Annie Wallace

Wallace works as an “actress”; As an aside it is noticeable that only men cling to the actress moniker. Wallace worked behind the scenes advising Julie Hesmondhalgh who played a “transexual” character in popular British soap opera, Coronation Street. The producers used an actual woman to play the character to soften up the audience for the admission of biological men into women’s spaces. A kind of “product placement” or false advertising. Hesmondalgh is described as the ideal choice as she was a social justice warrior.

Eventually Wallace moved in front of the camera to play a Head teacher, in the soap Hollyoaks; which of course he describes as a “headmistress”. The propagandists behind the soap decided to show an episode in which Wallace’s character is put in a female prison and is attacked and hospitalised by female prisoners. This is breathtaking dishonesty given that we are housing male rapists in the female estate and the risk is to females, from males. Men in women’s prisons are not at risk from females. It’s a complete inversion of the truth. Proof positive is that no females, however they identify, are housed in the male estate. There is provision for extremely violent females to be held in the male estate but it is rarely used.

Wallace’s chapter is quite repetitive of the content in previous chapters so I will leave out much of the sections on the increasing visibility of “trans” people. Earlier treatments of “trans” people he complains were treated as “perversions” by a “lascivious press”. (I think he means “salacious”).

He also objects to the depiction of “cross-dressers” which, may I remind you, are included under the “trans” umbrella. Some of these men are transvestic fetishists and adopt the garb of women for erotic purposes. Some in this group of men who are so addicted to this activity they are autogynephiles and wish to live as “women” full time. We used to be able to stigmatise men who like to masturbate while wearing female attire but now boundaries are under attack and this is called “transphobia”. This is why a man feels emboldened to dress in highly sexualised, female attire and parade around Bradford train station. A U.K city which is predominantly muslim, by the way, I have seen that man myself.

You can read about the Bradford man here: 👇

Saorsa-Amatheia Tweedale

Wallace proceeds to reference Roberta Cowell, Jan Morris and April Ashley. All of whom I have covered in other pieces. Cowell was a man who abandoned his family and claimed to be intersex to get access to “trans” surgeries. In order to validate this claim he had to publicly denounce his wife as an adulteress and abandon his children. Jan Morris began his “transition” after the death of a child thereby compounding his wife’s grief. None of these men are good role models but they are being proclaimed as such in school teaching materials. He also mentions Julia Grant who I covered here 👇.

Julia /George Grant:Trans Britain 10

Wallace then mentions the film The “Crying Game” which involves trying to obtain sex by deception. This is a crime under U.K law and trans-activists have long had this law in their sights. For a man who is not homosexual this is a violation of his right to decide who is in his dating pool. Here the idea of “homophobia” is leveraged to shame Rea’s reaction and that is why they did not use a Lesbian, confronted with a surprise penis, this would have made the violation much clearer.

Wallace also references Adele Anderson who infiltrated a female only group, Fascinating Aida.

Wallace believes the character of Hayley Cropper was instrumental in softening up the public to accept a bill which, we now know, has resulted in men, even rapists, in female prisons and men cheating in women’s sports. How’s that social justice working out for you Julie Hesmondalgh? It’s also worth pointing out 👇 that trans-activists continually mis-characterise the role of the “spousal veto” which is in fact better called the “spousal exit clause”. A wife who discovers she is married to a transvestic fetishist is allowed time able to exit the marriage before a man can rewrite her history and claim she is married to a “lesbian” in official documents. She cannot prevent any steps in his “transition” she can just exit the marriage before she is redefined in law. The man is granted only an interim certificate unless she agrees to remain in the marriage or they divorce. Nobody should be assumed to consent to remain married to a man who is taking these steps.

Of course Wallace ☝️claims opposition only comes from right wing and Christian groups. Sigh.

Next he talks about the film “Trans America” which also used an actual woman (Felicity Hoffman) as the trans character. Now there are objections to not using “trans” actors but in the beginning it was helpful to use females to embed this ideology in the film industry. For the Huffman film they sought advice from noted trans-activist Andrea James.

James has a rather bleak backstory having orchestrated a campaign against Michael Bailey for the publication of his book “The Man Who Would Be Queen”. (MWWBQ).

I covered that book in this series: 👇

Man who would be Queen

This is a sample of James’work 👇

In this clip Wallace also shows how captured the BBC are:

There is nothing new in the remainder of the chapter so I just want to talk about this YouTube chat that Wallace had just four weeks ago. I anticipate that this will be removed as Wallace strays into defamatory territory in this interview. Starts about twenty minutes in.

Annie Wallace: Pride

Wallace makes a veiled reference to Helen Joyce who talked about limiting the amount of young people caught up in the social contagion of the “transgender phenomenon”; to stem the tide of detransitioners. Transactivists claim that what Joyce was doing was proposing a “genocide”. Wallace talks of women like us calling for the “elimination” of trans-identified people.

He then goes on to talk about the lies circulated about “trans” people and how he works to counter this disinformation with facts. Hilariously he then proceeds to talk about the Maya Fostater legal case but appears to be mixing it up with the Alison Bailey case. (About 23 minutes in).

You can read a brief piece about Alison Bailey’s case here: (By the way Bailey is appealing the loss against Stonewall) 👇

Alison Bailey: Legal Judgment

Worth mentioning that Wallace is a patron of the beleaguer charity Mermaids about which he says this:

Gay ConversionTherapy

He also ridicules the idea that we are “transing away the gay”

These are the stats at the Tavistock Gender Clinic; which has been ordered to close because it is not regarded as “safe” for children confused about their sex.

These are the words of a Tavistock whistleblowers 👇

Here he is pushing the idea that any parent who doesn’t support the idea their gay, autistic or otherwise vulnerable child is born wrong can be replaced by their a “glitter” family. This is one of the more sinister aspects of this ideology, in my view.

You can support my work by considering a paid subscription to my substack which is here:

My substack

Or a one off donation via paypal. I know many of you can’t afford to donate and that’s OK. If enough people cover my costs that enables me to keep going and keep content open.