Martine Rothblatt: Chapter 4


This is from a series on this book 👇

This is the second edition. The original was titled: The Apartheid of Sex. The author is a trans-identified male who is also interested in “Transhumanism” which, crudely, envisages a post human life for man melded with technology. Most rational people would find his ideas ludicrous but, unfortunately, he is taken seriously and is now one of the trustees for The Mayo Clinic which is sometimes referred to as a world leading hospital. He is also very rich.

This post covers the fourth chapter of his book.

Notice he puts “objective reality” in scare quotes. Let us hope our politicians row back from following this book as if it were an instruction manual. The truth is this is a man and all the surgery in the world has not disguised him.

The chapter is broken down into the following sub-headings.

Love and Marriage

He starts with gay marriage which sounds perfectly reasonable until you see he wants the eradication of sex in life and law. Inevitably this means denial of same sex attraction.

This summarises his aims. 👇. To get rid of the recording of sex on any documents. Marriage to Rothblatt should be “sex blind”. He is also keen on mixed sex bathrooms and changing rooms. Basically he wants to penetrate all female spaces and he is quite clear a man, with a penis, can identify as a “woman”.

He is a qualified lawyer and very keen on using the law to get his own way. Here he argues that “transsexuals” are ideally placed to contest the recording of sex on marriage certificates.

A recurrent theme is drawing comparisons to the recording of race and racist laws against mixed sex marriage.

The Lovings were a couple who challenged the law which stated that their marriage was illegal. A fight they won, with the help of the ACLU, before they spent their energy attacking women’s rights in the name of Gender Identity Ideology.

Rothblatt argues that a legal case needs to quote the Loving v Virginia precedent to strike down the requirement to record sex on marriage certificates.

For the gay men and lesbians going along with this the goal is erasure of your sexual orientation. If you have not caught up with the #CottonCeiling /#BoxerCeiling now is a good time. The new generation of “transgender” ideologues think you are morally mandated to accept partners of the opposite sex if they identify as Lesbians/Gay men.

Let that sink in!

Government and Sex

Warming to his theme, Rothblatt argues that nobody is male or female.

He then uses the Ruth Bader Ginsberg case; in which she successfully won a male spouse the same rights as females, married to men in the armed forces. I am not sure Bader Ginsberg would have anticipated the way this case would be used by trans-activists; though she did act for a “transsexual” to be allowed to serve his time in women’s prisons.

Rothblatt’s thinks the government don’t need to collect data on sex for its census. He proposes that we add a “transgender “ or “other” category to the census. This has already happened in the U.K and it took a fight to make the Office for National Statistics (ONS) change the guidance to allow men to tick “female” if that was how they identified. A similar fight was lost in Scotland.

Rothblatt aims for a world in which “transgendered” becomes the main category.

In his ideal world the sex question would be dropped altogether and arguments about needing to know which diseases (and treatments) need differentiating by sex he regards as specious as arguments to record race. This is dangerous. To give one example; multiple sclerosis affects women in 68% of cases. At the same time men are more likely to get the progressive version of the disease and their prognosis is worse. Similarly we only recently discovered females were dying at higher rates after heart attacks. Turns out female symptoms present differently and they were being under diagnosed.

This next paragraph is a tiresome. A toddler realising the difference between males and females is a developmental milestone. Activists use this to argue that this is awareness of “gender identity”. Again he attacks the notion of female and male brains, at certain points, but he also argues for the “transgendered” brain. Separating the sexes has been done for safeguarding reasons because the male of the species have trouble regulating their penises. It’s not akin to Apartheid and it’s an odious analogy.

In Rothblatt’s ideal world we need a “Gender Pioneer” to challenge the legislature and argue against recording their sex, or their child’s, then all the other agencies will need to follow suit. We have already see Freddy McConnell fight to be recorded as the “father” on their child’s birth certificate; even though she is female. Another activist has spent years going through the courts to be acknowledged as neither male nor female. In addition a govt funded Research Council handed out a grant to examine this topic.

The bathroom bugaboo

This is the definition of “bugaboo”. He thinks women’s concerns are childish.

In fact there are huge inequities in toilet provision for females and women have been screaming into a void about this for decades. Yet the moment some men have “Lady Feelz” governments, public bodies and corporations have leapt into action. Clara Greed works in this field and has this to say.

You can watch Greed talking about this here:

Toilets WPUK

The author thinks that we can address issues with female provision by removing the division between male and female toilets. He recognises that males may feel discriminating against if urinals are removed and also that the vagina-havers will end up cleaning up male urine. He dismisses these concerns. He is also dismissive about rape. He calls these concerns mere “speculation”.

In fact this is the research.

Unisex spaces and women’s safety

Rothblatt instead chooses to focus on a woman who was arrested for using the male facilities to avoid the queues at the women’s facilities. She is now a campaigner for “potty parity”. Yep, Martine, we want equal provision but we don’t want to share with men.

Papering the Transhuman

In this section argues for the registration of artificial “humans”.

Martine is living in the realms of science fiction and in this chapter he argues for the registration of “trans humans” to enable people to live on in a different form. He has given this a lot of thought even down to worrying about he can maintain controls of his sizeable fortune.

So he wants to reorder the world to fit his fantasy and, thus far, he is getting what he wants.

You can support my work here: Donations gratefully received but don’t prioritise me above important legal cases, or your gas bill.

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


Dr Ann Lawrence: Interview


To finish of this series I decided to listen to the interview with Stella O’Malley and Sasha Ayad for the Gender: A wider Lens series. It is undoubtedly a coup to be granted a rare interview with Dr Ann Lawrence. You can listen here:

Dr Ann Lawrence interview

For those of you unfamiliar with the series, Lawrence identifies as a Male ”Transsexual” and is open about his motivation to ”transition”; namely Autogynephilia, a sexual paraphilia. Definition below.

O’Malley is a psychotherapists and Ayad is a Licenced adolescent therapist both deal with young, clients who present with Gender Dysphoria. Needless to say I am not privvy to their client list but it seems reasonable to suppose some of their clients must appear to fall into the AGP category. I have seen at least one YouTuber describing his sexual motivation to identify as female even though it is usually a paraphilia associated with older males. We, perhaps, have the near ubiquity of porn to thank for this phenomenon.

Lawrence writes a lot about adult, AGP males and their tendency to reconstruct their childhood memories to deemphasise the sexual motivations for their ”transition” so I always listen with a degree of skepticism about AGP narratives. Lawrence is a controversial figure among what is called the “Trans” community for being willing to acknowledge autogynephilia. This probably makes him more honest than most but very early in the interview he makes a claim that even children can present with autogynephilia. I am immediately uncomfortable with this framing. I will become more uncomfortable when he talks about documented cases, in sexology literature, of penile erections in toddlers when allowed to play with female clothing. I have not located these sources but I am immediately concerned about the veracity of these claims or, if the research exists, the ethics of any research into the erections of three year olds. One of the central tenets of queer theory involves the rejection of social norms and many activists seem to get a perverse kick in exploring the darker side of human impulses, paedophilia and zoophilia being two.

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria

Asked about this phenomenon it is clear that Lawrence has not encountered the work of Lisa Littman who coined the term (ROGD). On the one hand Lawrence says his own parents would have seen his case as Rapid Onset gender Dysphoria but he is also keen that his work is out there so AGP males have an explanation of their ”condition”. On social contagion he concedes that it is very difficult to be female in this society so, in the age of the internet, rising numbers of females in flight from their sex don’t surprise him. I wonder if Lawrence is self-aware enough to know that one of the difficulties women and girls face is the hyper-sexualisation of of our bodies. Autogynephilic men are literally projecting their sexist notions of what makes a woman onto their own bodies but also, by extension onto the bodies of all women. They associate being female with feeling sexually aroused which is inherently sexist. I don’t think Lawrence understands his role in the discomfort girls feel about their bodies once puberty hits, he laments the fact that women and girls are disrespected by broader society but lacks self-awareness of his own contribution to the treatment of women.

On the role of the internet Lawrence says had he had access to the internet he would likely have ”transitioned” earlier. As it was he left it till he was in his forties, at the time of the interview he was 71.

Narcissistic Rage

Lawrence is good in this segment as he talks about how many AGP males deal with their shame by projecting anger and exhibit entitlement with a lack of empathy. I covered his paper on this topic earlier in the series: 👇

Autogynephilia & Narcissistic Rage


Asked about transwidows, Lawrence expresses sympathy for both wives and children of ”transitioned” fathers. Lawrence says entering a marriage with severe autogynephilia to be cautious about entering marriage, especially if they are embarking on marriage as a ”cure”; especially if your erotic urges are entirely self-directed. Stella brings up the stories of AGP husbands who are abusive. Lawrence does not really address the abuse but concedes it can be very harmful to have an AGP family member.

Final thoughts.

Lawrence ends with his thoughts on teenage males who exhibit autogynephilia. He imagines a past where he would have had himself castrated to avoid any masculinisation. He makes the case for AGP as a sexual orientation which is immutable. He believes there are intelligent boys who know their own mind at thirteen or fourteen and these boys should be allowed to obtain medical intervention. As an aside he references the practice of castrating boys to create singers with a better voice range (Castratos). He is mainly concerned about better cosmetic outcomes.

He finishes with a debt of acknowledgement to Ray Blanchard.

I doubt Lawrence would have agreed to a more challenging interview format and the fact that Stella and Sasha are both therapists, and possibly also because they are female, may have prompted Lawrence to agree to speak. Any attempt to legitimise autogynephilia as a sexual orientation should, in my view, be fiercely resisted. Similarly agreeing medical intervention at 13 or 14 for any male is a dangerous suggestion. Lawrence focuses on the ability of the adult male to better pass and suggests there is a route back for males who take this path. Naturally occurring sex hormones play a pivotal role in pubertal development; which continues up to age 25. Blocking puberty does not just stop the developing of genitalia but also has an impact on brain development which is poorly understood. Lawrence is projecting his own, adult, wish fulfilment onto adolescent boys.

If you can donate to help with costs for this blog you can do so here:

Researching gender identity ideology and it’s impact on women’s rights as well as the impact on gay rights.


Limerick Prison Report.

This is a special report into Limerick Prison since housing three male prisoners in the women’s wing. The full report is below. 👇


I did a piece on Barbie Kardashian for Graham Linehan’s substack; a seriously disturbed young man with convictions for violent attacks on women. Brought up by an abusive father he was recruited to join in the violent assaults on his mother. I have reproduced this on my blog with a link to the court case which brought this young boy to my attention. Now he identifies as a “woman” and has been transferred to the female estate, in Limerick Prison. He has not only committed serious violence against women but he threatens sexual violence and has a specific resentment for the female sex. 

I blogged on him here. Article contains links to the original court transcript, relating to a previous detention order. This was prior to his current conviction for which I have not managed to get a court transcript.

Barbie Kardashion

Limerick Prison was subject to an official inspection in April 2021. At that time three males, with a transgender identity, were held in the female estate. Limerick Prison houses both males and females who are, normally, held separately. 

Because males are generally held in the estate suitable for their sex the inspections cover the male and the female experience. For the females one of the issues raised was lack of access to tampons even through there was a scheme to provide them free of charge.

The other issues mentioned were the lack of any toilet facilities, for females, in the exercise yard. There were facilities for males. Without a trace of irony the inspection report points out their own recommendation which states women should be allowed time to exercise “out of sight of male prisoners”. The total and utter disrespect shown by making female prisons mixed sex and still feigning support for women’s dignity!

That is about as much attention as they gave to female prisoners. But they do spend an inordinate length of time angsting about the male sex /violent offenders they have put on the women’s wing.

The Yogyakarta principles are a document drawn up by some of the more extreme trans-activists. These principles have no standing in international law despite being referred to by many HuMAN rights organisations, who claim they promote best practice. One of the men involved recently broke ranks to criticise them and admit that too little thought was given to the rights of women. Robert Wintemute, one of the signatories, to the principles admits the rights of women were not given sufficient consideration. 👇

The Irish Prison Inspectorate seems to have fully aligned with the Yogyakarta principles as they demonstrate below. 👇 Note the prisoner has a voice about where they are placed in the prison accommodation. What about the women?

Ireland operates on the self-identification principle such that even a male with a history of violent/sexual abuse of women is not precluded from obtaining a gender recognition certificate. There is no safeguarding built into this process. Any man who claims to identify as a “woman” is granted a GRC. This has created the inhumane policy of housing males in female prisons. (Not just Ireland, by the way, Scotland allows “self-id” and so do England. There are no female prisons in Wales. I don’t know the situation in Northern Ireland). 

Now we come to the conditions in which the males, with a claimed trans-identity, are held. They are held in their prison cells for 23 out of 24 hours. They appear to have single cells, which are somewhat of a rarity in Irish prisons. I agree it is inhuman to restrict prisoners in this way, unless the alternative is to expose women to risk. Notice the Irish prison service have adopted the language of gender identity ideologues so you have to do some mental gymnastics to realise we are not talking about women here. We are talking about males. At least one of those males is a grave danger to women.

The situation for these detainees is, I agree, likely to be causing them psychological harm. However, the risk to females, if they were allowed free association, is likely to be more than psychological.

If ever there was a prisoner that could use access to a “listening” service whilst in prison this person would appear to be one. However, having read some prisoner accounts of the “listener” service it would appear it is not an unmitigated good. The service is run by other prisoners and there are reports some use information shared, by vulnerable prisoners, for nefarious reasons. It is not clear if the “listeners” are male or female.

I would agree. 👆 the prison service are in an impossible position. Forced to allocate dangerous males, in a female wing, afraid of the consequences of fully unleashing them on the female population, then criticised for segregating them. Either the trans-identified, and male, prisoner is placed in a solitary /segregated scenario or they are allowed to mix with “general population”. The population referenced here would appear to mean the women on the wing. The prison service would be forced to deploy staff to protect, potential, female victims.

The Prison confirms that the processes needed to protect these trans-identified males are labour intensive. Nowhere do the prison inspectors cover the issue of the risk to actual females by forcing the prison to adopt the, naive, recommendations of the Yogyakarta Principles. They do at least manage to include a reference to female staff being coerced into giving bodily searches to males. 

The prisoners have complained about mis-gendering so naturally the prison staff are also to be forced to undergo re-education programmes. Prison staff will be forced to call a violent male, with a deep seated loathing of women “Barbie”.

The prison inspectorate mandates prison staff should receive training on LGBT + issues. They do not recommend any training covering the impact, on females, of being housed with males. Males, let me remind you, with histories of violence /sex offending against women. This is despite the fact that female prisoners have been shown to be disproportionately impacted by domestic violence and sexual assaults, by men.

As far as I can ascertain the requirement to draft a new policy has not yet been undertaken or is not yet published on the Irish Prison service website. The inspectorate makes clear, in its action plan, they will be closely monitoring compliance with the LGBT+ training. This will be developed in collaboration with an appropriate civil society organisation, which, I infer, means a Trans Lobby group. The transgender prisoners will also get a voice in this training. Not the women. The Inspectorate also require attendance numbers and frequency of delivery/updates to the training programme. Big Brother is watching you!

The interesting double-think required for these policies is evident in the policy written for the Scottish Prison Service. The policy for trans-identified females, in Scotland, specifically highlights the danger of sexual assault to a female held in the male estate. Trans-identified men are invariably held in the female estate. Sex would appear to matter for the trans community after all. The Scottish policy does claim the trans-identified females should be given a choice. The other women get no choice about forcible detention with males.

Would love to see the LGBT training materials the prison are now using. They provided them, to the inspectorate, in June 2021. They don’t appear to be available on their website.

When will they listen to women’s groups?

NHS Trans Policy:Birmingham 2

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

Here is the procedure.

Procedure for Supporting People who are Transgender UHB.PDF

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

NHS Trans Policy:Birmingham

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

NHS Trans Policy

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

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

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

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

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

Sex Matters in Medicine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can relate 👇

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

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


Dating while transgender 1


This will be a series looking at the experience of people, with a trans-identity, who are embarking on dating lives. I will look first at this research.


Here is the abstract. As you can see they express surprise that Lesbians exclude biological males! 😳. That should give you your first clue.

Funded by Federal Government.

Please not that this is funded via a Research Council which attracts Federal Funding. So this is no longer a fringe ideology. This has State backing.

More on the funding body.


Things you are expected to believe before you begin. Sex is an arbitrary classification system. Someone’s proclaimed ”gender identity” takes precedence over biological sex. Excluding trans-identified people from your dating pool is akin to racism. By not dating this group you are denying trans-people vital, social support. Sexual orientation is “fluid” so you cannot hide behind a Lesbian/Gay identity. Data that includes both men and women in the opposite sex category makes sense.

The research begins with a whistle-stop tour of dating history covering the, relatively new, emergence of dating based on personal preferences. Marrying for love is a new social norm. They proceed to cover the fact that inter-racial marriage and marrying across class boundaries has, historically, been frowned upon. Many of these unions were seen as immoral and even disgusting. They even have the cheek to point out how recent the acceptance of same sex relationships is; whilst simultaneously problematising Lesbians, who exclude males who identify as “transgender women”.

They proceed to make up words to imply choosing your partner, based on their biological sex is a new form of societal prejudice, to be overcome.

Reality Check!

I was moved to add a series on this topic because these arguments, intended to unmoor us from our sex bodies, are gaining traction, in elite discourse. They are now also taught to our children /youth.

I have had personal DM’s from young females who now identify as gay men. What sort of dating future awaits these vulnerable females? This is one outcome: 👇

Here a gay man defends his sexual boundaries:

Here Ray Blanchard points out that these females are in for a rude awakening.

Back to Phallus in Wonderland

This research attempted to assess how ”trans-inclusive are modern dating patterns. They asked 960 people to indicate if they would date a trans-identified person. (Sample dropped to 958 because two were not interested in sexual relationships.) This is a graph of the responses.

People were categorised by their sexual orientation and whether they were a ”man”, ”woman” or in one of the variously labelled “queer” categories. It is quite confusing because the categories are based on how you identify, until they disaggregate the data by natal sex (which they call “cisgender”.) They don’t provide graphs which display ”cisgender” choices because this would invalidate the trans-identified people. Of course it doesn’t make sense without referencing ”cisgender“ dating preferences so you can find it if you read carefully.

What this means is that even when including people with a trans-identity, as if they were their desired sex, patterns of exclusion still remain high. There does not appear to be a graph showing participants by their natal sex, even in the, published, supplementary data. They do state that patters of exclusion were higher in ”cisgender” people. Only 13% of people, who acknowledge their biological sex, say they would be open to dating someone who wishes to be treated as the opposite sex/claim another ”trans” label.

The authors offer a number of explanations for this strange phenomenon; which has evolved over millennia to further the survival of the species. The idea that sexual attraction can be dismissed as a societal prejudice is ludicrous. There are many theories about why homosexuality evolved but the existence of same sex attraction is now being widely dismissed by trans-activists. It is even more egregious when you consider the fight for same sex attraction to be accepted. Heterosexuals have not had to fight for our rights so it is interesting that the most trans-inclusive demographic (Lesbians), outside of the ”queer” identified, come in for the most criticism.

Where did the Lesbian’s go “wrong”.

Apparently it is not enough to accept trans-identified people in your dating pool. You have to be inclusive in the correct way. In order to expose trans-inclusive Lesbians the author invented the idea of ”congruent” dating. By this logic it is argued that Lesbians are attracted to ”women” and thus, theoretically, should be open to dating women and men who identify as women. In news that should surprise nobody the trans-inclusive Lesbians are only accepting of “transmen” i.e. persons of the same sex. This is variously described as “misgendering” and evidence of biological determinism.

Other explanations

Different suggestions for the exclusionary/ incongruent dating practices were advanced.

Perhaps some were confused by the definitions? 🤔

Cis-sexism/Cisgenderism. People *still* don’t see trans-bodies as ”natural”. Perhaps they are hyper-focused on genitals?

Another argument was put forward about the higher rates of exclusion of trans-identified males. This was ascribed to “masculine privilege”. The author’s argue that society privileges the ”masculine presenting” which means feminine-expressing males are subject to an extra layer of prejudice. Thus, in clownfish world, the normal hierarchy of the male sex in a position of dominance has been inverted in clownfish world.

Can you be overly-inclusive?

Turns out you can! Some people displayed incongruent dating patterns by including gender identities they are not supposed to be attracted to. So, if a trans-man, who identifies as gay, include a (female) Lesbian and a trans-man they are being untrue to their same gender attraction. Any combination that deviates from the gender rules risks undermining core tenets of the religious texts. Turns out some trans-identifying people are having sex like gender apostates!

Can you be transphobic and ”trans”?

Yep! Turns out some ”trans-men” who are ”heterosexual” only want to date “cisgender” women. This is put down to an excessive need for validation. By excluding males, who identify as women they are behaving like a cisgender supremacist.

Turns out even those with a transgender identity can be guilty of believing in sexual dimorphism and be guilty of being a trans person in the tweets and a Terf between the sheets.

Turns out the heretics are inside the house! We did not even get into enbyphobia!

Turns out it is not so easy to socially engineer a new reality denying ideology. Finally, after all the rape-adjacent rhetoric the authors claim they are not denying bodily autonomy and free choice about our sexual partners.

No! We just want you to examine your prejudice.

There was a lot to unpack in this paper so I may revisit it.

You can support my work here: All donations are welcome, but only if you have spare cash and want to amplify dissenting voices, and offset the billions funding the dissemination of Gender Identity Ideology.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s impact on women’s rights, gay rights and healthy, young bodies.


NHS Trans Policy:Birmingham


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

NHS Trans Policy

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Sex by deception: 2

This is part two looking at the issue of sex by deception. Part 1 looked at a court case involving a female who was prosecuted for engaging in sexual activity with another female who believed she was male. The post includes the judicial transcript for her appeal and some links to legal commentary. You may be surprised to find there are legal opinions that seek to abolish the offence, of obtaining sex by ”Gender Identity Fraud”. You can read that post here: 👇

Sex by deception: 1

This post looks at a short BBC documentary asking the question:

The interviews are mainly conducted with people who identify as ”transgender” although one female was interviewed who did not claim a transgender identity. The documentary also included a survey asking the same question to a wider population. They then presenting the findings to show responses split for age demographics.

You can watch the documentary, available for a further 11 months, here: 👇

Should I disclose?

The presenter introduces his trans-identified friends to canvas opinion. The question hinges on the idea of whether it is the business of a sexual partner, potential or actual, to know your biological sex. The Gender Recognition Act builds in certain privacy protections for those who hold a Gender Recognition Certificate and, it is argued by some, these, potentially extend, to anyone with a ”transgender” identity. However, as shown in the previous post, this does not extend to lying to intimate partners and doing so has resulted in successful prosecutions.

We first meet Maya who talks about hiding their identity from parents; leaving the house as a boy and, with the help of clothes and a wig, going to work as a ”girl”. They then talk about their fears about “transition”. The idea this is a life and death decision is often deployed on this topic.

Next up we hear from Noah who is in a same sex relationship with another female. Noah was the only girl in five siblings. Disclosure is theoretical for Noah as she was with her girlfriend before coming out. It’s still a worry about whether her girlfriend still thinks she is kissing “Nicola” not ”Noah”. Same sex attracted girls are, as already covered, over-represented in those identifying as ”male”.

Zac appears to be another same sex attracted female with a tell tale testosterone voice. Zac has had people leave ”him” because they wanted to be a Lesbian and who now is identifying as a heterosexual female. Like many of those interviewed Zac cannot predict the reactions of those he is ”getting” with, it could be a slap or a hug.

Harry is another same sex attracted female. Harry thinks you should disclose but the prospect is daunting. Even casual flings mean the person will have intimate information (I assume about your sex) about you.

Next Jax interviews Tyra who went viral, on TikTok for a post about not disclosing they were male on nights out. Tyra thinks it is nobody else’s business.

Tyra’s argument begins with the notion that they have had all the hormones and surgeries so, in their eyes, they have met the standard to regard themselves as a ”woman”.

Tyra says she is honest in their Tinder bio and when sexual intimacy is on the table but does not feel disclosure is required when kissing men on a night out. Tyra advances the safety argument for concealing this information. However, it is notable that trans-activists, also oppose any defence deployed when violence follows the discovery of deception about sex. This is known as a gay/trans panic defence and this is now outlawed in many states.

This is where the forced-teaming of gay with the T becomes problematic. In one of these there is no deceit and a man is using the ”gay panic” defence to legitimise homophobic violence. This may also be internalised homophobia if sexual activity has taken place, knowing this was a male. In neither case should violence be legitimised but only one of these involves deceit. The gay/trans panic defence is now outlawed in a number of U.S states.

I am not aware if these states, therefore, deny any redress for those who have been victims of sex by deception. It seems likely that sexual orientation and a free, and informed, choice about your sexual partner has been downgraded in favour of validation of a ”gender identity”.

Tyra is audibly frustrated by the notion that lying about your sex could be considered ”sexual assault” on being asked the question this is the response. 👇 Tyra puts this reaction to people being uneducated about ”trans” people and the problem is their expectations.

Jax then turns to a trans-identified male based in New York. They share a similar perspective to Tyra. They too have had ”all the surgeries” and feel they have left their ”trans” status behind. The arguments here are similar to those deployed by Alex Sharpe and other legal commentators in my previous blog. The argument goes, we all lie, about many things to get laid. Why single out biological sex when talking about having sex?

The documentary then reveals the result of a survey which reveals nearly 60% think you should disclose your ”trans” status/ your biological sex.

Split by age the figure was 61% thought you should disclose in the over 55’s but even in the younger demographic 41% said you should disclose. Only 18% were prepared to say you should hide the truth about your biological sex.

Jax then interviews Amy. Amy says she is open to dating anyone whether male, female, trans-identified etc. However she feels embarking on intimacy requires honesty. She also brings up the comfort of the sexual partner who needs to know what to expect. Nobody wants a six inch surprise when they are expecting Lesbian sex! Or to be told the vaginal sex which turns out to be with a “man”.

Kade takes a man home for sex and ”forgets” to tell him shes really a man. Realising she failed to be “honest” she reveals that he has actually just had sex with a man, irrespective of the vagina part.

Kade is dismissal of the response which is all about biology and puts it down to the man feeling discomfort about having a gay experience, with a woman!

Jay asks Kade the burning question.

Kade says the question is complicated. She then sighs and says she should not have to have a briefing every time she contemplates casual sex. If she had to give a yes or no answer it would be NO! Trans people should not feel obliges to tell the truth about their sex.

Gay men! Listen-up 😳🤔

Despite demanding we accept her self-redefinition of her own sex /sexuality she thinks it is perfectly acceptable to redefine someone else’s, and an entire demographic. Jax asks what Kade would say to her erstwhile sexual partner if she saw him again. Here was the reply. He is now GAY!

I honestly thought when females started identifying as gay men we would call a halt to the madness. I was wrong.

The BBC are grossly irresponsibly for not pointing out the illegality of some of the responses by the interviewees and I will be sending yet another complaint about their content. It is worth also pointing out that Stonewall want to ”reform” criminal justice in this area.

If you are sick of this, can’t say what you think, to keep your job, feel free to bung some support my way. I do this full-time and am unsalaried. By April 15th I should have a tiny, subsistence income but at the moment I rely on donations. The right wing, christian evangelicals seem to baulk at funding an atheist, feminist, leftie!

Researching /Exposing the pernicious effects of Gender Identity Ideology on women’s rights, gay youth and who is pushing the social engineering that is rooted in sex denialism.


Sex by deception: 1


R v McNally

A recent BBC short documentary discussed the ethics around disclosure of biological sex to persons with whom you are engaged in sexual activity. Nowhere in that documentary was any reference made to laws around sex by deception. Before I cover that documentary let us look at the conviction of a female who posed as a male and engaged in sexual activity with a female.

Here is the transcript of an appeal against sentence which outlines details of the offence and the legal judgement.

McNally v R. [2013] EWCA Crim 1051 (27 June 2013)

The judgement sets out the details as follows: The appellant was a 13 year old female and posed as a boy on the internet. ’M’ was also female. They communicated by messenger and over the following three years discussed getting married and starting a family and engaged in phone sex. They agreed to be in an exclusive relationship which culminated in ”Scott” visiting ’M’ just after her 16th birthday.

‘Scott’ arrived in London, presenting as a male with a dildo in her trousers to give the appearance of having a penis. There were four more visits and sexual activity took place.

Finally ‘M’s mother confronted Scott about his biological sex:

“Scott” had pleaded guilty to the offences so the appeal claims she was badly advised and did not realise it was incumbent on the Crown to prove that ’M’ did not know she was female. The legal advisors, from the first court case denied this and stated that ’Scott’ was told he could offer this as a defence but the fact that ’M’ had purchased condoms would be revealed to the jury who would have to judge who was telling the truth:

Following this advice “Scott” added the following to her statement and pleaded guilty.

The judge details the legal definition of sexual offences as set out in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

The relevant excerpt is section 74.

The judgement considers other cases where arguments were made which vitiated the issue of consent. These include a sexual partner that did not reveal HIV status, lying about being post vasectomy so a condom was not deemed necessary, removing a condom without the partner’s knowledge, ejaculating inside a partner after being asked not to do so. The judgements on these issues were mixed.

The Judge, in this case, dismissed arguments, which are still used today, to justify lying about your sex vitiates. One of the is indeed to imply that convicting people for lying about something as fundamental as your sex, is equivalent to ”curating” your dating profile by exaggerating, for example, your wealth.

Therefore deception as to ”gender” can vitiate consent. ‘M’ was deliberately deceived into thinking she was having sexual activity with a male. Therefore she did not ”freely consent” to sex.

There are a few other cases of prosecutions for similar offences and, where deception about your biological sex is concerned, those who have been prosecuted in the U.K seem to be all female.

There is the case of Gayle Newland covered, along with this case and others, by The Secret Barrister here: 👇

Gayle Newland

This paragraph jumped out at me:

You can also read of earlier cases on Stephen Whittle’s blog. Whittle is a trans-identified female and a proponent of Gender Identity Ideology.

Sex by deception

Alex Sharpe, another trans-identified legal bod, this time male, has written an entire book on this topic. You can read an article, written by Sharpe, here:

Gender Identity Fraud

Sharpe argues that by singling out action based on “Gender Identity” we are fuelling ”transphobia. What Sharpe doesn’t use is the phrase “biological sex“ . SEXual orientation is a legally protected characteristic in law and it is based on SEX! You may be open to sexual encounters with either sex but if you are exclusively attracted to one sex, only, you have the legal right for your boundaries /consent to be legally protected.

Trans ally in the tweets. Terf between the sheets.

What Alex is demanding is that we accept a belief that people can literally change sex. The proposition here is that we should not allow these prosecutions ifwe accept a trans man is a man” . However that essentially demands societal acceptance that a personally held ”Gender Identity” is privileged above the material reality of biological sex. I don’t accept that a ”transman’ is literally a man and a gay man is highly unlikely to do so! Trans-allies in the tweets are often “Terfs” between the sheets.

Dare I say, this is incel logic. Nobody has a right to sex. We could certainly examine why the prosecutions are all female. We could raise questions about internalised homophobia or why it is so hard for these women to be openly ”Lesbian”. We could discuss whether the length of the prison sentences are excessive, in some cases. What we cannot do is privilege a, subjective, sense of self over reality. Lying about something so fundamental, to most people, if they are honest, is not merely unethical. It is a criminal offence.

Which brings me to part two of this series. Why did the BBC not point out the law in a recent documentary short which allowed a discussion about non-disclosure of your sex, to partners?

There are huge foundations funnelling billions into the spread of Gender Identity Ideology. If you can help offset the disparity by donating for my content. Friends of my work can do so here:

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and the impact on women’s , sex based, rights as well as the medical transitioning of vulnerable, often gay, youth.


Parents of ”trans kids”: 2


This is the second piece on some research, for a PhD, on families in the U.K. who believe they have a ”transgender” child. Part One focussed on experiences with “socially transitioning” their child. It followed 30 families whose children ranged from years of three to eleven. Most identified as the opposite sex but some were ”non-binary”. For this paper the numbers under consideration were the 23 families engaging with gender clinics. As you can see from the title there was not much positive feedback about the gender clinics, in the U.K.

Full paper is accessible here:

Parents of “trans kids” at Gender Clinics

Broadly the parents felt the clinics were overly intrusive in their questioning /therapy and unsupportive of affirming parents. The social transition of children is a relatively new phenomenon, in the United Kingdom, and these parents, who have taken this step, are likely to be more convinced/entrenched in their belief system. The negative feedback seems very much driven by shock that the clinicians, at gender clinics, were still treating these children in an exploratory fashion. The parents have already determined that they had a transgender child on their hands and they did not take kindly to being questioned.

It also needs to be borne in mind that the author of the study identifies as ”non-binary” and also has a “transgender” child. Both the author and the parents spent time in closed groups for parents in the same situation; groups which cater for “affirming” parents. Parents who are more questioning are badged as ”trans-hostile” and were not included in the study, naturally enough as these parents are highly unlikely to be ”socially transitioning” their child. Of course this does not mean non-affirming parents are insisting only girls wear pink and have long hair. They may well have a son, like mine, with waist length hair and a penchant for perfume and baking. Like me they may be comfortable with this variant expression of masculinity and regard it as perfectly acceptable for his sex.

A central critique of the gender clinics is they are pathologising gender diversity because they are tainted by ”cis-genderism”. They are accused of seeking a “cause” for the “non-normative” development of the transgender child. By treating it as a disorder the clinics are, from the parents, they are erroneously seeking explanations rather than accepting the child as a “transgender child”. This is anathema to these parents who are firmly in the ”born this way” camp. It is necessary to understand the parental belief system to comprehend why they are so keen to embrace their ”transgender” child even to the extent of blocking puberty. For those of us who see embracing gender diversity as a positive value which does NOT , should not, include a drug regime, the parents embracing lifelong medical dependence are a baffling phenomenon. To ”affirmative” clinicians it is we who are problematic. To the author of this paper, clinicians who seek fo find an underlying cause for the ”gender dysphoria” are the ones guilty of “medical violence” . Yes by practicing therapeutic exploration you are accused of doing serious harm. The framing here is duplicitous. Parents resisting medical intervention, for our children, are perfectly accepting of diverse ways to express your ”gender”; we just don’t think society needs to medically intervene to mimic the opposite sex.

The author clearly believes therapeutic exploration is akin to ”conversion therapy” and any questioning induces feelings of shame and is a path to self-harm and suicide ideation.

The study then quotes some trans-ideolgues who rail against pathologising these children, instead they should be celebrated. Many /all of these parents fervently believe in this perspective. Is it any wonder, as we saw in part one, they feel they have no choice but to embrace their child’s ”identity”.

The results of the study were as follows:

Quotes from parents are included to illustrate the themes the author identified. We are told that many parents became emotional /angry when describing their treatment by the clinicians at gender clinics. One parent is aghast that the clinician wants to explore the impact of a still-born child on her/the family. Another that she was asked about the timing of the transgender identity in relation to the father leaving the family home. Another is unhappy the therapist wishes to explore the death of her mother and a second mother is unhappy the therapist wants to explore paternal bereavement:

The parents are manifestly irritated by the idea of any causal factor in their kids adopting a transgender identity. To them it’s all a waste of time. The child just is trans and all they really want is to take action; by which I assume they mean access puberty blockers. From this vantage point exploring issues like family break-up, sibling rivalry, bereavment or even whether they practice rigid gender roles, is irrelevant. There are plenty of quotes illustrating this perspective.

Another thing that comes over, very strongly, is the parents feeling let down by not encountering unquestioning acceptance of the trans-narrative; which is labelled “trans-positive”. More than one parent reports that a clinician had expressed a negative view about the parent having socially transitioned the child.

The way the parents interpret the exploratory therapy is akin to an inquisition. One parents talk about how they “wised up” to the direction they felt the clinician was heading by their line of questioning. It is clear to some of the parents that some clinicians see being ”trans” as a less than desirable outcome. While the clinician may have thought all parents would prefer an unmedicalised future for their child it is obvious this is not the desired outcome for these parents. They have already decided they have a ”trans” child and invested, publicly, in their child’s identity and see themselves as supportive parents. They talk of the hostility they face for socially transitioning a young child, some speak of unsupportive family members. Imagine arriving at a gender clinic and finally speaking to someone paid to understand this issue who does not immediately affirm your child! It clearly came as a shock. This was a really revealing quote from one parent. They had been ”excited” to visit the gender clinic and were left deflated..

Overall the assessment was that the gender clinics were judgemental and parents felt unnecessarily scrutinised. This parent expresses what seems to be the generally held opinion.

More than one parent complained that they felt de-stabilised by any questioning. Two are quoted rejecting clinicians who told them desistance rates for children with gender dysphoria were around 80%. This is based on a piece that looked at all studies conducted prior to early medical intervention. The fact these parents seem to prefer lifelong dependence on opposite sex hormones should have raised red flags all over the place. The author does raise child safeguarding issues but it is not for these parents, rather it is for parents who are not affirming. See this excerpt below: 👇. One of the recommendations is to educate the parents and if they do not get on board the clinician should take responsibility for prioritising ”child safety”. What form this will take is not spelled out but it all sounds rather ominous.

It is perfectly clear that these parents are very committed to the idea they have a transgender child. They do not want to be questioned lest they are dissuaded? The kind of ”care” which would seem to be desired is outlined by this parent: 👇

I will follow this up with a later post when the author publishes more of this research.

I do this work full-time and have no income. If you wish to support me you can do so here. All support is gratefully received but only if you have enough to spare. Irrespective my content will remain open access.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s impact on women’s and gay rights. I am particularly concerned about the medical transition of children and gay youth. I think this will turn out to be the medical scandal of this century.


Bob Withers: Autogynephilia. 1


I am going to do a series on Bob’s work because it covers a lot of ground. I will deal with the different sections in the same order, as the paper, starting with a case of autogynephilia encountered in Bob’s own clinical practice. ( He also covers other motivations to transition, the role of pharmaceutical companies, and the phenomenon of detransition. He ends with some hypothetical, therapeutic scenarios using fictional ”cases” to avoid ethical issues arising from using real cases. All important issues)

I was unable to access a PDF to save but you can read the whole thing here:

Transgender Medicalisation

Here is the abstract:

Detransitioned Autogynephile.

This article begins with a, sympathetic, portrayal of a man who is an autogynephile. For neophytes this is a man who is sexually aroused at the thought of himself as a woman. Chris sought therapy from Bob when he realised identifying as a woman had not eradicated the feelings which drew him to a transgender identity. He feels let down by the therapists who assessed him. The therapists he saw facilitated access to the, misleadingly named, ”sexual reassignment surgery” (SRS). This is a misnomer because It is not possible to change sex. Latterly this is being called by the even more euphemistic, and deceptive, term “gender affirming surgery”. A surgery some people come to regret as is the case with Chris.

Women’s Rights.

Before I tell this story, a word about women’s rights. It is my position that no males, however they identify and irrespective of surgical status, belong in women’s spaces. Nevertheless I can exercise compassion for *some* men who find themselves in this situation. I am glad there are therapists seeking to help men with AGP before they take irrevocable decisions. For this therapy to be helpful it should not simply validate their identity. It should aim to contain it before they hurt themselves, and others. I do not think it is helpful to affirm anyone in the belief they are a woman, trapped in a man’s body. It is harmful to the man and the women expected to provide, free, therapeutic support; in the form of validation and admittance to women’s spaces. When a clinician demands prove of “living in role” and tacitly encourages males to trespass on women’s spaces you are force-teaming women. This is not ethical.

My sympathy, for men with this condition, is qualified. It ends when a man, with or without autogynephilia, demands his condition be normalised, uses women’s spaces and promotes gender identity ideology, especially to children. When this is motivated by a desire to gain acceptance for a sexual paraphilia, we need to be able to point out this is unacceptable.

Withers opens with a poem and his interpretation of the underlying motivations for Attis’s madness and motivations for castration, followed by a return to sanity and regret.

Bob’s interpretation of the mythical experience of Attis is as follows:

We then leave the realms of poetry to meet a patient who rejects his maleness and locates the source of his distress in his male sexual organs. He tries to cut out his ”madness” by surgical inversion/removal of his penis. Following surgery his first emotion is one of relief: 👇

Chris retained his identity as a “woman” for nine years but, like Attis, his attempt to evade his maleness was doomed to failure. Chris could ”pass” as a woman but he still experienced the rage he had associated with his maleness, as a result, he had decided to detransition. As I have covered before, in my work on detransitioners, the medical professions are unskilled in this area and Chris had not been provided with the male hormones he could no longer produce himself. He now finds himself suicidal and his attempts to blog about his experience had also incurred the wrath of the ”trans” community.

Chris sincerely wishes he had received appropriate analysis before he took irreversible steps. We learn that his father was an abusive alcoholic who abandoned the family and his mother could only love him as a girl. It is not clear whether this is his mum’s actual stance, a trauma response to his maleness, perhaps, or if this is Chris’s projection. {I certainly have seen more than one case of a mum enthusiastically claiming a male child is her daughter which deserves psychological evaluation, of her motives, conscious or not, before medicalising the child}.

Chris had no positive, male, role model. His flight from the characteristic he shares with his father is complicated by maternal rejection, real or perceived, and further confused by early erotic experiences. Autogynephilia is described as an erotic target location error where a heterosexual man is aroused by the idea of himself, as a woman. It has been described as ”becoming the thing he loves”, it is a sexual paraphilia. Unsurprisingly Trans activists do not wish this to be discussed. I am probably not the first person to call this ”the love we would rather you didn’t name”. It is hard to sell trans rights on the back of a sexual paraphilia.

Even with my research into this area, as a lay person, he is describing common patterns of arousal, shame, purging and the accompanying rage. He had what passed for analysis at a gender clinic but was not challenged and became fixated on his goal. Impatient with waiting lists he found a private provider to perform the surgery.

That last sentence is important. “the evidence base supporting the efficacy of such treatment is extremely poor“.

This will be part one of a series. The next one looks at puberty blockers.

You can support my work here: I do this full-time and unwaged. I am due an annual bill of £240 to renew this site, in March. Only if you have spare capacity. My work will remain free for those who cannot afford to donate.

Documenting the harms of Gender Identity Ideology. Harms women’s rights and gay rights. Specific harms are being perpetrated on gay, autistic youth as well as kids in care and girls trying to escape misogyny.