Examining Gender Identity ideology and its impact on Women's Sex based rights and Gay Rights. Exploring how this has taken such firm root in Western societies (Cognitive & Regulatory Capture).
The Samaritans is a charity, based in the U.K, set up to help people in distress. They focus on providing 24 hour helplines, staffed by volunteers, whose aim is to avert self-harm or suicide. Apart from providing research on risk factors for suicide and they also teach media outlets how to report on completed suicides to avoid, inadvertently, fostering suicide ideation or even copycat suicides in specific demographics.
Given the charitable objectives of the Samaritans it has shown a marked failure to condemn the routine deployment of suicide threats to advance the aims of the Trans Lobby. If you are unfamiliar with the way questionable data on suicide ideation is used to promote medical responses to children with “Gender Dysphoria” I have written about it below:
The Samaritans have written extensively about how the media should avoid over-sensational media reporting, and simplistic narratives associating suicide with a specific demographic. They write, knowledgeably about suicide contagion and “clusters” of suicides associated with, for example, high-profile suicide of celebrities. They acknowledge the specific vulnerabilities of young people and yet…The Transgender Lobby break this code on a regular basis and are amplified by media outlets and even MPs. Yet the Samaritans remain, studiously, silent about the regular breach of its media guidelines on suicide by Trans Lobby groups.
So, why would the Samaritans ignore the most egregious breach of its media guidelines even though they *know* there is no epidemic of suicides in Gender Dysphoric youth? Could it be that they have been Stonewalled? Lets have a look at their CEO, Julie Bentley. She joined in October 2020 and had previously been CEO of Girl Guiding and Action for Children.
Her chosen profile on twitter has the tell-tale sign of pronouns in the bio, and proud proclamations about kindness and social justice along with the inevitable “feminist”.
Many of us have tagged Samaritans into tweets promoting suicide in our Gender Dysphoric youth and asking them for public statements to condemn the practice. This is just one example but I have done this myself, many times.
Previously Julie has been CEO of Girl Guides and Action for Children. Both these organisations are Stonewall Champions. It is not clear if Samaritans are paid up members of the Stonewall racket but Julie is an enthusiastic supporter. This is clip from an archive copy of Stonewall lists of supporters. As there are some high profile departures from the scheme Stonewall no longer allow public access to their supporter information.
Girlguiding has been the subject of some controversy under Bentley’s tenure as it was under her that the organisations became mixed-sex and guide leaders were terminated for raising concerns. Here is a link to her statement given at the time:
The response neatly side-steps the issue of Adult, male guide leaders. It also ignores a girls right to bodily privacy especially because some of these girls will have developing bodies and may already be menstruating. That is a time when many girls are self-conscious about their bodies and bodily functions.
Bentley also reveals that she was taking advice from a Trans Lobby group. Note that below she says that only in *some* instances are separate facilities used.
This remains a controversial topic for the Girl Guides long after Bentley has moved on. This is one of the guide leaders causing a fuss this week. You can read more about this below and note that women were expelled for warning this would happen.
Here Julie Bentley commends ex CEO of Stonewall, Ruth Hunt, who was responsible for turning Stonewall into a Trans Lobby group. 👇
Bentley continued her support for new CEO, Nancy Kelley.
Bentley has also spoken along side controversial Transing kids charity Mermaids. Two clips below, One from 2017 and an endorsement in 2020.
Samaritans have even promoted articles propagating articles about Transgender Suicide as far back as 2016.
Prior to Bentley’s time at the charity they also hosted “Dr” Helen Webberley of Gender GP. Webberley has had her registration suspended and is currently awaiting the outcome of another tribunal which is scrutinising her medical practices. Webberley was guest speaker at their AGM in 2016.
More recently Bentley nailed her colours to the mast as controversy blew up about Stonewall and she made it clear which side she was on.
I hope this explains why the Samaritans are maintaining a stubborn silence on the harms done in the name of Gender Identity Ideology. We are sterilising children, as young as 10, by putting them on Puberty Blockers which are invariably followed by cross-sex hormones. For males they will have stunted genitalia which will, even under their paradigm, make attempts to create a neo-vagina more difficult. Girls are put on a pathway to double mastectomy and often hysterectomy which is a response to vaginal atrophy induced by long term testosterone use. I cannot think of a situation more likely to see a spate of future suicides as regret kicks in. If CEOs of Charities don’t have the courage to do their job they should be removed.
While we are entitled to some celebration as more and more organisations extract themselves from Stonewall we are not going to be able to rest on our laurels. We face an uphill and lengthy battle to undo the damage. Firstly there will be multiple organisations keen to step into the breach and hoover up the Trans pound. Secondly Queer theory is embedded in our universities and churning out graduates saturated in (Judith) Butler Bollox. Whilst many of us were concerned that the European Union is captured there is a danger we could become tied to a U.S trade deal that comes with strings attached. The list of companies and public bodies who were indoctrinated by Stonewall is long. Even though Stonewall Champions list is shrinking (hence why it is no longer publicly names its supporters) the indoctrinated remain in those organisations.
Here is the archive list of Stonewall supporters. We need to root this ideology out of all of these organisations and it is going to take a long time. Help me keep going, if you can, below.
Since writing this article I discovered that the Samaritans were captured much earlier than I thought. In fact the Samaritans were involved in the Beaumont Society, an affiliate organisations for the wives of the Transvestite /“Transsexual” organisation, set up by the Beaumont Trust. {These quotes are from the book “Trans Britain” by Christine Burns).
The Samaritans listed all the organisations to help “transvestites/ “transsexuals” find each other back in the 1970’s.
Clearly the Samaritans remain captured. Here is a tweet from November 2022.
GIRES, another “trans” lobby group also boast about training the Samaritans,
Please support my work because many of the media are more involved in propagating this ideology than exposing it…only if you can afford it.
Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women & girls as well as the consequences for Lesbians, Gay males and autistic kids. I do this full time and have no income. All my content is open access and donations help keep me going. Only give IF you can afford. Thank you to my generous donors.
Ruth Hunt may believe that she got out of, the UK Charity, Stonewall, reputation intact, I am here to state that she did not. More public, and private, bodies are declining to renew membership, of the Charity’s many, money-making initiatives. Hunt may be congratulating herself that this did not happen on her watch. She is in for a rude awakening, this is her legacy. I intend to capture as much evidence as I can while we wait for the public accountability as the dominoes begin to topple.
Now that Hunt has been elevated to the the House of Lords I want to remind her that it took decades for Lord David Steel to be held to account; over his failure to deal with the child predator, and MP, Cyril Smith. How many more children could have been saved from abuse had he spoken up? Similarly how many of our, young, gay males and Lesbians will have been unnecessarily medicalised before Gender Identity Ideology is defeated. David Steel, eventually, resigned from his party and stood down from the House of Lords. His status did not save him. Stonewall had a proud history of standing up for Gay Rights but have now trashed their reputation. They bear a significant share of responsibiity for the harm Trans ideology has visited on young Lesbians and Gay Males. As CEO Ruth Hunt is similarly tarnished.
Ruth Hunt will indeed have a reputation, even a place in history, but it is one likely to take the proud out of PRIDE! Queer Capitalism indeed!
Primary Source:
Here is the interview. I have saved a copy. There will be mass deletions of tweets, interviews, newspaper articles. We need to archive as many of these as we can. We must NEVER forget who is reponsible for the promotion of this ideology. (Ruth Hunt has already deleted her Twitter account).
Here is a transcript. I have tried to reproduce it accurately but I did have to correct some parts, the intent was clear, but it didn’t translate to the written word. You can cross check the interview for yourself.
The interview takes place when Stonewall were campaigning for a review of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA). The GRA allows someone to obtain a revised birth certificate to reflect a “sex change”. The legislation was designed to facilitate a legal fiction for, we were told, a tiny number of people who we commonly considered to be “transsexual”. What Trans Activists, supported by Stonewall, wished to do was to allow anyone to identify as the opposite sex on a “self-identifying” basis. This would remove any gatekeeping and, as I have shown in previous blogs the process, as it exists now, already allows fully intact, male, rapists to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate.
In the U.K, this proposed “reform”, triggered alarm in many women and led to the formation of Women’s Place U.K and Fairplay For Women as well as other, groups like Standing For Women. Other groups like Object and Filia had existed prior to the GRA.
The strategy Stonewall used to enable this legislative change was to avoid debate. We were told there was no need for one and we should just “skip it”. This approach was perfectly represented by this campaign material.
Stonewall and other Trans Activists also opted for a policy of #NoDebate on the spuriousgrounds that we “debated” Gay Rights and we should simply #Skipit this time. This strategy was exemplified in BBC Radio 4 Women’s Hour attempts to cover the issue. Those representing the Trans Lobby would refuse the appear, on the same programme as Women’s Rights campaigners, claiming this would render them unsafe. This propagated the myth of a vulnerable community and also avoided any, direct, challenge to their arguments. Sometimes Woman’s Hour used taped segments, other times Trans activists refused to appear, at all. Many segments were simply cancelled because nobody, for the Trans Side, would agree to contribute.
Freddy McConnell (Trans-identified Female) outlined their stance, re debate, for the Guardian. Note the framing, discussing this issue is presented as a literal threat to life. It is also notworthy that females are often put up to oppose Women’s rights campaigners to avoid people concluding, correctly in my view, that Trans Lobby Groups are dominated by Men’s Rights Activists. It is a lot easier to get away with the hyperbole of “vulnerable” trans people when using a female with a small build.
Ruth Hunt remembers Stonewall Strategy slightly differently. In this interview she claims the problem is that they had over-estimated the capacity of the general public to engage in the debate in a mature enough fashion. Elitist claptrap. I would, however, agree with Ruth on one point they legal/policy proposals are indeed “naive”. I would suggest the truth of the matter is that Stonewall thought that they could adopt the strategy of passing legislative change by stealth. (See my piece on The Denton’s Document. Thankfully the days of them operating in the shadows are over. We See You, as they say, and we don’t like what we are seeing..
Owen’s response is to profess bafflement. Who are the people (can’t even bring himself to say “women) who want to discuss the conflict of rights between Women and Men? They would be WOMEN, Owen. This illustrates how out of touch Owen is with the Working Class on whose existence and lives he has built his career and income streams. Not one thought for the women in prison’s forced to share space with male rapists? Naturally he frames this as “anti-trans” rather than pro-women. He is grossly ill-informed.
Ruth also knows perfectly well she is talking about people with no desire for a “medical” transition. She even claims that women, opposed to male-bodied people in their spaces, are in danger of putting pressure on the NHS who would not be able to cope with the demand. On this point I can set Ruth’s mind at reast. Surgery does not convert a man into a woman and women still have the right to single sex spaces irrespective of surgical status.
This is how Ms Hunt frames the discussion about the Gender Recognistion Act. It is well worth watching the footage to see the jocular way she and Tiny Owen discuss this proposed amendment to the GRA. “It’s just admin”.
Owen cannot contain his glee at the opportuniity to laugh at all those silly women, kicking up a fuss about nothing.
Ruth then goes on to share her opinion on the existing, legal position. This is what is known as Stonewall Law. Repeat the law as you wish it to be not as it is. If the law already allowed all these things there would have been no need for the amendment. What she is doing here is making sure, even if the law does not change, they can continue training organisations across the land that single sex spaces are illegal.
Below is a clip from the Reindorf Report which investigated the no-platforming of Feminist academics from Essex University. Here’s what the author had to say about Stonewall.
Ruth then goes on to make a statement worthy of Goebels level propaganda. The breathtaking audacity of the following statement flabberghasted me to the point of a Benjamin “butter gasp”!
Yes! It’s not as if we don’t already have male rapists in female prisons, competing in women’s sports, taking Women’s Officer roles in the Green Party and Labour. Its not as if a male, who lied about his sex, is now running a Rape Crisis centre for women. Its not a if Mental Health Nurses are telling a female patient, undergoing a psychotic episode the person who has just exposed his penis to her is a “woman”. Its not as if a man in Monkey costume complete wearing a Dildo is going into Nurseries to read books for children!
Hurdles versus Loopholes.
This is a major social engineering process which requires females accept males in every conceivable space. I cannot resist sharing one final screenshot of this interview. This is where Ms Hunt made a (freudian?) slip and substituted the word “loophole” when, from the context, it seems she meant to say “hurdle”. Daft!
I am looking forward to looking at how Ruth squares this with her Christian Faith and why she claims she would be a good person to navigate the so called “Culture Wars”.
paypal.me/STILLTish
Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth. Support is always appreciated (I have no income). All my content is open access so if you can’t speak publicly, and you have spare cash, this helps me keep going.
Like many people I have ceased to donate to Amnesty following the revelation they took advice from Pimp Lobby groups before deciding to adopt the stance #SexWorkIsWork. The majority of the sold are women and the purchasers are, almost invariably, male no matter the sex of those being traded. A purported human rights organisation which prioritises male sexual entitlement over their victims is a Human Rights organisation only because they self-identify as such. 👇
As if to remove all doubt about their anti-women stance Amnesty Ireland recently castigated women for defending their sex based rights. Below is an astonishing foray into the controversy of allowing men to self-identify as women. Women who point out the conflict with sex based rights are lazily conflated with far right organisations and, Amnesty argues, should be denied representation for these views.
You can read more in this article, by Julie Bindel, below. 👇
However, today I want to talk about Amnesty’s startling intervention in the KeiraBell case. Full details of this case are below. The brief summary is that, in the U.K., a high court judgment has halted administration of puberty blockers, to under 16s, without a court order I have done many posts on the Tavistock and on Puberty Blockers. I have long expressed concern about setting children, as young as ten, on an irreversible path to lifelong dependence on the pharmaceutical industry. So why are a Human Rights organisation setting themselves against this judgement? The presiding, High Court, judges did not believe that children, under 16, could give informedconsent to an experimental treatment with such significant implications; for physical and psychological development. They further cautioned, even for those age 16 and 17, an endocrinologist may wish to get court approval. Blog on this case below:
Here was Amnesty U.K proclaiming their support for attempts to overturn the decision.
A cursory look at Amnesty financial statements demonstrate their adherence to the tenets of Transgender Ideology, Here is a statement which states a goal to protect “GenderIdentity”. No definition is provided, naturally. It is impossible to define “Gender Identity” without using circular references. How can you have an “internal sense of oneself”, as a woman or a man, without first defining your terms? Invariably they depend on sexist expectations based on stereotypes. This is why so many of these conversations are a dead end.
A cursory glacé at their accounts shows they have one project to look at sex based issues which impact on women and girls. Female Genital Mutilation and forced, early, marriage. A lot of these charities, with an international remit, recognise sex based oppression and abuse, when it occurs overseas, but deny it in the Northern Hemisphere. I do wonder who runs the cognitive dissonance department. 👇. (Dilbert)
Perhaps the explanation for the stance Amnesty U.K. takes is influenced by the chair of their LGBTI network which tells its own tale 👇
Note that, in the Keira Bell case, both Mermaids and Stonewall were refused permission to intervene in the case because their evidence was deemed to have no bearing on the case. That’s a damning indictment of their preparedness /evidence supplied in this case. Amnesty: Do you know who you are allying with?
If you are able to support my ability to focus on this full-time you can do so here.
paypal.me/STILLTish
Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth. Support is always appreciated (I have no income). All my content is open access so if you can’t speak publicly, and want to support those who can, only IF you have spare cash, this helps me keep going.
Recently there has been a raft of Freedom of Information requests (FOIs) to ascertain the extent of the policy capture by Stonewall; a controversial lobby group. The intention was to discover how organisations demonstrate compliance with Workplace Equality Index, run by Stonewall, and how participants game the ranking system. {In an interesting aside the BBC refused to disclose the information requested. They claimed an exemption due to commercial sensitivity. I anticipate this refusal will be challenged but why are the BBC so reticent?}
The House of Commons did reveal the information requested and this may shed some light on the situation. Their response was in two documents which are reproduced, in full, below. 👇
Subscribers to Stonewall schemes are subject to an annual audit and their submission is monitored for compliance and ranked accordingly. Stonewall are embedded across government, the public and private sector and allies, until recently, were keen to promote their score across Social media. I predict that will change as more public scrutiny takes place.
The House of Commons obtained 23rd place in the 2020 rankings. The Ministry of Justice ranks higher. I would love to see if the MOJ leverage their role in locating female prisoners in with transgender rapists. 😳
The process of allocating rankings is accompanied by lengthy guidance and examples members could use to demonstrate subservience to their Rainbow clad overlords. Naturally Stonewall play fast and lose with pesky details, like the actual law of the land. Below is a classic of the genre. Stonewall lists a legally protected, characteristic; sexualorientation followed by two that are not; gender identity and trans identity. They then proceed to talk about other protected characteristics which neatly obscures the fact that they are mixing fact with fiction. They also ask for explicit bans on discrimination in which they throw in another characteristic; gender expression. 👇. Stonewall is a master (mistress) of these linguistic sleights of hand.
So how does the House of Commons respond? Credit where credit is due they lead with a legally accurate list. Whether this is a sign of resistance or naïveté about Stonewall’s agenda is not for me to determine.
Alas this is not consistently applied. Later in the House of Commons pivots to accede to StonewallLaw. Here sex is omitted and replaced with gender. 👇
We then come to the thorny question of gender neutral language. Feminists long campaigned for the language to recognise that we, the female people, could chair meetings and fight fires. The fight to make language less reliant on the default use of men; when describing roles, or occupations, is now relatively uncontentious. However women were not campaigning to make ourselves invisible! The intent was to lay claim to professional and leadership roles hitherto solely occupied, or dominated, by men. Using gender neutral language was to foster that aim. It was never intended to deny our bodily existence, as a sex class.
Stonewall have a rather different agenda. Their aim is to eradicate sex based language especially when it pertains to biologicalwomen in favour of the inclusion of ideologicalwomen (a.k.a males). Women did not campaign to ignore the reproductive labour of pregnancy and childbirth or deny the role of the female sex. Most theories of why women are subject to discrimination locate the explanation in our reproductive functions. We are subject to sex discrimination because we are, or are perceived to be, able to carry and bear children. Here 👇 the House of Commons talks of “pregnant employees” and the “person giving birth”. This is Stonewall speak.
The induction process takes the re-education agenda one step further by using an example of a “transwomen” as part of employee training. This scenario 👇posits women, asking for sex segregated toilets, as problematic. Women are, effectively, shamed for a perfectly legitimate need. They are so proud of this example they use it twice labelling it “bullying” and “harassment”.
The indoctrination continues with lunchtime seminars led by a Trans activist. Helen Belcher is a Transgender Lobbyist most notable for being involved in TransMediaWatch. This organisation seeks to change the way the media covers trans issues. This is one of the organisations responsible for the press regulator (IPSO) mandating use of preferred pronouns for trans identified males. This is now normalised, even when they have committed sex offences against women!
Helen Belcher is a Liberal democrat councillor and former parliamentary candidate. Layla Moran explicitly thanked Belcher for providing guidance on how to answer questions about the proposal to allow males to “self-identify” as women. Predictably pansexual Layla was all in favour of the proposition and provided one of the more memorable statements recorded in Hansard.
Layla dismissed women’s concerns and claimed to have a sixth sense in sniffing out predatory males. After some nonsense about women with beards she exposed her naïveté (complicity?) with this response.
Another invited guest to showcase the House of Commons willingness to subvert their public purpose to this lobby group was an invited artist, Dusty “O” who has a nice sideline in bepenised “women” in his oeuvre.
There are also invitations to drag artists and lots of talk of rainbow lanyards. They do note one concession to women’s demands, for a female only space, but why does the HOC feel the need for the word female to be placed in inverted commas?
Another astonishing admission the House of Commons raising funds to one of the more controversial charities working with children; Mermaids. A charity led by a woman who took her own child, aged sixteen. for sexual reassignment surgery in Thailand. Surgery which would be illegal in the U.K and is now illegal in Thailand (until aged 18).
The document is littered with positive references to Pink News. A comic which vigorously opposes women raising issues of concern about sex based rights. The editors also continue to conduct a campaign of vilification against author JK Rowling who, they claim, is “transphobic”. She is not but why let truth get in the way of a good story.
The HOC also boast about changing parliamentary identification to facilitate pronoun changes and recognise anyone changing their “gender expression”. Furthermore they promote a member of staff who pushed for mixed sex toilet facilities. 👇
Finally, as I have uncovered before, here is conclusive proof that Stonewall actively encourages its allies to troll InternationalWomen’sDay. They do this by suggesting active promotion of “transwomen” on a day set aside for women. This, of all their actions, is the most provocative.. Anyone taking seriously the need to foster good relations between different protected characteristics (Sex and GenderReassignment) should have predicted how inflammatory this course of action would be. Check #IWD2021 for how often this originates from Stonewall Allies.
I am unwaged and donations are always welcome but, with so many important legal cases under way, here is a worthy causes who could use some support: AEA Crowdfunder
This Judicial Review was brought by Keira Bell and a parent of an autistic girl, identified as Mrs A. Applications to “intervene” in the case were brought by Mermaids, Stonewall and Transgender Trend. Only the latter were accepted by the Judges. Mermaids and Stonewall were not added to the case because the evidence they presented was not accepted, as relevant, by the by court.
Since 2011 the Gender Identity Service , in the U.K., commonly called GIDs or The Tavistock, has been prescribing puberty lockers to children as young as 10. This was originally agreed, by the Health Regulation Authority (HRA) as a research project. The first ethics approval panel rejected the project so the Tavistock submitted to a different Ethics approval panel, who did accept it. There is a complex back story to how this experiment was launched. You can read more about this on an earlier blog:
In this court case one of the patients from the Tavistock challenges the treatment she was given. Crucially the court considers the impact of the treatment, in both the short and long term, the evidence base for this treatment and whether these young patients can give informed consent.
One of the key issues is the lack of evidence supporting this controversial treatment. Nine years on and, by the time of this court case, the findings of this research study had still not been published! Below the Director of GIDs argued that they were about to publish the research which was too late for the Court case. Why would you not prioritise this research paper to ensure the court case had the evidence? Surely you would have expedited it if you were so certain it would support your case?
More than once the judge expresses surprise at the lack of data provided by GIDS.
Furthermore the Court, below, highlighted the dramatic rate of increase in referrals to GIDs and the change in the demographic. The lack of curiosity about this change is astounding.
It had not, however, entirely escaped the notice of GIDs. Here is BernadetteWren, ex head of psychology at the Tavistock , speaking on this issue to the Women’s and Equalities Committee, on Transgender Equality. A social revolution that many have fought for! I wonder how many realised it would result in our young Lesbians medicalising themselves to the point of sterility? Or our gay sons retreating into faux-straight, medicalised closets? Some revolution!
The court also noted the proportion of autistic kids who are seduced by Gender Identity Ideology. This is why Mrs A is also part of this court case, her daughter is autistic. Once again the court expresses surprise at the lack of data available, from the Tavistock.
But the literature is available at the high number of referrals from neuro atypical children. It is so well known that Autistic charities have commented on its prevalence.
Once again we see the unexpected prevalence of autistic females. 👆 Indeed it is such a well known feature that Gender Identity Ideologues like Jo Elsson-Kennedy had this to say in a, now deleted, interview. This clip is taken from a transcript of the podcast by the controversial clinic (Gender GP) run by suspended General Practitioner Helen Webberley:
Here 👆 Olssen-Kennedy makes the extraordinary claim that symptoms of autism disappear when the GenderDysphoria is treated.
In the full judicial transcript document the court elaborates the way Gender Dysphoria is diagnosed. I won’t reproduce here but it is a list based on how a young person deviates from sex stereotypes. I fit much of that criteria myself. How much more pronounced will Gender non-conformity be in a proto-Gay kid who may otherwise grow up as a Butch Lesbian or Femme Gay male?
These are the side effects of the treatment, Fertility and, for males, stunted genitalia high will impact on sexual function. Remember we are asking 10 year olds to sign up to this.
The Tavistock did have service users who spoke well of the Tavistock and their treatment. However these were the judges observations on the witnesses. It is extraordinary that GIDs thought their witnesses would strengthen their case.
On the contrary a neuroscientist called into question the ability of even teenagers to consent to these treatments and highlighted the lack of impulse control which is evident before brain maturation. Notably many commentators locate brain maturation at age 25 but certainly it has not been completed by age 18! In the United Kingdom double mastectomies are available from age 17 and sexual reassignment surgery from age 18. What makes this even more alarming is that children not allowed to experience puberty may be arrested in the development of cognitive development and lag behind their peers in respect of brain maturation.
Another plank of the case was the court’s rejection of the idea that puberty blockers provide a pause for young children to be relieved from the development of sexual characteristic and time to resolve their Gender Dysphoria. The court highlights the almost inevitability of puberty blockers to be followed by cross-sex hormones. Therefore consent for one needs to encompass the cross sex hormones.
The full document deals with the issues of Gillick competence with reference to many other legal judgements. Many lobby groups have tried to argue this legal case throws into question rights to contraception or abortion and to smear Gender Critical arguments on this basis. This is smoke and mirrors. It is rare to find any gender critical feminists who are against the right to control fertility. We do, however, oppose the eradication of fertility in minors. This is quite a different argument.
It is worth reminding people that these children will be dependent on pharmaceutical companies for the remainder of their lives. Does #BigPharma have a vested interest in creating life long patients? Are we monetising the confusion of children, and teenagers, who have been inculcated with Gender Dysphoria by the Gender Industrial complex?
The Tavistock have won the right to appeal against the initial judgment. Mermaids and Stonewall have, once again, not been granted the right to intervene in the case. However the Endocrinology society, in the United States have been allowed to intervene as has Brook, who you may remember as a Pregnancy Advisory Service. They are now expanding their remit and cover issues around “Gender”.
You can read about Brook’s belief about “Gender” : Here
These clips should give you a clue about the stance taken by Brook. Accessed on 16th February 2021.
As you can see they have not quite got around to updating their guidance on #PubertyBlockers. Here they describe it as merely a suspension which can be resumed if the person changes their mind. As noted above near 100% progress to Cross-Sex Hormones.
And, of course, they signpost these troubled teens to GIDs.
This incoherent ideology has captured, seemingly, all the charities operating in the U.K. Brook would appear to be another one willing to squander its legacy in the alter of Gender Identity Ideology.
If you are able to support my work you can do so below.
Transgender Guidance, for schools, draws support for its interpretation of the law from the Department of Education (DFE). This document illustrates how they have been cognitively captured by many of the prominent Trans Lobby groups. Many references to GIRES and Stonewall. None to women’s groups. Not a single one. The DFE also reference the Cornwall guidance which was the subject of my previous blog.
This guidance, from 2014, asserted that the protected characteristic of gender reassignment now extended to school pupils. You can read the full document below. 👇
This is the document which advised schools how trans-identified pupils are covered by the, legally protected, characteristic of Gender Reassignment.
It is important to remember that sexual reassignment surgery is prohibited for under 18 year olds, on the NHS. Granting permission to male pupils, to use facilities in accordance with their “gender”, is mandating girls to accept penis in their intimate spaces. Gender reassignment was not intended to cover the modern idea of what it means to be trans.We did not consent to this.
The DFE briefing relies on advice from Stonewall and the Gender Identity and Research Education Society. (GIRES). A brief look at their supporters and trustees shows a heavy presence from trans-identified males. Below is a quick look at attitudes to sexual harassment from prominent transgender activists some of them associated with GIRES.
Backlash?
Anyone remember #MeToo? Is this the backlash?
Carlotta is not the only trans-identifying male who thinks women over react to men’s sense of entitlement to our bodies. There is a marked difference between a male and female perspective on sexual harassment. Paris Lees is advertised as a GIRES supporter on their website. Here Paris celebrates being objectified and arrogantly dismisses female fears about how transgender rights are being used to attack women’s right to single sex spaces. Ironically statistically escalators are more of a risk than Paris appreciated. There were, in fact, more people killed in escalator accidents than trans people were unlawfully killed, by all causes, in the year of this tweet. I would not trust Paris Lees to risk assess women’s expose to harm when single sex spaces become uni-sex.
A cursory look at the hyper-sexualised, look at me, performances of “femininity” from prominent TransGender activists bears witness to the fact that Paris Lees is not an outlier. Here Carlotta illustrates that males look at sexual abuse in a different way to women? For transgender males their perception is skewed because they have an excessive need to be validated, as women, which predisposes them to welcome what we repudiate.
I bring this up because, it seems to me, policy around sex segregated spaces is being DICKtated by males. Yes they may wish to identify as women but they seem unable to identify with our experience. The lobby groups advising government are drawn from this same population. Is it any wonder they have absolutely no idea of what it was like to grow up as a teenage girl? A cursory glance at the trustees of GIRES and supporters is enough to illustrate their likely bias.
School context
As a result of these lobby groups we are opening up single-sex spaces at a time of unprecedented rates of sexual assault in schools. Here are a couple of slides from a presentation by MaureenO’Hara.👇. Over 600 rapes in a three year period. I was staggered by that figure.
Here is your regular reminder De Facto Self-identity, of “Gender” has already been introduced in policy if not in law.
The DFE will end up with a future appearance at the Inquiry into child sexual abuse, the only questin is when. We do not want to wait thirty years. We need to hold people accountable, during their time in office, and not when they are deceased or honoured with a with a seat in the House of Lord and a massive pension.
The usual suspects.
A lot has changed in the six years since this guidance was written. I suspect even the most zealous of Transgender Rights Activists (TRAs) didn’t anticipate the explosion of trans identifying children. My school, of 1000 pupils, had at least three females and one male in one year group! This is no longer “rare”. Eventually one would hope that politicians would wake up to the obvious connection between proselytising Gender Identity Ideology and rising rates of children claiming to be transgender.
Here the DFE expand on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and why it is deemed to cover school children.
👇 Again they link to GIRES website.
This was surely not the intention of the original lawmakers. Exhibit A. John Bercow. Hansard. Once again the interchangeability of gender as a proxy for sex makes for bad law. Bercow may have intended to reassure over single sex spaces or to obfuscate.
I am starting to come out in a rash when I see the word “gender”. The word that needs to be used all the time is sex. This quote below is disingenuous because all the guidance that flows from this has, effectively, stopped treating sex as a protected characteristic. This is a major change and not simply a reduction in paperwork.
I was not aware that harassment only applies to disability, race and sex but not the other categories listed. I will defer to legal peeps on what this means in reality. One noted feature of this is that gender identity is covered by hate crime legislation, even though it is not a legally protected characteristic. Sex, which is a protected character, is not covered. I am no fan of hate crime legislation, especially the ridiculous hate crime incident category, but women can’t point to any statistics on the hatred we experience using this method. A man can report misgendering as a hate crime but women can’t report any sexist abuse.! Women can’t laugh at a man but he can abuse us with impunity.
The inevitable referral to the Stonewall website and more links to GIRES material. The guide quoted below was made possible by funding from the Home Office which you can find confirmed in their accounts for year ending December 2013. When the fashion for outsourcing took over the governments, of all political persuasions, I had not understood this included sub contracting their own critical thinking. Lobby groups have been allowed to corrupt policy, and law, in this area for far too long.
It is well worth having a look at the GIRES website and, in particular, their trustees. Populated by trans activists with a strong presence from late -transitioning males with backgrounds in hyper-masculine occupations. They also have a trustee who is steeped in Queer Theory and can be found quoting Judith Butler in what reads like a PhD level argument for men who want to retain their penis. Here is a quote from Reubs Walsh from their public writing and their YouTube channel.
Reubs can also be found opposing the Keira Bell judgement and arguing for the early medicalisation of children. Once again I am struck by the contrast between adult men constructing arguments against surgery, presumably for themselves, but advocating medical solutions for children.
Support for my work. paypal.me.STILLTish
If you are unable to speak out and can support me to continue to undertake research my details are below. I am not in receipt of any form of income so every little bit helps me continue to devote myself full-time. Only give if you are able.
I have done a number of twitter threads on School policies, ostensibly, about protecting “transgender children”. I have already blogged, on the way they treat parents. We are treated as potential bigots who need educating on Gender Identity issues. The Schools, invariably, take it upon themselves to keep parents in the dark about our “Gender Dysphoric” kids. They blithely inform us our kids are at significant risk of attempting suicide but still think it is good practice to hide pertinent information from parents. You can read that post here: Putting the Loco in Loco Parentis.
This is the second of a series on the policies I have found. Some have already been withdrawn but we need to preserve a record of the extent of the policy capture. Note that this series will be repetitive as they are clearly modelled on a small number of templates. The poor practice is widespread due to the cut and paste nature of the policies. The positive spin on this is that we can recapture in the same way. We only need sensible templates which balance the needs of kids with Gender Dysphoria and the protected characteristic of sex. We also need schools to stop usurping Parental Responsiblity. I know of multiple parents who only found out their daughters were adopting male identities, at school, due to an administrative error! This cannot be right. I was fortunate that this was not the case for my child, possibly, because it was back in 2015.
This post is on the Suffolk guidance. It is modelled on the Allsorts toolkit, which was the first one I covered. You can access the document below:
In the introduction we are told this was produced with input from transgender children and their parents. The other agencies they reference, quote, or signpost are listed below. Nearly all of these are Lobbying groups; advocating for the inculcation of Gender Identity Ideology in our schools, universities and other public, or indeed private, institutions. Stonewall, Mermaids, Gendered intelligence, Gires all get a mention.
I can’t possibly include all the clips I made of this document. I will just select the most egregious examples.
Predictably we go straight to the suggestion that trans-identifying children are at a greater risk of self-harm and suicide. This fear is leveraged to insist we have a “moral imperative” to act using emotional blackmail to demand “effective support”. What they propose , however, is the wrong kind of “support”.
I have rebutted the data on suicide many times on this blog. Below it is referenced once again. It is based on a study which included 27 trans-identifying people under the age of 26. Of that sample 13 had self-reported a suicide attempt. Even the author, of the PACE report, confirmed the difficulties that arise when research is used by lobby groups for their own purposes. Be very skeptical about suicide data in this field. It’s use, in my view, is not far removed from a terrorist tactic. Politicians are fond of saying they won’t negotiate with terrorists. In this case they have outright capitulated to lobbying groups deploying the most egregious of threats. Do this or I will kill myself/Your child will .
So how are Suffolk defining “trans”? Here is the list. This is unscientific nonsense and the last catetory is nonsensical. The authors clearly know we are making up genders, daily, so have added a catch-all category at the end.
Stonewall Lesbian
They also add this revealing caveat about why they are omitting “cross-dressers”. Most people don’t know that transvestites are considered to be “Trans” and covered by the Stonewall Umbrella.
It seems, for children, the authors recognise dressing up in clothes “stereotypically intended for the “opposite” sex” (note the inverted commas around the word “sex”) doesn’t make you “trans”. So what changes when you are an adult? Kids who experiment with dress are not automatically assumed to be “trans” but adult men who indulge in fetishistic transvestism are? Here we are grooming children to accept transvestites as some kind of “woman” when many do so for a sexual thrill. An erotic charge which can be heightened when undertaken in a forbidden (female only) space.
Below they engage in the linguistic gymnastics to change the definition of sexual orientation, a legally protected characteristic, by some careful wording. We used to call gay love the love that dared not speak it’s name. We are doing the same thing in 2020. This alteration of the meaning of sexual attraction to “romantic” is designed to make sure a heterosexual man, who identifies as a woman,can still be a “lesbian”. I concede that, if you are new to this subject, that last sentence will sound like an outlandish statement. Bear with me!
Here is Alex Drummond. Stonewall ambassador and bearded “lesbian”. Note the stance. I don’t think I have ever seen adult women adopt this, toes turned inward, stance. You won’t find a better take down of Alex than is to be found on the YouTube channel of the late, great, Magdalen Berns.
Safeguarding
We have just been told that any trans-identifying children are at a higher risk for self-harm and suicide but, now we are told there are no safeguarding issues. At the same time we also telling staff that it is Ok to allow children and young people to use the toilets and changing rooms of the opposite sex. NO SAFEGUARDING ISSUES?
Our children are also being taught that all people’s bodies and genitals are different. Not males and females have different bodies but “peoples”.
Yes we know the male people have different genitalia to the female people. Here they are indoctrinating children to divorce sexed bodies from “gender identity”. Specifically suggesting that recognising biological sex is based simple on “societal assumptions”. It is absolutely reckless to lower girls boundaries about male-bodied people, in their spaces, in this way. The tiny number of people with Disorders of Sexual development (here they use the term intersex) don’t undermine the fact that we are sexually dimorphic. This is why the word “gaslighting” is ever-present in this “debate”. if you don’t feel crazy trying to keep up with these teaching materials then you might not be sane!
Autism
Next up they acknowledge the high prevalence of children with autism who are questioning their gender. Here they warn staff not to limit the autonomy of the autistic child by questioning their gender identity. In fact the guidance is contrary to what is needed here. Children who are autistic are particularly vulnerable to gender identity ideology and ought to be protected from being defined as “trans” for behaviours common in autistic children. As an aside Autistic Charities have been reckless in their rush to embrace Gender Identity Ideology. Those thathave colluded with sterilising autistic ought to be removed from their posts. A clear out of senior staff at Autistic Charities is well overdue. I suspect, instead, they will end up in the House of Lords.
Withholding Information from Parents (again!)
Another common thread is the schools deciding to withhold information from parents about their own children. Parents are not told about a child’s transgender identity despite believing this makes them in a high risk demographic for suicide and self-harm. They don’t seem to see the safe-guarding concern in the denial of salient information to parents. On the contrary they see the safeguarding risk as originating with parents. Once again painting parents as less likely to care about our children than a transient person in the school. I would argue we are setting up a situation where a child has a secret with an adult which may make them more vulnerable to grooming by that member of staff?
Furthermore other parents are not to be told that a boy, a male for clarity, is using your daughter’s changing rooms. I absolutely hated even single sex, communal changing rooms and showers and I was not alone. It is beyond belief we would consider it Ok to put girls in this position.
Here it is made explicit that this is also intended to apply for overnight stays. 👇
Overnight school trips was that it was an important rite of passage to have nights away from home and typically the teachers left the girls unsupervised in the dormitories. This was a key part of the trip. The above guidance, however, means a teenage boy could be left in a girls dormitory. What will it take before some grown-ups step in and acknowledge that sexual offences, in schools are off the scale and are being committed by males, as a sex class, not as a gender identity.
The second point about that guidance is that any girl who feels uncomfortable will be stigmatised because she will be told she has to be the one to move. What girl will speak up in this climate?
So now we move on the case studies which, if you think I have been over-interpreting the guidance, lay out it clearly. This is a shameful misuse of the phrase “Human Rights” by the way. There is no human right to invade, women and girls, single sex, spaces.
Now we have taken away the right to single sex spaces what other ways could we screw over the female pupils? Oh, that’s right Sport. I am absolutely staggered that this policy was accepted without question. Of course a girl is going to be at risk playing a contact sport, like Rugby, against a male. And look at the language. “Trans boys are boys, not girls”. No they are females in flight from their sex but they are still female-bodied. Also make no mistake they always subsitute an example of a female (transman/boy) when they know using a male (transwoman/ girl) will look more blatantly wrong. .
Scenario 4 is yet another example of parents being painted as problematic if they resist affirming a trans identity. I think they deliberately used the idea of a Father opposting a gender non-conforming male because we all know gender non-conforming, gay, males who’s fathers had a hard time accepting having a gay son. So, let me present an alternative scenario. Supposing a young girl, with no history of any difficulty with their birth sex suddenly identifies as “male” in her teens. The mother is aware that her daughter shows autistic traits, or had a traumatic experience with childhood sexual abuse or has been bulllied after declaring herself attracted to females. The parents are not told about this and their daughter is allowed to express herself as male in school. She is using male toilets and changing rooms and she is wearing a breast binder, all unbeknownst to her parents. She is potentially placing herself at risk, using male facilities, and potential health issues by extended use of a binder. This can cause breathing difficulties and even , in extreme cases, broken ribs. This is not suppositiion. There are numerous YouTube influencers who have done all of these things before telling their parents and with the complicity of the school.
What is horrifying is that this guidance consistently ignores safeguarding red flags except when they wish to infer that we parents may be a risk to our children. Bearing in mind this risk appears to relate to parents who are not prepared to affirm a “gender identity” and any medicalised pathway for under-age kids. Does not mean we are not, for example, affirming their sexuality or their desire to mess with expected norms of dress. All of this was pretty standard fare as far back as the 1970’s. What it didn’t mean was that we advocated drugs and surgeries for teenage angst.
Here are all the usual suspects in the list of useful websites. A list of transgender lobbying groups, mainly, and not one womens’s group who might have an alternative perspective on the plight of confused girls. Also not included are any actual Gay Rights organisations. The kind that might take issue with the idea feminine gay males being told they might be girls. Make no mistake I definitely exclude Stonewall from any list of Gay Rights organisations. They have lost all credibility.
I note there is a policy for whistleblowers linked in the guidance. I feel for those teachers, of which I know many, who are apalled at what is going on in schools. Problem is this guidance is everywhere and I expect many teachers feel isolated and afraid to speak up.
This is why I do what I do. Unpaid. If you can help keep be going it would be appreciated. I email all donors and also offer to cover any topic which you may be unable to cover yourself.
paypal.me/STILLTish
If you are salaried but silent you can help me here with a donation. I don’t have any income and this helps pay for books, on this topic, or relevant on-line /conferences. Any amount is appreciated.
£5.00
This teaching has been going on in our schools now for at least 5 years. We are now seeing the fruits of this propaganda in the generation of teens who are identifying out of their sex.
This YouTube was put up two years ago whilst the Gender Recognition Act was out for public consultation with a view to potential reformation. As you can see, from the title, it promotes advice about “Exceeding“ U.K. legislation in respect of the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act. Interesting choice of word.
Rachel Reese is the subject of the interview. Here is a little biographical information about Rachel.
There is a PhD waiting to be written about the number of, late-transitioning males, who have backgrounds in the tech industry. I have my own theories. While women’s rights to single sex spaces, roles and services are subject to a concerted attack, Global Butterflies “comprisestransonlystaff” . Not the first time I have seen such rank hypocrisy. Only a trans person can understand the “trans” experience, goes the argument. Meanwhile women are not allowed to advance the same argument about our experience.
Rachel’s organisation, Global Butterflies, is an advocacy organisation for Trans and Non-Binary people. The latter category, Rachel claims in this interview, make up the majority in the Trans-Community. That’s a bold statement.
Rachel is keen to advocate for the concept of “Non-Binary” to be enshrined in law. This would create a legal category denying the FACT we are a sexually dimorphic species. I am pleased the latest attempt, to erase legal sex, failed, (Search Christine Elan for more information on this) . Rachel also argues for 16 & 17 year olds to be able to “Self-Identify”. I presume this is to cover the age group not currently allowed to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate. GRC applications have a qualifying age of 18. Other activists wanted all ages to be able to Self-Identify.
Here is a bit more information about Rachel’s organisation and their own extensive networks within the legal profession, and beyond.
The final statement is incredible, coming from the Solicitors Regulation Authority. I should really have lost the ability to feel astonishment, after five years studying this movement. However, my ghast was flabbered by this next statement:
The breathtaking arrogance and presumption of the above statement. Changing practice in anticipation of a legal change! Didn’t we used to call this “breakingthelaw”? What they did not reckon with was that women would say NO. This is exactly what we are saying and not always in approved in language!
If you can support my work here is a way. I do this full-time, unwaged.
Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women & girls as well as the consequences for Lesbians, Gay males and autistic kids. I do this full time and have no income. All my content is open access and donations help keep me going. Only give IF you can afford. Thank you to my generous donors.
I have done a number of twitter threads on School policies, ostensibly, about protecting “transgender children”. The only one I have blogged, thus far, focussed on the way they treat parents. We are treated as potential bigots who need educating on Gender Identity issues. The Schools, invariably, take it upon themselves to keep parents in the dark about our ” Gender Dysphoric” kids. They blithely inform us our kids are at significant risk of attempting suicide but still think it is good practice to hide pertinent information from parents. You can read that post here: Putting the Loco in Loco Parentis.
I will now do a series on the policies I have found. Some have already been withdrawn but we need to preserve a record of the extent of the policy capture. Note that this series will be repetitive as they are clearly modelled on a small number of templates. The poor practice is widespread due to the cut and paste nature of the policies. The positive aspect of this is that we can recapture in the same way. We only need sensible templates that balance the needs of kids with Gender Dysphoria, with the protected characteristic of sex. We also need schools to stop usurping Parental Responsiblity to the extent they have done. I know of multiple parents who only found out their daughters were adopting male identities, at school, due to an administrative error! This cannot be right.
This document, I have based this on, was revised in 2019. I do have a copy of the 2014 document but I have done this blog based on the later version. You can access the document below:
This document was produced in Brighton which is a city with a such an open minded attitude it calls to mind the redoubtable Magdelen Berns’ quote: “Your minds are so open your brains have fallen out”. Brighton has long been a,commendably, friendly city to the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual community and now it has embraced the mulitplicity of Gender Identities. Brighton institutions are at the forefront of leading a societal change to prioritise “Gender” over Biological Sex. This policy, implicitly, endorses the idea that some of us can be “born in the wrong body” ; there are multiple Gender Identities and there can be a mismatch between Gender and Natal Sex.
In the introduction we are told this is a revised version following input from transgender children and their parents. The other agencies they reference, quote or signpost are listed below. Nearly all of these are Lobbying groups; advocating for the inculcation of Gender Identity Ideology in our schools, Universities and other public, or indeed private, institutions.
I can’t possibly include all the clips I made of this document. I will just select the most egregious examples. This guidance is amongst the most blatant in its evangelical zeal to propagate Gender Identity Ideology; to students, staff, parents, governors and wider society. The claim is made that children can choose whether they are “male” or “female”. Sex, it is argued is assigned at birth, whilst, in reality it is observed and recorded bar a tiny number of children whose sex is not apparent because they have Disorders/Differences in sexual development. People with DSDs are routinely wheeled out in this debate but, in fact, do not figure significantly in the Trans community. Gender , we are told, is on a spectrum and the guidance dismisses the idea of sex being either Male or Female. Anyone labouring under the delusion this guidance is merely a way to promote sensitive care for “transgender kids” needs to realise this is actually social engineering.
Here it is made explicit the aim is to challlenge “long accepted ideas of sex and gender”.
These long accepted ideas include the idea that we are sexually dimorphic species and biological sex is real. One parent even reports that they were pleased the school discussed how to teach about sexual reproduction before their “trans” child had to take the lesson. Since when is it healthy for a pupil to be so coddled they can’t hear scientific facts without a specially tailored lesson?
Next up we look at the practical implications for children with a disordered sense of their sex.
The guidance makes it abundantly clear that any child who feels they are of the opposite sex will be allowed to use the toilets and changing rooms based on their feelings, not their anatomy. They even state that this is because the boy who says he is a girl is actually a real girl and furthermore the school will challenge this wrong think by training and awareness raising. 👇 . Teachers are given scenarios and advise on how to challenge these attitudes.
Children are to be groomed not to raise a rumpus about a person of the opposite sex in the most intimate of settings, Anyone who doesn’t see the safeguarding issues, inherent in this enforced removal of children’s boundaries, is, at best naive, and at worst reckless / with nefarious intent,
Even worse the child with trans status is to be re-educated to revise their own belief of what is socially acceptable Here 👇 the school will actively teach the child to ignore the “unwritten” rules about which toilets to use, Notice that in this clip they suddenly shift to “public” toilets. Could that be because they know schools are legally obliged to provide single sex toilet facilities? Furthermore the school, in the name of the trans child’s privacy will withhold the information from other pupils and parents. Thus a female child is to share spaces with penis bearing “girls” and her consent to this is disregarded.
I am a parent of a trans-identified male (biological kind) he did NOT use female spaces. Still doesn’t. No harm has come to him. See also @FionneOrlander. Fionne doesn’t use female spaces out of respect and, interestingly, because it “feels too much like male entitlement”.
In order to ensure the girl (or boy) knows what is expected of them their biology lessons will be tailored to reinforce the primacy of gender identity over biological sex.
I presume this teaching strategy was endorsed at the highest levels in the school and nobody had a moments disquiet? Nobody! I know from my own son’s, school that the biology teacher felt obliged to apologise for the way she had to teach about reproductive biology. Thankfully she taught the biological facts but with the caveat that she knew this was old-fashioned.
As this pack originated in Brighton most of the pack assumes that the school will be working with the trans child and their parents. It does, however, seem they anticipate some parental resistance and not just from the other parents. They recognise that some pupils may not have “supportive” parents and they outline strategies for dealing with the non-compliant parents. They just won’t tell them! They even make sure their computer system is adapted so the teachers, ancillary staff and even the other pupils, will know your child is identifying as the opposite sex and you, the parent, will be kept in the dark! 👇
Suicide risk.
I have written many times about the suicide statistics quoted in this document. The school claims 48% of trans identifying children will attempt suicide.
This report they quote is based on a tiny sample of self-reported attempts. (13 out of 27 young people) It’s flawed data and shouldn’t be used . You can read more on this here Suicide in the Trans Community.
Parental Responsibility.
The fact remains the school assert that a specific demographic is at high risk of attempting suicide and yet they still state there’s no safeguarding risk. They regard themselves as entitled to withhold information from parents as a result of a condition which may result in significant self-harm or death. Furthermore the only time they do recognise any safeguarding issues is when they may apply to the parents. 👇. The framing of this advice is deliberately worded to paint the father as unsympathetic to a non gender conforming male child. 👇 Parents who affirm the new identity are described as doing their “best to work alongside their child”. The school is to be a safe environment for the vulnerable child which implies the non-affirming, home environment is unsafe. This impression is strengthened by the reference at the end. The inference is that non-affirming parents may be more likely to be a risk to their child.
So, let me present an alternative scenario. Supposes a young girl, with no history of any difficulty with their birth sex suddenly identifies as “male” in her teens. The mother is aware that her daughter shows autistic traits, or had a traumatic experience with childhood sexual abuse or has been bulllied after declaring herself attracted to females. The parents are not told about this and their daughter is allowed to express herself as male in school. She is using male toilets and changing rooms and she is wearing a breast binder, all unbeknownst to her parents. She is potentially placing herself at risk, using male facilities, and potential health issues by extended use of a binder. This can cause breathing difficulties and even , in extreme cases, broken ribs. This is not suppositiion. There are numerous YouTube influencers who have done all of these things before telling their parents and with the complicity of the school.
Social Engineering?
Here is another startling clip from the guidance. Here they assert that Every Person will experience this disassociation from their biological sex. Yes! Most people don’t conform to the stereotypical expectations for their sex 100% so why are we pathologising this? Below we are also told that some people maybe “partially male and partiallyfemale“. This is beginning to look like a recruitment drive. It also doesn’t make any sense. The first sentence imputes that we all have a gender identity but the final one allows someone to identify as “agender” . Even ten years ago we would have laughed this guidance out of court. Now we actually having to threaten, or actually undertake, Judicial Reviews to reinstate logic and reason into the school policies.
The Trans Umbrella
Another interesting aside is the school’s decision to leave out “Cross-Dressers” from within the school context, even though they are included in the Trans Umbrella, according to Stonewall.
Ostensibly this is becase we know many young people play “dress-up” and, allegedly, the authors wish to avoid confusion. Really? I am an adult and I find this entire document mind bogglingly confusing. Could it also be that the authors of this report don’t want to trigger the idea of sexually motivated transvestites? Dressing in female clothes, for the purposes of sexual arousal, is a known male paraphilia. Yet, under this ideology, these males are “trans” and, whilst the law allows males to be excluded from single sex spaces, many organisations have unilaterally changed spaces to include people who identify as “transgender” and as a “woman”.
The pack provides a handy crib sheet to emphasise key learning points, lest you forget.
The report then proceeds to quote some research from 2014 which highlights that over 90% of LGBTQ+ people report that they learnt nothing about trans in their sex and relationships education. Fast forward 6 years and it is ubiquitous! Yet we are all supposed to pretend there is some mystery about a massive spike in referrals to Gender Identity Clinics! We are actually inculcating it by teaching it to our vulnerable kids.
This next paragraph reads as if someone wanted to pack in as many types of oppression that the school needs to tackle. On a surface level this is all highly laudable but are they actually consistent with this guidance? I would argue they are not.
Any problems encountered by trans identifying people are above dismissed as being due to “transphobia“. This word is so over-used in the twitter sphere, and the media generally, as to be virtually meaningless. Recognising biological sex is real, being a Lesbian who is not attracted to people with penises, wanting a member of the female sex to perform intimate examinations. All of these are routinely described as “transphobic”. The idea that “transphobia” may be linked to “sexist and stereotypical ideas about what it means to be a man or a woman” is counter-factual. What this is saying is that if you compute someones biological sex, which lets face it is evolutionarily hard-wired, you are being “transphobic”. How has such an ideology taken hold in a rational society?
Yet in the next breath we are told that Gender is a social construct and learned behaviour. Children, we are told learn how to behave in line with the expectations for their sex. Thus far I agree. This includes “roles, clothing and activities”. However anyone who doesn’t conform is not necessarly showing us an indication of their gender identity. Again. Butch Lesbians, Femme Gay males and in fact many, many, heterosexual men and women don’t conform to varying degrees. That is because it is based on a social construct. So why are we medicalising gender conformity to mimic the sexual characteristics of the opposite sex if “gender” is just a social construct? Why not, instead, challenge the Social Construct?
I am no closer to finding a definition of “Gender Identity” that doesn’t rely on socially constructed idea of “Gender” which are derived from sex (and often sexist) stereotypes. We have already been told that it is not connected to Gender Expression. A boy can be a boy and wear a dress. (Seriously have these people never heard of David Beckham in a skirt of Marilyn the Gender Rebel popstar and celebrity, or an androgynous Annie Lennox). This stuff is not new. We could go back to the Eighteenth Century where Dandy’s were common in certain circles. Alternatively Ann Lister in the 19th Century and Radclyffe Hall in the twentieth. (Notice that the many/most were homosexual) .
The nearest definition occurs in this clip on Sexual Orientation which manages to redefine homosexuality to water down the homosexual element, with the addition of “romantically attracted”. It also assigns sexual fluidity to Gay males, and Lesbians, who fought long and hard to win the right to exclusive same sex attraction.
So it is defined as an “internal sense of self”. An entirely unverifiable definition. How does a man know what it feels like to be a woman? He can’t. There is no right way to be a woman. We are women by virtue of our sex. Some of us are more aligned to expectations for our sex and some of us are less so. A butch lesbian is a woman by virtue of her sex not by how well she performs the sex stereotypes encoded in “gender”. Same with a “femme” gay male. Notice that sexual orientation is now defined to include attraction by virture of sex and GenderIdentity. The notion that someones sexuality can change over time is also slipped in. This allows males to describe themselves as Lesbians and Trans Men to identify as gay males. How this watering down of sexual orientation has been endorsed by erstwhile Gay Rights groups, like Stonewall, is a question that will result in PhDs. One Day!
Hate Crimes
Another common theme is the encouragement to record “transphobic incidents”. Here an incident is to be labelled “transphobic” if there is a trans child in the class the incident will be challenged and recorded. However the pack also warns teachers that more serious incidents should be reported to the police. Worth noting that women are not protected by Hate Crime legislation because misogyny is not covered. Not to worry. Men are so busy killing us we don’t have the energy to get upset about being mis-gendered. Note, I am not being flippant here, hate crimes are recorded in accordance with the self-perception of the person doing the reporting. Using factually correct pronouns has been reported to the police and will be recorded as a hate incident.
Medical Transition
In common with all of the packs I have read the guidance also includes details about how children with gender identity issues can seek medical support. This pack was written in 2019 but even then there was disquiet about describing some of these interventions in the way they are described here. The very idea that a school guidance pack contains detailed information about a serious medical intervention is anathema to any idea of child safeguarding. Blocking Puberty is not merely a “suspension” and as I have covered in my blogs on puberty blockers. Puberty Blockers. Part One
The way they are talked about here is reckless and ill informed. 👇
Even more reckless is the way the pack signposts ways to circumvent delays in accessing treatment. If you don’t want kids/parents to use doctors over the internet why are you telling kids/Parents that it is possible. This looks disingenuos to me. Signposting with a note of caution looks like an attempt to claim “plausible deniability”
Female Sports
Another issue that the guidance glosses over is the physical differences in males and females when it comes to sport. Certainly by the time my sons were 11 they towered above me and thereafter rapidly proceeded to a male puberty that conferred many sporting advantages. This scenario, to deal with a parental complaint, is grossly dishonest.
Some sporting bodies have cravenly capitulated to the lobby groups and include players on the basis of Gender Identity. This has resulted in females losing to male players in fields such as cycling, boxing and cricket. In the UK, fear of lawsuits due to injury, I assume, has prompted the resignation of Rugby referees because of the danger to female players forced to play against males. The battle over women’s sports is , however, far from over. The long term consequences for females entering sport will be massive if they learn very early on that there is simply no point in taking part in an unfair competition with the odds stacked against them.
Woke Red Guards?
Bring me the child at seven and i will bring you the (wo) man. This image is included in the pack showing how children as young as seven are now parroting the idea that they are not the right sex,
This teaching has been going on in our schools now for at least 5 years. We are now seeing the fruits of this propaganda in the generation of teens who are identifying out of their sex.
I want to end with a particularly ridiculous scenario. One that has in fact played out at my son’s school. They have a handful of girls who identify as boys. One of them has had two male names and has reported people for using their last deadname, even though male. They play on the female netball team but reported their teacher for use of the word “girls” when cheering on the team. We are handing over an unprecedented amount of power to troubled kids. Is it surprising that some want to wield that power? Children as young as 7 are repeating the ideas they have been taught. The pack includes this drawing done by a seven year old.
Here the teacher is instructed to follow the child’s instructions about their pronoun use, even though they are Gender Fluid and may wish to be addressed differently on any given day. Remember it is not appropriate, we are told, to conflate Gender Expression with Gender Identity so here is the solution….
In the Chinese Cultural Revolution children were indoctrinated into the new religion via state education. Teachers were denounced, humiliated for not complying. Many went to their deaths, some betrayed by their own children. Children even changed their names to disassociate from their families.
I am not equating the rise of Woke Ideology with the Cultural Revolution in terms of scale and consequences but there are worrying parallels. The righteousness of the proponents of Gender Ideology who are so convinced they are on The Right Side Of History bring to mom this quote from James Baldwin.
Our children are also being taught that all people’s bodies and genitals are different. Not males and females have different bodies but “peoples”. 
