Examining Gender Identity ideology and its impact on Women's Sex based rights and Gay Rights. Exploring how this has taken such firm root in Western societies (Cognitive & Regulatory Capture).
This man works for the Dept of work and pensions, in Bradford, and is their National Trans Ambassador.
He first came to my attention after coverage of an outrageous motion he tabled at the conference for the PCS, the union for public sector workers. Here’s a flavour:
In fairness, I should point out, as a formerly active trade unionist myself, many motions are tabled which are not likely to have full backing from other members and often focus on “niche” issues. The motion didn’t even reach the debate stage. Interestingly this is a clip from the latest rule book I can find, from 2019. The danger in passing such a motion is that gender critical women could be at risk of expulsion. Since the Union President is married to Ruth Serworka, one of the founders of Women’s Place U.K. I doubt this attitude is widely shared. I would also argue that this is an attack on sex based rights putting Tweedale at odds with the stated aims of the union.
So, leaving Union politics aside, I had a look to find out more about Tweedale, since he is from my neck of the woods.
MIND: Mental Health Charity.
First thing I cam across was this youtube. Notice only the women have pronouns in their bio.
The facilitator, Alison Lowe, is now deputy to the West Yorkshire mayor. She has cropped up on my blog before hosting another trans identified male who works for the civil service. You can read that here:
She also publicly denounced the gay rights charity LGB Alliance.
His first contribution is to correct the host for an insufficiently grandiose introduction. This is a bit of a theme. He continues to outline his role and links with Universities, NHS Trusts and teaching bodies; advising them on trans inclusion policies.
He continues by outlining all the ways that trans people suffer, preced by a trigger warning, and reads off some stats from a TUC report on LGBT members. This data claims that sexual assault rates for Lesbians, in the workplace, are 21%, for gay men it’s 12% but for “trans” women it’s 32%. /
I am cynical about these statistics, which are self reported, because, firstly, emphasising a victim narrative has been used to drive the “trans” agenda. Secondly there are multiple examples of trans identified males fetishising women as victims and using this experience to validate themselves as “women”. This is a quote from a thesis by a trans identified male who wrote about how BDSM cemented his identity as a “woman”. This is how he viewed an alleged sexual assault doing a BDSM session with a stranger.
Next he covers reports of bullying, harassment and violent assaults. Again, for similar reasons, I am skeptical of these accounts. He proceeds to uses the, discredited, data about suicide. I have done a series debunking the suicide stats which you can find on my site.
Finally on hate crime. The prevalence of hate crime, often conflated with data on non-crime incidents’ is another tool of trans activists so, again, should be treated with skepticism. Here is James Morton, from Scottish Trans Alliance, urging people to report because we “need the stats”. (Note: we don’t collect hate crime data on misogyny).
He is critical of employers for not having trans-inclusive policies or, if they do, not putting them into practice. He would like to see more gender neutral, a.k.a mixed sex, facilities, more pronouns used, even though he isn’t using them in this space, He breaks off to describe the psychological trauma that he experiences when he is misgendered over the phone. (Not face to face?). He also wants employers to make it easier for men to hide their biological sex. All of these things disproportionately, and negatively, impact the female sex. Women are expected to sacrifice their privacy, dignity and even safety to validate men, as women. Moreover so few pass that it introduces an element of coercive control into the workplace.
His segment is from 7:40 to 16:08. We will see him again at the Q & A. Below is the link:
Alison Lowe throws in a bit about not having white privilege and something about employers gas lighting her when she finds something “racist” and her employer doesn’t agree.
Then Saorsa gets an excellent question from the floor.
This is an opportunity for Saorsa to force team the LGB. He begins by emphasising that the LGBT+ is one big community and unity is very important. Like the LGB, the T, has to “come out” often multiple times. Trans women are smeared as predators is women’s “safe” (Doesn’t say single sex) spaces and labelled as paedophiles just like gay men were. He then claims the women’s movement support the trans movement and tells a blatant lie about how “trans” people have been picketing alongside women since the inception of feminism. Well that’s not true.
“Trans” people are focussed on their gender identity but they still have a sexuality and gay people also have a gender identity so this is his justification for the forced teaming of heterosexual men , many with a sexual fetish, with gay rights. In fact he gave a three hour seminar on this topic at Bradford University.
We will meet Saorsa again to cover another interview and also a Bradford Charity he was involved in and to follow the money trail.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)
The second part of the discussion opens the question and answer session. The first one talks about “gender” and how there may be typical things described as feminine and masculine but why can’t you be a girl who likes typical “masculine” things and he wonders why Deidre thinks they are a woman and not a “feminine” man. McClosky talks about how there are overlaps in what constitutes “feminine” and “masculine and how he knows women who are sports fanatics or English men who don’t like cricket. He then segues into something about ice cream which is hard to follow but, I think he is saying we can’t question what he desires. (The marriage ended, by the way).
Next up he talks about his past as a “macho” man and how he is now a “macho” woman, like his mother.
He continues with this statement which he seems to assume will have Kathleen’s agreement.
Kathleen responds with disagreement on this point. She doesn’t see “womanhood” as something akin to training to be a lawyer. She thinks the best definition of a woman is AdultHuman Female but she does refer to a chapter in her book which talks about “immersive fictions”. Stock is aware this won’t satisfy Deidre but she is happy to go along with the fiction, in some contexts, for example using preferred pronouns, but she doesn’t think it’s literally true.
McClosky finds the concept of “immersive fiction” useful. Deidre counters with recognising they have a philosophical difference because Kathleen still thinks a rock is just a rock.He then states that this belief doesn’t make Kathleen a bad person but it does make her naive.
What makes a woman?
Kathleen goes with Adult Human Female adding that whenever a new definition is tried it tends to be based on sexist stereotypes. Deidre goes with “it’s a social construction” and then confirms Stock’s point by retailing a sexist stereotype.
Kathleen responds, to laughter, that she takes 15 minutes to buy clothing too! (Same here. I rarely buy them, I get hand me ups from baby sister and on rare forays to buy clothes my speed in doing the deed is legendary).
Thoughts on detransitioners?
Deidre: “It’s very very rare” . Kathleen points to the 10,000 on the detrans subreddit. (That group now has over 47,000 members.) She says this is not unsurprising given the social contagion and that there are people emerging age 25 with many of them regretting a medical transition and some being without genitals.
McClosky is again rude and dismissive responding to Kathleen detailing the many medical interventions that are regretted, double mastectomies, ovary removal etc. McClosky says we regret many things in life. Hethen compares it to bringing up your children without books. He thinks this is equivalent to men who lost their penises. He knows lots of “trans” people who are ecstatic about their “transition”; adding “this is what the terfs say”. (I thought he agreed that this was a slur?). Stock makes the point that there are different demographics and someone “transitioning” at 50 has a fully developed prefrontal cortex.
Do you think the state should be involved?
McClosky puts this question to Stock. He’s a libertarian so you can guess his answer. Kathleen references the NHS review that has concluded there is a very low evidence base for gender medicine. The Dutch have changed their mind, Sweden has rowed back from this model of care. The State should be regulating this area of medicine, or if not the state we need some adults in the room. She also makes the point that it depends on the State. Iran, for example, outlaws homosexuality but funds “transition”. McClosky finishes that segment with a statement that he sharply disagrees.
You can’t protect what you can’t define.
Audience members asks a question about the reality of being a female and what happens when we deny our biological reality. She mentions sports, prisons, changing rooms and the erasure of female language. She addresses the question to Deidre.
McClosky is not keen on State involvement but claims not to be worried if he’s excluded from female sorts or even changing rooms but he is very dismissive about the concerns she raises.
Kathleen asks McClosky how he would feel about protecting sex and gender reassignment but not defining the latter as changing sex. McClosky points out that he uses XX and XY which Kathleen acknowledges but points out this is unusual and trans activists would see this as “transphobic”. He then adds “I don’t know why they don’t understand biology” which he then spoils by raising the intersex gambit. Kathleen skilfully bats away the forced teaming of people with disorders of sexual development. He then brings up comparisons to racism and treating black people as “other” and the treatment of male homosexuals. Full bingo card of “trans” talking points.
Kathleen shares the concern that extremist on the far right will run with this issue of the left doesn’t start speaking up and reining in the extremists.
Dysmorphia v Dysphoria
This question asks at what level of discomfort with your sexed body should give rise to medical interventions. What is the cut off for telling /counselling someone they have to reconcile with their biological reality.
McClosky opens by stating that he was never uncomfortable with his body when he was a man. Kathleen points out that lots of women are uncomfortable with their body and indeed our culture encourages this. This is why we should be worried about girls who think they are “trans” because they will use the tools available in their culture to express their distress. Currently the tool is to identify out of your sex in the past it was annorexia and self harm. McClosky concede that this has the ring of truth to him.
Age restrictions on medical interventions
McClosky comes out in favour of puberty blockers, shocker. Kathleen wants more evidence on the medical consequences. McClosky interrupts to point out that he would have loved his growth to be stunted. As I have written before these men are using medical interventions for children as a sort of vicarious, retrospective wish fulfilment. Kathleen points out the consequences for children who start on puberty blockers which, almost invariably, lead to cross sex hormones (98% progress to CSH). The boys will have stunted genitalia and permanent loss of orgasmic potential. Stock is against puberty blockers full stop and no surgeries until age of majority. (Here, I disagree. In the U.K sentencing guidelines allow the judiciary to take into account lack of brain maturation in the under 25’s. We protect convicted criminals better than dysphoric youth).
Next question is in a similar vein about the role of the state to protect children from harm even when perpetrated by their parents. He supports the Texas ban on these treatments for children. McClosky once again disagrees.
He proceeds to compare it to passing on bad dieterary habits of transmitting racist ideas. He also, once again, denies the irreversibility of the treatments. Kathleen says the idea of being born in the wrong body is in our culture which is solidifying playful ideas about self expression and involving gender clinics. MCClosky returns to the homosexual gambit and would Kathleen be in favour of measures to limit the way culture accepts homosexuality. Stock points out that this is an unfair analogy because there is no medical route for when a kid comes out as gay.
Reality versus nominalism.
A more philosophical note to end on. Kathleen answer is grounded in biological reality and the fact of sexual dimorphism. McClosky returns to arguments about scientific racism and his suspicion of the state. Kathleen finds this argument is losing her but she presumes it must be because McClosky sees her as on the opposite side to a libertarian perspective. In that case, she argues, take the state out of the argument let medical authorities step in re medical harms to children, or prison authorities on the harms of mixed sex prisons. The key point is she wants some body to step in and prevent the harmful consequences.
The end.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. Only give if you can afford to do.
The debate opens with Kathleen outlining her position in her usual calm terms after she has paid respect to McClosky’s willingness to share a platform with her.
Stock begins by outlining the debate in Anglo-American culture over the definition of woman and man and male and female. Biology is being disputed and this has profoundly practical consequences; it’s not just an abstract debate. This has profound, practical, consequences on how we organise social spaces, prisons, changing rooms and also it has a significant impact for sexual orientation if we deny sex is real. Stock then makes a distinction between “trans” people and “trans” activists. She continues by outlining how far the arguments have shifted to deny sex is real and prioritise a claimed inner sense of whether one is a woman or a man. She concluded with why this issue is concerning; because it is a belief in a subjective identity is being enacted in policy and law.
I would just add a clarification about the U.K law. It’s true that “trans” activism has only latterly started demanding that men, with penises, can be women and invade women’s spaces but, even at its inception, the Gender Recognition Act allowed fully intact males to be legally recorded as women. Most people are unaware of this fact. (This is not a criticism, Kathleen was speaking to a U.S audience).
Kathleen then proceeds to outline the implications for prison policy and the fact that these (penis-wielding) men, even when convicted of sexual offences against women, are in female prisons.
Finally Kathleen covers the issues affecting children, labelled as “trans”, who, in contrast to the ideological approach to adults, are being medicated. Puberty blockers and surgeries are being done to teenagers and, in the U.S. the ages for surgeries are much younger. She then covers the cohort affected, who can be gay males /Lesbians, autistic or have a history of trauma. All groups over represented at gender clinics. Below are the statistics for the U.K. and a Professor explaining that, left alone, many would simply be gay.
Deidre opens with a comment on the BBC, who approached him to do a conversation with Stock but, eventually decided to go ahead with a different person because McClosky didn’t disagree with Kathleen to a sufficient degree. That’s the BBC who wonder why the world is so polarised on this issue.
McClosky introduces himself as a “trans woman” though he adds that he would prefer to be just called woman, adding “but that’s O.K…as long as people are courteous and treat me as they would their grandmother”. He then plugs his book “Crossing” and talks of a time in his life when he didn’t “pass” as he says he does now. He then outlines some of his secondary sexual characteristics, height and voice, that have not changed and then said men, who want to be seen as men in dresses should be free to do so, but he wants to be seen as a woman.
He then talks about the philosophy and reasons and nominalism and something about rocks with different uses.
[Nominalism= There are at least two main versions of nominalism. One version denies the existence of universals – things that can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things (e.g., strength, humanity). The other version specifically denies the existence of abstract objects – objects that do not exist in space and time.]
He continues and this raised a chuckle.
He speculates that maybe in the future we will be able to edit our genes but as long as he can be in the world as a woman…but, he adds, I am not a woman.
McClosky believes social roles are flexible and, in a free society, they should be. (He’s a libertarian). He then proceeds to declare that violence in politics comes from the left and transactivism in the U.K. also comes from the left but, in the U.K the “terfs” also think of themselves as the “left”. Stock interjects to point out “that depends” and that “terf” is a contested term. He agrees “sure it is, it’s a term of insult”. He then moves onto the Michigan women’s festival.
[The Michigan women’s festival ran for over forty years and it’s founder intended it to be female only. Trans-identified males ran a concerted campaign to gain entry setting up an adjacent “Camp Trans” and an organisation called “Trans women belong her”. One of these men would go on to murder two lesbians and their son, the trial did not happen for years and he is still awaiting sentencing]. It officially ended in 2015.
McClosky outlines the difference in the United States where the right wing see this as a weapon in a culture war and a way to attack Democrats.
On the sports issue McClosky agrees that trans-identified males don’t belong in women’s sports, though he adds a caveat about meaning only those who have gone through male puberty. Then he segues into a comment (presumably he means the Williams twins) who have large muscles and are we going to handicap female athletes with advantages? Stock interjects to counter with statistics that show the Williams sisters would lose against very low ranking males.
We then proceed to hear about McClosky’s own “transition” , at 53, and his claim that it’s not irreversible. I think he is claiming that, because he went through a male puberty, and is now a “woman” in his eyes that makes procedures reversible. This is risible logic.
Childhood “transition”
Mclosky takes the view that is described as “persistent, insistent and consistent” by gender ideologues.
If this is the case then McClsocky advocates for puberty blocking at age 9 or 10. After being contradicted by Stock, who argues this is in fact controversial, he concedes that it is controversial but he is offering an an alternative argument. He then claims “if you don’t do it there’s a high risk of suicide” . Stock interjects to dispute this claim. He responds thus 👇
Kathleen responds, calmy, “So, shall we talk about evidence then?” . McClosky claims it’s a little bit hard to talk about evidence. Stock retorts that it is not hard, she has some evidence. I though the way he replied to this showed he was rattled. (I am assuming that is as patronising across the pond as it is presumed to be in the U.K.)
Kathleen comes back with a few points. She doesn’t use “trans” child because it solidifies the narrative too early, she explains the suicide myth and that these statistics need to take into account competing co-morbidities. There is, she says, evidence of an elevated risk but the risk for anorexia is much higher. She also points out this narrative is used, by trans activists, to frighten parents into “affirming” their child. She also raises the huge statistical spike in referrals to the Tavistock which is over 5000% in girls and 2000% in boys. She also takes issue with the mythical two year old “knowing” she is a boy. She also takes issue with the idea it is progressive to affirm this and refers to the DSM (diagnostic tool) that claims wanting “boys” toys may be a sign of a “trans child”. “Why can’t we just have girls, who like boys toys, who fancy girls and break all the gender stereotypes?”.
McClosky comes back with the notion that society is just more accepting which could explain the rise in statistics for those claiming a “trans” identity. He uses evidence of homosexuality rising over the last century. Kathleen agrees that increased prevalence could be more social acceptance but also points to an element of social contagion. McClosky agrees that social contagion is also likely to be a factor.
I will leave it there and come back to the questions from the audience in part 2.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute.
Thank you to Nancy Kelley, of Stonewall for drawing my attention to Curtiss when she supported his crowdfunder to support a legal action against the RFU (Rugby Football Union); to demand to play against young women. Since this tweet the crowdfunder seems to have been removed and Curtiss has locked their twitter account, deleted their instagram, removed some of his YouTube videos and ended his blog, which now appears to have been deleted.
Curtiss is a heterosexual, late “transitioning” male, who has more than one marriage behind him, and has fathered three children. He has one who would be at least 17. He refers to his “child” in this YouTube video mourning the loss of a young, trans-identified, male, Brianna Ghey, who was stabbed to death killed (trial pending).
The blog starts in 2010 and is immediately preoccupied by “trans” issues from which he denies he derives any sexual gratification but admits some men do: well, he would say that wouldn’t he?
This is what he has to say about homosexuals. Like a lot of cross-dressers the toleration for homosexuality seems limited. This has echoes of the Beaumont Society (Society for cross-dressers who then claimed a “trans” identity)who made it clear that “overt displays of homosexuality will not be tolerated”. Remember this man has the public support of the erstwhile, gay rights, charity Stonewall yet he seems to have an issue with flamboyant, gay men, who he calls “fairies”.
He’s not keen on Lesbians either. Joanna Charity is an MP and a lesbian, her crime is to defend single sex spaces and same sex attraction. To Curtiss she is a “f**king TERF”.
He explains that he started accessing support groups, on-line, and it was here he got a tip to use occasions where dressing up was acceptable to experiment, with cross-dressing, in public. He decided to dress up as his ex-wife, which is not creepy at all, and here’s what he posted about that: The 1970’s called and it wants its jokes back.
He also set up a facebook profile in the name of Julie-Anne and used it to interact with unsuspecting women. He describes this as not allowing the “man-suit” to get in the way of interactions with the women.
His description of letting “Julie-Anne” emerge gives me the vibe of “becoming the thing he loved” like a lot of the narratives of autogynephiles. This reads, to me, as a man in the grip of a paraphilia which he can’t repress even though it will probably drive a wrecking ball through his marriage.
The Wife
During this period he is flaring the idea of coming out to his wife. She was not keen on the idea. He claims they had two conversations which left him frustrated but determined to persuade her to accept “Julie-Anne” by “chipping away”. I don’t know if Jacqui was worn down by his persistence. I imagine she had no idea about autogynephilia and was probably in ignorance of the other “woman” (Julie-Anne) in their marriage.
In his second attempt, after noticing his change of personal habits, growing his nails and shaving his body hair, and she is quite clear that she is only interested in marriage with a man.
I have not located any information as to whether their relationship survived or if, indeed, this was a factor in the break up of his earlier marriage.
Rugby
Curtiss my, or may not, have persuaded his wife to accept him but he seems to have done quite a job of persuading a female rugby team. He produced a video to accompany his crowdfunder, now deleted. . Courtesy of a mutual twitter follower. I managed to get hold of the video and download it. In it, to a background of sad music, he sets out his case and features his coach expressing vehement support for him. Being excluded from the female category has made him very sad. The suicide threats are never far away from this issue.
He is also outraged that the RFU seem to expect him to use the male showers. (This strongly implies he has been using the female facilities). He also displays reckless entitlement re the risk to female players but claims he would be at risk against other men!
He also uses the “there are so few of us” argument. I see purportedly, intelligent, commentator’s use this all the time. Firstly, it only takes one man to steal medals and team places from women, his presence has a rippple effect and that’s before the explosion of men we are seeing entering women’s sports. One man using female facilities also robs all the women from a single sex space.
Next up is the apartheid gambit. Politicians, like David Lammy used this during the parliamentary debates, recording on Hansard, on passing the Gender Recognition Act.
He does seem to have some vocal support from his team members.. His coach gives an impassioned speech, on his behalf, claiming that there is no science to back up the exclusion from males in female rugby because there have been no injuries and , in any case, some girls are six foot five and weigh 70 kilos heavier than other girls. She is particularly outraged that this decision “ignores the science”.
She contributed to the video for his crowdfunder and also tweeted about to display her outrage.
It’s worth pointing out that the two women he quotes who support him are both on his team. The more pertinent community to comment would surely be the women who have played against him.
Genocide
It’s worth have a look at the blog for his post, in April 2023, claiming that banning him from female sport is one of the ten steps that precede the perpetration of a genocide.
He is right about one thing though, we are not accepting that men can colonise our sex and force us to accept them as “women”. So, yes, this is about sport, but it’s also because you are not female and don’t belong in female sports or out single sex spaces
He seems to be perfectly serious about this using a Genocide Watch tool to outline the steps that are taking place.
Top of the list is the formation of LGB Alliance; a charity set by two Lesbians to defend Gay Men, Lesbians and bisexuals. Next, he lists not being allowed to compete against the opposite sex and finally the proposal to confirm that sex means (biological) sex in the relevant equality legislation. For number two he uses the example of the male rapist, Isla Bryson, who claimed to be “trans” as an example of the build up to mass extermination. The “logic” here requires some mental gymnastics but he appears to mean that because the state is granting leniency to men, who identify as women, nefarious men are using a trans -identity to harm “transgender” people. You have to have quite a twisted logic to frame a man, who raped two females, as an attack on trans-ide tidied males. There are the usual exaggerations about the murder rate for “trans” people and how vulnerable “transgender women” ,would be, in male toilets especially now there is rising rates of knife crime. There are lots of defamatory claims about women defending single sex spaces in literal alliance’s with far right /neo nazis. Apparently the proposal to better regulate access to medical interventions for gender dysphoric youth is akin to mass sterilisation. I am sure you get the drift. I did notice he also admits to reading David Icke.
The claim that any attempt to defend women’s boundaries will lead to a genocide is something I have seen numerous trans activists claim. Most recently in the statement by a “trans” identified man, Emma Bridges, because he is no longer able to compete against women. This is an excerpt from a longer post by Bridges.
There’s a reason people coined the word “transperbole”.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also enable me to keep content open for those not able to contribute. Only do so if you have spare cash and if you don’t find a more worthy cause to support, I know it’s a crowded field.
I have only recently come across this paper which, surprisingly, was co-authored by an academic in a U.K.University. The premise of the paper is that Transgenderism is “pettyfascism” . Even after following this movement for the last eight years this paper clarified some of my thoughts.
Here is the abstract. 👇. The paper outlines the strategy of the transgender movement and it’s inherently anti-democratic tactics. Instead of winning hearts and minds they have appealed to authority, changed laws, often by stealth, bypassing a public conversation. Their appeal is based on a fallacious victimhood; deployed to guilt and shame people into accepting their minority world view. This is combined with a suppression of debate and repression of alternative perspectives.
The paper is refreshing in its use of the description of people who are at odds with their biological sex; making it clear that sex is, in most cases, observed at birth and having no truck with “sex assigned at birth”.
The paper does reference violence against “trans” persons, which it immediately follows with facts about the high rates of violence against women (even of it does call us “Cis”). The authors also highlight the extent of the research into discrimination against “trans” people; they are looking very hard for this “evidence”. Having read much of that research it tends to rely on self-reports and it is not hard to garner false positives from a community groomed into victimhood. The paper doesn’t reference the rise of hate crime legislation but this is one way of inflating (reported) societal discrimination against “trans” people. In the U.K. we have “hate crime incidents” which don’t require any crime to have been committed and rely on the self-perception of the individual. It’s worth noting that there is no category for hate crimes against women.
Free Speech
The authors focus is on the importance of free speech and how crucial this is for democracy.
They think censorship should be limited to those sentiments that advocate violence and are, themselves, a threat to democracy. Otherwise, people should be allowed to express dissenting opinions, because censoring opinions leads to a decline in trust which is bad for democracy.
The authors then detail an attempt, in Germany, to facilitate dialogue between a muslim and a “trans” identified male but this proved impossible as both participants were encouraged to withdraw by their own communities. This is a common occurrence, as we have seen in the U.K.; with “trans” activists having successfully shut down debate by refusing to share platforms with feminists, who campaign for single sex spaces. The BBC were particularly vulnerable to this tactic; having a policy of platforming both sides in important debate. By withdrawing, often at the last minute, “trans” activists were able to suppress debate for a long time; because the segments were often, then, cancelled.
The fear of an adverse public reaction is a good illustration that the “transgender” community fear scrutiny and know that the vast majority are opposed to the extreme demands made by this group. As we have seen, in the U.K. this has allowed the promulgation of gender identity ideology with limited coverage of public opposition.
The authors describe what happens when “a socially constructed reality becomes intentionally detached from its constitutive spontaneity, and is used to enforce a specific set of interests, as in commercial or political propaganda”. They continue by pointing out one of the main strategies is the undermining of the reality of biological sex.
Basically “Transgender Ideology” wants to build a world based on subjective belief and force the rest of us to validate that belief. Moreover this “belief” does not arise in a vacuum and whilst those people who are invested in making these claims have not come to the conclusion they are “transgender” on their own; in short they have been indoctrinated, groomed.
Trojan Horse
Imposing this belief on society is a huge task because the vast, vast, majority of people know biological facts and, apart from changing our minds, this ideology also requires reordering society such as changing how sex is recorded on databases and eradicating single sex spaces. The first step is people must be made to accept that our sexed bodies are secondary to a self-defined “gender”. Moreover laws must be passed to enshrine this ideology in law. As outlined in the Denton’s document one strategy is to force team groups and push through legislation using the social capital built by other groups, notable the gay rights movement.
If you have not read the Denton’s document then do visit my piece which links to the full document.
The next step is also straight out of the Dention’s playbook 👇
The authors draw attention to how this differs from previous minority rights claims which are not hidden from public scrutiny but were, largely, conducted openly or at least operated with an accompanying public discourse to complement the private lobbying. What the “trans” rights activists have done is to entirely ignore the feelings /beliefs of the ordinary populace and gone directly to those in control of the levers of power.
Another strategy is to create a narrative of perpetual victim status. In this the “trans” activists have been spectacularly successful. By claiming to be the most marginalised they have elevated themselves into the primary victim, who should therefore be allowed to trample over the sex based rights of women, trash child safeguarding and call Lesbians “sexual racists” if they don’t include penis-havers in their dating pool.
This tactic works at the level of emotional blackmail, which is the stock in trade of abusive men. This men’s sexual rights movement has persuaded society that “trans” are the most vulnerable minority and women are their persecutors whilst having sufficient power to rewrite laws and problematise all mention of women as a sex based class.
This movement is only possible in Liberal societies and because of the legacy of gay, women and disabled rights movements; all groups that have a lot to lose if “trans” lobby groups get their way. Crucially this also required the internet which serves to magnify their appeal and allows activists to hide behind avatars and filters; so that people are hoodwinked into supporting the rights of massive blokes to invade single sex spaces. It is in real life encounters, such as sport, that the full impact (literally) of these demands is on display.
The capture of academia
A huge part of their leverage is because of the capture of academia. Liberal management has bough the “most vulnerable” propaganda, hook line and sinker. All the while it is another group entirely that is actually marginalised and hounded over their beliefs, 👇
As I have said before the only way this movement can work is authoritarianism and repression because the vast, vast, majority of people know that sex is real, immutable and there are only two sexes. Social media is the ideal vehicle for this because anonymous “trolls” can whip up a fevered hostility on line and highlight opinions that are challenge transgender ideology, tagging in employers etc. to threaten livelihoods. As the ideology embeds itself via propaganda, in schools and universities, the corralling of public opinion can be undertaken by named trolls (Owen Jones springs to mind) and other people with large followings. No woman is immune as is evidenced by the treatment of JKRowling who, I am sure, knew exactly what she was walking into.
The paper covers the abuse that Rowling gets but I won’t go over that here because it’s well documented. Rowling’s entry into the fray began with her open support for Maya Fostater, who lost employment, in essence, for believing biological sex was real and for saying it out loud.
The authors cover the first tribunal hearing which resulted in Judge Taylor finding that Maya’s opinions didn’t pass the Grainger test, which is not mentioned in this paper. The Grainger test is detailed in this clip. Basically gender critical beliefs were deemed “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”. (This is why you will sometimes see WORIADS in some tweets. The judiciary have refused to say who trains them on this issue but I am going to guess GIRES) That decision was overturned by a second tribunal and, in the U.K, gender critical beliefs are now legally protected.
The paper then details some of the people who have suffered “cancellation” or attacks because of varying degrees of these beliefs but finds it unsurprising that men (Richard Dawkins) are also attacked. I think they missed a trick here, by not recognising that there is a bias towards attacking the female sex and men are allowed a greater degree of latitude. The authors also characterise Rowling’s essay as “weaponised discourse” which suggests this is being treated as the same as the confected victimisation of the “trans” community. Perhaps Rowling is using emotive language to make her point but, at heart, she is fighting for single sex spaces so women can heal because they are literal victims of male violence /sexual assault. I am opposed to Identity Politics hijacking the left as much as anyone but we can’t give up the rights of 51% of the population to secure this.
The next section gets to the meat of the argument by comparing the tactics of the “transgender” activists to a form of fascism.
Petty Fascism
The experience of the populace, under fascism, is reminiscent of living under the Gender borg.
The authors quote some German research showing how many people feel unable to voice their true opinions, the figure was only 59% even to their closest friends. And what were they most afraid of saying?
They argue that this is achieved by threats of ostracism rather than the law /force. I would argue that we do have laws, by now, and the police are now checking peoples thinking as the numerous court cases attest. (See Harry Miller, Kate Scotow, Miranda Yardley etc).
In a pluralistic society we must tolerate a diversity of opinion / belief. This doesn’t mean we can’t draw the line at human rights violations, under the guise of religion but it does mean recognising that someone has the right to their faith but, crucially, not to force you to profess that same belief.
What the “trans” rights lobby is demanding is not a simple “live and let live”; there is a testerical level of demand that we profess belief in something which is simply not true. We are expected to remain silent when a man tells us he is able to menstruate or lactate or that his penis is a female organ. The crazy level of demand means we have no choice but to resist.
This paragraph sets out why we are justified in calling this fascism.
Discussion/Conclusion
Compelled speech and thought policing are hallmarks of repressive /fascist regimes; this is what we are witnessing. We are in danger of undermining democracy and, sadly, our political class, with honourable exceptions, have not the wit to realise it. These are the rights we have to defend. Open debate and, heaven forfend, even jokes /limericks.
The author’s then reflect , with some detachment. on the rifts this has caused in feminism and gay rights movements. He also points to the divisions this has caused in left wing politics with some embracing identity politics (with some fervour, I would add) and the old Left which focuses on improving material conditions and women’s /minority rights. The former they describe as sanctimonious and self-righteous, a perspective with which I concur wholeheartedly.
He then points to the hypocrisy of our political elite who are surely lying.
They end with a call to fight to keep the public discourse on this ideology open.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. I could use some donations this month but only give if you have surplus monies that can’t be put to better use elsewhere.
Companion piece to another on the trans identified male, Leigh Finke, you can read part one here 👇. Part one covers who funds him and what limited, biographical, information is in the public domain.
Leigh Finke who is now a legislator in Minnesota. Elected in November 2022 he was instrumental in passing bill HF1655 which added “Gender Identity” to the list of protected characteristics and bill HF0146 which makes Minnesota a “sanctuary state” for any child/youth now unable to get on a medical pathway to facilitate what ideologues call “transition”. Rather than cover the bills, in detail, in the first part, I decided to do a stand alone blog for anyone who wants to scrutinise the legislation.
HF1655 amends existing legislation to add the notion of “gender identity”. It also removed some discriminate measures against homosexuals. Probably the most talked about is this clause because it removed the section making it clear paedophilia is not regarded as a sexual orientation. Part one covers why this is a dangerous development even if, as Leigh Finke argues, the sexual exploitation of children is covered by criminal statutes,
As usual the definition, if you can call it that, of “gender identity” is absurd, counterfactual, circular and illogical. It allows people to claim to be men or women, both or neither, irrespective of ther sexed bodies with no requirement for surgical modification. Male and Female are unmoored from their physical embodiment and the law prohibits discrimination on the basis of “gender identity”, even though it is an internal feeling not visible to the naked eye. What this means, in practice, is the ability of men to access female only spaces even those where women are undressing or otherwise vulnerable. It is also enshrining the notion of a “woman” with a penis in law.
We are in the same territory as Caligula, who appointed a horse as senator!
The bill also contains a clause about setting up a programme of education to promote anti-discrimination, for which read re-education to make sure workers don’t rebel against this crazy legislation. Moreover they have a clause about accepting private finance to support the work of the responsible department. It would be worth keeping an eye on any cash coming into this department because it seems they are anticipating an influx of cash. Could they already have made a backroom deal? (I usually check Arcus Foundation and Open Society Foundation online databases. Arcus grants are up to 2022 but OS only till 2021. It will be interesting to see if they stop publicising this data now they are aware of a higher level of scrutiny. One to keep an eye on).
The other bill covers the Minnesota State response to other jurisdictions who are restricting or banning the medically “transitioning” children and young people. Those states may have legal powers to remove a child whose parents are undertaking these medical interventions on their children. Because of the complications around which state is responsible for the child, perhaps because one parent resides in Minnesota, they have enacted legislation to say they will not comply with an order made on this basis.
The bill sets out the usual restrictions on interfering with decisions where a child comes under the aegis of another state. These are not to be adhered to in the case of a child who would be restricted from these medical interventions in their home state. A child who is getting treatment in Minnesota, of this particular type, would be treated as a child of the state.
Legislation was passed to allow emergency custody arrangements to “protect” a child from abusive siblings or parents and my reading of this is the “abuse” may be defined as such simply because “gender affirming” care is withheld.
The document details what is covered by the phrase “gender affirming care”. It includes puberty blockers, cross sex hormones, and, while they are coy about the details, mastectomy, castration and penile inversion. Imagine having your child removed, by the state, you remove your teenage daughter’s breasts or to castrate your son? (This is already happening in Australia, Canada and some states in the United States. In the U.K there are already parents referred to social services because they don’t “affirm” their child as the opposite sex.I know one of those parents).
The other key part of the bill varies the legal rights of other states to extradite someone who has committed a felony in another state. Since some states are enacting laws to criminalise the sterilisation of children and the removal of healthy body parts Minnesota has stated it will not comply with extradition for these crimes.
I hope this wakes people up. When people claim children have agency and “bodily autonomy” we should be aware that it is not just paedophiles that want to argue children can consent to sexual activity; the medico-industrial complex want to mine our children’s bodies for profit and they are prepared to bulldoze parents out of the way. There has been a huge propaganda operation to get to this point but now they are emboldened enough for a full frontal attack on parental rights. We are inculcating “gender dysphoria” via the education system and lobby groups are buying off politicians. Why else would Ferring Pharmaceuticals, maker of puberty blockers, have given the Liberal Democrats (U.K) £1.4 million? That’s a lot of money in U.K politics and this is dwarfed by the money from the Pritzker family going to, mainly Democrats, in the United States.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. I am very grateful for those that support my work. I work tirelessly to expose the truth about this ideology and gave up a lucrative career to devote myself full-time.
Leigh Finke is yet another trans-identified male, bio says She/Her who has been elected to State Legislature, this time in Minnesota. He was supported by the LGBTQ Victory Fund. who are, in turn, funded by Arcus Foundation.
He was bankrolled by the LGBTQ Victory fund who are,in turn, funded by Arcus Foundation. Here are the grants they have received from Arcus. There aim is to get people under the LGBTQ umbrella into elected /appointed office. The first piece in this series covered Zoey Zephr followed by Rachel Levine,who are also trans-identified males funded by the same outfit.
According to sources he began identifying as She/Her in 2017 and was formerly employed by the A.C.L.U. (American Civil Liberty Union) who are mainly forcussed on strategic legislation and campaigning on trans issues; having also partaken of Arcus Foundation Funding.
Binke was elected to Minnesota State Legislature in November 2022 and was recently instrumental in passing an executive order to make Minnesota a sanctuary state for children /teens whose own States are increasing regulation of “trans” healthcare. In a familiar tactic this treatment is promoted as an alternative to “coffin or closet”.
He was also proposed a bill which, while it did repeal some provisions that were discriminatory to homosexuals, but also passed “Gender Identity” provisions. Finke was very proud of this bill (HF1665) but got some backlash for the removal of provisions making it clear that sexual orientation did not cover relationships between adults and children. Text in yellow is the deleted text. Finke has repudiated any negative interpretations and claims this is because sexual offending against children is covered under the criminal statutes
It may indeed be wrong to leap to the most damning conclusions but the LGBTQ+ movement would do well to recognise that they are coming under increasing scrutiny and suspicion from those of us aware of the historic infiltration into gay rights politics of organisations like N.A.M.B.L.A. (North American Man Boy Love Association) and P.I.E (Paedophile Information Exchange). You can still find a website for N.A.M.B.L.A though PIE was disbanded in 1984. Here is an article showing how these determined predators were able to gain respectability from Human Rights Organisations. It may be naïveté rather than nefarious intentions but, these neophyte legislator should learn some lessons from this, if we are watching men with these predilections will be watching too. Whether intentional, or not, you are sending a clear signal that child safeguarding will be weakened on your watch.
Finke is also the editor of a book for queer teens in which he says children as young as 11 can experience sexual attraction and he advises cutting off contact with any adults in your life who don’t affirm your identity. Again, cutting off parents from their family is both a tactic of cults and a safeguarding risk. Parents, with sad exceptions, tend to be most primed to protect their child’s welfare.
It’s a book written for Christian Youth and he uses biblical verses to claim Jesus loved “queer” people by referencing passages which talk about eunuchs.
He also has a YouTube channel which shows he is a fully paid up member of the queer theory brigade.
I can’t find out much biographical detail about Finke and what he did before 2017. I will do a companion piece to this covering the public debate about the passing of another bill, (HF0146)on providing “gender affirming” (or “sex denialism”) medicalisation of children and young people. It’s well worth a stand alone piece to cover all the interested parties who helped to get this strategic legislation passed.
Update 2025
More information has appeared in the public domain now that Finke is one of the democrat representatives subject to recall for failing to attend to his duties. Notice his vote share 👇.
Reasons for recall :
Thanks to the renewed media interest my suspicions about him have been confirmed. Heterosexual father who has, allegedly, abandoned his family to pursue woman face on a full-time basis.
Screenshot
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received helps cover my costs and keep me going. whilst enabling me to keep content open for those not able to contribute. Thank you. I email all who donate and this way I can get tips on other areas of research with looking at,
I came across Jacqui quite by accident. I was in the middle of a blog on some Stonewall teaching materials for primary schools and during the course of that research I looked up Pearsons; who co-produced the teaching materials. This led me to Pearsons Spectrum UK who have a YouTube channel. The only person featured on that channel is Jacqui, a rather charming Scottish male who claims a ”transgender” identity. You can find it here:
Jacqui is asked to outline their history and tells a lovely anecdote about being a ten year old boy, coming across a black and white picture of a naked man but the nudity wasn’t what caught the young boys attention, it was the sadness in his eyes. Turning over the page there is another image of the same person, clawing at his skin and peeling off his male exterior to reveal a beautifully made up and glamorous woman.
This was in the 1970’s so Jacqui describes a few years of going to visit psychiatrists who ”prodded and poked me” all the while saying ”little boys can’t become little girls”. Jacqui’s parents, we are told, encouraged the young Jacqui to take up masculine pursuits and Jacqui was so successful they became a schoolboy signing for Aberdeen, under Alex Ferguson, who is better remembered for his management of Manchester United. Sadly, we are told ”Fergie” found out that I was a little bit different which “prompted me to lose my schoolboy contract”.
Jacqui tells a different story in this interview. In this version they made the decision themselves and felt they had let their parents down.
At this point, we learn, that Jacqui moved to London, age 15, but a year later returned home because their mum was terminally ill. In a surprise move the next chapter involved joining the military only, to be discovered to be ”different” and forced to leave or face a criminal sentence. Again this story differs from other accounts: This clip is from another article. In this account they were found with women’s clothing.
In this version Jacqui made the decision to leave after being threatened with demotion:
Jacqui tells yet another version in a different interview
According to Jacqui these are their qualifications.
Marriage and Modelling.
Jacqui then describes being outed as ”transgender” by the media. This is true and was occasioned by a 1995 marriage ceremony, to a man, in the Caribbean. An article in 2015 describes the relationship as 23 years long. The coverage was indeed cruel and sensationalist.
Once again, we are told, the modelling career was ended when it was discovered they were not female.
Civil Service
Jacqui then describes joining the civil service and within two weeks being contacted by Terry Moran and asked to help the Civil Service with the ”trans” issue. This is Terry’s CV. {Jacqui also talks about having their own private cheerleader in Jeremy Heywood; he was the Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet under both David Cameron and Theresa May}.
You can see Jacqui’s career trajectory below. All from Jacqui’s linkedin. FinancialConductAuthority, posts in the Civil Service at the Department for Work and Pensions, Department for International Trade and the Cabinet Office. Not bad for someone who’s highest qualification appears to be a City and Guilds. During their spare time Jacqui also found time to be on the advisory board for Diva Magazine and worked with Diversity Role Models. Jacqui was also awarded the Order of the British Empire and regularly appears in lists of influential LGBT influencers.
Jacqui became first Chair of the Transgender Network and then joined the steering group a:Gender
As Jacqui explains this allowed the combining of a role as a Trans activist and a Civil Servant and their influence spread across the Civil Service.
In the YouTube for Pearson Spectrum Jacqui talks a good game about listening to all voices; ”eventhosewedon’twant to hear”, its somewhat spoilt by the addition of “even those spouting hate” but it’s an attempt, at least. There’s some guff about walking a mile in other peoples shoes, and a patronising assumption that lack of acceptance is because people don’t understand. Women could say the same to Jacqui, who also doesn’t understand what it is to be us. 👇
Women’s right to feel safe.
One of the interviewers then asked a question which looked as if there would be some meaningful engagement with the concerns of women but the question was how we include trans-identified males ”transwomen” in the conversation so they are not marginalised. However Jacqui threw them a somewhat ”terfy” curve ball. Seems Jacqui is a bit concerned about the ever expanding ”trans” umbrella and female spaces.
I would love to see a source for this quote. I cannot find any reference to this anywhere online. After some checking I don’t think this is true but there are other examples of men with transvestic fetishism committing sex offences against women.
Jacqui then talks about how self-conscious they feel using female facilities even though they have had a ”full transition”. Maybe this reflects some subconscious (or conscious) awareness they are violating women’s boundaries and women are undressing because they think they are in an all female facility?
Jacqui’s preferred solution to this issue is ”gender neutral” (a.k.a mixed sex) facilities. Unfortunately for us Jacqui was listened to over women and gender neutral facilities spread across the civil service and wider society. If Jacqui had walked a mile in our shoes and understood women’s history they would not casually strip single sex spaces from women.
This is what the government had to say on it’s consultation toilet facilities, launched in January 2021. 👇
In recent years, there has been a trend towards the removal of well-established male-only/female-only spaces when premises are built or refurbished, and they have often been replaced with gender-neutral toilets. This places women at a significant disadvantage. While men can then use both cubicles and urinals, women can only use the former, and women also need safe spaces given their particular health and sanitary needs (for example, women who are menstruating, pregnant or at menopause, may need to use the toilet more often).
Women are also likely to feel less comfortable using mixed sex facilities, and require more space.
By then Jacqui was out of the civil service.
It’s difficult to make an assessment of how much damage was done by the various trans-identified males in the Civil Service. I sense Jacqui has a growing appreciation that the, ever-expanding, ”trans” umbrella presents a range of new challenges. Developments over the last decade have jeopardised the privileged access to female spaces they have enjoyed for over 30 years. At this stage the ethical decision is to campaign for gender neutral spaces and single sex spaces and illustrate your good faith by ending use of female only spaces. By continuing to use female spaces, by stealth or emotional blackmail, you are violating women’s boundaries in any space where women are undressing or merely meeting to discuss issues that only affect women, as a sex class.
You can support my work here. I do this unpaid but I now have a, subsistence level, income so don’t donate unless you can afford to do so. Donations help to keep the wolf from the door.
Researching Gender Identity Ideology, it’s impact on women’s sex based rights and the massive policy capture. I have done much work on prisons, legal cases that put men in women’s prisons and the medical treatment of vulnerable kids/teens groomed to believe they are “transgender”.
Today the Pulitzer prize was awarded to a man who identifies as a “woman” and has a body of work which is grossly offensive to women. I don’t want to cancel Chu, on the contrary, may he be the ambassador for “Trans” visibility until people realise what type of man is being enabled to access women’s intimate spaces.
It. is no bad thing if more women become aware of his writing because, no credit is due, he is another one who says the quiet part out loud. Here are two quotes of his: His writing is open about the sexual fetish which led him to embrace making his body a simalccre of the female form.
He has some high profile work and did a piece for the New York Times about getting his penis inverted though, in common with most of these men, he calls it getting a “vagina”.
Elsewhere he confesses that what he actually has is a wound his body is programmed to try to heal. I say confesses but it may be more accurate to call it a boas, as if this pain makes him more of a sister to the suffering sex class.
You can get a flavour of Chu’s work over on his website. This essay gives a good flavour of his motive in claiming to be a woman.
In this essay Chu revels in the work of Valerie Solanas and the SCUM manifesto. His writing perfectly epitomises a male revelling in his infiltration into women’s spaces and movements. His discovery of feminism is written in the breathless tones of a man getting a sexual thrill from being in a space he should not be..he is nothing if not obvious. It’s tempting to feel gratitude that he is laying it all out so clearly but this would be a mistake; he is following the age old trick of predatory males and hiding in plain sight. Like to risk taking luggage stealer he is seeing how much he can get away with…turns out it’s a winning strategy, until it’s not.
You can get a flavour of his “feminist” thinking from. this clip. It’s not exactly Sheila Jeffrey’s.
In another essay, from memory it was called “On Liking Women”, he describes the classic sexual paraphilia;autogynephilia.
He makes an explicit link to acknowledge his fetish derives from pornography; a genre known as “Sissy Porn”. Here is a review of a book he authored “Females”. Apparently he goes into quite of detail about his porn preferences. This is what we are to men like this; a porn category.
Chu is a heterosexual male who also ransacks his past for some “Lesbian” memories for his retconned narrative arc. Here 👇 he opines about being the only boy on the school bus for a girls team where his early incursions into female spaces is recalled, or, perhaps, invented. Even then his fantasy object was a girl who later came out as a Lesbian.
The feminism he espoused didn’t fool his mum and sister who told him flat out he had no idea what it was to be a woman. Good for them. He exemplifies the kind of cultural appropriation of a woman face actor who masks his masculine imperative to invade and dominate in the language of romance.
Crush also has two meanings. Infatuation but also to break, compress, subdue.
Chu has some choice words to say about Terfs. Terf stands for “Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists” and has long been used as a slur for any women, radical feminist, or not, who believes in biological reality. Here is Chu’s description; it is a slur because women who don’t consent to play along with his sexual fetish are “bigots”.
And here we have the comparison with the alt-right and the classic DARVO (Deny, Accuse, Reverse, Victim and Offender) of boundary violating men. Chu is trolling women dressed up in fancy prose and fancy lady clothes.
He quotes the feminist Germaine Greer who does not hide her contempt for men who make a fetish out of women’s rights foundational texts. He quotes this glorious, unapologetic, clip.
What lesson does Chu take from this? He thinks she is expressing disgust at “women” by being regulated at a grotesque man in a parody of womanface.
Little analysis is needed to show what Chu is identified with..but he still needs to show us what Chu thinks makes a woman but he does it anyway, it’s not enough to get away with it he is compelled to escalate his behaviour to see how much he can get away with. He quotes Sheila Jeffrey’s only to accept her description of men like him as sick voyeurs. Again, I can’t emphasise enough, he is telling you who he is 👇.
Below 👇 Chu makes it clear he thinks women’s lives are out of an scene out of Grease. He makes no attempt to deny this because where would be the fun in that? He is parading this with glee because he is enjoying telling women there is nothing we can do about it!
Notice he, a grown man, claims “girl”. Finally he admits he is the Dinosaur!
Who’s going to tell David Lammy? 😂
When someone shows you who they are believe them the first time!
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)
In this piece I am going to cover an interview with Linehan on this show. The show is based in Ireland and hosted by William Campbell. I decided to transcribe it, in part, not because I am unfamiliar with Graham’s views, but in order to understand what devices are used by journalists /commentators to avoid having to confront the fact that the is one of the moral questions of our time. It is my firm opinion that if you care about women’s rights, gay rights, and the safety of children there is only one right side; purported “neutrality” is in fact taking the side of proponents of gender ideology; which is misogynist, homophobic and against child safeguarding.
Before the interview begins the introduction explains that the interviewer tried to add explanations, for the listener, who may be unfamiliar with some of the people / controversies covered. Kellie Jay Keen Minshall (KJK) was omitted from the commentary so an explanation of who she is was added at the start. We are told that she “describes herself as a women’s rights activist” Two prominent, trans-identified and male, YouTubers are quoted (Contrapoints and JesseGender) as “highlighting a problematic relationship between the gender critical movement and the far right”. The podcast highlights this as “exemplified by the presence of far right groups at her speaking events”. It then adds that the events are open and there is no evidence that KJK invited these groups. In fact KJK has made it clear that these groups were neither invited nor welcome. It is also interesting that KJK is cast as “self-described” as a women’s rights activist which casts doubt on the validity of this claim. The Trans Activists are taken at face value.
Below 👇 is Jessie Gender painting KJK as a fascist. Astonishing that he was treated as a reliable source. He also is celebratory about the violence on display at the New Zealand rally, positively gleeful, in fact.He spouts the lie that he lives in a country that promotes genocidal policies against “trans” people.
The interview begins with a list of Graham’s accomplishments and then moves into a borrowed line from Father Ted to ask “Ihear you’re a transphobe now”. Graham explains how we got into this issue which was after he was attacked for an episode of the I.T Crowd, which featured a “trans” character. He explains that he had never encountered such violent rhetoric. for a comedic episode. The host asks Graham to explain who attacked him; this would be one of many interventions where the flow of the conversation is interrupted and Linehan is asked to pause, clarify his language or the host refers to his “passion” for this topic.
Linehan explains he was exhorted to “educate yourself” , so, he did and what he found was troubling. He is keen to distinguish between “trans-activists” and “transsexuals”. I agree that people calling themselves “trans” or “trans allies” are not a monolith. Graham does not believe anyone can change sex but he does believe that not all people, even those who identify themselves as “trans” share the views of modern day trans-activists. I also diverge on the idea of “true transsexuals” but that is a journey that took me a while. I do agree with the idea that the “trans” umbrella has now expanded to cover so many different groups and is now a virtually, meaningless term. The only way woman’s rights can be protected is by a simple focus on biological sex.
Campbell seeks clarification on whether Graham is saying the term “trans” has broadened to include too many disparate groups or is he dismissing the idea of “trans” as meaningless. He also again asks him to clarify that he is not talking about “literal violence” only “violent rhetoric”
Linehan clarifies that he is talking about violent language and offers an example of India Willoughby who claims that “terfs” are promoting a “literal genocide” against trans-identified people like him. Here a few examples of India making these claim.
Graham thinks commentators, like Willoughby, deploy this rhetoric quite cynically but believes impressionable young minds may be taking this literally. He then proceeds to criticise the mainstream media for delegitimising women’s voices who want to discuss women’s right to single sex spaces and child safeguarding.
Again the host interrupts to ask, again, for Linehan to clarify that he is talking about violent language not violent action. He recognises that Linehan is highlighting the catastrophising of the TRA side but asks if the other side are not also using hostile language which suggests “trans” people should not be allowed to just go about their lives? Graham concedes that there are extreme voices on the gender critical side but these are “fringe” and don’t equate to the violent rhetoric of the “TRA” side. (I would have asked him to supply an example at this point because it is not at all clear that calling a man, a man, is not considered, by Campbell, to be hateful rhetoric) Once again the host asks him to repeat, once again, that he is referring to violent language not violent action. That is at least three times he has asked for this clarification.
Linehan points out that there have been violent actions against women, most recently a 70 year old women who had her skull broken in New Zealand. Violent imagery and rhetoric contributes to an atmosphere that seems to sanction violence against women. This was Campbell’s, astonishing, response”I don’t want to minimise these incidents but in the context of the war in Europe…and even what you might encounter after closing time..that’s not n awful lot of violence really is it?” . Seems like minimising to me since the man who punched an elderly woman would appear to be a young man. In normal circumstances this would be unequivocally condemned. Linehan also points out that both he and Campbell are men and may not fully appreciate the impact of on line threats of rape and violence directed at women.
Graham then outlines what happened to Kathleen Stock, a Lesbian who was essentially hounded out of her job as a Professor. He also brings up the expectation that Lesbians expand their dating pool to include men who claim to be Lesbians. Graham then points out that if the same threats and violent language were used against black people he didn’t think Campbell would be quite so willing to dismiss it. Again Campbell interrupts him to say he understands Graham is passionate about this issue but he wants to put a question to him..Linehan counters with a question for the host about why he is not passionate about this issue? Is he not concerned for women’s spaces and sports?
Campbell concedes this is a reasonable point to raise but he wants to leave this question and instead he makes the point that both language on this issue is so extreme it obscures the issue. Then, inexplicably, he veers off into Californian gun laws and how they were designed to keep AK47’s out of the hands of the Black Panthers. (It is noticeable that he reaches for United States examples which is, I think, because this issue seems, in the United States, superficially, to be more dividing people on party political lines. This makes it more easy to paint it as a Left /Right issue). From Californian gun laws the host segues into the real threat that “trans” people must feel they are facing and asks if Linehan has any charity for them. This is the #BeKind argument which is really #BeCompliant.
Graham asks the host to outline the source of this feeling of being under threat. Is it Lesbians saying women don’t have penises or is it the hyperbole about genocide put out by activists like India Willoughby.
Campbell, tellingly, reaches for another U.S example quoting a Conservative, Catholic commentator, Michael Knowles. who is on record saying “transgenderism should be eradicated from public life” . He has threatened to sue people claiming this can be equated with a threat of a genocide to “trans” people.
Campbell outlines that he believes Knowles was being deliberately ambiguous so that he would have plausible deniability and evade any consequences for his words. Linehan fires back a riposte about why a right wing commentator has any relevance to gender critical women, in the U.K; who count significant numbers of Left Wing, trade unionists among their number. The answer is, in my view, because it is a lot harder to sell left wing women /Lesbians as simple bigots.
Not to be outdoneCampbell claims Knowles is portraying “trans” people as “killable”. He then brings up the spectre of a modern day Enoch Powell figure calling for the eradication of “Irishness” to be eradicated which would make Linehan feel under attack. Linehan points out that Knowles may very well attract people with unpalatable beliefs but people who share concern about “transgender ideology” are also reasonable people concerned about childhood medicalisation. Indeed. Campbell is using guilt by association to smear people with concerns about gender identity ideology.
Somehow we get into Eddie Izzard and his (laughable) claim that he would have been a victim of the holocaust. Unbelievably, Campbell claims this is not such an outrageous claim because “Transsexuals, be they white, straight, blue-eyed or not were the first victims of the nazis”. He does soon walk back the claim about being the first victims but this is a common claim of trans-activists and seems to be appropriating the persecution of homosexuals and conveniently ignores the history of cross -dressing nazis. The idea that there were sufficient numbers of “transsexuals” to round up in the 1940’s is ahistorical nonsense. There were so many pictures of cross-dressing nazis there is an entire book on them.
The interview gets a bit heated at this point. The host is not impressed with a critique of the transvestite Eddie Izzard, claiming to be a “woman”, seeking to get elected as an M.P and openly using female spaces, All the while still getting acting roles in his male persona. Here is Eddie using female toilets whilst, I am informed, there was no queue for the mens. Not sure what his hands are doing.
The host then brings up the mythical “passing” trans male and whether Linehan would insist that they should use male spaces. In response Linehan brings up three named trans id males; two of whom are on record for not using female spaces. The host does concede that few men pass as women but still insists on whether a “passing” man should not be forced into male spaces. I don’t think it will be a surprise. to Graham, that I disagree with him on the next point. Graham harks back to, in my view mythical, time when women felt an alliance with “trans women” and this has been fractured /broken by trans-extremists. A better response would be a question about whether a man has the right to over-ride female consent for a male to share a space where women are undressing. Does a “passable” male have the right to observe women undressing if she doesn’t know she is sharing a space with a male?
Graham does, rightly, point out that some trans-identified males did try to campaign for third spaces but activists don’t want this because they want to be validated in female spaces and to dominate and invade women’s spaces. Campbell’s response is to question this with “Can you see into their hearts?” To which I say “No we cannot, which is why Self-ID is such a bad idea”. He then brings up another trans-activist talking point asking of Graham wants to bring in genital inspections or chromosomal checks. Graham makes the point that all these things have operated by a social contract that most men have honoured.
On the issue of men in woman’s sports Graham uses the example of Fallon Fox who severely injured female MMA fighters and then boasted about it.
The host responds that MMA fighting is a violent sport and many women have been injured by other women though he does concede that he finds arguments to end sex segregated sports unconvincing.
Campbell again notes Graham’s exasperation at people not speaking up on this issue but asks him to consider that people are put off by the stridency of both sides of the debate. He also says that if he were in the “trans” community this tone would make him bind more closely to the “trans” community. He also accuses Graham of being indiscriminate in his criticism and again claims the “trans” community are deserving of respect in much the same way as the black community. Again, drawing an analogy to racism is a common TRA talking point, a better analogy would be Rachel Dolezal identifying as black and taking leading positions in groups set up to advance the rights of the black community.
Graham makes the good point that left wing progressives who stay out of this debate do, in fact, cede grounds to more extreme right wing elements and asks again why they are not speaking up about woman’s rights and sports…Campbell interrupts to point out that sports are “inherentlyunfair” , indeed they are if men are allowed to take prizes intended for female athletes.
The conversation moves to the topic of detransitioners which doesn’t get a response because the host makes an outrageous claim that Linehan’s twitter ban makes him akin to Donald Trump. Linehan is not having that and points out some of the facts of the ban and how the host is misleading the audience. Undeterred the host then brings up Breitbart news and the way they treat migrants who provide a skewed perspective just as Graham does on his blog which details the sex offenders who are identifying as “trans” and being placed in female prisons. This gives the host an opportunity to ask what I am going to say is a disingenuous question about how these crimes are in the U.K which doesn’t allow Self-Id. Anyone seriously informed about this issue would know that self-ID exists in policy if not backed up by the law. After he is contradicted on the claim that Self-ID doesn’t exist in the United States (it does in many states) he falls back on the argument that sex offenders won’t be put off by the law if they wish to access victims in female only spaces. I find that a morally bankrupt argument.
The host then brings up the fact that the virulent hard right oppose trans rights and makes the spurious claim that pantomime dames would be illegal if they get their way. Graham’s rejoinder is that there is a danger of an over-correction which is why it is important that Left Wing progressives join the fray. The hosts final sally is to blame people for appearing on Fox news to which the response is to post out that left wing news outlets are denying coverage of the issue and this is why people are appearing in the only media giving voice to these concerns.
The host, in my view, may very well believe he is covering the issues in a neutral way. However, he repeatedly interrupts important points and by asking, repeatedly, for clarification Linehan is only talking about violent language, not acts, he deflects criticism away from repeated violent threats against women, invariably from men. He claims there is extreme language from both sides but he doesn’t even feel obliged to identify similar violent language from women and he certainly can’t come up with a single instance of actual violence, f perpetrated by women, against men with a “trans” identity. When presented with evidence of violence against women he minimises it with the rhetorical device known as whataboutery (See what about the war!). He repeatedly uses examples from the United States, especially extreme right wing sources. Another tactic is to repeatedly refer to the tone of the argument and how passionate his interviewee is on the issue. I suspect he didn’t want to talk about detransitioners because a father upset at the harms done to this group paint the “passion”in a much more reasonable light.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)
