Ruth Hunt and OFSTED


Given my coverage of Ruth Hunt’s role, as former CEO of Stonewall, I am somewhat late to the discovery of her links with OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education). OFSTED are the government body that oversee education standards in England. This is a devolved responsibility so it does not cover the other parts of the U.K.

It has quite a range of responsibilities as outlined here:

The current chief inspector is Amanda Spielman:

Amanda Spielman was appointed as the Chief Inspector in 2016. The appointment was met with some criticism, at the time, and it was not endorsed by the Parliamentary Select committee covering education.

The Education Committee held an on-camera, pre-appointment, scrutiny hearing on the 22nd June 2016. You can watch that on the link below. 👇

Parliament TV

Following that session the Chair of the Committee wrote to Nicky Morgan, then the Minister of Education, to express concerns at her appointment. The committee raised a number of issues. One of their specific concerns was about child protection:

Nicky Morgan, Minister of Education robustly defended the appointment and rejected the opinion of the Education Committee. This is a report of the recruitment process, as recorded on Hansard. This was in 2016 and here is the analysis of the shortlisted candidates; which uses the transphobic dog whistles of “male” and ”female”.

Interestingly, Nicky Morgan’s own appointment had attracted criticism from Stonewall because she had votes against gay marriage. Ms Morgan allayed these concerns by appointing Luke Tryl, late of Stonewall, as her special advisor.

The Stonewall influence did not end there. This is the recruitment panel for Ms Spielman’s appointment, present is Ruth Hunt.

Ruth Hunt was then the CEO of Stonewall. Here she is celebrating the fact that Ofsted had joined the Stonewall #NoBystanders campaign. Standing beside her is another member of the recruitment panel, Chris Wormald.

Chris Wormald made the announcement and signed the Stonewall pledge at an event hosted by the Department of Education LGBT & BAME staff networks. The DFE was ranked in the top 100 of Stonewall Employers when the list was public. {After a number of high profile departures, the list is no longer, publicly, accessible}.

Here was Ruth Hunt’s statement at the time which includes the Stonewall mantra at the time ”acceptance without exception”.

Following the appointment of Ms Spielman the love-in continued when Luke Tryl , Nicky Morgan’s special advisor was appointed to a £90,000 a year role at Ofsted.

The cosy relationship continued with Ms Spielman giving the keynote speech at a Stonewall Youth conference.

This was part of Spielman’s pitch, to Stonewall Youth, in that keynote address.

Sabah Choudrey, one of the speakers mentioned above, worked with the All Sorts Youth Project who are behind some of the more egregious school guidance on Transgender pupils. I wrote about that here:

School Transgender Policy 1. Brighton: Allsorts

As frequently observed the activists in this field are not satisfied unless it’s supporters show abject compliance with all aspects of trans-ideology. Here Ofsted is criticised for failing to discuss transgender issues with primary school children. This information was obtained by a Freedom of Information request. The email shows Stonewall lobbying Ofsted via back-channels.

Stonewall went on to imply that schools should be “marked down” if they did not discuss the issue of “gender reassignment” with children, that is children in Primary School.

Fast forward to 2021 and, at last, we see some unravelling of the institutional capture as OFSTED finally leave Stonewall Lobby Group.

I will leave you with Ms Spielman’s own spiel to the Education Committee during the pre-appointment scrutiny. Stonewall is a crusader for Gender Identity Ideology and by aligning too closely with their, controversial, agenda many institutions lost sight of their objectivity, honesty and integrity.

I do this full time and have no income. If you can support my work here is how.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s ,negative, impact on women’s rights and Gay rights. I also look at institutional capture and the medical consequences of “Gender affirming care”


Lord Patel: Insider Gender Identity 2


This is part two of a series looking at a document produced, with their input, on prisoners with a transgender identity. No women’s groups were included in discussions about making prisons mixed sex. You can read part one here. 👇

Lord Patel: Inside Gender Identity 1

Part 1 also contains a link to the full document.

I am not going to cover all the details in the document, in this post, because they are repetitive and the arguments are familiar. Notable are the absence of any women’s rights voices Three trans-identified prisoners were consulted. The transgender community are portrayed as a vulnerable group, despite the massive institutional power they have attained in the past decade. The report relies, heavily, on U.S. data to accentuate the theme of vulnerability. The U.S Prison system is far more brutal, than that of the U.K., which lends more credence to arguments about the vulnerability of trans-identified males. The report also makes good use of research covering the whole of the LGBTQ + “community” without disaggregating the data to reveal how much is based on gay males or Lesbians. {I will return to this document to cover some of the issues about access to medication and competing mental health diagnoses, within the transgender population. That needs a post in itself and is the one area where I think claims of vulnerability stand up to scrutiny for *some* of those with a transgender identity.}

There are lots of claims about ”transphobia”, in the U.K. Prison estate which turns out to mainly focus on not using preferred pronouns or lack of access to make-up or wigs.

High rates of participation in prostitution are blamed on family rejection or employment discrimination. Mental health issues are blamed on ”minority stress” rather than considering if vulnerable individuals are latching onto a transgender identity. There’s also a note of nervousness in the foreword as if the authors sense the tripwires built in to the, ever evolving, transgender ideology.

In this post I am going to look at whether any contributors considered the impact on female prisoners. Note that the document itself refers to trans-identified males as ”females” and vice versa. Who was it that said the word ”woman” would never be enough?

Quite early in the report the authors make the extraordinary claim that modern medicine is too pre-occupied with treating health issues as if they only relate to men or women.

The truth is that medicine treats men as the default human and women’s health is much neglected. This topic has been covered by many feminists including by Caroline Criado-Perez in her book ”Invisible Women”.

The consultation is also intended to provide insight into the health needs of imprisoned trans-identified males /females and some of the contributors express frustration at the level of attention afforded to the sexual (“genderal”) politics of prison allocation. I am old enough to remember when changing female only prisons to mixed sex would have resulted in a rather robust, public, debate. Instead much of this has been achieved by consultations, such as this one, which excluded women’s groups.

The guidance put out in 2016 advised prisons that transgender offenders should be accommodated in the estate that accords with their “gender identity”. Those with a Gender Recognition Certificate already must be housed according to their ”legal gender”. This new instruction allowed for males, without a GRC, to be located in the female estate.

Many of the commentators welcomed this clarity. I will spare you the comments about non-binary prisoners and how to accommodate ”gender fluid” people. Some of the more activist contributors were critical of the binary nature of the prison system. 🤷‍♂️. One brave soul raised a question about transvestites, unaware, presumably, that we can no longer talk about sex offenders with a history of transvestic fetishism.

This was typical of the published responses. Staff welcome the move away from requiring a GRC, to a policy of self-identification, and think we should be less preoccupied with female penises.

The report betrays some inconsistency about the index offences for the majority of trans-identified males. The use of ”female” applied to male prisoners is, no doubt, strategic. Who was it that said the word ”woman” would not be enough for the trans-language grab. They have also appropriated ”female”. It does mean you have to remember we are talking about males; who are responsible for 99% of sex offences and whose victims are 88% female. Here is one quote based on research from the United States which is immediately contradicted. So which is it? Are they more likely to be sex offenders or not?

Attempts to get data, disaggregated, to demonstrate the offending pattern of trans-identified males are hampered by the practice of recording male crimes as if they were committed by females. Women’s rights groups have been forced to put in endless freedom of information requests to try to assess the risk. A task that should not have fallen on women, most of whom are unpaid.

Here is the outcome from an FOI response. The MOJ seem to have changed to a different software format which I had to download. The data released is here 👇. For comparison the figure for sex offenders, held in the male estate, is 18%. This figure is approaching 50%. All the more alarming if you consider that men with a GRC will have their crimes recorded as ”female” crimes. Either we have a problem of sex offending in this demographic or sex offenders are using the loopholes allowed by self-identification. Which ever it is, and I suspect it is a bit of both, we have a problem.

Source for the above 👇. I had to go to some lengths to access this and download new, open source, software. I am sure this is motivated by egalitarian principles and not to make it more awkward.

Scroll down to Transgender Prisoners

Now we have some context let us return to our focus group. Some of the contributors did raise concerns about male sex offenders in the female estate. I had not even thought about men trying to avail themselves of anti-libidinal medication, to deal with their sex drive, while in prison. Apparently it’s a thing!

Another interviewee raised a similar concern, only to be immediately undercut by the next commentator, in what I imagine was intended to be a reassuring comment. Men don’t need a penis to sexually offend is not allaying my fears for these, vulnerable, women.

One would have thought the research should have been done before inflicting men in female prisons but hey that’s just me! Next we get some revealing statements about why so many thought it was a solution to place trans-identifying males in with women.

There is a breathtaking lack of awareness about the sexism involved in projecting stereotypical expectations on women. They are treating women as validation aids /support humans. As if we are the universal mother!

Some did express reservations, however, once again it is the concerns of the ”trans female” that are centred and lack of a warm reception is not framed within the context of women’s safety or dignity.

All of which reminds me of this statement, by James Barratt, a gender identity specialist. This was revealed in a court transcript, involving a male prisoner who won a legal challenge to be moved to the female estate. Before I tell you what his index offences were this is how women who object are described:

Yes! You read that right he anticpates any woman who objects will be ”The sort of women who enjoy conflict” 😳. So let us look at ”Karen’s” index offences and parole assessments. Manslaughter, released on licence (to a female bail hostel, by the way) and within five days had attempted to rape a woman. (It was a vicious assault).

Just in case you think it could not have got any worse. Here’s the ”mitigation” for the attempted rape put forward. Whilst Mr Spurr did advocate for detention in the male estate his explanation for the rape beggars belief. Personally I think the motives outlined here point to a specific type of risk which may present from these prisoners. He was jealous of her being a woman.

After all this the reason a male (attempted) rapist was moved to the female estate was because he needed to ne with his ”peers” and the women were needed to act as therapeutic aids. If this does not make your blood boil what will it take? 🤦‍♀️.

My digression to cover this case is because the above prisoner, Karen Jones, was invited to the House of Lords, by Lord Patel, to advise on the treatment of transgender prisoners. I have no idea if he was one of the prisoners who were allowed to input to Lord Patel’s work, developing policy which directly affects female prisoners.

I will look at this document to cover some of the issues raised about competing mental health issues, in this demographic, in another post.

You can support my work here : 👇

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s impact on women and gay rights. I do this full-time and am unwaged. Any help to keep me going is gratefully received. Only if you can spare it and , irrespective, I will keep my content free.


Lord Patel: Inside Gender Identity 1


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

Inside Gender Identity Lord Patel

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

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

These are the authors :

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gender Ideology: Terminology

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

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

Karyotype tests abandoned at Gender Clinics

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

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

To which I object!

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

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

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

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

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

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


Samaritans: It is time to talk.


Originally published in 2021. Updated 2022.

The Samaritans is a charity, based in the U.K, set up to help people in distress. They focus on providing 24 hour helplines, staffed by volunteers, whose aim is to avert self-harm or suicide. Apart from providing research on risk factors for suicide and they also teach media outlets how to report on completed suicides to avoid, inadvertently, fostering suicide ideation or even copycat suicides in specific demographics.

Given the charitable objectives of the Samaritans it has shown a marked failure to condemn the routine deployment of suicide threats to advance the aims of the Trans Lobby. If you are unfamiliar with the way questionable data on suicide ideation is used to promote medical responses to children with “Gender Dysphoria” I have written about it below:

Suicide in the Trans Community

The Samaritans have written extensively about how the media should avoid over-sensational media reporting, and simplistic narratives associating suicide with a specific demographic. They write, knowledgeably about suicide contagion and “clusters” of suicides associated with, for example, high-profile suicide of celebrities. They acknowledge the specific vulnerabilities of young people and yet…The Transgender Lobby break this code on a regular basis and are amplified by media outlets and even MPs. Yet the Samaritans remain, studiously, silent about the regular breach of its media guidelines on suicide by Trans Lobby groups.

So, why would the Samaritans ignore the most egregious breach of its media guidelines even though they *know* there is no epidemic of suicides in Gender Dysphoric youth? Could it be that they have been Stonewalled? Lets have a look at their CEO, Julie Bentley. She joined in October 2020 and had previously been CEO of Girl Guiding and Action for Children.


Her chosen profile on twitter has the tell-tale sign of pronouns in the bio, and proud proclamations about kindness and social justice along with the inevitable “feminist”.


Many of us have tagged Samaritans into tweets promoting suicide in our Gender Dysphoric youth and asking them for public statements to condemn the practice. This is just one example but I have done this myself, many times.


Previously Julie has been CEO of Girl Guides and Action for Children. Both these organisations are Stonewall Champions. It is not clear if Samaritans are paid up members of the Stonewall racket but Julie is an enthusiastic supporter. This is clip from an archive copy of Stonewall lists of supporters. As there are some high profile departures from the scheme Stonewall no longer allow public access to their supporter information.


Girlguiding has been the subject of some controversy under Bentley’s tenure as it was under her that the organisations became mixed-sex and guide leaders were terminated for raising concerns. Here is a link to her statement given at the time:

Girl Guides


The response neatly side-steps the issue of Adult, male guide leaders.  It also ignores a girls right to bodily privacy especially because some of these girls will have developing bodies and may already be menstruating. That is a time when many girls are self-conscious about their bodies and bodily functions. 

Bentley also reveals that she was taking advice from a Trans Lobby group. Note that below she says that only in *some* instances are separate facilities used. 


This remains a controversial topic for the Girl Guides long after Bentley has moved on. This is one of the guide leaders causing a fuss this week.  You can read more about this below and note that women were expelled for warning this would happen. 


Helen Watts was joined by Dr Katie Alcock who is currently fundraising to support a legal challenge if you have any spare cash to contribute.

Help me challenge Girlguides

Here Julie Bentley commends ex CEO of Stonewall, Ruth Hunt, who was responsible for turning Stonewall into a Trans Lobby group. 👇


Bentley continued her support for new CEO, Nancy Kelley.


Bentley has also spoken along side controversial Transing kids charity Mermaids. Two clips below, One from 2017 and an endorsement in 2020.



Samaritans have even promoted articles propagating articles about Transgender Suicide as far back as 2016.


Prior to Bentley’s time at the charity they also hosted “Dr” Helen Webberley of Gender GP. Webberley has had her registration suspended and is currently awaiting the outcome of another tribunal which is scrutinising her medical practices. Webberley was guest speaker at their AGM in 2016.


More recently Bentley nailed her colours to the mast as controversy blew up about Stonewall and she made it clear which side she was on.


I hope this explains why the Samaritans are maintaining a stubborn silence on the harms done in the name of Gender Identity Ideology. We are sterilising children, as young as 10, by putting them on Puberty Blockers which are invariably followed by cross-sex hormones. For males they will have stunted genitalia which will, even under their paradigm, make attempts to create a neo-vagina more difficult. Girls are put on a pathway to double mastectomy and often hysterectomy which is a response to vaginal atrophy induced by long term testosterone use. I cannot think of a situation more likely to see a spate of future suicides as regret kicks in. If CEOs of Charities don’t have the courage to do their job they should be removed.

While we are entitled to some celebration as more and more organisations extract themselves from Stonewall we are not going to be able to rest on our laurels. We face an uphill and lengthy battle to undo the damage. Firstly there will be multiple organisations keen to step into the breach and hoover up the Trans pound. Secondly Queer theory is embedded in our universities and churning out graduates saturated in (Judith) Butler Bollox. Whilst many of us were concerned that the European Union is captured there is a danger we could become tied to a U.S trade deal that comes with strings attached. The list of companies and public bodies who were indoctrinated by Stonewall is long. Even though Stonewall Champions list is shrinking (hence why it is no longer publicly names its supporters) the indoctrinated remain in those organisations.

Here is the archive list of Stonewall supporters. We need to root this ideology out of all of these organisations and it is going to take a long time. Help me keep going, if you can, below.

Stonewall Champions

Update: 2022.

Since writing this article I discovered that the Samaritans were captured much earlier than I thought. In fact the Samaritans were involved in the Beaumont Society, an affiliate organisations for the wives of the Transvestite /“Transsexual” organisation, set up by the Beaumont Trust. {These quotes are from the book “Trans Britain” by Christine Burns).

The Samaritans listed all the organisations to help “transvestites/ “transsexuals” find each other back in the 1970’s.

Clearly the Samaritans remain captured. Here is a tweet from November 2022.

GIRES, another “trans” lobby group also boast about training the Samaritans,

Please support my work because many of the media are more involved in propagating this ideology than exposing it…only if you can afford it.

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.


Amnesty U.K. What’s going on?


Like many people I have ceased to donate to Amnesty following the revelation they took advice from Pimp Lobby groups before deciding to adopt the stance #SexWorkIsWork. The majority of the sold are women and the purchasers are, almost invariably, male no matter the sex of those being traded. A purported human rights organisation which prioritises male sexual entitlement over their victims is a Human Rights organisation only because they self-identify as such. 👇


You can read about this in full here

As if to remove all doubt about their anti-women stance Amnesty Ireland recently castigated women for defending their sex based rights. Below is an astonishing foray into the controversy of allowing men to self-identify as women. Women who point out the conflict with sex based rights are lazily conflated with far right organisations and, Amnesty argues, should be denied representation for these views.

You can read more in this article, by Julie Bindel, below. 👇


However, today I want to talk about Amnesty’s startling intervention in the Keira Bell case. Full details of this case are below. The brief summary is that, in the U.K., a high court judgment has halted administration of puberty blockers, to under 16s, without a court order I have done many posts on the Tavistock and on Puberty Blockers. I have long expressed concern about setting children, as young as ten, on an irreversible path to lifelong dependence on the pharmaceutical industry. So why are a Human Rights organisation setting themselves against this judgement? The presiding, High Court, judges did not believe that children, under 16, could give informed consent to an experimental treatment with such significant implications; for physical and psychological development. They further cautioned, even for those age 16 and 17, an endocrinologist may wish to get court approval. Blog on this case below:

Kiera Bell: Judicial Review

Here was Amnesty U.K proclaiming their support for attempts to overturn the decision. 


A cursory look at Amnesty financial statements demonstrate their adherence to the tenets of Transgender Ideology, Here is a statement which states a goal to protect “Gender Identity”. No definition is provided, naturally. It is impossible to define “Gender Identity” without using circular references. How can you have an “internal sense of oneself”, as a woman or a man, without first defining your terms? Invariably they depend on sexist expectations based on stereotypes. This is why so many of these conversations are a dead end.

A cursory glacé at their accounts shows they have one project to look at sex based issues which impact on women and girls. Female Genital Mutilation and forced, early, marriage. A lot of these charities, with an international remit, recognise sex based oppression and abuse, when it occurs overseas, but deny it in the Northern Hemisphere. I do wonder who runs the cognitive dissonance department. 👇. (Dilbert)



Perhaps the explanation for the stance Amnesty U.K. takes is influenced by the chair of their LGBTI network which tells its own tale 👇


Note that, in the Keira Bell case, both Mermaids and Stonewall were refused permission to intervene in the case because their evidence was deemed to have no bearing on the case. That’s a damning indictment of their preparedness /evidence supplied in this case. Amnesty: Do you know who you are allying with?

If you are able to support my ability to focus on this full-time you can do so here.

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





Recently there has been a raft of Freedom of Information requests (FOIs) to ascertain the extent of the policy capture by Stonewall; a controversial lobby group. The intention was to discover how organisations demonstrate compliance with Workplace Equality Index, run by Stonewall, and how participants game the ranking system. {In an interesting aside the BBC refused to disclose the information requested. They claimed an exemption due to commercial sensitivity. I anticipate this refusal will be challenged but why are the BBC so reticent?}

The House of Commons did reveal the information requested and this may shed some light on the situation. Their response was in two documents which are reproduced, in full, below. 👇

HOC response to FOI Part 1HOC stonewall part 2

Subscribers to Stonewall schemes are subject to an annual audit and their submission is monitored for compliance and ranked accordingly. Stonewall are embedded across government, the public and private sector and allies, until recently, were keen to promote their score across Social media. I predict that will change as more public scrutiny takes place.

The House of Commons obtained 23rd place in the 2020 rankings. The Ministry of Justice ranks higher. I would love to see if the MOJ leverage their role in locating female prisoners in with transgender rapists. 😳

The process of allocating rankings is accompanied by lengthy guidance and examples members could use to demonstrate subservience to their Rainbow clad overlords. Naturally Stonewall play fast and lose with pesky details, like the actual law of the land. Below is a classic of the genre. Stonewall lists a legally protected, characteristic; sexual orientation followed by two that are not; gender identity and trans identity. They then proceed to talk about other protected characteristics which neatly obscures the fact that they are mixing fact with fiction. They also ask for explicit bans on discrimination in which they throw in another characteristic; gender expression. 👇. Stonewall is a master (mistress) of these linguistic sleights of hand.


So how does the House of Commons respond?  Credit where credit is due they lead  with a legally accurate list.  Whether this is a sign of resistance or naïveté about Stonewall’s agenda is not for me to determine. 


Alas this is not consistently applied. Later in the House of Commons pivots to accede to Stonewall Law.  Here sex is omitted and replaced with gender. 👇


We then come to the thorny question of gender neutral language. Feminists long campaigned for the language to recognise that we, the female people, could chair meetings and fight fires. The fight to make language less reliant on the default use of men; when describing roles, or occupations, is now relatively uncontentious. However  women were not campaigning to make ourselves invisible! The intent was to lay claim to professional and leadership roles hitherto solely occupied, or dominated, by men. Using gender neutral language was to foster that aim. It was never intended to deny our bodily existence, as a sex class. 

Stonewall have a rather different agenda.  Their aim is to eradicate sex based language especially when it pertains to biological women in favour of the inclusion of ideological women (a.k.a males).  Women did not campaign to ignore the reproductive labour of pregnancy and childbirth or deny the role of the female sex.  Most theories of why women are subject to discrimination locate the explanation in our reproductive functions. We are subject to sex discrimination because we are, or are perceived to be, able to carry and bear children.  Here 👇 the House of Commons talks of “pregnant employees”  and the “person giving birth”.   This is Stonewall speak. 


The induction process takes the re-education agenda one step further by using an example of a “transwomen” as part of employee training. This scenario 👇posits women, asking for sex segregated toilets, as problematic. Women are, effectively, shamed for a perfectly legitimate need. They are so proud of this example they use it twice labelling it “bullying” and “harassment”.


The  indoctrination continues with lunchtime seminars led by a Trans activist. Helen Belcher is a Transgender Lobbyist most notable for being involved in Trans Media Watch. This organisation seeks to change the way the media covers trans issues. This is one of the organisations responsible for the press regulator (IPSO) mandating use of preferred pronouns for trans identified males. This is now normalised, even when they have committed sex offences against women!


Helen Belcher is a Liberal democrat councillor and former parliamentary candidate. Layla Moran explicitly thanked Belcher for providing guidance on how to answer questions about the proposal to allow males to “self-identify” as women. Predictably pansexual Layla was all in favour of the proposition and provided one of the more memorable statements recorded in Hansard.

Layla dismissed women’s concerns and claimed to have a sixth sense in sniffing out predatory males. After some nonsense about women with beards she exposed her naïveté (complicity?) with this response.

Another invited guest to showcase the House of Commons willingness to subvert their public purpose to this lobby group was an invited artist, Dusty “O” who has a nice sideline in bepenised “women” in his oeuvre. 

There are also invitations to drag artists and lots of talk of rainbow lanyards. They do note one concession to women’s demands, for a female only space, but why does the HOC feel the need for the word female to be placed in inverted commas?

Another astonishing admission the House of Commons raising funds to one of the more controversial charities working with children; Mermaids. A charity led by a woman who took her own child, aged sixteen. for sexual reassignment surgery in Thailand. Surgery which would be illegal in the U.K and is now illegal in Thailand (until aged 18).


The document is littered with positive references to Pink News. A comic which vigorously opposes women raising issues of concern about sex based rights. The editors also continue to conduct a campaign of vilification against author JK Rowling who, they claim, is “transphobic”. She is not but why let truth get in the way of a good story. 

The HOC also boast about  changing parliamentary identification to facilitate pronoun changes  and recognise anyone changing their “gender expression”. Furthermore they promote a member of staff who pushed for mixed sex toilet facilities. 👇


Finally, as I have uncovered before, here is conclusive proof that Stonewall actively encourages its allies to troll International Women’s Day. They do this by suggesting active promotion of “transwomen” on a day set aside for women. This, of all their actions, is the most provocative.. Anyone taking seriously the need to foster good relations between different protected characteristics (Sex and Gender Reassignment) should have predicted how inflammatory this course of action would be. Check #IWD2021 for how often this originates from Stonewall Allies. 6FF609CC-E545-4BB8-AD6B-41808C2EC141

I am  unwaged and donations are always welcome but, with so many important legal cases under way,  here is a  worthy causes who could use some support: AEA Crowdfunder


Get ahead of the Law!

A short piece of published advice by the Solictors Regulation Authority. You can watch it here: Below is a transcript:

SRA Trans Inclusion

This YouTube was put up two years ago whilst the Gender Recognition Act was out for public consultation with a view to potential reformation. As you can see, from the title, it promotes advice about Exceeding U.K. legislation in respect of the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act. Interesting choice of word.

Rachel Reese is the subject of the interview. Here is a little biographical information about Rachel.

There is a PhD waiting to be written about the number of, late-transitioning males, who have backgrounds in the tech industry. I have my own theories. While women’s rights to single sex spaces, roles and services are subject to a concerted attack, Global Butterflies “comprises trans only staff” . Not the first time I have seen such rank hypocrisy. Only a trans person can understand the “trans” experience, goes the argument. Meanwhile women are not allowed to advance the same argument about our experience.

Rachel’s organisation, Global Butterflies, is an advocacy organisation for Trans and Non-Binary people. The latter category, Rachel claims in this interview, make up the majority in the Trans-Community. That’s a bold statement.

Rachel is keen to advocate for the concept of “Non-Binary” to be enshrined in law. This would create a legal category denying the FACT we are a sexually dimorphic species. I am pleased the latest attempt, to erase legal sex, failed, (Search Christine Elan for more information on this) . Rachel also argues for 16 & 17 year olds to be able to “Self-Identify”. I presume this is to cover the age group not currently allowed to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate. GRC applications have a qualifying age of 18. Other activists wanted all ages to be able to Self-Identify.

Here is a bit more information about Rachel’s organisation and their own extensive networks within the legal profession, and beyond. 

The final statement is incredible, coming from the Solicitors Regulation Authority. I should really have lost the ability to feel astonishment, after five years studying this movement. However, my ghast was flabbered by this next statement:

The breathtaking arrogance and presumption of the above statement. Changing practice in anticipation of a legal change! Didn’t we used to call this “breaking the law”? What they did not reckon with was that women would say NO. This is exactly what we are saying and not always in approved in language!

If you can support my work here is a way. I do this full-time, unwaged.

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

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

Marie Dean  (Article by Sarah Ditum)

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

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

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


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


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

Sure enough 👇


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


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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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


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

Quelle Surprise: Lord Hamlyn & Madam Lash

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


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

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


Trustee of MERMAIDS

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


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

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


Cognitive Capture at the Guardian. The Marie Dean Case

Full thread on the Guardian

Thread above details links between Guardian Trustees and the funding of Gender Identity Ideology.  Below is an expanded reflection on the first tweet. The Marie Dean case.


As a lifelong Guardian reader I expected it to be at the vanguard of fighting for women’s rights, instead it seems to be, wilfully, campaigning to disregard the privacy, dignity and safety, of the most vulnerable women in our midst.

One of the earliest warning signs, for me, was the coverage of the Marie Dean case.  This was a piece of campaign journalism highlighting the vulnerability of a trans prisoner, who had been housed in the male estate.  The article covered, a burglar, Marie Dean,  whose Hunger Strike was staged to obtain a move to the female estate.

Women, who engaged with the article, immediately  highlighted that the Burnley Local Press  had provided more accurate coverage.  The prisoner had broken into homes to engage in “sexual acts” involving the underwear of teenage girls. It total they had committed over 30 offences of voyeurism and violence. In addition they were found not guilty of a  previous charge related to indecent videos of children.  Only after a storm of protest was the article amended to include the sexual nature of the offences.  Even now these are located far down the article and only after parallels are drawn to Bobby Sands, an IRA  prisoner, who also went on Hunger Strike to secure concessions re his incarceration.

The revised article is here: Guardian Marie Dean

Sarah Ditum’s article, in The New Statesman, also asks pertinent questions about the nature of the Guardian piece and why it  was calling for someone convicted of  sexually motivated “burglaries” to be housed in the female estate. Marie Dean.

Here is  more Guardian coverage of another Trans prisoner Tara Hudson  

The article mentions that Tara had 6 years of reconstructive surgery but omits to detail that this did not involve any genital surgery.  In fact Tara Hudson worked as a “shemale” escort, servicing male clients with a “seven inch surprise”.  Tara Hudson has not applied for a Gender Recognition Certificate. This means they are not even entitled to the “legal fiction” that  allows, limited, application of women’s  sex based rights.  A petition to have Tara moved to a women’s prison garnered over 150,000 signatures.  Given the woeful coverage how many of those signatories knew the full context?

Tara’s case was also raised in the Houses of Parliament on a number of occasions.


Not one of them reflected on the danger, to women, of incarcerating a biological male, with a history of violence, in the female estate.  Do I think Marie Dean/Tara Hudson are at a higher risk , than other males, in the prison system? Yes.  Do I think the answer is to raise the risk for female prisoners?  No.  Clearly there are some specific vulnerabilities requiring due consideration by the Prison authorities.  Unfortunately, at present, we are witnessing a blatant disregard for females prisoners, some of the most vulnerable in our community, because “gender identity/expression” is being privileged above the rights of women. Sex is a protected characteristic for a reason and this is being cast aside for political expediency.

We had already seen the consequences of housing biological males in the female prison estate.  Here is another case which ended badly.  Guardian coverage foregrounds that this was someone who was “manipulative” and that the risk assessment was at fault.  Truth is that any policy, if it relies on a subjective sense of an internal identity,  is vulnerable to just this kind of manipulation. Karen White. 

I will leave you with these. First up a  submission from the British Association of Gender Identity Professionals. This was a submission to the Transgender Equality Inquiry.  It highlights the naivete of assuming nobody would take advantage of a policy which allows self-identified, male-bodied prisoners to access vulnerable women.

Our politicians were warned. Here is Francis Crook from the Howard League for Prison Reform:


And here is a BBC fact check of Fairplay For Women statistics which were based on an FOI request.08C5DD13-3574-4B3E-B4FA-72093A228B9E

Some prisons don’t keep records. Some of the crimes are, we now discover, male crimes recorded as female crimes. Is this about predatory males who are assuming a transgender identity, or a problematic rate of sexual offences committed by transgender individuals? Either way we have a problem. Women should not be acceptable collateral damage while we figure this out.

The Media seem to be terrified of this “debate” which women were told to “skip”.  The background to the Guardian Trustees gives us an insight into their stance.  How many more media organisations are cognitively captured by this ideology?

You can support my work here. Only if you have a surplus and don’t prioritise me over crowdfunders for important legal cases. 

Researching the spread of Gender Identity Ideology and the impact on women’s sex based rights as well as gay rights. Particularly concerned about the harm done to young kids and teenage Lesbians / Gay boys.




Regulatory capture is when special interest groups capture state apparatus.  The interests of these groups become so accepted by, and entwined with, the establishment the state becomes a tool of  special interests.   In respect of Transgender rights the cognitive capture of the political, legal, corporate and medical establishment seems pretty much complete. From politicians tweeting the mantra  “Transwomen are Women” (I notice “Transmen are Men” is less popular, almost as if this is a tale of two sexes) the capitulation to trans ideology is evident across the political spectrum.  The virtue signalling is merely irritating, what is happening in law and policy, much of it by stealth, is more sinister.

The  attack on women’s sex based rights has not arisen in a vacuum.   This is much more widespread than Local Government but I  will start with Leeds City Council. Living here is to have a bit part in a West Yorkshire spin off from the Handmaids Tale: Woke Gilead.



Let us first start with the widespread falsification of provisions in The Equality Act 2010.  This is a piece of legislation which protects “sex” and “gender re-assignment”.  These are the two legally protected characteristics which are pertinent to this discussion.  The latter category was enshrined in law, by the Gender Recognition Act (GRA). At the time, we were assured, it was to protect transsexuals, regularise their legal position and afford some protections by granting a “legal fiction” status. This allowed some, limited, recognition of their target “gender”.  This does not mean the state, legislated or determined that a transsexual had literally changed sex.  It did however confer some of the protections of the “target sex”.

Like a lot of women I was supportive of the legal change.  We were told it would help a small number of disadvantaged people and was a positive change, in keeping with a positive commitment to Human Rights. Until the government proposed a move to abolish the, already minimal, gate-keeping and allow anyone to “Self-Identify” as the opposite sex, I did not see the difficulties.  For a good article on that see here Oxford Law: Reform of the Gender Recognition Act   .

It was in this context of that women started to notice government agencies were getting ahead of the law. Many are acting as if Gender Identity, as desired by Trans Lobby Groups, has superseded the legally protected characteristics of Sex and Gender Re-assignment.  Local Councils have an obligation to uphold The Equality Act and are legally required (Public Sector Duty)  to monitor the impact of policy on legally protected, groups. Crucially they also have a legal obligation to foster good relations between the different, protected, characteristics.  In my view they are failing in this.

Women’s rights groups, like A Woman’s Place UK started to see the eradication of “sex” as a protected characteristic in government policies and publications from a wide range of organisations. Prompted by their work,  I checked Leeds City Councils website.  What did I discover?


Sex was omitted.  Gender was added.  Almost as if the wish was father to the thought.  Notice also that the protected characteristic is actually “Maternity” not “Maternity and Paternity”. Leeds City Council told me that it was their Equalities Team that maintained this part of the web-site.  I would be sacked if I did not get such basic information correct.

Leeds is a Labour Party dominated council and I was, at the time, a party member who campaigned for some of these councillors.  I decided to do a bit of digging to see who was advising them.  What has become clear is that politicians, at all levels, are outsourcing their critical thinking to lobby groups and, it turns out, my council is no exception.  Stonewall & Mermaids are acknowledged as advisors.  Stonewall, for those of you not aware, make explicit their aim is to remove “sex” segregated spaces and enshrine the notion of “Gender Identity” instead of both sex and Gender Reassignment.  Never did I think I would find myself opposing Stonewall.  I do now. They have betrayed women. (They have also betrayed  Lesbians and gay youth.  I will return to this in a later blog) Below is a clip from a Stonewall statement.


I could see why Stonewall are still, sadly,  seen as trusted advisors and they have traded on their past reputation to good, or, more accurately, ill effect.  Less understandable are some of the other groups that have had dialogue with Leeds City Council and, in some cases demonstrable input to their policy.

The Leeds branch of Action for Trans Health tweeted out a thanks to LCC LGBT to thank them for meeting up.  By this time I was already blocked, by my own councils LGBT twitter handle, so the replies are not visible.


I had to rely on citizen journalism to confirm that they do indeed liaise with this “client”. This account below is run by an HR employee of LCC who was the Chair of the representative for LGBTQ+ staff. (more on the man who runs this twitter account below)



For anyone not familiar with Action for Trans Health I intended to  insert a copy of their manifesto. Before it was suspended, for violating wordpress terms and conditions,  this used  to be available here 

Jess Bradley (First Trans NUS officer) was a founder member. Jess was suspended for allegations of lewd displays in the workplace.   Due to the dearth of coverage in our “progressive” press I am afraid I am now obliged to link to the Daily Mail. Action for Trans Health

You can find more about Jess Bradley on the youtube account of Rose of Dawn: Rose of Dawn: Jess Bradley

Here is a sample of the kind of extreme views set out in the Action for Trans Health manifesto which I had archived.


Demanding mandatory education, taught by trans people, for children even at nursery age, raises concerns about grooming.  At best this may mean vulnerable children being inculcated with “Gender Dysphoria” . The words safeguarding  and cult comes to mind. Note also that the recording of biological sex is seen as an act of state coercion and a violence against trans people.  If you think this sounds like some fringe extremists note we currently have a government funded project exploring the replacement of legal sex with gender. Kings College London

Action for Trans Health also have specific concerns about incarceration rates for trans prisoners.  I am no fan of the prison-industrial complex myself but a demand for a blanket release demographic is, at the very least, problematic.


Below are a further list of further demands.  I can hear distinctly my mother saying “Ooh. They don’t want much do they”.


Before I leave Action for Trans Health  confirmation below that  Jess Bradley and ATH are mentioned in Hansard (House of Lords)  debates on this issue. The named individuals, and groups, a check list of all the people and organisations  worst placed, in my view, to advise members on this issue. This is the Liberal Democrat, Baroness Barker, in Hansard, December 2014.  The debate was on the health of Lesbian, Bisexual and Transwomen. Even this grouping  illustrates the cognitive capture. Biological sex can be extremely relevant in medical settings and here male identified people with female biology are omitted, whilst female identified people are included.


I will leave Action for Trans Health there. Now we move on to TransLeeds, We do, in fact, have evidence that this group have achieved material policy change.  Policy change which, impacts women and girls.  Policy which has been developed with no consideration for, or consultation with, women’s groups.

You can read about them here

Worth having a look at the tone of the articles on that site.  Total misrepresentation of women’s use of Adult Human Female, which they define as a “hate-term” used to attack Transwomen.  When the dictionary definition of women is badged a “hate crime” something has gone seriously awry. Regulatory capture now extends to the corporate world who are so keen to appease the Transactivists and seem to forget women are 51% of the population. Here an abject apology is made for allowing women to proclaim the dictionary definition of woman.


Accusing women of defining ourselves only by our reproductive capacity and of “bio-essentialism is another spurious argument which TransLeeds advance.  Most women, involved in the fight for our sex based rights, reject biologically determinist arguments. This is the idea that  sex based stereotypes or “gender” are biological in origin; this is a central tenet of Trans ideology and therefore a blatant reversal to pin this on second wave feminists. For a movement built on the idea that you must modify your body to mimic female/male sexual characteristics, to express your “gender”, its laughable to describe women’s rights activists  as bio-essentialist.

 TransLeeds also offer a “binder” library for girls to compress their breasts.  Its not clear  if they inform parents.  Binding constricts breathing and has other negative implications for health.  An organisation that provides these should be explicit about the safeguarding of young girls and clear that they are not  usurping parental responsibility. Why, in 2019, this is being normalised is beyond my comprehension.  Here is an excellent article comparing the treatment of Breast Ironing (“bad”)  to Breast Binding (“progressive”).

Breast ironing V Breast Binding

Published in Culture, Health and Sexuality 2016. Here is an accessible version of a survey of the health consequences experienced by girls undertaking this: Breast Binding  

Skip forward to 2019 and Leeds City Council embark on another initiative, specifically formulated at the request of TransLeeds.  Seems they  are determined to get ahead of the law. The council have  introduced an on-line “Gender Change” to allow anyone to alter their details and ask for their “gender” marker to be changed from Male to Female and Vice Versa.  This is the guidance for the process and Leeds City Councils requirements for a “gender change”.  This paragraph leapt out:


First of all cross-dressing can be a harmless enough past-time. Not every man who cross-dresses has an explicitly sexual motivation. However for some this is a paraphilia. It is done for the purposes of sexual arousal and can be accompanied by a desire to breach women’s boundaries.  (NB Regardless of whether, or not, this is a sexually motivated means of expression, the notion this makes you a “woman” is deeply regressive, sexist and insulting).  This exposes women to the risk that males, who fetishise females,  will seek to access women’s spaces to enforce participation in this “fetish”.  So will this new “gender identity” give males access to female spaces? Single sex spaces are allowed, providing they serve a “legitimate & proportionate aim”.  Presumably Leeds City Council consulted widely?

FOI requests were submitted and , it turns out, Leeds City Council consulted with TransLeeds and TransLeeds only.  They were, specifically, asked if they had consulted any other groups (Duh…Women!) and they confirmed they only consulted with Trans people because it would not impact the rights of any other group.   Anyone who knows why women fought, and won, the right to sex segregated spaces would assume this would be considered.  Nope.  No Equality Impact statement was undertaken or deemed necessary.  The reason given, unbelievably, is that Leeds City Council state “The Council do not apply any sex based exemptions as no requirement has been identified”.  I think that will come as a surprise to women. I am sure most women thought we had the right to sex segregated changing rooms in Council run facilities.

As a final point some of you will have been following the debacle at Bradford Pride when Lesbians were surrounded by angry males, upset that Lesbians were declaring their same sex orientation.  It is now deemed Transphobic for Lesbians to make clear statements about their SEXual orientation, at a Pride March!  Account here:Lesbians In Chairs. Drinking Coffee

And who is one of the angry males featured in the above account?  HR employee of Leeds  City Council, until last Friday the Chair of LCC staff group for LGBT+ group.  Also the man behind the account above which confirms meeting with Action for Trans Health.  I won’t share his name even though I have had this done to me to silence me from speaking out against TransActivism.

Update with new information supplied by @LeedsCitizen.  Leeds City Council also have links, via an employee, with MESMAC.  A Policy advisor, at LCC,  is also a MESMAC Trustee.  You can read about this charity here MESMAC.  Digested read: Charity allowed workers to sleep with clients. Former Trustee jailed for child sex offences.

Here  is a link to a  government report on MESMAC Government Charity Case report

Report outlines  failures to report a serious incident to the Charity Commission and, as a result of an investigation, further historical cases came to light.  As a result of the investigation working with vulnerable young males was suspended.

Leeds City Council are  providing significant funding to this organisation.




Leeds City Council would appear to have been cognitively captured.

I will return to regulatory capture because there is so much of it! I will also do something on Gender Dysphoric Kids and anyone who wants to contribute, anonymously, or otherwise feel free to DM me on Twitter.