I did not think I would be back here but it seems Oxfam have learnt nothing. To celebrate Pride they decided to commission a video. It didn’t take long for people to draw the obvious conclusion. This was yet another attack on women using the mysogynist slur “terf”. It was, of course, meant to depict Rowling, in the most unflattering light and to strip her of any appearance of being female. It was the definition of hateful.

Such was the outcry they were forced to edit the video and issue a public statement. There was every intention to depict J.K Rowling and to attack women who are standing up for sex based rights. In the U.K the right to hold “Gender critical” beliefs is protected, in law as a “philosophical belief”. This is where we are in 2023, it is a FACT that it is impossible to change your sex but, because of our naive political class, this truth is becoming unsayable. Below Oxfam make it clear that, irrespective of your sexual characteristics your “gender identity” is valid. This is signalling adherence to the #LadyPenis belief system.

They also sent an internal email claiming that overall feedback was positive 😳 but there had been some backlash and apologising that the coverage may upset some “trans” colleagues but nothing for staff who may be gender critical and labelled “Terfs”.

This is the filmmaking company responsible. They appear to be based in Bangalore and claim to be “woman led”. They have now protected their tweets.

The edited video is now up and it is hardly better. The new version promotes double mastectomies and pushes the idea of a “chosen family”.

It contains the usual transperbole and this signals a willingness to sacrifice women’s sport.

Stonewall.

So why are Oxfam (U.K) proselytising gender identity ideology? One clue is in their “Head of Influence” .

Turns out Sam Dick spent 5 years at Stonewall. 2015 is the year Stonewall took $100,000 from Arcus Foundation to add the T to LGB.

Turns out he was also seconded to the Government Equality Office during his time at Stonewall.

Govt Equality Office

Guess who was Head of Strategy at the Govt Equality Office during this period? A trans-identified male known as Alison Pritchard. I wrote about Pritchard some time ago.

Alison Pritchard: TRA behind the scenes? Part one: GEO

and 

Alison Pritchard: TRA behind the scenes? Part one: GEO

Pritchard is now the Deputy Head of the Office for National Statistics who botched the (once every 10 years) opportunity to garner accurate census data, despite losing a legal challenge to their idea that you can self-identity your sex. So confusing was the census that we have ended up with an implausibly high number of “trans” people in areas with a high density of people with English as a second language.

You can see the edited video here;

Oxfams Shame

You can read my series on Oxfam here: 

Oxfam

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. Every contribution matters if we are to turn back the tide on this madness.

My Substack

Before I covered the Oxfam’s new “inclusive language” guidance, I first provided a bit of background on the investigations over the behaviour of Oxfam staff in overseas locations. Oxfam were rocked by allegations of serious sexual misconduct by its male employees. Staff were found to be using women as “prostitutes” even on Oxfam premises. Allegations that some were underage were not investigated and, as a consequence, remain unsubstantiated. Allegations were made against workers in Haiti and Chad.

The Charity Commission published an investigation into Oxfam in 2019. There was also an Indeoendent report specifically looking at Oxfam and safeguarding.. I cover these investigations in part 1, below 👇

Investigation Oxfam

The investigations make it quite clear that the perpetrators were mainly male and the victims female. It was for this reason one of the recommendations was for female only meetings, designed to facilitate women to make allegations without fear. As we will see Oxfam now appears to have decided “Gender Identit” , as opposed to sex, is the primary basis for defining what makes a woman.

Recently Oxfam has published a style guide illustrating how deeply captured they are by Gender Identity Ideology.

Firstly, let us look at the author of this guide; an Oxfam employee, Helen Wishart, who was also a former employee of Annesty U.K. She describes herself as an intersectional feminist.

Amnesty U.K. has also been corrupted. I wrote about them here:

Amnesty U.K. What’s going on?

Wishart Was educated at various universities including Sussex; who allowed Dr Kathleen Stock to be hounded out of her post.

You can get a flavour of her thinking from an essay which remains on line. Here she is pretending that people who carve sex stereotypes into, and out of, their flesh are a symbol of hope and will destroy the patriarchy. Sigh. She also uses the usual appeal to emotion about violence against the “trans” community which is designed to silence your critical thinking skills.

Wishart basically argues that sex denialism will destroy the patriarchy because how can we be sexist if we don’t know what sex somebody is? This is an argument only acceptable for a juvenile to advance. The rest of the essay is similarly puerile. She has a lot to say about attacks on bisexual/pansexual individuals and how we are driven by heteronormative assumptions.

If I have not annihilated your will to live you can read more here:

Queer Resistance

The Guide:

The author is allegory concerned about erasing the experiences of women whilst it proceeds to problematise words describing uniquely female experience and centres the alphabet soup in violence against women and girls, a term it finds insufficiently “inclusive” !

Some of the newspeak

---

They also oppose the word “mother”

Oxfam also redefine same sex attraction to same gender attraction.

In the mix are some language changes that are not inherently objectionable and many are already in common usage and relatively uncontroversial. An example of this might be the assumption of chair man and the use of chair /chair person. I think these examples are used to disguise the top down imposition of Oxfam’s newspeak. Considering their history of using women and girls for sex, in poor countries. I find their rebranding of sexual exploitation deeply sinister. Who benefits when you say “people” who buy sexual access to poor women? We all know it’s invariably men who hand over money to get over tricky arguments about “consent”.

There’s quite a lot about privilege and white saviours and white feminism amd a warning that if you are infected with this privilege you might get defensive. This located any disquiet about the blatant social engineering in your own personal failing. Call me old fashioned but I think Oxfam should focus on their core mission, ameliorating poverty, and not proselytism for the gender borg.

I am particularly reminded about what Oxfam had to say about “white feminism” and carceral feminists who report rapists to the police. I wrote about that in 2021; thread linked below.

In this thread

Oxfam

Here are some of their references. Of course they have been Stonewalled.

And they recommend Meg John Barker who has cropped up a lot. She is/ was in a heterosexual relationship with a man who calls himself non binary. Sigh

Edward Lord, pictured below, is the man who made a public swimming pool, designated for women only, into mixed sex by changing the criteria to “self-identified” women.

There’s plenty more to irritate in this document. Here it is.

tk-inclusive-language-guide-130323-en.pdf;jsessionid=C969FED8C706C33FBD90D2A8F3EACF98

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. This month I have been hit by £288 for renewal fees so any assistance gratefully appreciated. It also helps me to maintain my commitment 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

Seems Oxfam is the latest in a long line of N.G.O.s to capitulate to transgender ideology. The attraction of Rainbow washing for this charity probably lies in its shameful history of turning a blind eye to employees; who sexually exploited some of the most vulnerable women and girls on the planet. For anyone not aware Oxfam was accused of turning a blind eye to members of their staff sexually exploiting young women (and, possibly, under age girls) in Haiti.

Before I cover Oxfam’s new “inclusive language” guidance, in Part 2, here is a bit of background on the NGO.

The Charity Commission published an investigation into Oxfam in 2019. You can access their findings here along with an Independent assessment of Oxfam and Safeguarding.

Investigation Oxfam

There was an investigation by Oxfam and also an Independent Review of Oxfam, focused on safeguarding.

In this investigation they pointed out the sex of the victims and that of the majority perpetrators

They highlighted the lack of appreciation that safeguarding had any bearing on the way conducted its business. The review strongly opposed this perspective and insisting that the charity should adopt a Safeguarding First approach in all it’s activities. 👇

They also questioned the pervading “cultural relativism” which saw employees prioritising respect for local customs and culture, even when those cultural practices were inherently abusive.

The main focus was on Oxfam’s overseas activities but they also revealed nine cases of registered sex offenders working in Oxfam shops. Something they also pointed out, of which I was unaware, was that Oxfam was not legally able to obtain the type of criminal record check that would reveal these offences.

I am assuming these sex offences would only be revealed by an enhanced check under the disclosure and barring service. Having looked at the on line tool it appears that an employer of shop volunteer would not be entitled to make a DBS check. This looks like a loophole for the government to address.

Another disturbing issue is that some of these registered sex offenders were known to shop staff and allowed to continue in their role.

The Independent review made a number of recommendations one of which was to appoint people with a strong track record in promoting the rights of women and girls. How will this play out now Oxfam is questioning what is a woman/girl?

The investigation by the Charity Commission resulted in sanctions for the Charity using their regulatory powers.

In February 2018 allegations emerged which dated back some years.

Turns out that Oxfam do not explicitly oppose the sexual exploitation of women and girls. Some staff were sexually exploiting women/girls on the charity premises.

The charity seemed to spend more energy in finding ways to expel rogue staff members than they showed for the victims.

In another part of the report it was revealed that they had a less than rigorous approach to prospective employee references, in one instance one of the men had a reference from one of the men in Haiti who was implicated in the other allegations. During the investigation into Haiti further allegations arose in relation to Chad. These leads were not followed up.

This was one of the recommendations. There should be female only meetings when overseas locations are inspected.

My question is that if Oxfam are now pretending that they can’t define women and if they include men who identify women in our sex class how are they protecting female only meetings? This is their statement on women, from the inclusive language guide, making it clear they have erased women as a sex class.

Next I will cover their guide to “inclusive” language guide.

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