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:

Rainbow Resources 1

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. 😉)

My Substack

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


Rainbow Resources 1


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 an early age 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. 😉)

My Substack

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


Council of Europe: Moral Panic


After looking at a document produced by a coalition of Philanthropic organisations, and Children’s charities, I came across another, eerily similar, publication produced by the Council of Europe. The COE also claim there is a rising tide of hatred, against LGBTI people, across Europe and they also assert that women, fighting for sex based rights, are somehow part of this “hatred”.

COE gender critical

The Council of Europe is not to be confused with the European Union. The Council of Europe are a separate organisation, though their website makes it clear they work in concert with the European Union.

The United Kingdom is amongst the countries shamed for its “virulent attacks” on the rights of LGBTI people. This is possibly a reference to the successful defeat of an attempt to allow males to Self-Identify as women. I have looked at the legal cases the COE proclaim as good news and one was a man in France who successfully argued he should be allowed o identify as a woman without going through Sexual Reassignment Surgery. The COE points out that such surgery leads to sterilisation and therefore should not be enforced. I wonder at the hypocrisy of allowing children to consent to sterilisation procedures (which is the outcome of being put on Puberty Blockers which invariably lead to cross-sex hormones) whilst, simultaneously, claiming sterilisation is a barbaric outcome when applied to a grown man!


The language used in the report is straight out of Trans Rights manuals/ queer theory philosophers. The authors simply cannot conceive of spontaneous, grass roots, women led, activism which objects to the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on our sex class. They badge the opposition as “highly conservative”, use the offensive language of “Cis” and deploy people with disorders of sexual development to shore up their argument. Below they have the temerity to include, as an afterthought, that Gender based violence also affects women! Who knew?


Naturally they describe gender-critical feminists are “anti-trans” rather than pro-women. They claim concerns about the negative impact of Gender Ideology, on women and children, are false. We are, apparently, denying the very existence of LGBTI people and undermining social cohesion. The sex which is being reduced to cervix-havers, persons who bleed etc is accused of dehumanising LGBTI people! They ignore the people in this fight because who are Lesbians and Gay men and object to being told their sexuality is based on ”genital fetishism”. The people labelled Intersex are people with recognised medical conditions and it is not GC feminists who are reducing them to an ”identity”.


The above paragraph is eerily reminiscent of the document I covered in earlier blogs.

Manufacturing Moral Panic: 3

Like the Global Philanthropy Project they do not like the fact we are exposing their ideology. They cannot accept feminists fight for the rights of our SEX. The argument that redefining our sex class to include males, the oppressor class, doesn’t impact on the group you are colonising is laughable.

Here they make the case for all member states to make sure minors are taught Gender Identity Ideology. As the Jesuits say ”Give me the boy at seven and I will give you the (wo)man”. Why are they so keen to indoctrinate minors? Teaching children that we all have a Gender Identity is social engineering.


The backlash, to the spread of Gender Identity Ideology, always had the potential to be indiscriminate and the legislative moves in Hungary confirmed our worst fears. Far from allying with right-wing governments many of us have been at pains to warn the Left from emboldening attacks on hard won Gay, and women’s rights. Hungary has just introduced their own version of Section 28.


In an era when the rights of U.K women to assemble, peacefully, to discuss women’s rights is under attack it is beyond irony to see the COE posing as a defender of freedom of expression, association and assembly.


It must take quite a lot of cognitive dissonance to have an ideology that claims access to endocrinologist’s services is a human right and life-saving whilst also defending the rights of, de-medicalised men to claim legal recognition as female. Yet our law makers have gone along with it.


Women’s rights to Fair competition in sport are, we are told, akin to racism. Not content with the destruction of female sports the COE also demand access to facilities of the opposite sex.


It common tactic to conflate sex segregation with apartheid. David Lammy uses this argument all the time. Here he is speaking for the Gender Recognition Bill in 2004. (Source: Hansard).


The resistance to Gender Identity Ideology has clearly been noticed by the COE so, what is their response? They lobby for public education campaigns to re-educate the public about ”Gender Identities”. They urge nation states to re-educate it’s citizens to counter what they claim are “misleading or false narratives”. If only the proponents of this ideology had considered the impact of harmful masculinities, before dismantling the protections society evolved to minimise the risk to women and children.



Further evidence that Mermaids are being allowed to steer policy on this issue. A lobby group for “Transgender Youth” was invited to discuss the issues with Council of Europe. Elsewhere the document refers it’s readers to a parliamentary committee which took oral evidence from Lui Asquith, of Mermaids, as well as Nancy Kelley of Stonewall. 👇


Are women the penetrated class now?

Wel, well, well. I assume here they are avoiding the terms man/male or woman/female and came up with the delightful penetrators or penetrated. 😳. Below is an attempt to persuade us the badging of men who are insufficiently masculine as inferior is a worse atrocity than telling those self-same men they might just be girls and legalising castration.


Here the COE claim those with a concern about Gender Identity Ideology are of a Conservative, Christian disposition. They claim we are also against abortion and same sex marriage. I don’t doubt that people who have these values also don’t believe men can, literally, change sex but sharing one opinion doesn’t mean we share a world view. A recognition that biological sex exists is pretty important to defend same SEX orientation and women’s sex based rights. What doesn’t seem to occur to the proponents of this ideology that they have handed a weapon the right to use against actual progressive values like Gay/Women’s rights. It is easier to see the backlash as evidence of a gender critical conspiracy than acknowledge the negative consequences of pretending men can become women.


Naturally the COE are also listening to the discredited lobby group that is Stonewall.


They point to a rise of “anti-gender rhetoric” which they badge as anti LGBTI. This serves to conflate homophobia with a backlash to the excesses of the Trans lobby: a dangerous idea which ensures the LGB are caught up with the rejection of Gender Ideology.


This next clip is disingenous and misleading as well as being downright offensive by referring to women as “persons who have wombs”. Women know biological sex exists and we also agree, to varying degrees, that “gender” is based on sex stereotypes. Characteristics deemed to be typically “feminine” are, partly, culturally determined and vary over time. feminists know this. Different strands of Gender Critical feminism may debate the role, and extent, of Nature versus Nurture but we don’t deny the existence of biological sex. I would dare the authors to tell Butch lesbians they don’t celebrate diverse expression. In respect of non-binary I really cannot take that seriously. We used to celebrate subverting sex stereotypes/gender; we didn’t tell gender benders they should take opposite sex hormones and chop their cocks off.


This section is saying the quiet part outloud. If the re-education doesn’t work we will utilise financial levers to make sure you comply. This is a tactic used to great (by which I mean bad) effect in the U.K as funders make being “trans-inclusive” a condition for women’s refuges/rape crisis etc.


Here the COE detail the type of extremist application of notions of gender to include the full panopoly of genderqueer, genderfluid, agenda. They also give a nod to those cultures who provided accomodations, usually of gay men, by creating categories like Fa’afafine or the Hjira.


Note 51 links to a YouTube video which I will cover in another blog because it sheds light on the evidence they rely on about attacks on trans people and their tactics to silence women defending sex based rights. I decided to follow up this link and it does not quite say what the author’s of this report claim but you can read my piece on that below.


Panel on Anti-Trans Backlash.

Here is a long section on the United Kingdom claiming that sex is immutable is labelled anti-trans rhetoric despite being a verifiable fact. Liz Truss is singled out for opposing the right of anyone to identify as the opposite sex based in their own assessment. Naturally this generated major concern from women fearful of the loss of single sex spaces. As usual there is a heavy reliance on hate crime incidents which are based on the self-perception of individuals who identify as victims. Reference 55 links a report, by Lobbying group, Galop. I had a look at the document and here are two clips about the transphobic abuse. The concept of second hand transphobia, outlined below, was a new one on me.



The link for Lui Asquith is to a parliamentary committee at which Lui Asquith spoke in March, 2021. I am astonished at so much credence being paid to this organisation and their they/them legal advisor. This is a clip from that parliamentary committee. Listen to how Lui talks about rising rates of de-transition amidst the growing scandal of, mostly young lesbians, who regret the medical interventions they have undertaken. The way Lui waxes lyrical about non-linear journey’s you would not think she was talking about young women missing breasts, wombs, sometimes ovaries, many of whom will be rendered sterile.


I dont think Lui changing her pronouns is quite the same “non-linear, experience” had by the young Lesbian, detransitioners.

Not to be outdone the European Parliament itself has produced its own version about rising LGBTI hate and points the finger at the Kremlin! I will cover that document at some point.

You can support my work here. I am unwaged and have depleted all my savings fighting for Women’s rights, and to stop the “transing” of young Lesbians, Gay males, autistic kids and kids in care. All of these groups are vulnerable if we don’t stop the march of Queer Theory through our institutions.

Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women & girls as well as the consequences for Lesbians, Gay males and autistic kids. I do this full time and have no income. All my content is open access and donations help keep me going. Only give IF you can afford. Thank you to my generous donors.