Examining Gender Identity ideology and its impact on Women's Sex based rights and Gay Rights. Exploring how this has taken such firm root in Western societies (Cognitive & Regulatory Capture).
This is from a video promoted by the ACLU, an organisation that has morphed from a respected civil rights organisation into a trans lobby group. This is promoted on YouTube. You can watch it here:
Kai is born to a Texas mum who is of a Christian Evangelic persuasion who, by her own admission spent years saying homosexuals should go to hell. Well, to be accurate, she now says she spent years condemning ”LGBTQ” people but judge for yourself what seemed to be her major preoccupation.
Kai was not interested in the pursuits favoured by his older brothers. He showed a preference for pursuits which led his mum to fear he would be gay. Here she is saying this in an interview:
In the video she is explicit about these fears and the lengths the family went to discourage Kai from his atypical male behaviours; which are not unheard of for a boy who will grow up to be a gay male. Kai was scolded, given time-outs and slapped, slapped hard for not conforming: “I thought this kid might be gay and I thought that could not happen. It would not happen”.,
It gets worse. She then started praying and googling Gay Conversion therapy and working out how she could deploy these strategies at home.
Could it be that Kai saying he was a girl is the answer to her prayers?
The mum gets a lot of media attention when she accepts Kai as a girl. Predictably this is accompanied by her son begging Jesus to take him if he can’t be a girl and a reference to the dodgy suicide statistics which are a feature of cult tactics.
“
We are then treated to some plaintive entreaties from sweet Kai about a school policy which insists on sex based toilet facilities. Alternative arrangements are made for Kai, but, of course, now he is being told he is really a girl this must feel stigmatising. The problem is social transition not girl’s need for privacy but you would have to have a heart of stone to resist young Kai, or do you? Feels like emotional manipulation of Kai’s likely real distress by his mum and, likely the transgender lobby groups that are prepared to use a gender non-conforming potential gay boy, to push their agenda.
If I had any lingering doubts about the agenda here let us return to his mum. Here she is attending a, filmed, speaking engagement apologising for hurting the LGBTQ community. In order to atone for her sin she makes the ridiculous claim that her child would be forced into the ”mens”. In reality mums take their little boys in to the female toilets at Kai’s age.
In conclusion. How certain are we that we are not witnessing an Evangelical Christian who is using ”Better a live daughter, than a dead son“ in public while really, consciously, or otherwise, the phrase ”Better a daughter than a gay son” is more appropriate for what she is doing.
After looking at a document produced by a coalition of Philanthropic organisations, and Children’s charities, I came across another, eerily similar, publication produced by the Council of Europe. The COE also claim there is a rising tide of hatred, against LGBTI people, across Europe and they also assert that women, fighting for sex based rights, are somehow part of this “hatred”.
The Council of Europe is not to be confused with the European Union. The Council of Europe are a separate organisation, though their website makes it clear they work in concert with the European Union.
The United Kingdom is amongst the countries shamed for its “virulent attacks” on the rights of LGBTI people. This is possibly a reference to the successful defeat of an attempt to allow males to Self-Identify as women. I have looked at the legal cases the COE proclaim as good news and one was a man in France who successfully argued he should be allowed o identify as a woman without going through Sexual Reassignment Surgery. The COE points out that such surgery leads to sterilisation and therefore should not be enforced. I wonder at the hypocrisy of allowing children to consent to sterilisation procedures (which is the outcome of being put on Puberty Blockers which invariably lead to cross-sex hormones) whilst, simultaneously, claiming sterilisation is a barbaric outcome when applied to a grown man!
The language used in the report is straight out of Trans Rights manuals/ queer theory philosophers. The authors simply cannot conceive of spontaneous, grass roots, women led, activism which objects to the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on our sex class. They badge the opposition as “highly conservative”, use the offensive language of “Cis” and deploy people with disorders of sexual development to shore up their argument. Below they have the temerity to include, as an afterthought, that Gender based violence also affects women! Who knew?
Naturally they describe gender-critical feminists are “anti-trans” rather than pro-women. They claim concerns about the negative impact of Gender Ideology, on women and children, are false. We are, apparently, denying the very existence of LGBTI people and undermining social cohesion. The sex which is being reduced to cervix-havers, persons who bleed etc is accused of dehumanising LGBTI people! They ignore the people in this fight because who are Lesbians and Gay men and object to being told their sexuality is based on ”genital fetishism”. The people labelled Intersex are people with recognised medical conditions and it is not GC feminists who are reducing them to an ”identity”.
The above paragraph is eerily reminiscent of the document I covered in earlier blogs.
Like the Global Philanthropy Project they do not like the fact we are exposing their ideology. They cannot accept feminists fight for the rights of our SEX. The argument that redefining our sex class to include males, the oppressor class, doesn’t impact on the group you are colonising is laughable.
Here they make the case for all member states to make sure minors are taught Gender Identity Ideology. As the Jesuits say ”Give me the boy at seven and I will give you the (wo)man”. Why are they so keen to indoctrinate minors? Teaching children that we all have a Gender Identity is social engineering.
The backlash, to the spread of Gender Identity Ideology, always had the potential to be indiscriminate and the legislative moves in Hungary confirmed our worst fears. Far from allying with right-wing governments many of us have been at pains to warn the Left from emboldening attacks on hard won Gay, and women’s rights. Hungary has just introduced their own version of Section 28.
In an era when the rights of U.K women to assemble, peacefully, to discuss women’s rights is under attack it is beyond irony to see the COE posing as a defender of freedom of expression, association and assembly.
It must take quite a lot of cognitive dissonance to have an ideology that claims access to endocrinologist’s services is a human right and life-saving whilst also defending the rights of, de-medicalised men to claim legal recognition as female. Yet our law makers have gone along with it.
Women’s rights to Fair competition in sport are, we are told, akin to racism. Not content with the destruction of female sports the COE also demand access to facilities of the opposite sex.
It common tactic to conflate sex segregation with apartheid. David Lammy uses this argument all the time. Here he is speaking for the Gender Recognition Bill in 2004. (Source: Hansard).
The resistance to Gender Identity Ideology has clearly been noticed by the COE so, what is their response? They lobby for public education campaigns to re-educate the public about ”Gender Identities”. They urge nation states to re-educate it’s citizens to counter what they claim are “misleading or false narratives”. If only the proponents of this ideology had considered the impact of harmful masculinities,before dismantling the protections society evolved to minimise the risk to women and children.
Mermaids
Further evidence that Mermaids are being allowed to steer policy on this issue. A lobby group for “Transgender Youth” was invited to discuss the issues with Council of Europe. Elsewhere the document refers it’s readers to a parliamentary committee which took oral evidence from Lui Asquith, of Mermaids, as well as Nancy Kelley of Stonewall. 👇
Are women the penetrated class now?
Wel, well, well. I assume here they are avoiding the terms man/male or woman/female and came up with the delightful penetrators or penetrated. 😳. Below is an attempt to persuade us the badging of men who are insufficiently masculine as inferior is a worse atrocity than telling those self-same men they might just be girls and legalising castration.
Here the COE claim those with a concern about Gender Identity Ideology are of a Conservative, Christian disposition. They claim we are also against abortion and same sex marriage. I don’t doubt that people who have these values also don’t believe men can, literally, change sex but sharing one opinion doesn’t mean we share a world view. A recognition that biological sex exists is pretty important to defend same SEX orientation and women’s sex based rights. What doesn’t seem to occur to the proponents of this ideology that they have handed a weapon the right to use against actual progressive values like Gay/Women’s rights. It is easier to see the backlash as evidence of a gender critical conspiracy than acknowledge the negative consequences of pretending men can become women.
Naturally the COE are also listening to the discredited lobby group that is Stonewall.
They point to a rise of “anti-gender rhetoric” which they badge as anti LGBTI. This serves to conflate homophobia with a backlash to the excesses of the Trans lobby: a dangerous idea which ensures the LGB are caught up with the rejection of Gender Ideology.
This next clip is disingenous and misleading as well as being downright offensive by referring to women as “persons who have wombs”. Women know biological sex exists and we also agree, to varying degrees, that “gender” is based on sex stereotypes. Characteristics deemed to be typically “feminine” are, partly, culturally determined and vary over time. feminists know this. Different strands of Gender Critical feminism may debate the role, and extent, of Nature versus Nurture but we don’t deny the existence of biological sex. I would dare the authors to tell Butch lesbians they don’t celebrate diverse expression. In respect of non-binary I really cannot take that seriously. We used to celebrate subverting sex stereotypes/gender; we didn’t tell gender benders they should take opposite sex hormones and chop their cocks off.
This section is saying the quiet part outloud. If the re-education doesn’t work we will utilise financial levers to make sure you comply. This is a tactic used to great (by which I mean bad) effect in the U.K as funders make being “trans-inclusive” a condition for women’s refuges/rape crisis etc.
Here the COE detail the type of extremist application of notions of gender to include the full panopoly of genderqueer, genderfluid, agenda. They also give a nod to those cultures who provided accomodations, usually of gay men, by creating categories like Fa’afafine or the Hjira.
Note 51 links to a YouTube video which I will cover in another blog because it sheds light on the evidence they rely on about attacks on trans people and their tactics to silence women defending sex based rights. I decided to follow up this link and it does not quite say what the author’s of this report claim but you can read my piece on that below.
Here is a long section on the United Kingdom claiming that sex is immutable is labelled anti-trans rhetoric despite being a verifiable fact. Liz Truss is singled out for opposing the right of anyone to identify as the opposite sex based in their own assessment. Naturally this generated major concern from women fearful of the loss of single sex spaces. As usual there is a heavy reliance on hate crime incidents which are based on the self-perception of individuals who identify as victims. Reference 55 links a report, by Lobbying group, Galop. I had a look at the document and here are two clips about the transphobic abuse. The concept of second hand transphobia, outlined below, was a new one on me.
The link for Lui Asquith is to a parliamentary committee at which Lui Asquith spoke in March, 2021. I am astonished at so much credence being paid to this organisation and their they/them legal advisor. This is a clip from that parliamentary committee. Listen to how Lui talks about rising rates of de-transition amidst the growing scandal of, mostly young lesbians, who regret the medical interventions they have undertaken. The way Lui waxes lyrical about non-linear journey’s you would not think she was talking about young women missing breasts, wombs, sometimes ovaries, many of whom will be rendered sterile.
I dont think Lui changing her pronouns is quite the same “non-linear, experience” had by the young Lesbian, detransitioners.
Not to be outdone the European Parliament itself has produced its own version about rising LGBTI hate and points the finger at the Kremlin! I will cover that document at some point.
You can support my work here. I am unwaged and have depleted all my savings fighting for Women’s rights, and to stop the “transing” of young Lesbians, Gay males, autistic kids and kids in care. All of these groups are vulnerable if we don’t stop the march of Queer Theory through our institutions.
Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women & girls as well as the consequences for Lesbians, Gay males and autistic kids. I do this full time and have no income. All my content is open access and donations help keep me going. Only give IF you can afford. Thank you to my generous donors.
This forum is hosted by Amnesty International and referenced by the Council of Europe, below. I watched it to see how it supported the claims COE made about physical attacks.
The link for note 51 goes to a long Youtube video which I watched to see the physical attacks referenced. The discussion is in two parts. The first part is a panel talking about freedom of speech, cancel culture, J.K. Rowling and the backlash against trans people. Women resisting Gender Identity ideology are referenced as ”so called feminists” or “Terfs”. It was quite interesting to see different views on cancel culture and no-platforming and one panellist even said something skeptical about accusations of transphobia. (#cancelled). There was quite an interesting discussion about algorithms on social media. The example they give of hate on social media is about a Drag Queen who got “hate” on their TikTok. Oh, and they were very upset that only fans was going to regulate on-line porn, which they were concerned would negatively impact sex workers.
The second panel comprised of various trans organisations, representing trans adults and one representative from Finland’s equivalent of Mermaids. One of the panellists describes women opposing males in our spaces as privileged and white and says they need to educate the younger teens to keep TERFs in a minority. They also say that nobody can be educated about a trans persons life if they have not lived it, this by a a male denying women’s experiences by the way. A blue-haired, they/them says TERFs just want to retain our status as rulers. A questioner from the U.K asks how to defeat the tactics of Women’s Place U.K (WPUK) which they claim as a target victims of sexual assault, as part of a recruitment drive. A trans-id female criticises this tactic as suggesting women are weak and argues that this is an anti-feminist position. They also claim there is no evidence women are afraid as we are often really aggressive. They also say women, fighting for sex based rights, collaborate with the far right, or at least the right. As always there is scant evidence to back this up. WPUK is led by women out of the left and trade union tradition.
This panellist tells the audience that Norway allows gender recognition for children as young as six and also talks about the historic position that required trans-identified people to be sterilised. Says they still have not won compensation for this, all while demanding access to medical solutuons for “trans kids” which will, in effect, sterilise those children.
Next up a they/them female updates the panel on the position in Sweden and expresses concern that some feminists are raising concerns about the impact on women. Deidre finds it a bit disconcerting that some women still centre women in their feminism.
Next up is a female who is a blue-haired non-binary type, pronouns ”them/theirs and comes under the trans umbrella. She also raises the issue of Finnish requirements for ”sterilisation” to access legal recognition. This is a common tactic which avoids saying they want legal recognition for penis-havers to be women and instead argues against it by calling it forced sterilisation.
Final panel member is a She/Hers who echoes the concerns of the panelists but also wants to focus on the particular challenges faced by “trans people” of colour, asylum seekers and especially those engaged in what is referred to as ”sex work”. Paulie is also concerned about access to hormones for non-binary people.
You can watch the whole thing below but I just want to leave you with these thoughts. The panel are disgusted with women standing up for sex based rights. They oppose sterilisation for adult males but defend medical interventions which will make children sterile. They consistently defend prostitution as ”sex work” despite the horrendous statistics coming out of the trans-murder monitoring project.
Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women & girls as well as the consequences for Lesbians, Gay males and autistic kids. I do this full time and have no income. All my content is open access and donations help keep me going. Only give IF you can afford. Thank you to my generous donors.
This section outlines the authors thoughts on a “Gender Restrictive Worldview” which is how they characterise those resisting Gender Identity Ideology.
Anti-Gender Identity Ideology: Its a spectrum.
The conundrum facing the authors is how to demonise a group which includes women fighting for sex based rights; Lesbians opposing the colonisation of their spaces by males; parents opposed to medicalised responses to their Gay / Lesbian offspring. The answer is to single out Anti-democratic forces or religious conservatives and suggest we are acting in concert. Naturally the report does not address any of the legitimate but, instead, they claim Gender Critical/Radical Feminists are in an unholy (or Holy) alliance with Right wing, authoritarian regimes / Religious Conservatives. Writing from within the U.K context its hard to characterise this as anything other than unhinged. But, for the sake of argument, let me proffer an alternative perspective. The proponents of Gender Identity Ideology have handed a gift to right wing players, anti-democratic forces / authoritarian regimes who have grasped it with both hands!
As the paper relies on “forced-teaming” with children’s charities they begin by accusing the “opposition” of leveraging faux concern about children. They repeat this accusation throughout the report mainly focussed on the child’s bodily autonomy to express (medicate?) their ”Gender Identity”.
Background to the consortium who are behind the paper is covered here:
The title they have chosen for their own movement is the lovely sounding ”GenderJustice”. This allows them to imply they are on the side of women when their real aim is to elevate Gender Identity, above SEX, in law. This has significant implications, particularly under U.K Law because women are a protected characteristic as a sex class NOT as an identity.
The claim that Gender Justice has done anything positive for women’s rights is an egregious lie. Heres a short list of what this means for women: Women are facing the return of the urinary leash as toilets are made mixed sex. We are watching the beginning of the destruction of women’s sports, male rapists are being located in female prisons. Male crimes are being reported and recorded as female crimes. Men, who claim to be women, are running, party political, women’s groups (see the Green Party), a disproportionate number of places on the Jo Cox ”Women Into Leadership” programme were also taken by males, There are ZERO gains for women if we are redefined as an, all-inclusive, gender category.
The authors proceed to identify three factors which have contributed to the success of the backlash to Gender Identity Ideology. Here they claim that Gender Identity Ideology is being used as a substitute for ”Women’s Rights”; ”Equality”; ”the best interests of the child” all at the behest of the Vatican 😳. The reality is that women are fighting for our sex based rights and aghast at the erasure of female language and our dehumanisation as a collection of body parts. We raise child safeguarding because we do not believe it is in a child’s best interests to consent to Puberty Blockers and Cross-sex hormones, which will leave them sterile. I can assure you that the Pope is not in league with feminists of a radical persuasion. Papal opposition to women’s reproductive rights has set the Church on a collision, not a collaborative, course with feminists for decades, nay, centuries. This should not need pointing out but here we are…
It is a neocolonial movement if you import this ideology to parts of the world where women, and homosexuals have little or no rights. As catastrophic as this ideology has been for women, and gay rights, in the west, it has the potential to be far more deleterious in other parts of the globe. In Iran, for example, it is already seen as preferable to transition gay males, and Lesbians, rather than accept homosexuality. Exporting a belief in Gender Identity Ideology has the potential to be seen as a “cure” for homosexuality.
This is how they characterise Gender Restrictive Ideology.
A belief in two biological sexes: Spoiler alert Humans are sexually dimorphic. There are shades of opinion about how women and men are shaped by nature/nurture but Gender Critical Feminists recognising biological reality is not a belief in biological essentialism.
Women who recognise biology are not accepting an inferior position in the sex hierarchy. Quite the opposite.
Many of us are parents of gay males or Lesbians who do not believe our kids need to retreat into a faux-straight, medicalised closet.
The idea that Lesbians / Second wave feminists embrace a heteronormative view of the family and its reproductive mandate is beyond ludicrous.
The idea that a bunch of, often atheist, feminists are cloaking our religious motivation in secular language is another testerical falsehood.
Next up the association fallacy. The Pope believes in the family, the reproductive role of the biological female in news that suprises nobody. I think he would be suprised to know he is in a covert alliance with any brand of feminism, but radical feminists?
The authors deploy Donald Trump, Viktor Orban and Jay Bolsanaro as well as 4Chan fascists to smear by a non-existent association. What the Gender Justice Warriors have done is to hand populists an open goal by embracing the science denialism of Gender Identity Ideology.
Not content with this they accuse parents of denying their children’s rights by a refusal to grant bodily autonomy on the basis of gender and sexual identity. Let us unpack that. My son came out to me, as gay, age 11 as this is well below the age of legal consent my role was to accept his sexuality not support under age expressions of that sexuality. At 14 my son declared himself ”transgender” my role was to protect him from life-altering decisions until he reached maturity, not to allow Gender Identity Ideologues affirm his belief there is something wrong with his sex/sexuality. This entire movement seeks to drive a wedge between parents and children on this issue. You can draw analogies to Mao’s cultural revolution and Hitler Youth. Take your pick.
So, assuming they don’t mean bodily autonomy in respect of sexual behaviour, I can only assume they refer to accepting our children are #BornInTheWrongBody and affirming this belief by a social, or medical, transition. It is quite shocking to find a group of Children’s charitable organisations, signed up to this idea.
Here they reference Spanish Socialists who opposed 2020 bill which would allow teenagers to access hormone treatments without a diagnosis. The bill was also opposed by a far right group so they use this to smear the Spanish Socialist Worker’s party.
Note the final comment which demands funding organisations exclude feminist organisations which centre women in their work. If women don’t include males they are to be financially penalised. This is already happening, in the UK, with women only shelters and even rape crisis services cut off from funding if they are not Trans (meaning male) inclusive.
Next up they take aim at the U.K / Terf Island. Yes, there are numerous cases of male predators using a “trans-identity” to penetrate women’s spaces and bodies. Yes #BigPharma stands to make a killing from hormones by creating lifelong medical patients. There has been a 4000% increase in females presenting to U.K Gender Clinics and early detransitioners are predominantly female and, frequently, Lesbian.
All of the above issues are based on facts which are easily established.
The next target is the Women’s Human Rights Commission. Here they describe women with the acronym “Terf” . As I am sure the authors are aware “Terf” serves as a stand-in for bitch or witch and it is often accompanied by threats of violence, including rape.
You can check out the declaration by WHRC and sign it here: 👇
Another worrying reference is to claim there is no movement to normalise paedophilia as another sexual orientation. You don’t need a PhD to find that MAP has become an acronym shared by many twitter accounts. Gay Rights campaigners fought for decades to dispel any association with pederasty. Recently there are high profile organisations seeking to disassociate a sexual interest in children from any intention to sexually offend. See Protasia Foundation, who even have a twitter account. They market themselves as committed to the prevention of child sexual abuse whilst promoting BDSM, Age-role play and Only fans. I am not convinced.
You can read more about this movement in this article. Below is an extract which documents an attempt to add paedophilia, as a sexual orientation, to the Manual of mental disorders. 👇. Happening in plain sight.
The document attacks parental responsibility for our own children, denies the documentedpromotion of paedophilia as a sexual orientation, claims stating simple, biological truths are anti-trans. It repeats manifest untruths that are easily debunked. Attempts to smear women through association fallacy will fail. Buried in the 131 page document is this acknowledgement : They found NO EVIDENCE of any direct collaboration but they still accuse Gender Critical Feminists of being allied with the, mythical, Gender Restrictive Movement.
I am unwaged and do this full-time. If you are salaried and able to support my work it will be gratefully received.
Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women & girls as well as the consequences for Lesbians, Gay males and autistic kids. I do this full time and have no income. All my content is open access and donations help keep me going. Only give IF you can afford. Thank you to my generous donors.
Why is a network of Charitable funding bodies fuelling a backlash against women’s sex based rights? Why are organisations, set up to protect children’s rights, teaming up with organisations promoting Gender Identity Ideology?
For part one see below 👇. My previous post showed the links between these foundations and links to some of my earlier work examining the activities of *some* of these organisations. It also contains the link to the, 131 page, document endorsed by Global Philanthropy Project and Elevate Children’s Funders Group.
In this post I want to cover the opening letter explaining why this coalition was established. I will also highlight some of the terminology they use in the glossary of terms. This is how they characterise women defending our sex-based rights. We are ”Gender Restrictive”. Heaven forfend we are simply called feminists because then it would be abundantly clear they attacking Women’s rights!
The coalition makes sense in one respect. Much of the opposition, to the spread of Gender Identity Ideology, raises concerns about the medical interventions perpetrated on children. By which I mean blocking puberty and introducing cross-sex hormones, all to cement a Transgender Identity; this despite the same ideologues arguing that “Gender can be fluid”. I have covered Puberty Blockers many times on this blog. For neophytes, or as a reminder; in the U.K we are giving Puberty Blockers to children as young as ten, on the NHS. They, almost, invariably progress to Cross Sex Hormones and as a result they will be sterile. It therefore a significant concern that a coalition of children’s charities have signed up to this document.
The authors recognise that childhood is defined as up to the age of 18 by the Children’s Rights Coalition (CRC). It nevertheless claims ”adulthood” is influenced by the social context in which the ”child” lives. As far as I am aware we don’t defend child marriage, or child labour, even where a child is based in a country, or culture, which normalises these practices. This blurring of the boundary between child/adult is necessary when arguing children have the right to bodily autonomy in respect of accessing “Gender Affirming” care. I believe this is why Children are being reframed across a myriad of public /campaigning bodies as mini-adults.
I am glad they reference brain maturity because credible research states that brain maturation continues up to the age of 25. One of the key battle grounds, for the promotion of Gender Identity Ideology, is to argue for the empowerment of children. This allows arguments, for children, especially teenagers, to access medical interventions to cement a trans-identity, without requiring parental consent.
Just a reminder about UK Law on getting a tattoo. It is not legal even with parental consent.
Next up the document quotes the Committee for the Rights of the Child (CRC) again. Note that the document explicitly references sex but the author’s quote another document to claim that this also covers ”Gender Identity”. Once again, this is a common tactic a sleight of hand to claim the law is in your side, even when you are arguing for it to be changed. A good example is the public campaign to allow anyone to ”Self-Identify” as the opposite sex and the more covert campaign to abolish single sex spaces. When it appears these laws are not going to change (outside of Scotland) campaigners are simply lying about the law to get it built into policy. [Hence the twitter hashtag #StonewallLaw].
Note the small print on this which references the ”transsexual” child. 👇.
Heres another interesting aside. The rights of the child must take into account the child’s views. They also posit the view that the argument of “Best Interests” cannot be used to justify actions “inconsistent with child rights”. In the context of Gender Identity Ideology this is often deployed to argue children/adolescents have the right to bodily autonomy and to access ”Gender affirming” medical interventions. This takes us back to the notion of “transsexual children”; a description usually avoided.
Glossary of Terms
The glossary of terms at the beginning of the document are illustrative of the ideology under-pinning this document. It includes the newspeak of Cisgender, Transgender, Heteronormative, Assigned Sex at Birth etc. Intersex also makes an appearance despite this not being favoured terminology among those with Disorders of Sexual Development (DSDs). The term ”intersex” won’t be given up without a fight because the Transgender movement use people with DSDs to muddy the waters and suggest there are more than two sexes. (Humans are, in fact, Sexually Dimorphic).
I won’t treat you to the entire glossary but its worth including a couple of examples. Under Gender and Sexual Diversity can be found the definition of sex. This recognises biological sex only to claim it is randomly ”assigned” . They also claim sexual dimorphism is based on a common belief in a binary sex classifications. This equates scientific accuracy to a faith based position. In this section 👇 the author’s also feign allegiance with the interests of people with DSDs; who often campaign against unnecessary surgery on infants. Note that some surgeries are in fact medically necessary, DSD activists oppose only cosmetic interventions on those under age.
The section dealing with SEXual orientation is below. Of course they define it as a Genderal Orientation. And we must have a category for the oppressed asexuals or as I call them ”the shag anything that moves brigade”.
Whoever named Pansexual after a mythical, horny old goat at least had a sense of humour: 😂
So far, so predictable. Now we get to the definition of ”Gender Justice”. Note that the definition includes (cis) women’s rights. Yay, we actually get a category of our own! Don’t get too excited, it is prefixed with the insulting ”cis” and, read on sisters, they graciously deign to consider redressing the power imbalance between men and women “if necessary”! I think it is FUCKING necessary since you are re-defining us against our will.
Introductory Letter
Now we get to the letter accompanying the document which purports to explain why they felt it necessary to join forces to expose ”Gender-Restrictive” folks. This is newspeak for Witches, by the way. 👇
It is hard to credit the claims made in this document and the level of testeria fuelling the authors of this ”research”. For those of you familiar with DARVO (Deny, attack, reverse victim and offender) this is a classic of the genre. Apparently WE are distorting huMAN rights. Which is a bit rich coming from the Gender Ideology lobby who are all about the MAN in human.
We are also being accused of ”anti-democracy”. I cannot think of anything more anti-democratic than following a blue-print that encourages the passing of laws, by stealth and avoiding press-coverage. (See the Denton’s document. Blog below). More D.A.R.V.O.
Women defending sex based rights, Lesbians refusing to accept males as sexual partners, mothers fighting to stop the medicalising of, among others, gay and autistic kids, are planning State Seizure! They actually sound crazy! Below they even claim women, fighting for sex based rights, are actually the ones attacking women’s rights.
Yes, there is a threat to children’s rights as activists are inculcating “Gender Dysphoria” in our kids and teens. Schools are teaching children a lack of adherence to sex stereotypes equals #BornInTheWrongBody. We are coaxing our gay youth into faux-straight, medicalised closets.
They also fear this Moralpanic is effective. If it is effective this is because it is rooted in truth and (biological) reality. For the avoidance of doubt they do mean us! Here is a reference to ”So called ”gender critical” feminists. Nobody is arguing against human rights for trans identified people, in GC circles, we are fighting for sex based rights for women. No Conflict They Said. So, why does every fight for women’s rights garner an “anti-trans” label.
Seriously they think we are well funded and have been planning this for 35 YEARS! I wonder why they didnt choose Terf Island (United Kingdom) for their country analysis? Could it be because it really doesn’t help their case? What with so many of us being Left-Wing, Trade Unionists.
The authors sound a warning to its disciples that they must unite to oppose the evil terfs and band together. Right side of history and all that.
I will leave this post with a list of the organisations that contributed to the document which includes Comic Relief whose funding is regularly used to promote bodily rejection.
I am going to do more on this document especially on the scurrilous attack on Womens Human Rights Coalition (W.H.R.C). I also have sisters from Bulgaria, Ghana and Peru looking at the country specific sections.
Finally those of you who are clearly sitting on the mounds of cash spare a bit for a sister! I seem to have missed out on the Swiss Bank account enrichment. 😂
Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women & girls as well as the consequences for Lesbians, Gay males and autistic kids. I do this full time and have no income. All my content is open access and donations help keep me going. Only give IF you can afford. Thank you to my generous donors.
This document, titled Manufacturing Moral Panic, claims feminists, indeed anybody opposed to Gender Identity Ideology, are aligned with sinister, anti-democratic forces. It claims we are well funded (😂), highly co-ordinated and involved in a global conspiracy dating back 35 years! It uses the technique of ”association fallacy” to spotlight right wing opponents of Gender Identity Ideology and imply /state that all opposition comes from the same ideological stance. The aim is to associate grassroots feminists with proponents of anti-abortion, anti-gay, authoritarian regimes.
The document was produced by organisations who are either actively promulgating, Gender Identity Ideology, or acquiescing in its dissemination. A coalition of hugely resourced, charitable foundations have banded together as the Global Philanthropy Project and joined forces with Elevate Children’s Funders Group; a coalition of charities focussed on children. It is particularly disturbing that an organisation representing children’s charities has been persuaded to endorse a document critical of the language of child safeguarding.
Recently more attention has been paid to the charitable foundations committed to spreading Transgender Ideology and exposing the huge corporate machinery promoting a medicalised “identity”. This document would appear to be a co-ordinated response to the Gender Critical resistance which has had some success, particularly in the United Kingdom.
You can read the full document below. Warning, it is very long and extremely repetitive. Also thin on evidence, which does not surprise me.
It will take a few blogs to cover the different sections of the 131 page document. It purports to provide an overview of an ideology it labels ”Gender Restrictive”. It does not use the term ”GenderCritical Feminists” because it needs to smear us as biological essentialists who believe in traditional gender roles. This is ludicrous. Even a cursory analysis of the Gender Critical feminist analysis would conclude that they are critical of traditional sex stereotypes enfoced by the imposition of traditional gender roles. The authors cherry pick country case studies to set up an association fallacy claiming an alliance of authoritarian regimes and second wave /GC Feminists. They focus on countries which support their central thesis; which is that there is a sinister, anti-democratic, anti LGBTQ+, cabal driving opposition to Transgender Ideology. The entire thesis is a textbook example of D.A.R.V.O 👇
The normalisation of a rejection of our sexed bodies is no accident. It is driven by a hugely profitable industry which is mining our children’s bodies for profit. Biological sex denialism also has unintended (or intended?) consequences for women’s sex based rights. This is the root of my objection to Gender Identity Ideology. Philanthropic foundations drape their motivations under the “Charity” umbrella but are they really a beard for the Gender Industrial Complex?
I Intend to cover the report in three, further blogs, I also have women from Bulgaria, Ghana and Peru who have agreed to cover the country specific sections. It is significant, in my view, that the authors did not use the United Kingdom as a case study. The grassroots fight back in the U.K. originates largely on the political left which is an inconvenient fact for those calling us right wing, fascists.
Background
GlobalPhilanthropyProject
I think it is worth examining who is behind this document. First of all I want to look at who is behind the Global Philanthropy Project. Here is the call for proposals to map opposition to Gender Identity Ideology in the Caribbean on behalf of the Arcus Foundation.
I have also looked at Open Society Foundations who make significant grants to foundations involved in the dissemination of Transgender Ideology. Open Society Foundation, and other members of GPP, fund areas which, as a woman of a Left Wing persuasion, I heartily support. If you are neophyte this is important context; it can be disconcerting to find yourself criticising organisations which also do important, and worthwhile, work. However the spread of Gender Identity Ideology, and the promotion of a medicalised identity to a generation of kids, is doing real harm in our society while it has been promoted as a social good.
Many of the grant-making from these foundations demonstrate concern about the rise of Authoritarianism in countries such as Hungary, under Orban. I share that concern. The Hungarian administration is in opposition to Gender Identity Ideology, however the backlash is indiscriminate. This has resulted in legislation that harms Lesbians, Gay Males, Bisexuals and women’s rights. I do not support any legislation that hurts those who are in flight from their sex and identify as “Transgender” or “Transsexual”. My concern is to protect single SEX spaces for women and girls and to end the promotion of a medicalised identity to children, and teens. Historically, medical interventions were restricted to the most serious, intractable, cases of Gender Dysphoria. That is not the case in 2021.
The document is a result of a collaboration between the Global Philanthropy Project and Elevate Children’s Funders Group, a group I had NOT encountered before. I was especially concerned to see a coalition of children’s charities signed up to this document. Could it be that this organisation is being “forced–teamed to support an agenda? Do they appreciate what they are getting involved with? I don’t know.
This is the background to Elevate Children Funders Group:
The Elevate Children’s Funders Group
Here is the history of Elevate Children’s Funders Group:
Here are the membership details for Elevate Children’s Funders Group. Common link seems to be the Oak Foundation and Open Society Foundations. {As an aside Comic Relief are deeply implicated in funding groups promoting Trans-Ideology}.
This group have clearly been persuaded that women, who are concerned about Gender Identity Ideology, have some unsavoury alliances with anti-democratic forces. Rather than see us as parents, with safeguarding concerns, they seek to paint us as the actual safeguardingrisk. Here is a clip from the report which tells a collection of organisations, centred on children, to be wary of people using “child protection rhetoric”.
Here are some clips from Elevate Children’s Funders Group 2021 Strategic plan. This contains some familiar terminology such as intersectional and challenging norms.
The emphasis on children exercising their rights may be entirely innocuous but it immediately raises alarm bells for me. Based on everything I have read in the last five years it has echoes of campaigns for “bodily autonomy” for children with Gender Dysphoria. Note the reference to “Gender Justice”.
The reference to “intersectional” also sets off my spidey senses. The excellent work on intersectional feminism, by Kimberle Crenshaw, has been co-opted by proponents of trans-ideology. What was originally a plea for feminists to recognise the intersections between race, sex and class has now morphed into something quite different. Crenshaw’s work is now used, against women, to claim that female only spaces are akin to racial apartheid.
“Sexual Apartheid” is even the title of a work by Martine Rothblatt. Rothblatt’s is a billionaire, trans-identified male who dreams of a world where we eradicate sex as a classification. I wrote about him in this post THE APARTHEID OF SEX: Rothblatt
The reference to challenging attitudes and norms also echoes Queer Theory idealogues who believe in smashing heteronormative culture and disrupting social norms. Some of those norms are indeed founded on prejudice but some, such as defending sex based rights and protecting children from making irreversible changes to their body ,are norms rooted in child protection.
I hope they mean supporting “evidence based interventions” because currently they appear to be siding with an ideology with a poor evidence base.
There is of course always the chance that I am reading too much into this, so I had a look at their publications and this was the first one I came across on “Looked After Kids” in the care sector. I have done a few posts on children in the care sector because they are over-represented in referrals to Gender Clinics. The language is steeped in the propaganda of Gender Identity Ideology.
So this is the background before I get to the meat of the document. There is a lot of money to be made in fostering unhappiness with your body. This is just a new branch of the self-commodification industry. Selling it as a Social Justice moment is genius. It is also a LIE.
As always any financial help would be much appreciated. I do this full time and have no income. This helps me purchase books and journal articles, where necessary, and to keep going.
Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women & girls as well as the consequences for Lesbians, Gay males and autistic kids. I do this full time and have no income. All my content is open access and donations help keep me going. Only give IF you can afford. Thank you to my generous donors.
This document sets out the strategy for advancing Transgender Rights across Europe, with a specific focus on young people.
You can find the 65 page document on-line here Link
I attach a version which I downloaded in December 2019. IGLYO_v3-1. I notice there is another version. I attach both, in case of any changes, IGLYO_v3-1 2
Astro-Turfing
The introduction flags up the Corporate backing for this, allegedly, marginalised minority. The world’s largest law firm and a global foundation are writing strategy documents to embed Gender Identity ideology, in law. This has all the hallmarks of astro-turfing; which is when a well funded, social engineering, project is presented as an organic, grassroots campaign. In reality Transgender Ideology is backed by significant funding. You can read more on this phenomenon here
And now Google are interfering. Jo Bartoch Article here.
Another relevant piece, by Jennifer Bilek, lifts the veil on the rich & powerful men driving Transgender Ideology. here
These are the organisations providing pro-bono support for the report under consideration. Thomson Reuters Foundation and the largest Legal Firm in the world.
Thompson Reuter’s
Dentons
Dissenting Voices from the LGB & I
The report is on behalf of a group of 96 organisations, who claim to speak for LGBTQI youth across the Council of Europe region.
In the U.K, we now have a breakaway group, LGB Alliance, who do not feel their interests are served by mainstream LGBTQI organisations. These organisations reject the notion of biological sex /sexual dimorphism thereby making it difficult/impossible, to defend sexual orientation. Exhibit A: Stonewall UK have, as an Ambassador, a bearded male who claims to be a Lesbian. See Alex Drummond. 👇
Stonewall Lesbian
It is also worth noting the letter I, in LGBTQI, claims to represent Intersex people. These are people with Disorders/Differences of Sexual Development. Many of this community also resent their medical condition being co-opted as an “identity”, by the rainbow alliance.
To hear more of these dissident voices you can read about LGB Alliance here
To return to the Denton’s document. It outlines the progress in establishing transgender rights across European countries. Here’s who is involved in the U.K. Note that one of the organisations didn’t even want their name to be made public. The other one already accesses state funding.
Mosaic received funding from the Government Equality Office for a project working to stop homophobic, bi-phobic and transphobic bullying in schools. You can find this information in the accounts submitted to the Charity Commission.
A quick check on their timeline shows a devotion to the Trans Advocacy lobby group Mermaids. #PinkNews #Stonewall #ProudTrust also figure prominently. Mosaic Youth Trust are enthusiastic advocates for medical intervention, for children, even using an emotive appeal from a trans identified child.
There are very few public resources available on their twitter timeline or website. This, I find, is one of the more disturbing aspects of many of these smaller charities. No public access to resources that are going into our schools! The Denton’s document proffers an explanation for this secrecy, which I will get to…
Introduction
The introduction was written by a well known Trans Activist based in the UK.
You can read more about this activist here. Identifies as non-binary. In a relationship we would have formerly described as heterosexual. As Ugla makes clear here this is no longer acceptable. Heterosexuality is thus redefined as queer. Hey presto it’s under the 🌈 and there’s a crock of s**t at the end of this one.
Mentioning the fact biological sex exists is now a “transphobic dog whistle”.
Legislation by stealth
The two admissions in this next paragraph are crucial to understanding how so much has happened without people, particularly women, marshalling our resources to resist. Most of us didn’t know there was a new threat to women’s rights wearing Joseph’s technicolour raincoat. We were too busy attending Pride marches and gleefully singing #BornThisWay. While we were singing Lady Gaga there was a new Gaga Lyric in town #BornInTheWrong Body.
👇Here are some of the strategies recommended. Pass legislation “under the radar”, “latch…onto more popular legal reforms”. This tactic has served them well. Note that Ireland passed legislation around Gender Recognition before it legalised abortion. Malta still has not legalised abortion but it does allow self-identification of “Gender”.
For Trans Activists the failure, in Ireland, to lower the age for Legal Gender Recognition is seen as a warning against compromise. The stage is set for a new offensive. Note that the age for gender recognition is also under review in Scotland, who seem minded to implement the more controversial of reforms. This legislation is also under review in England and Wales which appears to be heading in a different direction. However, there is no room for complacency.
The role of education & attacks on parental rights
Below is a snippet on Tactics picked up from Portugal. First make sure you train teachers. Get the teachers on board with gettin rid of sex segregated toilets.
The inculcation of gender ideology is well underway in the UK. Many parents are now discovering this with recent publicity on School Transgender policies. (Quite a few of which have been withdrawn as parentsprotest about their contents). The Denton’s dossier is a full frontal attack on parental protective responsibilities. Here is a thread I did on those school Transgender guidance packs, specifically how they seek to undermine parental responsibility. Thread
Here a few examples of how parents are referred to in numerous school packs on Transgender pupils.
Another common tactic is to talk about “minors” say you mean 16-18. Then switch to “child”. Talk a lot about a child’s legal rights and their autonomy. This is another attack on parental responsibility. As is made more explicit. They want Parental Consent to be over-ridden
Here are some quotes about parents in the document under consideration here. 👇
These excerpts are even more disturbing. Mandating state action against parents advocating for “watch and wait” rather than medical intervention. It is factually true ,historically, some jurisdictions enforced sterilisation clauses prior to undergoing Sexual Reassignment surgery. These clauses have rightly been removed. However we have not eliminated this for young people. Children put on Puberty Blockers, invariably, progress to cross sex hormones, they will not have a puberty and will be rendered infertile.
Norway allows legal gender recognition for six year olds. For now (?) this is restricted to children with disorders of sexual development. It is possible that I am overly cynical /hyper-vigilant about why these kids are being housed under the Transgender Umbrella. They are not “transgender” kids, however, could their status be hijacked to campaign for Gender recognition of 6 year olds. Even if they are not “intersex” but do believe they are born in the wrong body?
De-medicalising the process or Medicalising it?
Another aspect of the coverage deemed problematic is the focus on medicalising Gender Identity. This is deemed unhelpful. The problem identified in this quote exposes a central contradiction in trans ideology. For adults there is a push to de-medicalise the process for self-identification of your “gender”. For children there is a push to medicalise them. Here it is claimed that UK voices are simply “confused”.
The debate is confused. Not, however, on the Gender Critical side. It is reflective of an internal contradiction on the Trans Activist side.
The penis retention status of so many Trans-identifies males has not escaped the attention of U.K. females. Indeed the phrase suck on my dick appears with unfailing regularity in responses to inconvenient women. Had the esteemed authors of this report consulted women they would have known the deployment of the penis, by our wannabe sisters, was a strategic fail. Documented here Peak Trans
Here is a direct focus on the “highly problematic” system of separate toilets for girls/women and boys/men. 👇 Given the history of women’s fight to have safe public bathroom facilities this is a direct attack on the rights of women and girls. Note the vehicle for grooming our children to accept this is Teachers. . This is what the frequent “we just want to pee“ is really about. 👇
The document undertakes a country, by country analysis and the United Kingdom is singled out for its non-compliant women. The document doesn’t shy away from using a slur associated with threats of rape and violence (Terf) . It goes on to draw the conclusion that press coverage is problematic. The lesson to be learned is that the freedom of the press has created a divisive issue. In fact the press have, finally, begun to cover something which simply is a contentious issue.
Women are labelled “trans-hostile” because we are not giving up sex based rights without a fight. These are existing rights enshrined in Law, by a Labour government, but the document suggests only the right wing media are raising it. By extension, it implies, it’s only right wing women who have an issue with it. (The uber left wing Morning Star is one of the papers that has tried to provide coverage for these non-compliant women).
The preferred campaign strategy is to provide human interest stories but, the document claims, the current atmosphere is so hostile they are unable to do so. The Guardian and the BBC, Teen Vogue, Pink News, Independent, Mirror, Sun, Telegraph appear not to have received the memo. Coverage of “trans kids” is ubiquitous. This is a strategic. By deploying children it de-sexualises motives for transition and helps persuade people that the trans community are a vulnerable community.
Another way this strategy has been deployed, in the UK, is the many Trans Activists who refuse to appear, along side feminists, to debate any issues. The series on Radio 4 Women’s hour was notable for the number of Trans Activists who would only provide pre-recorded discussions, rather then debate the issues with feminists. Example here
The above is laughably poor research into the actual profiling of young trans people in the British media. A quick search brings up masses of coverage of Young Trans Children. There was a seemingly endless parade of “transgender kids” on British Media. There are loads of celebratory tales of young “transgender” children. Here’s an entire documentary by Victoria Derbyshire. Transgender Kids.
The Children’s BBC programme “I am Leo” was broadcast directly to our kids on CBBC. I presume this was just in case the home schooled had missed out on Transgender Indoctrination. The documentary follows a young female as she embarks on medicalisation to cement her male Gender Identity. Below is a clip of he Director of the U.K’s premier Gender Identity Clinic, who appeared on I am Leo. Juxtaposed with a contemporary statement , somewhat at odds with what our children were told.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
The language of Human Rights advocacy is deeply embedded in the propagation of this ideology. Women’s rights to privacy and dignity has been trampled underfoot which underlines the depressing realisation that we are not considered human. Access to women’s sex segregated spaces is now badged a human rights issue for male bodied “women”.
Of course anyone who is trans-identified should have human rights. The women fighting for our sex based rights are not trying to strip rights away from any male who is a refugee from his sex. The rights we are asserting are existing rights, in law, to allow women to act as a political class to defend women’s, sex based, rights.
Watching the naivete of young, female, politicians who are throwing away women’s rights I think they need to read this document and consider if they are being played. The young politicians are being targeted. The senior, older, politicians, don’t want to lose the youth vote so are letting them lead the way.
Another tactic is to make sure activists get ahead of the politicians. It’s a new area and fraught with political banana skins. What better way to avoid a slip. Outsource your opinions to Lobby groups. They are more than happy to oblige. It’s a great strategy.
This document is a must read. Don’t use it to hold anyone accountable. Lawyers must Lawyer and they have already got their defence ready. Power without responsibility
The emphasis on children exercising their rights may be entirely innocuous but it immediately raises alarm bells for me. Based on everything I have read in the last five years it has echoes of campaigns for “bodily autonomy” for children with Gender Dysphoria. Note the reference to “Gender Justice”. 
You can read more about this activist here. Identifies as non-binary. In a relationship we would have formerly described as heterosexual. As Ugla makes clear here this is no longer acceptable. Heterosexuality is thus redefined as queer. Hey presto it’s under the 🌈 and there’s a crock of s**t at the end of this one.
