Angela Eagle MP


I thought it would be timely to add Ms Eagle to my series on Respect My Sex (to get my X), especially after her contribution in the Parliamentary debate on the definition of sex.

Which you can read here:

Legal Definition of Sex. Part 3

You can read the rest of that series on U.K. politicians here:

Respect my SEX to get my X

Angela Eagle became an MP In the 1990’s and is an open Lesbian and figures prominently on the list of gay influencers. She is also all in on the biological sex denying cult.

I began by looking at her funding which you can check at the Electoral Commission.

Angela Eagle Donors

Anthony Watson & GLAAD

Apart from her Union backers Anthony Watson cropped up a fair few times. In fact she has had over £90,000 from this source.

Correction it was £97,500

Anthony Watson was the first British person to sit on the board of GLAAD. This was originally a gay rights organisation (Gays and Lesbians against Defamation) but, in an all too familiar story, is now mostly an advocate for “trans” issues.

He has donated a lot of money to the Labour Party.

GLAAD collaborated with Arcus Foundation who crop up a lot on my blog because they are a key player in embedding gender identity ideology across the world.

GLAAD have a section on their website called The Accountability Project which is every bit as sinister as it sounds.

The Accountability Project

Here’s how they describe it:

It is effectively a black list. A U.K. journalist Helen Lewis has an entry as does JK Rowling.


The organisation, Save Women’s Sport, to stop biological men taking stealing women’s prizes also gets an entry as does any politician, or Doctor, trying to put the brakes on children being given puberty blockers, cross sex hormones and surgeries. Abigail Shrier, the author of a book on the Transgender Craze, also appears as does Deborah Soh another person skeptical about the Transgender issue.

Linda Riley and the Global Diversity Awards.

Another donor is Global Diversity Awards Ltd. That company appears to be in the middle of getting wound up and the only listed director is Linda Riley.

Linda Riley is another Lesbian who has decided to betray women. These two clips, from Private Eye will give you an idea of the calibre of this person. Riley is behind the Jack the Ripper Museum but on the planning application it said it would be a museum for women’s history. Dawn Butler is another recipient of Anthony Watson’s money.

Lord Waheed Ali

She has also received funding from Lord Ali, the first openly gay peer. He doesn’t appear to be a regular contributor in the House of Lords so I drew a blank on Hansard in terms of a clear statement of his views on Hansard.

As he works in the media it is likely that it would be social suicide to depart from the script. I did find one clip from an interview he gave on a project to raise the visibility of Gay Asians.

Andrew Davenport & Lawrence Kenright

Davenport is the maker of Telly Tubbys and In the Night Garden, children’s TV. There is nothing much to say about him on this topic. Kenright is a property developer in Liverpool who is setting up an organisation to field independent candidates in elections. The movement is called Liberate Liverpool. Here are a couple of statements following a row which broke out about one of the candidates on “transgender” issues. Guess which group don’t get a mention in their statement about intersectional issues.

That’s enough about Angela Eagle. She is unlikely to change her stance.

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. Only give if you can and don’t prioritise me over important legal cases. Every little helps.

My Substack

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


Women’s Equality Party: R.I.P

What a waste!

I still have my membership card for the Women’s Equality Party proudly displaying Founding Member number 303. A man would become member 4111 and boast about it on his blog. He will be one of the reasons the party is destined to fail.

This is he, posing with his wife; face painted with rainbows and wearing a Stonewall badge. Jon is a methodist minister and some big name in computer coding. He has three sons.

Jon even appears in W.E.P’s very first policy document. This is him, on page 13. Right out the gate the Women’s Equality Party was branding itself as a party that aimed to help all people.

This is what he said on his coming out blog on becoming a member.

Jon certainly put his money where his mouth was and became quite a large donor to the W.E.P. 19 donations totalling nearly £120,000.

Data from the Electoral Commission. Link attached to the search here and file attached 👇

Electoral Commission


Fast forward to 2018 and Sweet announced that one of his three sons is now his “daughter”

However, I am not ascribing blame to Skeet’s belief he has a “trans daughter”, for W.E.P policy. This is from their very first policy document. Seems they were always going to betray women in favour of the be-penised kind.

Right at the outset the party was compromised by the involvement of the Luvvie class. Back in 2015 I didn’t realise I needed to check a party for woman knew what a woman was. Now, when I look back at the celebrity endorsements, I realise it was doomed from the start. First up: Emma Thompson.

Emma Thompson is full on “Trans Women are Women”.

Here are a few more celebrity endorsements including Jack Monroe and Emma Watson.

Here is Emma talking to trans-activist Paris Lees.

Here is Monroe on coming out as “transgender” joking with James/Juno Dawson.

The modern leadership has gone down the pronouns in bio route. Here are the deputy leaders.

As I said I am not blaming Jon Skeet and his trans-identifying son for this parlous state of affairs but I don’t think he is going to help women’s rights anytime soon if he takes his cues from Julie Serano. This is from his blog. 😳

At some point I will blog on whipping girl but here is a sample.

Those of you following the W.E.P debacle may already know that they recently voted, at their sparsely attended conference, to support the idea that a man can self-declare his “gender”. A disastrous idea for women and girls. Ex-leader, Sophie Walker, penned an open letter, to the new leader (Mandu Reid) , pleading with her not to take this step.

Here is the letter: 👇

She was ignored.

You can watch Mandu Reid performing to camera all the reasons she believes Self-ID is the right policy. She manages to regurgitate most of the talking points of trans-activists. She appears deeply influenced by her own experience of racism and she thinks a women’s movement is a movement, for equality, more generally. Women’s movements fail the moment they fail to centre women and are not confident enough to advocate purely and simply for women. Reid, instead, seems to see W.E.P as a vehicle to advance all her own pet projects. It’s unconscionable to use women’s labour, and money, in this way. She is concerned about the polarisation on politics and sees women campaigning for our rights, as a sex class, as stoking division. She has bought into the TRA language and ideology. There is no way back for W.E.P.

Mandu Reid on Self-ID

Here are a couple of clips

In a turn out of only 138 (Compare that to the 1800 for Filia) the motion was passed. No vote was allowed for the wider membership which suggests, to me, they were not confident it has wide support. W.E.P has revealed itself to be an un-democratic and elitist organisation.

I will return to have a look at the W.E.P and cover their expulsion of Heather Brunskell-Evans, former W.E.P. spokesperson on Violence against Women and Girls (VAWG); after she appeared on the moral maze.

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

My Substack

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


Crispin Blunt: Gay Rights Champion?


Crispin Blunt came out as a gay man after a twenty year , heterosexual, marriage ended in 2010. Crispin Blunt has subsequently thrown himself into LGBTQ activism and was the chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for LGBT issues. Crispin was forced to resign as Chair of the APPG , in April 2022, after defending a Wakefield MP convicted of sexual offences against two minors.

You can read about this here:

Imran Khan convicted

Following the conviction Blunt issued this astonishing, misguided, defence of Mr Khan.

Following criticism and some high profile resignations, such as Joanna Cherry, he retracted the defence and resigned as Chair of the APPG.

Blunt and Transgender rights.

Blunt is particularly keen on the T in LGBT and very angry at women who raise concerns about Transgender Identity Ideology.

You can get a flavour of his thinking in this article.

Crispin Blunt in Politics Home

He actually calls women defending our rights ”strident” ; language reminiscent of an unreconstructed misogynist from the 1970’s. He also accuses women of ”provoking” the angry responses from trans-activists. On the plus side we are now at the stage where the anger of trans-rights campaigner can no longer be denied so, like a good old Men’s rights activist, Blunt blames women. 👇

He goes on to claim transgender people are vulnerable to violence and high rates of suicide. This is another familiar tactic which seeks to frame males as victims and associate women’s rights campaigners with violence against ”trans-identified” men; even though the perpetrators are men . He then makes a further un-evidenced claim that men who identify as women are not a threat to women. 😳. Those of us who have been in the trenches for a while recognise this as an appeal to emotion; an attempt to use female socialisation to blackmail us to work against our own interests.

He then claims people are not informed about this debate because we have not met any ”trans” people. Not to worry Crispin has looked at the issues, in depth, since last summer and he is here to educate the hysterical women. His final flourish is to claim U.K women’s rights group are a product of the U.S religious right! Maybe if he had actually looked at the background to women’s rights campaigning groups, in the U.K., he wouldn’t have fallen for this blatant propaganda.

Subverting democracy

Having set himself up as a faux peace maker, and voice of reason, Blunt worked behind the scenes to try to get the government to legislate on reforms to the gender recognition act. Of course his proposals were acceptable to the APPG LGBT group; who are backed by “Trans” Lobby groups, and disregarded the voices of women.

The APPG on LGBT group has close ties to Stonewall and is currently serviced by another Transgender Lobby group, Kaleidoscope Trust.

You can read more about this on the Sex Matters website 👇

Secret deals.

Who funds him?

So, I decided to have a look at who funds him. PDF Here from the Electoral Commission’s website. For a man who claims to care about Global rights for Lesbians, Gay men, Bisexuals and even those claiming a ”transgender” identity, he takes a lot of donations from places where homosexuality is illegal. Most of this seems to be to fund visits so maybe he is doing good work trying to persuade these regimes to reform their laws on homosexuality and women’s rights. 🤔


His top donor is a man who runs Ghazala Medical centre. There is no evidence that they are involved in “transgender” medicine, that I could find.

He also takes an interest in legalised cannabis. Maybe he is taking the High road? Blunt by name…. 😂

In conclusion it would seem that Crispin has swallowed propaganda from “Trans” Rights Lobby groups, wholesale. He says he only discovered the issue last summer and yet has waded in with some ill-informed pronouncements. He seems to have quite a low opinion of women and zero understanding of child safeguarding. His intervention to defend a child abuser, which he conflated with LGBT rights, shows a lack of historical awareness. Does he have any idea how hard gay men had to campaign to repudiate the conflation of gay men with paedophiles? His attempt to get Self-ID in through the back door was, rightfully, sanctioned. We can only hope that the new chair of the APPG on LGBT issues remembers that one of those letters has aspirations that harm the other three.

You can support my work here. I now have a subsistence level income so don’t donate if you are on benefits, a pension or a low income. As of Friday I have my first income for five years. My content will always remain open.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology. Standing up for women’s ,sex based, rights. Also documenting the ongoing scandal of “transitioning” (Sterilising) proto-gay kids, autistic kids, foster kids and victims of child sexual abuse. These groups are all over-represented at Gender Clinics.


David Lammy: Respect My Sex!

David Lammy, as many of you will be aware, steered the Gender Recognition Act through Parliament, in 2004. Latterly he labelled women’s rights campaigners as dinosaurs, hoarding their rights. He also claimed that men can grow a cervix. If he ever goes on mastermind (again) I would suggest he does not make female anatomy his specialist subject.

David Lammy made some points which are now familiar arguments used by trans activists. He was very keen to point out the GRA would only affect an estimated 5000 people. He claimed this tiny minority were meek and timid and that his opponents in the debate needed to get a little perspective. His tone throughout was one of barely restrained exasperation in the face of objections. Sadly, few even mentioned the impact on women. Most of the tabled amendments focussed on the danger of allowing same sex marriage.

Lammy also compared the issue of sex segregated spaces to apartheid in South Africa. The clear implication is that women who don’t want to share spaces with biological males, aka men, are akin to racists.

For consistency with these series I also downloaded Lammy’s record of political donations. They are attached below:

David Lammy

There were two points of interest.  One was a visit funded by Open SocietyFoundation. The Open Society has poured millions into the spread of Gender Identity Ideology.

The second was from Michael Hamlyn. Hamlyn was responsible for the film Priscilla , Queen of the Desert. He is also the son of Paul Hamlyn. The Paul Hamlyn Foundation shares a trustee with the Scott Trust, which oversees the Guardian. Michael Hamlyn sits on the board. The Paul Hamlyn Trust donated to Mermaids and other Trans Charities.

You can read more about the Paul Hamlyn Trust in this blog.

Why are the Guardian suddenly so woeful on women’s rights?

So, no real smoking gun re his donors. Can it be he really believes in this stuff 🤷‍♀️. The sad thing is he does make some great interventions in respect of women’s rights. He raises the rate of femicide in the UK, low sentences for rapists and women incarcerated at levels too high for the types of crimes (mainly non-violent and related to poverty). All of this good work is squandered when you argue for males to be in female spaces and, in particular, if you tacitly approve of those same rapists being housed in female prisons.

If you want to support my work you can do so here. As of this Friday I will actually have a small independent income so don’t donate if you are on benefits or a pension. No it’s not right wing money! 😂


Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s impact on Women’s sex based rights. Also researching the marketing of “Gender Dysphoria” to our most vulnerable kids.


Jess Phillips. Feminist? Meninist?


Worth a look at Phillips who enhances her political credibility by reading out the names of murdered women and claiming to be a feminist. She can of course call herself what she likes but actions speak louder than words.

Jess Phillips co-sponsored a bill to replace the protected characteristic of ”gender reassignment” with ”gender identity”. Men can already get a Gender Recognition Certificate whether or not they have a penis. Broadening the ”protection” to ”Gender Identity” would be a disaster for women’s, sex based, rights. Try to find anyone able to define ”Gender” without recourse to sexist stereotypes. Clip from Hansard, the official record of the British Parliament.

Phillips also boasted about opposing the Spousal Exit Clause, for women trapped in marriages with men who are wishing to identify as women. It does not stop the man doing anything to his body, changing the way he presents or what pronouns he claims. All it does is allow the woman to exit the marriage before she is officially recorded as being married to someone claiming a legal identity as a ”woman”, based on ”gender”.

Here she is again. This is also from Hansard. Megan Key is a trans-identified male who thinks men who sexually offend, against women, should be allowed in female prisons. What did Phillips say? NOTHING! Professor Brookes is also willing to make women participate in a social experiment against our will.

Jess Phillips has shown who she is, we need to believe her.

This is how Jess Phillips describes herself on her website:

Who funds her?

Attached is a PDF of all her donations as recording on the Electoral Commission website.


Ranked in order of contribution level we find that a Fiona McTaggart is a significant donor: 

Different kinds of women? 😳

This would appear to be the Fiona McTaggart who was head of the Fawcett Society. Here is Jess retweeting her in 2016.

Here is how the Fawcett society responded to the new EHRC guidance which attempted to clarify guidance about single sex spaces.

The proceeded to express concern that the bar for accessing single SEX spaces may ”unfairly” exclude some males.

In conclusion, Jess Phillips has shown us who she is.

If you want to support my work you can do so here…Irrespective my work will be open access. Contrary to the propaganda women are doing this on their own dime and not many right wing, Christian Evangelicals donate to Atheist, Left Wing Feminists. 🤷‍♀️

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and how it has captured the political and media elite, to the detriment of the female sex and gay rights.


Labour Party & Anthony Watson


I have had a look at Anthony Watson before because he donates to Dawn Butler M.P. I was moved to do some digging after she made this pronouncement on breakfast television; while she was standing for Deputy Leader! (It was not her only foray into LGBT politics, but it was her most high profile statement). She retracted it a few days later after much, deserved, public ridicule.

Who is Anthony Watson?

Watson is an extremely wealthy, gay, man. This is his wikipedia entry. He is described as “one of the most influential gay men in the world”. He was also elected to the Board of GLAAD, which stands for Gays and Lesbians against Defamation, in 2013. The irony of their name will become clear.

Anthony is quite a big donor to the Labour Party, in the U.K. You can search this data on the Electoral Commission website here: 👇

Electoral Commission

Here are the search results. As you can see he made 22 donations in all approaching £340,000. This will not sound much to readers in the United States but, in the U.K, donations are much more regulated. As an individual donor he would be regarded as a significant contributor. {As an aside the Trade Union movement dwarf the contributions, by individuals, hence why so much effort has been expended courting them. They deserve a stand alone piece focussing on how they betrayed their female members, especially the Unions whose membership is predominantly women. Trade Union leaders are more focussed on their male members, pun intended}.

Watson was clever in his donating strategy. He did donate directly to the Labour Party but the majority of his donations, 22 in all, were give directly to M.Ps. He directed his monies to those in the running for key leadership positions. Below is a PDF of all his donations ranked in descending order, based on the level of contribution.

Donations Watson

Here is a screen shot showing the top beneficiaries. Angela Eagle and Owen Smith were both attractive targets for Watson, as they were in the Labour Leadership bid. Ditto Yvette Cooper. Dawn Butler was, at one point, in the running for the Deputy Leadership. Wes Streeting and Peter Kyle were also recipients, this is unsurprising as both are Gay Man and Kyle represents Hove, which is near Brighton, and arguably the U.K centre for Trans activism.

Both Dawn Butler and Wes Streeting continue to attract Watson’s £’s in 2022.

Wes Streeting

Streeting was formerly employed by, Lobby Group, Stonewall, as Head of Education. He was also accused of being a member of a sinister facebook designed to smoke out women who believe in women’s sex based rights. This involved the now disappeared ”Lily Madigan”, a man who took a women’s officer post, in the Labour Party and disappeared from public view after some rather sordid allegation. You can find a detailed account on Graham Linehan’s substack, here is a clip. 👇

According to screenshots, taken at the time, Wes Streeting was a member of that group. That the group existed is not in doubt; more than one women, of my acquaintance, was named as a ”transphobe” by the, rainbow draped,witch-finder generals.

If Wes Streeting was involved, it would seem he has gone on somewhat of a journey. No MP can keep on top of all aspects of modern day issues and many gay men seem to have assumed this is the new Gay Rights issue. Throw in his past association with Stonewall and he may have taken his opinion off the shelf. Whatever the truth of his position this is from an interview, in the Guardian, in January this year (2022).

I would still be wary of what compromises he thinks women should have to make but, if nothing else, it could suggest he has seen which way the wind is blowing. Either that or Labour MPs are wanting women’s votes in the bag before they betray us.

Proponents of this new manifestation of male imperialism; you have met your match on Terf Island.

Angela Eagle.

Eagle is more of a puzzle to me. She is a Lesbian and therefore, one would have assumed, she would understand that female homosexuals are attracted the same SEX. Perhaps Angela is unaware that dating apps, specifically for Lesbians, are banning women for making it clear they do not want to date males, however they identify. Is she aware of the ”Cotton Ceiling” which is transgender speak for the barrier Lesbian’s knickers present to “male lesbians”? Stonewall even employ a man who ran a “male only” (MAAB: Male Assigned at Birth) event on how to overcome the cotton ceiling.

In Tasmania a Lesbian only event, for females only, was declared in breach of Equality Legislation. You can read about this below.

Tasmanian Lesbians

A browse through Eagle’s Parliamentary record on Hansard shows her to be a consistent proponent of Gender Identity Ideology with no concern for women’s rights to single sex spaces, she argues for males to be allowed to self-id as women and blames anyone raising concerns as stoking a culture war” She also exhibits no concern for the medicalisation of gay youth, even though Lesbians are over-represented in detransitioners You can get a flavour of her purported views in this Hansard record of the debate on the GRA. 👇. Digested read is #BeKind with a sider order of outrage and references to Section 28. Not an inkling of awareness that sterilising gay youth is far, far, worse than Section 28.

Gender Recognition Act 2022

Angela Eagle would appear to be joining a long list of Lesbians colluding with their erasure. The list includes Nancy Kelley and Ruth Hunt, current and former CEOs of Stonewall. Kelley and Hunt are in relationships with females and happy to deny young Lesbians the opportunities which were available to them. I call them Vichy Gays.

GLAAD: Gays & Lesbians against defamation.

Now to take a look at the organisation to which Anthony was appointed as a board member. This is yet another organisation who have been funded by Arcus Foundation. If you don’t know about Arcus I covered then below: Digested read. Arcus is a Foundation which bankrolls Gender Identity Ideology across the Globe. Set up by the heir to a billion dollar medical technology empire, so part of the Gender medico-Industrial complex.


GLAAD thank the Arcus Foundation for funding here:

They specifically funded this project. 👇 If you ever wonder why we are subjected to relentlessly trans propaganda look no further than a broken media. The business model is broken and big business stepped in to groom an entire industry.

{Arcus Foundation fund a lot of media outlets/training for people to push Transgender Propaganda}.

Against defamation?

Bearing in mind GLAAD claims to be against defamation, yet one of their projects defames anyone raising concerns about the trans agenda. This is a something called the Accountability Project which is deeply sinister and eerily reminiscent of the McArthy Witch-Hunts of 1950’s U.S.

“Are you now, or have you ever been, a believer in biological sex”

You can access this project here. Profiles of those targeted is accessible via a drop down menu:

Accountability Project

I was unfamiliar with many of the names but these are some who are singled out and whose ”crimes are listed. Germaine Greer,JK Rowling, Abigail Shrier, Debra Soh and U.K journalist Helen Lewis.

Debrah Soh and Abigail Shrier have both written about the phenomenon of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria and the transitioning of vulnerable kids and teens.

Germaine Greer is singled out for recognising biological reality and Lewis for participating in a democratic consultation about allowing ”self-identity” to trump biological sex.

Of course they include JK Rowling. Her offence: Mainly, her entry is based on the association fallacy. They don’t bother to name Maya Forstater lost her job for gender critical beliefs. Maya recently won an appeal against a Judge 🤦 who labelled her views as “a belief unworthy of respect in a democratic society”. This was found to be incorrect, in law. The outcome of her Employment Tribunal is pending.

I saw Goody Rowling talking to Goody Farrow.

I am indebted to Julian Vigo for the information about the accountability project. I cannot find this statement on GLAAD’s website but Vigo notes they originally planned to put it behind a paywall. 😳

Respect my sex or don’t get my X.

If you can afford to donate to support my work you can do so here. Contrary to rumour Grassroots women don’t have the backing of billionaires. We are not beneficiaries of the Foundations pushing Gender Identity Ideology and #BigMoney is backing #BigPharma.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology; the new Patriarchy in a frock. Raising the alarm about what is happening to our gay offspring.


Liberal Democrats & Big Pharma


I have covered this topic, in passing, on other blogs but, since local elections are coming up, in the U.K. here is some information on the Liberal Democrats, political party. They are very keen on promoting “trans rights” but in recent years they have an additional incentive.

The Times covered this story in 2019 but vastly underestimated the monies involved.

The Electoral Commission has a searchable database which you can use to track donation to individual politicians and political parties. Here is a link so you can see the results for the Liberal Democrats and Ferring Pharmaceuticals.

Ferring Pharma & Liberal Democrat’s

Here is the headline figure

Here is a PDF of the search results.

Ferring Pharmaceuticals

Here is a Freedom of Information request which confirms that Tripolterin is being used at the Tavistock, Gender Identity Service (GIDS). From 2011 this treatment began to be used in children as young as 11 and reportedly even one of 10 years old.


Tripolterin is also used in the treatment of sex offenders as detailed in this study of serious offenders held in maximum security conditions.


Details of the age range of the prisoners and their crimes is below. As you can say they were convicted of offences which include sexual assault, some on minors, hostage taking and arson. One continued to offend whilst in custody.

These are some of the side effects reported:

Further side effects were reported below. Testicular atrophy and hot flushes.

In these patients the intention was to reduce sexual aggression and indeed it is reported that it induced effects akin to ”surgical castration”.

Bear this in mind when it comes to exercising your vote in the May elections. If you believe women have a right to single sex spaces and not to be redefined against our will. If you don’t think we should be blocking puberty in minors, do the Liberal Democrats deserve your vote?

Let me remind you of the words of Lynn Featherstone, former MP and now in the House of Lords. This is what she said on the Liberal Democrats own website. (A post I can no longer link to, by the way). Here is a reminder.

You can support my work here.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology. The impact on women’s, sex based, rights and gay rights. Documenting all the ways elites are imposing this ideology in our schools and institutions.


APPG on LGBT: Publication


The All Party Parliamentary group on LGBT rights is a cross party group established to raise issues affecting Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans rights. Like many of these organisations which begin supporting all the letters Recently they made a statement about the current administrations response to a consultation on the Gender Recognition Act. Crispin Blunt is the chair of APPG LGBT and nails his colours to the mast in this article. He actually calls women’s rights campaigners “strident” . Straight up, 1970’s style sexism.

APPG LGBT say their focus is principally international but they also include domestic issues in their remit. To this end they work with citizen groups, private and third sector organisations or, to give them another name, “Lobby Groups”.

Here I look at a document they produced in 2016. Here is the full document.

APPG LGBT report 2016

The chair of the group is Crispin Blunt. Vice chairs are Baroness Barker, Lord Cashman, Green party MP, Caroline Lucas and the SNP’s Stewart McDonald. All very familiar names for anyone who has been watching the march of Transgender Ideology through our political establishment.

At the outset the group identify 6 recommendations which lays out their strategy for embedding their policy aims across the various arms of the state, private sector and raising issues in both houses of Parliament.

  • Coordination across government  departments to include; 
  • Foreign & Commonwealth Office 
  • Department of International Development 
  • Home Office 
  • The Private Sector
  • APPG LGBT & Parliament 

The document advises that the group conducted an enquiry to which they invited those they identified as stakeholders. Stonewall are in the list of acknowledgements and their influence is immediately obvious in how the group define sexual orientation. 👇. I will unpack this statement because it encompasses a lot of the ideas of the Gender Identity idealogues in one paragraph. 


The document, written in 2016, adopts the Stonewall definition of sexuality which claims sexual orientation can be based on Gender Identity. Since someones Gender may be at odds with their biological sex this undermines the idea of , exclusive, same sex attraction but we are not supposed to notice this.

It also uses the loaded term “sex assigned at birth” which is a give away that the group are captured by Transgender Ideology. The idea that the assignment of sex is, somehow, problematic is a smokescreen. It is used to create an association between the trans community and people with differences/disorders of sexual development (DSDs). Once again, sex is observed and recorded in 99%+ cases. People require more investigation are subject to karyotype tests: to determine any chromosomal abnormalities. Gender identity clinics abandoned these tests because research showed it wasn’t a factor in their patient population. This phrase is designed to imply there is a biological basis for Gender Identity which is, to say the least, a hugely contested claim.

The above statement normalises bodily modification to match your Gender Identity, whilst simultaneously defending the right to claim a Gender Identity, irrespective of bodily change. This is why we now are expected to accept concepts such as a #LadyPenis and why Lesbians are called transphobic for not accepting phallus in their wonderland.

A later statement endorses another plank of the ideology.


Firstly, in the U.K. context, there is no requirement for divorce to undertake any social or medical “transition”. What does exist is a spousal exit clause (emotively referred to as the “Spousal Veto”). In reality this allows a wife, it is usually a woman, to obtain a divorce before they are redefined, in law, as the spouse of a fellow / legal woman. Women have the right to exit a marriage whose contractual basis has significantly altered. Many heterosexual men who “transition” are autogynephiles and many of the wives find themselves trapped in abusive relationships. You can read more of their stories here:

Here are two statements on DFID and the Home Office:

DFID and the home office are urged to include the nebulous idea of Gender Identity in policy and performance indicators. For DFID this could be tied to funding. Given that DFID operate globally, and do much work in regions where Transgender Ideology has not taken hold, this looks a lot like neo-colonialism. In practice this could undermine work in other jurisdictions where women are currently protected by policies which seek to extend, or establish, sex based rights for women. Prioritising “gender identity” in law, policy or practice will hurt the women in areas where DFID operates.

The home office are also advised to accept, and monitor, asylum claims based on “Gender identity”. I wonder how long this nebulous idea of Gender, which is based on a subjective sense of self, will stand up to the scrutiny of the Home Office. They are not known for welcoming asylum claims, with open arms, even when based on objective facts. Once again Stonewall are credited with making contributions on this issue:


The other interesting point is that Trans Activists have long opposed sterilisation clauses. In Norway it was normal practice to sterilise those undergoing sexual reassignment surgery (SRS). Interestingly now we know children, as young as 10, are being put on a pathway to sterilisation campaigners are peculiarly reticent about this issue. For more on this see my earlier posts on Puberty Blockers.

Puberty Blockers. Part One

Puberty Blockers: Part Two

Here Human Rights are pressed into service in the interest of “Trans Rights”.  


The above quote identifies criteria which they deem to be “Human Rights Violations”. One of these is to withhold legal recognition of your “Gender Identity” regardless of your sexed body. This demand dicktates (sic) that women accept a penis bearing male as a legal “woman”. This is already happening in many jurisDICKtions. In the U.K. we do not require SRS to be able to claim legal womanhood. We do, currently, require a diagnosis of “Gender Dysphoria” and a Gender Recognition Panel (GRP), which includes a judge, adjudicates on your sincerity. A reminder about this “onerous” process; it currently costs £140 and we already give Gender Recognition Certificates to male bodied individuals who wish to be recognised as women. You won’t have your GRC rescinded even if you commit male type violence/sexual assault. This legal recognition has forced the Ministry of Justice to rehouse attempted rapists in the female estate. The process is already broken as these two blogs illustrate. Yet despite this the MOJ current policy allows males to self-identify into the female estate.


The above case is from 2009. A pre-op male commits attempted rape after being released to a female bail hostel. Now this person identifies as a “lesbian”, tours prisons to highlight LGBTQ+ issues and was invited to the House of Lords, to advise on the treatment of Transgender Prisoners.

Gender Recognition Certificates

This case 👆 demonstrates that a single judge can overturn a refusal to grant a GRC. Here a thrice married, father of seven, with convictions for obtaining explosives, to endanger life, is granted a GRC even though the GRP turned him down more than once.

The document is interesting for the linguistic gymnastics required to sometimes treat transwomen as women and , at other times, be forced to recognise them as having common interests with other men.

The Current Ministry of Justice policy on Transgender prisoners is covered below.

Ministry of Justice: Updated Policy on caring for Transgender Prisoners.


Above the experiences of Lesbian, Bisexual and Transwomen, that is males, are treated together. This is illogical. The correct comparator here would be trans men but there is an ideological resistance to recognising sex based categories. This is ideological madness. Transwomen are not going to get Cervical cancer but are vulnerable to prostate cancer. Incorrectly recording sex, on NHS records, exposes this community to health based risks. There needs to be a way to identify sex based risks as well as recording, and following up, long term health risks associated with a medicalised “Gender Identity”. A lifelong dependence on opposite sex hormones or post-operative complications should be tracked, researched and evaluated. Not to acknowledge, sex-based, differences is to place trans people at risk. Anyone who seriously cares about this community would not collaborate with extreme sex denialism.

The above clip is interesting because it does refer to transwomen alongside men who have sex with men. Homosexual transsexual males need to be considered in this group because their exposure to risk, like HIV, is similar. However much Gender Identity ideologues join the flight from sex based realities they have to keep returning to it, regardless of their reluctance to acknowledge it.

Further examples, below, illustrate the problem.


Transmen have to be treated along side Lesbian and Bisexual women because they are dealing with specific issues that impact women who have sex with women. Lesbians and transmen face the same kind of sexual violence: because of their sex. Lesbians can be particularly vulnerable in some cultures, by men. Identifying out of sex based violence has not proved overly simple for Transmen.

Througout the document various countries are named because of legislation or practices that hurt the LGBTQ+ community. Countries are singled out for failing to recognise Gender Identity or, as in the case of Uganda the Anti-homosexuality bill. One country that is strikingly absent from this document is Iran and yet they have one of the most heinous approaches to dealing with homosexual men.

BBC on Iran and forcible SRS

You can read about this above.

The APPG do offer some leniency for corporate clients who may face backlash or, heaven forfend, actual loss of market share for speaking up about LGBTQ+ rights. In India or China an anonymous (interesting) contributer advances this argument. Indeed the promulgation of Transgender ideology does look western because that it exactly what it is. Social engineering foisted on an unwilling public by hook or by crook but , mostly by stealth. I speak regularly to women in real life contexts, not feminist activist just ordinary women. Once they believe me about the female penis they provide a resounding NO! They do not accept this. Will not accept the colonising of women’s spaces and will not vote for any party that advocates this. Seems culturally sensitive approaches are allowed when there is commercial risk. Yet the APPG have shown no such cultural awareness to the feelings of UK Women.

Some of the comments on the international context show some awareness that the approach may generate backlash. If only they had applied this to the UK context and actually consulted women about the incursion into women’s rights. The stances taking by LGBTQ+ organisations have set up an unfortunate opposition between their organisations and the rest of Civil Society.

More and more evidence is showing that this will generate a backlash to the LGBT community because of the prioritisation of Transgender Ideology and the utter disrespect shown to women. Men projecting their own, pornified, image of women or carving these into their own flesh cannot define or be women.

Hysterical Women’s Rights Activists

Zarah Sultana: Letter to Liz Truss

Labour MP attacks Liz Truss for delaying reform of the Gender Recognition Act and  restricting access to medical  intervention for “transgender” children.  Not for the first time I find myself  agreeing with the party I have opposed my whole life. I have been a member of and donated hours of my time, and money, to support Labour.  I am still an economic leftie but sadly I refuse to forfeit women’s rights and turn a blind eye to the medicalisation of  “trans kids”. There are some good Conservative Women who appear to be getting a hearing from their party leadership. That’s been quite eye-opening. Meanwhile the Labour Party leadership candidates, bar one, all deemed women like me to be part of a Hate Group.  All of them signed up to some version of the Mantra “Transwomen are Women” with no concern about women being redefined without consultation.  That’s a hard pill to swallow but it does mean I can take this rare opportunity to agree with Owen Jones, Witchfinder General.


The letter Ms Sultana sent will forever be a stain on her career.  It is all the more remarkable since she is based in Coventry. She should be aware of the price the Green Party paid for their unthinking embrace of “trans rights”. A dangerous alliance which blinded them to child safeguarding concerns.  If you are unfamiliar with the tale of the Greens/ Challenor family you can read about it here. Green Party Challenor

First up a disingenuous attempt to redraft the law on single sex spaces.  Zarah seems to think that “single sex” spaces are already open to males, with or without a Gender Recognition Certificate,   One wonders why the necessity for reform of the GRA when Zarah is claiming that sex based protections have already disappeared. (In fact the law allows for discrimination in favour of single sex spaces, even if you have a GRC, except its rarely enforced.)


Naturally she has swallowed the woke wikipedia hook line and sinker. Women are now a subset of our own sex class, how liberating!  Cisgender women are, we are told, privileged women that embrace our Gender Identity. What kind of feminist identifies with sex stereotypes when it has been a central tenet of feminism, for hundreds of years to challenge them?


Zarah cannot resist the opportunity to recycle the age old sexism of dismissing women’s concerns as good old fashioned hysteria!  She is either ignorant of the origin of this slur, or inserting it to deliberately provoke  women. Women who wish to retain our sex based rights are labelled “transphobic” ; a thought terminating cliche which lost its power to silence women long ago.


Here is Owen publicly repudiating the word Terf and sticking it to women with the transphobic slur.  What was that about misogyny on the left?

Ms Sultana could do well to research the origins of accusations of hysteria:  Applied to women who refused sex and thus dishonoured the phallus. Heaven forfend!  Plato would fit right in with the modern day woke bros and their obsession with #LadyBrain; albeit of the wandering type which may land in a male body.


An irony which seems to have escaped her attention is that women are actually fighting to retain the sex based protections in The Equality Act 2010. A piece of legislation also enacted by a Labour government!

She then takes the Conservative government to task for delayed reporting on the  feedback  to the consultation on the Gender Recognition Act. Indeed the response is well overdue. The survey was designed to gauge public opinion, on whether a male could self-identify as a woman and garnered one of the highest levels of responses to a proposed legislative change.   You can read the preamble to the GRA consultation here GRA Consultation. 

The document above is indicative of a level of cognitive capture at the heart of the then Tory administration,  It accepts many of the arguments of Lobby Groups at the outset. Even at one point listing the demands of Trans Lobby groups and inserting this comment below. There was hardly a neutral framing under Penny Mordaunt.


Ms Sultana ignores the Trans activist campaigns to influence the GRA consultation. Even, shockingly, placing a plea, to children, to send in a response. Stonewall used youtuber, children’s entertainer Olly Pike, to persuade children to agree. Even telling them how to fill out the form and asking them to be a hero.  Gender Recognition Act: Children

3AC5F6B8-CF81-476F-888E-0BC60192CA62In addition the preamble to the consultation makes a typical appeal to kindness, which we all know is directed at the female sex. 5B3F4A90-3250-4A60-BDEA-F1AB4E307920


The correct response to the frequent appeals to kindness,  whilst giving women’s rights away to males,  merits an intemperate response.


She goes on to castigate Liz  Truss for “making sure under 18’s are protected…”. I would end that sentence there but Ms Sultana continues to protest the rights of under 18s to make irreversible medical decisions. For anyone unfamiliar with these arguments see my previous post on INFORMED CONSENT?

80A6FAA0-2F6A-44B6-B375-4B5C5DF8155CThat last sentence is disingenuous activist speak, totally unworthy of a sitting MP. We protect children from making irreversible decisions they may come to regret. Referencing Gillick competency is intended to invoke the idea of unwanted teen pregnancies, not children signing consent forms for experimental treatment which will render them infertile and, potentially, compromise sexual function. Tavistock. Part Two: Clinical Dilemmas


Here she compares irreversible medical treatment to the irreversibility of a “natural” puberty.  It is a peculiar phenomenon to watch, self identified socialists, embrace the ultimate in self-commodification. It is disturbing to see a party, hoping to gain political office, attack Parental responsibility which exists to protect our youth from decisions they may regret.  This will not regain the Red Wall and, if I can see this, you can be damn sure its not lost on Dominic Cummings.

There follows some whataboutery about why the current  administration are raising this issue during the middle of a global pandemic. I have no doubt that the timing was quite deliberate. Perhaps because Covid coverage would be a good distraction. Perhaps because it is a condition that has been shown to affect the sexes differently. Furthermore it may have been timed to take advantage of  people with spare time to investigate the issues.  Whether tactical, or serendipitous,  the Conservatives picked a good time to raise this,

Now we move on to the idea that we are dealing with widespread transphobic hate crimes. Firstly may I point out that we don’t collect data on hate crimes perpetrated against women.  While people are reporting misgendering, to the police, women are suffering rising rates of domestic abuse, rape and murder.  The “abuse” of the trans community pales in comparison. Another familiar tactic is the cynical manipulation of self reported suicide attempts in “trans youth” which I cover here Suicide in the Trans Community


The entire letter is dripping with emotional manipulation but she is not done there. The next paragraph is a tactic with which every parent, especially of teenagers, is familiar.

326ABE6D-13A5-4D59-A0AA-EEED6DFDE5ABFor hateful minority read the vast majority of women when they discover that a man with a penis, which he has every intention of keeping, now comes under the “trans umbrella”.  I wouldn’t like to guess what the male sex think on this matter but I suspect fathers will  be horrified that we are sneaking in mixed sex spaces in schools whilst describing them as “Gender Neutral” . Here is the definition of “trans” according to Stonewall.  You will note it includes “cross-dressers”.  That is men who often get a sexual thrill about wearing clothes associated with the female sex. D9269F12-34AF-420A-BAEC-B7284AF98F3E

The GRA has been in place since 2004.  The reason there has been a backlash is the overreach of the Stonewall Lobby.  Women should not have to accept that bepenised “women” can access our private spaces, take up Women Only places in political parties, and be forced to include males in Women’s political organising.  We have a right to organise and campaign for Women’s rights as defined by our sex.  After all the only reason we have to fight for them is because we live with the reality of SEXism. Not GENDERism.

Finally, I have no doubt that Ms Sultana vehemently opposes lobby groups getting access to the Conservative party machine yet this is her list of references. Mermaids & Stonewall. 





Regulatory capture is when special interest groups capture state apparatus.  The interests of these groups become so accepted by, and entwined with, the establishment the state becomes a tool of  special interests.   In respect of Transgender rights the cognitive capture of the political, legal, corporate and medical establishment seems pretty much complete. From politicians tweeting the mantra  “Transwomen are Women” (I notice “Transmen are Men” is less popular, almost as if this is a tale of two sexes) the capitulation to trans ideology is evident across the political spectrum.  The virtue signalling is merely irritating, what is happening in law and policy, much of it by stealth, is more sinister.

The  attack on women’s sex based rights has not arisen in a vacuum.   This is much more widespread than Local Government but I  will start with Leeds City Council. Living here is to have a bit part in a West Yorkshire spin off from the Handmaids Tale: Woke Gilead.



Let us first start with the widespread falsification of provisions in The Equality Act 2010.  This is a piece of legislation which protects “sex” and “gender re-assignment”.  These are the two legally protected characteristics which are pertinent to this discussion.  The latter category was enshrined in law, by the Gender Recognition Act (GRA). At the time, we were assured, it was to protect transsexuals, regularise their legal position and afford some protections by granting a “legal fiction” status. This allowed some, limited, recognition of their target “gender”.  This does not mean the state, legislated or determined that a transsexual had literally changed sex.  It did however confer some of the protections of the “target sex”.

Like a lot of women I was supportive of the legal change.  We were told it would help a small number of disadvantaged people and was a positive change, in keeping with a positive commitment to Human Rights. Until the government proposed a move to abolish the, already minimal, gate-keeping and allow anyone to “Self-Identify” as the opposite sex, I did not see the difficulties.  For a good article on that see here Oxford Law: Reform of the Gender Recognition Act   .

It was in this context of that women started to notice government agencies were getting ahead of the law. Many are acting as if Gender Identity, as desired by Trans Lobby Groups, has superseded the legally protected characteristics of Sex and Gender Re-assignment.  Local Councils have an obligation to uphold The Equality Act and are legally required (Public Sector Duty)  to monitor the impact of policy on legally protected, groups. Crucially they also have a legal obligation to foster good relations between the different, protected, characteristics.  In my view they are failing in this.

Women’s rights groups, like A Woman’s Place UK started to see the eradication of “sex” as a protected characteristic in government policies and publications from a wide range of organisations. Prompted by their work,  I checked Leeds City Councils website.  What did I discover?


Sex was omitted.  Gender was added.  Almost as if the wish was father to the thought.  Notice also that the protected characteristic is actually “Maternity” not “Maternity and Paternity”. Leeds City Council told me that it was their Equalities Team that maintained this part of the web-site.  I would be sacked if I did not get such basic information correct.

Leeds is a Labour Party dominated council and I was, at the time, a party member who campaigned for some of these councillors.  I decided to do a bit of digging to see who was advising them.  What has become clear is that politicians, at all levels, are outsourcing their critical thinking to lobby groups and, it turns out, my council is no exception.  Stonewall & Mermaids are acknowledged as advisors.  Stonewall, for those of you not aware, make explicit their aim is to remove “sex” segregated spaces and enshrine the notion of “Gender Identity” instead of both sex and Gender Reassignment.  Never did I think I would find myself opposing Stonewall.  I do now. They have betrayed women. (They have also betrayed  Lesbians and gay youth.  I will return to this in a later blog) Below is a clip from a Stonewall statement.


I could see why Stonewall are still, sadly,  seen as trusted advisors and they have traded on their past reputation to good, or, more accurately, ill effect.  Less understandable are some of the other groups that have had dialogue with Leeds City Council and, in some cases demonstrable input to their policy.

The Leeds branch of Action for Trans Health tweeted out a thanks to LCC LGBT to thank them for meeting up.  By this time I was already blocked, by my own councils LGBT twitter handle, so the replies are not visible.


I had to rely on citizen journalism to confirm that they do indeed liaise with this “client”. This account below is run by an HR employee of LCC who was the Chair of the representative for LGBTQ+ staff. (more on the man who runs this twitter account below)



For anyone not familiar with Action for Trans Health I intended to  insert a copy of their manifesto. Before it was suspended, for violating wordpress terms and conditions,  this used  to be available here 

Jess Bradley (First Trans NUS officer) was a founder member. Jess was suspended for allegations of lewd displays in the workplace.   Due to the dearth of coverage in our “progressive” press I am afraid I am now obliged to link to the Daily Mail. Action for Trans Health

You can find more about Jess Bradley on the youtube account of Rose of Dawn: Rose of Dawn: Jess Bradley

Here is a sample of the kind of extreme views set out in the Action for Trans Health manifesto which I had archived.


Demanding mandatory education, taught by trans people, for children even at nursery age, raises concerns about grooming.  At best this may mean vulnerable children being inculcated with “Gender Dysphoria” . The words safeguarding  and cult comes to mind. Note also that the recording of biological sex is seen as an act of state coercion and a violence against trans people.  If you think this sounds like some fringe extremists note we currently have a government funded project exploring the replacement of legal sex with gender. Kings College London

Action for Trans Health also have specific concerns about incarceration rates for trans prisoners.  I am no fan of the prison-industrial complex myself but a demand for a blanket release demographic is, at the very least, problematic.


Below are a further list of further demands.  I can hear distinctly my mother saying “Ooh. They don’t want much do they”.


Before I leave Action for Trans Health  confirmation below that  Jess Bradley and ATH are mentioned in Hansard (House of Lords)  debates on this issue. The named individuals, and groups, a check list of all the people and organisations  worst placed, in my view, to advise members on this issue. This is the Liberal Democrat, Baroness Barker, in Hansard, December 2014.  The debate was on the health of Lesbian, Bisexual and Transwomen. Even this grouping  illustrates the cognitive capture. Biological sex can be extremely relevant in medical settings and here male identified people with female biology are omitted, whilst female identified people are included.


I will leave Action for Trans Health there. Now we move on to TransLeeds, We do, in fact, have evidence that this group have achieved material policy change.  Policy change which, impacts women and girls.  Policy which has been developed with no consideration for, or consultation with, women’s groups.

You can read about them here

Worth having a look at the tone of the articles on that site.  Total misrepresentation of women’s use of Adult Human Female, which they define as a “hate-term” used to attack Transwomen.  When the dictionary definition of women is badged a “hate crime” something has gone seriously awry. Regulatory capture now extends to the corporate world who are so keen to appease the Transactivists and seem to forget women are 51% of the population. Here an abject apology is made for allowing women to proclaim the dictionary definition of woman.


Accusing women of defining ourselves only by our reproductive capacity and of “bio-essentialism is another spurious argument which TransLeeds advance.  Most women, involved in the fight for our sex based rights, reject biologically determinist arguments. This is the idea that  sex based stereotypes or “gender” are biological in origin; this is a central tenet of Trans ideology and therefore a blatant reversal to pin this on second wave feminists. For a movement built on the idea that you must modify your body to mimic female/male sexual characteristics, to express your “gender”, its laughable to describe women’s rights activists  as bio-essentialist.

 TransLeeds also offer a “binder” library for girls to compress their breasts.  Its not clear  if they inform parents.  Binding constricts breathing and has other negative implications for health.  An organisation that provides these should be explicit about the safeguarding of young girls and clear that they are not  usurping parental responsibility. Why, in 2019, this is being normalised is beyond my comprehension.  Here is an excellent article comparing the treatment of Breast Ironing (“bad”)  to Breast Binding (“progressive”).

Breast ironing V Breast Binding

Published in Culture, Health and Sexuality 2016. Here is an accessible version of a survey of the health consequences experienced by girls undertaking this: Breast Binding  

Skip forward to 2019 and Leeds City Council embark on another initiative, specifically formulated at the request of TransLeeds.  Seems they  are determined to get ahead of the law. The council have  introduced an on-line “Gender Change” to allow anyone to alter their details and ask for their “gender” marker to be changed from Male to Female and Vice Versa.  This is the guidance for the process and Leeds City Councils requirements for a “gender change”.  This paragraph leapt out:


First of all cross-dressing can be a harmless enough past-time. Not every man who cross-dresses has an explicitly sexual motivation. However for some this is a paraphilia. It is done for the purposes of sexual arousal and can be accompanied by a desire to breach women’s boundaries.  (NB Regardless of whether, or not, this is a sexually motivated means of expression, the notion this makes you a “woman” is deeply regressive, sexist and insulting).  This exposes women to the risk that males, who fetishise females,  will seek to access women’s spaces to enforce participation in this “fetish”.  So will this new “gender identity” give males access to female spaces? Single sex spaces are allowed, providing they serve a “legitimate & proportionate aim”.  Presumably Leeds City Council consulted widely?

FOI requests were submitted and , it turns out, Leeds City Council consulted with TransLeeds and TransLeeds only.  They were, specifically, asked if they had consulted any other groups (Duh…Women!) and they confirmed they only consulted with Trans people because it would not impact the rights of any other group.   Anyone who knows why women fought, and won, the right to sex segregated spaces would assume this would be considered.  Nope.  No Equality Impact statement was undertaken or deemed necessary.  The reason given, unbelievably, is that Leeds City Council state “The Council do not apply any sex based exemptions as no requirement has been identified”.  I think that will come as a surprise to women. I am sure most women thought we had the right to sex segregated changing rooms in Council run facilities.

As a final point some of you will have been following the debacle at Bradford Pride when Lesbians were surrounded by angry males, upset that Lesbians were declaring their same sex orientation.  It is now deemed Transphobic for Lesbians to make clear statements about their SEXual orientation, at a Pride March!  Account here:Lesbians In Chairs. Drinking Coffee

And who is one of the angry males featured in the above account?  HR employee of Leeds  City Council, until last Friday the Chair of LCC staff group for LGBT+ group.  Also the man behind the account above which confirms meeting with Action for Trans Health.  I won’t share his name even though I have had this done to me to silence me from speaking out against TransActivism.

Update with new information supplied by @LeedsCitizen.  Leeds City Council also have links, via an employee, with MESMAC.  A Policy advisor, at LCC,  is also a MESMAC Trustee.  You can read about this charity here MESMAC.  Digested read: Charity allowed workers to sleep with clients. Former Trustee jailed for child sex offences.

Here  is a link to a  government report on MESMAC Government Charity Case report

Report outlines  failures to report a serious incident to the Charity Commission and, as a result of an investigation, further historical cases came to light.  As a result of the investigation working with vulnerable young males was suspended.

Leeds City Council are  providing significant funding to this organisation.




Leeds City Council would appear to have been cognitively captured.

I will return to regulatory capture because there is so much of it! I will also do something on Gender Dysphoric Kids and anyone who wants to contribute, anonymously, or otherwise feel free to DM me on Twitter.