Another Censored Paper: Multi-Sensory approaches to Gender Identity.

When I first came across this paper I was, initially, alienated by the standard Ideologically approved language. I pushed past the “assigned at birth”, “gender identity” framing which is ubiquitous in this field, and it actually proved to be an interesting paper with some important observations. It lasted, I think, about six weeks before activists got the final paragraph removed. Here is that paragraph. 👇

He is proposing more research to, potentially, identify less risky, invasive treatments that could mitigate “Gender Dysphoria”. He also recommends caution, to the clinical community, There followed a campaign for this last paragraph to be removed. It was. There followed a sustained campaign to get the paper retracted which succeeded in April 2020. So why? What did the paper say that activists think is so reprehensible? Is it merely the case that it poses questions and reveals unpalatable truths to Gender Identity Ideologues?

You can read about the retraction here Retraction Watch

You can read a statement by the author here Statement on Retraction by the Author

An analysis of the paper is here

Multi-Sensory approaches to Gender Identity.

He is proposing more research to, potentially, identify less risky and invasive treatments that could mitigate “Gender Dysphoria”. He also recommends caution, to the clinical community. Were activists appeased by the concession made by the journal? No. There followed a sustained campaign to get the paper retracted, which succeeded in April 2020. So why? What did the paper say that activists think needs to be suppressed?

The paper rejects the idea of “brain sex” which is the idea that a male can have a “female brain”. That is a theory based on the claim brain imaging showed transgender individuals have a “female brain”. Critics point to the impact of neuro-plasticity; where the neural pathways are forged as an adaptive response to the external environment. Others highlight that these studies fail to control for homosexuality or even exogenous female sex hormones (synthetic oestrogen). At best the jury is out on #LadyBrain theory.

The paper considers a number of hypotheses about the causes of Gender Dysphoria. It concludes that the multi-sensory theory best explains the variety of types of Gender Dysphoria; the different ages of onset and whether sufferers persist in, or desist from, identifying as the opposite sex.

The theory is that Gender Dysphoria, is a bodily dis-associative disorder, caused by dynamic activity in functional networks. He uses this theory to explore connections with high rates of anxiety and depression and some theories that persons with autism have an altered sense of their “body-ownership”. (There is an over-representation of autistic people with Gender Dysphoria. Autistic females are represented at eight times the rate of Autistic males. This is despite significantly lower numbers of diagnosed autistic girls). Crucially the authors argue that their theory does not rule out the additional role of psychosocial factors.

The paper makes comparison with other theories of Gender Dysphoria and this is what likely propelled activists to get it retracted. The social justice theory is that all of these children (and adults) are simply “Born in the Wrong Body”. They are deemed to be “correct” in feeling this way and it has become anathema to contradict this belief.

Another aspect of this paper which explains the ire it generated, is the data on how, in many young children with gender dysphoria, it resolves by itself. This data tends to be hotly contested, even though it is pretty much consistently the case that the vast majority, historically, desisted.

As I have posted before , on this blog, why are we medicalising children when the vast majority would desist, reconcile to biological sex and many would simply be gay? A reminder of an overview of the studies which generate these statistics Do trans kids stay Trans?

Note that desistance studies that post-date the administration of puberty blockers show a very different trajectory. It has been noted that these children invariably progress to cross-sex hormones. They appear to be locked into the trajectory to further medicalisation. As many of those that desisted , historically, turned out to be Gay Males and Lesbians that raises an unpleasant spectre of Gay Eugenics.

This paper also doesn’t cover the issue of “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” (ROGD) This is a new phenomenon which, I have argued before, doesn’t seem unconnected to a rise in teaching , in schools, of the idea of “Born in the Wrong Body”. We have seen a rise of 4500% in referrals to the UK main Gender Identity services and an inversion of the sex ratios. Until this last decade referrals were mainly male. Now females pre-dominate. Lisa Littman published a paper on ROGD and it also came under sustained attack, was withdrawn, further reviewed and re-published with only minor changes. You can read about this controversy here Lisa Littman: ROGD

However this is a rapidly changing situation and this paper attempts to address shortcomings in our knowledge base in a considered manner. It even uses the language of “Cisgender” and is careful not to refer to the activists least favourite theory of Autogynephilia. The conclusions it drew were fairly gentle and should have been uncontentious. What’s that you say? We need more research?

And for this the author has been hounded for months. The retracted paper, after the “offending” paragraph was removed, is here 👉. Paper

Domestic Violence: A Sister’s Story

As we are dealing with social isolation, here in the U.K, we have seen a spike in intimate partner homicide and family annihilation. (16 cases, by my reckoning, in less than a month.) This is sadly not unexpected. Agencies which support women fleeing perpetrators warned that Covid19 would see women isolated, with their abusers, and at elevated risk. And So it came to pass.

This piece is about my own Sister’s experience, though from an external vantage point. It will cover our interaction with the police force, prison service and the Judicial system. This experience is over twenty years ago and, roughly, spans a period of about seven years.

At the time my youngest sister reached 16 years of age I was living in Australia. We were a large family (6 girls and 2 boys). Relations with our dad had not always been easy and, for the girls, tended to become particularly fraught when preparing to go onto higher education. The males didn’t come out unscathed but the experiences were highly differentiated by sex. I cannot do the details justice in this post, suffice to say, I was not happy to leave her in that situation.

My “baby” sister is 7 years younger, than I, and was a favourite of our father. We would tease her, relentlessly, about her special place in his affections. At the same time we were not above deploying his affection, for her, to calm fraught situations. I have no doubt that we all used her, consciously or otherwise, as a peacemaker, from a far too young age.

Continue reading “Domestic Violence: A Sister’s Story” →

Therapeutic Interventions to resolve Gender Dysphoria

This article shows how a good therapist can identify underlying issues and attempt to resolve Gender Dysphoria without medicalised responses to bodily discomfort. The therapist is fluent in Gender Identity speak but does have the courage to honestly interrogate what “Gender” means to the clients they see. It is important to note that any therapist may, or perhaps will, feel compelled to speak in approved language to get published. Additionally our young people have imbibed the new lexicon so the therapist may need to speak in the approved language, to establish a dialogue with Gender Dysphoric youth.

The article: Psychoanalyst on Transitory Trans Identity Author Alessandra Lemmas

Psychoanalysis pays attention to unconscious motivations in the formation of “identity”. This is in marked contrast to Gender Identity proponents of a medicalised response. Lemmas talks of the need for “a posture of implicit scepticism” when dealing with claimed identities. This is in marked contrast to Gender Identity medical practitioners who prioritise a subjective sense of self and demand only “belief”. This is an excerpt from a response to an article in the British Medical Journal about how to treat Gender Dysphoria. The response is from Dr Helen Webberly, currently suspended from the General Medical Council, who is not alone in her stance: Helen Webberly .

The belief that people can, literally, be born in the wrong body underpins the lack of a therapeutic approach to young people presenting with Gender Identity Issues. Merely to suggest that this may be an incorrect, self-diagnosis, generates outrage that we are denying the “lived experience” of the transgender community. Yet we know, as Lemmas, and many others, point out most desist, reconcile to biological sex and many are simply gay. 👇

The author subscribes/pays lip service to the idea that sex is assigned at birth, rather than merely observed, as it is in 99% + cases. She subshumes both Lesbians and Gay men underneath the “transgender” umbrella. The statistics on post-operative satisfaction accept the narrative from within the Gender Identity community with no acknowledgment of the methodological flaws with the phenomenon of “loss to follow up”. {This is where a patient loses contact with the Gender Identity Service they are using. Detransitioners say they don’t return to the services which, they feel, actively harmed them, so this cohort disappear from the “follow up”}

The three case studies, in this article, cover many of the issues raised by parents dealing with our gender Dysphoric offspring. All claimed a transgender identity with no prior history sound puberty. We are told about the huge spike in referrals to the UK’s main Gender Identity Clinics and a wider social context emphasising choice and very much of a piece with the atomising of the individual in neoliberal, capitalist, societies.

The first case is illustrative of the complicity of transgender identity. More on “Anita” below. 👇. As you can see Anita claims multiple identities encompassing male, gay & female as well as “drag queen”. Already taking cross sex hormones but with no intention to progress to more surgical changes.

The dialogue seems to settle on the idea that gender identity can be fluid and an exploratory phase. Nevertheless Anita is already medicalising, We leave this case here, though I will just add that I have never seen a satisfactory explanation of what “living as a woman” means. It seems to depend on circular reasoning /a retreat to sex stereotypes.

Janes case is more complex and, arguably, requires a more robust interrogation since Jane seems to fully intend a full transition to “live as a man”. The sessions are challenging and, on more than one occasion, the analyst reports the anger triggered by the exploration of underlying issues. What emerges is a young girl whose parents have traditional gender roles in the household. Janes perception is that her mother is a “hostess” with little power, standing in the household. On being pressed much of Janes “Identity” seems built about rejecting all the signs associated with being a “girl” such as make-up and long hair. Here are some of Jane’s thoughts on what being a girl means to her:

Tellingly., Jane reveals that they did not feel they measured up to the expected level of attractiveness as a girl. Even more revealing is an expression of same sex attraction. Not as a lesbian but as a male attracted to females. Another common theme in detransitioners is the yearning for passing privilege as a male and how this, in retrospect, seemed to become more unattainable as they sought to identify as male.

Jane is also adopted and vehemently rejects any idea this relates to their gender identity issues, However it later emerges that the birth mother was from a culture which prized male children, in preference to girls. This prompts some self reflection and the realisation / admission that maybe this was bound up with the idea that her mother may have kept a male child.

Janes situation resolved itself without medical intervention. She is in a same sex relationship and has found a way to identify as a strong woman in her on line world after previously observing that she felt “insubstantial” and, significantly, failed to garner the same respect when she was coded female.

The third case study is Alex, who is a female who identified as male at 16. Alex was not interested in being dissuaded from hormones and surgery, as is common with our Gender Dysphoric youth. Alex’s parents affirmed the new identity and accepted their daughter as a son. Alex, however,still wished to access therapy, but still underwent a double mastectomy at age 19. Post surgery Alex was, initially “happy” but then became depressed and suicidal and revisited the sexual abuse that they had endured at age 10, and realised the link between the abuse and the desire to remove their breasts . Tellingly, the parents were not aware of the sexual abuse and it did made me reflect on their role as affirming parents and, if they had been aware of this history, would it have made them exercise more caution? I do NOT say this to judge those parents. Any one of us could have genuinely advocated for this stance in the belief, pushed relentlessly by our media and advocated by public bodies, that this is the right thing to do.

I am conflicted about the “woke” language. By espousing the idea that someone can born “in the wrong body” {which is the belief system underpinning transgender ideology} the danger is our Gender Confused children are getting mixed messages. On the one hand the implication is that they may be hard-wired with a conflict between sexed bodies and an opposite sex brain. At the same time it is clear that some of these cases are complicated by sexual orientation, history of sexual abuse and family dynamics. There remains no diagnostic test that can separate the influence of “neuroplasticity” from the notion of an opposite sex brain. In an ideal world we would start from the clear premise that there is no solid evidence that there is a biological basis for this incongruence between sexed bodies and a “gender identity”. That does NOT mean that Gender Dysphoria does not exist or that it cannot, in a minority of extreme cases, be extremely debilitating and, for adults, may lead to an inescapable desire for medical intervention.

Irrespective of these misgivings this is a good article and those of us dealing with Gender Dysphoric teens know how hard it is to navigate this terrain. Some solid therapeutic work seems to have built up sufficient trust to garner some solid insights from these young people. Of course I wish that self-awareness pre-dated significant surgery but for parents struggling with this, especially, I do recommend this piece.

Sexual Reassignment Surgery: A prisoner’s appeal

This legal case centres on a prisoner who wished to access, NHS funded, Sexual Reassignment Surgery during a prison sentence. Covered by The Times here: KK appeal for SRS

In anticipation of the general denial on this issue I include, as always, the official, judicial transcript. KK: Legal Challenge for SRS.

There are a number of interesting aspects to this case. Firstly the recurrent appearance of the same clinicians whose advice is sought. There does seem to be quite a small number of specialists in this field. A feature of this case, once again, is the claimant’s complicating history of sexual offences. This is not unusual, in the cases which leave a trail in court paperwork. Another recurrent theme is the vexed notion of what “living as a woman” means. This resists definition and exercises the minds of our specialists, and the judiciary, far too little. Here we are told the claimant is 60 years of age, was sentenced “as a man” and has been given an indefinite sentence for public protection (IPP). We also discover that the bar for obtaining Genital Reassignment Surgery (GRS) is lower for a prisoner who will never be released than for those with the possibility of parole. There is no rationale given here for this policy.

The legal claim is made on a number of grounds. One of these is whether there exists a protocol which discriminates against prisoners wishing to access sexual reassignment surgery. Another aspect of the case is a rarely articulated concern about regret, in post-operative transsexuals. Here it is adduced as a factor in the, efusing the prisoner GRS. The existence of post-surgery regret is not denied. Instead, the argument hinges on the lack of peer reviewed research showing prisoners are at a higher risk of regret. The Trust, for its part, denies there is any such protocol.

Below is a reminder of the criteria to access genital surgery. It can be done from age 17, mental health conditions are no bar they must merely be “controlled”, a patient is allowed to progress even if they are “unwilling” to undertake hormone treatment. Furthermore the prospective patient should not be judged on how they perform their gender. God forbid we assign arbitrary expectations to performative gender, it might make us suspect the entire ideology is underpinned by reductive, sexist stereotypes. The absence of any externally verified way of measuring “Living as a Woman” does, however, beg the question how is this being measured? How can you assess if a male person is really of the female gender? What does living in the female gender role mean?

How can you possibly assess whether this identity is being adopted correctly if you don’t have pre-conceived notions of what “living as a woman” entails? Is it possible that this is a tad sexist?

Another revealing admission is that many of those who claim the status of “woman” in fact have no bodily modification at all. So living as a woman does not require anyone to be divested of that very male of appendages. One could be forgiven for assuming the penis part of the male anatomy which would give rise to dysphoric feelings. Yet it seems not to be the case. A large number retain their male anatomy. At the same time we, second class women, the biological kind, are expected to share our intimate spaces with the new, male-bodied, version of womankind. We hear much of the comfort surgery can bring to sufferers of Gender Dsyphoria. Where is the consideration for the discomfort of ,unbepenised, women forced to share our intimate spaces?

Cue cries of “transphobia” for wishing to be free of all genders of penis when women are in intimate spaces.

The next excerpt from the case provides more information on the sexual offences committed by the prisoner. Here we learn that the defendant begain offending in the 1980’s; when he groomed and abused a young girl, at the age of 12 . The defendant was, at that stage, 32 years of age. The girl endured this for four years. He served just one year. He was still sexually offending in 2006.

The claimant is late to a belief they are really a woman. He remained trapped in a man’s body at age 51. The claimant professes, to the therapist below, that his sexual offending may cease if he is allowed to transition. The therapist offers an alternative view. What if his attraction to the child images is related to him having missed out on 51 years of being a girl (WTF!). He may, in fact, be at a higher risk of offending after gender reassignment. He then proceeds to amend his statement with the outrageous implication that he resorted to offending to “vicariously experience womanhood”. Because nothing screams woman louder than sexually offending against a pubescent, female teen and downloading child porn! Types furiously…

Again there is a lot of evidence that males, who retain a sexual interest in females, and wish to transition, also have co-existing paraphilias. But hey, what could possibly go wrong!

Dr Lorimer is well aware that masochistic fantasies are not unusual. A cursory acquaintance with sections of the community reveal a correlation with interests in BDSM. Indeed here is a Masters Thesis about how sado-masochistic, role play helped one transwoman cement their identity. Naturally they played the submissive role. BDSM & Transgender Identity

Cross-dressing usually has an erotic component but the prisoners states this was not the case for them. Well he would wouldn’t he? Fetishising a female identity is pretty much the essence of the movement but I would say that wouldn’t I?

Fetishising sexual roles, with notions of submission and dominance, seems to be a core feature of how many males experience their female role. Acting female in a male prison is vastly different from women’s material reality, as pointed out below:

Here we find that the prisoner remains in a category C Male prison. Since they have been “in role” for 10 years in a male prison it rather begs the question about lack of safety in the male estate. Dr Barrett makes it clear they are not able to make a referral for a Gender Recognition Certificate. As we found out from earlier cases there is no bar to obtaining a GRC, from within prison, even with convictions for sexual offences against women. There are always other clinicians and a wealth of private providers that the prisoner can approach. Good to know. I was worried for a while.

We soon learn that the prisoner has been moved to an open prison. We are not told if this remains in the male estate. The prisoner has, however, been granted accompanied and unaccompanied visits to the local town. This is to gain that all important “real life experience” of living as a woman, whatever that means! This is a prelude to release. Prisoner also has hormone therapy increased. Below is another revealing statement that acknowledges that most denied of phenomena: “detransition”. When word gets out that Dr Lorimer has used this word will he be cancelled?

The prisoners sexual offences are deemed to “complicate” the picture for our clinicians. Further confirmation is provided below. Here we have a prisoner presenting as female, in the male estate, for 10 years! Again Dr Barrett makes it clear the imprisonment of a patient is no bar to obtaining GRS and, additionally confirms female prisoners are being made to share accommodation with pre-op males.

Yep Dr Barrett you bet the experience of living in the female role is artificial. I agree with you but probably for different reasons. Late transitioners, with a history of sexual offences, are a red flag but you can’t say that can you? We must not undermine the notion of a man trapped in a woman’s body. #AcceptionWithoutException. Though Dr Barrett comes pretty close with this gem of a contribution about Women “living in female bodies!” (spoiler there is no other kind ). Yes! We tend not to groom female children and perform oral sex on them.

So without wishing to labour the point the prisoner is denied. No mention is made of the obvious reasons! You know the late -transitioning, sexual offence history and interest in child porn. No. The real issue that seems to justify the refusal is a failure to demonstrate real lived experience, as a woman, because prison is an artificial environment! Whilst a male cos-playing as a woman is not artificial, in any way!

Case Dismissed.

Puberty Blockers. Part One

Puberty Blockers are promoted as an ideal way to allow your child to “pause” puberty whilst undergoing gender identity confusion. This is the consistent stance taken by “experts” in the field. This appears to have been taken on trust by the medical establishment and is now embedded within our own NHS. Here is the GID (Gender Identity Service) statement (accessed November 9th 2019).

Here is Polly Carmichael of the GIDS service. This is a clip from a documentary shown on Childrens BBC. Yep that’s right. CBBC. Which of the parents now dealing with Gender Dysphoric kids realised this was being propagandised to our kids? Not me.

Originally this blog had a link to Becoming Leo but it has now been removed. It was here Becoming Leo: CBBC

Yet when you access the service spec which GIDS work to you actually get this rather contradictory information. Seems that they *know* that far from a “pause” it actually sets these kids on an irreversible path to “gender affirmation surgery”. You can access this document here: Service Specification

So my question is why, if they know 100% go onto a medicalised pathway, are they still saying this allows for a “pause”? It isn’t new information. So what else do we know about puberty blockers? Here is the outcome of an investigation into a GIDS research programme that puts children on puberty blockers as young as age 12. The Health Research Authority conducted an investigation into the research programme after concerns had been raised. The full report can be accessed here:HRA Report on GIDS

For the purposes of this blog the pertinent admission is here

We have moved from “pause” to very careful selection of the group who are “likely” to progress. This sleight of hand diverts scrutiny from the role puberty has, formerly, played in resolving Gender Dysphoria. Historically it was the actual changes that occurred during puberty that resolved the dysphoria and allowed re-identification with biological sex. Stopping puberty means 100% go on lifelong dependence on cross-sex hormones and significant surgery. Something noted by key researchers in this field. Its even worse. Most of these youngsters, if left alone, would grow up to be Gay Males or Lesbians.

Here is a youtube which goes through all the Long Term Studies that look at persistence versus desistance rates. . It looks at the methodology in cluding the problematic aspects. Lack of control groups, changes in diagnostic criteria for Gender Identity Disorder (now Gender Dysphoria), loss to follow up in the studies and small sample size. Desistance rates

Despite all the caveats to the studies the incontrovertible fact is that the majority desist. IF, crucially, they are left to go through a natural puberty.

This article covers much of the same studies and comes to the same conclusion. Trans Kids.

Pertinent quote

Here is a professor who asks the question we all need to be asking. Watch here: Are we medicalising away the Gay?

I will leave part-one here and follow up with a detailed look at two studies. These raise serious questions on the evidence base on which the treatment protocols are based. A child who has puberty blockers followed by cross-sex hormones will be sterile. We know, historically, most were same sex oriented and we also know that there is, currently, an over-representation of autistic kids caught up in a trans-identity.

Is this the Woke Gay /Autistic Eugenics?

You can support my work here:

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

Researching Gender Identity Ideology, the impact on women’s rights and the biggest medical scandal this century

£10.00

Gender Recognition Panels: A Judge talks.

Revolutionary? Evolutionary? Or just a massive mistake?

The process by which a Gender Recognition Certificate is issued is overseen by a Gender Recognition Panel. Here a judge talks, with breathless excitement, about their involvement in the process. It is rare to get any insight into the workings of the panel except, as I found, by looking at Legal Cases which do shed some slight on its ~~laxity~~ sorry, complexity. This piece is very revealing in its tone, and use of language. Remember this panel determines who can redefine themselves, in law, as the opposite sex and be treated as if they were legally a man, or a woman. Though note the legislation had amendments to prevent a woman inheriting a peerage or accessing legacies entailed on the male line. They made sure the important things were protected. Exclusions were built in to legally discriminate against females who claim a male identity. Ireland did the same with the priesthood.

Article, in full, here Gender Recognition Panels

I think a lot of the people involved in the “gender identity” business feel they are claiming a place in history (the right side of history) by working in such a radical/revolutionary field.

This article is written in the language of social justice warriors not of cool, calm, deliberative thinkers. This is legislation which has massive implications for women’s rights. It directly impacts the implementation of legislation around single sex spaces and women’s right to exclude men from our political organisations. Yet NOT ONCE does this essay even touch on the potential (I would say actual) implications for women’s rights!

Will I draw fire from Social Justice Warriors if I appropriate the Chinese Curse “May you live in interesting times”. Women, in the UK, are indeed living in a cursed place.

Ms Gray is very frank about the process and the stance of the panel. I am not surprised. Much of what she says is controversial, in feminist (non libfem) circles, but has been utterly normalised by the, cognitively captured, judiciary. If only women had managed to capture the state with such alacrity we could be living in a very different world! If only women were part of this marginalised community what we could do with such power?

The use of language is highly revealing. “avant-garde” and “radical” . This is language more appropriate for someone authoring experimental fiction. Though in a sense they are doing exactly this but with real life consequences, not just a critical review in high brow literature journals. The judge seems almost disappointed that we were pipped at the post by other jurisdictions who have already moved to “self-selection of one’s gender”. The Pick and mix of Sex coming to a courtroom near you. The Judge seems disappointed she is stuck with our old-fashioned and “oppressive” desire for some “evidential requirements”, this is a Judge rejecting evidence as “oppressive”. Are we lamenting that we have we not kept pace with the social engineering that has embedded itself in western (elite) culture because we are no longer leading it?

For this judge it has been an exciting opportunity to be at the “cutting edge” ,or not, of a Brave New World. This excitement is not quite shared in the real world where ordinary women deal with the consequences. The judge wants us to know how this “small group of judges” decided how they would operate. As we can see , below, they decided the progressive thing to do was to be “enabling” and facilitative. They certainly have been “enabling” and I am not sure I would speak of what they have “enabled” in such gushing terms.

They have all we are told gained their experience via the “Social Entitlement Chamber” which is just the most fabulous name for a school of judges who seem so out of touch. Here ⇓⇓ we are told that the team work to be as accommodating as possible so that the applicants can demonstrate their “entitlement to a GRC”. Ms Gray takes this very seriously and has only refused 3 out of an estimated 2800. So less than 0.1% were refused. Even then the applicant can go on to appeal. At that stage only one judge needs make the decision. (See my earlier review of one such case: GRC Appeal)

I dare say the answer to this blinkered view is that time and time again the lobby groups advising are from one sector only. Any implications for women have been ignored and, if considered at all, clearly discounted. They have spoken to “professionals in the field” including endocrinologists and psychologists. The problem with these “experts”, who are encountered again and again in legal cases , is that they are ideologues. The “experts” are wedded to the notion that “gender identity” is a real, biological, phenomenon and only a bigot would define women as a biological sex class.

Ms Gray anticipates that her role may be at an end. No doubt seeing the requirement for any scrutiny to be disregarded in a rush to impose Self-identified status as a woman/man. I too wish for an end to the Gender Recognition Panel but for entirely different reasons. It was a mistake to enshrine a legal requirement to recognise a change of sex as if it was literally possible. The eradication of the notion of “sex” will hurt women and, ultimately, those who wish to be protected as “same sex oriented”. This is not revolutionary. Its regressive.

Sex by Deception? Perjury?

Sex by deception: Legal Case.

I was not intending to blog this case. I fear the bald facts lend themselves to a curiosity born out of prurience. I myself was intrigued so I am not in any position to judge. It is hard not to question the circumstances, as laid out in the case. Transcript

The bare facts of the case are:

On reflection, I decided to blog as it raises the issue of Sex By Deception, currently a criminal offence. There is talk about reviewing the law. Stonewall are one of the organisations lobbying for this:👇

Whilst there could be a progressive case for reviewing the law covering sex by deception (I am thinking of Spy cops) it’s also fraught with risk. I am mainly thinking of #CottonCeiling here. The term #CottonCeiling was coined by a trans porn actor and activist, Drew DeVeux. It describes the “exclusionary” practices of Lesbians from a trans perspective. Sex by deception laws,currently offer some remedy if sexual activity is embarked upon without disclosing your sex / anatomical status. Trans activists don’t think sex is a meaningful status, only gender, so they oppose this legislation. A taste of the rhetoric on this topic is below:

From a Lesbian perspective #CottonCeiling rhetoric posits their same sex orientation as “bigotry” and trans exclusionary. In fact it is male exclusionary and doesn’t necessarily exclude females who self-identify as Transmen. Many lesbians have also pointed out that this is all too reminiscent of the “corrective rape” practiced on Lesbians. (Still happening now I hear from South African Lesbians) How dare they exclude males from their dating pool?

The term cotton ceiling is a twist on glass ceiling but here it is not about the barrier to women’s opportunities but the barrier (women’s knickers) to sex!

The person who led this workshop moved to the UK to work for Stonewall. Its not just a few outliers on the internet.

The cases I am aware of, in the UK, have, however, all been “transmen”. In a practical sense testosterone does seem to do a lot more heavy lifting, than oestrogen, so a passing “transman” seems more common. Outside of celebrity world a passing “transwoman” is more rare. Transmen are maybe more likely to commit this, from an opportunity perspective, not from a propensity. Transactivist rhetoric, however, seems more focussed on females excluding males from their bedrooms I have not seen an equivalent movement around the #BoxersBarrier. Psychologically de-programming male socialisation seems to be a much harder task, perhaps the prominence of sexual demands, made of women, by males, is to be expected.

This legal case pre-dated the Sexual Offences Act of 2003 so used a charge of perjury but it has implications for fraudulent claims to be of the opposite sex. We need a discussion on how that speaks to “consent”. The current law provides for 👇

This original case was tried on the basis of perjury from this legislation.

I don’t have the transcript of the original case (yet). The later cases relate to a long legal battle for the trans-identifying female to have access to the children, born during the marriage, and financial support from the ex “spouse”.

The case struck me as rather sad, which it is. However, as I thought more about it I was struck more by the consequences, for the woman, caught up in this deception.

After I posted a brief reference, on twitter, the responses (mainly disbelief) made me dig a little deeper. Eventually I found a much earlier case, involving the same couple, which provided a lot more background. 1996 case. There will also be an earlier case relating to the perjury charges. I have not located a transcript for that case.

What is clear, from the earlier case, is that the wife was not aware of her partners sex, certainly not at the time of the marriage. Just when she was fully informed is not entirely clear. Certainly both parties had opposing interests when it came to establishing when the fraud was exposed. The “husband” faced a possible seven year sentence for the deceit. The “wife” faced battles over the children (conceived by artificial insemination) and sharing financial assets. Should the partner be able to claim rights to her property and financial assets? If it was determined a crime had been committed then the party to the deception likely had no legal claim on any financial assets accumulated during the “marriage”.

The FTM had undergone a bilateral mastectomy (In 1977) but the surgery had not been straightforward so the patient opted not to undergo a phallioplasty. Interestingly here is an audio recording detailing the complications from a recent recipient of a phalloplasty This appears to be a dangerous, and poorly regulated, procedure over 40 years later. The decision to avoid it, from a health perspective, seems to have been a wise choice.

The skepticism about the wife’s ignorance of her “husbands” sex seems to be explained by her youth and inexperience and the use of a prosthetic device. Elsewhere in the testimony it is clear that much effort was made to preserve bodily privacy, by the claimant. (The claimant in this case is the FTM as it concerns access and “ matrimonial assets”). The differing backgrounds of the claimant and “spouse” are detailed also 👇

Following the marriage it was not until some years later that the couple sought help to conceive. It is not known if they had been “trying” up to that point. If they had then this was a cruel deception. No details are included as to whether the mother had been subject any other fertility tests or treatments. What seems clear is that the male had not been subject to any tests, not unusual for the time. Far easier to medicalise the “infertile” wife than question a man’s masculinity. With the increasing clamour to be attracted to “gender” not sex this is one of the consequences of denying biological reality.

The relationship began to breakdown in 1994. At this point the wife confided in a friend who was also a private investigator. Below is an account of what led to the discovery and the shock it occasioned to the mother.

There is a lot more speculation in the transcript. From my own reading it does seem as if there was, at the very least, some awareness of the physical irregularity in the FTM. A letter is referenced which appears to show some incident occurred which was a revelation, of some sort, to the wife. From a legal point of view It was the facts known at the time of the marriage that were the determining factor in any claim against “matrimonial” assets. There is a clear admission that the facts were not declared.

The basis on which the “husband” was tried and the defence case are briefly summarised below 👇

Point three in the defence minimises the offence as “not so serious” and go on to imply diminished responsibility, due to the nature of the “personality disorder”. I presume this is no longer a legitimate defence since the condition of Gender Dysphoria has been reclassified. It is no longer, officially, a mental health issue. More on the politics of this classification shift here: Diagnostic Status of Gender Dysphoria Written by a Transexual Dr Ann Lawrence.

In any event the defence failed to convince the Judge.

The judge found that perjury had been committed. The deceit had been perpetrated because the claimant had known that the marriage would not take place if their sex was acknowledged. The 2006 case hinges on any claims for ancillary relief. In lay terms the claimant would not, legally, be allowed to benefit from a “criminal” enterprise. A stealth existence and need to “pass” must place intolerable pressure in those with gender Dysphoria. The judge references this, sympathetically, but this doesn’t equate to an absence of responsibility for the deception.

However should a real psychological need take precedence over someone else’s right to make informed choices? When this is about who has access to your body? The judge deemed it a profound betrayal of trust.

Now the concept of an “innate gender identity” is treated as a medical, but not a mental health, condition much of this defence would, presumably, be moot. A genuinely held belief that you are the opposite sex doesn’t change biological reality. If someone has a Gender Recognition Certificate there are privacy laws protecting that information. They are to be treated as if they are the opposite sex. Is there any protection, other than sex by deception, for women, or men, deceived in this way? Extreme activists would say there is no deception. They would argue they literally are the sex they say they are. That there is a deeply held conviction I can accept, that I should have to share it is the sticking point.

All mainstream political parties have mainstreamed transgender rights. Labour explicitly say they wish to review the legislation in this area. I single out Labour only because I am a lifelong Labour voter and my fear is we are throwing an election over this. 👇 I am indebted to Mumsnet for the quote below. [The link was included but this document is no longer available to view. Hopefully this is because they are reviewing the content. Hope springs eternal: Securing Trans Equality]

“Point 14: Review the law relating to legal issues of consent to rape and sexual offences to ‘sex by deception’ in order to remove potential discrimination and criminalisation of trans/gender variant people….”

Why are this community a special case? This suggests we are going to be legally compelled to validate “gender identity” even in our most intimate relationships. Are gay men allowed to reject trans men? Lesbians Transwomen? Will an offence have been committed if sexual contact takes place only to be confronted with a seven inch surprise? These are real ethical and legal issues. I have zero faith that our political elite will make the right choice.

Transgender extremism, violence against feminist meeting at British Labour Party conference

via Transgender extremism, violence against feminist meeting at British Labour Party conference

Gender Recognition Certificates

As activists in the trans community work to remove the “onerous” burdens placed on the community to legally “transition” I became curious about the legal cases in this area. Far from excessive gatekeeping the act is explicitly designed to be “permissive”. Has this permissiveness gone too far? It seems there is a low bar to be, legally, redefined as a woman. If you are not convinced have a scroll through my blogs. If you don’t want to take my word for it, fine, I would not believe me either! In every piece I link to the legal records. You can bypass my commentary and go straight to the Transcript

In brief no surgery, attempted rape convictions, being incarcerated for paedophilia are no bar to claiming “womanhood”! Remember that when someone tells you they “live as a woman”. Interrogate that phrase. Its ubiquitous and meaningless. Can I, a white woman, say I “live as a black woman”? Nope. So why is one form of appropriation Ok and the other is racist?

Reading through these cases the co-morbidities of mental health conditions is striking, even as they are dismissed as “co-incidental”. This has implications for treatment pathways and women’s safety. The recurrence of the same “experts” also shows how “gender identity specialists” are influencing the judiciary. The case I cover in this blog can be read, in full, here 👉: Ms Jay October 2018

Ms Jay versus the Secretary of State was instigated after three, unsuccessful, applications for a Gender Recognition Certificate. Presiding was a single judge, Lord Justice Baker. This case, as the Judge points out, was the first under new rules governing appeals against a GRC refusal. Below is some background about the complainant.

The clip below includes details of the short marriages, a self-reported feeling of being in the wrong gender, from puberty, and a secret history of “cross-dressing”. {Neophytes should search “autogynephelia” at this stage}

In addition to marrying three times, and fathering 7 children, the appellant has a criminal history. In 2011 they were sentenced to eight years in prison. The judge makes it clear that the appeal is not concerned with the criminal offences. Also the papers detailing the offence were not included and, moreover, that this was not relevant to the “wider public debate”. For the terminally curious. Here is a brief allusion to the offence so you can judge for yourself whether it is “relevant”

Some of the reasons the panel resisted awarding a GRC were; inconsistencies in the information supplied, the reversion to male names during “transition” and a Gender Identity specialist casting doubt on the diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria. Ms Jay appears to have had more than one name change during the process and questions were raised about multiple addresses. Questions were also asked about misleading information supplied about the marriages and why redacted documents were submitted to the panel. Here we are told the applicant has lived full-time as a woman since December 2008. Yet driving licence and passport were renewed, in the male name, in 2013. This a year after making a statutory declaration, to a judge of their “intention to live full-time as female until death”. (whatever living as a female means). The appellant had a name change in 2013 , whilst imprisoned, a surname change and then another first name change in 2018. I hope someone is keeping track of all those names! I echo the panel statement which questioned whether the applicant had something to hide!

I sympathise with a panel presented with this applicant. A person whose Gender Dysphoria remitted enough to marry three times and father seven children. Someone who manages to suppress their femininity sufficiently to amass explosives with intent to endanger life. ( No! I hear your outrage. You are right. Women can also amass explosives with homicidal intent. Must learn to Lean In….Bad Feminist!) Naturally, because of the name changes, I have found it impossible to trace the background to those offences. I can’t shed any light on the womanly way in which the crime was committed. I am actually not clear whether tracing this history is even possible if a GRC holder does not reveal past identities. It might even be an offence for me to try!

Warning! Tone Switch..

Having justifiable concerns about the impact of these decisions, on women, does not necessitate abandoning my humanity. The clip below paints a sad picture of the claimant. Nobody deserves to be vulnerable to sexual assault and I do wonder whether anyone is joining the dots between maladaptive coping mechanisms and prisoners undergoing transition. However I would also love to hear from the trans-widows in this case. Those women are the really brave and stunning ones in all of these tales. They may tell a very different tale.

The first application to the Gender Recognition panel appears to have commenced from within prison. The medical evidence submitted is from Dr James Barrett, a regular expert witness in these cases. He is generally very sympathetic to Transgender Appellant’s. His statement and comments are worth quoting in full. The history presented by the appellant is disputed and a concern focus on transition may be misdirected. A long history of psychiatric problems is noted. When even Dr Barrett thinks its a bad idea….its probably a bad idea!

The prisoner is released in March 2015 and finds a new doctor. Unfortunately the release didn’t last long and they were recalled to prison in less than 3 months, Here a new doctor appears on the scene. Dr Helen Webberley. Interestingly the panel note that they had not previously heard of Dr Webberley, in this field, which shows how recently they d£cid£d to ~~cash in~~…oops I mean support such a vulnerable community:

The relationship with Webberley doesnt seem to persist and another doctor appears. The next Doctor issues a report which is submitted, in redacted form, the the Gender Recognition Panel. This doctor again refers to Ms Jay’s personality disorder and maladaptive coping mechanisms but does diagnose Gender Dysphoria. The diagnosis leads to the recommended treatment (gender reassignment) to resolve the psychiatric issues. Nobody asks whether craving Gender Reassignment is another maladaptive coping mechanism. That would be transphobic, just in case any of you are thinking that now! Gender Dysphoria has been rebranded as an “identity” not a mental health issue, it’s now a slur to suggest this. As an aside this expert also recommends consideration is given to moving the prisoner to the female prison estate. In March 2016 the application for a GRC was turned down. The doctor disappears from the case.

The prisoner is once again released in May 2016. Within 3 months he has found another doctor who provides this evidence ↓ Pay attention to the dates and the extensive treatment the patient has, we are told, undertaken in three short months. ( As an aside Dr Pasterski appears in other cases I cover & most notably opposed a Local Education Authority when it raised concerns about 3 unrelated “trans kids” in a foster family).

At this point the claimant becomes frustrated with the panel who have requested more clarification. The claim “I have always been female” would seem to write three wives and 7 children out of history! In August 2017 the Gender Recognition Panel again turned down the application. They expressed doubt about the credibility of the supporting evidence and , in particular that of Dr Pasteracki. They cast doubt on evidence supplied by the claimant.

3633A2A3-83DE-4B91-B111-3D288A48F961 — ***Inconsistent, unclear, vague, evasive. Nothing to see here***

Some awareness of the condition of Autogynephilia, in the Transexual Community would help the Judge here. Those who fit the profile for autogynephilia have a condition rooted in shame. Sufferers tend to be steeped in denial. Here is a quote from a Gender Identity Specialist:

1334EE62-7FB8-4A16-98ED-FA1DB0C6154D — The Man Who Would Be Queen: Michael Bailey.

We have seen this in an earlier case I covered GRC from Prison. In that case a male claimed to be homosexual, his attempted rape was minimised on that basis. Yet, since leaving prison, they now self-identify as a lesbian.

Back to this case. In November 2017 the prisoner was again recalled to prison. The judge noted that the claimant was still in prison at the time of the hearing.

Thereafter yet another doctor enters the fray! As the claimant is detained at her Majesty’s pleasure it is not clear how any assessments were carried out. This one is in Sheffield. Can’t change the opinion so change the Doctor!

Now we get to the aim of the court case. It turns out they there is provision for a GRC to be issued by this one judge who can bypass the Gender Recognition Panel. The advocate for the claimant also shares this interesting nugget about GRC applications. Less than 5% are refused its designed to be “permissive not restrictive”. You have to admire the fancy footwork of the Legal team. Ms McCann that the prisoner met the legal standard and that this Judge had the authority to award the Gender Recognition Certificate himself. Is it possible that some Judges are a tad vain and like to set precedents? Does the advocate absolutely know this fact about male vanity? [Strike that: Snarky opinion! My bad]

Ms McCann reminds of that many of these decisions emanate from the European Court of Human Rights. (If we Brexit do we lose Sexit? Sobering thought for a remainer such as myself!)

The right to self-determination includes “gender identification”. Laywoman opinion: Your right to self-determination is not absolute. If it denies me the personal autonomy to recognise and relate to someone as the sex they are!

To demand that I accede to your self-identity which may contradict my sex recognition skills springs from a totalitarian impulse. Chances are I will see your sex and if you walk behind me, late at night, I will react accordingly.

Furthermore can a person be “master” of his “ethnicity” as per the extract below? If I am objectively black can I identify out of racism? As a woman can I identify out of sexism?

To cut a long story short the Judge was persuaded by these arguments. He recognises that he is sitting alone, without assistance from a medical member of the panel but, in a Brave and Stunning decision, he decides to confer a Gender Recognition Certificate on Ms Jay, assuming that is still her name.

For those of you following this discussion just a reminder not to mention the elephant’s trunk in the room. That would just be rude.

I will leave you with this question. In making these determinations the Judge has to have regard to the individual’s Human Rights but also the wider rights of the Community. Are we well served?

Author: womangendercritical

Another Censored Paper: Multi-Sensory approaches to Gender Identity.

Like this:

Multi-Sensory approaches to Gender Identity.

Like this:

Domestic Violence: A Sister’s Story

Like this:

Therapeutic Interventions to resolve Gender Dysphoria

Sexual Reassignment Surgery: A prisoner’s appeal

Like this:

Puberty Blockers. Part One

Is this the Woke Gay /Autistic Eugenics?

Like this:

Gender Recognition Panels: A Judge talks.

Revolutionary? Evolutionary? Or just a massive mistake?

Like this:

Sex by Deception? Perjury?

Sex by deception: Legal Case.

Like this:

Transgender extremism, violence against feminist meeting at British Labour Party conference

Like this:

Gender Recognition Certificates

Warning! Tone Switch..

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Share this:

Like this:

Is this the Woke Gay /Autistic Eugenics?

Share this:

Like this:

Revolutionary? Evolutionary? Or just a massive mistake?

Share this:

Like this:

Sex by deception: Legal Case.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Warning! Tone Switch..

Share this:

Like this: