Author: womangendercritical

Jane Fae: Trans Britain (Part 13)

“Jane” Fae.

Can’t quite believe I have never covered Fae before. Fae has his own chapter in the book “Trans Britain”. Fae is another, heterosexual, man who married, fathered children and, when he hit middle age, began to identify as a woman. In his previous name “John Omizek” he was a defender of extreme porn and has published on this topic in the Guardian, Index on Censorship, Liberty etc. He has also self-published a book called “Taming The Beast” which also explores the attempts to regulate pornography.

You can read Fae on porn in this article. This article was originally published as John Omizek.

Jane-Fae_Tyrannys-genesis-and-its-opposition_SDk-Latest-News_USL

The article defends extreme pornography, dismisses feminist’s who expose the harm of this material, uses the language of the “coven” to describe those “witches” who oppose pornography and even appears to question the idea that men, who possess violent pornography, might be unsuitable for some forms of employment. Here are a coups of clips.

Above ☝️ Fae displays his witch-finder general side. Below is his view on the possession of extreme pornography. 👇

Apparently a chill wind has passed over the practitioners of sadomasochism. Fae paints the Labour party as the prudish maiden aunt of politics. Fae himself is a Liberal Democrat.

His chapter in Trans Britain introduces him as a “feminist” and journalist. Like a lot of these men have a background in I.T and an interest in preserving the rights of purveyors of extreme pornography.

Fae’s chapter repeats much of the ground by other contributions so I won’t detain you with much of the detail. He analyses coverage of the “trans” community in print media complaining that it tended to to be treated as if it was a sexual kink. I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest Fae’s “kink” and interest in BDSM is his route into the identity of “transwoman”. As if enjoying being hurt during sex is the essence of being “female”; a not uncommon attitude from the penis wing of “womanhood”.

He is not alone. Here are some prominent “trans” identifying males pontificating on what it means to be a “women” to them. These are the extremely sexist fantasies of porn-addled men.

Fae allows himself a detour to attack Janice Raymond’s book “Transsexual Empire” which I cover in this series.

Janice Raymond: Transsexual Empire: Final

He also takes side swipes at Germaine Greer and Julie Bindel, who he has debated a few times. You can find some of his debates,with Bindel, on YouTube should you wish to see him in action. In one he appeared alongside Bindel and Milo Yiannopolous; where he ostentatiously produced his knitting; a common hobby in behavioural autogynephiles.

Much of his chapter is repetitive but I do want to single out this one quote 👇 which lies about the law to claim that “transgender” is a legally protected characteristic. It is not. The protected characteristic, in law, is “Gender Reassignment”. The GRA is a very badly drafted piece of legislation but it does not do what Fae says here. 👇

In Trans Britain Fae links the backlash to the election of Donald Trump which, he argues, unleashed anti-trans sentiment and imported narratives about “bathroom” usage to the U.K. This resulted in a plethora of articles he labels “anti-trans” from a range of media outlets.

Along the way Fae finds time to attack coverage of the medical malpractice of Russell Reid which I covered here:

Russell Reid: Part One

Fae expresses his misogyny in interviews on YouTube and on his twitter account. This is one interview well worth a listen. The trans activist has rather a puerile introduction which relies on the scatalogical humour of the adolescent male. You might want to fast forward that but. 😳

 Jane Fae

In this interview Fae claims that “terfs” are allied with regressive movements in the United States and the crowdfunding to defend women’s rights is a great way to launder money from across the atlantic. This is how Fae characterises gender critical feminists on his twitter account.

His interviewer goes further and calls LGB Alliance a homophobic, hate group who are supported by neo-nazis. Fae also uses the tired old trope about middle-aged women being prudes and lacking a sex life. Sigh.

Both men pretend that the women they call “terfs” have shown zero concern about male violence against women and are using faux feminist credentials as a cover for their “anti-trans” hate. These men also claim to have done more work to oppose male violence which, of course, in their minds is only perpetrated by “cisgender” men. Let us remind ourself about Fae’s work on male violence against women. This 👇 is called blaming the victim.

Coming out as “trans”

Here is an interview with Fae on coming out as “trans”.

Coming out

We learn that Ozimek had been married before and had a daughter who was 16 when he decided to “come out” as “trans”. His teenage daughter had a hard time with the transition and elsewhere blamed the stress on her failed A’Levels. This is the reason Ozimek gives for the failure of the first marriage.

There is a strategic omission about his interest in sadomasochistic practices but he does admit to an early history of transvestism; which “thrilled” and “terrified him. He gives no further details of the nature of the “thrill”.

His then partner vowed to stand by her man but it was clearly taking its toll on her:

This is Fae’s public narrative about how he came to identify as a woman. The usual sexist, regressive bullshit carefully crafted to de-emphasise any connection to a sexual motive.

Fae and partner had a five year old son. She attempts a bit of levity about now being a “lesbian”. I don’t think they remained together.

Consensual Slavery

Before I leave Fae just a reminder of when John Ozimek engaged in that most feminine of pursuits; defending Consensual slavery.

Here is advising about how to evade new laws about extreme porn even offering tips about how to clean up your hard drive.

Obscenity Laws: Darryn Walker

This is a legal case in which Ozimek appeared as an expert witness for the defence.

John Ozimek Legal case

This is what he was defending 👇

His sympathy lies entirely with the porn-addled bloke, a civil servant.

I was going to finish on the unexpected discovery that, as John Ozimek, the son of a doctor and graduate of Oxford University, was an erstwhile joke writer for Noel Edmonds. However, I read Fae’s Submission to the Transgender Equality Inquiry and came across something I found more noteworthy (and, frankly, disturbing). Fae boasts of advising an organisation dedicated to child safeguarding. Why is the U.K Council for CHILD internet safety listening to a defender of extreme porn?

If you still believe Fae got into this through an excessive love of ironing I have a bridge to sell you. Next piece, in this series, is on the delightful Annie Wallace.

You can support my work here. All donations gratefully received, or consider a paid subscription to my substack.

My substack

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

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

£10.00

Lynne Jones: Trans Britain. (12 b)

Lynne Jones. Former Labour M.P

I split this one into two parts after finding rather a lot to write about Jones’ partner in crime, Zoe Playdon. You can find that post here:

C. Burns: Trans Britain. Part 13a

Lynne Jones was in the U.K parliament from 1992 until 2010.

She first came across this issue via a constituent who wished to speak to her about issues impacting his partner; who was a trans-identified male. The person is anonymised (as J) and claimed to be too afraid to present in person so was represented by the afore-mentioned Zoe Playdon. Jones begins with an apology for her previous use of the term transsexual even though that was a perfectly acceptable usage back then and remains in use for many people who claim that identity in 2022. She continues with an additional mea culpa for her old opinions. She used to find them “weird”; “disordered” or sexual deviants. She had not considered how “cruel” this perspective was and is soon firmly convinced synthetic, sex, identities are innate.

Jones came to feel ashamed at what she feels was her “complicity” in the injustices heaped upon this community. Given that Jones’ own self identity is bound up by being a warrior against injustice she felt compelled to atone for her own “sin” and become a cheerleader for this vulnerable minority. Not very well informed herself she relied on Zoe Playdon who, as we saw in part a, was ideologically committed to the “Transgender” project. Jones was all-in and began a letter writing campaign. She was particularly aggrieved at one response to her letter which conflated transvestites with transsexuals. Having read many of these narratives most heterosexual men who claim a “trans” identity have a history of cross-dressing though only a minority will admit that they began by masturbating into female underwear. These men more than likely have a paraphilia called autogynephilia. This condition is rooted in shame and therefore it must be denied at all costs.

Jones reserves a special kind of contempt for the women fighting to exclude males, irrespective of identity, from female only spaces. Here she mis-characterises feminist arguments dismissing them as some sort of conspiracy theorists. Men colonising women’s very existence to appropriate their identity, deny women the right to exclude them from our most intimate spaces? Call the police on women for correctly sexing them? What would you call it? Trans-Identified males are not women.

Jones is dismayed by the ministers reply indicating this was a very “complex” area. The issue of sexual assault against trans-identified males was what motivated her concern. (I don’t disagree with this because I personally know of a trans-identified male who was raped and treated abominably by the police). Where it does get “complex” is demanding that female staff perform examinations, searches or where males are assigned to a female prison.

Even though she ends with “I could not disagree” she proceeds to disagree and claims badging these areas as “complex” is a cop out.

Jones complains that M.Ps continues to see “transsexuals” as suffering from a psychiatric disorder and laments the responses to a concerted letter writing campaign. The only route was to appeal to the European courts to get domestic law over turned. I was not a brexiteer but watching how Europe has trampled over women’s rights to promote this ideology and could yet be a “sexiteer”.

As an aside Jones’ mentions that their constituent “J” had contacts with Stephen Whittle of the trans lobby group Press For Change. Whittle crops up a lot in this book but doesn’t get a dedicated chapter. I have done a series on Whittle, who is behind a lot of the attacks on her own sex class.

Stephen Whittle

Below she references a letter sent by a cross party group that claims “transsexualism” arises out of “biological and physiological causes”. She herself has a PhD in biochemistry so she has no excuse for passing this off as settled science; it is no such thing.

Jones’ aimed to set up an All Parliamentary Group on this issue but first she organises a meeting , at the House of Commons, to which she invited leading Trans Lobby groups like Press For Change and people like Stephen Whittle. Also invited was Domenico Di Ceglie who was head of the Tavistock Gender Clinic which has been ordered to close. You can read my series on him below.

Domenico Di Ceglie: Tavistock

This is a typical quote from him:

This lists some of the other attendees 👇

Dr Russell Reid is a familiar name to me because he lost his licence after botched surgeries. I did a slight detour to have a look at Reid so you can see the calibre of the members of the Parliamentary Commission on Transsexualism. You can read that here!

Russell Reid: Part One

The turning point came when the government realised they did not have the necessary expertise. Tragically they seem to have turned to the ideologues allied with Jones.

Jones argued that it was her own scientific background that helped her understand the issues and then spouts some guff about #LadyBrains ending up in men’s bodies.

This is a highly contested area. One paper I covered dismissed these arguments simply on the basis that if it was the case you would expect there to be a 100% correlation in identical twins both having a “trans” identity. Another claimed that post mortem examinations in “trans-identified” males (sample size 8) illustrated that their brain structures were more similar to female comparators. The problem here was that they did not. control for homosexuality or even the impact of synthetic “cross-sex” hormones, or take account of neuro-plasticity.

Jones found her own belief systems challenged by this ideology explaining her previous ideas thus: 👇

Keen to demonstrate her open mind she unquestioningly accepts the more extreme tenets of transgender ideology

Basically Jones is saying that a fully intact male who is a man, looks like a man, should be taken on trust that he is really a “woman”. This has major implications for women’s rights to single sex spaces but she won’t say that outright. Buried in all this obfuscation is a denial of biological reality. Forcing people to accept something that is manifestly untrue sets us on a path to totalitarianism. Already women are facing legal threats and losing their jobs for speaking not “their” truths but THE TRUTH.

After Labour won in 1997, Jones attended a fringe event run by Stonewall who, at that time, did not include trans activism in its campaigning. Still not happy with this guidance because a man would have to “appear” to be what he said he was. (I am using he because it is men who pose a threat to the female sex). For Jones this doesn’t go far enough because of a reliance that a man should look like a woman in order to take advantage of his new “identity”. She was an extreme proponent of the “self-identification ” route that has seen a man running a rape crisis centre, a woman refused a female only group to get support after her rape and male rapists in women’s prison. This, my friend, is what your “progressive” stance has led to…

The following clip suggests that supporting this ideology brought rewards to Jones’ status. The only government document that bore her moniker and “the highlight of my political career”. What a legacy?

Policy Capture 👇

As I covered in my series on men working behind the scenes to embed this ideology the infiltration of the civil service, police, press, judiciary, NHS, continued apace. Place men in key institutions working for their own self-interest and in opposition to woman’s interests.

“Trans”: Working behind the scenes

Below she repeats the LIE that puberty blockers are reversible and shows zero concern for a young woman irreversibly harmed by the ideology she peddled. This is also a lie because my (gay) son got wrong sex, synthetic, hormones within 6 weeks with zero counselling. See also my post on Russell Reid, above, who, admittedly at a private clinic, doled out hormones after one or two appointments.

She even writes proudly about campaigning to get the treatment model at the Charing Cross Clinic (where Russell Reid worked) to lower the barriers to “treatment”.

For her service to the men’s sexual rights movement she got an award from the lobby group Gendered Intelligence Research and Education Society (GIRES) which she is still very proud of…

Conclusion

Lynne Jones seems to be a woman who prizes her reputation as a champion of the underdog. Despite her PhD in biochemistry she seems to have allowed herself to be manipulated into believing pseudoscience. She also seems to delight in being thought of as “unreliable” and consequently was rarely included on any standing committees. She did garner homage in the “trans” community and appreciated being thought of as a “trans” MP. Naïveté? Or Self-aggrandisement? Probably a deadly combination of the two and atonement for her previous sins in thinking trans-identified people were disordered and sexually deviant. She has now over-corrected.

Next up “Jane” Fae. defender of extreme porn and media commentator.

You can support my work here. Donations are welcome or consider a paid subscription to my substack. I will keep my content open but this helps me cover costs and keep going.

My Substack

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

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

£10.00

Russell Reid: Part One

Reid was a clinician at the Charing Cross Gender Clinic and a member of the Parliamentary Forum for Transsexuals, set up by Lynne Jones, M.P and Zoe Playdon. In 2007, following reports by patients and colleagues, a fitness to practice hearing was held; where he was found guilty of Serious Professional Misconduct, following which strict conditions were imposed on his practice.

The full transcript of that hearing is attached.

Russell Reid

Important context for Reid is his interest in apotemnophilia. This is about people who hate ome of their limbs or otherwise identify as disabled. Reid was involved in a case where a man persuaded doctors to amputate his limbs.

I did a thread on this which you can read here: 👇

apotemnophilia

Malcolm Clark did a better thread. 

Twister Film on apotemnophilia

It occurs to me that what was regarded as serious misconduct in 2007 is now routine practice, especially at the unregulated “clinics” operating abroad. Here are details of the patients taken from the hearing transcript with some supplemental information from The Guardian and a website run by a trans-identified male. They follow a common pattern of early access to hormones and premature referrals for surgery. (My son obtained hormones within a period of 6 weeks, no counselling and to this day he does not “live as a woman”, whatever that means. By which I mean he does not dress in a parodic imitation of women or use female spaces). The link to “episodic transvestism” as a pipe line to transsexualism is interesting to see. 👇 (A male who identifies as “transsexual” tells me this is a standard joke in his circles. “What’s the difference between a transvestite and a transsexual? Answer: 5 years).

Patient C is rather more disturbing. There was a lack of a rigorous assessment but the Guardian shared some addition detail.

Hearing: Russell Reid

He was a convicted paedophile. This was reported by journalists covering the hearing but does not appear in the transcript by the GMC.

A further source claims C had more sinister motivations; he wanted to become a woman to get close to his ex boyfriend’s children. (This source is someone who is trans-identified I don’t know their sex but as they claim “female” they are likely a male. Irrespective it is a very comprehensive source).

Russell Reid

Patient narrowly missed out on an unnecessary double mastectomy.

Patient D was a very vulnerable patient; suffering from manic depression and delusions that she was Jesus!

Another person who took legal action against Reid was Claudia Mclean. You can find Claudia on twitter and read about where Julie Bindel covers Claudia’s experience.

Claudia

I have broken off to do a piece on Reid as an accompanying piece to my series on the book “Trans Britain” by Chris Burns. I will do another one on Reid on a paper he gave at the “Gendy’s conference.

You can support my work below or consider a paid subscription to my substack. My content has always remained open /free for those who are drained by the new female tax (funding court cases 😳). Donations are, however, appreciated from those who can. Laurie Penny has a well paid job and she gets £4000 + a month via patreon! I don’t need that much.

My substack

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

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

£10.00

Zoe Playdon :Trans Britain. Part 12a

Lynne Jones: Labour M.P

Lynne Jones was an Member of the U.K parliament until 2010. She was very involved in promoting “trans” ideology across parliament and instrumental in establishing the legal framework that has been so instrumental in destroying sex based rights, gay rights and child safeguarding. Before I get to Lynne (in 13b) I want to cover her partner in crime ;Zoe Playdon.

Zoe Playdon

Playdon was in charge of education at a postgraduate, medical deanery and course leader for a course in medical humanities. Playdon was also involved in the 1996 legal case P v S and Cornwall County Council which made it unlawful to make someone redundant for undergoing “gender reassignment”. For these reasons Jones approached Playdon when approached, for help, by a “transsexual” constituent. They would eventually found the Parliamentary Forum for Transsexuals later to become the Parliamentary Forum for Gender Identity.

Playdon’s website is here: As you can see she gets around a bit, briefing parliament, in the United Kingdom and Scotland and hobnobbing with the likes of Victor Madrigal who is in charge of pushing “transgender” ideology for the United Nations; and Jayne Ozanne, a Lesbian who wants to make it illegal for therapists to try to minimise harmful surgeries on young Lesbians and gay boys. As you can see the activists are still granted audiences at the heart of government and the civil service.

Zoe Playdon

Zoe has written an article for another lobby group, Transactual, whose chair of directors is Helen Belcher (Belcher is covered in chapter 17 so will make a later appearance in this series). Transactual was set up in 2017. This is the link to Playdon’s article.

Playdon on Gender Clinics

Gender Identity Clinics: Genesis and Unoriginal Sin

The article gives a potted history of “trans” medicine in the United Kingdom; harking back to imaginary “better days” before lambasting modern day treatments with the customary transperbole of “trans genocide”. It is interesting that she acknowledges the deceit practiced to access hormones and surgeries.

She continues in this vein describing the way Gender Clinics operate as coercive places where patients are “groomed into compliance”. The irony in complaining about forced sterilisation for adults and turning a blind eye to the practice of sterilising “trans kids” as young as ten years old.

Here is Playdon’s take on the case of Corbett v Corbett. A legal decision brought by the late April Ashley (a trans identified male) in order to secure a divorce settlement. In that judgment Ashley was declared to be male and the marriage null and void. Below is Playdon’s argument for describing the “genocidal” condition into which “trans” people were forced to live.

On the Gender Recognition Act she is incorrect. The lobby groups advising the government managed to get politicians to agree that there would be no requirement for any medical intervention in order to get legal recognition as a “woman”. There is no requirement for sterilisation and it is quite shocking for this to be claimed whilst conveniently glossing over the current sterilisation of children at Gender Abattoirs.

I had a look at the #TransDocFail and harvested a few comments. Demanding that women include “trans” in the fight for reproductive justice! 😳

Mermaids Interview

Playdon also gave an interview to the discredited, charity Mermaids in February 2022.

Mermaids Interview

This interview was to discuss Playdon’s book about someone she claims was a trans-identified female, Ewan Forbes. Forbes came from an aristocratic background, trained as a doctor, married a woman and won a court case to be recognised as male, for the purposes of inheriting a baronetcy. Playdon claims the establishment covered this up and denied access to the legal record about this court case. Oddly it does appear the case actually did get contemporaneous media coverage.

Playdon describes this, admittedly, fascinating tale in her book. She claims he was on cross sex hormones. (if he did actually medicalise he must have been one of, or the, earliest to access testosterone.) He appears not to have undertaken his formal name change until the age of forty shortly, thereafter, to marry his housekeeper.

Playdon’s book ignores any suggestion that Forbes actually had a disorder of sexual development; which was the actual legal basis on which he was allowed to correct his birth certificate. Instead she is quite wedded to the idea he was the first “transgender” man. She argues that there was an establishment cover up and repeats the outrage that covering up this case condemned “trans” people to a live with no civil liberties and endure a brutal regime of compulsory sterilisation on the NHS.

This was the actual basis on which Lord Hunter legally recognised Ewan as male:

Playdon’s argument was that this was an establishment cover up because it could have provoked a constitutional crisis. This seems unlikely.

There was quite a discussion on legal twitter about the case and I can highly recommend this substack post about the kerfuffle. This 👇 is quite a forensic analysis of Playdon’s claims.

The Curious Case of Ewan Forbes

Whether or not there is any truth to the case I am with Barbara Rich on this one. An old campaigning hobby horse dusted off for a new generation.

Playdon goes on to defend her use of “terf”; a slur often associated with threats of rape and violence. Apparently even the Guardian criticised this usage. Playdon dismisses the Terfs (Radical Feminists) as 1970’s Stepford Wives and akin to creationists. 😳. This shows an abject failure to understand radical feminist arguments.

Not content with this Playdon argues that women are engaged in a moral panic about “trans” people and links her book to “decolonisation” projects; a nod to the twin pillars of transgender ideology and deconstructing our colonial history. What Playdon fails to see is men colonising women is as old as the hills.

Playdon wants the “transphobes” to feel shame and claims women concerned about single sex spaces are labelling “trans” people as predators; conveniently omitting that the concern is with men, however they identify.

The idea there are no examples of trans-identified males sexually assaulting women is a easily debunked. Here is an excellent website documenting them in the U.K. 👇

Trans Crime U.K. 

Here are a just a few examples.

Next Playdon claims women objections are part of a well-funded anti-trans campaign linked to alt-right Christian Evangelicals. Conspiracy theorist much?

Playdon then attacks the legal case taken out by a detransitioned woman, Keira Bell. Bell v Tavistock was a legal case brought by a young woman who had undergone treatment with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and a double mastectomy before realising her mistake. Playdon calls this “fake news”.

This is what she is selling. This entire thing is an attempt to reinvent history to claim self-ID of one’s sex was the norm in the good old days and try to gaslight women and persuade gullible politicians we just need to restore the rights “trans” people have lost.

Predictably wikipedia has been completely rewritten to tell Ewan’s story based on Playdon’s book. There is an unverified comment which claims to be from Forbe’s family. Quoted in the Void If Removed substack linked above. ☝️

Playdon seems to have wielded quite a lot of influence over Lynne Jones. They are named as a former member of Gay and Lesbian Liberation front. I have assumed Playdon is a “she” for the purposes of this post. She claims to be part of the “queer” community. Another Vichy Lesbian?

I had a brief look at her twitter account. This is what she has to say about “transphobes”.

This ☝️ is insanity.

You can support my work below or consider a paid subscription to my substack. All donations help me keep my content open access for those of who are unable to contribute.

My substack

Or a one off donation via paypal.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

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

£10.00

Mark Rees: Trans Britain. 11

Mark Rees.

Rees is a trans-identified female who played a significant role in paving the way for the Gender Recognition Act; which was passed into U.K Law in 2004.

Despite Rees’ pivotal role in getting this legislation on the statute books Rees chose to defer applying so that he could enjoy the earlier pension age for women which was then 60 years; rather than miss out on five years of pension. Interestingly Rees talks of his distress at seeing a female sex marker on official documents but was able to overcome this for pecuniary gain.

Another sad feature of Rees’ life was the death of a twin. Born one of two premature twins the other was to die after only five days. Rees appears not to have had a brother and it’s not known if the death of a twin, or lack of a brother, had any bearing on the repudiation of her sex.

Rees also saw Dr Randall who we encountered in the preceding piece on George /Julia Grant. Despite describing Randall as a saviour he was brutally honest with his female patient.

It appears that Rees was same sex attracted and also a devout Christian who desired to be ordained as a minister. Is this another case of internalised homophobia? One article describes Brenda’s struggle with being expected to follow traditional occupations for a woman, the taunting she had as a “mannish” woman and a three month psychiatric stay. The problems were exacerbated during a spell in the armed forces where she had a crush on another woman. Brenda, however, was determined she would never have a sexual relationship with a woman, as a woman.

Rees described realising she was attracted to girls making it clear she was horrified and regarded a relationship with a woman as “abhorrent”. It is not known if this disgust extended to all “practicing” Lesbians but it is a familiar theme in trans identified homosexuals.

Rees underwent surgery in the 1970’s.

On applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate, once aged sixty five, Rees was at first rejected. Part of the problem was that all the people involved in the process to get a diagnosis, and obtain surgeries, were dead. At this point Rees claims that even her own mother had been concerned about Brenda as a child and visited the doctor because of concern for the size of her clitoris. There is no way of verifying this statement so many years later. 👇

The above statement somewhat conflicts with this statement later in the chapter where Rees’ mother is presented as totally blind sided.

An aunt stepped in to provide evidence that “Mark” had rejected sex stereotypical behaviour from an early age. This was her statement in support of a case Rees took to the European Commission for Human Rights. Rejecting of female attire and a “masculine” gait. Like the many men who “transition” there are always these stories brought out to justify the belief someone was always meant to be the opposite sex. An alternative perspective is that the family preferred a man to a butch lesbian and this view was shared by Brenda. Bearing in mind this was decades before homosexuality was widely accepted and, even today, society punishes boys and girls who don’t conform to expectations for their sex. This can be a crushing burden and result in a flight from your sex /sexuality.

I would argue that the arrival of menstruation evokes negative emotions in a lot of girls but those who flee into a “male” identity seem to feel they are isolated in this experience. I don’t know any woman who doesn’t remember a rejection of the physical manifestation of “becoming a woman”.

Rees attempt to change the law was unsuccessful and resulted in the public revelation of her female sex and a round of media publicity. This brought Rees to the attention of a Liberal Democrat M.P, Alex Carlile who would go onto join the House of Lords. Thereafter Rees began to meet other people who had a “transsexual” identity and became involved in lobby groups like Press For Change. The media coverage was a mixed bag, some of it salacious but some sympathetic. Even then there was a desire for no opposition in the coverage and alternative view points are described as a media “trick” . This is a movement that does not like scrutiny.

Rees was supported by the organisation Liberty and other M.P.s. came on board. The Parliamenary Forum For Transsexualism was set by Lynne Jones (MP) with Zoe Playdon (Head of Education at South Thames,Postgraduate, Medical Deanery). I will cover their role in my next piece.

This resulted in the setting up of. Transsexual Working Group which was across 12 government departments. Lots of “transsexuals” were brought in to advise but nary a thought was given to listening to women’s groups. I wrote about that here: 👇

GRA: Transsexual Working Group

This chapter documents many of the legal cases that I have covered in other parts of this series. Rees makes an interesting aside about the slow attrition of the campaign strategy by repeated legal cases until the government was worn down. More belligerent voices were found unhelpful by Rees. Patient and polite was the preferred campaigning style. It was conceded that there was no political gain to passing legislation which was unpopular with the general public. Once the general public understand that this legislation is not a few meek, surgically modified males; but fully intact males with sexual fetishes, the public will roundly reject it. This is where females in flight from their sex come in handy, They are the fig leaf for a full frontal assault on the sex based rights of women. Unsurprisingly Rees did not see it this way, only “Bigots” would not be won over.

After all this Rees had to get Stuart Lorimer (who we will meet again) to provide the documentation so she could get a Gender Recognition Certificate. When the new birth certificate arrived Rees had an unexpected response to the legal fiction that she was born male.

Yet Rees’ then proposes to eradicate the record of our sex from everyone’s birth certificate! This is breathtaking entitlement.

The next statement is indicative that this is a religious belief and explains the messianic zeal of these campaigners. Everybody is expected to be a believer and activists wish their religion to be embedded in the law. This is why there must be pushback. An ideology built on lies can only be propped up by the deployment of the Woke Stasi, the Transtapo if you will.

Rees is not the most aggressive of the trans activists and seems to have achieved what they have by a quiet persistence. Women in flight from their sex are not a threat in the same way as m heterosexual males acting out a fetish. Because Rees is same sex attracted they don’t pose a threat to gay male spaces as the modern crop of heterosexual females do. Even so the nature of the threat from females is, inevitably, less of a threat than the male “Lesbians”. There is zero suggestion that Rees understands the impact on women from the ideology she pushes on all women. At the very least this shows a selfish disregard for other women. But, we are just bigots aren’t we?

You can support my work below or consider a paid subscription to my substack. My content will remain open but some paid subscriptions /donations help me keep going.

My substack

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

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

£10.00

Julia /George Grant:Trans Britain 10

Julia Grant’s story crops up frequently in the book “Trans Britain” so, I have taken a break from that series to cover the story here. Grant was the subject of a documentary and many trans-identified males reference having seen this production.

You can still find the series on BBC iPlayer; if you are in the U.K. and have a TV Licence. There are five episodes.

Change of Sex

You can also find the series on this YouTube Channel:

Change of Sex

When I first encountered George I was inclined to be sympathetic because of his background. George was the oldest of eight children with a violent father and an alcoholic mother. Because of his mother’s drinking, and suicidal behaviour, he had to step in and perform caring functions, in her stead. There is also a suggestion his father attempted to rape him. Below he is described as “prostituting” himself as a teenager which I would describe, instead, as being sexually exploited as a young boy. It is not hard to speculate that any of these issues could have led to him wishing to escape his sexed body.

Marriage and the Gay scene.

George talked about becoming active on the gay scene from a very young age but he also admitted he was not comfortable on the gay scene and, in fact, he married a woman and fathered two children.

George went back and forth in respect of his cross-dressing behaviour which follows a familiar pattern, in men with a history of transvestism. These men will often pursue their cross-dressing furtively and, periodically, purge their wardrobes of “female” attire in an attempt to get their compulsion under control. This seems likely to be driven by autogynephilia, the usual diagnosis for men with heterosexual histories. This is how he described his marriage:

One interpretation of this is that somehow George internalised his self-image as a “mother” to his siblings and this became bound up with an urge to cross-dress. Admitting any erotic component to this activity would have likely resulted in a rejection by the gender clinic, so, his silence on any sexual motive unsurprising. This activity is accompanied by shame and attempts to “purge” this behaviour and fight the compulsion. It’s also worth reading this account of spouses from a conference set up so “trans” people could promote their cause. Quite a frank piece about the behaviour of “trans” spouses and the impact on the spouse which I am surprised made the cut for the “Gendys” conference. Tell me this is not a sinister manifestation of domestic abuse?

Impact on wives

Here are a couple of clips from that piece.

Grant’s marriage was to break down and there is little focus on the issue from that marriage. There is one telling moment when Grant seeks access to housing and is asked to reveal their financial commitments. A financial obligation to fund electrolysis is mentioned but nothing about childcare support!

Grant’s attitude to homosexuals is also revealed in this clip. Is this lover more important because he validates “Julia”?

Did he think about women’s rights?

Like a lot of men who are colonising our reality George is no fan of feminists. Apparently we have “privilege” and he is going to do what he wants whether we like it or not.

Gender Clinic.

The visits to the Gender Clinic are with an incredibly pompous, patronising, patriarchal man who we now know was John Randall. Randall openly says that some men are “inadequate” in the male role and therefore assessed to see if they can be accommodated as “women”. In order to access “treatment” the men have to prove that they can be accepted as “women” by women. This is Handmaid territory; women as validation aids for female impersonators.

There is an interesting exchange which could have been articulated by modern day, gender critical women. 25 minutes in to episode one Grant explains, with the usual script, that he feels like a woman trapped in a man’s body. He explains that he has “feminine” thoughts and rejects his masculinity which is only a construction that is put on his body. Randall brusquely responds “It’s not a matter of society, it is a matter of anatomy” .

Grant continues in this vein explaining he feels like a woman and thinks like a woman. Randall breaks off to ask a woman in the room what it feels like to be a woman.

Grant is too impatient to follow all the hurdles before accessing fake breasts and is chastised by Randall for going against the clinic protocol. During this exchange he stubbornly insists he wants things to move at a faster pace and makes a statement that was to prove horribly prophetic.

In a catch up some years after the first documentary it is revealed that Grant had horrible complications just six weeks after surgery. Information “Julia” hid from the public arena for fourteen years.

This led to the breakdown in Grant’s relationship with Amir and he was unable to have sex.

Looking back on the impact of the documentary Grant expresses guilt about those that followed his path.

Ultimately, for him, surgery had been a failure but, even so, it seems it was worth it for the six weeks of “euphoria” he described following the surgery. Thereafter Grant had business ventures and worked as a drag act before moving to own bars in Manchester. Ultimately Grant would go on to marry (a man) until one day the man walked out one morning and did not return. Despite what appear to be problematic attitudes to homosexuality Grant would turn up in Benidorm to set up Benidorm Pride.

Attitude to “child” transition.

In later life Grant questioned the “transing” of children and incurred the wrath of trans activists, before his untimely death in 2019.

Grant also expressed reservations about surgery, full stop, and certainly the lack of information about the consequences.

All in all Grant had a backstory that inclined me to compassion, somewhat undermined by their total lack of consideration for the sex class, in which they are nothing more than an interloper. The annoyance at this male arrogance was tempered by their willingness to speak out about the impact on children and the terrible price they paid on their own body and sexual function.

You can support my work below or consider a paid subscription to my substack. I want to keep covering this and for my content to be free to access. Please consider supporting me as a one off donation or a subscription.

My Substack

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

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

£10.00

Transvestite to Transsexual to Trans: Trans Britain. (Part 9)

Activism.

This chapter covers the move from transvestite to “trans” activism. This clever ploy to desexualise men who cross dress is why heterosexual men have been emboldened to demand to be called “Lesbians”; like a bad Bernard Manning joke. This chapter illustrates the tactics of the “trans” lobby, advance by stealth, strategically litigate, cultivate (groom?) people of influence.

This is how far out of the shadows (blatant) the author of Trans Britain is in 2012. He’s now claiming, not only the word woman, but lesbian and mum. Pride at this stage should be renamed (We have) “No Shame”.

You can watch him say that here: Worth watching for the exaggerated, high pitched, voice which sounds like no woman I know.

Burns is proud

They accomplished this by claiming to be a Human Rights movement. It much harder to sell transvestism to the public while ever there was a recognised paraphilia called “transvestic fetishism”. The general public would never be persuaded if it was admitted, openly, that cross-dressing, for at least some involves masturbating into women’s underwear. Beaumont Society, let me remind you, was formed by transvestites and expressly banned homosexual men lest, they claim, a whiff of “gay” occasioned reputational damage.

In reality this movement is an attack on the human rights of women, by entitled men. They wish to be validated as the sex they are not and strip the rights of women to exclude fetishistic males from our spaces and our activism. The fact they achieved so much is because women’s rights are always precarious, in a society predicated on the idea that men are the default human. This is why Rachael Dolezal was pilloried for identifying into another racial group but men can call themselves “women” and our political and media elites trip over themselves in the rush to accommodate their demands.

One of the tactics has been to claim to be a vulnerable, marginalised, minority hence the testerical claims about an epidemic of murders within the “trans” community. I debunk those claims here:

TRANS MURDER MONITORING

What began with an uneasy alliance between those who acknowledged their transvestism and those who adopted the identity of a “transsexual” led to a transsexual rights movement. The split led to the formation of the superbly named “SHAFT”.

{However this, in turn, to led to the modern LGBTQ+ rights activism which includes “cross-dressers” once again and heterosexual people who practice BDSM and claim the label “queer”}.

Judy Cousins.

Cousins was a major in the British army and later a sculptor. He was a married man with children. This did not stop him from faking his own death.

He resurfaced in a woman’s magazine. According to this source this new female persona came as a surprise to his family.

As usual he had a history of secret cross-dressing. He also described how he selected his girlfriends more because he wanted to be like them; which must have thrilled his wife. Jan Morris (U.K “Transsexual”) said something similar in his book Conundrum.

It’s a compulsion and once you have it…

”Judy” was traced and appears to have returned to the family. He switched to the ladies golf tournament (of course he did) and rose to the high ranks of amateur Ladies competitions.

SHAFT eventually changed its name but then fell apart but, according to Burns, it pointed to the vital need for a group more focused on “transsexual” people.

Alice Parnall

Alice Parnall is another “trans” activist credited with setting up the Gendys conference.

The first conference happened in the 1990’s and thereafter was held in alternate years. “Trans” people now had a coherent narrative and could hold clinicians to account.

The conference ceased in 2004 but there is an archive and some of the papers are reproduced in full.

Gendys Archive

Alice has a rather sad back story which likely had an impact on his rejection of his sex. Sexual abuse and his parent’s messy divorce during his teens. By age 15 he had invented a female persona.

Although under the care of a gender clinic he refrained from surgery, married his lover and fathered children; an option not available to the children sterilised at “gender” clinics.

He deferred surgery until the breakdown of his relationship and trained as a nurse. He also became involved in the European chapter of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH); a lobby group that seems to have a stranglehold on guidelines for dealing with “Gender Dysphoria”.

Corbett v Corbett

Next we move on to some of the legal cases in this area. The Corbett case was in respect of the late April Ashley. April was a trans-identified male and the case related to a divorce settlement from the man he married. Ashley lost the case, the implications of which, according to Burn’s perspective, were catastrophic. Here Burn’s makes it clear his interests are diametrically opposed to women’s because we DO want the law to act in circumstances where sex matters. Housing men in women’s prisons is one of those circumstances.

Burn’s lists the disadvantages accruing to men who wish to lie about their sex. Notice he switches to reference “gender” in this section about unequal marriage legislation. Same sex attracted people still could not marry but heterosexual marriage was an option for heterosexual men who claim to be “lesbians”.

He makes an interesting observation about the prevalence of heterosexual men hiding in the LGBTQ+ movement. This is why the T is in conflict with the Gay rights movement and Lesbians, in particular, as well as the actual class of women that they seek to usurp.

Notice the cocky way he claims women for himself and uses (non-trans) as a qualifier for actual women. The misogyny drips off him however much helium he uses for his baritone.

Mark Rees.

Rees is an FTM who took a case to the European Court of Human Rights to allow marriage to their female partner. It was not a successful case but Burns acknowledges that there is an ability to weigh the rights of the many against the few. 51% of the population agree and we would like Burns to stop appropriating women’s rights.

This statement is provably false. This entire movement demands “special privileges” to force us all to validate a delusion; even one driven by a sexual fetish and directly encroaching on women’s right to privacy, dignity and safety.

Denton’s Strategy.

This is perhaps the most revealing statement so far. Below Burns reveals the strategy deployed by trans activists to get their own way. The truth is the “trans” community needed to accomplish legal changes by stealth because the majority of the public oppose their extremism once they know what it entails. TRAs have groomed politicians for decades, behind closed doors and used the strong arm of the law when it suits them.

Here they are influencing senior politicians and the wife of Tony Blair, then Prime Minister.

The claim they use “facts” to educate people is laughable when the entire movement is an elaborate con trick.

In 1999 they had a significant win thanks to their successful infiltration into the Civil Service. (I covered this in part 8, with a link to the relevant law).

The 2000 report on “transsexual” people I cover in this piece. All the usual “trans” lobby groups were consulted but it seemingly never occurred to politicians that women might have thoughts on being redefined by men.

GRA: Transsexual Working Group

Then in 2004 the disastrous Gender Recognition Act was passed. Again working by stealth, men plotted with other men, and a useful handmaiden, to strip women of their basic human rights.

Part ten will cover legal strategy. I am following the way Burn’s structured his book.

You can support my work below or consider a paid subscription to my substack.

My substack

I appreciate times are difficult but all donations are gratefully received. My content will remain open for those who are not able to fund my work.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

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

£10.00

Rev Christine Beardsley: Trans Britain. (Part 8)

Rev Christine Beardsley

Beardsley is a gay male who is in a long-standing relationship but came out as “trans” in his forties. Regular readers will know that I am generally more able to find empathy with homosexuals who claim a “trans” identity. Sometimes this may lead to less objectivity and I think my reaction to Beardsley is somewhat conflicted because of my own love, for my son. Bear this in mind while reading.

As a young boy he explains that he was a very effeminate boy. I prefer to use the phrase “variant in how he expressed his masculinity” because “camp” behaviour bears little relationship to how most women behave. Women are not a “drag” costume. We exist.

Where I can express sympathy is for the little boy who knew he had disappointed his father.

Clearly this would have been distressing for a little boy shamed by crushing expectations of conformity with male sex stereotypes and then compounded by a growing awareness he was homosexual. At some point he clearly internalised that his natural inclinations were at odds with societal expectations but he also internalised the sex stereotypes as “real” which then emerges as a cross-sex identification. This is in direct conflict with a feminist project to dismantle expectations based on sex (sexism). An early history of cross dressing, in secret, must have placed intolerable pressure on him as a young boy.

I have slightly less sympathy for an adult man who refuses to look at the harm being done to the female sex. This is something I struggle with in respect of my son. I know that part of his condition began with horror at the negative experiences of women and girls, at the hands of men. However, as the impact of this ideology, on women, unfolds where is the empathy for the sex he identifies “as”? Beardsley was forty-six when his “gender identity” issues became overwhelming. He had already entered the priest hood; in a time when women were barred. This was prior to the impact on women, girls and our gay boys that we see today. At what point is it reasonable to expect someone to disassociate themselves from this harm? I think now would be a good time because every day that passes implicates any man, who claims to be women, in the harms being caused to the female sex and the children being sterilised in the name of this new religion.

His long term husband is, reportedly, supportive of his “transition”, though we don’t have his direct testimony. Having already been with him for 25 years. It is not clear if he had always been aware of his partner’s inner turmoil. The language of “true” self always raises alarms for me because it sounds quite cult like. I also find men who do this in later years, who seem overly invested in childhood medical interventions, a tad problematic. I wonder also how much his religious sensibilities play in his flight from his sex.

He takes on a tour of his growing awareness of “trans” as a boy. Virginia Prince was an early activist who remains a controversial figure in the LGBTQ community as he is on record as against “sex reassignment surgery”. April Ashley figures as does Julia Grant. He also shares a book, subsequently made into a film, I had not heard of before. Superb title: I want what I want.

As I write this film is available on YouTube. Link below. 👇

I want what I want

What Beardsley wanted to see were images of ordinary “transsexuals” and he makes an extraordinary statement about what attracted him to the priesthood. Conflating priests with women because they don’t “go out to work” and have “soft hands” and some had “high pitched voices”. 😳. The deployment of these, rather sexist stereotypes a very old fashioned and undermine the feminist project to break down these expectations on the female sex. At the same time did a small boy internalise these beliefs in such a way that he has never been able to break free? And if that is true do women have any responsibility to accommodate these males at a cost to ourselves? The answer is no.

Beardsley claims the Church of England used to be a less hostile place for gay, male, priest until the late 1970’s. At that time a more Christian Evangelical group were committed to purging gay priests from the Church of England. For Beardsley he was keeping another secret in how he perceived himself.

Eventually he had an epiphany about God’s love which lead him to come out to his congregation. He was both “coming out” and remaining in the closet as he makes clear below. Notice he also describes his experience, at a dance class, 👇 as being with “other women”.

Following changes in the law and the support of Press For Change, Liberty and a Christian organisation Sybil, Beardsley came out as “transgender”.

You can read the Gender Reassignment Regulations (1999) here:

Gender Reassignment Regulations (1999)

I am not legally trained but, whilst the intention may have been to protect occupation requirements that only a natal woman can perform certain roles I imagine some of the wording can be used to argue the opposite. As we have seen women’s rights to be able to reject a trans-identifying man in their spaces have been eroded following this shift and the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.

As an aside the Clare Project remains in operation to this day and has obtained funding from the National Lottery, local council the NHS as well as LGBT organisations.

As you would expect, from a Reverend there is a lot of discussion in respect of the position of the Church of England to a “transition” and other Vicars who have taken the same route are named along the way. I won’t detain you with the details but if you are interested in this you can listen to this discussion.

Christina Beardsley & Preston Sprinkle

The only comments I will make on this podcast relate to Beardsley’s faith, misplaced in my view, in the World Professional Association on Transgender Health (WPATH) and the NHS on the treatment of Gender Dysphoria in the modern era. This discussion predates the closure of the Tavistock and the interim Cass report. At the same time coverage of the impact of Puberty Blockers predates this interview. Beardsley is also skeptical about the phenomenon of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, denies that young people are being rushed into transition and is in favour of a bill that would ban therapeutic approaches to gender dysphoria. There is also a good discussion about how it looks like gender medicine is over reliant on old fashioned sexist stereotypes. Preston Sprinkle seems to have considered the situation quite deeply and is aware of the rising rates of detransitioners. Beardsley also thinks concern about a lack of caution in transitioning our kids is a fantasy. It’s fair to say that no consensus was reached but it was a calm and compassionate exchange. I think as the medical scandal unfolds Beardsley will regret this stance. I did reach out to Tina for comment on this view.

The next chapter looks at landmarks in trans-activism.

You can support my work below at my paypal or consider a paid subscription to my substack.

My substack

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

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

£10.00

Kate Hutchinson : Trans Britain. (Part 7)

Kate Hutchinson

Kate is a trans activist based in Wales and active in a number of different “Trans” organisations. He has also played bass guitar in a number of bands.

Hutchinson’s narrative is familiar. He claims he “knew” at age 5 that he was different because he wanted to play hopscotch with the girls. He says he was told to leave the girls alone and play with the boys. Interesting use of “tingling” in this account, an odd word choice.

During his teenage years he claims he had to suppress his feminine persona and try to perform “boy mode” by joining the army cadets and playing rugby. This is a common way that men explain away their background of hyper-masculine pursuits. Turns out he is also a gamer. These facts are in danger of undermining the narrative so must be described as ,societally imposed, repression.

He only “came out” a decade ago after finally seeing more positive coverage in 2012. He makes an unverifiable claim that he had tried to present his “authentic self” earlier but transphobia made him retreat into the closet.

Hutchinson says he became aware of “trans” people with the eighties documentary on Julia Grant, Jan Morris and Christine Jorgensen. He credits Paris Lees with giving the courage to present his true self to the world, sometimes, at other times, it’s a prostituted “trans” character from Paddington Green.

His interest in music led him to adopt various styles of music that allowed him to play around within his “gender” in socially acceptable ways that provided camouflage.

He takes us on a tour of various musicians that challenged “gender stereotypes” in movements like the New Romantics, Goths and glam rock. The eighties were a time for playing around with and rejecting the straight jacket of sex stereotypes. Hutchinson saw it as an opportunity to “hide in plain sight” .

Unfortunately, he tells us, that era ended and he could no longer do this publicly and was reduced to (cross) “dressing” in the safety of his own home.

He names a few artists who have come out as “trans” and is particularly delighted that one stole an award meant for a female artist.

His public pronouncements are evidenced on his social media account and on some of the presentations available on YouTube. This one was given to an organisation purported to be about conservation. He is introduced by a staff member who has pronouns in her bio on her linkedin. You can find it here:

Kate Hutchinson

In this presentation Hutchinson makes liberal use of the discredited suicide and murder statistics; which make a regular appearance to propagate the idea this is a persecuted minority. He rattles off a list of people who come under the “trans” umbrella which includes, cross-dressers (transvestic fetishists, in old money), bigender, non-binary, gender fluid etc. He also talks about transphobia and shares some, alleged, incidents from his own life. I am extremely skeptical about this because I have seen this recur in “trans-narratives” and it comes off as a sexual fantasy.

He also talks about how he met with BBC staff to promote better coverage of “trans” people. The BBC figure frequently in the promotion of trans ideology, with a complete disregard for the safeguarding implications, despite their own shameful history in allowing predators in their midst.

In common with lots of “trans” activists they make sure to get the police on their side.

Lots of his work also involves going into schools to educate (indoctrinate)children. This is one of the major failings of the Conservative Government who are allowing our children to be manipulated, funded by tax payers. He appears to do this across the U.K.

He also appears on this Pride Wales YouTube alongside a person who appears to be female, with a beard, claims not to be “trans” and has a gay husband with whom, I presume, she has had the children she refers to…#Confused. Below are some images from the trailer. Men dressed in fetish gear and a captured police force.

Rhonnda Pride

The host appears to introduce herself as Minus DaCock with Tammy Paxton. Here they are:

In this video we learn that Hutchinson is, surprise, surprise, a gamer in a relationship with a woman. He spouts a lot of, scientifically illiterate guff about the reversibility of puberty blockers and claims his rights are under attack by the Conservative government. The “rights” in question turn out to mean he might lose access to the female toilets. That would be cruel wouldn’t ? To force a woman to share toilets with men?

Hutchinson’s twitter timeline is full of opposition to “terfs”. He has particular beef with Germaine Greer and Julie Bindel. He also doesn’t like the idea of an exclusively gay rights focused charity; so retweets attacks on LGB Alliance.

This is from a piece he wrote for Diversity Role Models listing all the things he feels are under threat from these terf /bigots. The arrogant incursion into single sex spaces by cross-dressing males is the new colonialism. Here he is openly opposing EXISTING LAW to protect women and girls from sexual predators/men with fetishes.

You can also find him crowing about Lesbians being ejected from Pride Cymru. Yet he appears to be a heterosexual man!

Next up is a transgender Vicar. Working within a religious setting to advance “trans” rights.

You can support my work here. I appreciate every penny! Or consider a paid subscription to my substack.

My substack

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

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

£10.00

Mermaids: Trans Britain (Part 6)

Mermaids

Chapter 4 covers the controversial charity, Mermaids. Using a pseudonym, a mum who “transitioned” her son speaks. At the time “Margaret Griffiths” was in her seventies so Her child will be in their forties, at least, by the time of the (2018) publication of Trans Britain.

The mother explains her route into becoming an advocate for her “daughter” while she was a stay at home mum. These two things may not be unconnected. She ended up with a role at Mermaids, on the committee, dealing with a lot of press enquiries given her availability.

Like a lot of these children “Lisa” had a history of being bullied and not fitting in at school and was also highly intelligent.

She is at pains to dispel any notion that she was unhappy about her child’s sex and claims that if she had expressed a preference it would have been for a boy as she had fond memories of the younger brother, who was ten years younger. The issue of “Lisa’s” gender identity came to a head when her son was fourteen years old and refusing to go to school.

Lisa is described as not “notably effeminate” and she “hid her problem well” . He also had not expressed any issues as a young child. What she had was a gentle son who did not like rough and tumble and who may have been a gay boy.

It is not clear what her /her husband’s attitude to having a gay son was, unlike Susie Green of modern day mermaids who made this statement in her Ted Talk.

“Margaret” sought for explanations for her son refusing to go to school and runs through a check list of issues. Again this is someone looking back in 2018 but the story bears additional scrutiny. She has just told us her son was getting bullied in the same chapter but here she says she asked him about that and she seems to have accepted his denial. He also denied being gay.

We are then told that they happened to see the story of Caroline Cossey (a “transsexual” and model who was outed by the press). She describes her reaction as one of pity for the experience Cossey was undergoing. Learning about Cossey, as she tells us, inspired her to ask her son if this was the problem.

”Lisa” was asked if he was happy being a boy and, as she describes it, his mum immediately accepted this and promised to fight for the way to deal with this problem.

This is a familiar trajectory in the parents I have covered. An immediate acceptance that this is the issue and a switch to activist mode. It maybe also be significant that she was a reader of Family Circle; which is quite a conservative publication sparking a backlash when it featured a gay couple as late as 2014.

She discovers an organisation set up by a therapist, Fran Springfield, and is disconcerted by the deep voice of the “transsexual” who answered the phone.

Things move pretty fast, from an outside perspective. We have already switched to a new name and referrals to the Childhood and Adolescent Mental Health Services end in frustration as her son is fixated on “gender reassignment”.

Soon both the G.P. and the mother are demanding action and this results in a referral to the Gender Identity Services, led by Domenico Di Ceglie.

You can read more about Di Ceglie in my series on him, below. 👇

Domenico Di Ceglie: Tavistock

“Lisa” is soon on puberty blocking drugs and the mum seems quite keen to point out her son was one of the first to be given puberty blockers, maybe even the first. Lisa seems to have embarked on this course of treatment age 14/15. (Since 2011 the Tavistock have been giving PBs to children from as young as aged ten).

Griffiths argues that the treatment is safe (and reversible) because the drugs have been used for decades in children with precocious puberty. This is a common argument and there are a few problems with it. In experiments on Sheep it was shown to lower IQ. Most of the research is on females. Girls put on lupron, in the U.S, for precocious puberty have taken legal action over the consequences. Given that Griffith’s first came across a quite beautiful model, in Caroline Cossey, and then a “transsexual” with a deep voice it seems that she is in a race against time to make sure her son “passes”.

To Griffith’s this preserves her son’s option and he will be better able to fit in. She goes on to say that allowing a natural puberty is not a neutral act.

This clip confirms the close relationship between Mermaids and the Tavistock. Griffith’s describes their relationship as one of mutual dependence.

Apparently adult “trans-identified” males were involved from the start. Given the link between computer specialists and a “trans” identity it is no surprise one of them was able to set up their website. I cannot find any information about Pamela Crossland but there is some public information about Krystyna Haywood.

Krystyna has stood for public office, for two different political parties in true trans fashion.

Haywood was also a social worker and remains on the register.

Here is a clip from an article about Haywood. The main thrust of the article was Haywood complaining that “sexual reassignment surgery” was delayed on the NHS. This is also not the first “trans” identified person who talks of the loss of a twin.

There follows a bit of a discussion about how one of the children chose the name Mermaids. Below it is made clear that the Beaumont Society were donating money. Beaumont Society started out as a support group for adult, male, transvestites. Press for Change was the organisation set up by Chris Burns and Stephen Whittle, among others. The donation from Pete Burns was a surprise to me.

Pete Burns was a pop star from Liverpool who was married for 25 years, to a woman, and then married a man, before his death at 57. Along the way he had series of extreme plastic surgeries and remedial procedures. This is Pete Burn’s speaking in his final interview which makes sense of his support for Mermaids.

The mum claims it all worked out well but Lisa still has “issues”. This is how parents justify a razor focus on “gender” to sort that out before worrying about any other issues. The other justification is that if you don’t do this your kids will commit suicide. That’s just a lie.

There is plenty more to come from this book. It seems worth it to document the links between these groups and the same names cropping up. Someone suggested I do a Spider diagram which I may do, once I figure out what one is. 😂.

You can support my work here. Thank you to those who do. You can send donations in a variety of ways. You could consider a paid subscription to my substack. I will link a Stripe and Donor box for the boycott paypal people as soon as I figure out how to do it.

My Substack

Paypal 

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

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

£10.00