Gender Recognition Panels: A Judge talks.

 Revolutionary? Evolutionary? Or just a massive mistake?

The process by which a Gender Recognition Certificate is issued is overseen by a Gender Recognition Panel.  Here a judge talks, with breathless  excitement, about their involvement in the process.  It is rare to get any insight into the workings of the panel except, as I found, by looking at Legal Cases which do shed some slight on its laxity  sorry, complexity.  This piece is very revealing in its tone, and use of language. Remember this panel determines who can redefine themselves, in law, as the opposite sex and be treated as if they were legally a man, or a woman.  Though note the legislation had amendments to prevent a woman inheriting a peerage or accessing legacies entailed on the male line.  They made sure the important things were protected. Exclusions were built in to legally discriminate against females who claim a male identity. Ireland did the same with the priesthood.

56711268-492D-4B77-8C6E-F94C25221277Article, in full, here   Gender Recognition Panels

I think a lot of the people involved in the “gender identity” business feel they are claiming a place in history (the right side of history) by working in such a radical/revolutionary field.   185286F1-631B-4BCA-8CC2-23B49E78A1CA

This article is written in the  language of social justice warriors not of cool, calm, deliberative thinkers.  This is legislation which has massive implications for women’s rights. It directly impacts the implementation of legislation around single sex spaces and women’s right to exclude men from our political organisations.  Yet NOT ONCE does this essay even touch on the potential (I would say actual) implications for women’s rights!

599D5FE2-2982-4597-8190-47AB2459BDC2 Will I draw fire from Social Justice Warriors if I appropriate the Chinese Curse “May you live in interesting times”.  Women, in the UK, are indeed living in a cursed place.

Ms Gray is very frank about the process and the stance of the panel. I am not surprised. Much of what she says is controversial, in feminist (non libfem) circles, but has been utterly normalised by the, cognitively captured, judiciary.  If only women had managed to capture the state with such alacrity we could be living in a very different world!  If only women were part of this marginalised community what we could do with such power?


The use of language is highly revealing.  “avant-garde” and “radical” . This is language more appropriate for someone authoring experimental fiction. Though in a sense they are doing exactly this but with real life consequences, not just a critical review in high brow literature journals.   The judge seems almost disappointed that we were pipped at the post by other jurisdictions who have already moved to “self-selection of one’s gender”.  The Pick and mix of Sex coming to a courtroom near you.  The Judge seems disappointed she is stuck with our old-fashioned and “oppressive” desire for some “evidential requirements”, this is a Judge rejecting evidence as “oppressive”.   Are we lamenting that we have we not kept pace with the social engineering that has  embedded itself in western (elite) culture because we are no longer leading it?

For this judge it has been an exciting opportunity to be at the “cutting edge” ,or not, of a Brave New World.  This excitement is not quite shared in the  real world where ordinary women deal with the consequences.  The judge wants us to know how this “small group of judges” decided how they would operate.  As we can see , below, they decided the progressive thing to do was to be “enabling” and facilitative.  They certainly have been “enabling” and I am not sure I would speak of what they have “enabled”  in such gushing terms.


They have all we are told gained their experience via  the “Social Entitlement Chamber” which is just the most fabulous name for a school of judges who seem so out of touch.   Here ⇓⇓ we are told that the team work to be as accommodating as possible so that the applicants can demonstrate their “entitlement to a GRC”.  Ms Gray takes this very seriously and has only refused 3 out of an estimated 2800.  So less than 0.1% were refused Even then the applicant can go on to appeal.   At that stage only one judge needs make the decision. (See my earlier review of one such case: GRC Appeal)


I dare say the answer to this blinkered view is that time and time again the lobby groups advising are from one sector only.  Any implications for women have been ignored and, if considered at all, clearly discounted.   They have spoken to “professionals in the field” including endocrinologists and psychologists.  The problem with these “experts”, who are encountered again and again in legal cases , is that they are ideologues.  The “experts” are wedded to the notion that “gender identity” is a real, biological, phenomenon and only a bigot would define women as a biological sex class.


Ms Gray anticipates that her role may be at an end.  No doubt seeing the requirement for any scrutiny to be disregarded in a rush to impose Self-identified status as a woman/man.   I too wish for an end to the Gender Recognition Panel but for entirely different reasons. It was a mistake to enshrine a legal requirement to recognise a change of sex as if it was literally possible.  The eradication of the notion of “sex” will hurt women and, ultimately, those who wish to be protected as “same sex oriented”.  This is not revolutionary.  Its regressive.




Misgendering: Updated with new appeal November 2019.

As part of my trawl through legal cases I came across this one. Jersey: Suspended taxi licence.

The case was heard in Jersey and hinged on the case of a taxi driver whose licence was suspended following an altercation with a customer.  The driver took the taxi firm  to court  to claim the suspension should never have been imposed. One of the grounds, for the claim, was that that it was motivated by discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment.

D78951D0-4A8C-43F3-8EBE-961463F50863This is the not the only  case involving this  appellant an earlier case  was also brought  because the driver felt the suspension was motivated by discrimination Earlier case.

The appellant seems to be a serial litigator.  Here is another case taken against the taxi firm where the claim was of employment discrimination, once again, on the grounds of their Gender Reassignment. Employment Tribunal.   (The taxi firm was a  not for profit collective where the owner seems to have assumed personal risk. As an aside, a model of taxi ownership I have often thought was the ideal model. Now gone out of business.
The  cases all centred on a suspension imposed in response to an incident involving a customer. This was the incident:

7F1F512E-D013-4E40-ACF3-EEB0D23E94CEThe complainant raised a few other issues related to how the other taxi drivers treated them. Also  mis-gendering was an offence that even occurred a bit closer to home: 491148DB-5529-4C9C-B696-5D933057B557The court took a dim view of the appellant, who abandoned the passengers late at night,  and made it clear the case succeeded on procedural grounds and not because their behaviour was acceptable.  It also makes clear this was followed by abusive emails and phone calls to the regulatory body.


Compelled Speech:

The judgement did go on, see below, to suggest  some re-education for colleagues. I would suggest that a better approach is to stop pretending that it is literally possible to change sex. People who head down this path need to have some reality based therapy.  Clearly there are individuals whose mental fragility is a factor in this diagnosis. Mis-gendering, as we can see,  is likely to trigger Narcissistic rage. However a systemic, legally compelled, or even morally mandated, truth denialism is a dangerous state of affairs.

{Not least for the trans community itself because sex matters for some diagnostic and treatment purposes. I would also like to see more long term tracking of health issues in the trans community looking at the long term impact of a lifetimes dependence on cross-sex hormones}. 

Here is the advice to the taxi firm:


It is the thought police which will eventually make this ideology founder.  Like many people I was formerly willing to extend the courtesy of desired “pronouns”. The political cost, however, is too high. I will not be legally compelled to do so. Maintaining a polite fiction is not the same as being coerced to deny reality.  The, increasingly, authoritarian demands to accommodate this ideology are unsustainable. It is not about kindness it is about power.  The power to compel women to deny the evidence of our own eyes.  Of course it is also imposed on men but women have a specific need to recognise males. We need  to be able to react and mitigate the risk males present to females. We can’t afford to let down our guard. And yes, I know….not all men…some of my best friends and all that…0BAA8CC0-B3D6-40D7-A901-05E446534177

Read this piece by a Mumsnetter… {The radicalisation portal that TRA’s love to hate}. It costs us way more than mere kindness : Pronouns are rohypnol.

Already a male teacher has lost his job because he refused to use mandated pronouns, for a female pupil who identified as male.  He steered a careful course and opted to accept the new name. This  was deemed insufficient adherence to the trans dogma. Only total capitulation is enough.  Ironically during the ensuing court case the man charged with sacking him also “mis-gendered” the pupil. 4A0BED2B-9B53-475F-AD2D-EA1C8127FB56

Couldn’t happen in the UK though could it?  Police called on Teacher


Our children are being indoctrinated in school to adhere to the preferred pronouns of their peers.  My own son admonished me for misgendering until I pointed out that I will NEVER accept the phrase “her penis” for a  male rapist.  Son has a dysphoric female in his school and uses preferred pronouns, as per school policy.  I asked him “Do you believe it?”. No, he agreed, “but I always call her “him” if she can hear me”.  The linguistic contortions alone are mind boggling.  This is what happens  when the authorities teach you that 2+2=5.  (On a more positive note he has come out full gender critical in recent weeks. With much thanks to Sam Smith and his non-binariness).

We are teaching our children to tell a blatant lie.  We are compelling women to accept female pronouns for rapists.  Our newspapers are using female pronouns for men who exhibit male violence.  Organisations are perpetrating biology denialism by purging the word woman to reduce us to biological functions/parts.  Check out “menstruator”, “cervix-haver”.  Then do the same exercise for men.  They are NOT being referred to as “prostate-havers”!

This is ideological totalism and it will destroy women’s rights without a significant fightback.   If you can’t see sex you can’t see sexism. If validating your identity means  invalidating my sex then…

Update: November 2019.

The serial litigant was back in court to contest a decision to revoke their public service vehicle licences.  A further 7 complaints were made where “innocent” misgendering led to a tirade of abuse, in some cases, people ejected from taxis and a generally disproportionate reaction.  Here is the court transcript Loss of Licence.

Allowing legislation to punish the crime of recognising biological sex is a dangerous move.  Moreover we have to ask if it is in the best interests of the community it purports to serve. Compelled speech is not the same as a polite lie.  Looking it at this individual it is hard not to conclude that their obsessive need  for  validation has handed power to people to hurt them consciously or otherwise.  It’s not sustainable to build an identity so fragile it crumbles when it meets reality based pronouns.

Kindess I could have done. The moment you make it a matter of compelled speech a refusal becomes a political act.




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

Why is the Guardian so woeful on Women’s Rights these days when, arguably, we are facing the biggest attack on our sex based  rights in my lifetime? Coverage of Marie Dean was a low point

Marie Dean  (Article by Sarah Ditum)

It was this article which first confused and then outraged me.   (You can find more on this case on my blog here.) The Guardian campaigned to facilitate a move of a convicted, male,  burglar  to the female estate because he identified as a woman. However their coverage, until shamed by angry readers,  de-sexualised  the nature of the “burglary” and thus distorted the risk to the female prisoners.

It was this article that inspired me to do a bit of digging. The Guardian has a history of exposing #DarkMoney & labyrinthine ownership structures, which mask influence or hide money.  So this was where I started.

The Guardian itself reports that it has a unique ownership structure. Part of that structure is The Scott Trust. As you can see 👇 the Board of the Trust have ultimate editorial control & power to sack the editor


This is one of The Board members. He is also on the board of The Paul Hamlyn Foundation, which immediately looked familiar.


It was the Paul Hamlyn foundation that caught my eye because I had seen them referred to in the accounts of the Mermaids charity. The foundation have a search facility to see who they fund here  Paul Hamlyn Foundation Grants

Sure enough 👇


Here is another beneficiary of The Paul Hamlyn Foundation.  This is an organisation working with children as young as 11.  If I was in charge of their branding I would definitely recommend a name change.


Naturally the Map Youth Fund also advise on “Gender” and have an interesting book collection including  The Testosterone Files, Gender Outlaws, Transgender Voices. They have an entire section on Gender and this is not matched by other sections on the LGB.


The Paul Hamlyn Foundation also fund “Ditch The Label”. This is an anti-bullying charity whose CEO (Dr Liam Hackett) uses a misogynist slur (Terf) and who targeted a Lesbian, Feminist philosopher.  He has blocked a lot of women who raised concerns at what appeared to be bullying behaviour.  You might remember these.  A lack of understanding about women’s dignity and privacy at a Breast Cancer Screening, and targeted abuse.

Another beneficiary is Gendered Intelligence. They are another key player in the debate women were told was not allowed to happen. I have seen them frequently referenced in Hansard.  In particular as independent advisors on the management of trans prisoners


Here are a couple of those Hansard references.  “Independent” Advisors on managing risk and safeguarding for “all” prisoners.  Apparently , despite the lack of any representation from women, all stakeholders were consulted.  (Cough…Karen White, Paris Green)


Some of you may remember the sexual health booklet, produced by Gendered Intelligence, and aimed at “trans youth”.  Quote: “A woman is still a woman even if she enjoys getting blowjobs” .  A celebration of diverse sexual practices.  Remember no “kink-shaming” allowed.


This clip  is the submission, by Gendered Intelligence, to the Transgender Equality Inquiry, courtesy of  Marked up to make it clear their aim is the dismantle legal provisions which allow for same sex delivery of specific services.

Parliamentary Inquiries publish submissions and the ones to this inquiry are well worth a read. (You can find them here Hansard)


The Paul Hamlyn Foundation also fund another organisation “All About Trans” to enable them to employ a press officer and media trainer.   They train “media professionals” from a number of different organisations.   All About Trans website.  

It is well worth looking at the media guidance emanating from groups like these.  The definitions are highly contested and the re-shaping of language has significant implications for women and non-gender conforming children, of both sexes.  You can see the resources they provide and who they work with  here

After you look at the guidance it makes sense that they claim to have advised the BBC & Channel 4. Very noticeable increase in using “gender” where “sex” seems more appropriate.  Also “assigned female at birth” & reductive references to women as “cervixhavers” etc seem to have emerged. There seems to be an excessive sense that female biology is inherently transphobic or that referencing women’s sex based experience as insulting to the trans community.  This is, as an aside, not a good way to foster good relations between different protected characteristics. Further information below.


I first published this as a thread on twitter.  Courtesy of some sleuthing by some mumsnet warriors I was sent some information on the founder  of the Paul Hamlyn Foundation.  (No idea why it did not occur to me to start there!).  Here goes:

Quelle Surprise: Lord Hamlyn & Madam Lash

I don’t share that just as some titillating story. Anyone following this debate needs to understand how BDSM (Bondage and Sado Masochism) figures in the fetishizing of sex stereotypes. Queer theory relies on maintaining women’s subordinate status so as not to ruin kink for our overlords!  Well worth reading up on queer theory & Judith Butler,  in particular.  I recommend this. Dr Jane Clare Jones


So I singled out the Guardian because it was my daily paper for decades so the sense of betrayal runs deep.  They are not alone but they do appear to be significantly compromised on this issue.  (No disrespect to the women, working there, who are working to get women’s issues covered appropriately. I imagine it is not without some personal and professional cost).

Anyone watching Pink News coverage will be used to the lack of any balanced reporting from that outlet.  Here is the CEO and his husband. Trustee for Mermaids Gender.


Trustee of MERMAIDS

This does offer some clarity about why the media is out of step with the majority view by trying to erase biological reality. Women’s status in society is based on our sex.  It is the epitome of privilege to identify into a marginalised group and then tell, your unwilling hosts they are YOUR oppressors.  This is what women are being told when we are labelled “Cis” against our will and then told this means we have “cis-privilege”.   Not enough privilege to resist a male-imposed nomenclature though!


I am unwaged so, if you are constrained from speaking out you can still play a part by supporting those of us free to speak out.

Documenting the biggest attack on women’s rights in my lifetime. Also fighting for the rights of LGB people. Nobody is born in the wrong body.