Are gay people better off without Stonewall?

I have been meaning to cover this discussion for ages. It was hosted by Tortoise Media and had voices from across the “debate”.

You can watch it here:

Are gay people better off without Stonewall?

The host (referee) is a bit nervous about this discussion and recognises that the topic can be very divisive. She also states that she is a Lesbian so has skin in the game.

Jan Gooding

First introduction goes to Jan Gooding, ex Trustee of Stonewall. Here’s a bit of background on Jan. Main background is in marketing and I did have a wry chuckle at “Brand Reputation Specialist!

It was during Gooding’s time that Stonewall reviewed all their successes, legislatively and looked at their future direction. They had already achieved the repeal of Section 28 and sexual orientation was legal as well as same sex marriage. Seems they needed a new agenda.

Jan did not mention the $100,000 they took from the Arcus Foundation, specifically for them to add the T to their lobbying.

You can learn more about Gooding from her Stonewall review for 2018. #NoDebate

Jan Gooding: 2018

Targeting the Pink Pound.

During Gooding’s time at Stonewall that made many lucrative partnerships and this is one did start to look as if wooing the private sector was a key strategic priority. This is one of Stonewall’s partners; who are salivating at all the £££.

She talks about the history of Stonewall and how it was set up to oppose Section 28 legislation. For readers outside the U.K this was brought in by a conservative govt and banned the “promotion of homosexuality” in schools. Jan is then asked about Stonewall revenue schemes and she makes a couple of interesting comments. Apparently Ben Summerskill of Stonewall was against taking government money but all that changed and the government actively wanted a partnership with Stonewall.

The irony of her next statement was not lost on me given the fact that Stonewall has been misrepresenting the Equality Act consistently and accused of promoting not the law but the law as they would wish it to be. (Source: Akua Reindorf)

Specifically Stonewall set out their aim to undermine the protected characteristic of “sex”; specifically the right to legally protected female only spaces. This is an excerpt from their Vision For Change document.

The presenter then takes a question from an ex volunteer, for Stonewall, in the chat. He describes how he worked in Equality and Diversity but had been put off by the “hard sell” from Stonewall employees exhorting him to join the diversity scheme. He also had grave misgivings about the way Stonewall had embraced “trans” rights in choosing to adopt an extreme version which pushed for “Gender Identity” to be affirmed in all circumstances. Additionally, he also felt Stonewall’s choice to adopt a #NoDebate strategy and refusing to discuss the genuine conflict of rights this raised was a “lethal combination”.

The next commentator (Jonny Best) was again a long term supporter of Stonewall, and a gay man, who took issue with Stonewall’s condemnation of Lesbians who protested Pride in 2018. The group Get The L Out were protesting the Lesbian erasure and the insistence that same sex attraction is inherently transphobic because the women don’t accept trans-identifying males as partners. From his perspective Stonewall is now a Gender Identity Activism organisation who have redefined same sex attraction as problematic and, in so doing, reintroduced a kind of “gay shame”. Asked for a solution he says Stonewall has done so much damage it is now unsalvageable and should disband. Another gay man (Hassan Mandani) concurs and says Stonewall have tried to redefine his same sex attraction as “same gender” attracted thereby erasing the experience of gay men who are same sex attracted.

Christine Burns

After those questions, from the gay men, the presenter decides it is a good time to bring Christine Burns into the discussion. Burns is a trans-identified male and founder of a trans lobby group Press for Change, he also advises Stonewall. He explains that Press For Change was set up as a “trans” lobby group determined to establish their rights through strategic litigation. After outlining successive legal victories obtained by Press for Change the presenter then asks why they had not continued on their own? The answer from Burns is that Stonewall operated on a bigger scale and had money. Burns also reveals they had been working with the NHS after 2007 and also the Press Complaints Commission. Burns also reveals he worked closely with Ruth Hunt at the Department of Health. In addition Burns claims that same sex attracted people are discriminated against because of their perceived gender non-conformity and therefore they should work together.

Bev Jackson: Kate Harris

The presenter now brings in Bev Jackson of LGB Alliance. Bev explains that she and others had tried very hard to get Stonewall to engage over many years and it was only in the face of their intransigence that a decision was made to set up a new organisation. Stonewall’s strategy of #NoDebate had left them with no alternative. Bev also explains that people disagree and calling people “bigots” because they disagree is not helpful.

Christine Burns (Again)

After this brief segment Burns interrupts to state that the “nastiness” had only started in 2017 when Theresa May proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act. Burns had worked on the GRA and claims that many compromises were made to get it passed. The delay, Burns argues, had left a vacuum into which many bad faith actors had entered. 👇(Worth saying, at this point, that significantly more time has been allocated to pro-Stonewall voices at this point).

It is not clear whether this accusation is levelled at the previous speakers but Burns clarifies that he is not talking about people in this conversation but, nevertheless, the people on this call “seem to have the same mindset”. CB also makes it clear that Stonewall are right in their #NoDebate stance because there should be no negotiation about the rights he has enjoyed “quietly and politely” for the last decades. Finally Burn’s recommends reading his book to get educated. This is good advice. You can read an excerpt below about how they strategised to force mixed sex spaces on women; by experimenting on female prisoners.

The presenter seems conscious of the inequity in the time allocates so now brings in Kate Harris.

Kate Harris: LGB Alliance.

Kate says what we were all thinking. “Christine you have been speaking far too much”. 😂. Then she directs a comment to Jan Gooding; pointing out that she and others spent nearly three years trying to get dialogue with herself and Ruth Hunt including a petition signed by 10,000 people. Not going to lie, I had to break off during Kate’s contribution which was deeply moving.

Kate continues to explain that her life being ruined is not as much of a concern as the young people who have been impacted by Stonewall adopting Gender Identity Ideology in its new incarnation.

Kate continues to outline to focus of LGB Alliance who are in the business of telling the truth and having fact based dialogue and telling Lesbians you do not have to cut off your breasts and pretend you are a boy to be a Lesbian. Kate makes it clear she blames Stonewall for this (so do I) and also for men in women’s sports and for propagating the lies that Gender Identity Ideology is built upon. Finally Kate points out that the fastest growing demographic of supporters of LGB Alliance are “transsexuals”. At the end she asks Benjamin Cohen, of Pink News to stop lying about LGB Alliance. He doesn’t of course because he is in deep. Husband is /was a Trustee of Mermaids.

I don’t know who the next contributor is but he makes an excellent point about organisations that become part of the establishment, eventually, and because they feel they have succeeded in their earlier missions they look for new areas and this is when they can take mis-steps. He refers to the new direction as “mission creep” which has confused lots of natural allies. He also refers to recent homophobic attacks which shows Stonewall still have lots to do on their original mission. He finishes by saying that he hopes the conflict between “trans” people and LGB people can be resolved.

Christine Burns interjects (Again).

He tries to go on but the presenter cuts him off, very politely and brings in a young bisexual who has a boyfriend but has dated women and been publicly harassed for doing so. She explains that she is finding the whole discussion really distressing. She finds the prospect of losing Stonewall scary and references recent draconian, anti-gay legislation in Hungary.

Next up is a straight woman, Ruth Kennedy, who is grateful for the debate and says Stonewall has done great work but is now pushing a version of “trans” rights which is coming into conflict with other protected characteristics and that is a problem and in some contexts, sex matters and it should not be controversial to articulate this. Turns out she is an ex-premier ship Rugby player and is clear that sex matters in sport.

Next up is a woman who is disappointed at the amount of spats and personal point scoring going on. We then move on to the co-founder of Tortoise Media, who are hosting this debate. James Harding makes the point that this event has shown there is a need for this discussion and also how we generally hope a debate ends with consensual agreement but the nature of some debates is this is not always the outcome.

Jonny Best is now invited to share his thoughts about how the LGB could include the T. First of all Stonewall should not compel belief in Gender Identity Theory. He is also critical of Stonewall’s definition of “transphobia” which was a “totalitarian step” because it does demand acceptance of the belief system of “gender identity”. He knows this would not have satisfied many “trans” identified people who find it painful that people are allowed to disbelieve a fundamental belief about your identity. At the same time it was enforcing this ideology which, in his view, was where Stonewall went wrong.

Back to Jan Gooding.

Jan feels some of the accusations levelled at Stonewall misrepresent the organisation. She explains that it is not true they don’t debate and they are in dialogue all the time. That said Stonewall starts from a position of acceptance and here is Jan explaining why there can be #NoDebate

She continues to outline what follows from this premise. We have to accept people are who they say they are, they need to live their lives without shame, with dignity and able to use the loos, alongside people, without insults and without being “misgendered” They need the possibility of playing sport.

She finishes with her belief that the majority of “sensible” people accept Stonewall’s stance and calls “trans” people our siblings in the “queer” community who need to live lives of dignity and respect free from violence. So, basically, has not shifted her stance at all or answered the questions put to her by other people on the call and, in particular, from Kate Harris.

The End.

You can support my work here. If you have intended to do it before, now might be a good time since paypal are banning gender critical voices and I have just put my head above the parapet by formally complaining.

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


Nancy Kelley & Al Jazeera Part 2.


Part one set the scene for this interview giving the background of the interviewer and the participants.

Nancy Kelley & Al Jazeera Part 1

After a long preamble, replete with many false/exaggerated claims (debunked in part one) Lamont goes in 👇

He addresses the question to trans activist, Christine Burns, who feigns bafflement and, after a little chuckle, claims it’s a mystery.

What Burns omits is the over-reach of trans-activists who right around this time were making ever more extreme demands. The specific issue that woke a lot of women up, especially lesbians, was the campaign to de-medicalise ”transition” and allow bearded, penis-wielders, to self-identify as women.

Burn’s then outlines how much progress had been made in protecting ”trans” rights including their own role in getting the Gender Recognition Act passed, in 2004.

Nancy Kelley then jumps in to make somewhat contentious claims about public acceptance of ”trans” people. She is right that there was a widespread acceptance of people we used to call ”transsexuals”. If they thought about the issue at all, people assumed we were talking about, a tiny number of, people who were post-operative. When it is explained that many/most retain their penis and are heterosexual there are significant qualifiers to that “acceptance”. Nancy also implies it is a matter of education.

Back to Burns to explain why our media are so out of step with views Kelley claims are held by the majority of the British public.

In reality most people had no idea activists were involved in a social engineering project; to reorganise society on the basis of ”gender identity” and ride roughshod over women’s sex based rights. Once that became clear opposition began to mobilise.

Lamont then reads, in a skeptical tone, some of the U.K headlines. They all seem rooted in reality to me 👇

Nancy wades in about the proliferation of articles in the media. Nancy thinks it’s too much and would really rather it wasn’t covered. Of course she does, thats the advice from the Denton’s document.

Lamont then asks Burns why so many of the criticisms come from women who ”identify as feminists”.

Burns is having none of it and invents a complete fiction that second wave feminists were working with men, like Burns, because we had common interests. 🤷‍♀️

Then Burn’s pivots to ”White Supremacists” . Bit of a leap there Christine, love. 👇

After he takes it upon himself to define feminism he then advances the argument that these feminists, many of whom are Lesbian, are trying to separate the T from LGB so that the rights of the other letters can be attacked.

The interviewer pushes back, a little bit, to ask Burns for his thoughts on ”Terfs”. [BTW No self-respecting woman, let alone a “Terf” accepts the appellation “cisgender”. ]

Christine, like sexist men from the beginning of time, thinks we have misunderstood.

LGB Alliance

Lamont now turns to Nancy:

Nancy doesn’t dare, outright, deny this.

Next Nancy, conveniently, overlooks that even Stonewall didn’t include advocacy for ”trans” rights until 2015.

It’s women’s rights, stupid!

The interviewer is from the United States and, to give him credit, he does not assume U.K politics is a mirror of the political landscape of our American cousins. However after raising the source of the ”transphobia” on Terf Island (It’s women’s rights, stupid) he immediately pivots to how dangerous it is to be ”transgender”.

Burn’s arguments are all about the difficulty of looking like a man and being unable to use female changing rooms. Worrying about being recognised as a man when going to get a pint of milk. This, right there, tells you he has no idea of what it means to be a woman. Men who identify as women are well on their way to having more rights than actual women. That’s male privilege Christine.

You can support my work here. Only if you have surplus, after the many worthy crowdfunders and if you are not panicking about your fuel bills.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and how it’s has such a stranglehold over our institutions, politicians and the elites who run our media.


Nancy Kelley & Al Jazeera Part 1


As part of my series on Nancy Kelley I found this astonishing interview on Al Jazeera: a media outlet partially funded by the government of Quatar. You can watch it at the link below: 👇

Nancy Kelley on Al Jazeera

YouTube add a note to the Al Jazeera YouTube channel to highlight their financial backers.

Gay Rights in Qatar

A reminder of the state of gay rights in Qatar. 👇 The punishment for homosexuality is death.

The alleged context for the interview.

The segment focus is on the rising ”transphobia” in the U.K. To explore the issue Christine Burns,trans-identified” male and Nancy Kelley are invited to a discussion. In truth Burns is given much more air time than Kelley. Burns is a key trans-activist (TRA) in the U.K. Nancy Kelley is the CEO of controversial, lobby group Stonewall. You will also notice the interview takes place against a background draped in the transgender flag.

The presenter is Mark Lamont Hill, a former journalist with CNN who was, reportedly, let go for his views on the Israeli-Palestine conflict. He is also a Professor of Media Studies.

Lamont Hill introduces the segment by claiming that Hate Crimes against trans people are rising, there is hostile media coverage and he singles out the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, for failing to introduce a ban on ”Conversion Therapy”.

Mark Lamont

Hate Crime: The Facts.

These are the numbers charged with a hate crime defined as ”transphobic”. As you can see it was 49.

Its important to note that misogyny is not considered a hate crime so offences motivated by animus, toward the female sex, is not monitored. If we consider rape /domestic violence as a proxy for misogyny the statistics below are for one quarter of the year. The statistics are taken from the Crown Prosecution Service.

Media Coverage

Complaints are made about the volume of media coverage with little attempt to explain why this became a contested area in 2017. Neither Nancy or Burns explain that Stonewall only began to campaign on “Transgender” issues in 2015 and this has been accompanied by an escalation in demands. TRAs openly began to demand that any man could ”selfidentify” as a woman and campaigned vociferously for access to female only spaces. Here is Stonewall’s open statement that they wish to see the end of single sex spaces. This 👇 is a blatant attack on women’s rights to dignity, privacy and, crucially, safety,

In truth papers like the Guardian, Independent, Pink News and free paper, Metro, are cheerleaders for the Transgender Lobby. The Guardian in particular, much to the dismay of this erstwhile reader. I wrote about the Guardian links to lobby groups here:

Why are the Guardian suddenly so woeful on women’s rights?

Conversion Therapy

The demand to ban conversion therapy includes both gay conversion therapy and ”gender identity” . The main place where gay conversion therapy takes place, in the United Kingdom, is at U.K gender clinics. These are the statistics for referrals to the Tavisticock, looking at sexual orientation.

Here is a reminder of what Professor Villain had to say about this. He is one of a growing number of experts raising the issue of Gay Conversion Therapy in relation to Gender Clinics.

Including ”gender identity” in the bill would hamper therapeutic approaches to treat “gender dysphoria”. This context it important but the audience will gain no understanding of this from the interview.

Framing the question

After this disingenuous framing the interviewer turns to his guests. At least he doesn’t project a U.S perspective onto the U.K political context by assuming we are right wing, Evangelical Christians. 👇. He does recognises the concern’s raised about women’s rights before pivoting to the vulnerable, transgender people. An editorial decision was taken to invite a trans-identified male and Nancy Kelley on the show, even though they agree with one another. Noticeably they failed to invite anyone with an opposing viewpoint.

Christine Burns

Burns is a trans activist who appears here with the book Trans Britain; which they edited, in the background as well as the M.B.E they were awarded.

Burns is asked to define ”trans” and ”cis” . I won’t insult your intelligence by repeating the usual verbiage.

Lamont now references a Council of Europe report which conflates the attacks on gay rights and reproductive freedom in Hungary and Poland with UK feminists opposed to Gender Identity Ideology. I covered in this blog, below 👇. In brief they completely mis-characterise the debate we are having in the U.K, quoting the controversial lobby group, Mermaids amongst others. You can read more about this here: 👇. Short read: Blatant propaganda.

Council of Europe: Moral Panic

Burns, is asked to explain why if has got so bad for ”trans” people in the U.K. Burns professes bafflement and, claims everything was going in the right direction up until 2017 and implies this came out of nowhere. “It’s a mystery“ says Burns.

Burns fails to mention that people were unaware of what was happening in our schools, prisons, NHS wards and all our major institutions because it was a deliberate strategy. As set out in the Denton’s document, a guide to embedding Gender Identity Ideology in law and in life.

I wrote about the Denton’s document here 👇

That Denton’s Document

Of course, Burns doesn’t mention the campaign to let any man self-id as a woman; putting male rapists in female prisons; the sterilisation of children and the other horrors, which galvanised women and generated this backlash. Here’s a clip from a chapter in Burn’s own book illustrating Burn’s complicity.

The mendacity is strong with this one. Burns was one of the architects of the Gender Recognition Act , which set the stage for this debacle, and proudly boasts of it in this interview.

I will cover the details of the interview in part 2.

You can support my work here. Don’t donate unless you have surplus cash, I know there are lots of important legal cases going on at the moment.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology to expose the fact it is a social engineering project which hurts women’s rights, gay rights and the bodies of our young gay, lesbian, autistic and other vulnerable children and teens/ young people.


NHS Trans Policy: Chris Burns

As part of my series looking at the capture of the NHS I was sent this policy from 2008. Written by Chris Burns for the Department of health.

You can access the policy here:

dh_089939 NhS By Burns.

Transvestic Fetishism

The document makes it clear that the definition of “trans” includes post-operative, pre-operative ”transsexuals” but also part-time cross-dressers and those who have no intention of any physical changes.

Burns is a little bit coy about the reasons men don the garb associated with women and the nature of the pleasure this yields. Here is a little bit about Transvestic Fetishism, a paraphilia according to the Diagnostic Manual version 5. (It has now been renamed ”transvestic disorder”). As you can see men get sexually aroused by wearing women’s garments.

What I found interesting is that man with autogynephilia will take up hobbies they associate with the female sex. One such is knitting! I can think of two prominent TRAs who have taken up the hobby. Our politicians rank men, with a sexual fetish for being women, higher up in the ”woman” stakes than actual women!


There follows an emotive section on the pain of being misgendered which will be received as a ”body blow to everything she is trying to achieve” . They so clearly want “mis-gendering” i.e. correctly sexing, to be an actual crime. It is already treated as a hate crime in the U.K but in other jurisdictions it is an actual crime. This is from New York:

Not a mental illness

The policy is keen to deny that believing you were born with the brain of the opposite sex is not a mental illness. This recurs throughout the document.

The document does concede that people with mental disorders can mistake themselves as ”trans”, they are not to be confused with Christine who is ”true trans”, of course. There is a lot of shame involved in autogynephilia hence the invention of ”transgender” which legitimises men with a fetish.

Third Genders.

Burns also makes reference to the way other cultures have accommodated, usually males, who don’t conform to societal expectations for their sex. They are usually gay men. (This may very well be a benign accommodation in some cultures but certainly the use of young boys, as Hjira, in India, appears to facilitate their sexual exploitation by older males). It is misleading, and cultural appropriation, to use these arguments to claim legal accommodations for heterosexual males with sexual paraphilia. The claim there is a ”widely understood” acceptance there are more than two sexes is also wishful thinking, in 2008. Even in 2022 it is only dominant in our political and media elite, it is a luxury belief.

The law

Where the policy covers the law it is deliberately obtuse and contradictory. In this section it acknowledges the Genuine Occupational Requirements that allow sex specific recruitment. Thus males, can be, legally, excluded from certain roles and spaces. An example would be a rape crisis centre for female victims of male, sexual violence. Burns is keen to stress that these exceptions are ”limited” and ”rare”.

The policy even implies that a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate is not covered by these exceptions. In a section about allowing the exclusion of someone “undergoing” gender reassignment Burn’s acknowledges an employer could exclude someone from shared accommodation.

But then adds this caveat.

The Gender Recognition Act is bad law. There have not been enough legal challenges to test its application, in respect of single sex spaces. However, it is legal to exclude any male, even with a GRC, from, for example, becoming a counsellor to female rape victims. The cynic in me says this legislation was drafted in a purposefully muddled way to allow activists, like Burns, to exploit the confusing, contradictory, wording.

Sexual Orientation v Gender Identity Group

While reading this document I came across a reference to a group I had not encountered before.

I cannot find details of who sat on this group but they certainly accessed quite a lot of government funding. This is from Hansard: 👇

I would love to know more about this group. Was Burns a member? Who were the gay men /Lesbians in that group? Did any of them object to same sex attraction being redefined as ”same gender” attraction and did they anticipate the emergence of male “lesbians” and female ”gay men”?


Membership of SOGIAG interests me because I would like to know if any of them realised there may be a conflict of interest between the G and the T? Which gay men is Burns talking to such that nobody picked him up on this section?

For Burns to include this without any reference to the consequences visited on Gay men, in particular, takes my breath away. (This also happens to Lesbians).

Real Life Experience (RLE) & Woman-Fishing

Burns goes into some detail about how a man convinces the Gender Recognition Panel they are eligible for a GRC. This overlaps with any attempt to get the surgery known as ”Sexual Reassignment Surgery”. The panel requires evidence that the applicant has been “living as a woman”. All of this is at the “pre-op” stage so here is Burns stating that they should be allowed to use the facilities of the opposite sex. Women are therefore needed to ”validate” this ”identity” ; used as sort of spiritual midwives for the “woman” trapped in a man’s body. Burns proceeds to give examples such as not requiring any male, if he does not acknowledge his sex, to be placed in a side room at a hospital. Instead the women are to be forced to perform ”sisterhood”.

None of the men passing these laws, or the women, have thought of how offensive this is, to women. Imagine if Rachael Dolezal had been able to compel the Black community to accept her, while wearing Black Face? Why is men performing caricatures of women, some hyper-sexualised, not called out as “ Woman-Fishing” ?

For those of you unaware there is a backlash against, usually celebrities, for adopting a presentation that suggests a racial identity other than their own. Exhibit A :

Final Thoughts.

As far back as 2008 activists liked to pretend a public debate on this attack on women’s rights had taken place.

Only a trans person is able to describe their lived experience but a male should be trusted when he claims to speak as a “woman” with ”lived experience”.

I do agree with Burns here 👇. Surgery doth not a woman make:

I have left much out because it has been covered by other guidance in this series. Full document included 👆in case anyone feels the need to highlight some of the other egregious statements in this policy. We have created, yet another, sacred caste. It is not going well for women, the gay community and the safeguarding of children.

If you are able to support my research here is a way. My content will remain free.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s pernicious impact on our culture, women’s rights, gay rights and the safeguarding of vulnerable children/youth.