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).
Victor Madrigal-Borloz works as a special rapporteur for the United Nations. He acts as an independent expert and his post is unpaid. He has however taken $100,000 from the Arcus Foundation in his official capacity.
<Update 27/APR/2023> Thanks to a diligent reader I have also been alerted to this funding to Victor Madrigal-Borloz via Harvard University which also came from Arcus Foundation. Another $200,000. Thanks are due to the below. twitter account
The Arcus Foundation has expended huge amounts of money bankrolling the spread of Gender Identity Ideology. I have written about this foundation before on this blog which you can read here:
The United Nations has been the the target of huge amounts of money paid to third party organisations to lobby the U.N on “transgender” issues. Here are just a few of these grants.
Madrigal-Borloz spoke recently to the Scottish Parliament where he set out his support for the Gender Recognition Bill which has been blocked by the U.K parliament. In this he objects to the toxicity of the debate, claims allowing men to self-identify as women confers no new rights and laments the conflation of discussion of “safe spaces” for women he calls “non transwomen” wit thr rights of men to self-identify. Furthermore he claims that it is “trans women” who are most at risk of sexual violence in this astonishing statement.
He also objects to the toxicity of the discussion and the description of trans women as predatory men. This was in response to a question asking if barring convicted sex offenders from obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate is not a reasonable safeguard.
Madrigal-Borloz is also asked to comment on whether women are self-excluding from purported single sex spaces and if any data is being gathered to see if this is a consequence of policies based on a self-identified model. He seems very reluctant to concede that the policy should be reviewed on this basis and merely reiterates that he has not seen any evidence that this is happening. At the same time he intimates that any attempt to garner any data on this issue is basically looking for a problem when the outcome has been pre-determined. Finally he rounds up his evidence by repeating a thought terminating cliche.
Victor finishes his contribution by asking that people end the moral panic he feels is being stoked by irresponsible politicians. I will just leave this graphic representation of the statistics of sex offenders based on Ministry of Justice data.
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. Please only give if you can afford.
It is worth noting that another signatory to the Yogyakarta Principles, Robert Wintemute, has admitted that little thought was given to the impact on women’s rights.
Mauro Cabral Grinspan who was the executive director of Gate at the time of this picture.
Cabral-Grinton hails from Buenas Aires and styles themself as an intersex and trans activist. She is also a trans-identified female. It’s not clear if she really suffers from a disorder of sexual development or if this is how she describes a “trans” identity. Cabral-Grinton was also a member of the World Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). Interestingly she also convened a working group which recommended the removal of the concept of a “gender variant child” and pointed out the danger of a negative impact on proto-gay kids. This was in 2013.
Arcus Foundation has an open records of the grants they dispense and their purposes. One of the grants, to GATe, was to fund activists to lobby the World Health Organisation to normalise the idea that people are born in the wrong body and facilitate billion dollar profits for Pharmaceutical companies and the Gender Industrial complex.
GATE also funded trans activists to attend a symposium organised by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). WPATH is a Lobby group which was founded by an activist called Harry Benjamin.
GMI insights projected the profits that can be made on the “transgender” surgeries alone. They projected a Compound Annual Growth rate (CAGR) of 25%+. Note, this does not include the profits to be made by a lifetime dependence on opposite sex hormones. To maximise the mining of profit from healthy, human bodies lobbyists h needed to change laws and capture the health sector. Gate is one of the organisations that have worked to this end.
In this industry forecast they did note that one impediment to the growth rate was rising rates of regret. However, for anyone who regrets their surgery and has removed ovaries/testicles they are still a source of profit because they remain a lifelong dependent on synthetic hormones.
You can read more about the Arcus Foundation in an earlier piece I did on the “charitable” arm of medical technology billionaire Jon Stryker.
GATE also produced a 173 page document t labelling women defending sex based rights as violent and funded through shadowy means and makes spurious allegations that feminists are in league with anti-abortion groups. These are some clips from the section on the United Kingdom.
They also describe “Gender Critical” feminists as people who do not believe it is possible to change sex.
The report itself appears to just accept the word of the respondents on the situation in the U.K. They are not identified but all claim to be working for trans-lobby groups based in the U.K.
The organisations named in the report are listed below. A gay rights organisation, a group of left wing trade unionists, an organisation set up to defend female sports and another that defends “sex” as a legally protected characteristic! All mainstream views in the U.K.
The kind of things set out as successes for the “anti-gender” movement are things like protecting female sports.
Naturally they also claim that womwn defending their rights are also committing violence such that trans activists have been driven to retaliate but this is all in self defence.
The attack on women’s rights is made very clear in the Gate document which shares many characteristics with three documents I covered in my series accusing feminists of engaging in a moral panic. . All deny that women defending sex based rights are “feminists” and all use the label “anti-gender” and make ridiculous assertions of shadowy funding and alliances with anti-abortion groups. You can read that series here:
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received as they help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. https://stilltish.substack.com. Please do give if you can.
Before I covered the Oxfam’s new “inclusive language” guidance, I first provided a bit of background on the investigations over the behaviour of Oxfam staff in overseas locations. Oxfam were rocked by allegations of serious sexual misconduct by its male employees. Staff were found to be using women as “prostitutes” even on Oxfam premises. Allegations that some were underage were not investigated and, as a consequence, remain unsubstantiated. Allegations were made against workers in Haiti and Chad.
The Charity Commission published an investigation into Oxfam in 2019. There was also an Indeoendent report specifically looking at Oxfam and safeguarding.. I cover these investigations in part 1, below 👇
The investigations make it quite clear that the perpetrators were mainly male and the victims female. It was for this reason one of the recommendations was for female only meetings, designed to facilitate women to make allegations without fear. As we will see Oxfam now appears to have decided “Gender Identit” , as opposed to sex, is the primary basis for defining what makes a woman.
Recently Oxfam has published a style guide illustrating how deeply captured they are by Gender Identity Ideology.
Firstly, let us look at the author of this guide; an Oxfam employee, Helen Wishart, who was also a former employee of Annesty U.K. She describes herself as an intersectional feminist.
Amnesty U.K. has also been corrupted. I wrote about them here:
Wishart Was educated at various universities including Sussex; who allowed Dr Kathleen Stock to be hounded out of her post.
You can get a flavour of her thinking from an essay which remains on line. Here she is pretending that people who carve sex stereotypes into, and out of, their flesh are a symbol of hope and will destroy the patriarchy. Sigh. She also uses the usual appeal to emotion about violence against the “trans” community which is designed to silence your critical thinking skills.
Wishart basically argues that sex denialism will destroy the patriarchy because how can we be sexist if we don’t know what sex somebody is? This is an argument only acceptable for a juvenile to advance. The rest of the essay is similarly puerile. She has a lot to say about attacks on bisexual/pansexual individuals and how we are driven by heteronormative assumptions.
If I have not annihilated your will to live you can read more here:
The author is allegory concerned about erasing the experiences of women whilst it proceeds to problematise words describing uniquely female experience and centres the alphabet soup in violence against women and girls, a term it finds insufficiently “inclusive” !
Some of the newspeak
They also oppose the word “mother”
Oxfam also redefine same sex attraction to same gender attraction.
In the mix are some language changes that are not inherently objectionable and many are already in common usage and relatively uncontroversial. An example of this might be the assumption of chair man and the use of chair /chair person. I think these examples are used to disguise the top down imposition of Oxfam’s newspeak. Considering their history of using women and girls for sex, in poor countries. I find their rebranding of sexual exploitation deeply sinister. Who benefits when you say “people” who buy sexual access to poor women? We all know it’s invariably men who hand over money to get over tricky arguments about “consent”.
There’s quite a lot about privilege and white saviours and white feminism amd a warning that if you are infected with this privilege you might get defensive. This located any disquiet about the blatant social engineering in your own personal failing. Call me old fashioned but I think Oxfam should focus on their core mission, ameliorating poverty, and not proselytism for the gender borg.
I am particularly reminded about what Oxfam had to say about “white feminism” and carceral feminists who report rapists to the police. I wrote about that in 2021; thread linked below.
Here are some of their references. Of course they have been Stonewalled.
And they recommend Meg John Barker who has cropped up a lot. She is/ was in a heterosexual relationship with a man who calls himself non binary. Sigh
Edward Lord, pictured below, is the man who made a public swimming pool, designated for women only, into mixed sex by changing the criteria to “self-identified” women.
There’s plenty more to irritate in this document. Here it is.
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. This month I have been hit by £288 for renewal fees so any assistance gratefully appreciated. It also helps me to maintain my commitment to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)
Seems Oxfam is the latest in a long line of N.G.O.s to capitulate to transgender ideology. The attraction of Rainbow washing for this charity probably lies in its shameful history of turning a blind eye to employees; who sexually exploited some of the most vulnerable women and girls on the planet. For anyone not aware Oxfam was accused of turning a blind eye to members of their staff sexually exploiting young women (and, possibly, under age girls) in Haiti.
Before I cover Oxfam’s new “inclusive language” guidance, in Part 2, here is a bit of background on the NGO.
The Charity Commission published an investigation into Oxfam in 2019. You can access their findings here along with an Independent assessment of Oxfam and Safeguarding.
There was an investigation by Oxfam and also an Independent Review of Oxfam, focused on safeguarding.
In this investigation they pointed out the sex of the victims and that of the majority perpetrators
They highlighted the lack of appreciation that safeguarding had any bearing on the way conducted its business. The review strongly opposed this perspective and insisting that the charity should adopt a SafeguardingFirst approach in all it’s activities. 👇
They also questioned the pervading “cultural relativism” which saw employees prioritising respect for local customs and culture, even when those cultural practices were inherently abusive.
The main focus was on Oxfam’s overseas activities but they also revealed nine cases of registered sex offenders working in Oxfam shops. Something they also pointed out, of which I was unaware, was that Oxfam was not legally able to obtain the type of criminal record check that would reveal these offences.
I am assuming these sex offences would only be revealed by an enhanced check under the disclosure and barring service. Having looked at the on line tool it appears that an employer of shop volunteer would not be entitled to make a DBS check. This looks like a loophole for the government to address.
Another disturbing issue is that some of these registered sex offenders were known to shop staff and allowed to continue in their role.
The Independent review made a number of recommendations one of which was to appoint people with a strong track record in promoting the rights of women and girls. How will this play out now Oxfam is questioning what is a woman/girl?
The investigation by the Charity Commission resulted in sanctions for the Charity using their regulatory powers.
In February 2018 allegations emerged which dated back some years.
Turns out that Oxfam do not explicitly oppose the sexual exploitation of women and girls. Some staff were sexually exploiting women/girls on the charity premises.
The charity seemed to spend more energy in finding ways to expel rogue staff members than they showed for the victims.
In another part of the report it was revealed that they had a less than rigorous approach to prospective employee references, in one instance one of the men had a reference from one of the men in Haiti who was implicated in the other allegations. During the investigation into Haiti further allegations arose in relation to Chad. These leads were not followed up.
This was one of the recommendations. There should be female only meetings when overseas locations are inspected.
My question is that if Oxfam are now pretending that they can’t define women and if they include men who identify women in our sex class how are they protecting female only meetings? This is their statement on women, from the inclusive language guide, making it clear they have erased women as a sex class.
Next I will cover their guide to “inclusive” language guide.
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. 😉)
I am reading this at in chunks so I do the review justice. This one will cover chapters 7 & 8. You can read the rest of the series at the link below. Do buy the book. My review is no substitute and it is an important historical record. Also order it at your Library.
Chapter 7 is aptly titles The Bombshell as there are growing numbers of staff expressing concerns, a huge surge in referrals and staff are failing to meet targets over waiting times.
The decision was taken to invite an external consultant to review G.I.Ds and, for a brief point, it looked as though significant change was on the horizon. For some staff this change couldn’t come soon enough as one commented.
The consultant, Dr Femi Nzegwu, made her recommendations which included reviewing the criteria for referrals, a minimum standard for report writing and even a temporary cessation of the service.
Anna Hutchinson shared her recollections of this time.
According to Hutchinson it was Polly Carmichael who ended the discussion about closure, in her view all it required was “brave leadership”.
There is no evidence that NHS England were ever told of the report, certainly the chief executive of the NHS Trust, where GIDs was based, not: He had to find out from the media.
Meanwhile, in 2016/17, when the report was commissioned, referrals were still increasing and the staff doubles from 40 to 80 and still they could not keep up. The criteria was not tightened up and there were multiple agencies able to refer children.
At around this time the first reported outcomes of the Tavistock experiment with puberty blockers started to emerge. The preliminary findings showed a mismatch between positive reports by the patients which were not borne out by the psychological testing. Amazingly there was no improvement of the Gender Dysphoria or the self-harm. Subjects also had higher degrees of suicide ideation.
Despite this no halt was called to the live experiment which included 162 children by 2016. Carmichael actually argued that this progression rate might mean that some children who would have benefited may have missed out! Though she did conceded it was possible that the puberty blockers influenced the trajectory for these kids. Almost as if going through a natural puberty helped resolve bodily rejection.
There was more. The researchers revealed that near a 100% of the children had progressed to cross-sex hormones. Only one stoped treatment citing issues with bone density development. For some clinicians this was a wake up call.
Hutchinson sounds absolutely horrified by what the clinic was doing to some of the more vulnerable children in our society. A horror I share.
For natal boys there is another consequence. One of the arguments for blocking puberty had been the prevention of the development of secondary sexual characteristics would avoid unnecessary surgery in the future. For males, however, the stunting of their male genitalia actually increased the likelihood they would have to undergo an even riskier type of surgery. The Tavistock staff knew that one of the boys in the Dutch study had died following complications of this type of surgery. We know also, from Marci Bowers, a “trans-identified” man and a surgeon, that these children will likely grow up and be not only sterile but inorgasmic. It shocks me everyday that we are still doing this.
Some of the clinicians describe how there practice changed after this research but the clinic itself issued no directive and did not change practice. One of the clinicians drafted a leaflet, to be shared with patients and their families, warning about the issue with future genital surgery. The leaflet needed approval from Carmichael who did not respond to the requests; a decision described as unethical by one 👇 clinician.
The reluctance to commit this to paper invites speculation as to Carmichael’s motives. This was one suggestion.
Chapter Eight.
This chapter covers the fallout for the staff and how some began to modify their practice in line with the new information. Stress levels were high and staff were offloading to one another but the service itself had not reviewed its treatment protocols. Discussions across GIDs, were they occurred were described as polarising.
This chapter also covers what seems to be the dysfunctional relationship with CAMHS (Childhood and Adolescent Mental Health Services). It appeared that the impact of economic policy “austerity” had placed intolerable pressure on CAMHS who were referring to GIDs partly to relieve pressure on their service. It was not that these children did not express unhappiness with their sexed body they did, but they often had co-morbid mental health issues which were left untreated by a referral to GIDs.
A further difficulty was that it was ideologically driven lobby groups, like Mermaids, who stepped in to provide support to parents and children. Mermaids , as we know, believed in the idea someone could be born in the wrong body and pushed the idea that if you did not medicalise these kids they would commit suicide. There involvement would, inevitably, drive up referrals and make existing referrals anxious for the medical pathway.
Matters were not helped by the number of agencies able to refer children to GIDs.
The feeling I am left with is a service spinning out of control and a leadership team unable to take the hard decisions and, at the heart of this problem, children bing irreversibly damaged.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)
Given that “Lydia” is to be foregrounded as an inspiring “woman” on “We all Hate Women Day”. Let us take a look at Lydia.
I have had the court transcripts about Foy for some time but seeing him being lauded and invited to give a talk for the laughable #InternationalWomen’s Day, it seemed timely to have a look at this “trans-identified” man who had quite the influence in the Irish context.
Born Donal Foy he is a heterosexual man who married and fathered two children. He was born in 1947 but by 1991 he decided that he was really a woman discarding / losing his family along the way. As usual in these cases we do not have the testimony of his wife and children so, we have no way of his case was preceded by a history of transvestism, in the marriage, which is the norm for heterosexual men. By 1997 he was engaged in legal action and sought to have his birth certificate changed to state that he had been mis-sexed owing to a congenital abnormality.
What Foy was demanding was that this birth certificate be falsified to indicate he had always been Lydia and he wanted both his name and sex amending. Despite having married he claimed that the refusal to grant him this change was an infringement of his human rights, including to marry! This was peculiar because he had every right to marry and had already do so and, if he had now determined to marry a man, that was not then legal in Ireland. .
Because this claim had a bearing on the status of his children they were attached to the case and afforded legal aid; his wife, though a witness, was not afforded any legal representation. The judge said this was regrettable as clearly the case had a bearing on her situation as well.
The judge admits to knowing little on the topic but does make the bold claim that the condition had nothing to do with sexual gratification.
He was one of seven children all boys, bar one sister. He claims that he always knew he was meant to be a girl and describes his attraction to his sisters clothes. Men with autogynephilia (AGP: sexual attraction to oneself, as a woman) often have these retconned narratives so they should be taken with a pinch of salt, in the main, especially when the claim is childhood onset. Fetishising female clothing is a familiar hallmark of an AGP male.
The judge shows some skepticism about some of the narrative presented in court.
He attended a boys school were he claims he with either bullied for the presumption he was gay or, he claims, treated like a girl in recognition of his “femininity”. It was there, he claimed, that he began to furtively cross dress. Proceeding to University, to study dentistry, he discovered the story of Jan Morris, another late transitioning, heterosexual male. I covered Jan in this series.
Despite his inner turmoil Foy was to marry in 1997 and there is no testimony about whether he continued to cross dress. Two children were born and Dr Foy spent two years working in Saudi Arabia, with visits home. By 1981, shortly into the marriage, he claims that the internal conflict intensified and he became depressed. By 1989 Dr Foy simply informed his wife he was taking female hormones and refused to discuss it with her.
A joint appointment followed and Soon led to the breakdown of the marriage and Dr Foy vacating the family home.
There followed further legal steps and after initially being granted access to the children Foy was barred from access, his wife was granted sole custody, and the property was signed over to Mrs Foy. The applicant remains aggrieved at this outcome. If I find these judicial orders I will cover them. It would be interesting to know what events led the courts to take these steps.
The Judge, in an understated way, recites some brief testimony, from Mrs Foy, about their marriage and notes that he found Mrs Foy a more credible witness and lacked traits which would call into question her evidence. It is not known whether he found the reverse to be true about Dr Foy.
A key part of her testimony fits with a diagnosis of autogynephilia. He was very “masculine” in his pursuits and behaviours.
Then comes the confession.
There follows a long section about sexual differentiation and disorders of sexual development which needn’t detain us. The judge may be a proponent of #LadyBrain dictating “feminine” behaviour however I can forgive him for his astute references to autogynephilia and fetishistic cross-dressing.
The next section goes into quite a lot of detail about diagnosis; how distressing the condition is; the risk of suicide etc. Foy was referred to Ireland’s expert on the condition but that relationship appears to have broken down because Foy wanted him to intervene in respect of visitation to his children, to which the Dr refused.
There is a long section dedicated to Foy’s determination to obtain surger and inability to sustain relationships with clinicians and confusion of how he obtained the surgery referral when he did not appear to have followed the necessary treatment protocols. This aside, the Judge, seems genuinely motivated to send a warning bell about a failure to rigorously assess patients. One of the people who appears to have failed is Dr Russell Reid who would be sanctioned for this failure in a separate case. I wrote about this here:
We then meet Professor Gooren who introduces the idea that we all have a psychological sex. The innate “gender identity” of its day.
A further expert was called to attest to the fact that Dr Foy had no chromosomal abnormalities. In a later interview Foy appears to also have undergone an examination to ascertain whether he had a vagina. 😳 I did not know if this is a fantasy when I first watched the interview but it is confirmed in the court records.
There follows a lengthy section governing the law about registering births and links to relevant cases. The demand for a replacement birth certificate is rejected and the Judge noted the consequences for Foy’s children and wife were it to have succeeded.
I will return to Foy because there is another court case and lots of appearances and interviews. Here he is with President Biden.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)
In part one I covered a report detailing how young activists strategised how to disseminate gender identity ideology and normalise talking about sex with the under twelves. In that I illustrated the links to Lloyd Russell-Moyles, a British Labour MP . You can read part one below:
The document I am going to look at today is a later edition of the Rainbow Resources. I have searched, in vain, to get a PDF of the first version to which Russell-Moyles put his name. If I track it down I will cover it in this series. You can read the full document here:
The document recognises that the first edition was by Russell-Moyle. This was part of International Falcon Movement -Socialist Education International. Later we are told that the document was funded by the Council of Europe.
The organisations rely on the U.N declaration on the Rights of the Child and , to this end, they claim that children have as much ability to teach as to learn and that children are involved in the decision making process. This is quite fundamental to the ideology and why it conflicts with the idea of child safeguarding.
Here they claim they have been working with children on gender and sexuality for forty years.
In this edition they wanted to focus more on “trans” issues. They are also keen to stress that sexual rights are human rights and that children are not too young to discuss sexuality.
Allow yourself a wry chuckle at this next statement.
Naturally the oppose what the call conversion therapy but they include not just homosexuality but also “gender identity”. What this means, in practice, is that we end up “converting” gay kids to faux-straight adults by enclosing them in a medicalised closet. Also, because this is inspired by queer theory, they want to destroy social norms around different expressions of sexuality which brings us a world where we are not allowed to kink shame.
They next reference a pamphlet about child sexual development which has, unfortunately, has now been removed so I cannot interrogate the content.
There’s a section on being aware of your own privilege and biases and making sure you are self-aware and questioning your own adherence to stereotypical behaviour. In the next paragraph they advise that your identity is constructed not just by yourself but in dialogue with how others see you. (Tell that to the male “Lesbians”).
The next section tells us that everyone has a “gender identity” and uses the discredited statistic suggestion that 1% of people are born with a disorder of sexual development (DSD) which they call “intersex”. They provide the usual claptrap about “cisgender” and redefines sexual orientation to pretend that people are attracted to “gender identity” rather than biological sex.
The booklet then (sigh) uses the Gender Bread diagram to demonstrate their bonkers belief system.
Their definitions include “transvestite” without any recognition that some men cross-dress for erotic purposes.
Next up they confirm that they are informed by “Queer Theory”. It’s interesting to note that since 2014 we have seen an explosion of spicy straights claiming to be “Queer” that they argue undermines the LGBTI*.
Here is what they say about the family. 😳 They are clear that there needs to be empowerment of the child; the family may need “educating” and outside organisations have a role in shaping the child.
There’s a reasonable section on bullying and patriarchal language structure erasing women but, inevitably, they ruin it by opting for gender neutral language, preferred pronouns, and imposing their ideology by way of exercising the privilege they claim to be committed to eradicating.
As we know, from part one, the proponents of this ideology actually strategised that one way to overcome resistance, about talking to children about sex, is to hide the content of your “education”. They don’t repeat that (yet) but instead make the patronising assumption that resistance is borne out of ignorance.
Here’s the bit where they strategise to get the kids away from their parents, allay their fears by co-opting trusted professionals or charities and bury the content in wider issues.
There is a whole section on bullying which, ironically, uses bullying and public humiliation of any child who does not subscribe to their belief system. Finally these are the people they point to as role models.
Monroe Bergdorf who lost multiple appointments because of a failure to understand child safeguarding, who is on record making discriminatory comments about Lesbians and who parades himself as a pornified princess. Travis Abalanza who thinks teenage girls should be forced to share communal changing rooms, with him, at Top Shop. Or Fox Fisher who is still surgically mutilating their body twelve years after starting their testosterone journey.
It’s a no from me!
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)
I came across this document while I was looking at Rainbow resources after I was sent a tip off about the involvement of Labour M.P Lloyd Lewis-Moyles in an organisation called International Falcon Movement – Socialist Education International. Document below. 👇
Here is Lloyd Lewis-Moyles confirming his involvement with this organisation.This is from an old blog from his days as a student at Bradford University where, you will see, he has been pushing biological sex denialism since 2007.
Here he is welcoming the production of Rainbow Resources in 2011.
You may be familiar with Russell-Moyle because he shouted down Miriam Cait M.P and then moved to sit, menacingly, near her in parliament, because she has been raising issues about school teaching on sex and relationships. Here is Russell-Moyle sharing a personal tragedy and using this argument to suggest we should teach niche sexual practices to children.
This document was produced in 2012 and there is no audit train to suggest that Russell-Moyle was present but it does illustrate the waters he was swimming in. He did attend other events, hosted by IFM, including the Queer Easter events. This is a picture of one of the Queer Easter events found online.
The event itself was for youth leaders to reflect on how the Rainbow Resources could be improved. The event and production of the document was funded by the Council of Europe. The Coincil of Europe predated the formation of the European Union and is able to elect judges to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
The document itself covers a group of Youth Leaders who ran events for children. They boast about their desire to teach children from anearlyage about issues of gender and sexuality.
In this document they lament the lack of resources for children and their aim to work with children “from a very early age”.
Furthermore they want to develop tips on how to introduce this teaching “against parents wills” . This has echoes on the Chinese cultural revolution.
The Youth Workers are being trained to go back into their organisations and disseminate their ideas to others and, of course, the children in their care. Because they know opposition to teaching children about their sexual rights is still widespread they shared tips on how to overcome opposition from parents, colleagues and institutions.
The participants were from education settings or worked in youth groups or were involved in LGBT groups and otherwise had access to children to educate /indoctrinate. Many of them work with the under 12s which is the target age group.
These are some of the issues they discuss. They believe children who take openly about sexuality will be better equipped to respond to sexual jokes and defend themselves against sexual harassment. They also believe it’s a good thing if children feel confident to approach adults about sexual matters.
Additionally they talk about children’s rights to love whom they will.
To accomplish their aims the participants are advised to be economical with the truth when parents or teachers ask about the lessons. Tell them the method but not the content.
Frame your work as anti-bullying and discrimination and then introduce gender and sexuality.
Disturbing section on children’s sexuality and confirmation that a sexologist was invited to talk about chikdren’s sexuality. Remember we are talking about an under twelve age group.
Anticipating resistance one participant decided to run an event where parents were deliberately excluded. This is another one of their recommendations.
Additionally participants leaned that they did not need to make the nature of their content, on sexuality rights, explicit.
I am not suggesting these materials are being produced with conscious malign intent but they seem woefully naive, at best, about child safeguarding.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)
This is a ground breaking book even after all the media coverage about the Tavistock.I think I have written about twenty pieces about the U.K’s main Gender Identity Service but I still finding this an absorbing read and learning things I didn’t know. I am writing this series as I make my way through the book.
I will cover chapters five and 6 in this piece. You can catch up with the series here👇:
The clinic had entered a new era now that Dr Polly Carmichael had taken over the helm. Bernadette Wren also joined during this period as did many new staff as the operations of the clinic expanded. The NHS had commissioned G.I.D.s to provide a national service and referrals were increasing at unprecedented rates. It seems the previous head, Domenico Di Ceglie should have heeded the warning which did, in fact, make him laugh. We are not laughing now.
The picture pained by Barnes, based on her interviews with former Tavistock staff, is of exponential growth in referrals, a complete change in the demographic, and a leadership team seemingly unable to manage the risks for this new client group. Therapeutic work was difficult to schedule and some seem to have embraced the “affirmative” model resulting in more than one account of puberty blockers being offered during the first appointment.
Apart from the time constraints the availability of the medical pathway was changing the nature of the relationship between the clinicians and the children referred to the service. One of them describing a “fundamentalist mindset”.
Newer clinicians relies on the more experienced staff to guide them, in the absence of any formal training. This meant they were all being trained in the “affirmative” model as described by Anna Hutchinson.
Many of the clinicians describe the complexity of the cases they were faced with, including one who had three alternative personalities (known as “alters”) two of them with Australian accents even though the patient had never set foot there. Others had competing mental health conditions and suicidal ideation. Yet for all these patients there was just one treatment pathway, medical intervention to block puberty.
More than one interviewee expressed concern about the influence of lobby groups like Mermaids and GIRES. Rather than resisting this pressure Hutchinson felt that the Tavistock were buckling. The impression given is that phone calls and emails from staff at these organisations were often made to Dr Polly Carmichael.
Hutchinson describes how, originally, she was not too concerned about the use of puberty blockers having assumed /been led to believe, there was a strong evidence base behind their usage. In the next chapter this would change.
This chapter ends with another case study of a gay man with extreme Obsessive Compulsive Disorder that practically kept him housebound. He had been subject to homophobic bullying for many years and now began to question his gender identity. His mother describes how a senior clinician, from the Tavistock, travelled to see him at home and how she reacted to the pressure she felt under, going so far as to describe it as “insane”.
Luckily this gay man escaped the clutches of the Born In The Wrong Bodybrigade.
In chapter six we meet Matt Bristow, a gay man, who considered himself a “trans ally” and was thrilled to join G.I.Ds. Right off the bat he makes an astute ovservation that so many of the referrals are from traumatic background he wondered if they wanted to reinvent themselves via a new gender identity. Bristow also describes the hostility in some of the therapeutic encounters with patients who resented the assessment period prior to receipt of drug treatment. Patients were also predisposed to be dishonest fearful of being deemed ineligible for treatments.
Those of us with children caught up in this know that our kids are being taught a script on line to dish out to gullible, or complicit, clinicians.
By 2014 the Tavistock had determined that they would lower the age for medical intervention to allow prescriptions for those under twelve. Carmichael referred to this as “stage not age” and announced it in the press.
Carmichael is not being quite accurate in this statement. Further interrogation by the Newsnight Team, which included Barnes, forced an admission that no study had been completed and evaluated at the Tavistock, instead they were relying on the Dutch study. The problem with this was that the Dutch had not experimented on those under the age of 12.
The decision was taken by the senior staff and some staff had misgivings as Natasha Prescott recalls.
While Prescott takes a charitable view of the intentions she does question why the therapeutic aim seemed to be to eradicate any stress or discomfort rather than to teach their patients coping strategies. Other staff members too a more cynical view.
The chapter covers both Mermaids pressure for a reduced age for prescriptions and public statements, by Bernadette Wren, on why GIDs were resisting the pressure. In the end Mermaids got their way.
Barnes questions why NHS England agreed this change in the treatment protocol when no formal evaluation has been published on the ongoing study on these over the age of twelve. She also points out that the Dutch study was not an unalloyed success and even resulted in the death of one of the participants. There had also been a loss to follow up of more than 20%.
This chapter gives a good critique of potential flaws in the way participants were evaluated; in particular the way the patient was assessed for satisfaction with their biological sex, at the outset, and, after surgery, asked if they were satisfied with their target sex. Could the positive results be attributed to this methodology?
All this was taking place against a background of increased rates of referrals, inexperienced staff and a complete inversion of the sexes who were present ing at the Tavistock. From a small number of mainly boys with long standing “gender issues” they were now seeing mainly teenage females who had suddenly emerged as “trans”. This is how one clinician described the waiting room👇. This is what social contagion looks like.
Staff were still under the impression that the puberty blockers being administered were fully reversible. This was despite Carmichael making different public pronouncents for different audiences. She can be found describing PBs as a “pause” for childrens BBC but admitting they are not elsewhere.
This is Carmichael to the guardian.
Against this background the Tavistock was still expanding and doubling its contribution to the NHS trust. They were garnering positive press attention and encouraged to expand its staff, reduce assessment periods, and prescribe to everyone more, and ever younger children. We’re they unchallenged because they were a significant source of revenue?
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)
Part of a series on this excellent book. Waterstones may be hiding it but it’s too big a scandal to cover up and those of you cheering on this harmful ideology are going to pretend you didn’t!
Chapter 3 examines the pressure on G.I.D.s to embrace what has become known as The Dutch Protocol; namely the use of puberty blockers in children presenting with “Gender Dysphoria”. We have seem that there were tensions within the Tavistock as different ideologies were competing for dominance. Crudely, some clinicians were familiar with people presenting with distress, expressed as a bodily rejection, which could manifest as anorexia, self-harm, alcoholism or, in more extreme cases the rejection of a limb. (A condition known as apotemnophilia). The other camp, again crudely, believed in innate gender identity or a “Born In The Wrong Body” narrative. For the latter camp forcing a child to go through the “wrong puberty” was akin to abuse. I have said many times that once you believe in the existence of a “gender identity”, at odds with your biological sex, the next steps seem obvious and, perhaps, inevitable.
Pressure to prescribe came from all quarters, from parents;the kids themselves and lobby groups. The use of threats of suicide often accompanying these demands. Older people with a “trans” identity also seemed to use these kids as a kind of retrospective wish fulfilment. Those of us who cover the topic of autogynephilia see another motive; creating the idea of the “transgender child” to deflect attention away from trans-identified males with a sexual fetish; an accusation that can’t be levelled at a child.
Of course by the time we were in the 2000’s there were plenty of Lobby Groups pushing for earlier, medical intervention. We must not overlook the profit motive; Ferring Pharmaceuticals, the makers of Puberty Blocking drug, Triptolerin, funded the initial research into using Puberty Blockers, at Gender Clinics, and they have also donated £1.4 million to the Liberal Democrats, a U.K political party,
The claims made for the “Dutch Protocol” do not appear to be justified by the paucity of research.
In this chapter we find that clinicians were aware that most of these children, left alone, would reconcile to their sex and turn out to be gay males or Lesbians. Nevertheless despite the risk of “false positives” they would, eventually, capitulate.
In 2005 the association for Paediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes (BPSED) came out against this early intervention.
People were sounding a note of caution but one of the more shocking statements would come from an ex member of G.I.D.s staff about the role the possibility of medical interventions may have played in the strategy of its Director.
Elsewhere Barnes speculated that De Ceglie saw his role as making sure G.I.D.s survived as an organisation and that this may have taken priority over other concerns.
Whether due to the pressure from behind the scenes / public lobbying the outbreak of sanity at BPSED would not last. When the guidelines came up for review in 2008, they changed their stance.
For good or ill the NHS were now sterilising children.
The chapter ends with a reflection from Phoebe, a trans-identified male who had surgery to remove his genitals at age 18. Phoebe’s back story is that of a surviving twin whose sister was lost in uteru. Phoebe was a gender non-conforming male who had extensive homophobic bullying. Clearly he is same sex attracted but, age 28, a man who accepts him as a woman has proved elusive. Despite regretting the loss of a chance at biological children, Phoebe claims to have no regrets about his path but also has not managed to quell all doubts.
I am inclined to agree with Barne’s assessment that Phoebe is quite charming. He is also wary of rushing access to medications and surgeries.I am correctly sexing him here, because it’s important not to yield our language, but I wish him well and hope he never has cause to regret his surgery.
By Chapter 4, De Ceglie has been replaced by Polly Carmichael and G.I.Ds had, after a refusal, obtained ethical approval for a research project to block puberty for some of the children in their care. This chapter is a must read to understand why the staff at G.I.Ds chose not to use a control group so they could compare those given puberty blockers against a cohort who had not received them. It questions the results of the Dutch Protocol and whether the Tavistock were honest about the effect of the puberty blockers. In particular they describe them as granting a “pause” when they knew almost 100% of children progressed to cross sex hormones, as did ALL of the children in the Dutch Protocol. It also questions the impact on boys who would require a riskier surgery, using intestinal tissue, because of a stunted penis. (One patient in the Dutch protocol died from complications of the surgery). Moreover it points out that the fact all of the children who take PBs + Cross Sex Hormones will be sterile and not just have reduced fertility as the subjects were told. This is a must read chapter and while the revelations are explosive it is told in a calm and measured way by Barnes.
Barnes also revisits the first patient that started the push to use puberty blockers, patient B. This does not sound like an unmitigated success. It’s worth a long clip of this section.
Barnes references the excellent work of herself and Deborah Cohen for the Newsnight team and Professor Viper’s response to some of the relegations.
Jack
The chapter ends with another case study of a trans-identified female from the foster care system. Jack had a disrupted childhood with a family dealing with alcohol issues. She was a tomboy and attracted to other girls. The foster care broke down when they began to insist Jack ceased hanging out with boys and dressed more “feminine”. Jack had mental health issues and spent two years in a psychiatric facility. She describes a slow and careful assessment at G.IDs which was frustrating at the time. She also did not want to be a Lesbian.
Jack became attracted to the notion she was “trans” after watching the product placement of a trans character on a U.K soap aimed at teens. She also makes a startling observation on a further stint on a psychiatric ward shen she was older.
She also thinks the testosterone may have influenced her sexuality and now identifies as a gay man, attracted to males. In the end Jack took cross sex hormones and had a double mastectomy, neither of which she regrets. She does, however, think safeguarding young people from making a mistake is important.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)
