Leicestershire Trans Policy 2.

I covered the first iteration of this policy in the blog posted below. This new version is from September 2022.

Leicestershire NHS Trans Policy.

Here is the new policy.

Transgender-and-Non-Binary-Service-User-Policy 2022

The first thing I noticed is that the Trust claims this is the first version of a new policy which, we know, is a lie. They also make no reference to the Trans-Identified male who advised on the first policy. It was not possible to ascertain if “Rebecca Shaw” remains on the Equality and Diversity group who were involved in the policy.

They repeat the misrepresentation of the Equality Act 2010, also present in version 1, to add “gender” to “sex” and pretend it’s a legally protected characteristic. Presumably this is to justify their single sex accommodation policy which is a LIE because they count “men” as the female sex. Just to be clear, they are not even talking about post-operative “transsexuals”, they include part-time cross-dressers and any person professing a denial about their biological sex.

They claim to have done an Equality Impact Assessment but the appendix 5, to which they refer, is missing; though they do include a couple of paragraphs that purport to be assessing the impact. (I will include this at the end and leave you to make your own judgement.)

Definitions.

The glossary teaches new speak to their staff who are expected to force this indoctrination on their patients. The NHS think performing “femininity” makes a woman. The blatant sexism underpinning this definition of “gender” is absolutely staggering.👇 At least the definition of sex is straightforward.

Naturally they impose the offensive term “cisgender” but get a load of the word salad under non-binary; bi-gender, pangender, neutrois, gender fluid etc.

I won’t detail all of the glossary suffice it to say they accept that women are defined by an internal self-perception and they implicitly accept women can have penises. This has major implications for the LIE that they are providing single sex accommodation.

Who are the people signing off on these policies and why have the Conservative, government allowed this madness to infect the entirety of the NHS?

Clearly this trust think that women demanding single sex accommodation are “transphobes” and promote the primacy of “gender identity” over sex with which women must be forced to comply or face chants of “transphobia”.

The pronouns 👇 are simply ridiculous. I believe they are now called “shownouns” which perfectly sums up the narcissistic nature of the gender ruminants.

The new policy reminds staff IN CAPITALS to hide details of a patients sex on pain of a criminal prosecution. It reminds its staff to “go above and beyond” for this demographic and lists all the policies you could be breaching if you refuse. (There are no such warnings in the policy they laughably call “Single sex Accommodation”. ) Staff are instructed to accommodate the “trans” service users in the bay which “matches their “gender” and “non-binary” are to be given a choice. Staff are warned not to reveal the sex of their patients to the other people in the bay. They also mandate that a persons “trans” status should not be recorded on medical notes or shared with other clinicians. There’s also whole section on making sure the dignity and privacy of the “trans” patient is cared for, at all times. Shockingly they include this statement 👇 about patients who need care based on their biological sex. I think this is shockingly negligent because we have all seen people who are utterly delusional about their biological sex because it is a feature of this mental health condition.

This section, below, is a blatant lie about the law. There is no legal “protection” for the category of “non-binary”. Once again staff are enjoined to go “above and beyond” for people who are in denial about their biology. Why would the NHS collude with biological denialism when sex matters in health care?

Another warning that “transphobia” will not be tolerated. These recur throughout the document. I saw no such, insistent, warnings about misogyny in the single sex accommodation policy. Notice also that, because the NHS thinks a fully intact male can be a “woman” , it is likely that accurately sexing a man would be deemed “transphobia”. This is why the policy has to be littered with veiled, and explicit, threats of consequences for recognising the reality of biological sex. Women must be compelled to accept this reality denying, woman hating ideology even though our safety requires recognising inherent risk, when in proximity to biological men; even where you are not already vulnerable and sick.

After a few more instructions to adhere to pronouns for all patients, even children, staff are now required to change how they refer to patients based on their fluctuating “gender”. Once again I am flabbergasted that this has been passed by senior personnel.

Th Trust than go to elaborate lengths to make sure that they don’t out patients to their family by checking if they need to use different pronouns in front of their family or in any written correspondence. What a waste of time! This is followed by another reminder to ignore the single sex accommodation policy and any decision to allow females privacy and dignity should be a last resort. A decision to provide single sex accommodation is “very unlikely to be justified” has to be made at a very senior level and defer to the EDI people.

The documentar makes it explicit that neither single sex toilets or showers are off limits to any male, irrespective of bodily modification. To be clear there are post operative men in the public sphere who are heterosexual men with a prurient fascination with women’s bodies. They are not a safer demographic within the male sex class but demonstrate higher rates of sex offending than their fellow men. I will say it again, we are not just letting any men in our spaces we are selecting then from a group that includes transvestic fetishists and autogynephiles.

Rape in hospitals.

An enterprising woman produced this illustrative graphic based on the census and Ministry of Justice information. I will just add a small caveat. We now know that men are having their sex offences counted in the statistics for women so they also corrupt the data on women.

I will skip over the bits reminding staff to be careful of the wigs and binders or other ways the patient needs to be indulged. They even have a specific instruction to be mindful of their bodily privacy but not the vulnerable female patient who does not know there is a man in the next bed. Or worse, she can see it’s a man and the staff are legally mandated to lie, to her face! Just like they did to this rape victim. They lied to her for a year until she got CCTV footage proved they had a man on the single sex ward; a man who claimed to be a woman.

Now that we know how many rapes happen on NHS premises it is unconscionable that they are adding risk by these policies. 1318 rapes, that we know about, in hospitals!

Feminazis and Hate Crimes.

This policy then goes on to compare people raising concerns to racists!

The policy warns there may be a risk of harassment and details the measures to be put in place to protect the “trans and non-binary” patients. Not a dicky bird about the risk to females!

The policy gets even more draconian! Staff are to be disciplined if they don’t demonstrate atonement for their sins. This may include being charged with gross misconduct and dismissal. (I would also suggest that this now breaches the law given that gender critical beliefs are now legally protected.)

If this doesn’t scare staff the Trust can involve the police.

These are the organisations who were sent the policy for comment. 👇. No women’s organisations were consulted.

Equality Impact Assessment

There is reference to an EIA in Annex 5 which is missing. These clips appear at the end. It is anti paged that the policy will have a “positive impact on “Trans” service users. They have a completely blank section on the other groups impacted by this policy. They are worried about being sued by these users but not, presumably, women.

And who do they recommend for advice? A list of the usual suspects.

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)

My Substack

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

£10.00

Leicestershire NHS Trans Policy.

Featured

Here is the link to the policy produced by this NHS Trust. This one is dated September 2019. There is an updated one.

Transgender and Non Binary Patients – Supporting UHL Policy

You can access the full series on NHS “Transgender” policies at the link below:

NHS & Transgender: Series

This policy is, so far, the most authoritarian in respect of the way it mandates, both patients and staff, to comply with Gender Identity Ideology. We need a woman directly impacted to mount a legal challenge because the NHS must be forced to backdown.

I took the trouble to look at Leicestershire’s published policy on Single Sex Accommodation; which they are required to publish, monitor and have a system to report any breaches.

In that document the Trust include “sex” as a legally protected characteristic but add “gender” in brackets; even though that is not the Law. They claim the document abides by the provisions of The Equality Act but they do not address the issue of forcing women of faith to share mixed sex spaces or, indeed, the right of women to be held in single sex accommodation. This is despite producing a document that claims to be all about preserving single sex spaces. This is the NHS gaslighting women.

They know the actual law because they include the correct list of the protected characteristics within the same document. 👇

In the “transgender” policy they simply lie about the Law and replace “sex” with “gender”. The single sex accommodation policy is very easy to find on their website. It’s also easy to find the new Trans and Non-Binary policy from September 2022. I have downloaded that and will cover it in another post, after a quick look, I can only say it is even worse than the one I am covering today,

The advisor:

For the “Transgender” policy they are keen to advertise the input from a trans-identified male who sat on their Equality Advisory Group.

This would appear to be the Rebecca Shaw they consulted.

Shaw has a twitter account and posts about “trans day of visibility” and the debunking of autogynephilia. The old “my skirt lifted up”; happens to #GirlsLikeUs all the time. 😳

Vagina Monologues

Shaw also took part in a production of the Vagina Monologues and writes about it on their blog.

I like the “because I can” at the end. It has a certain sort of energy.

The Vagina Monologues were considered “transphobic” because these “new women” don’t have vaginas. Productions were halted because they were deemed to be “exclusionary”.

Now it seems zero vagina is not a bar to celebrating what you haven’t got! I like the “because I can!” at the end; has a certain type of energy.The first all male line up was in 2004. This despite the biological fact that none of these men have vaginas! Wherewere all my fellow Liberals, who leap on evidence of “cultural appropriation” when this performance took place.

One of the performers was Marci Bowers, a surgeon who performs the surgery known as “sex reassignment surgery”. Bowers is now the President of the World Professional Association of Transgender Health. Another one was Andrea James who is infamous for waging a hate campaign against Michael Bailey: the author of The Man Who Would be Queen.

The Policy.

The policy mandates the use of the patient’s preferred pronouns and name and warns staff not to make assumptions based on “appearance”. It also cautions staff to use this language even if it goes against the family. The patient is to be asked where they would prefer to be cared for and if it is a female ward, and he is male, his wishes should be respected.

They provide more guidance on this checklist.

The staff are urged to be mindful of discrimination from staff, or other patients, and warned that they should not share details of the patients real sex except on a “need to know” basis. It would be interested to know how rigidly they apply this because symptoms, test results, and medication doses all are impacted by someone’s biological sex. For example female heart attacks are often missed because medical staff are used to the symptoms in males; women present differently. Some measures of organ function are such that a normal reading, for a male, would be dangerous in a female. There has already been one case of a trans-identified female losing a baby because clinicians did not think her admission, with stomach pains, could be labour pains; because she presented and was recorded as, a male.

There is the usual dictionary to educate staff on the new speak demanded by this ideology. As you can see, just like East Cheshire NHS Trust, they include transvestites under their definition of “trans”. I draw your attention to this because, once again, they all seem to ignore the condition of “transvestic fetishism” which is sexually motivated. These men get an erotic charge by wearing women’s clothes and it comes with a side order of boundary violations and a desire for women’s participation in their sexual thrills.

The Trust has a lengthy glossary that includes agender, gender fluid, gender queer and even neutrois. Later they seem to have got cold feet about including “transvestite” and “transsexual” and issue this warning to staff. 👇. Basically they have used the term in their own policy but heaven forfend their own staff follow their own terminology,

This policy is also littered with veiled threats about which hospital policies you may be in breach; should you deviate from this, imposed, ideology. Staff are warned that they could face charges of “gross misconduct” and, even criminal charges for misgendering. This is quite draconian and, likely, outwith the law.

They at pains to be clear they will use the patient’s preferred pronouns etc even with family members. I can certainly understand the position of staff on this one, for the patient, but it seems provocative to stoke conflict with family members. However, an ideological crusuade it is and they also offer this advice, about children, which seems of dubious legality to me:👇. The hospital is instructing staff to expressly go against the wishes of parents even if the child is not deemed “Gillick competent”.

Gillick Competence

The Trust also are on the alert for “spurious” arguments about “discomfort’ to mask their “transphobia”. 👇

I am not surprised at the thinly veiled contempt for women emanating from this policy. The Trust clearly know the legally protected characteristics because they are included in their single sex ward policy. Yet, in the “transgender” policy all of this is forgotten and the Trust resort to blatant lies. The protected characteristic is “SEX” but the Trust use “gender”

So what about the Equality Impact. assessment? “No detriment was identified”.

To add insult to injury, after ignoring the protected characteristic of “sex” they had a special note that all Equality Impact assessments must consider the “trans” experience.

References:

The authors reference the work of Stephen Whittle, from 2007. Whittle is a sex denialist activist having repudiated her own sex many years ago. I think they probably are referring to “Engendered Penalties” which I covered in my series on Whittle:

Stephen Whittle

They also reference the beleaguered charity Mermaids, The Gender Trust, who advised East Cheshire, and Christine Burns.

I will follow this up with the 2022, updated policy. At first glance that looks even worse but I see they have removed reference to “transvestites”.

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)

My Substack

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

£10.00

NHS Policy ignores Sex! (Part 2)

Those of us who have been looking at Transgender policies, at NHS Trusts, have noticed that they are much more difficult to find. For a previous post, on Birmingham Hospital, I was sent an email copy of a policy which I had not found but was, apparently, available to employees. My suspicion is that NHS Trusts know that women are checking whether they are defending single sex spaces for vulnerable, female, patients. I suspect more of them are restricting their policy to their “intranet” to hide these policies from the general public. The policies for their employees are still mainly available and they tell a diabolical tale.

You can see the rest of this series, including part 1, at the link below. The Trans ideologues have been hard at work for decades and the women’s rights groups are notable by their absence. Men (in the main) have been allowed to write policy that primarily impacts women; just because they claim to have transcended their biological sex.

NHS & Transgender: Series

This policy is from the East Cheshire NHS Trust. I couldn’t find a pdf so I had to screen shot it. This is the link to the policy. Searching the NHS Trust website yields zero results .

Transgender support Policy

I have archived it too. Before I get to the policy see the link to the policy I could find easily. Here the Macclesfield hospital, part of the Trust insist that they operate single sex spaces.

What the trust policy actually says is that people should be treated according to how they identify, irrespective of their sex, which they cover by some guff about genital configuration; as if that’s irrelevant.

The policy drips with the language of the captured; tell tale sign is echoing the belief that sex is “assigned at birth” rather than observed and recorded; which is the case for over 99% of us. The policy is drafted with one group in mind who consider themselves “transgender”. They admit, however, that the policy will impact patients, staff, visitors, and contractors. Females make up 51% of the population but, I suspect,, will we are over-represented in the patient population, Most women will have a hospital experience via pregnancy and childbirth even if they are otherwise healthy. Our longevity also means we are likely to need hospital admission in later years. Did this Trust speak to any women’s groups? NO!

They did get help drafting the policy from The Gender Trust. This policy was drafted over a decade ago.

Part 1 covers The Gender Trust and man behind it.

NHS Policy ignores Sex! (Part 1)

Advice given by The Gender Trust to the NHS.

I should no longer be shocked at the betrayal of women, by the NHS, but, I confess, I was appalled at the gaslighting in this document. It begins by a statement on patient centred care and then pitches the notion of “most persecuted minority” and lays down the law about not tolerating any discrimination; which, I presume, covers women recognising a man’s biological sex. How bigoted!

The NHS Trust do make a statement about their opposition to discrimination on the following grounds 👇. This is a doctored list of the, legally, “protected characteristics” which they list but get them wrong and include “gender” instead of “gender reassignment”. More sleight of hand to come later in the document.

These are the facts about rape in hospitals. In the U.K. the crime of rape involves a penis. These are all Men!

After some stern words about disciplinary measures for non-compliance they move on to a list of definitions. In this section they make it clear they include “transvestites as “trans”. Given we know there is a paraphilia known as “transvestic fetishism” the hospital are recognising men ,with a sexual fetish, under the “trans” umbrella and as “women” according to their wishes.

The document goes on to say that some people may emerge as “trans” overnight. This becomes important because the Trust insist that, even these “overnight” “transitioners”. Note also that the badly worded Gender Recognition Act (GRA) allows a misrepresentation of the law that, in fact, does limit the rights of men, even with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) to female only spaces. A right which is poorly tested, via case law, and very much ignored in policy and practice.

There is a long section about the “privacy clauses” built into the GRA and the fines associated with disclosing the sex of a person, if disclosed to you in an official capacity. This, legally mandated, sex denialism, is why hospital staff are obliged to LIE to women’s faces if they see an obvious man in a female only space.

The section on the Human Rights Act (1998) acknowledges that one persons’s Human Rights cannot limit the Human Rights of another group; this is exactly what the NHS is doing here. Letting men’s rights trample over women’s rights. Forcing women to change in front of biological males is a form of torture, and, frankly, sexual assault. This is a reminder that men are treated as the default human.

This next but is contradictory on the Occupation requirements which were designed to restrict certain roles to a particular sex. This was supposed to allow female only rape crisis counsellors and for women to refuse intimate care from men. This is what the Trust has to say. The second paragraph contradicts the first.

There follows a detailed section on the employment of “transgender” people and the process for ensuring criminal record checks are obtained without revealing someone’s sex. I have a long-standing concern that this seems to rely on honestly disclosing your previous names and also, even if they are honest about their previous names, this means they can hide their sex from the employer.

After making it clear that there are no restrictions based on any bodily changes the NHS here mandates that females must accept males in their toilets and changing rooms. To be clear Nurses in my local trust are not allowed to wear their uniform on the way to, and from, work so must change, at work, twice a day.

This is the problem with the “real life test” it forces women to serve as handmaids to these men and validate him as something he is not; irrespective of her own discomfort. No man who really “identified” with women would be comfortable forcing them into this position. It shows a level of entitlement I can only describe as “male”. The sooner the NHS is forced to remove all these policies the better.

After another reminder about the severe punishments for “bullying and harassment” ; clearly designed to override women’s rights to object, the NHS Trust proceeds to explain that a man’s wishes are paramount. (I am saying “man” here because females don’t present the same risk to men and those who insist on being in men’s spaces are placing themselves at risk. At the same time these women are also disrespecting male boundaries).

As you can see the NHS trust prioritise part-time “women” over actual women; the biological and only kind. It gets worse: 👇 I cannot even bring myself to be grateful for the crumbs offered at excluding *some* men from open showers.

Single Sex Facilities.

There follows a long section on single sex facilities. Beginning with this belter. Here “full transition” can still mean the person has “Different genital or breast sex appearance”. This is absolute madness!

There follows a section on times where people will be held on the ward for their sex, in the case of females having hysterectomies who think they are men. It is noticeable that a female example is used here. {What the hospital should really be asking themself is why they are performing unnecessary hysterectomies on young women.}

I wonder how many women are going to be gratuitously offended by this policy of trying to ascertain your biological sex. Women are already being asked for preferred pronouns even while pregnant! Notice also the directive to comply immediately with the patient’s preference to be accommodated with the opposite sex illustrative of a total lack of consideration for female (or male) boundaries.

Apparently if sex is indeterminate it should be inferred from “presentation” and clothing but heaven forfend we take into account the sexed bodies. Imagine waking up in the male ward because you have short hair and wear trousers? Or worse, if you are a woman who has lost your hair because of chemotherapy or your breasts through a double mastectomy; you are already feeling stripped of your femininity and the hospital just compounds matters. I am not saying that the sex of a woman, in this situation, becomes unrecognisable but even to ask these questions, as a matter of routine, creates the potential for real offence and distress.

The next bit is unintentionally “transphobic” and raises issues about the differential of females post testosterone and males. The hospital betrays that it knows men generally don’t pass as women.

This brings us into the difficulty of “trans men” and female spaces. They do tend to pass, at least superficially, as men. Hence all the “gotchas” when people post their pictures and ask if women would be comfortable with these “women” in our spaces. Clearly many of us would not be, just based on appearance; they are likely to disrupt the social norms in female spaces. Which brings me to the difficulties faced by female detransitioners. I already know of a couple who feel like there is no way back and now dealing with a new kind of “sex dysphoria” about their actual sex. I wish I had an easy answer to this that doesn’t add to the distress of detransitioned females. Obviously I welcome then back into female spaces but I can’t undo any physical changes which may mean they are questioned, What a mess!

Parental Consent.

The next section makes it clear that the rights of parents must be over-ridden by the hospital staff if the child wishes it even if they are not deemed Gillick Competent. As mad as I would have been if my son was put on a female ward, against my wishes, my anger would be dwarfed if I were the mum of a girl placed on a male ward. As a parent I would then, potentially, face the anger of the parents of girls who resented my son being was placed with them, against my wishes. There is also an asymmetry, based on sex, here, my son would likely be more safe on a female ward, the reverse would be true for females. Because, guess what? Sex Matters!

The Impact Assessment.

The Trust acknowledges that 51% of the population is female but I can’t see a break down of the sex of its patients but I am going to hazard a guess that women make up the vast majority of their patients; given our longevity.

It then goes through each of the protected characteristics, bar one, to pretend they are in compliance with the Equality Act (2010). Before I get to the most egregious example I just want to say they have not addressed the impact of people with Muslim or Orthodox Jewish women; who are unable to share mixed sex spaces. Neither have they considered the heightened vulnerability of disabled women, forced to share spaces with men, including transvestic fetishists. Similarly for older women they have an enhanced vulnerability and may be deeply distressed by being lied to about the sex of the “woman” in the next bed.

However they sank really low with the omission of any consideration of one of the protected characteristics. They omitted SEX and they substituted “gender” ; making it clear this included “transgender” people. They then have the gall to say this policy will impact positively! I am genuinely unable to contain my anger at this.

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)

My Substack

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

£10.00

NHS Policy ignores Sex! (Part 1)

Featured

Those of us who have been looking at Transgender policies, at NHS Trusts, have noticed they are much more difficult to find. For a previous post, on Birmingham Hospital, I was sent an email copy of a policy which I had not found but, which was available to employees. My suspicion is that NHS Trusts know women are checking whether they are defending single sex spaces for vulnerable, female, patients. I suspect more of them are restricting their policy to their “intranet” to hide these policies from the general public. The policies for their employees are still mainly available and they tell a diabolical tale.

You can see the rest of this series at the link below. The Trans ideologues have been hard at work for decades and the women’s rights groups are notable by their absence. Men (in the main) have been allowed to write policy that primarily impacts women; just because they claim to have transcended their biological sex.

NHS & Transgender: Series

This policy is from the East Cheshire NHS Trust. I couldn’t find a pdf so I had to screen shot it. This is the link to the policy. Searching the NHS Trust website yields zero results .

Transgender support Policy

I have archived it too. Here are some clips I could find easily. Here the Macclesfield hospital, part of the Trust insist that they operate single sex spaces. This is a deliberate strategy to LIE to women.

What the trust policy actually says is that people should be treated according to how they identify, irrespective of their sex, which they cover by some guff about genital configuration; as if that’s irrelevant.

Quick reminder of the context in which hospitals are lying to women.

The policy drips with the language of the captured; tell tale sign is echoing the belief that sex is “assigned at birth”, rather than observed and recorded; which is the case for over 99% of us. The policy is drafted with one group in mind who consider themselves “transgender”. They admit, however, that the policy will impact patients, staff, visitors, and contractors. Females make up 51% of the population but, later, we will see that they are over-represented in the patient population, Most women will have a hospital experience via pregnancy and childbirth even if they are otherwise healthy. Our longevity also means we are likely to need hospital admission in later years. Did this Trust speak to any women’s groups? NO!

They did get help drafting the policy from The Gender Trust. This policy was drafted over a decade ago.

The Gender Trust

I did a bit of digging on The Gender Trust. It wasn’t entirely straight forward. They do have a website but it contained no link to its Charity status or details of who was behind the organisation. It also appeared to be inactive.

gendertrust.org.U.K.

The organisation. is a trans lobby organisation.

I managed to track down a Charity registration number but, it turned out the charitable registration had been removed, A search on the U.K. register, directly, yielded no results associated with this registration number. I did find this.

There was also a neither charity called The Gender Trust Association. I found a record on Total Giving which liked it to the same website as The Gender Trust but this charity has also been removed.

There appears to have been accounts filed up to at least 2010.

Thereafter no accounts were filed from at least 2015.

I was able to establish that our old friends the National Lottery had given grants to The Gender Trust. You can search their database for those in receipt of grants. It’s a bit of a clunky database but appears to show they had 4 grants, in total, amounting to £138,000.

Another search turned up the name of Michelle Bridgman acting as a spokesperson. This was the only name I could find; publicly linked to The Gender Trust, I searched Michelle Bridgeman. (I also got a tip off that The Gender Trust had been working with the Scout Association and a link to Bridgeman’s own website).

Michelle /Shelley Bridgeman.

Bridgeman has a website. (Thank you to my informant). Here is a link:

Michelle Bridgeman

Further digging revealed that Bridgeman is a heterosexual, married man who had fathered children, before “transitioning”. You can watch a Ted Talk by him and hear about his past as the “effeminate” son of a distant father and how his parents suffered the early loss of a baby girl. I mention this fact because the loss of a sibling, often, one of the opposite sex, seems to figure more than usual in these narratives.

Dare To Be You

Bridgmen talks at length about a court case he was involved in to oppose the requirement to have his marriage annulled, in order to get his “gender” recognised. (Or as he described it “to get equal rights with other women”.) A fight that took over 10 years and would result in a Supreme Court victory.

Bridgend explains he is registered as a counsellor /psychotherapist and works with both adults and children. He also seems to have been somewhat of a media commentator. Of course he appears on Lorraine Kelly’s show; she has been a chief propagandist for Gender Identity Ideology. [Though I believe the Kelly on TV is not the same person as Loraine Kelly, in real life , for tax purposes.]

Bridgeman has also written a book, which I have not read, but if anyone wishes me to review this let me know.

I had intended to do just one post on this policy but it ended up rather long so part 2 will go into more detail about the policy.

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)

My Substack

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

£10.00

Tara Hewitt: NHS.

Featured

This week the EHRC issued guidance which attempted to clarify, for service providers, that single sex services can be provided to women only. Tara Hewitt, an NHS employee, immediately took to twitter to denounce the guidance and urge senior NHS staff not to comply. Shockingly many senior people in the NHS Agreed.

EHRC Guidance.

The guidance itself is actually a restatement of the law. Even those men with a Gender Recognition Certificate, conferring a legal ”gender” status as a ”woman” ,can be legally excluded from female only spaces providing the exclusion is “legitimate and proportionate”. The problem we have had, for many years, is the widespread policy capture which has made service providers wary about using these exemptions, hence there is little case law to flesh out the circumstances in which women have the right to expect a single sex space actually excludes males. The Trans community is very litigious and between their legal challenges and the relentless ”trans” propaganda, NHS trusts have capitulated to the demands of the ”trans lobby”.

The end result has been this shocking case of a female patient, raped on a ward claiming it was female only. On reporting her rape she was told it had not happened because there was no man on the ward. The hospital itself lied to the victim.

For a hospital to collude with this is, of course, heinous but they are not helped by the privacy requirements built into the Gender Recognition Act. If the man in question had a Gender Recognition Certificate and this information is obtained because of your professional role, there are legal sanctions for revealing this information. At the present time the fine is set at Level 5 which is an unlimited financial penalty. This has created the bizarre situation where a member of staff is forced to tell you that an obvious man, is a woman.

What do we know about Tara?

This is Tara Hewitt. They are currently head of Diversity and Inclusion for the Northern Care Alliance (NHS).

Tara is also a trans-activist and co-founder of a Lobby group TELI.

Tara is employed by the NHS and once stood as a candidate for the Conservative Party. Because they have a public profile we know more about Hewitt than, perhaps, we would like. Tara is a Catholic who is opposed to women’s reproductive rights. In their spare time they also have a few interesting hobbies. {As covered in the Liverpool Echo, link below}.

Tara Hewitt

Tara has a YouTube channel and one of the uploads was a presentation given to staff from the Macmilla charity. It makes for a very interesting watch.

Tara Hewitt

Tara announces their job title as Diversity and Inclusion lead for UniversityHospitals Trust, South Manchester. Hewitt had been incited to give a talk to Macmillan by one of the people present who worked with them on the Manchester LGBT Cancer Support Alliance. Tara advises that they also work as a freelance diversity consultant and have worked with NHS Trusts across the U.K, they also lecture Health and Social Care students in different Universities. They have also advised prisons on inclusion. Tara was also part of an initiative called ”Trans Equality Legal Initiative” with these partners. 😳

Garden Court Chambers are currently being taken to an Employment Tribunal by Alison Bailey, one of the founders of LGB Alliance. You can read about her case here and also donate.

Alison Bailey

Action For Trans Health are one of the most extreme Trans Activist groups. Here are just a sample of the demands made, in a manifesto, which was public in 2018.

You may also remember the case of Jess Bradley, the first NUS Trans Officer who disappeared after posting pictures of himself indecently exposing himself at work. Here he is with Action For Trans Health.

As an aside, Tara is the worst presenter and totally unable to garner any engagement. I would love someone who had been there to tell me how it was received.

First there is some ramblings about intersectionality, with a trans spin. Then Tara tries to get participants to guess how many trans people will present with cancer. He claims this will be 300,000 out of a population he estimates at 600,000. He then proceeds to define trans people.

Transsexual in Tara’s world is someone who operates in a Gender Binary and has adopted the opposite Gender Role and this is irrespective of surgical status. According to Hewitt they dont need surgery to legitimate theor ”trans” status. Next he includes Drag Queens and Drag Kings. Next he moves on to cross-dressers and has this to say, in a room which appears to be predominantly, possibly all, female.

He doesn’t stop there:

It’s telling that this talk is met with stony silence. I would have reported this as sexual harassment. Tara then gives a mini lecture about why we should not judge so long as people are happy! (He can fuck off. I am judging, right now!). This is someone with no boundaries who we are allowing to influence policy and who also, by the way was appointed to Chair the Board of Governors at a boys school! (I checked he is no longer there).

He then lists a whole load of other ”identities” under the trans umbrella including transvestite which is when you want to parade your fetish in public. Some bether about non-binary and gender queer and them a tiresome lecture about pronouns….Sigh.

He also reminds the women to use the terminology that the trans person uses. One of them is that some transwomen prefer their penis a clitoris and it is polite to use the trans persons own terminology.

Tara then moves on to explain that a significant number of trans identified people are involved in ”sex work” and also many of them are sexually exploited. He does not link these two things and cautions his captive audience about not stigmatising those in the ”sex trade”. In order to reinforce the instructions to comply with the demands for preferred pronouns and not shaming men’s sexual proclivities, Tara throws in some made up statistics. The women are not even making eye contact.

This is who is influencing the NHS!

You can support my work here.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and the impact on women’s rights, gay rights and especially the medical scandal of what we are doing to children and youth at Gender Clinics.

£10.00

NHS Trans Policy: Chris Burns

As part of my series looking at the capture of the NHS I was sent this policy from 2008. Written by Chris Burns for the Department of health.

You can access the policy here:

dh_089939 NhS By Burns.

Transvestic Fetishism

The document makes it clear that the definition of “trans” includes post-operative, pre-operative ”transsexuals” but also part-time cross-dressers and those who have no intention of any physical changes.

Burns is a little bit coy about the reasons men don the garb associated with women and the nature of the pleasure this yields. Here is a little bit about Transvestic Fetishism, a paraphilia according to the Diagnostic Manual version 5. (It has now been renamed ”transvestic disorder”). As you can see men get sexually aroused by wearing women’s garments.

What I found interesting is that man with autogynephilia will take up hobbies they associate with the female sex. One such is knitting! I can think of two prominent TRAs who have taken up the hobby. Our politicians rank men, with a sexual fetish for being women, higher up in the ”woman” stakes than actual women!

Mis-Gendering

There follows an emotive section on the pain of being misgendered which will be received as a ”body blow to everything she is trying to achieve” . They so clearly want “mis-gendering” i.e. correctly sexing, to be an actual crime. It is already treated as a hate crime in the U.K but in other jurisdictions it is an actual crime. This is from New York:

Not a mental illness

The policy is keen to deny that believing you were born with the brain of the opposite sex is not a mental illness. This recurs throughout the document.

The document does concede that people with mental disorders can mistake themselves as ”trans”, they are not to be confused with Christine who is ”true trans”, of course. There is a lot of shame involved in autogynephilia hence the invention of ”transgender” which legitimises men with a fetish.

Third Genders.

Burns also makes reference to the way other cultures have accommodated, usually males, who don’t conform to societal expectations for their sex. They are usually gay men. (This may very well be a benign accommodation in some cultures but certainly the use of young boys, as Hjira, in India, appears to facilitate their sexual exploitation by older males). It is misleading, and cultural appropriation, to use these arguments to claim legal accommodations for heterosexual males with sexual paraphilia. The claim there is a ”widely understood” acceptance there are more than two sexes is also wishful thinking, in 2008. Even in 2022 it is only dominant in our political and media elite, it is a luxury belief.

The law

Where the policy covers the law it is deliberately obtuse and contradictory. In this section it acknowledges the Genuine Occupational Requirements that allow sex specific recruitment. Thus males, can be, legally, excluded from certain roles and spaces. An example would be a rape crisis centre for female victims of male, sexual violence. Burns is keen to stress that these exceptions are ”limited” and ”rare”.

The policy even implies that a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate is not covered by these exceptions. In a section about allowing the exclusion of someone “undergoing” gender reassignment Burn’s acknowledges an employer could exclude someone from shared accommodation.

But then adds this caveat.

The Gender Recognition Act is bad law. There have not been enough legal challenges to test its application, in respect of single sex spaces. However, it is legal to exclude any male, even with a GRC, from, for example, becoming a counsellor to female rape victims. The cynic in me says this legislation was drafted in a purposefully muddled way to allow activists, like Burns, to exploit the confusing, contradictory, wording.

Sexual Orientation v Gender Identity Group

While reading this document I came across a reference to a group I had not encountered before.

I cannot find details of who sat on this group but they certainly accessed quite a lot of government funding. This is from Hansard: 👇

I would love to know more about this group. Was Burns a member? Who were the gay men /Lesbians in that group? Did any of them object to same sex attraction being redefined as ”same gender” attraction and did they anticipate the emergence of male “lesbians” and female ”gay men”?

IRAN

Membership of SOGIAG interests me because I would like to know if any of them realised there may be a conflict of interest between the G and the T? Which gay men is Burns talking to such that nobody picked him up on this section?

For Burns to include this without any reference to the consequences visited on Gay men, in particular, takes my breath away. (This also happens to Lesbians).

Real Life Experience (RLE) & Woman-Fishing

Burns goes into some detail about how a man convinces the Gender Recognition Panel they are eligible for a GRC. This overlaps with any attempt to get the surgery known as ”Sexual Reassignment Surgery”. The panel requires evidence that the applicant has been “living as a woman”. All of this is at the “pre-op” stage so here is Burns stating that they should be allowed to use the facilities of the opposite sex. Women are therefore needed to ”validate” this ”identity” ; used as sort of spiritual midwives for the “woman” trapped in a man’s body. Burns proceeds to give examples such as not requiring any male, if he does not acknowledge his sex, to be placed in a side room at a hospital. Instead the women are to be forced to perform ”sisterhood”.

None of the men passing these laws, or the women, have thought of how offensive this is, to women. Imagine if Rachael Dolezal had been able to compel the Black community to accept her, while wearing Black Face? Why is men performing caricatures of women, some hyper-sexualised, not called out as “ Woman-Fishing” ?

For those of you unaware there is a backlash against, usually celebrities, for adopting a presentation that suggests a racial identity other than their own. Exhibit A :

Final Thoughts.

As far back as 2008 activists liked to pretend a public debate on this attack on women’s rights had taken place.

Only a trans person is able to describe their lived experience but a male should be trusted when he claims to speak as a “woman” with ”lived experience”.

I do agree with Burns here 👇. Surgery doth not a woman make:

I have left much out because it has been covered by other guidance in this series. Full document included 👆in case anyone feels the need to highlight some of the other egregious statements in this policy. We have created, yet another, sacred caste. It is not going well for women, the gay community and the safeguarding of children.

If you are able to support my research here is a way. My content will remain free.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s pernicious impact on our culture, women’s rights, gay rights and the safeguarding of vulnerable children/youth.

£10.00

NHS Trans Policy:Birmingham 2

Since writing about the Birmingham Trans Policy, an informant told me there was a longer document called The Procedure for supporting Transgender People. I decided to have a look and see what it adds!

Here is the procedure.

Procedure for Supporting People who are Transgender UHB.PDF

You can read part one below. I will try not to duplicate what was covered in the policy.

NHS Trans Policy:Birmingham

I decided to look at hospital policies around single sex wards, after the revelation a woman was not only raped on an NHS ward, but then gaslit by the hospital. Imagine telling a victim “you were not raped because there were no men on the ward!”. There were. One of them was a rapist. If you are not aware of this incident I covered it here:

NHS Trans Policy

This document provides lots of guidance about ensuring a ”trans-identifying” person’s sex remains private. This covers staff and patients which is why staff are colluding with the idea the man, you can clearly identify is a man, is really a woman, they are compelled to hide this information. If the patient /staff member has a Gender Recognition Certificate this is enforced by the law.

This is what the Gender Recognition Act says about maintaining privacy. As you can see any disclosure of the ”protected information” attracts an unlimited fine.

Bearing in mind no medical treatment is required. A fully intact male could identify as a woman, non-binary, gender fluid etc etc and Birmingham hospital will act on a self-ID basis. This means they allow males on ”single sex” wards purportedly for females. They are allowed to use female toilets and changing rooms.

The implication for medical notes and treatment seem to be incredibly ill thought out. Clinicians are instructed to record a male as a woman. No reference should be made to the patients biological sex, unless it is deemed relevant.

It is worth pointing out that there is an entire medical field on sex specific medicine which aimed to redress the assumption that males are the default patient. Article below:

Sex Matters in Medicine

Staff are warned to ask the patient’s permission to record any issue pertinent to their sex. What if the trans-identifying person is so deeply immersed, in their fiction, they can’t face anyone knowing? There are prominent trans activists, who are male, who claim to be Adult Human Females. India Willoughby even claimed to have a cervix. 🤦

Some of these people seem to need protecting from themselves, not enabled.

As in the policy, the trans person is to be allowed to decide which sex they wish to be allocated. The women get no choice. Staff are told it is not acceptable to make use of side-rooms. This is by far the best resolution and hardly something to complain about, unless your motivation is a desire to be validated by hospitalised women.

The procedure also makes it clear that treatment can be withheld and patients /visitors can be barred if they behave in a discriminatory manner. Does this include correctly sexing a man and objecting to being places on a mixed sex ward?

How do you foster good relations between the people with the protected characteristic of SEX (everybody) when you are forcing the female people to share space with males? They even have the cheek to head this Single Sex. Again unisex facilities are rejected as an option, for the trans-identifying person, but women are forced into mixed sex spaces. The common sense solution is rejected because this is about women being forced to act as, unpaid, validation aids for dysphoric males /entitled men.

Here is what the Trust claims are examples of unlawful discrimination. Some of this is ethically dubious, compelled speech and it is doubtful whether these would be found unlawful now gender critical beliefs are protected in law.

Here are some case studies: Here it is made clear that women will be forced to accept a man on their ward. Rachel is now ”female”. 🧐

Here they make it clear misgendering will be treated as a disciplinary offence. We have gone way beyond polite concessions. From #BeKind to #BeCompliant.

There follow two examples where a patient refuses to be treated by a “Tranny”. The use of this pejorative language allows the Hospital to refuse to provide an alternative person to treat them. I notice they do not use an example of a female, in respectful language, asking for intimate care to be provided, by someone of the same sex. This is, I would suggest, is done quite deliberately.

Finally a note on who Birmingham thinks are appropriate sources of guidance on this topic. All Trans Lobbyist who take extremist positions. Birmingham are a Stonewall Champion, last time I checked.

I can relate 👇

You can support my work here. We need to dismantle this dangerous ideology one expose at a time.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology. Examining it’s impact on women’s rights and the health of our gay teens.

£10.00

NHS Trans Policy:Birmingham

Featured

A look at hospital policies around single sex wards, after the revelation this week that a woman was not only raped on an NHS ward, but then gaslit by the hospital. Imagine telling a victim “you were not raped because there were no men on the ward!”. There were. One of them was a rapist. If you are not aware of this incident I covered it here:

NHS Trans Policy

Spurred on by sheer fury, I will do a series on policies in NHS hospitals. Here is what you can expect in Birmingham.

SupportingTransgenderIndividuals

Here are some lowlights. Firstly it doesn’t just have a policy for people who identify as the opposite sex it is more wide-ranging /inclusive, for which read ”reckless” .

The policy is from 2019 and was signed off by the Chief Executive Advisory Group. I imagine there were very senior people involved in this nonsense. If you are in Birmingham, the policy is up for review in August 2022. Maybe send some feedback?

This is the first lie. The policy lists the legally protected characteristics and claims to uphold them all. The policy does not respect the protected characteristic of SEX. The clue is in the word “inclusive”. The problem with the word ”discrimination”, in the context of these policies, is that single sex wards are, by their very nature, discriminating. We exercised our judgement that women need safe spaces away from the sex class that does 99% of the sex offending mainly against females. We know some males represent a risk to females, so we sex segregate where women are likely to be vulnerable. Females who predate on males are vanishingly small, in number. Labelling excluding the opposite sex with a word, used as a pejorative, denies women’s right to withhold consent. I do not consent to share accommodation with a male, however he identifies, especially when I am at my most vulnerable.

The Trust, in their collective madness, sorry, wisdom, have decided to go beyond the law. Is this an attempt to curry favour with Stonewall, of whose scheme they are a paid up member? The language of ”assigned at birth” is Gender Identity New Speak to describe the process of recognising and recording biological sex. A process which is unproblematic in near a 100% of cases, despite propaganda to the contrary. The Trust also intend to recognise people who claim to be ”non-binary”, ”gender fluid” and ”non-gendered”. It also encompasses staff who demand compliance with their subjective sense of self. A polite fiction is not the same as enforced compliance and this policy demands adherence to the new religion. To which I say #NoThankYou .

The patient’s pronouns must be respected (wait till you see the list 😳). Here the respected medical professionals mean your BIOLOGICAL SEX may impact your treatment. Mother Nature doesn’t give a fig about your ”gender”.

These policies always contain an attack on families. I support my son, thank you very much, I affirm his sex and his sexual orientation and I do not approve of the NHS putting gay boys on the Turing Treatment. Here the Trust clearly intends to stoke family conflict by contradicting parents and other family members.

This section uses the obfuscatory techniques perfected by gender identity extremists. In one breath talking about ”same sex accommodation” but clearly elevating gender feelz above material reality. Heaven forfend the trans-identified person be offended by being offered a single room. No, they should be allowed to ride roughshed over issues of consent and be imposed on other patients. I do not consent to be a validation aid for someone who insists I recognise them as something they are not. Notice the pussyfooting around the new sacred caste.

This bit is bonkers. I am particularly irritated at the casual misuse of male and female. Bad enough the rest of the mangled language. A bearded man in an elevated state of anxiety, possibly with a sexual paraphilia, on a female ward! What could possibly go wrong?

People who are medicating with wrong sex hormones and following surgeries are at elevated risk of being hospitalised. There have already been cases of a heavily pregnant female, where pregnancy was not suspected because she was taking testosterone. She lost the baby because medical intervention was delayed.

Despite claiming to protect ”sex” the hospital allows men into female toilets and changing rooms. This policy also applies to the staff toilets and changing rooms.

Disciplinary procedures will be invoked against any staff member who complains. Patients and members of the public will also be dealt with. The Trust then have the temerity to suggest they abide by the duty to foster good relations between different protected characteristics. The wording below is misleading because everybody is covered by at least three of the protected characteristics. We all have a sex, a sexual orientation and we are all covered if we either have a religious belief or we do not. Not for the first time I don’t think the dversity disciples are sending their best people.

This is an important paragraph. Occupational requirements are how women (mainly) were able to carve out some female only spaces for women who had escaped domestic violence or were recovering from sexual assault. Some roles can be advertised for females only. The erosion of this right, in practice if not in law, is how we find ourselves with a man heading up a Rape Crisis centre, ostensibly for women, in Scotland. The naivete of top decision makers about male compulsion to violate women’s boundaries is so staggering it is criminally culpable.

Another mis-statement of the law appears below. Having failed to pass a law allowing self-identification into the rights of the opposite sex, the solution is to LIE. According to this hospital ”Gender Reassignment” legal protections cover some bloke with she in his email footer. The policy also states that the ”transgender” employee does not have to disclose their identity, which is the mess we got ourselves into with draconian penalties if privacy clauses are breached in the GRA. Allowing someone to conceal their sex was a big mistake.

There are some complicated instructions about how to make sure, when a sex marker is changed, the resulting, new, NHS number is populated with the previous medical history. It seems a reasonable supposition that all this complicates medical treatment in a highly pressurised environment. Blood results for many different conditions tell a different story for the different sexes. We are only in our infancy, for example, in looking at the way heart attack symptoms are different in females. Throw in the complications from taking cross-sex hormones and we are looking at a risky landscape. Many years ago an older male, who defined as transsexual, commented that there was a requirement to sign a document acknowledging SRS had not, literally, changed your sex. Imagine the uproar if this was the case in 2022.

I will leave you with a couple of clips from the glossary and some homework on the pronouns Birmingham hospital staff are expected to get to grips with. Why we are catering to this ridiculous, incoherent, contradictory ideology? I will never understand. It’s collective madness. Caligula would be proud.

Test at the end? My pronouns are F.O. Anyone with a pronoun app on their phone should be shunned.

You can support my work here. We need to dismantle this dangerous ideology one expose at a time.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology. Examining it’s impact on women’s rights and the health of our gay teens.

£10.00

NHS: Court Case: Surgery

Featured

The following Court Case was referenced in an NHS policy, from 2007, which would appear to have been written by Transgender Lobby groups.

I covered that policy in this piece:

NHS Trans Policy

The court transcript if you wish to read, in full, is linked below: 👇

North West Lancashire Health Authority v A & Ors [1999] EWCA Civ 2022 (29 July 1999)

The original case was taken by three trans-identified males who had been refused NHS funding for their ”sexual reassignment surgery”. The case hinged on whether Health Authority was operating a blanket ban on the surgeries or, as they claimed, taking each case on it’s merits. The particular context was a more restrictive policy, adopted in 1995, which focused expenditure on cases with an ”overriding clinical need”.

The details of the original appellants were as follows: All male but all claiming a ”female sexual identity”. Each, we are told, had been ”living as a woman” ; which begs the question how is a woman supposed to live? It is on this subjective, sexist, notion the foundations of the Gender Industrial Complex rest. 😳

In this case the apellant is the Health Authority who are appealing an earlier decision, by Judge Hidden, that declared their policy unlawful. The three trans-identified males claim the policy is irrational because they are ill and in need of the surgery. The Authority counter that the have limited financial resources, they are required to prioritise and ”transsexualism” is, rightly, they argue, deemed low priority. As an aside, the cost of this surgery, in 1995, was £8000. The judgement also highlights that the condition was understood as a mental disorder at that time. 👇

Medical Procedures of no proven benefit!

The Authority set out it’s thinking about the surgical procedures deemed to yield little benefit.

”Gender Reassignment” was identified, along with cosmetic surgery, as one area where they would no longer purchase the medical intervention. The exception made was where a substantial body of medical opinion attested to it’s effectiveness. The document added the following:

The Authority categorised ”Gender Reassignment as a procedure not backed by “carefully conducted, scientific, research” and expressed the view that it is uncertain whether the surgery was ”effective, ineffective or harmful”.

The policy did allow for an exception if an overriding clinical need could be established but a diagnosis of ”Gender Identity Disorder” was not deemed sufficient by itself. The post-holder, tasked with making these decisions, was the Director of Public Health and Public Policy. The trans-identified males’ cases were all examined in 1996/97 and surgery was refused. One of the men claimed the refusal had triggered their epilepsy. No evidence was produced to either substantiate the epilepsy or that transsexualism had any link to the development of epilepsy.

Dr Suddell was the post holder tasked with justifying these decisions which were, he argued, based on competing priorities, cost effectiveness and also the efficacy of the treatment. He set out his arguments below: 👇

Dr Suddell argued there was uncertainty about the benefits, pointed out it was the only condition that involved destroying healthy body parts and he expressed the view it was more beneficial for the patient to reconcile to their biology. He also cast doubt on the medical literature which claimed an 88% success rate, pointed out the lack of controlled, randomised trials, lack of research into long-term outcomes and bias on behalf of those producing the literature. All points which continue to be raised, to this day.

Those acting for the patients advanced the following to rebut these claims. All of those named are involved in the Gender Industrial Complex. They argue that the fact that the body parts are healthy overlooks the Transsexual’s ill health; which will persist until the offending body parts are removed. They also argue any attempt to reconcile a patient to their biology is ineffective and unethical.

Dr Russell Reid

At this point it is worth taking a closer looking at one of the people providing expert testimony: Dr Russell Reid.

Dr Russell Reid was found guilty of serious professional misconduct. His case was covered in the Guardian. He was accused of rushing five patients into sex changing treatments

One of his patients was in the grip of manic depression and only narrowly avoided an unnecessary double mastectomy.

Another was a convicted paedophile who was given the surgery and now regrets it.

A further patient, who you may know from twitter 👇 was disgusted that he was not struck off and was involved in further litigation against Reid.

Claudia McClean

Back to the Judgement

This case was heralded as a victory by Transgender Lobby Groups. It is true that the Authority were taken to task for claiming they did not operate a blanket ban on these procedures and their policy was deemed unlawful. They were not, however, required to provide automatic surgery based on the arguments put forward; which were based on arguments about interference with their Human Rights. The Judges were critical of the use of the European Court of Human Rights, by those acting for the respondents, and spent quite a long time explaining why.

The final decision was a recognition that the Authority can have regard to resource allocation but, in this case, they have acknowledged “transsexualism” as an illness and their policy is not clear about how they determine “overriding clinical need”. Activists may trumpet these victories but the creation of a medically dependent ”Transgender” class is a victory for predatory capitalism.

YOU ARE THE PRODUCT!

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

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s impact on women’s rights, gay rights and the health of vulnerable children funnelled to Gender Clinics.

£10.00

NHS Trans Policy

Featured

I have decided to do a series on all the NHS guidance on the denial of women’s rights; commonly disguised in their policies for patients with a ”trans-identity”. I am minded to do this because of the revelation that a man raped a woman, on an NHS ”women’s” ward. Following the rape the NHS lied to the woman, for a YEAR, claiming she could not have been raped because there were no MEN on the ward. This despite there being CCTV footage! You can read about this case here: 👇

Ward rape

Here are a few clips from the above article.

Make no mistake. Many, many health care professionals are concerned, nay furious, about these policies. Below is another clip.

By now it is clear that Lobby groups have infiltrated public, and private, sector organisations and senior staff have outsourced their critical thinking to transgender lobby groups. People who cannot accept biological truth, about themselves, are therefore driven by a compulsion to impose, dangerous, levels of sex denialism on the rest of us.
It is also clear this legal / policy capture has been happening for decades.

The policy I will look at today is from 2007. Here is the document:

Trans_peoples_health

The central deception, foisted on a supine bureaucracy, is that the policy is focused on “trans” people. This helps ensure nobody looks at the implications for other groups, specifically women.

The document was produced by a now defunct arm of the government, Central Office for Information which is what the COI on this clip states. 👇

The author, Julie Fish, is involved in LGBTQ issues. (She actually co-authored a book by someone I know quite well which was a bit of a shock). Social Work is pretty much captured, as we know.

Naturally it uses the language of Gender Identity Ideology. So calls into question the idea of ”two” genders and then says ”gender assigned at birth“.

Like Stonewall they include part-time cross dressers under the ”trans” umbrella: 👇

Even as far back as 2007 they were making the case for men to be in women’s spaces despite openly acknowledging most won’t have bodily modifications. To be clear, a surgically modified male is still not a woman but most people think men are at least disarmed to the extent of penis removal.

As we know the term ”Transgender” is now the main term used in the U.K but it is misleading to imply it only covers drag queens/kings. Many Drag Queens see themselves as simply gay men and the document avoids referencing men who are transvestic fetishists or men with autogynephilia. These are men with sexual paraphilia.

The document claims “transsexuals” have surgery and then prefer to be known simply as men or women. They tend to prefer to live in ”stealth”, we are told, if this was ever true it is not now! Later we are told MTF are at higher risk of violence because of lack of passing privilege. This is an attempt to get away with the idea of shy and retiring people who are in our spaces, we just don’t know it, and the idea theres an epidemic of violence against “transwomen”. If men are routinely attacking these males they must be clockable.

There are some lies about people with disorders of sexual development (DSDs). The reference uses the outdated term of ”hermaphrodite”, exaggerates the prevalence of the condition, and tries to imply they are part of the “trans” community. In fact there is no higher rate of people with chromosomal abnormalities in the ”trans” community. In the U.K a research project looked at referrals to Gender Clinics, found people with DSDs were not over-represented. Karyotype tests were then abandoned, as routine.



I have hesitated to cover the issue of DSDs when there are so many people, with these conditions, speaking out. Suffice to say their utility to the Trans activists is manifold. Firstly it serves a purpose to destabilise the notion we are sexually dimorphic and allows a captured elite to claim we no longer can define what a woman is. They are also used to claim being “trans” is a sort of “intersex of the brain”.  There is a compulsion to claim there is a biological basis for being “trans” to claim “born this way” and infer this is a recognised medical condition, not a mental disorder.  Here is a quote of a trans activist outlining this strategy:  ( This is a quote from MRKVoice.com) 👇

This is the sneaky way Lesbians and Gay men are redefined. If those who identify as ”trans” can by Lesbians /Gay men then you have decoupled biological sex from ”sexual orientation” This is why we have heterosexual males/ females identifying as Lesbians/Gay men. Note this clip was also laying the groundwork for the invention of the ”transgender child”.

The document uses the usual, emotional, blackmail about suicide in “trans” youth so I won’t repeat that here. I have done one piece questioning dodgy data on suicide and I have another one in the pipeline. The paper also emphasises the need to access medical responses for their ”identity” and recycles the idea that parents are abandoning our children and that the NHS routinely discriminates. This turns out to be about pronoun violations and not been allowed into the ward for the opposite sex.

They also claim they are left out of important health screening which is mainly due to removing their sex markers from NHS records. Basically they have been given exactly what they asked for and are now complaining.

This was an interesting ”mistake”. The document claims there is a Parliamentary Forum on Transsexualism. Yet if you follow the link it takes you to the Trans Lobby group : Press For Change.

Needless to say all the people consulted were gender extremists. Here is a sample.