Sex by deception: 1


R v McNally

A recent BBC short documentary discussed the ethics around disclosure of biological sex to persons with whom you are engaged in sexual activity. Nowhere in that documentary was any reference made to laws around sex by deception. Before I cover that documentary let us look at the conviction of a female who posed as a male and engaged in sexual activity with a female.

Here is the transcript of an appeal against sentence which outlines details of the offence and the legal judgement.

McNally v R. [2013] EWCA Crim 1051 (27 June 2013)

The judgement sets out the details as follows: The appellant was a 13 year old female and posed as a boy on the internet. ’M’ was also female. They communicated by messenger and over the following three years discussed getting married and starting a family and engaged in phone sex. They agreed to be in an exclusive relationship which culminated in ”Scott” visiting ’M’ just after her 16th birthday.

‘Scott’ arrived in London, presenting as a male with a dildo in her trousers to give the appearance of having a penis. There were four more visits and sexual activity took place.

Finally ‘M’s mother confronted Scott about his biological sex:

“Scott” had pleaded guilty to the offences so the appeal claims she was badly advised and did not realise it was incumbent on the Crown to prove that ’M’ did not know she was female. The legal advisors, from the first court case denied this and stated that ’Scott’ was told he could offer this as a defence but the fact that ’M’ had purchased condoms would be revealed to the jury who would have to judge who was telling the truth:

Following this advice “Scott” added the following to her statement and pleaded guilty.

The judge details the legal definition of sexual offences as set out in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

The relevant excerpt is section 74.

The judgement considers other cases where arguments were made which vitiated the issue of consent. These include a sexual partner that did not reveal HIV status, lying about being post vasectomy so a condom was not deemed necessary, removing a condom without the partner’s knowledge, ejaculating inside a partner after being asked not to do so. The judgements on these issues were mixed.

The Judge, in this case, dismissed arguments, which are still used today, to justify lying about your sex vitiates. One of the is indeed to imply that convicting people for lying about something as fundamental as your sex, is equivalent to ”curating” your dating profile by exaggerating, for example, your wealth.

Therefore deception as to ”gender” can vitiate consent. ‘M’ was deliberately deceived into thinking she was having sexual activity with a male. Therefore she did not ”freely consent” to sex.

There are a few other cases of prosecutions for similar offences and, where deception about your biological sex is concerned, those who have been prosecuted in the U.K seem to be all female.

There is the case of Gayle Newland covered, along with this case and others, by The Secret Barrister here: 👇

Gayle Newland

This paragraph jumped out at me:

You can also read of earlier cases on Stephen Whittle’s blog. Whittle is a trans-identified female and a proponent of Gender Identity Ideology.

Sex by deception

Alex Sharpe, another trans-identified legal bod, this time male, has written an entire book on this topic. You can read an article, written by Sharpe, here:

Gender Identity Fraud

Sharpe argues that by singling out action based on “Gender Identity” we are fuelling ”transphobia. What Sharpe doesn’t use is the phrase “biological sex“ . SEXual orientation is a legally protected characteristic in law and it is based on SEX! You may be open to sexual encounters with either sex but if you are exclusively attracted to one sex, only, you have the legal right for your boundaries /consent to be legally protected.

Trans ally in the tweets. Terf between the sheets.

What Alex is demanding is that we accept a belief that people can literally change sex. The proposition here is that we should not allow these prosecutions ifwe accept a trans man is a man” . However that essentially demands societal acceptance that a personally held ”Gender Identity” is privileged above the material reality of biological sex. I don’t accept that a ”transman’ is literally a man and a gay man is highly unlikely to do so! Trans-allies in the tweets are often “Terfs” between the sheets.

Dare I say, this is incel logic. Nobody has a right to sex. We could certainly examine why the prosecutions are all female. We could raise questions about internalised homophobia or why it is so hard for these women to be openly ”Lesbian”. We could discuss whether the length of the prison sentences are excessive, in some cases. What we cannot do is privilege a, subjective, sense of self over reality. Lying about something so fundamental, to most people, if they are honest, is not merely unethical. It is a criminal offence.

Which brings me to part two of this series. Why did the BBC not point out the law in a recent documentary short which allowed a discussion about non-disclosure of your sex, to partners?

There are huge foundations funnelling billions into the spread of Gender Identity Ideology. If you can help offset the disparity by donating for my content. Friends of my work can do so here:

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and the impact on women’s , sex based, rights as well as the medical transitioning of vulnerable, often gay, youth.


Lord Patel: Inside Gender Identity 1


This is a document was produced by an organisation led by Lord Patel. You can read the full document here. 👇

Inside Gender Identity Lord Patel

Part 1: Who is it by? Who is it for?

This document was produced, in December 2017, to look at the needs of those identifying as transgender. In particular the focus is on how these ”identities” could be accommodated in a prison system that separates the estate by sex. This practice originated for reasons of dignity and privacy and because approaching 99% of sex offenders are male and their victims, overwhelmingly, female.

These are the authors :

Lord Patel authored the forward and talks a lot about how the transgender community are poorly understood and ill-served by a prison system based on binary ideas about sex and the way the prison allocates inmates. This document is underpinned by a belief system that accepts the notion there is an appropriate way to behave dependent on your biological sex. This is biological essentialist thinking; which is an accusation frequently levelled at feminists who reject the ideology surrounding “Gender Identity”.

Lord Patel is, therefore, a fully paid up believer in the idea someone can be born in the wrong body.

In the long list of acknowledgments he includes a trans-identified male who has also given evidence to the House of Commons. This is he speaking to a select committee for the transgender equality inquiry. This is what Megan had to say about housing male sex offenders with women: “we would not exclude male to female people from the female estate because they have committed a sexual offence”. Not one of the women challenged this statement.

Here are the list of acknowledgements. Spot the women’s organisations who were consulted? Thats right there are none but they did manage to talk to many trans lobby groups including one for transgender children (Mermaids) who seem an odd choice to input to adult, prison policy.

Of course other key trans activists were consulted, including Stephen Whittle who is never far away when there is an opportunity to dismantle women’s rights and prove they are not one of us.

Press for change are another trans lobby group who have been working to change laws since 1992. They specifically do not like laws which allow for discrimination on the basis of sex. This would be those permitted discriminations that cater for women only spaces and services. They therefore work against the rights of women.

Gender Ideology: Terminology

There follows a long section on terminology which has been rammed down our throats by these lobby groups and completely captured our political elites. The total surrender to this nonsensical ideology seems near complete. A sample below:

First up is an attempt to problematise the recognition of biological sex and public records. It is rarely necessary to resort to chromosomal checks and, as I have noted many times, those with chromosomal abnormalities are not a feature of referrals to gender clinics. This was researched and resulted in the abandonment of karyotype tests for those at odds with their biological sex.

Karyotype tests abandoned at Gender Clinics

Here we are also being manipulated to accept that fully intact, biological males, can identify as women. Lord Patel knows some of these ”women” don’t take any medical steps. For the record I don’t think any policy should be linked to whether or not anyone is pre or post-operative. {Prisons should simply base allocation on biological sex with appropriate provision in the female estate for the tiny number of women who have XY chromosomes but have an oestrogen led puberty because they have conditions like complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) }

Lord Patel doesn’t even see a problem with accepting men, with a sexual fetish, under the trans umbrella. This is a paraphilia. It includes men who wish to publicly parade in women’s clothing and force women to participate in their sexual practices. This goes against principles of consent.

To which I object!

Next up the ridiculous notion that we should accept the nonsensical idea of people who claim not to have a biological sex or those with a fluid identity. Naturally there is the offensive repurposing of the word “queer” which Lord Patel advises has been reclaimed. Tell that to the gay men who actually were on the receiving end of the ”queer-bashing” which, let me remind you, is not a historical phenomenon but a contemporary occurrence. I can think of racist terms that have also not been rehabilitated. I am sure he would, quite rightly, object if I , a white woman, started to lecture him on how they had been ”reclaimed”.

Finally it is outrageous to tell those of us who own our biological sex that we are, simultaneously, accepting of the sex stereotypes projected onto our bodies/personalities. I know I am a woman. I am not a fecking stepford wife/cisgender. I find the term offensive.

Finally we are told who the report is aimed at. Turns out it was to inform the Prison Service, Probation Service, the Criminal Justice system and NHS England. It is intended to influence policy across all these sectors.

In part two I will look at what the document recommends.

You can support my work here. I do this full-time and unwaged.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s negative impact on women’s rights and gay rights. It especially hurts vulnerable youths who are being medically transitioned.


More on Trans-Identifying males


Matthew Maycock. Further data on male demands re female prisons.

This is based on the same group of people, mainly males, I covered in my last blog which you can read here 👇

Trans-identifying people & Prison

This paper is again looking at the demands made by the, predominantly, male prisoners about access to the female estate. Part of this paper looks at reactions to the Transgender Wing at HMP Downview. As you can see from the headline to this paper the loudest voices demanded to be included in the facilities set aside for the opposite sex; though this demand was more muted from the trans-identifying females.

There was some differences, in respect of at the point in “transition” a male would access the female estate. However, as you can see with the follow up clip, even for the hesitant access to the female estate was the ultimate goal.

Another was happy for there to be a transgender wing to get support before they undertook ”the operation”.

The article leverages the suicide of three male inmates, who identified as ”women” to argue for access to the women’s estate. These are very sad stories which reflect poorly on safeguarding, of vulnerable males, in prisons. However, women are not human shields for men, even those at risk in the male estate.

The above clip was followed up by a brief reference to Karen White. The offences in question were rape and sexual assault. He was not the only one. This was a predictable outcome of putting men in women’s prisons.

Since Matthew failed to uncover any violence of sexual assault, against trans-identified males, in Scottish prisons, he falls back on research done in the United States. Given there is no easy way to quantify if the risk is higher, than for other vulnerable males, I think we need to stick to the U.K context. Here the ”risk” seems to focus on issues like pronoun misuse which are hardly a matter of life and death.

Other issues raised are similarly superficial:

There follows a series of unrealistic demands for non-binary and intersex wings which even the author recognises as impractical. One participant is not happy to have been allocated a single cell though these are in short supply and much coveted. Here a prisoner complains about not being subjected to body searches as frequently as other prisoners. 👇 Given that females are being forced to perform body searches on, fully intact, males I am not surprised this is being avoided.

I am going to hazard a guess this is a male prisoner who is advocating for more body searches. This seems like a ⛳️⛳️⛳️ to me!

Next up is a common Trans-activist argument which attempts to infer sex separated spaces are akin to racial segregation.

Once again the argument about learning your social role is advanced. How does this square with arguments someone has always been a woman? This is incompatible with a demand to access women so they can lean how to assimilate! This 👇 makes it clear the women are being used as validation aids, for males. The females, as I have already covered, remain in the female estate so no emotional labour is requires from men.

Not content with access to the female estate some also demand they should be allowed to shower with the opposite sex. Again this will be the men. Matthew is using ”people” here when it is really about men asking to shower with women! ⛳️⛳️⛳️

By the time he was writing this Dr Maycock was no longer working for the Scottish Prison Service. Maybe it is this that allows himself to dip his toe into a more controversial suggestion. He admits this paper privileges the experience of males and recognises that trans-identifying females have contrasting views. Why it is almost as if their experiences are shaped by their sex. 🤔.

His final observation tells you this has been written by a man. It is inconceivable to Dr Maycock that the views of women would not be considered. REALLY! By your own admission the women were only asked how they felt AFTER they had been incarcerated with men. Its all a bit May Cock’s do as they like and to hell with what women want/need.

Even if some women have are willing to share intimate space with men they cannot be used as a loophole. Firstly we have been subjected to societal grooming for a decade to forget all of the facts about male risk factors. We should not jettison single sex spaces to appease males who demand access. Women fought for these rights because of 98% of sex offenders are male. The overwhelming percentage of victims are female. Furthermore male free spaces are also about dignity and privacy. Any male disregarding this has no idea what it means to be a woman.

Rhona Hotchkiss (retired Prison Governor) points out that, of the women interviewed, who were part of the wider project, 80% objected to sharing their incarceration with males. Only 3 had no reservations at all:

You can support my work here.

Researching the harms of Gender Identity Ideology on women’s rights, gay rights and most especially all children and young people referred to Gender Clinics.


Trans-identifying people & Prison


Some more research about Scottish Prisons; who employed a researcher to draft reports justifying, I would argue, their policy of allowing self-identifying males to be housed in the female estate. This researcher had also undertaken research into the females forced into mixed sex spaces. You can read about their experiences here:

Female & ”Transgender” Inmates

This research paper covers his work with trans-identifying prisoners. They were overwhelmingly male. The first paper he published, on this group, can be read here 👇

Maycock pains trans prisoners

He followed this up with another paper on the same subjects so I will cover that next. Matthew begins by referencing the paper, linked below, covering female experiences in the prison system.

Women in Prison:

Women in Prison

This paper focuses on sex differences in prison experiences. The researchers reported that the experiences of the female prisoners were so harrowing those conducting the interviews were left ”reeling”.

It is well worth reading the entire paper to get a sense the ways in which the female experience of prison is materially different to that of male prisoners. One of the key deprivations the women highlight is loss of privacy.This makes it all the more astounding women have been forced into mixed sex spaces. Here is another quote from that paper:

Matthew references this paper but his comment concentrates on the fact it is not inclusive of self-proclaimed ”women”.

Wrong Hall. Wrong Clothes.

The contrast between the experiences of female prisononers and the travails of the transgender prisoners is stark. The incidents considered ”transphobic abuse” were linked to the need for validation in an opposite sex identity. The title of the study gives a flavour of the sources of pain for these prisoners. These were being housed according to their biological sex and not having access to opportunities to ”perform” a new gender identity.

The sample interviewed is set out below:

The females, who identify as men, are held in the female estate. The Scottish Prison Service claims Gender Identity takes primacy, in terms of prison location, but recognises the vulnerability of females to sexual assault, in the male estate. It is also significant that of the males there are 5 held in the female estate, 5 were assessed as too high risk and a further prisoner was segregated. This is very much a pattern reflective of biological sex not ”identity”. Notice also that the SPS operate on a self-identified basis and include ”social transition” as valid. Here’s what the paper had to say about the risk assessed males: This was also described as a source of ”pain”.

Here is a summary of the kind of pain unique to the experience of transgender prisoners:

The key issues identified are not having access to the estate housing the opposite sex, misgendering, misnaming and transphobia. Since we already know, from the women’s accounts, some of these men were fully intact, bearded males, who re-identified with their sex on release, is it any wonder that some were ”misgendered”?

The author makes much of the concept of “authenticity” or the ”real deal”. Some of the pain attributed to the community centres on a lack of available opportunity to display your ”gender” and have it recognised by others. Here one prisoner outlines their experience and the role of the prison staff. Assessing motivations for transition would seem to be an essential part of any risk assessment but here it is approached as insensitivity on the part of the prison staff. A healthy degree of suspicion would seem to be an essential attribute when dealing with incarcerated criminals. 🤷‍♂️

This prisoner is half right. Your personal identity is your own business right up to the point when you demand we participate in your identity and that the world be reorganised to validate your self-perception. Then it becomes a societal issue.

Here the author raises the issue of disparity of treatment between the women and the females with a male identity. He is avoiding the issue here. The trans-identified males are held in the female estate because of the danger of sexual assault from males. The rest of the women were given no such consideration when they were allocated to mixed sex spaces.

I am struggling to muster up the prescribed amount of empathy for the deprivations described here. Maybe I am non-binary? Why is the prison service pandering to this level of entitlement and narcissism?

There are quite a few quotes in a similar vein. What strikes me is how much is bound up with a performance with all the stereotypical expectations of what makes a woman. Clothes, hair and make-up do not a woman make!

The prison is described as undermining the transition journey by not supplying the accoutrements, deemed necessary, to perform femininity. Maycock frames this as an abuse of prison power. This is what we call ”transperbole”.

Many of the quotes relate to lack of progress in their transition because they are unable to access hormones on line, as they had done outside. Appointments at Gender Clinics are difficult to arrange and one even complains he didn’t get enough notice to ”get ready”.

A number of the prisoners raise the issue of lack of role models for their social transition because they are not able to mix with their target sex. This makes it clear that the women are being treated as validation aids and expected to behave as support humans.

Here is another quote from a female. How are you really a ”man” if you have to copy men to learn how to do it? How is any of this authentic? What is a ”proper man”?

Here an inmate claims they can’t learn to perform their ”gender” from prison officers of their target sex. It has to be prisoners. Why? Are the female prison officers not performing their gender accurately?

The study then covers issues of social isolation, lack of support from families, some of whom are unaware of the new gender identity, and missing LGBT support groups from the outside. There are mixed feelings about ”Transgender” wings which don’t provide sufficient opportunities to mix with the target sex.

There are also mixed views about how safe it is to be transgender whilst in custody. One male shares an in incident where he was subject to sexualised comments about his “breasts” and penis. Another shared an anecdote about an aggressive female:

It is noticeable that these incidents are taken at face value. This in marked contrast to any tales of aggressive or sexually inappropriate behaviour shared by the females, in Maycock’s previous paper. In that paper he was skeptical often juxtaposing another women’s comment which undercut the testimony. The author says these tales are typical of the transphobic abuse meted out to the prisoners but does note an absence of transphobic violence or sexual abuse. Note that some females have actually been raped/sexually assaulted by male prisoners who were allocated to the female estate.

The report suggests that the lack of transphobic abuse is because the prison authorities respond to reports of transphobia and report any prisoner found to have indulged in this. These reports can result in time added onto sentences. I suspect Maycock sees this as positive but I find it deeply sinister, especially if correctly sexing someone comes under that heading. And it clearly does: 👇

Maycock then ties himself in knots about the issue of reporting other prisoners. Snitching is seen as something bound up with femininity so the trans-identified males don’t mind reporting because it validated their “identity”. I find the logic here quite torturous. The transgender person here would appear to be able to unleash the prison authorities on other prisoners. This looks more like an act of male dominance to me.

The author does not report all his findings in this paper as he is intending to publish another one. He does manage to throw in a reference to biological essentialism which none of these queer theorists appear to understand.

We are not saying that women have to be nurturing, emotional support humans who demonstrate their maternal instincts at every opportunity. We are just saying sex matters and is a reliable indicator for male pattern violence and sex offending. The amount of time Maycock uses the word ”support” in relation to what he expects of women, vis a vis transgender prisoners, is very revealing. He seems to have very stereotypical expectations about women and how men need make-up, hair and clothes to perform their authentic self.

I will leave you with this observation by Frances Crook of the Prison reform organisation , the Howard League.

You can support my work here:

Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women’s rights, gay rights and hoping to stop the Gender Industrial Complex before we have any more detransitioners.


Scottish Prison Service


This is a companion piece to a blog covering a survey of female prisoners with experience being held with trans-identifying males.

You can read my blog about that research here:

Female & ”Transgender” Inmates

In this blog I will look at the Scottish Prison Service guidance for the treatment of Transgender inmates.

The guidance was written in collaboration with the Scottish Trans Alliance and was endorsed by Stonewall.

You can read the full document here:


James Morton: Scottish Trans Alliance

The guidance was a collaboration with Trans Lobby group:Scottish Trans Alliance. The document references James Morton in the appendix. Here is what Morton had to say about the collaboration. {From the book Trans Britain by Christine Burns}. The decision to implement mixed sex spaces in the most challenging of environments was a strategic tactic. If they could persuade Prison’s to pilot this, on the most vulnerable women in our society, they could extend it to other single sex spaces. James even has the gall to use the word ”ethically” about this live experiment!

The document opens with a high minded statement about making sure the prison is free from homophobia and transphobia. The stated aim is to ensure everyone is treated with fairness and respect. Judge for yourself if any of this is fair to the women prisoners or the female staff.

Geneva Convention

The first thing that struck me is the claim that the guidance is evidence based. Their own research, which I covered in my previous blog, demonstrates they did NO research on the impact this would have on female prisoners. Even the, very biased, research project the SPS commissioned, showed 50% of the women had serious misgivings about the enforcement of, mixed sex, custodial facilities. It is worth noting that if these women were prisoners of war the Geneva Convention would protect these women. The Geneva convention repeatedly emphasises the need for women to be accommodated away from male prisoners. Here is article 25.

This principle is repeatedly emphasised to cover circumstances where women were subject to disciplinary proceedings

The Scottish Prison Service seems to be under the misapprehension that ”Gender Identity” is a legally protected characteristic. It is not. Gender Reassignment is the legally protected characteristic so is SEX. The Gender Recognition Act does not over-ride the legally protected characteristic of sex. Single sex spaces could be retained providing it is ”a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.


The Scottish Prison service made an ideological decision to make custodial facilities mixed sex. As the policy is endorsed by Stonewall it is worth a reminder of Stonewall policy about single sex spaces. They campaigned to remove them!

Scottish Prison Policy

The SPS mandate pronoun use according to Gender Identity, not sex. Many of us may have been relaxed about maintaining a “polite fiction” prior to the onset of compelled speech. However, mandating pronouns signals an allegiance to an ideology that has had a deleterious impact on women’s rights and this has made me a pronoun refusenik.

Pronouns, however, are the least of my concerns re this policy. First of all, for the female staff, they are being forced to perform ”rub downs” and even full body searches according a self-declared ”Gender Identity” .

Staff are also told not to react discourteously when presented with a ”physical variation” they were not expecting. Such as, I imagine, a penis. 😳. The staff are taught to treat a surprise penis like a disability! Anyone raising any concerns should be dealt with by staff training or “re-educated”.

The document is keen to emphasise the fact that it is not a requirement of the Gender Recognition Act that any bodily modification have taken place; which is why we have the concept of the “female penis”.

Staff are instructed that prisoners should be located in the estate that matches their “Gender Identity”, not their sex and irrespective of their anatomy. Here is what they say about the male prisoners. Notice staff are told to discount the possibility there could be a nefarious motive for wishing to access the female estate. Furthermore the male is described as living as a ”woman” but the females having this policy imposed upon them are described as “people”.

The hypocrisy of the policy is exposed by the differential treatment meted out to females, who claim a male identity. This is not EQUAL treatment. A female with a trans-identity is to be given every consideration if they are fearful of sexual assault, in the male estate. A female in the female estate has NO voice in terms of forcible co-location with males.

The policy also makes a special mention of a category of ”non-reassigned trans people” which, we are told, includes the following groups:

The policy mandated that these groups should also be allowed certain items not traditionally associated with their ”Gender”. This can include a prosthetic penis or breasts.

The policy also makes it clear that information about someone’s ”Gender Identity ” should not be disclosed to other prisoners. In practice this means a female prisoner could be presented with an obvious male and the staff would not be able to confirm this. For those who have a Gender Recognition Certificate any disclosure would be treated as a crime.

It is also emphasised that a person who acquires a different gender identity on reaching the prison system should be accepted as the gender they now declare. There is also a rather sinister sentence about what questions the Prison Officer should ask following this disclosure:

All in all this policy is unfair to women. Its discriminatory and, frankly, a bit bonkers. How could a profession, dealing with people who have broken the law, endorse a policy that presumes people are who they say they are? Criminals lie. #JustSaying.

You can support my work here:


Research the harms of Gender Identity Ideology which has negative consequences for women’s rights, gay rights and children/teens undergoing unnecessary medical /surgical interventions.



Female & ”Transgender” Inmates

Some research about female inmates and their reactions to being housed with males who have a ”transgender” identity. Since Claire Fox quoted it in the House of Lords I decided to seek it out.

You can read it here: 👇

5.Women in custody.pdf

Dr Matthew Maycock has also done research into what transgender prisoners want from the prison system. I will cover that paper in another blog post. He was employed by the Scottish Prison service for this research. The Scottish Prison service has worked closely with Transgender Lobby groups on their Prison policy. As evidenced by this statement, by James Morton, of Scottish Trans Alliance. This was published in Christine Burn’s book: ”Trans Britain

This lobby group ”strategised” that if they could make this “work”, for which I read ”get away with it”, they could then move on to eradicate all single sex spaces. Note their aim was to dispense with the requirement for a Gender Recognition Certificate. Admission to the female estate would be on the basis of self-declaration.

Dr Maycock now works at Dundee University. Here is his biography.

His starting point accepts the central tenets of transgender identity ideology; mainly that sex is “assigned” at birth and women need a new qualifier to our existence as females;”cis”. Matthew would do well to consider that many, maybe even most, women have issues with ”gender” (stereotypes) being imposed upon us because of our biology. Accepting the reality of our biological sex does not mean our sex allies with a mythicalgendered soul”.

I find these assumptions irksome, to say the least, but let us move on to consider whether he has tackled this issue fairly.

Here is the abstract: Notice the quote chosen to head-up the report. That gave me a clue about his perspective.

The abstract sets out Maycock’s aim. He will offer a ”corrective” to those feminists who ”claim” to speak for female inmates. Because Matthew works for the Scottish Prison service he has unique access to the female prison population housed with transgender inmates, of both sexes. If only there had been a requirement for ethical approval before the SPS unleashed males on incarcerated women. Their consent was either taken for granted or deemed irrelevant.

Maycock begins by claiming his research will be groundbreaking because it is the first time “cis-women” prisoners have been asked for their view. Let me repeat that. Only now is the Scottish Prison service even considering the views of females in custody. Since the SPS are also funding this research and surveying existing prisoners, in their custody, we need to bear the context in mind. The women are literal hostages to this policy. As becomes clear the “people”, referred to below, affected by this policy are the female kind. The females remain in the women’s estate irrespective of a transgender identity. 🤔. It would have been interesting had Maycock explained why this is the case.

At least Dr Maycock acknowledges that women have been marginalised in the wider debate about transgender issues. We will get on to what the good Doctor thinks about these ”feminist elements” who, against instructions, attempted to have some dialogue about prison policy. The language here is also revealing. If a male is excluded from single sex spaces we do not normally talk about it in the language of ”acceptance” and ”rejection”.

He continues with an outline of Prison Policy around the care and management of transgender prisoners. He claims England and Wales house persons in line with their sex unless they have attained the legal status as “women”. This is certainly not true. Males have been housed in the female estate without being “legally female” for some time. A little social justice speak creeps in here 👇 with the talk of the ”gender binary”. He means prison policy that recognises Humans are sexually dimorphic. Heaven forfend!

The situation in Scotland is because of the, afore-mentioned, involvement of Scottish Trans Alliance. {If you feel so inclined you could look up Gordon Pike who was also involved in drafting this policy. Pike is now subject to the judicial system himself. He was caught with thousands of indecent images of children}. The policy outlines its ethos of fairness to transgender prisoners. They interpreted fairness, to these males, as housing them in the female estate. 🤷‍♂️

The usual claims about risk profiles are made. Since we have been putting males in the female estate with criminal profiles, which include sex offences against women, I would be wary of claims about risk assessments. One such advisor on prison policy made it clear sex offences, against women, were not a bar to being placed in the female estate. This is a quote from Hansard, taken during an oral session of the Transgender Equality Inquiry. Chaired by Maria Miller and attended by Jess Phillips nobody in attendance objected to this statement. 👇. Megan is a trans-identified male.

Before Maycock gets onto the meat of his report he takes a couple of quite inaccurate side swipes against two groups who have undertaken research on the erosion of single sex spaces, in Scotland. On Women and Girls Scotland’s work he makes much of the fact that he doesn’t know the background of the women who undertook their research. He also casts doubt on their ability to speak for female women prisoners. He makes much of their lack of access to women in prison; something the authors at W&Gs Scotland are open about. {I doubt the Scottish Prison service would have been amenable to this organisation accessing women prisoners}. I will just point out that they did in fact state the background of the researchers. One of them was a “transwoman”, two were working class and all reside in Scotland. They also sent the survey out quite widely. The list below includes three organisations pushing trans-inclusive policies; Engender, Rape Crisis Scotland and the Women’s Equality Party.

W & Gs Scotland are also transparent about their lack of access to prisoners. This only comprised one chapter of their research. They did, nevertheless get responses from women with prison experience. 👇

They also make it clear that they regard this research very much as a beginning and much more is needed. They did get over 2000 responses to their survey. I will cover this research in more detail on another blog.

Maycock outlines the methodology for his research. It consisted of a survey and unstructured interviews. He spoke to 15 prisoners. He also makes quite a revealing statement about how the survey participants were selected. They were recruited by ”gatekeeper prison officers”. It would have been important, at this point, to clarify the recruitment process. It would have been helpful if we could be certain all the women impacted by this policy got an opportunity to participate. Even if the participants were a representative sample there is a risk that a female prisoner’s responses would simply toe the line; considering they are commenting on policy instituted by their prison over lords.

It takes a brave woman to express hostility to existing prison policy while incarcerated. Thankfully there were some prepared to be honest about their objections.

First Doctor Maycock gives a broad overview of the sample. All had been placed on a wing with a trans-identified male. They have varying length sentences to serve. Some are middle-class and educated others are described as working class with no formal education. They claim varying sexual orientations. Matthew then outlines his own identity as a white, cis, heterosexual male. (Of course he is!)

This is how he badges his findings. Prisoners who toe the prison authority line are labelled ”accepting” and those who raise objections or concerns are labelled ”rejecting”. Quite emotionally loaded terms.

The “accepting” women.

He begins with the ”accepting” women. Notice there are a lot of examples of the women as emotional support humans for the males. They are accepting, supportive, encouraging and recognise the authenticity of the males identifying as women, even the ones with a penis. They are all behaving in a compliant manner.

Lucy is fully on board with the prison agenda. Lucy is a newly minted lesbian who compares her journey to the “daily struggles” of the transgender inmates.

Another prisoner, Isla, is very supportive of the transgender inmates and repeats the narrative of the women nurturing the transgender inmates on their difficult journey. This is a recurrent theme. The author sees this as positive reinforcement for the policy, I see it as women pressed into service as validation aids. The women are providing, free, emotional labour.

In another revealing statement we find that the women are also supporting females who identify as transgender. Why are they not in the male estate living their authentic truth? 🤔

Next up Emily who is fully supportive, even to the trans-identified males who, she coyly observes, have their ”bottom bits” . Emily makes it clear the penis is not dangerous as it has been rendered impotent by the hormones. Apart from the penis ”she was just like a lassie”. Notice the author takes at face value statements like ”She didn’t act like a man. He has observations when some women question transgender males who didn’t ”act like women”. It seems it is perfectly possible to accept sex stereotypes if they align with a proclaimed gender identity but not if you question a man’s authenticity.

Matthew proceeds to talk about the wide acceptance of transgender women and the women who do not see them as a risk. He is particularly keen to hear from women who, despite a history of abuse by violent males, do not see the transgender males as “manly” or feel intimidated by them. Jessica tells him she sees the transgender inmates as women.

There are a couple of women who are heterosexual and claim it is the Lesbians who cause more problems. One of them, Ella, claims she has been exposed to Lesbians having sex. Matthew does not question this anecdotal evidence. Later in the report he does undermine testimony when women allege transgender prisoners have been caught having sex with women. The bias is evident throughout the report. The statements from women who accept Maycock’s agenda are accepted without question. The women who don’t accept men in women’s prisons are referred to as ”prejudiced” and accused of using ”Terf” talking points,

Maycock quotes another prisoner uncomfortable with Lesbians as a result of being straight and returns to Ella who is positively gushing about the opportunity to watch the journey of a transgender woman up close. Seems some of the glitter has rubbed off on Ella.

Here it is not clear what prompted this reply, from Jessica, questioning the work of Murray, Black, Mackenzie. They are another feminist group Maycock criticises. Whatever promoted Jessica’s response It does give the researcher a good quote. Jessica rejects the idea that female prisoners have any specific vulnerabilities. This runs counter to the many reports on the female prison demographic who demonstrate other wise.

Here is a quote from some research done by the Howard League, Scotland.

One of the ”accepting” women, Emily, who earlier waxed lyrical about a particular transgender women, qualifies her acceptance to limit it to the ”genuine” transgender inmates. The issue here is that the prison service is accepting men based on a self-declaration and leaving the untrained women to do their own risk assessments, on a case by case basis. As he does throughout Maycock quickly follows this critical comment with prisoner statements that there are “cis” women who are more of a risk to women than a transgender woman. This is a common tactic of trans activists. The Howard League report, quoted above, found less than 2% of Scottish, female, prisoners were held for violent offences.

Another prisoner, Alison, goes further to prioritise the vulnerability of the transgender inmates who, she feels, are the more vulnerable demographic. Alison is quoted at length stating that there is no evidence of violent trans prisoners. This is followed up by Matthew gushing about the acceptance, empathy and support the women display. He seems to like women who display maternal instincts to his brethren. This is a reflection of the way females are socialised to be accepting and kind. I think this can be a positive attribute so it is quite sickening to see how it is, here, being used against women.

The “rejecting” women

No we turn to the ”rejecting” women and what they have to say. Not all the women followed the script.

50% of a selected sample did not see the transgender women as women and believed they should be housed in accommodation appropriate for their actual sex.

As Rhona Hotchkiss (retired Prison Governor) points out the research showed 80% objected and only 3 had no reservations at all.

For Matthew this makes those women ”prejudiced”. The Curtice report, referenced below, contrasts with other reports which had quite different results when people realised some of those ”women” demanding access to female only facilities retained a penis.

Here Matthew uses a slur (Terf); which is often accompanied by threats of rape and violence. These women’s comments are being delegitimised in the way the preceding statements were not. One of the prisoners even inserts the, thought terminating, cliche ”Trans Women are Women”. Maycock is losing more credibility by the sentence and is hardly helped by referencing Sally Hines. 😳

How on earth can an intelligent man be shocked that females associate the possession of a penis with a man? Notice the women are having these secret conversations between themselves about the men they are forced to live among. Maycock attempts to extract some positives about a 50% rejection rate for the prison policy. He quotes a lot of women, somewhat apologetically, explaining how women who have histories of abuse associate a penis with a man. 🤷‍♂️

The women are clearly talking privately about their worries because they are being forced to pretend fully intact men are women. This is using a, literally, captured audience and forcing them to participate in this, ideologically driven, social experiment.

Here a prisoner expresses concern that she may be saying the unsayable to a prison employee which indicates she knows her views have become verboten. Clearly some women, with backgrounds of child abuse know a man when they see one. Matthew feels this complicates the issue. It doesn’t though. Taking advantage of female socialisation to encourage compliance with the idea men can become women is cruel. Looking for a loophole because some women are, or profess to be, OK with penis bearing women is unethical.

Ellie and all the other women are being forced to judge authenticity of motivation, to make their own risk assessments. We know that trained prison staff have allowed dangerous males to enter the female estate and the women’s fears are being dismissed /downplayed by this academic. What these women are being forced into by this prison policy is nothing short of a human rights violation.

The gaslighting here. Ella sees a man because he is a man. Yet, the researcher is writing her up as if her perception is problematic. The fact that this man 👇 starts an inappropriate conversation about porn is no surprise. She clearly finds him intimidating and points out that he has a man’s build.

He quotes Ellie at length and I suspect he finds her comments outrageous. I find her plain speaking utterly refreshing. Bravo Ellie!

Maycock, of course, intends to paint a picture which suggests Ellie is a conspiracy theorist. It is, however, naive to believe men are not plotting to escape the fate of being incarcerated with other males. Whether for nefarious motives, to access vulnerable women, or just to have easier jail time. Of course it is happening.

This is simply not true. Sex offenders, who are male, have been allowed into the female estate since at least 2009. I have covered more than one case on this blog.

Why didn’t Matthew produce some actual statement from the Scottish Prison Service that this doesnt happen; rather than using Freya’s faith in the system to undermine Ellie’s account? Why is he putting (wo) in brackets when Ellie is saying ”man”?

I was quite furious whilst reading this document. The version you are reading is significantly reduced in length. My first version included a lot more clips from the women. There is plenty more to be enraged about. Sadly.

Again Freya is used to undermine the testimony of Ellie. Since the staff are implemeting the policy and Matthew is funded by the SPS I am not surprised the prison officers did not corroborate Ellie’s story. Below the framing is also changed so that the fear of a penis bearing male is presented as a cross the trans-identifying male has to bear!

Some of the women then talk about transgender males who they had accepted and supported only to find those same men had re-identified with their birth sex as soon as they were released. Who’d have thunk it? The women talk about zero-effort males who enter the female estate and make no effort to pass as ”transgender” but, in fact behaved like controlling males.

Here a prisoner lists her experiences with men who she feels gamed the system.

Maycock, to his credit, perhaps, includes the statements but then interprets them as the women having stereotypical expectations of how a woman should behave. This is despite the women reporting men who made no effort to cover their genitalia which means the women have been subject to indecent exposure. I mean nothing says ”lady” like getting your dick out!

The prison service should protect vulnerable males. There are vulnerable wings for ex-police officers and paedophiles who are at elevated risk in the male estate. As it stands my trans-identified, and gay, son would be vulnerable on both those counts. He would only be protected for his ”trans-identity”. What the prison service have done is mask their own failures by making the problem a ”woman’s” problem. This is unacceptable.

Matthew’s conclusion is somewhat different to mine. He seems to be of the view that more exposure to transgender people will eradicate these transphobic views. In fact this policy has pitted two protected characteristics against one another. This is a dangerous, rash and insensitive way to treat women. Ironically this sex denying policy is 100% SEXist.

If you want to support my work you can do so here: I am unwaged but only donate if you can afford. I will keep my content free.

Examining Gender Identity Ideology and the harms it is causing to Women’s rights and Gay rights.



I have done numerous tweets and threads to unpick the propaganda about the murder rates of Trans People. Here is a post to counter the narrative that trans people are an extremely vulnerable demographic. This argument is an inversion of the truth designed to posit women as “cis-privileged” whilst casting aside safeguarding, for women and girls. This also serves to deny the extent of male violence against women by artificially inflating statistics, of female crimes, by including those committed by trans-identified males.

The source I am using for this data is a site run by Transgender Europe. This is a Trans advocacy site which has received nearly 1 million dollars from the Arcus Foundation; an organisation I cover in my previous blog. 👇. This is the grant given specifically for mapping “transgender murder rates”.


Here is my blog on the Arcus Foundation which documents their grant making. 


Based on the U.K. data there were 11 unlawfully killed trans people. All were all trans-identified males, all killed by males, though one identified as a transwoman. In common with the general pattern of violent crime this data reflects the fact that homicide is, overwhelmingly, an expression of criminality associated with the male, not the female, sex.

You can access the trans-murder monitoring site here:

Here is their map of the extent of this type of crime in the U.K.


gThere’s some confusion about the figure of 11. It appears to, erroneously, include two individuals, for 2008, Here an organisation, casts doubt on their inclusion in these statistics.

Here’s what they had to say:


Based on this clarification it would appear that this list, which is available on Karen Ingala Smith’s website, is the correct data:

As you can see the situation is a little bit more complicated than just “transphobia” 👇

Which takes me to the real issue that trans activists seem unable to honestly reflect upon. Globally a staggering 62% of those murders take place in the context of prostitution. Maybe exit strategies and drug rehabilitation would save more of those lives?


Instead there seems to be a constant refrain of #SexWorkIsWork alongside the insistent refrain of #TransWomenAreWomen. The link between endorsing prostitution as liberating or empowering needs to be broken if we are not to expose this community to needless risk. Here is Janet Mock on their time working in prostitution.


There is a fundamental incompatibility with women’s, sex based rights, when someone, who wishes to be considered a woman and a feminist, explicitly endorses the objectifying, male gaze. For Mock this validates their “womanhood”. Many women are sick and tired of fighting against being objectified and reject male-identified feminism as a mockery of the real thing!

The other side of the coin to this debate is the idea that males, who identify as women, don’t have the same pattern of male violence as other males. The statistics would appear to contradict this. Notwithstanding the fact that, in the U.K, male crimes are now being reported, and recorded, as if they were committed by women we know that up to 2016 there were 12 murders committed by trans-identified males. Again I am indebted to for this list.


Facts matter. Next time we see the near ubiquitous outpouring of (performative) grief from organisations, seeking to rainbow wash their brands, bear this in mind. There are more murders committed by this demographic than victims. Remind them also that women are subject to an epidemic of male violence and remember the excellent work of Karen Ingala Smith and Counting Dead Women at femicide census below.

Femicide census

If you want to support my work you can do so here.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth. Support is always appreciated (I have no income). All my content is open access so if you can’t speak publicly, and want to support those who can, only IF you have spare cash, this helps me keep going.


Incarcerated Paedophile & SRS

I have documented, in an earlier post, a small number of referrals to Gender Identity Clinics who openly admitted their motive for transition was paedophilia.  This blog is here: Survey of Referrals to a Gender 

This week two  more cases of Trans identified males have been convicted of downloading child pornography. Both were afforded female pronouns. I blogged about one yesterday Here:  #TheseAreNotOurCrimes

Today we had the outcome for another one. Media coverage here : Woman!

This weeks coverage made me return to this case. As usual, where available,  I include the judicial transcript of the case.  Here : Transcript

A quote here from the case:   “The Claimant, now aged 60, is a transgender woman who seeks a referral for NHS-funded gender reassignment surgery (“GRS”). She is a serving prisoner. In September 2006 she was convicted and sentenced, as a man, for making indecent photographs of children”   Bold added for emphasis.

The case was brought because the prisoner wishes to gain access to Sexual Reassignment Surgery (SRS), on the NHS, whilst incarcerated.


The prospective patient is arguing ,the Tavistock are refusing surgery on the basis of a protocol which denies SRS to existing prisoners.  (Interestingly the judgement claims SRS is only made available to those with no hope of release!)


The existence of any such protocol is hotly contested. We are then taken through the history of the claimants interactions with Gender identity specialists.  In this section we learn the offending history dates back to the 1980’s and the prisoner has a conviction for sexual assault, and grooming, of a young girl age 12.  The matter of gender Identity was raised in 2011.  5 years into an indeterminate sentence.


Here the specialist expresses  concern  the prisoner may be drawn to further offending, even after SRS. The claimant admits this, initially, but then claims he would no longer need to offend, because he would not need to offend to  “vicariously experience womanhood”.  Below is a dose of common sense from Dr James Barrett.  Indeed. Women don’t typically perform our expected gender role by grooming and performing sex acts on 12 year old girls.

The fact that she had a history of sexual offences was a seriously complicating factor. People with gender dysphoria feel imprisoned in the wrong body, convinced they are a woman living in a man’s body. Women who are living in female bodies do not normally groom children, still less perform oral sexual acts on 12-year-old girls. It is unusual and it made it much harder to accept her history at face value.”

The withholding of SRS seems mostly related to the difficulty of having “Real Life Experience (RLE)  “living as a woman”.  This is one of the requirements prior to accessing irreversible surgery and there are a few cases which turn on what exactly this means.  How does anyone live as a woman?  Women are women by virtue of our biology . WE don’t all walk around performing sex stereotypes.  Few things irk me more than the idea that a few men can assess another man about how well he is “womanning“.  Only a fool would subcontract the definition of women to the opposite sex. There simply is no way to measure how to live as a woman  without relying on sex stereotypes.   Those same sex stereotypes women have been fleeing from/resisting for centuries.


In the event various clinicians saw the prisoner. They commenced on a low dose of oestrogen and later the dose was increased.  Note that the letter below was sent to HMP Whatton, which is a man’s, Category C prison.  Note that the prisoner also appears to have embarked on an application for a Gender Recognition Certificate, from within prison. Dr Barrett declined to provide any supporting documentation.


Here Dr Barret and Dr Lorimer both refer to the patients paraphilia, the cross-dressing and the fetishisation of the female experience, though it seems to only concern them when it is targeted at teenage girls.


The first prisoner to obtain a GRC , from within prison, was a pre-operative male as I cover in this blog HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN GOING ON?  This prisoner committed an attempted rape of a woman after being legally re-defined as a woman.  There is, to my knowledge, no process for rescinding a Gender Recognition Certificate, and certainly it was not done in the above case.

You can read another case which similarly  involved a male paedophile. This one had the idea that the Spice Girls were a template for womanhood.  Girl Power: The Spice of Life?

So there you have it.  Men re-defining women against our will.  Men defining men, as women, based on some projected sex stereotypes.  An admission of the co-existence of paraphilias and fetishisation of women.  Nobody was willing to outright refuse treatment so this person was given hormones and allowed to go on unsupervised day release, dressed as a woman.  I presume the real life experience involved using female facilities.

Male paedophile, dressed as a woman, accessing spaces which could well include teenage girls.  Nothing to see here? 058BBE65-88FE-487C-9E73-520D5B9DB7BBI now know who is responsible for the Mad Men series of images. Julian Vigo. Genius!


I don’t have the judicial transcript for the case I am covering here.  I will add those details when they become available. These are the published  details in these two articles.    and  here

In brief the defendant was caught with a substantial hoard of the most serious category of Child porn (Category A).  He attempted to use his “Gender Dysphoria” in mitigation, The judge dismissed this,  The offender received a suspended sentence.

He was also given the “courtesy” of female pronouns in the press coverage. This is because it is mandated by the  Independent Press Standards Organisation. It will be interesting to discover if the Judge also used female pronouns, in accordance with the advice given to Judges, via the Bench Book governing Equality Issues.  This also mandates pronouns to be used which accord with someone’s “Gender Identity”. You can read this here. Bench Book

Even more interesting to find if this has been recorded as a female crime. These are crimes of the type overwhelmingly perpetrated by the male sex. A male with an unhealthy, predatory, interest in female children.👇


Category A offences are defined thus:

Category A images

Category A images are considered to be the ‘most severe’. The repercussions for indecent image offences within this category are typically the heaviest of all related offences.

Images classed in this category depict gross assault, sadism or bestiality – obscene images involving penetrative sexual activity. This category also extends to all images that depict a child subjected to pain.

Apparently it is still a step too far to correctly sex the perpetrator.  In both the above articles we are treated to the hijacking of female pronouns to define a very male crime.


Here is the guidance produced by the Independent Press Standards Organisation which mandates female pronouns for the above offender.

Here is the guidance on pronouns:


Here are the resources which IPSO links.  All are Trans Lobby Groups. Were any women’s groups consulted about male crimes being blamed on women?


I have documented, in an earlier post, a small number of individuals who openly admitted their motive for “Gender transition” was paedophilia.  This blog is here: Survey of Referrals to a Gender Identity Clinic. 

Here is another blog about a male paedophile subsequently identifying as female: Girl Power: The Spice of Life?

I will shortly add a further case. The next one will be of an incarcerated paedophile, also male. This case is in the public domain because the offender has taken the NHS to Judicial Review to seek Sexual Reassignment Surgery. All whilst he is detained, indefinitely, at Her Majesty’s Pleasure.



You can read another case in which similiar cross overs were identified Girl Power: The Spice of Life?

If you can support my work you can consider a paid subscription to my substack.

My Substack

Or a one time gift.


Gender Refusenik Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women’s sex based rights and gay rights as well as the damage to Child Safeguarding.


Sexual Reassignment Surgery: A prisoner’s appeal

This legal case centres on a prisoner who wished to access, NHS funded, Sexual Reassignment Surgery during a prison sentence.  Covered by The Times here: KK appeal for SRS

In anticipation of the general denial on this issue I include, as always, the official, judicial transcript. KK: Legal Challenge for SRS. 

There are a number of interesting aspects to this case. Firstly the recurrent appearance of the same clinicians whose advice is sought. There does seem to be quite a small number of  specialists in this field.  A feature of this case, once again, is the claimant’s complicating  history of sexual offences.  This is not unusual, in the cases which leave a trail in court paperwork.  Another recurrent theme is the vexed notion of what “living as a woman”  means. This resists definition and exercises the minds of our specialists, and the judiciary, far too little.  Here we are told the claimant is 60 years of age, was sentenced “as a man” and has been given an indefinite sentence for public protection (IPP).  We also discover that the bar for obtaining Genital Reassignment Surgery (GRS) is lower for a prisoner who will never be released than for those with the possibility of parole.  There is no rationale given here for this policy. D2F83B22-1269-46E4-A6E5-CDFBAA747780A3429FA6-FA00-4D58-B686-150A23CD22B6

The legal claim is made on a number of grounds. One of these is whether there exists a protocol which discriminates against prisoners wishing to access sexual reassignment surgery.  Another aspect of the case is a rarely articulated concern about regret, in post-operative transsexuals. Here  it is adduced as a factor in the, efusing the prisoner GRS. The existence of post-surgery regret is not denied. Instead, the argument hinges on  the lack of  peer reviewed research showing prisoners are at a higher risk of regret.  The Trust, for its part, denies there is any such protocol.


Below is a reminder of the criteria to access genital surgery.  It can be done from age 17, mental health conditions are no bar they must merely be “controlled”, a patient is allowed to progress even if they are “unwilling” to undertake hormone treatment. Furthermore the prospective patient should not be judged on how they perform their gender. God forbid we assign arbitrary expectations to performative gender, it might make us suspect the entire ideology is underpinned by reductive, sexist stereotypes.  The absence of any externally verified way of measuring “Living as a Woman”  does, however, beg the question how is this being measured? How can you assess if a male person is really of the female gender? What does living in the female gender role mean?

How can you possibly assess whether this identity is being adopted correctly if you don’t have pre-conceived notions of what “living as a woman” entails?  Is it possible that this is a tad sexist?



Another revealing admission is that many of those who claim the status of “woman” in fact have no bodily modification at all.  So living as a woman does not require anyone to be divested of that very male of appendages. One could be forgiven for assuming the penis part of the male anatomy which would give rise to dysphoric feelings. Yet it seems not to be the case. A large number retain their male anatomy. At the same time we, second class women, the biological kind, are expected to share our intimate spaces with the new, male-bodied, version of womankind.  We hear much of the comfort surgery can bring to sufferers of Gender Dsyphoria. Where is the consideration for the discomfort of ,unbepenised, women forced to share our intimate spaces?


6F8EAE8D-9FB9-428F-8C9E-5F3248F87282Cue cries of “transphobia” for wishing to be free of all genders of penis when women are in intimate spaces.

The next excerpt from the case provides more information on the sexual offences committed by the prisoner.  Here we learn that the defendant begain offending in the 1980’s;  when he groomed and abused a young girl, at the  age of 12 . The defendant was, at that stage, 32 years of age.  The girl endured this for four years. He served just one year.  He was still sexually offending in 2006.


The claimant is late to a belief they are really a woman. He remained trapped in a man’s body at age 51.  The claimant professes, to the therapist below, that his sexual offending may cease if he is allowed to transition. The therapist offers an alternative view. What if his attraction to the child images is related to him  having missed out on 51 years of being a girl  (WTF!). He may, in fact, be at a higher risk of offending after gender reassignment.  He then proceeds to amend his statement with the outrageous implication that he resorted to offending to “vicariously experience womanhood”.  Because nothing screams woman louder than sexually offending against a pubescent, female teen and downloading child porn!  Types furiously…


Again there is a lot of evidence that males, who retain a sexual interest in females, and wish to transition, also have co-existing paraphilias.  But hey, what could possibly go wrong!


Dr Lorimer is well aware that masochistic fantasies are not unusual.  A cursory acquaintance with sections of the community reveal a correlation with interests in BDSM.  Indeed here is a Masters Thesis about how sado-masochistic, role play helped one transwoman cement their identity.  Naturally they played the submissive role. BDSM & Transgender Identity

Cross-dressing usually has an erotic component but the prisoners states this was not the case for them. 6865DDD3-4017-402D-960E-957F7891BCFE Well he would wouldn’t he? Fetishising a female identity is pretty much the essence of the movement but I would say that wouldn’t I?

Fetishising sexual roles, with notions of submission and dominance, seems to be a core feature of how many males experience their female role.  Acting female in a male prison is vastly different from women’s material reality, as pointed out below:


Here we find that the prisoner remains in a category C Male prison.  Since they have been “in role” for 10 years in a male prison it rather begs the question about lack of safety in the male estate.  Dr Barrett makes it clear they are not able to make a referral for a Gender Recognition Certificate.  As we found out from earlier cases there is no bar to obtaining a GRC, from within prison, even with convictions for sexual offences against women.  There are always other clinicians and a wealth of private providers that the prisoner can approach.  Good to know.  I was worried for a while.


We soon learn that the prisoner has been moved to an open prison.  We are not told if this remains in the male estate.  The prisoner has, however, been granted accompanied and unaccompanied visits to the local town. This is to gain that all important “real life experience” of living as a woman, whatever that means!  This is a prelude to release.  Prisoner also has hormone therapy increased.   Below is another revealing statement that acknowledges that most denied of phenomena:  “detransition”.  When word gets out that Dr Lorimer has used this word will he be cancelled?


The prisoners sexual offences are deemed to “complicate” the picture for our clinicians.  Further confirmation is provided below. Here we have a  prisoner presenting as  female, in the male estate, for 10 years!  Again Dr Barrett makes it clear the imprisonment of a patient is no bar to obtaining GRS and, additionally confirms female prisoners are being made to share accommodation with pre-op males.


Yep Dr Barrett you bet the experience of living in the female role is artificial. I agree with you but probably for different reasons.  Late transitioners, with a history of sexual offences, are a red flag but you can’t say that can you? We must not undermine the notion of a man trapped in a woman’s body. #AcceptionWithoutException. Though Dr Barrett comes pretty close with this gem of a contribution about Women “living in female bodies!” (spoiler there is no other kind ). Yes! We tend not to groom female children and perform oral sex on them.


So without wishing to labour the point the prisoner is denied.  No mention is made of the obvious reasons! You know the late -transitioning, sexual offence history and interest in child porn.  No.  The real issue that seems to justify the refusal is a failure to demonstrate real lived experience, as a woman, because prison is an artificial environment! Whilst a male cos-playing as a woman is not artificial, in any way!


Case Dismissed.