Bernadette Wren: Tavistock 2

Part two on this talk by Wren to a room full of evolutionary biologists.

You can read part 1, here, which covers the first fifteen minutes. A link to the YouTube is included.

Bernadette Wren:Tavistock

We return to Wren discussing the variety of ways societies have accommodated, mainly men, who do not conform to cultural expectations, for their sex. Many of these accommodations look, to me, as, potentially, benign ways to accommodate men who wish to have sex with men. The Hjira, who Wren references, though, may have a darker underbelly in that young boys may be groomed into these roles to provide a sexual outlet for older, married men who wish to have sex with boys. Likewise gay men may be left with little choice. This may be the only way for homosexuals to survive in India. See this account here. 👇 (Homosexuality was only legalised, by India, in 2018)

Hijra

Wren continues with this statement about “cisgender” people.

I am going to assume she means that people who identify with their birth sex can also be resistant to sex stereotypes, which of course is true. There have been people, I would argue the vast majority, who depart from sexist expectations for their sex. Despite Wren’s obsession with “de-pathologising” she has played a role in problematising behaviour at odds from cultural expectations for your sex. This has specific implications for gay people who can display “gender non-conformity” at an early, pre-sexual age. This deviation is not, however, confined to homosexuals, there are many, straight women, who have dominant personalities and there are “theatrical” straight males. The situation we have arrived it is one where the only “real” women are deemed to be the ones who conform to sexist “gender roles”. If this keeps up the vast majority of women will need to exit our sex class for not “womanning” correctly.

After a wander through other cultures, Wren returns to the U.K. context to explain that Western nations are catching up with the issue of “third genders”. [I sense she is building up to explaining the meteoric referrals to the Tavistock with her “look there are an estimated one million Hjiara people”. ]

On referrals to the Tavistock, Wren advises that many young people arrive with total conviction about their pathway. They feel it is an “un shiftable” part of their self ; some of those people went on to detransition.

Authentic Self

Some clinicians also share this believe system 👇. Those of with children who are part of the gender church will recognise the phrase “true self” or “authentic self”. Both recurrent phrases from the true believers. [The evidence for a biological under-pinning to “gender identity” is very poor, by the way ]

Gender Fluid

Wren is careful not to exclude anyone from the trans umbrella so she quickly adds this 👇to encompass the part-time larpers. She also avoids saying “healthy body” by using the term “non anomalous” for the bodies she sends to be cut up.

Non-Binary people

Non-Binary people claim to be neither male nor female but this does not preclude them from going under the surgeon’s knife. Wren advises that they want more “tailored” surgeries. To get an idea of the more extreme manifestation of “tailored” surgeries you can have a look at what is in offer in the United States. Nullification is the removal of all genitalia like a Ken Doll. Men can also opt to have a “neo-vagina” but retain their penis. Non-binary females can have a double mastectomy.

Referral Rates to the Tavistock, Children’s Service

All that scene setting was to prepare the audience for the following slides.

Unlike the earlier slides, Wren does not appear to want to linger on this one. As you can see there has been a dramatic increase in girls.

This is as good a point as any to break off, even though I have only made it to the 20 minute mark. Part 3 to follow. Now the Law suits are rolling in, I want to provide detailed coverage of the belief system underpinning practice at the Tavistock.

Article in The Times.

You can support my work here: Don’t prioritise me above legal cases. I get by but donations help me to keep going. Irrespective my work will remain open access.

D35496A1-6A40-413E-9A06-28E4F8EB3D8C

Investigating the Gender Industrial Complex, Gender Identity Ideology and the impact on women’s and Gay rights.

£10.00

Bernadette Wren:Tavistock

Can evolution explain Gender Diversity? (Part 1)

This post reviews a presentation by Bernadette Wren, while at the Tavistock, to a group of evolutionary biologists. You can find the link here:

Can Evolution explain Gender Diversity?

Wren opens by explaining this is a highly contested field, she is habitually nervous when speaking on this topic but she is confident the people in the room are too scholarly for there to be any uncivil discourse. She explains that she, herself, is curious about the topic and does not take a particular stand.

Here she comments on the issue of uncertainty in the practice of “gender medicine” ; emphasising the lack of a firm foundation for the management of “gender variance”.

She expresses the hope that an evolutionary perspective could reduce stigma for those who are “transgender” and perhaps this will lower the temperature in the public debate. On the referrals to the Tavistock she has this to say: 👇

The Tavistock, she advises, see people who are questioning the assignation of their “gender” and “gender roles” insofar as “they embody a set of expectations about how someone will live and how they will feel about being in the body”. Wren talks about their intense distress about their sexed body and suggests, in the past, this may have been a hidden distress. She argues that these feeling are not new but what is new are the numbers and the certainty with which they present, accompanied by demands for urgent medical intervention and pushy parents who she calls “assertively supportive”.

She described the Tavistock approach as “broadly affirmative”. They take the distress seriously and don’t assume a “psycho-pathological” causality, however, she claims, they do bear in mind if the onset of distress is linked to any trauma. She adds a caveat that they do not lose sight of an “unconflicted trans and gender diverse experience”. This is quite telling. Previous clinical practice would have maintained that anyone feeling as if they are “born in the wrong body” requires serious exploration of the underlying causes. Now we make a default assumption this is a natural development, a variation, unless evidence is presented to the contrary. This has major implications for how patients present themselves, perhaps downplaying psychological issues to swiftly access medical treatment? It also has consequences for how Gender Clinics respond to this condition and, it is my, firmly held, view that this is why we are seeing an explosion in the numbers of detransitioners. Here 👇 Wren still sees their service as “gatekeeping” medical intervention.

This is a list of names involved in a Tavistock working group looking at the, potential, role of evolutionary biology in “gender variance”. I have not encountered these names before so, I am merely including this slide for archival purposes and in case their names recur.

Next Wren shares some Gender New Speak and makes it clear she does so without apology. Check out the definition of SEX!

Next, Wren puts up a slide with estimates of the prevalence of people diagnosed with this condition. The slide is less interesting than what she says while it was on screen. I will include it for completeness. Surprise, Surprise, once you start talking about and publishing on “transsexuals” the prevalence increases.

Wren now cites the work of an evolutionary biologist “herself a transwoman” to muddy the waters about sex/gender, so let’s take a little detour to learn about the biologist whose insights she shares. 👇

Joan/Jonathan Roughgarden

While the above slide is on screen, Wren treats us to the above named 👆 scientist who has spent time cataloguing the lack of sexual dimorphism in the animal kingdom. Joan was Jonathon up until the age of 51. You can find a Ted Talk of his on YouTube. Here’s a statement he made in that talk.

Roughgarden takes us on a whistle stop tour of diversity in the animal kingdom including, of course, the clownfish. He has also written a book, Evolution’s Rainbow: Diversity, Gender and Sexuality in nature and people. Below are a selection of quotes:

Roughgarden acknowledges we are divided into biological males/females based on whether we make large or small gametes.

He accepts the universality of the biological distinction but throws in a reference to claim a difference between sex and gender.

To insist on the salience of biological sex is a mistake called “essentialism”.

Instead we can choose who counts as a male or a female; how convenient for Joan/Jonathon.

He then adds some TRAlinist revisionism by re-classifying Joan of Arc as a “transgender man”; claiming we had a wealth of transvestite saints in the middle ages and that eunuchs were early transgender people.

Finally, before we leave Roughgarden to his musings, here are his thoughts on how to deal with “transphobia”; eerily reminiscent of calls to Lesbians to seek help to get over their hang ups about Lady Penis.

Intersex: Via Fausto-Sterling

Of course no discussion about biological sex would be complete without weaponising people with disorders/differences in development (DSDs). There are many conditions which lead to atypical chromosomal development, funnily enough these conditions occur in either males or females. They carry with them differing levels of severity in terms of the medical consequences. Fausto-Sterling famously claimed there were 5 sexes and “intersex” conditions were as common as red hair.

Worth a detour to share some of Fausto-Sterling’s thoughts. 😳.

Cultural Genitals to Lady Penis in women’s sport. 😳

Was Anne just having a laugh? (Worth including this just because of the tone of this public admonishment 😂).

All of which leads Wren to make this observation, which demonstrates that societies have handled the identification of the sexes reasonably well, even prior to karyotype tests.

I will leave part one on this talk, at this point. What you need to take away from this is that Wren and her fellow travellers really do think the world would be a better place if we stopped recognising biological sex. In their fantasy world this would eradicate sexism and make the world a better place.

To believe this you have to disregard facts like sex selective abortion *still* happens (even in the United Kingdom), at least 98% of sex offenders are male which is one reason WHY women fought for single sex spaces. Even after multiple surgeries men are still recognisable, as men. The fantasy of “passing” males means blocking male puberty and, as we know, this means the eradication of the ability to orgasm.

In the U.K, have had the vote for less than a 100 years *1, we still don’t have equal representation in parliament and, unless one party comes out for Women’s, sex based, rights, unequivocally, our votes will be rendered meaningless.

. (*1 women were granted the vote in 1918 but it was not extended to all women, over 21, until 1928).

You can support my work here, should you feel so inclined. Rumours to the contrary, women fighting this are not awash money. Unlike the organisations receiving the billions funnelled into spreading Gender Identity Ideology, by “Charitable” Foundations.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology, the impact (negative) on women’s sex based rights and gay rights, not forgetting the, Mengele adjacent, medicine practiced at the Tavistock.

£10.00

DIY Trans: BBC 3

This documentary is still available for anyone with access to BBC Iplayer.

 DIY Trans Teens

The presenter is Charlie Creggs a trans-identified male. The film shows this disclaimer at the beginning of the broadcast.

The documentary opens with Cregg looking at a go fund me page for a kid who is raising funds to begin their ”transition”. Cregg’s can identify with this having faced a two year waiting list to be seen at a gender clinic.

You can search go fund me to scroll through fundraisers. There are over 8000 hits under the heading ”Transgender” most are seeking help with medical interventions. These are typical. ”Yeet the Teets” is the phrase used by an Irish Surgeon, based in the United States who promotes her services on TikTok; clearly its an effective marketing strategy.

Viewers are treated to all the information needed to buy, unregulated, hormones on the internet. This argument is used to push the U.K government to open more, state funded, services in the U.K. The government are currently running three pilot gender clinics. One of which is Indigo Clinic, in Manchester, run in partnership with a Trans Lobby group (LGBT Foundation). What could possibly go wrong?

Creggs talks to a young male who is obtaining hormones on the black market and is trusting people from an on-line forum to assure him they are safe. We then meet a young female who’s mum is helping her obtain testosterone from a private gender clinic. The mum explains that she could not risk her daughter taking desperate measures and provides this as an example of what could happen :

Asked about critics of her for putting her daughter on this treatment path she simply says this 👇. I wonder when we will start to see some of these parents face their detransitioned daughters.

Next the presenter goes to visit Helen Webberley who, together with her husband runs Gender GP. Webberley’s husband has been struck of the medical register and she remains suspended from practice.

To those in the Gender Identity industry she is seen as a noble warrior up against a transphobic medical establishment. Webberley is a proponent of the ”affirmative” model of ”transgender” health care, sometimes called the “informed consent” model. One of her patients committed suicide and she makes a tidy living out of our vulnerable kids but to some she is above criticism. On asked about lengthy assessment processes she has this to say: 👇

For her critics she compares the withholding of treatment to a refusal to operate on a baby with a heart defect. A poor analogy because only one of these has an objective measure to determine that the treatment is warranted. She is a ridiculous woman but also very dangerous.

Suicide!

Of course no piece would be complete without a reference to the dodgy suicide stats. Creggs emotes to camera:

Cut to the thoroughly debunked statistics on suicide just to ram home the point.

/ /study is based on 13, yes 13, people who self reported attempts at suicide. I debunked this data here:

Suicide in the Trans Community

We then meet another young woman who is planning to got to Poland for a double mastectomy. We see her explaining breast binding, talking about “trans” friends attempting suicide and explaining her desperation for “top surgery”.

I had assumed this young female was probably a Lesbian so imagine my surprise when I received a direct message where she explained that she was actually a gay man.

Sure enough the twitter timeline was all about A.I.Ds and Section 28. None of these have impacted on her in any way as she is 19 and female. I honestly thought teenage girls claiming to be gay men would wake up more gay men to this phenomenon but, instead, gay men are doing instruction manuals for how they can include ”trans men” in their dating pools.

Creggs then talks about the additional treatments he endured because of the impact of a male puberty. A lot of this movement is driven by the retrospective, wish fulfilment of adult males who yearn to “pass”. This is why so many adult males push puberty blockers for kids and repeatedly present them as a benign, reversible medication. This is how Charlie describes them:

We then meet one of the GPs working at the one of the new pilot clinics which confirm my worst fears.

Fox batterer

The documentary covers the Keira Bell case and interviews Jolyon Maugham , a UK QC famous for battering a fox to death wearing his wife’s kimono. Maugham was raising funds for a legal case to challenge the Bell ruling. (It did not go ahead because the Tavistock stepped in to appeal.

Detransition

We then meet a detransitioner who seems carefully selected and begins by saying that detransitioners were being weaponised against the ”trans” community. Even this section was used to make a case for more clinics but, at least, she emphasised the importance of therapy.

Creggs comes across as calm and rational but their social media presence tells a different story.

You can support me with a gift via paypal or kofi. Every bit helps but only do so if you can afford. My content will remain open ,irrespective, but donations do help me cover costs.

https://ko-fi.com/stilltish

7C46CBF7-3437-4CC7-8E8D-8E57B719FC2F

Researching the Popular Delusion of our time. Defending women’s, sex based, rights and opposing the sterilisation of our gay and autistic kids.

£10.00

United Nations: Gender Ideology

To round off this series I just want to point out that the Arcus Foundation, known for funding the spread of Gender Identity Ideology, are providing monies explicitly earmarked for lobbying the United Nations.

I wrote about the Arcus Foundation here:

ARCUS FOUNDATION GRANTS

Here are a few of those grants:

$200,000 to support the work of the UN Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.

$250,000 to support Thailand and the Phillipines on SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) at the United Nations.

$500,000 to build a global network of NGOs, UN bodies to improve international standards in Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.

$400,000 to strengthen the participation of LGBT groups in UN processes in support of LGBT rights.

Here is a reminder of the excellent, investigative work of Vaishaux Sundar which found money raised to combat HIV was being used to fund ”Transgender” surgeries.

HIV a route to “trans” surgeries

Just to prove my point I had a random look at the twitter account for @UNWomen

And who did they use to celebrate on International Women’s day? JK Rowling? Don’t be daft:

Don’t be shy about sending me your right wing money, fellow feminazis. (😂). I work tirelessly, incur costs and have a very small income. You can gift via paypal or now

Ok-if

7C46CBF7-3437-4CC7-8E8D-8E57B719FC2F

Researching Gender Identity Ideology, the impact on women’s sex based rights and gay rights.

£10.00

Tavistock: Domenico Di Ceglie 3

Part three: Questions and Answers

This is the final part on Domenico Di Ceglie, the man who set up the children and youth service at the U.K’s main gender clinic. You can read parts 1 & 2 here. These posts are part of my series on the Tavistock.

Tavistock: Domenico Di Ceglio

Tavistock: Domenico Di Ceglio 2

This piece will focus on the question and answer session, following his talk which I covered in parts 1 & 2. The Q & A starts 48 minutes in:

Questions and Answers

Di Ceglie ends his talk with a reference to robots which struck me as quite an odd final comment and appeared to have little connection to what had gone before:

Then I remembered he also said this in part one and I wonder if he is envisaging his work as going beyond what it means to be human?

The question and answer section is quite revealing but it is a shame that, through time constraints, or perhaps deliberately, the audience will not have had time to register some of the more damning, and contradictory, slides which I covered in part two. In particular this one which sets out the risks of the treatments dished out at gender clinics.

Still there were some important questions at the end.

Two came from Bob Withers, a Jungian therapist, who I immediately recognised. Bob has done excellent work in this field. I did a series on Bob’s work: 👇

Bob Withers: Series.

His first question :

You may recall that Di Ceglie stated that no biological underpinning to explain the ”transgender” experience has been found and, believe me, they have been looking. There is a deep desire to find a ”Born this way” narrative to explain why some people experience “Gender Dysphoria” and to present the steep rise in referrals to clinics as a natural phenomenon. There is, as yet, no research that has convinced me. The studies that I have seen tend to cover small sample sizes, fail to control for homosexuality and even include men on synthetic cross hormones. I do not think we will find a common explanation that covers teenage girls, baby gays and heterosexual males who like masturbating in their wife’s knickers!

Di Ceglie valiantly tries, in a somewhat rambling reply. He concedes that no single biological cause has been found, as yet, and that the causes are multi-factorial, but include biology. He also claims that some people have a more rigid mindset (Does he mean autistic people?) and are unable to be fluid in their thinking and these people need to be helped by physical intervention. He also is careful to allow for the variety of choices re physical interventions because ”some people may choose one intervention and not another”. A sort of pick and mix of cosmetic surgeries for your ideal gender ”presentation”.. Humans as ”meat lego” is the phrase that comes to mind, as coined by Mary Harrington. This also reminds me of the man who took the NHS to court, multiple times, because he wanted fake breasts but he still retained a penis. I wrote about him below.

The Elephant in the room.

If you build Gender clinics they will come.

Di Ceglie further elaaborates on this theme by focussing on the patients as ”service users” and how the Tavistock needs to have a range of options to respond to the different needs, which I would call ”desires”. Remember in the opening to his talk he said this.

After Di Ceglie’s ,rather rambling, answer Bob’s rejoinder is much more down to earth.

Di Ceglie’s response:

He then repeats the uncertainty about knowing the final outcome for a specific child and here I must remind you, once again, that we are giving children, as young as ten, irreversible medications based on these theories.

In his next sentence he confirms what I suspected was his belief system. Some of these children have a fixity in their belief systems and features of autism. We already know autistic kids are over-represented at Gender Clinics. Di Ceglie exhibits no concern that they are harming a vulnerable group, instead he links the biological cause, for autistism, suggests a biological underpinning for Gender Dysphoria. He is not explicit about this but it was the inference I took from his response and is common belief among Gender Identity Ideologues.

The next question from another audience member is about the interaction between same sex orientation and a transgender identity.

Di Ceglie gives the stock answer we can get from any Trans activist on twitter. He sees sexual orientation and gender identity as two distinct things and to justify his stance he points out that some of their male subjects go on to have ”Lesbian” relationships. Nobody objects to this redefinition of the word Lesbian. He further points out that ”people assigned female at birth may go on to live in a homosexual relationship with another man”.

Final question, on camera, is from a Canadian woman, from Toronto, who advises that the Canadian Gender Clinic removed Ken Zucker because he was practicing reparative therapy, a form of Conversion Therapy, in her view. She explains that he was teaching kids how not to be ”trans”. She claims this was done in a coercive and controlling way and generating depression and anxiety in the children at the clinic.

Di Ceglie does not defend Ken Zucker but just talks about the complexity of the work and here the session breaks and no further questions are on camera.

I will leave the final word to Marci Bowers, a male who identifies as “transgender” and also performs the operations called ”sexual reassignment surgery”.

I hope this has provided some insight into the kind of thinking at work at the Tavistock. If you can support my work you can do so here. I do now have a limited income but I do still need assistance to keep the show on the road. You can donate to my paypal or my

https://ko-fi.com/stilltish

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s impact on women’s rights and the impact on gay rights.

£10.00

Or https://ko-fi.com/stilltish

Tavistock: Domenico Di Ceglio 2

Domenico Di Ceglio set up the childhood and adolescent services at the Gender Identity Development Service (G.I.Ds) at the Tavistock. This is part two on a talk he gave at a conference on “Transgender” issues. You can find the rest of my series, on the Tavistock, below.

Tavistock 

You can watch the talk on YouTube, below. 👇

Domenico Di Ceglie

Part one is here

Tavistock: Domenico Di Ceglio

This is the title of that talk. Transgender , Gender and Psychoanalysis, with this subtitle.

In part one Di Ceglie covers his motivation for setting up the children and adolescent service at G.I.Ds; the astronomic growth of referrals and the tensions between staff who wished to provide only therapeutic support, to children, and those who advocated for the administration of puberty blockers. As suggested by the title he uses metaphors to convey his role in managing these tensions. A psychoanalyst might suggest that this allows him to distance himself from the choices he made during his tenure.

We pick up at around the 30 minute mark. Di Ceglie is using the myth of Scylla and Charibdys, from Ulysses, to convey his position at the Tavistock. Both Scylla and Charibdys pose a risk to Ullyses and his sailors but only Charbdys can sink the ship. Ullysses, therefore, steers close to Scylla even though he knows she will snatch some of his sailors and crush them with her grip, before swallowing them. Di Ceglie clearly feels the service is under threat so he needs to balance these risks and sacrifices will have to be made.

Di Ceglie then reflects that it was the more valiant of Ulysses’ sailors who fell victim to Scylla and offers an explanation with reference to G.I.Ds staff calling them ”crusaders,” , which is very revealing.

He explains that the Tavistock tries to steer a middle way neither neglecting the mind nor the body. He claims that they work to break the cycle of secrecy and shame involved in an atypical gender identity. He further argues that the foster uncertainty about the outcomes for any child. I don’t see how this is compatible with this statement: If we are allowing a social transition and puberty blockers there is near certainty (98%) of progression to cross sex hormones. They will be sterile and, as we saw in part one, they will have near zero chance of any orgasmic capacity.

He is also keen to dispel any suggestion that they practice ”reparative” therapy i.e that they seek to reconcile the child with their sex/sexuality. I imagine this is motivated by the wish to avoid the fate of the Canadian Gender Clinic which he mentions more than once during the talk. (Ken Zucker’s clinic was accused of practicing conversion therapy on gender confused kids and his clinic shut down. He won a legal case but was not restored to his post)

He does share a case study of a natal male who adopted a female identity, following the death of his grandmother. After giving him some help to articulate his grief he reconciled to his sex and desisted.

He further claims that clinics who are rigid in their approach to these children run the risk of embedding the cross gender identity even further. He may be correct in this but, again, it does not square with the medical treatments. He does, thankfully, recognise an 80% desistance rate if allowed to go through a natural puberty; shame he does not include how many end up good old-fashioned homosexuals.

Clearly the clinic are making judgements that some children are unlikely to change their minds. This clip suggests early onset gender dysphoria is believed to be more intractable.

He next speculates that gender dysphoria is more intractable with those with paranoid schizophrenic tendencies and even those who have been subject to traumatic events in childhood. This is starting to echo the criteria used to dish out lobotomies or Electric Shock treatment.

Empathising versus Systematising.

This looks at the work of Simon Baron-Cohen who conducted research into children with atypical ”gender ” development and seems to be driven by defining certain behaviours more ”male” / “female” and, presumably, looking for evidence of “true trans“. Unsurprisingly females scored higher on empathy and men on systems. Between a likely biological predisposition and female socialisation women’s scores are , to me, unremarkable. What did surprise me was the scores for trans-identifying males. While they did score lower on “systemising”, than the control of males who were not identifying as ”transgender”, they also had lower scores for empathy. Curiously although Di Ceglie talks of the value of further research into identifying potential desisters this does not appear to have been a research area of interest to the staff at the Tavistock.

Di Ceglie claims it is possible to identify good candidates for early intervention. Not on e does he refer to detransitioners but they may not have been as significant a phenomenon when this conference took place. The YouTube video was uploaded two years ago but it may have pre-dated the Kiera Bell case. It would be interesting to know if he is paying attention to the rising rates of regret.

At the end of the conference Di Ceglie rushes through his final slides so I had to slow down the speed to take screen grabs. He has two slides on the benefits of early transition quoting research papers from 2006 i.e before the current surge in transgender kids /youth. He also claims that puberty blockers are ”considered to be fully reversible“ on one slide but look at the next slide, it directly contradicts this statement.

What are the risks?

It is unclear what the long term impact is on bone development, height, sex organ development it may affect brain development, and it may even lock in the Gender Dysphoria.

Those are some big risks!

Now we have a growing number of detransitioners the chickens may be comimg home to roost. Currently there are 35,000 members on the reddit detrans forum. It is growing at an alarming rate.

In part three I will cover the question and answer session.

You can support my work here. Every donation helps because we are up against billionaires funding this ideology, globally. Contrary to the propaganda I am not funded by Evangelical Christians, the Far Right or Viktor Orban. I rely on donations to cover my costs but do not donate if you are on a limited income.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s impact on our gay /autistic youth, kids in care as well as the sex based rights of women and adult homosexuals, especially Lesbians.

£10.00

Tavistock: Domenico Di Ceglio 1

Domenico Di Ceglio set up the childhood and adolescent services at the Gender Identity Development Service (G.I.Ds) at the Tavistock. You can find the rest of my series, on the Tavistock, below.

Tavistock 

To provide some background to a piece on the David Taylor report, into G.I.Ds, I did some research into the man who set up the children’s service. Domenico Di Ceglie can be seen on this YouTube of a conference contribution he made. 👇

Domenico Di Ceglie

This is the title of that talk. Transgender , Gender and Psychoanalysis, with this subtitle.

First he provides his motivation for setting up the service, he admits it was a new area for him until he encountered a teenage girl, who had attempted suicide three times and believed she should have been male. According to Di Ceglie she went on to identify as Ian and was suicidal no more. It was this patient, who wished her parents could have seen someone when she was five, that prompted the setting up of the service. Not everyone accepted this idea without question and someone raised the law of unintended consequences. In the retelling Di Ceglie seemed to think this an amusing moment. (I wonder if he is still laughing as we see more and more post ”transition” regret.)

This reminded me of a conversation I had with an adult male, who self-describes as a ”transsexual”; he observed that the Tavistock provided a solution that created the phenomenon. Or to use a phrase from the business world used in the Kevin Costner film, Field of Dreams:

”If you build it they will come”.

He then uses two Freud quotes and proceeds to talk about the impact of the ”uncertainty principle” in this field. This principle is actually derived from physics but it has acquired a more general use in terms of the difficulty in predicting human behaviour, or their development trajectories. I am sure there are some sound arguments for accepting this ability to tolerate ambiguity, in a therapeutic setting, but it does rather the beg the question about subjecting children as young as 10 on irreversible, medicalised, pathways. We used to accept the certainty we would grow up to be Adult Human Females or Males, needless to say this is still true.

He then introduces Pablo Neruda, the poet, from the Film, The Postman, explaining metaphors to a Greek Postman. Again, it is a perfectly charming clip, but this seems strangely whimsical when you are actually discussing serious medical interventions, in children.

John Money and Robert Stoller

Next we learn about two pioneers working in this field. John Money, for those of you who are unaware, was a pioneer in this field. He is infamous for intervening in the life of a child who had suffered a medical accident which removed his penis. David Rheimer was a twin which provided the perfect experiment in bringing him up as a, putative, girl. As, it turns out the two boys afforded access to children for Money who was subsequently outed as a paedophile. Both boys committed suicide. There is no explicit acknowledgement of the allegations against Money, only a reference to him being a ”controversial figure at the end of his life”.
Both Stoller and Money sensed the revolutionary impact of the concept of a “Gender Identity” or ”Role” which is at odds with your physical embodiment. Stoller puts it clearest here: 👇 The replacing of a subjective, sense of self, a ”gendered soul”; irrespective of your sexed body.

Money, talking in 1992, prophesied the societal revolution we are witnessing in 2022, with a reorganisation of society which is disregarding sex based rights. The obscured word at the end of this quote is ”principles”

Di Ceglie acknowledges that the ascendance of this idea has had huge, societal ramifications but, of course, there is no space to address the disproportionate impact on the female sex. He also seems quite excited about this social revolution comparing it to Copernicus who discovered that the earth rotated around the son and not the other way around. I should add that Copernicus made a discovery of fact he did not invent an unprovable theory of innate gender identity.

Brain sex #LadyBrain

In this section Di Ceglie concedes that attempts to prove a biological basis for ”gender identity’ have foundered.

At the same time he makes this astonishing claim which needs to be highlighted. He does not think we will ever have incontrovertible evidence because this is “beyond human”. The problem is we are not dealing with post-human society he is dealing with human beings. This statement looks like a nod to ”transhumanism”.

In this next section he covers the steep rise in referrals to G.I.Ds between 1989 to 2015. Most of you will be familiar with the fact we have had a 4000% increase in female patients; a complete inversion of the sex ratio as well as a dramatic lowering of the age profile. Same sex attracted youth are over-represented and not singled out for specific mention, neither is the prevalence of referrals of teenage girls with no concomitant rise of referrals of middle aged women. Surely if this was a product of more social acceptance we would see a surge in late transitioning females? Thankfully, whilst Di Ceglie shows little curiosity about this phenomenon we do have the words of his colleague, Bernadette Wren.

Cutting edge of a social revolution

Unfortunately, for us, you are literally cutting into the bodies of our children as part of this ”revolution”. Teenage girls with extreme body hatred is not new phenomenon as Wren knows very well.

Di Ceglie also uses a number of metaphors to explore his feelings about operating on the edge in terms of the Tavistock’s practices. If I were a psychoanalyst I might suggest that using metaphors, rather than grounded language conceals what he is actually enabling, perhaps even from himself. In plainer language he explains there is a fear of both action and inaction in relation to these children . There are pressures from within and without the clinic to begin prescribing puberty blockers, to children as young as 11. Some within the service wanted to limit their role to therapy, while others were keen to prescribe puberty blockers, early, in what was known as the Dutch protocol. As we now know, the latter group prevailed. Di Ceglie explores this debate by reference to Greek myths rather than saying, in plain language, the cost benefit analysis means we will sometimes treat the ”wrong” children. The correct number of children to be medicalised, for me, is zero. No child should be sterilised and have zero capacity to orgasm. You may be skeptical of this claim so I will share the words of Marci Bowers. Bowers is a surgeon and also a “trans” identified male. He performed surgery on Jazz Jennings. These children are being robbed of their sexual pleasure.

Autism

Later he will acknowledge the high number of autistic referrals and reference a theory that links this to atypical levels of testosterone in utero leading to ”masculine” brain type. My own theory, while I don’t wholly dismiss some, sex specific, biological imprint on male and female brains, is that *some* autistic girls are not as efficient at absorbing female socialisation. Conversely, I have also seen female socialisation as an explanation for why *some* autistic girls become adept at ”masking” /mimicking their peers so are often diagnosed late in life. (I will come back to Autism in a the next piece because it is a complex area. )

I will cover the rest of this YouTube in a further blog because there was more on autism and one person pushed him on the issue of high rates of referrals with same sexual orientation. I will leave you with Bob’s excellent question.

Questions

Bob Withers.

Bob asked an excellent question which goes to the heart of the matter. I have done a series on Bob’s work. (Link below).

Bob Withers: Series.

Now we have a growing number of detransitioners the chickens may be comimg home to roost. Currently there are 35,000 members on the reddit detrans forum. It is growing at an alarming rate.

You can support my work here. Every donation helps because we are up against billionaires funding this ideology, globally. Contrary to the propaganda I am not funded by Evangelical Christians, the Far Right or Viktor Orban. I rely on donations to cover my costs but do not donate if you are on a limited income.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s impact on our gay /autistic youth, kids in care as well as the sex based rights of women and adult homosexuals, especially Lesbians.

£10.00

Tavistock: Taylor Report

This is a report raising concerns about the Tavistock from way back in 2005. The report was released following a Freedom of Information request in 2020. Concerns are still being raised, approaching 25 years later. This is part of a series on the Tavistock. You can find the rest on this page:

Tavistock Series

Taylor Report: Link below

FOI_20-21117_2005_David_Taylor_Report

The report is intended for an internal audience so the language may be somewhat impenetrable, for the lay person. What it tells us is that, as far back as 2005, there were disagreements within the clinical team. This conflict had major implications for the treatment of children referred to the Tavistock. Since the clinic began referring children for Puberty Blockers, in 2011, it seems those who believed some children would not respond to therapeutic interventions, won the day.

To provide some background I did some research into the man who set up the children’s service. Domenico Di Ceglie can be seen on this YouTube talk.

Domenico Di Cegile

Domenico Di Ceglie

This is something he stated in this presentation. He seemed to think this was an amusing movement. I wonder if he is still laughing.

It would be worthwhile covering this presentation in a separate blog but these were the key things that stood out for me. Di Ceglie concedes there is no confirmation that the condition has a biological origin; he repeats the argument that puberty blockers are reversible (they are not); he acknowledges the high rates of autism in referrals but but not the high rates of referrals with same sex attraction. It is left to an audience member to ask him about this and his answer mirrors that of trans activists by his response that some males can be ”Lesbians”. As this is a childhood and adolescent service no mention is made of autogynephilia but this is a mistake since average age of first porn exposure is 9 years old; we may be seeing sexual fetishes at an earlier age.

Bob Withers.

Bob asked an excellent question which goes to the heart of the matter.

From this presentation it is clear that De Ceglie believes his service provides a ”third way” somewhere which is part affirmative and partially exploratory. He is keen to dispel any accusations of “Conversion Therapy” and it is clear the organisation was coming under a great deal of pressure from the referrals, their parents and Trans Lobby groups. At one point he uses a Frankenstein reference and I wonder if, deep down, he knows he created a monster?

Back to David Taylor

Taylor’s report makes it clear there were real tensions at the Tavistock. In part these were due to external pressures, from Trans Lobby groups, who were pushing for earlier interventions. There were also internal schisms between staff, at least one of whom is a trans-identified male. Other staff, who are amongst those who would leave the Tavistock, were gay and felt that same sex attracted youth were at risk of, unnecessary, medical intervention; ”Transing The Gay Away”. The kernel of the issue is summed up by this quote:

The professional differences of opinion were between those who sought to address gender dysphoria by exploring “psychic reality” versus those who sought to validate the wished for identity. Even in 2005 it seems it would be seen as inflammmatory to say ”biological reality”. Taylor outlines three approaches practices by different clinicians.

Psychological model

See’s the development of Gender Dysphoria as multi-factorial and considers issues such as same sex attraction, unstable identity, due to a disrupted childhood, perhaps including bereavement. Therapeutic approaches are prioritised and biological reality is affirmed.

Psychsocial Model.

Gender Identity is a preference for a particular social role and therapeutic approaches are more geared to facilitate ”gender transition”.

Genetic or neuro-genetic model.

In this model there is a belief that the origins of Gender Dysphoria has a biological cause. As we have seen there is no strong evidence for this but lots of theories. The proponents of this model tend towards what Taylor calls ”therapeutic pessimism”. For these clinicians any attempt to reconcile a patient to their sex is akin to conversion therapy.

You can see why the conflict arose. Gay members of staff thinking they are presiding over Gay Conversion therapy and trans identified staff thinking this is Trans Conversion Therapy.

Patient / Parental Pressure.

The rise of the Mermaids (Activist) parent who wants early intervention is already a factir as early as 2005.👇

Puberty Blockers

The formal launch of the experiment of giving puberty blockers did not commence until 2011 but it was this demand that was clearly exacerbating tensions. At this time clinicians were still describing them as facilitating a “delay” but, in fact, at least 98% progress to cross sex hormones and an irreversible path to sterility.

The report makes it clear that there was a dearth of research in this area: 👇

What actually happened was that the Tavistock began to treat children as young as 10 with puberty blockers. This was under the guise of a research project which was refused ethical approval at the first attempt. This was clearly to appease the “therapeutic pessimists” from the genetic /neuro-genetic camp.

Michael Biggs did excellent analysis of this, purported, research project. I covered it here:

TAVISTOCK 4 : Michael Biggs

Now we have a growing number of detransitioners the chickens may be comimg home to roost. Currently there are 35,000 members on the reddit detrans forum. It is growing at an alarming rate. I have done a few pieces on detransitioners. Link below.

Detransition: Series Summary

You can support my work here. Every donation helps because we are up against billionaires funding this ideology, globally. Contrary to the propaganda I am not funded by Evangelical Christians, the Far Right or Viktor Orban.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s impact on our gay /autistic youth, kids in care as well as the sex based rights of women and adult homosexuals, especially Lesbians.

£10.00

Dr Ann Lawrence: Interview

To finish of this series I decided to listen to the interview with Stella O’Malley and Sasha Ayad for the Gender: A wider Lens series. It is undoubtedly a coup to be granted a rare interview with Dr Ann Lawrence. You can listen here:

Dr Ann Lawrence interview

For those of you unfamiliar with the series, Lawrence identifies as a Male ”Transsexual” and is open about his motivation to ”transition”; namely Autogynephilia, a sexual paraphilia. Definition below.

O’Malley is a psychotherapists and Ayad is a Licenced adolescent therapist both deal with young, clients who present with Gender Dysphoria. Needless to say I am not privvy to their client list but it seems reasonable to suppose some of their clients must appear to fall into the AGP category. I have seen at least one YouTuber describing his sexual motivation to identify as female even though it is usually a paraphilia associated with older males. We, perhaps, have the near ubiquity of porn to thank for this phenomenon.

Lawrence writes a lot about adult, AGP males and their tendency to reconstruct their childhood memories to deemphasise the sexual motivations for their ”transition” so I always listen with a degree of skepticism about AGP narratives. Lawrence is a controversial figure among what is called the “Trans” community for being willing to acknowledge autogynephilia. This probably makes him more honest than most but very early in the interview he makes a claim that even children can present with autogynephilia. I am immediately uncomfortable with this framing. I will become more uncomfortable when he talks about documented cases, in sexology literature, of penile erections in toddlers when allowed to play with female clothing. I have not located these sources but I am immediately concerned about the veracity of these claims or, if the research exists, the ethics of any research into the erections of three year olds. One of the central tenets of queer theory involves the rejection of social norms and many activists seem to get a perverse kick in exploring the darker side of human impulses, paedophilia and zoophilia being two.

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria

Asked about this phenomenon it is clear that Lawrence has not encountered the work of Lisa Littman who coined the term (ROGD). On the one hand Lawrence says his own parents would have seen his case as Rapid Onset gender Dysphoria but he is also keen that his work is out there so AGP males have an explanation of their ”condition”. On social contagion he concedes that it is very difficult to be female in this society so, in the age of the internet, rising numbers of females in flight from their sex don’t surprise him. I wonder if Lawrence is self-aware enough to know that one of the difficulties women and girls face is the hyper-sexualisation of of our bodies. Autogynephilic men are literally projecting their sexist notions of what makes a woman onto their own bodies but also, by extension onto the bodies of all women. They associate being female with feeling sexually aroused which is inherently sexist. I don’t think Lawrence understands his role in the discomfort girls feel about their bodies once puberty hits, he laments the fact that women and girls are disrespected by broader society but lacks self-awareness of his own contribution to the treatment of women.

On the role of the internet Lawrence says had he had access to the internet he would likely have ”transitioned” earlier. As it was he left it till he was in his forties, at the time of the interview he was 71.

Narcissistic Rage

Lawrence is good in this segment as he talks about how many AGP males deal with their shame by projecting anger and exhibit entitlement with a lack of empathy. I covered his paper on this topic earlier in the series: 👇

Autogynephilia & Narcissistic Rage

Transwidows

Asked about transwidows, Lawrence expresses sympathy for both wives and children of ”transitioned” fathers. Lawrence says entering a marriage with severe autogynephilia to be cautious about entering marriage, especially if they are embarking on marriage as a ”cure”; especially if your erotic urges are entirely self-directed. Stella brings up the stories of AGP husbands who are abusive. Lawrence does not really address the abuse but concedes it can be very harmful to have an AGP family member.

Final thoughts.

Lawrence ends with his thoughts on teenage males who exhibit autogynephilia. He imagines a past where he would have had himself castrated to avoid any masculinisation. He makes the case for AGP as a sexual orientation which is immutable. He believes there are intelligent boys who know their own mind at thirteen or fourteen and these boys should be allowed to obtain medical intervention. As an aside he references the practice of castrating boys to create singers with a better voice range (Castratos). He is mainly concerned about better cosmetic outcomes.

He finishes with a debt of acknowledgement to Ray Blanchard.

I doubt Lawrence would have agreed to a more challenging interview format and the fact that Stella and Sasha are both therapists, and possibly also because they are female, may have prompted Lawrence to agree to speak. Any attempt to legitimise autogynephilia as a sexual orientation should, in my view, be fiercely resisted. Similarly agreeing medical intervention at 13 or 14 for any male is a dangerous suggestion. Lawrence focuses on the ability of the adult male to better pass and suggests there is a route back for males who take this path. Naturally occurring sex hormones play a pivotal role in pubertal development; which continues up to age 25. Blocking puberty does not just stop the developing of genitalia but also has an impact on brain development which is poorly understood. Lawrence is projecting his own, adult, wish fulfilment onto adolescent boys.

If you can donate to help with costs for this blog you can do so here:

Researching gender identity ideology and it’s impact on women’s rights as well as the impact on gay rights.

£10.00

Dating while transgender 1

This will be a series looking at the experience of people, with a trans-identity, who are embarking on dating lives. I will look first at this research.

Transgender+Exclusion+-+Blair+&+Hoskin+2018CV

Here is the abstract. As you can see they express surprise that Lesbians exclude biological males! 😳. That should give you your first clue.

Funded by Federal Government.

Please not that this is funded via a Research Council which attracts Federal Funding. So this is no longer a fringe ideology. This has State backing.

More on the funding body.

Background

Things you are expected to believe before you begin. Sex is an arbitrary classification system. Someone’s proclaimed ”gender identity” takes precedence over biological sex. Excluding trans-identified people from your dating pool is akin to racism. By not dating this group you are denying trans-people vital, social support. Sexual orientation is “fluid” so you cannot hide behind a Lesbian/Gay identity. Data that includes both men and women in the opposite sex category makes sense.

The research begins with a whistle-stop tour of dating history covering the, relatively new, emergence of dating based on personal preferences. Marrying for love is a new social norm. They proceed to cover the fact that inter-racial marriage and marrying across class boundaries has, historically, been frowned upon. Many of these unions were seen as immoral and even disgusting. They even have the cheek to point out how recent the acceptance of same sex relationships is; whilst simultaneously problematising Lesbians, who exclude males who identify as “transgender women”.

They proceed to make up words to imply choosing your partner, based on their biological sex is a new form of societal prejudice, to be overcome.

Reality Check!

I was moved to add a series on this topic because these arguments, intended to unmoor us from our sex bodies, are gaining traction, in elite discourse. They are now also taught to our children /youth.

I have had personal DM’s from young females who now identify as gay men. What sort of dating future awaits these vulnerable females? This is one outcome: 👇

Here a gay man defends his sexual boundaries:

Here Ray Blanchard points out that these females are in for a rude awakening.

Back to Phallus in Wonderland

This research attempted to assess how ”trans-inclusive are modern dating patterns. They asked 960 people to indicate if they would date a trans-identified person. (Sample dropped to 958 because two were not interested in sexual relationships.) This is a graph of the responses.

People were categorised by their sexual orientation and whether they were a ”man”, ”woman” or in one of the variously labelled “queer” categories. It is quite confusing because the categories are based on how you identify, until they disaggregate the data by natal sex (which they call “cisgender”.) They don’t provide graphs which display ”cisgender” choices because this would invalidate the trans-identified people. Of course it doesn’t make sense without referencing ”cisgender“ dating preferences so you can find it if you read carefully.

What this means is that even when including people with a trans-identity, as if they were their desired sex, patterns of exclusion still remain high. There does not appear to be a graph showing participants by their natal sex, even in the, published, supplementary data. They do state that patters of exclusion were higher in ”cisgender” people. Only 13% of people, who acknowledge their biological sex, say they would be open to dating someone who wishes to be treated as the opposite sex/claim another ”trans” label.

The authors offer a number of explanations for this strange phenomenon; which has evolved over millennia to further the survival of the species. The idea that sexual attraction can be dismissed as a societal prejudice is ludicrous. There are many theories about why homosexuality evolved but the existence of same sex attraction is now being widely dismissed by trans-activists. It is even more egregious when you consider the fight for same sex attraction to be accepted. Heterosexuals have not had to fight for our rights so it is interesting that the most trans-inclusive demographic (Lesbians), outside of the ”queer” identified, come in for the most criticism.

Where did the Lesbian’s go “wrong”.

Apparently it is not enough to accept trans-identified people in your dating pool. You have to be inclusive in the correct way. In order to expose trans-inclusive Lesbians the author invented the idea of ”congruent” dating. By this logic it is argued that Lesbians are attracted to ”women” and thus, theoretically, should be open to dating women and men who identify as women. In news that should surprise nobody the trans-inclusive Lesbians are only accepting of “transmen” i.e. persons of the same sex. This is variously described as “misgendering” and evidence of biological determinism.

Other explanations

Different suggestions for the exclusionary/ incongruent dating practices were advanced.

Perhaps some were confused by the definitions? 🤔

Cis-sexism/Cisgenderism. People *still* don’t see trans-bodies as ”natural”. Perhaps they are hyper-focused on genitals?

Another argument was put forward about the higher rates of exclusion of trans-identified males. This was ascribed to “masculine privilege”. The author’s argue that society privileges the ”masculine presenting” which means feminine-expressing males are subject to an extra layer of prejudice. Thus, in clownfish world, the normal hierarchy of the male sex in a position of dominance has been inverted in clownfish world.

Can you be overly-inclusive?

Turns out you can! Some people displayed incongruent dating patterns by including gender identities they are not supposed to be attracted to. So, if a trans-man, who identifies as gay, include a (female) Lesbian and a trans-man they are being untrue to their same gender attraction. Any combination that deviates from the gender rules risks undermining core tenets of the religious texts. Turns out some trans-identifying people are having sex like gender apostates!

Can you be transphobic and ”trans”?

Yep! Turns out some ”trans-men” who are ”heterosexual” only want to date “cisgender” women. This is put down to an excessive need for validation. By excluding males, who identify as women they are behaving like a cisgender supremacist.

Turns out even those with a transgender identity can be guilty of believing in sexual dimorphism and be guilty of being a trans person in the tweets and a Terf between the sheets.

Turns out the heretics are inside the house! We did not even get into enbyphobia!

Turns out it is not so easy to socially engineer a new reality denying ideology. Finally, after all the rape-adjacent rhetoric the authors claim they are not denying bodily autonomy and free choice about our sexual partners.

No! We just want you to examine your prejudice.

There was a lot to unpack in this paper so I may revisit it.

You can support my work here: All donations are welcome, but only if you have spare cash and want to amplify dissenting voices, and offset the billions funding the dissemination of Gender Identity Ideology.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s impact on women’s rights, gay rights and healthy, young bodies.

£10.00