutch experience that the vast, vast, majority would progress to cross sex hormones. They will be sterile and it seems they will lose orgasmic potential. Natal boys will have stunted genitalia which will make surgeries more risky, requiring use of the colon to create a facsimile of female genitalia. One boy actually died of necrotising fasciitis following his surgery in the Dutch experiment. More on this below:

Juvenile “transsexuals”: Biggs

While Polly Carmichael, a senior clinician, admitted there was a lack of research into these interventions here’s what we do know: 👇

Here is another senior clinician, Bernadette Wren, with a similar admission.

I have done a series on Bernadette Wren. She famously told the Women’s and Equalities Committee (W.E.S.C.) that she felt at the cutting edge of a social revolution.

Bernadette Wren

Even NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) concluded that the evidence base was very poor.

Chapter 2 provides the background to the setting up of the service. I covered much of this in my series on the first director, Domenico Di Ceglie.

Domenico Di Ceglie: Tavistock

What was new to me in this chapter was some research donee on the Tavistock cohort. I will have a detour to look at this research before I proceed to chapter three.

Before I leave chapter 2 it’s is worth noting that concerns were being expressed about G.I.D.s as far back as 2005. David Taylor was asked to produce a report which was then hidden for fifteen years! It was only after a protracted battle that the Tavistock were forced to release that report. I covered this below.

Tavistock: Taylor Report

Chapter Two continues by documenting that unease with the service was not long in emerging. Different traditions of approaching physical distress with the body co-existed uneasily. Some clinicians were used to seeing the body used to signal distress. In lay terms they saw this as a problem with the mind, not the body. Medical interventions were regarded as a last resort and, crucially, only with a strong evidence base for the treatment. Therapeutic treatments were prioritised.

This chapter also covers the work of Dr Az Hakeem who ran a group for post -operative patients who were experiencing regret. He decided to combine this group with those who were considering surgery. As a result, Hakeem, advised only 2% of the pre-operative group decided to proceed with surgeries. For Bernadette Wren those working with patients experiencing regret developed a skewed attitude to the work of G.I.Ds.

In 2002 there was an open schism when the European Court issued a ruling that “transsexuals” should be granted full, legal, recognition for the sex they wished to be. Staff at the Portman’s published an open letter opposing this,

Ex staff began to notice the influence of the lobby group Mermaids. Domenico Di Ceglie was even a patron at one point. In the beginning Mermaids recognised that a “transsexual” outcome was unlikely for most of these troubled children but, over time, they became more militant and difficult to work with according to some accounts.

Sue Evans describes how she felt that the cases she was seeing required extensive, exploratory, work but other colleagues were prescribing drugs after a shockingly low number of session. All the recommendations from the Taylor report were ignored. 👇

The chapter ends with the case study of “Ellie” who was a non gender conforming girl who realised she was attracted to girls and found the opportunity to discuss her issues, with Tavistock staff, valuable. She eschewed medical intervention and is now in her forties, bisexual and has been in a same sex relationship for the last decade.

I am already finding this a riveting read. This book has the potential to save more children from being treated as guinea pigs by a health care system that has lost its way. I will be back with the next chapters.

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. 😉)

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.


Born in The Right Body: Part Two

A review of Isabel Sanger’s book. (Written under a pseudonym). Sanger is a qualified, medical, doctor and has also studied and worked in psychiatry. If you think you know all there is to know about this topic you are in for a treat, if that’s not an odd way to talk about the biggest attack on women’s /Gay rights this century.

You can read part 1 here: 👇

Born in the Right Body: Part One.

We pick up the review on Sanger’s open letter to a female “trans-activist”. Blistering retort to the young women who are embracing the destruction of their rights (and ours) in a misguided attempt to be “kind” and “progressive,

This is what these young women are actually fighting for 👇

If you are puzzled by the young women acting as handmaids this chapter is enlightening. As usual regressive anti-feminist movements function by driving a wedge between young women and their older sisters , the “hags” if you will. Cutting young women off from the wisdom of older women is a key component of any backlash against women’s rights.

Myth of Asexuality

The next chapter is on asexuality. You might enjoy the parts about the asexual activist who is a lingerie model and does actually have sex even though she is asexual. 😳. The explanations around asexuality take incoherence to a new level which is saying something in these crazy gender wars.

My take away from this chapter is about how our kids are groomed to claim “asexuality” when we parents talk about the sexual dysfunction, as a consequence of “transgender medicine”. I have first hand experience of this, from my son. The cynical way this is being used to justify the destroyed sexual function of pre-teens, and post-teens is hard to process but, yes, proponents of these treatments are indeed using this argument.

It beggars believe that a movement which has hijacked movements set up to defend the right to same sex attraction has morphed into an anti-sex movement at the same time as claiming they are sex positive.

Chapter 18 is very good on disorders of sexual development and sport. Personally this cleared up some confusion for me about complete androgen insensitivity syndrome. People with CAIS have a complete inability to process testosterone and may not find out about the condition until menstruation fails to start. They will be socialised as female and have an oestrogen fuelled puberty. Sangar is clear about the impact on female sport but doesn’t lose her humanity in addressing CAIS women.

The first thing that was new information, to me, was just how long the female sex category has been under threat. It was happening prior to 1968!

Prior to katyotype tests the way sex was assessed was clearly unacceptable. However it is true that people with DSDs had demonstrated their superior performance and were over represented in the female category in sport.

I didn’t know there was a competitive advantage from CAIS women and this calls into question techniques to promote “fairness” by capping testosterone levels in biological males. Once chromosome tests were abandoned in 1999 the consequences for female sport were clear,


Getting this wrong does have a devastating impact on female sports.

This is obviously a more sensitive issue than excluding males with typical chromosomal make up. For CAIS women any rules re sports need not translate into labelling of CAIS women. While sex clearly matters in sport, for fairness, but the social convention of accepting those, with CAIS, as women need not be disrupted.

The capture of the Medical Profession.

Chapter 19 is a devastating assessment of the capture of the medical profession. Sangar meticulously details the extent of the capture and the consequences. If you read no other chapter this one is key. The references at the end are also very useful and could keep you busy for hours.

I have covered some of these issues in my series on NHS “Transgender” policies but it is devastating to seem then all laid out in this chapter. Replacing the sex of patients by “gender identity” , creating mixed sex wards, corrupting data and compounding the problems of the over 1300 rapes that have happened in NHS hospitals. If only the NHS had proved as amenable to women raising the lack of care for ,and research into the sex based needs of women. Imagine what we could have achieved if the NHS had listened to women as much as they have to men who wish to be women.

This chapter covers the important legal cases and also the trans-activists who worked being the scenes at the heart of government and the NHS to socially engineer a world that panders to the belief that you can change sex. Stephen Whittle and Christine Burns are covered extensively.

Sanger follows up with a case study looking at the British Medical Association.

If you ever want to see how a few activists can drive through mad policy then this is the chapter for you. Sanger details how a tiny number of determined activists can drive through unpopular motions. Don’t give any notice of the motion, truncate debate, make sure you are prepared by h stuffing the conference with people who agree with the motion. This in turn gives a veneer of respectability to these mad, anti-women policies and creates a chilling effect by making those who disagree feel isolated and out of step with their professional bodies.

Names are named! Glad I didn’t find my doctor’s name!

This chapter also lists examples of men taking advantage of these policies; to watch porn from his hospitable bed!

The next chapter details how this translated into policy and provides some terrifying examples.

The book ends with an interview given by Sanger to the women at Filia. This is a very good overview of the implications of this ideology not just for women but for the people following a medical pathway in an attempt to escape their biological sex. We do these men and women no favours by uncritically accepting “gender identity” “medicine”. I have never felt so lacking in confidence in the medical profession or the Medical Schools that are delivering their training.

First Do No Harm

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. 😉)

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.


Born in the Right Body: Part One.


Today I will be reviewing this book. You can purchase it from Amazon or Ebay, in hard copy, or electronic format. I bought the kindle edition for review purposes but I will be ordering a hard copy for solidarity purposes! Isidora also tweets at the following account.

Twitter account


Even the first chapter is full of key quotes so I will have to restrain myself.

Chapter One points out that the some of the first victims of the trans-medico complex were gay men whose homosexuality was not tolerated. The hard work of social change was eschewed in favour of body modifications, for the gay men. We are literally carving sexist stereotypes into, and out of, homosexual bodies and disregarding any costs to their health.

I have long said that we are creating a new Eunuch class to police women and Sanger doesn’t shy away from the implications for women either:

The re-designation of some males, as women, has had catastrophic impacts on the status of women in society. The desires of these men have been elevated above the needs of actual woman. Nowhere is this more evident than the phrase “Trans women are women” which is parroted by politicians across the political spectrum; while the language assigned to women is reductive and offensive.

Language is not the only casualty of the lie that men can become women. We now have a new group of sexual fetishists claiming the cover of the “trans” umbrella. We have male rapists in female prisons and a court case against the prison system confirmed this was legal.

Sanger touches on the sleight of hand that replaced sex with gender and is in large measure used as leverage by men with transvestic fetishism/autogynephilia. They needed this obfuscation to push for their re designation as a type of women; even as a type of Lesbian! She also covers the, oft repeated, lies which use people with disorders of sexual development to push the lie that biological sex isn’t real, or is on a spectrum.

Sex matters for all of us even those, perhaps especially those, who are in denial about their biological sex.

Changing sex markers is now routine in the NHS resulting in the ludicrous situation of men being invited for cervical smears. The NHS seems to trust men with delusions to recognise their real sex for health purposes. However, some of these men seem to be in a highly delusional state and not capable of acknowledging reality. Exhibit A. 👇

Because of her medical training Sanger is qualified to examine case studies to make her point.

Chapter 6 examines the complicity of the medical professionals with these ideology which she calls “a pseudoscientific ideology based on wishful thinking”. Again, the author is also trained in psychiatry so in a position to critique their failings. She asks the question about why a delusion about your biological sex is treated differently to apotemnophilia (the desire to cut off a limb).


Another aspect of this which Sanger covers really well is the fantasy element of men who identify as women. Our lives are not slumber parties and fluffy slippers. Identifying “with” us implies empathy when you identify “as” us it is identity theft and it is not just women who pay a price. The effort of maintaining this fiction is exhausting.

Case Study 2 looks at inducing lactation in a male subject and the ethical implications of this as well as females breast feeding while on testosterone. It’s a terrifying experiment on these babies! Sanger makes the point that the accounts of these cases leave out the sex of the baby but the sex of the baby does matter. What will be the impact on a female infant who is dosed up with testosterone as a result of this ideology? Furthermore some men have a sexual fetish with breast feeding, known as Lactophilia, as is evident from the sexualised language used to describe the experience. (And, yes, I am judging!)

The next chapter covers the experiment on children via puberty blockers and the lies trans activists tell to justify this treatment path. The lies about suicide risk is one form these falsehoods take. It’s blackmail.

Chapter 11 details the consequences of using female language to describe males. An excellent over view of all the consequences for women when we lie about someone’s biological sex. She also covers the women who are paid to lie about sex and go along with Gender Identity Ideology from the comfort of their salaried positions. There is a harrowing section on male prisoners being housed with women and the horrendous crimes they are perpetrating within the prison estate.

Chapter 12 challenges those arguing that the P should be included in LGBT+ which, if you missed it, is seriously proposed by sexologist James Cantor, and others.

To this Sanger retorts:

The next section draws on the work of Dr Em who exposes the tactic of paedophiles who aim to normalise their predilection. The tactics are scarily similar to those of trans activists who are eroding the boundaries of women and girls.

The next chapter looks at the strategic use of a technique known as D.A.R.V.O, by trans-activists, which stands for Deny, Attack, Reverse, Victim and Offender. This is used to paint “trans-identified” men as victims, thereby creating a new priestly class immune from critique. This chapter details a case study from Sanger’s own experience which rips off the mask of a man who had sexually abused his niece. The lessons from this individual case can be applied to the institutional D.A.R.V.O to which we are being subjected.

Fantasy versus Reality.

This chapter lays out the consequences of a truth denying ideology and how it is corrupting institutions and policy on a massive scale. A movement built on lies relies on an inversion of the truth to shore it up. Sanger also takes a swipe at the “both-sidesism” at play when men pretend that women are guilty of the same behaviour as the, often violent, “trans” activists. Sanger covers the collusion of the medical establishment, the Ministry of Justice, prisons, law enforcement, schools, the list goes on.

The chapter on symbolism flags and totalitarianism resonated with me; especially the analogy with the Balkans conflict. This chapter also covers the force teaming of the LGB with the T and the historical revisionism of the foundational gay rights movement to centre “trans” activists.

This is a war! A war on reality itself. It’s the madness of crowds and we need society to recover its sense, sooner rather than later!

I will break off here to make sure I do justice to the second half of the book. Sanger has done us a great service with this book. Bravo! 👏👏👏👏

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. 😉)

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.


Juvenile “transsexuals”: Biggs


Don’t be put off by the title. This paper, by Michael Biggs, is on the “Dutch Protocol”; the name given to the pioneering use of puberty blockers, driven by clinicians who claimed to be able to identify those children destined to become “transsexuals”. The title serves as a reminder of the claims made to justify this experiment; a model which was adopted by the Tavistock, U.K. main “gender” clinic.

I will add the paper at the end. My reading is very much through the lens of a parent, with a child who believes in the idea of being “born in the wrong body”. I have researched this issue, full-time, for five years so I am pretty steeped in the ways of the “gender woo woo”. In my opinion Michael Biggs is one of the stalwart researchers in this field and he deserves global recognition. This is why I have given him his own series which you can access here. 👇

Michael Biggs

Here is the abstract for the paper I am covering in this post. As you can see this experiment is 25 years old, the evidence base is thin and some of the claims made are not only implausible, but, at this stage, it is clear, some are demonstrably false.

The paper opens with an explanation of the history of Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone agonist (GnRHa) drugs to suppress puberty. It was first proposed as early as the 1990’s at the precursor to what became the World Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). Biggs outlines how these drugs were proposed as a way to “resolve” a disordered “gender identity” . The drugs marketed as a “solution” for this condition do need our attention and they are not licensed for this particular condition.

It’s worth pointing out that the brand name for the puberty suppression drug used in the U.K. is triptorelin which is made by Ferring Pharmaceuticals. I covered Ferring before because they donated 1.4 million to the Liberal Democrats. You can read this post here 👇. Ferring Pharmaceuticals funded some of the research covered in this paper as will crop up later.

Liberal Democrats & Big Pharma

Biggs provides a summary of the origins of the theory of “gender identity”; the setting up of gender clinics for children and how medical intervention, initially rare, became the standard treatment at gender clinics. Some, like Harry Benjamin, were, formerly, comsidered to be operating at the reckless end of the spectrum but his use of testosterone and double mastectomies has now become the norm. There has also been a push to lower the age for these interventions. (In the U.K the youngest reported child, in receipt of puberty blocking drugs, was 10 years old.)

One of the key proponents of earlier medical intervention was Peggy Cohen-Kettenis.

This is one of her patients; a teenage lesbian who underwent testosterone, a double mastectomy, hysterectomy and the removal of her ovaries.

Some of the research, purporting to provide an evidence base for this treatment, was a follow up of 22 subjects who were treated at the Utrecht clinic. One of the problems with the, seemingly positive, results was that comparison was made to an older cohort when attitudes were less tolerant. In addition the younger group were only followed up at an age before any regret over the inability to conceive/ reproduce would, possibly, have emerged.

Another case study presented an “adolescent transsexual” who has a similar back story to Johanna. FG was also a Lesbian with a disapproving father.

FG would go on to have a similar medicalised pathway.

One would assume some advances in the kind of surgeries available to females but this is a recent photo of someone who has had surgery to create a faux-phallus. These images suggest the results leave a lot to be desired. This is a graphic image but people need to see what we are doing to these young women.

FG was considered a success story but this is what she reported when followed up in later life. Feeling of shame and inadequacyand an inability to sustain a relationship.

This is the conclusion Cohen-Kettenis drew about F.Gs experience. 👇

Below is also the story of Nancy who opted for voluntary euthanasia rather than live with how she felt about her post-operative results.

The destruction of Nancy: The girl nobody wanted.

The belief in an innate gender identity underpins the drive for these extreme interventions. Cohen-Kettenis, and other like minded people, sometimes use the analogy of a kind of “intersex of the brain” and were keen to find evidence that supported this belief. There are studies that make the claim that there is evidence of “trans” identified brains matching those of there target sex. These studies are flawed in a number of ways, They either fail to control for homosexuality, neuroplasticity / are tiny samples and one even included males on female hormones, which are known to shrink the male brain. I remain unconvinced by this “research”.

Cohen-Kettenis undertook further research in 2006 which was funded by the pharmaceutical company Ferring Pharmaceuticals who, as mentioned above, make triptolerin; the U.K. brand of the puberty suppressing drug.

Under Cohen-Kettenis, the number of children undergoing puberty suppression began to increase, markedly, but the criteria appeared strict. Formally it was required that patients must have had “gender dysphoria” since childhood; family should consent and there must be no competing mental health issues. However, this was not always adhered to; one patient was prescribed, over the objections of the parents, despite being in an institutional facility because of a physical disability. Another U.K child was prescribed, over the phone, when the U.K. clinicians refused to prescribe.

The Dutch protocol scrutinised

One of the key issues examined was the claims of “reversibility” of the puberty suppressing treatment. Suffice to say, this claim does not survive rigorous analysis, There are known impacts such as decreased bone density, documented drops in IQ and, for boys, stunted genitalia which is clearly a problem for any male who stepped off the medical pathway. The stunted genitalia was also a problem for males who want to use their penis to create a facsimile of female genitalia, as we shall see.

The second claim challenged was that this was a “pause” or a diagnostic tool to allow identity exploration. In fact 95% to 98% progress to cross sex hormones. In other words they don’t step off the medicalised pathway. This raises the concern that these children are blocked from sexual maturation and thus from a realisation they were homosexual, a common outcome for these children.

We know that proto-gay kids are vastly over-represented at gender clinics so are we denying these potential homosexuals the chance to accept and embrace their sexuality? Biggs highlights that the clinic were preoccupied by how well their subjects could “pass” as the target sex, if they had puberty suppressed. There was less emphasis on sexuality and the studies, referenced above, which emphasised homosexual outcomes, began to be downplayed in later work.

This paragraph! I have said before that more concern was expressed for sex offenders put on these drugs than for children!

In the London study we only have one girl who opted not to progress to cross sex hormones. She reported no sexual feelings in the two years post cessation.

It does not get any easier to read. The stunted genitalia creates surgical complications and resulted in the death of one boy.

Biggs covers the ex CEO of Mermaids who obtained these drugs for her son via Norman Spack, in the United States and also Jazz Jennings. Marci Bowers, Jazz’s surgeon also raised another aspect about these treatments

The paper examines the evidence for the impact on bone density, the missing homosexuals we would have expected to desist from a “trans” identity and the appearance of private provides like Helen Webberley at Gender GP. He also considers the lack of longitudinal data that follows these children into adulthood. The Tavistock Clinic claim, rather conveniently, the follow up is illegal. Here is Bernadette Wren speaking this year,

You can watch Wren’s full explanation here:

Bernadette Wren

The statement, below, by Biggs, to me, has a significant bearing on the, purported, obstacles to robust follow up and longitudinal data,

Cohen-Kettenis, herself agreed follow up needed to be at least 20 years.


Bigg’s paper offers a good account of how we got here and identifies some of the key proponents of a medicalised path for purported “juvenile transsexuals”. He challenges claims of the reversibility of puberty suppressing drugs and questions the ability of clinicians to ensure they are not sweeping up gay males and Lesbians into their patient pool.

More alarmingly he explains how the results from the Tavistock trial were only revealed after concerted pressure. Their reluctance to publish begs the question. Did they know?

Are we creating a new kind of human? Bernadette Wren 👇

He ends with a concerning story about an Austrialian girl who has refused cross sex hormones and opted to stay in a permanently pre-pubertal state.

Here is a link to the paper: I recommend reading the entire thing.

The Dutch Protocol for Juvenile Transsexuals Origins and Evidence

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. My wordpress renewal fees come in this month and I will be traveling to London for an important meeting, to be announced. Any help to cover my costs would be appreciated. Irrespective my content will remain open, I know times are tough.

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.