Tara Hewitt: NHS.


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.


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!


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”?


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.


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.


NHS Trans Policy:Birmingham


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.


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.


NHS: Court Case: Surgery


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.


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.


NHS Trans Policy


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: 👇

Woman raped on women’s ward

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:


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.

On the references; many of the links are no longer there but I will follow up the referenced court cases in later blogs. {One of the court cases includes an individual who wants ”gender reassignment surgery” and claims his condition causes his epilepsy and only the removal of, I am presuming, his penis will cure it. Why are we listening to someone so obviously delusional?}.

Stephen Whittle and Christine Burns figure prominently in the referenced work. Here is a reminder about Burns. {From their book ”Trans Britain”. Chapter by trans activist, James Morton}. Prisons were chosen to normalise mixed sex spaces. We knew there would be sexual offences. These ideologues don’t care. Women and children are acceptable collateral damage in this War On Reality.

I am currently unwaged. Donations welcome.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology. How it has captured States and normalised the sterilisation of children. Many of who are just gay.


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.