Sonia Appleby case

Sonia Appleby is the safeguarding lead for the Trust that houses the Tavistock, or Gender Identity Development Service (GIDs). Sonia bravely took her employer to an Employment Tribunal ; which she won. You can read the full judgment below.


The full judgment contains many of the red flags that, no doubt, form part of the background to the closure of the Tavistock (G.I.Ds).

Sonia Appleby was the safeguarding lead for the NHS Trust which, until recently, housed the Gender Identity Service. Sonia’s case centred on the six issues she raised under the whistleblower policy and whether she suffered detriment as a result. She won her case and was awarded £20,000 in compensation.

In order to determine the case many staff were interviewed and some were cross examined.

Matt Bristow was not cross examined but his witness statement, on behalf of Sonia Appleby is on the public record. 👇 This encapsulates his concerns. Gay Conversion Therapy, in a nutshell.

Sonia was in the middle of an internal dispute between staff at the Tavistock about the best way to treat their referrals. Some staff believed in an innate “gender identity” where the children know best and it’s the clinician’s role to affirm their “authentic self”. This is an ideologically predicated perspective. Others were concerned about the other potential influences on the child’s internal belief system. Autism, same sex attraction, backgrounds of abuse or other trauma were present in a lot of the children. Some clinician were worried about the role of social media and the explosion of “trans” in the media fuelling a social contagion. Appleby was in the eye of the storm attempting to enforce child safeguarding in the midst of this, highly charged, environment.

The service had seen a steep rise in referrals, from mainly male it had switched to 76% female, waiting lists were long and the first court case, questioning the use of “affirmation” only had already been heard. This was the case of Keira Bell, a case I cover here:

Kiera Bell: Judicial Review

It was not just internal strife that bedevilled the service. The issue had become highly politicised with women’s groups springing up to contest the attacks on female only spaces by trans activists. Controversial lobby group, Mermaids, was garnering a lot of media attention and the promotion of “transgender” children was peddled across the U.K media. Accusations of “transphobia” were rife.

Sonia Appleby had experience as a social worker and a psychoanalytical psychotherapist and was named lead for safeguarding children for the Trust. By June 2016 she was raising the alarm at the rise in referrals and the increasing workloads. She also noted deficiencies in record keeping. Staff were also raising concerns about the role of a private practitioner who had entered the fray.

Dr Webberley has been suspended from practice for a number of years, her husband, who worked alongside her, was actually removed from the medical register this year. G.I.Ds staff were beginning to see children who had not only socially “transitioned” but had already accessed puberty blocking drugs from private practitioners such as Webberley.

Dr Carmichael’s response to this requested meeting is described as “interesting” in that she expressed concern that she “was unsure the agenda here”. She claimed she was simply wondering what the agenda was for the meeting. The tribunal was not convinced by this explanation”.

This was Sonia Appleby’s first protected disclosure. Mermaids, Rogue Medics and tensions within the team.

The second list of concerns is even more damning. Again Dr Webberley features; as does the number of gay kids presenting as “transgender”; parental encouragement of their child’s identity; and Dr Carmichael’s unwillingness to listen all feature.

There emerged some confusion about who was taking these issues forwarded and during a flurry of emails Appleby became aware that Dr Carmichael resented her being approached by her own staff. At this point a Garry Richardom is brought on board to play a role in safeguarding internal to G.I.Ds. This relationship gets off to a rocky start because he objects to her use of Jimmy Savile as a warning to the service.

Sonia explains this was something she routinely did to embed safeguarding in the service by using the example of Jimmy Savile who is the most high profile example of the NHS failing to spot /act upon a major safeguarding risk.

By 2018 a group of ten staff raised concerns with Dr David Bell. The claimant also raised another list of concerns raised by a staff member. Again the issue of homophobic parents raises its ugly head and a lack of understanding of the effects of puberty blockers.

She then conducted an audit of safeguarding referrals and noted that the rate of referrals was very low at G.I.Ds compared to other areas of the Trust. Appleby felt relations with Dr Carmichael were strained she was cast as someone asking “awkward questions”. At the same time Dr David Bell began interviewing staff and preparing his own report documenting concerns. This report was damning and would be leaked to the press. Once again homophobia is identified as an issue as well as the “excessively affirmative” attitude of staff who were seen as unable to withstand pressure to medically intervene.

Dr Carmichael’s response appears defensive.

At this point the claimant needed to establish a working relationship with a Dr Sinha who joined the service. This got off to a rocky start as he was briefed that she did not like to be managed and worked too independently, he reported that he found her argumentative but was unable to provide examples, to the tribunal, of incidents that led to this conclusion. There follows some exchanges that illustrate that Sonia Appleby was regarded with suspicion even when collecting data which was required for her job.

There followed a fifth protected disclosure based on the exit interview of Dr Matt Bristow. By this time Sonia Appleby is regarded with suspicion across the service and evidence is brought to the tribunal that staff were being discouraged from bringing safeguarding concerns to Sonia. Email trails who that staff were complaining about her “insubordination” and Dr Sinha embarks on disciplinary proceedings resulting in a letter being placed on her file. The tribunal found the way this was handled to be unfair to the claimant. Dr Sinha was found to be hostile and “punitive”.

Sonia was labelled as “not on side” by Dr Carmichael and evidence is presented illustrating that Sonia was safeguarding issues were not being referred, to her, by staff.

The tribunal concluded that there was a message being communicated that Appleby was hostile to the service and being cut out of issues in relation to her role as child safeguarding lead.

The tribunal found that the claimant had suffered detriment and an award of £20,000 was made. The picture that emerges is of a service riven with tension and suspicion where raising safeguarding concerns was viewed as a hostile act. The recurrent theme is one of homophobia which echoes my own experience. Our gay youth are poorly served/actively harmed by this service, in my view. The removal of the service from the Tavistock was long overdue.

You can support my work here. All contributions gratefully received.

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.


Alison Bailey: Legal Judgment

Alison has won her case against Garden Court Chambers, but not against Stonewall. Judgement attached below:


Alison’s press release.


I will add a full post when I have time to read it.

Support Dog

I am pleased this was included in the judgement 👇

This is Kirrin.

This should give you an idea of what is at stake. Nobody had any doubt about what a woman is when we were being denied the vote. Women are deemed hostile if they don’t prostrate ourselves before the prostate-havers and agree they are women.

To see the hostility for the opposing site visit 👇

Terf Is A Slur

Examples from our colonists .

Alison’s comment on why she started to have concerns about trans-activists.

It wasn’t me mum, honest!

This ought to be a wake up call to any company who pays for Stonewall advice. They just threw Garden Court Chambers under a bus.

I will return to this as I work through the judgement. I am sure we will soon get expert legal commentary and I will append this.

Sex by deception: 1


R v McNally

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The relevant excerpt is section 74.

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

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

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

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

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

Gayle Newland

This paragraph jumped out at me:

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

Sex by deception

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

Gender Identity Fraud

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

Trans ally in the tweets. Terf between the sheets.

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

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

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

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

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


Kiera Bell: Judicial Review


This Judicial Review was brought by Keira Bell and a parent of an autistic girl, identified as Mrs A. Applications to “intervene” in the case were brought by Mermaids, Stonewall and Transgender Trend. Only the latter were accepted by the Judges. Mermaids and Stonewall were not added to the case because the evidence they presented was not accepted, as relevant, by the by court.

You can read the full judgement here.



Since 2011 the Gender Identity Service , in the U.K., commonly called GIDs or The Tavistock, has been prescribing puberty lockers to children as young as 10. This was originally agreed, by the Health Regulation Authority (HRA) as a research project. The first ethics approval panel rejected the project so the Tavistock submitted to a different Ethics approval panel, who did accept it. There is a complex back story to how this experiment was launched. You can read more about this on an earlier blog:

Michael Biggs: 👇

TAVISTOCK 4 : Michael Biggs  

In this court case one of the patients from the Tavistock challenges the treatment she was given. Crucially the court considers the impact of the treatment, in both the short and long term, the evidence base for this treatment and whether these young patients can give informed consent.

One of the key issues is the lack of evidence supporting this controversial treatment. Nine years on and, by the time of this court case, the findings of this research study had still not been published! Below the Director of GIDs argued that they were about to publish the research which was too late for the Court case. Why would you not prioritise this research paper to ensure the court case had the evidence? Surely you would have expedited it if you were so certain it would support your case?

More than once the judge expresses surprise at the lack of data provided by GIDS.

Furthermore the Court, below, highlighted the dramatic rate of increase in referrals to GIDs and the change in the demographic. The lack of curiosity about this change is astounding.

It had not, however, entirely escaped the notice of GIDs. Here is Bernadette Wren, ex head of psychology at the Tavistock , speaking on this issue to the Women’s and Equalities Committee, on Transgender Equality. A social revolution that many have fought for! I wonder how many realised it would result in our young Lesbians medicalising themselves to the point of sterility? Or our gay sons retreating into faux-straight, medicalised closets? Some revolution!

The court also noted the proportion of autistic kids who are seduced by Gender Identity Ideology. This is why Mrs A is also part of this court case, her daughter is autistic. Once again the court expresses surprise at the lack of data available, from the Tavistock.


But the literature is available at the high number of referrals from neuro atypical children. It is so well known that Autistic charities have commented on its prevalence.


Once again we see the unexpected prevalence of autistic females. 👆 Indeed it is such a well known feature that Gender Identity Ideologues like Jo Elsson-Kennedy had this to say in a, now deleted, interview. This clip is taken from a transcript of the podcast by the controversial clinic (Gender GP) run by suspended General Practitioner Helen Webberley:


Here 👆 Olssen-Kennedy makes the extraordinary claim that symptoms of autism disappear when the Gender Dysphoria is treated.

In the full judicial transcript document the court elaborates the way Gender Dysphoria is diagnosed. I won’t reproduce here but it is a list based on how a young person deviates from sex stereotypes. I fit much of that criteria myself. How much more pronounced will Gender non-conformity be in a proto-Gay kid who may otherwise grow up as a Butch Lesbian or Femme Gay male?

These are the side effects of the treatment, Fertility and, for males, stunted genitalia high will impact on sexual function. Remember we are asking 10 year olds to sign up to this.

The Tavistock did have service users who spoke well of the Tavistock and their treatment. However these were the judges observations on the witnesses. It is extraordinary that GIDs thought their witnesses would strengthen their case.


On the contrary a neuroscientist called into question the ability of even teenagers to consent to these treatments and highlighted the lack of impulse control which is evident before brain maturation. Notably many commentators locate brain maturation at age 25 but certainly it has not been completed by age 18! In the United Kingdom double mastectomies are available from age 17 and sexual reassignment surgery from age 18. What makes this even more alarming is that children not allowed to experience puberty may be arrested in the development of cognitive development and lag behind their peers in respect of brain maturation.

Another plank of the case was the court’s rejection of the idea that puberty blockers provide a pause for young children to be relieved from the development of sexual characteristic and time to resolve their Gender Dysphoria. The court highlights the almost inevitability of puberty blockers to be followed by cross-sex hormones. Therefore consent for one needs to encompass the cross sex hormones.


The full document deals with the issues of Gillick competence with reference to many other legal judgements. Many lobby groups have tried to argue this legal case throws into question rights to contraception or abortion and to smear Gender Critical arguments on this basis. This is smoke and mirrors. It is rare to find any gender critical feminists who are against the right to control fertility. We do, however, oppose the eradication of fertility in minors. This is quite a different argument.

It is worth reminding people that these children will be dependent on pharmaceutical companies for the remainder of their lives. Does #BigPharma have a vested interest in creating life long patients? Are we monetising the confusion of children, and teenagers, who have been inculcated with Gender Dysphoria by the Gender Industrial complex?

The Tavistock have won the right to appeal against the initial judgment. Mermaids and Stonewall have, once again, not been granted the right to intervene in the case. However the Endocrinology society, in the United States have been allowed to intervene as has Brook, who you may remember as a Pregnancy Advisory Service. They are now expanding their remit and cover issues around “Gender”.

You can read about Brook’s belief about “Gender” : Here

These clips should give you a clue about the stance taken by Brook. Accessed on 16th February 2021. 


As you can see they have not quite got around to updating their guidance on #PubertyBlockers. Here they describe it as merely a suspension which can be resumed if the person changes their mind. As noted above near 100% progress to Cross-Sex Hormones.


And, of course, they signpost these troubled teens to GIDs.


This incoherent ideology has captured, seemingly, all the charities operating in the U.K.  Brook would appear to be another one willing to squander its legacy in the alter of Gender Identity Ideology. 

If you are able to support my work you can do so below. 

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth.


Sexual Reassignment Surgery: A prisoner’s appeal

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

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

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

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


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

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



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


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

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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


Case Dismissed.


Gender Recognition Panels: A Judge talks.

 Revolutionary? Evolutionary? Or just a massive mistake?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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




Sex by Deception? Perjury?

Sex by deception: Legal Case.

I was not intending to blog this case. I  fear the bald facts lend themselves to a curiosity born out of prurience. I myself was intrigued so I am not in any position to judge.  It is hard not to question the circumstances, as laid out in the case. Transcript

The bare facts of the case are:2FE8543F-E335-4869-B3A3-16817D7267D1

On reflection, I decided to blog as it raises the issue of Sex By Deception, currently a criminal offence. There is talk about reviewing the law.   Stonewall are one of the organisations lobbying for this:👇

571C4250-82AD-40AE-89F6-2F8F04CF8517Whilst there could be a progressive case for reviewing  the law covering sex by deception (I am thinking of Spy cops) it’s also fraught with risk.  I am mainly thinking of  #CottonCeiling here.  The term #CottonCeiling was coined by a trans porn actor and activist, Drew DeVeux. It describes the “exclusionary” practices of Lesbians from a trans perspective.  Sex by deception laws,currently  offer some remedy if sexual activity is embarked upon without disclosing your sex / anatomical status.  Trans activists don’t think sex is a meaningful status, only gender, so they oppose this legislation. A taste of the rhetoric on this topic is below:


From a Lesbian perspective #CottonCeiling rhetoric  posits their same sex orientation as “bigotry” and trans exclusionary.  In fact it is male exclusionary and doesn’t necessarily exclude females who self-identify as Transmen.  Many lesbians have also pointed out that this is all too reminiscent of the “corrective rape”  practiced on Lesbians.  (Still happening now I hear from South African Lesbians) How dare they exclude males from their dating pool?

The term cotton ceiling is a twist on glass ceiling but here it is not about the barrier to women’s opportunities but the barrier (women’s knickers) to sex!

The person who led this workshop moved to the UK to work for Stonewall.  Its not just a few outliers on the internet.


The cases I am aware of, in the UK, have, however, all been “transmen”. In a practical sense testosterone does seem to do a lot more heavy lifting, than oestrogen, so a passing “transman” seems more common.  Outside of celebrity world a  passing “transwoman” is more rare. Transmen are maybe more likely to commit this, from an opportunity perspective, not from a propensity. Transactivist rhetoric, however, seems more focussed on females excluding males from their bedrooms I have not seen an equivalent movement around the #BoxersBarrier.   Psychologically de-programming male socialisation seems to be a much harder task, perhaps the prominence of sexual demands, made of women, by males, is to be expected.

This legal case pre-dated the Sexual Offences Act of 2003 so used a charge of perjury but it has implications for fraudulent claims to be of the opposite sex.  We need a discussion on  how that speaks to “consent”. The current law provides for 👇


This original case was tried on the basis of perjury from this legislation.


I don’t have the transcript of the original case (yet). The later cases relate to  a long legal battle for the trans-identifying female to have access to the children, born during the marriage, and financial support from the ex “spouse”.

The case struck me as rather sad, which it is. However, as I thought more about it I was struck more by the consequences, for the woman, caught up in this deception.


After I posted a brief reference, on twitter, the responses (mainly disbelief) made me dig a little deeper. Eventually I found a much earlier case, involving the same couple,  which provided a lot more background. 1996 case.  There will also be an earlier case relating to the perjury charges. I have not located a transcript for that case.

What is clear, from the earlier case,  is that the wife was not aware of her partners sex, certainly not at the  time of the marriage. Just when she was fully informed is not entirely clear. Certainly both parties had opposing interests when it came to establishing when the fraud was exposed.  The “husband” faced a possible seven year sentence for the deceit. The “wife” faced battles over the children (conceived by artificial insemination) and sharing financial assets. Should  the partner be able to claim rights to her property and financial assets? If it was determined a crime had been committed then the party to the deception likely had no legal claim on any financial assets accumulated during the “marriage”.

The FTM had undergone a bilateral mastectomy (In 1977)  but the surgery had not been straightforward so the patient opted not to undergo a phallioplasty.  Interestingly here is an audio recording detailing the complications from a recent recipient of a  phalloplasty This appears to be a dangerous, and poorly regulated, procedure over 40 years later. The decision to avoid it, from a health perspective, seems to have been a wise choice.


The skepticism about the wife’s ignorance of her “husbands” sex seems to be explained  by her youth and inexperience and the use of a prosthetic device. Elsewhere in the testimony it is clear that much effort was made to preserve bodily privacy, by the claimant. (The claimant in this case is the FTM as it concerns access and “ matrimonial assets”). The differing backgrounds of the claimant and “spouse” are detailed also 👇


Following the marriage it was not until some years later that the couple sought help to conceive. It is not known if they had been “trying” up to that point. If they had then this was a cruel deception.  No details are included as to whether the mother had been subject any other fertility tests or treatments. What seems clear is that the male had not been subject to any tests, not unusual for the time. Far easier to medicalise the “infertile”  wife than question a man’s masculinity. With the increasing clamour to be attracted to “gender” not sex this is one of the consequences of denying biological reality. F01DC990-BD98-4F15-B214-C0BD824F881D


The relationship began to breakdown in 1994. At this point the wife confided in a friend who was also a private investigator.  Below is an account of what led to the discovery and the shock it occasioned  to the mother. 45D96CDF-454E-43AA-B5A2-85499CC7C34F

There is a lot more speculation in the transcript. From my own reading it does seem as if there was, at the very least, some awareness of the physical irregularity in the FTM. A letter is referenced which appears to show some incident occurred which was a revelation, of some sort, to the wife.  From a legal point of view   It was the facts known at the time of the marriage that were the determining factor in any claim against “matrimonial” assets. There is a clear admission that the facts were not declared.


The basis on which the “husband” was tried and the defence case are briefly summarised below 👇


Point three in the defence minimises the offence as “not so serious” and go on to imply diminished responsibility, due to the nature of the “personality disorder”.  I presume this is no longer a legitimate defence since the condition of Gender  Dysphoria has been reclassified. It is no longer, officially,  a mental health issue. More on the politics of this classification shift here:    Diagnostic Status of Gender Dysphoria          Written by a Transexual Dr Ann Lawrence.

In any event the defence failed to convince the Judge. 627825BD-7816-4A75-AAC4-C6D61E644E06AA5A3EC7-C9AE-47FE-BB5A-7F72355ED5A70BA0B0C6-5EF2-4E83-A647-A8275DBB9AF1

The judge found that perjury had been committed. The deceit had been perpetrated because the claimant had known that the marriage would not take place if their sex was acknowledged.  The 2006 case hinges on any claims for ancillary relief.  In lay terms the claimant would not, legally, be allowed to benefit from a “criminal” enterprise.   A stealth existence and need to “pass” must place intolerable pressure in those with gender Dysphoria. The  judge references this, sympathetically, but this doesn’t equate to an absence of responsibility for the deception.


However should a real psychological need take precedence over someone else’s right to make informed choices? When this is about who has access to your body? The judge deemed it a profound betrayal of trust.

95476675-389E-4109-996A-87C3A91DD0E5Now the concept of an “innate gender identity”  is treated as a medical, but not a mental health, condition much of this defence would, presumably, be moot. A genuinely held belief that you are the opposite sex doesn’t change biological reality. If someone has a Gender Recognition Certificate there are privacy laws protecting that information. They are to be treated as if they are the opposite sex. Is there any protection, other than sex by deception,  for women, or men, deceived in this way? Extreme activists would say there is no deception. They would argue they literally are the sex they say they are. That there is a deeply held conviction I can accept, that I should have to share it is the sticking point.

All mainstream political parties have mainstreamed transgender rights. Labour explicitly say they wish to review the legislation in this area. I single out Labour only because I am a lifelong Labour voter and my fear is we are throwing an election over this. 👇  I am indebted to Mumsnet for the quote below.  [The link was included but this document is no longer available to view. Hopefully this is because they are reviewing the content. Hope springs eternal: Securing Trans Equality]

“Point 14: Review the law relating to legal issues of consent to rape and sexual offences to ‘sex by deception’ in order to remove potential discrimination and criminalisation of trans/gender variant people….”

Why are this community a special case?  This suggests we are going to be legally compelled to validate “gender identity” even in our most intimate relationships. Are gay men allowed to reject trans men? Lesbians Transwomen?  Will an offence have been committed if sexual contact takes place only to be confronted with a seven inch surprise? These are real ethical and legal issues.  I have zero faith that our political elite will make the right choice.



Gender Recognition Certificates

As activists in the trans community work to remove the “onerous” burdens placed on the community to legally “transition” I became curious about  the legal cases in this area.  Far from excessive gatekeeping the act is explicitly designed to be “permissive”.  Has this permissiveness gone too far? It seems there is a low bar to be, legally, redefined as a woman. If you are not convinced have a scroll through my blogs.  If you don’t want to take my word for it, fine, I would not believe me either! In every piece I  link to the legal records.  You can bypass my commentary and go straight to the Transcript

In brief no surgery, attempted rape convictions, being incarcerated for paedophilia are no bar to claiming “womanhood”! Remember that when someone tells you they “live as a woman”.   Interrogate that phrase. Its ubiquitous and meaningless.  Can I, a white woman, say I “live as a black woman”? Nope. So why is one form of appropriation Ok and the other is racist?


Reading through these cases the  co-morbidities of mental health conditions is striking, even as they are dismissed as “co-incidental”. This has implications for treatment pathways and women’s safety.   The recurrence of the same  “experts” also shows how  “gender identity specialists” are influencing the judiciary.  The case I cover in this blog  can be read, in full, here 👉: Ms Jay October 2018


Ms Jay versus the Secretary of State was instigated  after three, unsuccessful,  applications for a Gender Recognition Certificate. Presiding was a single judge, Lord Justice Baker. This case, as the Judge points out,  was the first under new rules governing appeals against a GRC refusal.  Below is some background about the complainant.


The clip below  includes details of the short marriages, a self-reported feeling of being in the wrong gender, from puberty, and a secret history of “cross-dressing”. {Neophytes should search “autogynephelia” at this stage}

56D0738B-6226-4098-97A3-4DA8F712AE4EIn addition to marrying three times, and fathering 7 children, the appellant has a criminal history. In 2011 they were sentenced to  eight years in prison. The judge makes it clear that the appeal is not concerned with the criminal offences. Also the papers detailing the offence were not included and, moreover, that this was not relevant to the “wider public debate”.  00181E95-A7DF-4290-81F7-027218981330For the terminally curious. Here is a brief allusion to the offence so you can judge for yourself whether it is “relevant”  96BB040F-6E1C-4A9D-AAB8-5DD575F533F6


Some of the reasons the panel resisted awarding a GRC were; inconsistencies in the information supplied, the reversion to male names during  “transition” and a Gender Identity specialist  casting doubt on the  diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria. Ms Jay appears to have had more than one name change during the process and questions were raised about multiple addresses. Questions were also asked about misleading information supplied about the marriages and why redacted documents were submitted to the panel. Here we are told the applicant has lived full-time as a woman since December 2008. Yet driving licence and passport were renewed, in the male name, in 2013.  This a year after making  a statutory declaration, to a judge of their “intention to live full-time as female until death”.  (whatever living as a female means). The appellant had a name change in 2013 , whilst imprisoned, a  surname change and then another first name change in 2018. I hope someone is keeping track of all those names!  I echo the panel statement which questioned whether the applicant had something to hide!


I sympathise with a panel presented with this applicant. A person whose Gender Dysphoria remitted enough to marry three times and father seven children. Someone who manages to  suppress their femininity sufficiently to amass explosives with intent to endanger life.  ( No! I hear your outrage. You are right. Women can also amass explosives with homicidal intent. Must learn to Lean In….Bad Feminist!)  Naturally, because of the name changes, I have found it impossible to trace the background to those offences. I can’t shed any light on the womanly way in which the crime was committed.  I am actually not clear whether tracing this history is even possible if a GRC holder does not reveal  past identities. It might even be an offence for me to try!

Warning!  Tone Switch..

Having justifiable concerns about the impact of these decisions, on women,  does not necessitate abandoning my humanity.  The clip below paints a sad picture of the claimant.  Nobody deserves to be vulnerable to sexual assault and I do wonder whether anyone is joining the dots between maladaptive coping mechanisms and prisoners undergoing transition.  However I would also love to hear from the trans-widows in this case. Those women are the really brave and stunning ones in all of these tales. They may tell a very different tale. 2F28F8FD-2106-45E7-97DB-507008963A49

The first application to the Gender Recognition panel appears to have commenced from within prison.  The medical evidence  submitted is from Dr James Barrett, a regular expert witness in these cases. He is generally very sympathetic to  Transgender Appellant’s.  His statement and comments are worth quoting in full. The history presented by the appellant is disputed and a concern focus on transition may be misdirected. A long history of psychiatric problems is noted. When even Dr Barrett thinks its a bad idea….its probably a bad idea!


The prisoner is released in March 2015 and finds a new doctor. Unfortunately the release didn’t last long and they were recalled to prison in less than 3 months, Here a new doctor appears on the scene.  Dr Helen Webberley. Interestingly the panel note that they had not previously heard of Dr Webberley, in this field, which shows how recently they d£cid£d to cash in…oops I mean support such a vulnerable community:

29E1B514-D911-46AF-A6AB-6A3C75B641BAThe relationship with Webberley doesnt seem to persist and another doctor appears.  The next Doctor issues a report which is submitted, in redacted form, the the Gender Recognition Panel. This doctor again refers to Ms Jay’s personality disorder and maladaptive coping mechanisms but does diagnose Gender Dysphoria. The diagnosis leads to the recommended treatment (gender reassignment) to resolve the psychiatric issues.  Nobody  asks whether craving Gender  Reassignment is  another maladaptive coping mechanism. That would be transphobic, just in case  any of you are thinking that now!  Gender Dysphoria has been rebranded as an “identity” not a mental health issue, it’s now a slur to suggest this. As an aside this expert also recommends consideration is given to moving the prisoner to the female prison estate. In March 2016 the application for a GRC was turned down.   The doctor disappears from the case.

The prisoner is once again released in May 2016. Within 3 months he has found another doctor who provides this evidence Pay attention to the dates and the extensive treatment the patient has, we are told,  undertaken in three short months. ( As an aside Dr Pasterski appears in other cases I cover & most notably opposed a Local Education Authority when it raised concerns about 3 unrelated “trans kids” in a foster family).


At this point the claimant becomes frustrated with the panel who have requested more clarification.  The claim “I have always been female” would seem to write three wives and 7 children out of history! 563B71A2-FCA2-4D20-841A-81EFDF8C68A7In August 2017 the Gender Recognition Panel again turned down the application. They expressed doubt about the credibility of the supporting evidence and , in particular that of Dr Pasteracki. They cast doubt on evidence supplied by the claimant.

Inconsistent, unclear, vague, evasive. Nothing to see here

Some awareness of the condition of Autogynephilia, in the Transexual Community  would help the Judge here. Those who fit the profile for autogynephilia have a condition rooted in shame. Sufferers  tend to be steeped in denial. Here is a quote from  a Gender Identity Specialist:

The Man Who Would Be Queen: Michael Bailey.

We have seen this in an earlier case I covered  GRC from Prison.  In that case a male claimed to be homosexual, his attempted rape was minimised on that basis. Yet, since leaving prison, they now self-identify as a lesbian.

Back to this case. In November 2017 the prisoner was again recalled to prison. The judge noted that the claimant was still in prison at the time of the hearing.

Thereafter yet another doctor enters the fray!  As the claimant is detained at her Majesty’s pleasure it is not clear how any assessments were carried out.  This one is in Sheffield.   Can’t change the opinion so change the Doctor!


Now we get to the aim of the court case. It turns out they there is provision for a GRC to be issued by this one judge who can bypass the Gender Recognition Panel. 31988799-F7C6-4427-9E0A-A5B5095187B1The advocate for the claimant also shares this interesting nugget about GRC applications. Less than  5% are refused its designed to be “permissive not restrictive”.  766AD49B-81F0-439C-BF8F-7BDFA2AADA35 You have to admire the fancy footwork of the Legal team.   Ms McCann that the prisoner met the legal standard and that this Judge had the authority to  award the Gender Recognition Certificate himself.   Is it possible that some Judges are a tad vain and like to set precedents?  Does the advocate absolutely know this fact about male vanity? [Strike that: Snarky opinion! My bad]

Ms McCann reminds of that many of these decisions emanate from the  European Court of Human Rights. (If we Brexit do we lose Sexit? Sobering thought for a remainer such as myself!)

The right to self-determination includes “gender identification”.  Laywoman opinion: Your right to self-determination is not absolute. If it denies me the personal autonomy to recognise and relate to someone as the sex they are!

3C37B854-994F-46EE-B1FF-2F6A73CA3835To demand that I accede to your self-identity which may contradict my sex recognition skills springs from a totalitarian impulse. Chances are I will see your sex and if you walk behind me, late at night, I will react accordingly.

Furthermore can a person be “master” of his “ethnicity” as per the extract below? If I am objectively black can I identify out of racism? As a woman can I identify out of sexism?



To cut a long story short the Judge was persuaded by these arguments.  He recognises that he is sitting alone, without assistance from a medical member of the panel but, in a Brave and Stunning decision, he decides to confer a Gender Recognition Certificate on Ms Jay, assuming that is still her name.   83E94CD1-4EA7-477D-B7AF-86ECC155A790

For those of you following this discussion just a reminder not to mention the elephant’s trunk in the room.  That would just be rude.

B8C6DD95-9648-494D-81E3-9FB1D3ACBEE3I will leave you with this question.   In making these determinations the Judge has to have regard to the individual’s Human Rights but also the wider rights of the Community.  Are we well served?


Legal Case: Marriage

This case is from 2003. It concerns a post-operative transsexual who had managed to go through a marriage ceremony, prior to  the legalisation of same sex marriages.  There were no issues of consent here. Both parties were aware of the sex of the “wife”.  The registrar, however, was not made aware.

There were earlier cases, involving this couple,  and this went to an appeal. Of all the cases I have read this one seems to have a better grip on the implications of the legal judgement.  It is a very comprehensive case and, based on my previous cases, this one has a much better understanding of the issues at stake.  You can read the original case here Bellinger 2001  Lords judgement is here : Bellinger

It’s worth noting that if same sex marriage had been legal this case may not have  been brought. I have,however, no insight into whether this was a trans-activist’s  test case, or just an ordinary person trying to regularise their relationship.  {A significant issue in the enactment of laws in this area. A lot has been achieved, by stealth.  Laws have been passed that turn out to  have much wider implications, particularly for women’s rights, than is apparent at the outset. Always bear this in mind when law makers tell us they wish to make an innocuous change to any law impacting women}. 

This case examines, in some detail, whether or not it is possible to literally change sex. Spoiler Alert: It is not.  In 2019 this statement is controversial.  Back in 2003  it had to be clearly established in the context of a country that did not have legal provision for same sex marriage. 3ED30511-C21B-49BF-BBE4-BE96321D656D

The parties to the marriage were, as far as the evidence presented, both aware of the sex of their prospective spouse. There is no suggestion of any fraud perpetrated on the husband.


The case makes it clear that Mrs Bellinger was a biological male. In every sense. There is no confusion even the XY karyotype test is evidenced. There is some evidence presented that relies on the notion of a mismatch between biological sex and “brain sex”. This is the often cited notion that a female brain may be, wrongly, present in a biological male. A highly speculative claim. 👇


As is made clear this assertion remains “speculative” and indeed it is a significant area of contention, relying on the regressive notion of #LadyBrain.  There are studies that show similarities in the brains of homosexual males and females.  One theory is that this is due to “neuro-plasticity” and that the brain responds to commonality of experiences, when navigating the world as a woman or a “feminine” gay male.  There is no definitive answer but any study that does not control for homosexuality, in transgender subjects, is flawed.  Certainly if it was settled science then, presumably,  an MRI would be the standard diagnostic criteria, for transsexuals,  not a psychiatric assessment. You can read more research here: Lady Brain

The striking thing about this case is the amount of time spent on establishing biological reality, without which the court could not invalidate the marriage.  In a pre-gay marriage era there may also have been an intention to make sure same sex marriage was not allowed in, by the back door. {This seemed  to be  a feature of the debates about the Gender Recognition Act in the U.K.  Here is a thread on the UK debate by @HairyLeggedHarpy   UK GRA Parliamentary Debate }.The gender identity arguments were subject to, relatively, rigorous scrutiny. Certainly the analysis, in this case, is more extensive than we have seen in  English Law, and policy, especially post the (2004) Gender Recognition Act.

Another prevalent feature of this case is the willingness to debunk the conflation of intersex with “trans” this excerpt makes it clear that a distinction must be made. 48BFCBA4-8C76-4307-9E94-C52B34D33599Key  intersex  advocates are keen to highlight that disorders of sexual development are not an “identity” and have no place in the Transgender “debate”. People who are intersex , sufferers of disorders of sexual development (DSDs),  do not have a transgender “identity”. They have a medical condition that, for some, can be quite distressing. This case makes a clear distinction; which activists have tried to blur for political reasons  You can read more about this here, by Claire Graham, who writes from her own experience.  There is no I in LGBT

The case also makes it clear that a literal sex change is an impossibility. All of these facts are now casually disregarded by many trans lobbyists.


The case also recognised that transvestites are distinct from transsexuals.  Transvestites are now included under Stonewall’s Transgender umbrella. My own council allows cross-dressers to, formally, register, with a gender identity, in respect of all council amenities.  (I did this myself, on-line, to register my part-time cross-dressing self: Patrick). Stonewall definition of Trans below 👇A909AC1C-DD59-49D5-8A3C-70D302DC0703

The sexual gratification that some men gain from cross-dressing is explicitly addressed here: CEC6ADB7-E78B-46D9-8522-0ED58DF78584

A cursory review of literature on paraphilias should have alerted our naïve political class that at least some, cross-dressing men, are fetishists.  Not only are they sexually aroused, by dressing in “female” clothes, this gratification can be heightened in female only spaces.  Breaching women’s boundaries can form part of the fetish and  our politicians have just validated the perpetrators as a “gender identity”.  Note that the aim is to validate “Gender Identity” in law.  This is the policy of all the major political parties in the UK.  These self same males are already being granted access to women’s spaces, which forces women to  be, unwilling, participants in a male paraphilia.   Yes they are distinct from many, maybe even most, covered by the trans umbrella, but women have zero way to determine which males will do us harm.  This is why single sex spaces exist.  Not because of “all men” but to strategically reduce the risk by giving women respite from “men” to exclude “those men”. 6F8EAE8D-9FB9-428F-8C9E-5F3248F87282

In an irony, not lost on me, older transsexuals, who have been quietly using women’s spaces, now feel driven out by the excessive demands of trans activists.  I don’t see how we can row back from this. In an exchange, with one of those transsexuals, replete with black humour, we reached common ground when we agreed we would both end up in the male toilets cos all the predatory males would end up in the women’s! I take no pleasure in the impact on the homosexual transsexuals with whom I interact.   That is the tragedy of the “woke” trans allies.  They have hurt, not only women, but the community they purport to serve.  I won’t be the only woman who never gave this a second thought until the Trans Activists/Male Rights Activists made me look, in more depth, at what lay under the Trans Umbrella.  I had idea of the many paraphilias that co-exist in the wider T community. Autogynephilia , menophiliacs, shemales, sissyporn, etc etc.  I no idea that post-op transsexuals may be heterosexual and fetishise women’s lives, bodies and spaces.  Once seen it can’t be unseen.  Woke Blokes made me look. I have lost my innocence.

Put simply, when transgressing women’s boundaries is a known male paraphilia there is a real risk in enshrining legal rights to access female only spaces.  Sexual paraphilias are pretty much 100% male. Our political class are wilfully blind,woefully naïve or complicit.

Sandy Draws Badly

Another aspect of this case which is worth mentioning is the compassion shown by the Judge to , on the face of it, a couple in difficult circumstances. The judge has obviously done due diligence on the nature of “gender dysphoria” and that, for some people, therapeutic resolution of an identity disorder can be  unsuccessful.D89D9331-B7D9-431A-9C26-C6F93273372AHe is right to show such compassion.  However kindness does not override the need to make legislation that is workable and, crucially,  doesn’t dismantle protections for another vulnerable group.  The judge does go on to raise the difficult judgements this would lead the law to make. Here he asks the burning question now dividing opinion in the UK. “Should self-perceived gender be recognised”. 


Would that our current law makers were as well informed as this judge. Already he notes the varying degrees of surgery in the Transsexual community and the spectre of a male bodied person being redefined as a “woman” ; as is now the case in U.K. and Irish Law.

701B7DA0-DDDB-4F14-B795-702CCD44B7D4I suspect this would have been dismissed as the “slippery slope” argument.  Well its not a slippery slope now. We are skiing down the slope like Eddie The Eagle without his glasses.  (I do hope I got the pronouns correct).  Yet here we are.  Male bodied people i.e. men, are identifying as women and housed in female prisons and, we now know, allowed to demand to be on female wards in our hospitals. NHS policy on Single Sex Wards

The above NHS policy, published September 2019,  contains this delicious nugget below 👇making it quite clear that sexual characteristics have absolutely no bearing on who ends up in which “single sex” ward.  This is where we have ended up by trying to accommodate a tiny percentage of the population.  It is a wholesale disregard of female people. We are so utterly dismissed by the society we live in as if we have no embodied reality.  Well this Uturus-Haver has had enough!


As the above shows a definition of what “sex” means has much wider ramifications than on the small minority who are “Transsexual” .  The legal case made it clear that such a significant change requires just the sort of societal debate we are now being denied in the U.K. The slogan used, by Trans advocates, #NoDebate was one of the earlier warnings that a debate was exactly what was needed.  The “widest possible public consultation and discussion” the judge called for has in fact been suppressed. I can think of no other reason for this silencing except that it is known that the wider public will NOT agree with this redefinition of what it means to be a woman.   1C9B5B6E-FD90-465E-BD22-4FF14C0824B9In the end the Lords  ruled against the appellant. Parliament were just about to legislate for Gender Recognition to be decided, in law. Sadly they seem now to have disregarded this  astute advice. “Self-definition is not acceptable. That would make nonsense of the underlying biological basis of the distinction”.  In practice the policy capture is so widespread that single sex spaces are not being protected because the law, which allows this, is not being invoked.  Remember this when you see organisations lying about the law. Women’s Legal Rights to Single Sex Spaces.

618CAE41-44C6-40D7-AA1F-94C0D921D435Whether or not sexual reassignment surgery will, eventually, be deemed the wrong “treatment” the fact remains that society has colluded in the development of a “transsexual” community. Society now needs to resolve how they are accommodated.  Gender Reassignment also needs a more critical evaluation. Is it a mechanism to sidestep the central issue: Why are so many men are in flight from masculinity? Why are males so threatened by feminine men? Why are we allowing men trapped in male bodies to redefine what it is to be a woman? These are big questions and few of our media are covering in any meaningful way.

There are a whole different set of questions for the females in flight from womanhood. It seems clear many are simply Lesbians. Others, now de-transitioned, say they had untreated eating disorders, a history of sexual abuse or were in flight from a society that hyper-sexualises women.  The Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist slur (Terf) is inaccurate. Trans men remain under the female umbrella, though many “Transmen” will , ideologically reject this. They are still deserving of our support. They still need protection from sexual discrimination and share the vulnerability to male violence common to our sex.

Trans identified males remain of the male sex. The answer, as I have said many, many, times is not to make transsexual males  a “woman problem”. Refugees from masculinity (to quote Miranda Yardley) exist.  They are a problem for males.  It is not women’s job to place ourselves at risk and run the refugee camps.  Once again the blame for this lies squarely  the door of the activists who have stretched women’s tolerance to breaking point.  Female socialisation conditions women to compassionate responses but we are not bound to place male people’s interests above those of our sex.




The Elephant in the room.

Another legal case.  (I should, perhaps, dedicate this to the man on my twitter who told me to actually READ up on the law. Bless. 😂).

This one is one of multiple  legal cases, brought by the same person,  to demand  the NHS fund what is referred to as “breast augmentation”.   Full case here: Breast Dysphoria

Naturally, or unnaturally, if you wish,  we start with the pronoun police. Even though the person has not applied for a Gender Recognition Certificate and is therefore NOT considered legally female.


This is not the first case that this individual has brought. 👇. Note, also, that the Equality & Human Rights Commission (EHRC) are involved. (If anyone can find me a case of the EHRC fighting for, post mastectomy, breast reconstruction, as a Human Rights Issue, do let me know.  If they have advocated for this I would like to include). 

AB1A277B-3C01-4FD6-916E-B4AA516F560DBefore we get into the complainants distress about lack of breast growth the NHS does offer genital reassignment surgery (GRS/SRS) for the condition of Gender Identity Disorder. This is because it has been accepted that Gender Dysphoria, in fe/males, presents as an extreme discomfort with reminders of your biological sex. The PCT make the treatment they will fund abundantly clear. The Complainant has not sought any genital surgery.

92157DE9-609D-4D14-A19B-C310A9E18693So let’s just take a moment here. This person has been diagnosed as “Transexual” since 1996. It’s now over a decade later and, despite Gender Dysphoria, the offer of genital reassignment surgery, has not been taken up.  One would have thought the most male thing about a man was his penis and yet, instead of pursuing this,  we have multiple court cases to get “breasts”! B8C6DD95-9648-494D-81E3-9FB1D3ACBEE3

Here is a reminder that , an estimated, 80% of males, who declare themselves women, retain their penis Here is a piece by Fairplay For women: Penis Retention in MTF 

Here is a piece by Gendered Intelligence that also estimates only 20% will, in future, seek any medical intervention: Gendered Intelligence

The general public have no idea of the phenomenon of #Shemales: Men who retain their penis but wish to be treated as “women”.   There are porn genres dedicated to this and prostituted  males who make a living with their “six inch surprise”.  Something the Guardian forgot to mention when campaigning for one such “sex worker” to be moved to the female prison estate.  Tara Hudson


Back to the case.  Once again Dr James Barrett is our expert witness he crops  up so often in these cases.  {As an aside One of the central problems with the development of policy and law making, in this field,  is that the “experts” are all ideologues treated as neutral experts.} .

Here we are told, at length about the distress caused by small breast growth.


The statements below talk of the limited evidence for “clinical effectiveness” of reassignment surgery.  Why are we even doing sexual reassignment surgery if this is what the literature is telling us? Why are we  advocating for earlier, and more extreme, interventions for Gender Dysphoric adolescents/young adults?C762CC0A-193A-4DE5-BACC-F6D6A86C1B0D936DA941-FEF1-4A26-9FE5-BE407E978298

Limited evidence that SRS is effective or cost-effective yet the NHS is mandated to provide it. Here is a list of all the procedures the NHS no longer cover that impact the female sex 👇577669FB-1E35-49A3-8088-93EB402A86F0

Back to the breasts.  The legal arguments then compare the case of a “natal” woman who was funded for breast augmentation surgery.  A case is made that her distress was at the extreme end of the spectrum, though the case alludes to dissenting voices about the decision. We then move on to the arguments in respect of legal comparators, essentially whether a transsexual can be compared to a “natal” woman. This is where it gets interesting.  Turns out the mantra ” Transwomen are women”  has its limits.

The case, advanced by the EHRC, hinges on whether a refusal of implants to a transsexual fails to take into account the suffering  of Gender Dysphoria.  A born woman would not suffer from this but a “transsexual” would. The logic of this argument is that the NHS would be required to provide surgery to a transsexual but  legitimately able to deny it to biological females.  One would be clinical and the other “cosmetic”.    A male, complete with a penis, would be entitled to surgery to provide them with breast implants but a woman could be denied. This is an argument advanced by Human Rights barristers!

Details of the argument are below.  Note that women are no longer  “natal women” we are now “non-transsexuals”.  Note also that Trans women are just like women unless differentiating leads to priority treatment.


Whilst I am reading this I am constantly waiting for someone to mention the elephant in the room.  If the Gender Dysphoria is so bad why is the penis retained? Wouldn’t a penis be the most dysphoria triggering aspect of your male body?  Nope.  Nobody is mentioning it. Maybe it will be in the follow up case.  Yep. There was another one. This case was dismissed but, undeterred, our plucky heroine returns once again into the fray. Here is the  Appeal

First we hear from the appellant in their own words:BD6EE931-BE8C-4DAA-9F37-902CCD8BC49D

Access to medicalisation which destroys sexual function is now a human rights issue?

The really interesting part of this case is the legal acrobatics required to redefine men as women and simultaneously argue that they should not be treated as women in the case of “cosmetic surgery“.  Essentially prioritising men’s rights to larger breasts over women’s rights to enhance their female anatomy.  (Remember that post-mastectomy breast construction is not routinely funded).


The latest case was dismissed by all three judges.  Despite this the EHRC still use this as an example  here 👉 Accessed 28th September Still arguing that a male is at a greater disadvantage in feeling  “less feminine” than a woman.  Health authorities have to justify failure to provide breast augmentation to a male which only may be justified.  Human rights organisations are now Men’s Rights Advocates.


I am principally concerned with the impact on women’s rights.  I do, however, think the medical profession, working in this field,  are ethically compromised.  I have no way of discerning if this claimant is being treated appropriately for any other competing mental health conditions.   There must be a duty of care for all of humanity, including males who wish they were not so. We will look back at this medicalisation of Gender Dysphoric males, on this scale, as an atrocity.  The impact on women’s rights to be recognised as a material reality, and retain sex based rights, is calamitous.  Single sex spaces are necessary for privacy, dignity and safety.  The general public have no idea that our naïve politicians have accepted #LadyPenis as a normal part of womanhood.

The re-definition of “woman” proceeds apace. The silence from pretty much all of our Feminist MPs is deafening.