In the past decade we have seen a viral marketing campaign to convince our children it is possible to be born in the wrong body. Given how many politicians, media pundits, academics and medical doctors have fallen for this, relentless, propaganda is it any wonder our young believe it?
The first example, on mainstream television, was I Am Leo. I still am shocked that BBC Children’s television pumped this out to our kids when we thought they were in safe hands.
I cannot do better than this guest post, via Transgender Trend so I will link this critique y Helen Saxby: Full article linked below and and excellent quote that summarises the problems with I am Leo:
The programme got a glowing write up by an organisation called the Children’s Media Foundation who boast influence with the All Parliamentary Group on Children’s media. Indeed the public inquiry contact for the APPG is a member of staff from the Children’s Media Foundation. At the time both John Nicholson and Connor Burns sat on this APPG, both have been particularly vocal on transgender issues. Phillip Pulman, another person in thrall to Transgender Ideology, was also a patron of the foundation.
They produced a year book in 2015 which, as well as an article by the head of children’s BBC, included an interview with the Cat Lewis, Executive Producer of ”I Am Leo”.
Cat Lewis was very proud of the fact this was the first programme about a transgender child to be broadcast in the U.K.
Cat Lewis talks candidly of the nervousness of the BBC when first pitched the idea. They were persuaded, in part, because Leo was already out in public and therefore the programme would not be revealing Leo as a female, in the media, for the first time.
The programme featured Leo holding the passport they had defaced for correctly recording her as a female. In a pattern I have come to expect, Leo had a history of being bullied. Leo was also supported by the Trans lobby group ”Press for Change”. So, not just a random kid of off the street.
Because Leo, we are told, had already been ”living as a boy” for some years (which appears to mean short hair, liking football and rejecting female sex stereotypes) the producer needed a different narrative arc. This turned out to be working with the Tavistock Gender Clinic to showcase the new treatment of blocking Puberty. This is the part with glaring inaccuracies. The series includes some cute graphics to illustrate the ”pause” and Polly Carmichael explicitly stating the following:
A statement somewhat at odds with a near contemporaneous statement made to the, putative, grown up media: “We don’t have the evidence”.
The show was a media success, garnering awards for the team, which is surely their raison d’etre and not the provision of accurate media portrayals for kids.
Alice Webb, of the BBC waxes lyrical about the role of CBBC in these clips from her interview, in the same document. How many parents knew that CBBC were pushing boundaries with our kids by feeding them the nonsense they can be born in the wrong body? She is proud of the role of the BBC in ”shaping” our kids’ lives. A grave responsibility which the BBC betrayed with this trans propaganda.
This is the first part of a series on the marketing of the Transgender child, Its just product placement at this point.
Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women & girls as well as the consequences for Lesbians, Gay males and autistic kids. I do this full time and have no income. All my content is open access and donations help keep me going. Only give IF you can afford. Thank you to my generous donors.
The interview takes place in the context of new guidance from the International Olympic Committee which has removed the requirement for male athletes to reduce their testosterone levels, to be allowed to compete in female sport. This despite experts who argue a testosterone fuelled puberty conferred significant advantages, on men, irrespective of present levels of testosterone. Now the Olympic committee has removed even that requirement.
GB News is one of the few outlets to allow discussion of this topic and once again they lead the way by platforming Kellie-Jay Minshall, founder of Standing For Women and noted advocate for the female sex. Since very few people from the Transgender community wish there to be a debate they often rely on Peter Tatchell. He has no hesitation weighing in on the side of the Trans Lobby.
Asked for her opinion on the ruling Kellie-Jay responds with her trademark directness:
The intervewer, Mark Dolan, asks why she thinks this situation has come about because ”it doesn’t sound like science” . Minshall responds with her view that it is being driven by, well networked, activists who have completely disregarded the female sex. In a sane world the interview could have ended here: 👇
Naturally the interviewer feels compelled to put the opposite view, it is called ”The Clash” after all. I remain hopeful that the day will come where women’s rights campaigners don’t have to rebut accusations of ”transphobia” every time we stick up for ourselves:
Of course he knows perfectly well that Kellie-Jay won’t repeat this thought terminating cliche and she doesn’t disappoint, bluntly refusing to say men can become women.
Now Mark turns to Peter Tatchell with an introduction about his Human Rights activity and a plug for his new Netflix documentary ”Hating Peter Tatchell”. Like many of us the interviewer seems bemused that this is the hill Peter has chose to die on. Tatchell responds with his oft-repeated claim to have been a Trans Ally for 50 years. He embarks on the usual, appeal to emotion for the “persecuted” trans community. Even if this were true it has zero to do with the matter at hand and the interviewer pulls him up on this later.
First of all he conflates the issue of people with disorders of sexual development with trans-identified males. It is true that there have been athletes, whose sex was male, who have competed in the female category. They may have been unaware of their biological sex but had the advantage of a testosterone fuelled puberty. It’s odd that these athletes have been treated more harshly than males whose sex was not a late discovery. We can dismiss this argument as a red herring. He then argues that the trans community have been singled out for particularly harsh treatment citing the example of the physical advantages of, the swimmer, Michael Phelps. Another spurious argument. Many athletes are blessed with exceptional physical gifts, hence tall basket ball players. The category they compete in is based on their sex because, on average, males can out compete females in most sports. He continues this theme by talking about large, female Rugby players and a tiny ”transwoman” he knows who plays football. He also claims the jury is still out on the advantages of testosterone, this is an egregious falsehood.
Watch out for his other line of attack , claiming we need to do individual assessments. No! We need to preserve female categories and not be compelled to take mediocre male sports people under our wing. If they are not good enough for the elite male category they don’t get to demand entry into women’s sports.
It is noticeable that he doesn’t compare male Rugby players to the female team members and Minshall, quite rightly, points this out. The male rugby players are much larger than the females. She goes in to point out that elite sports women, like Serena Williams would be ranked 700 when measured against male players. She also highlights the very real danger of assuming women can play against men: raising the very real danger of serious injury.
A trans-identified male (Joanna Harper) who initially argued that male inclusion was fair has changed their position as set out in this paper. 👇. This is by someone who is very much in favour of “transwomen” participating in female sports categories.
Here is another paper worth tracking down. In it the authors argue that the people most likely to show ”Transgender Prejudice” about competing against males are the women who want to WIN! 🤷♂️ . No shit Sherlock!
Lest you assume every trans-identified male demands entry into womens sport here are two who recognise the advantages conferred by their biological sex.
Kellie-Jay manages to cover the wider issues beyond elite sports; relating to sport for amateurs and just for fun. The inclusion of males has implications for female only changing rooms and for opportunities for camaraderie among women/girls. The lion’s share of the interview is given over to Tatchell which may be due to his typical male behaviour (interrupting and speaking over the interviewer) or, in fairness, it could, simply, be due to his views being more open to challenge.
Kellie-Jay is once more called upon to call a man ”she” or risk being considered ”transphobic”. She is also asked if she would call Caitlin Jenner ”She”. Her response is to express unconcern about the label if it means she can speak the truth. Mark Dolan tells her that is rather intolerant. Kelly points out that it is not appropriate for her to be compelled to use language that doesn’t make sense and, crucially, that it is rare to have to use someones pronouns while they are present.
There are some amusing exchanges about the olympic competitor, Laurel Hubbard who stole a place from a female athlete. This conversation continues while footage of Hubbard is shown competing against women and also accepting an award for female, sports player, of the year.
This is hubbard on the podium. He is a middle-aged man who appears to be very out of condition. He nevertheless stole a place from an exceptional female. A picture that speaks a thousand words. 👇
Theres a hypothetical scenario introduced in respect of a world class footballer switching ”gender” to compete in the female category. Notice Peter switches to female pronouns even for a hypothetical transwoman! Theres a bit of back and forth and interruptions and Tatchell tried to address Minshall directly and (deliberately?) gets her name wrong. We hear more about a tiny ”transwoman” friend of Peter who plays on a female football team and is loved by one and all of the, presumably, amazonian women he plays alongside.
The interviewer sums up the ludicrous nature of Tatchell’s argument rather well so I will end with this: 👇
Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women & girls as well as the consequences for Lesbians, Gay males and autistic kids. I do this full time and have no income. All my content is open access and donations help keep me going. Only give IF you can afford. Thank you to my generous donors.
Just to recap. Ruth Hunt actually chose the title and topic for this lecture. 😳
Questions and Answers
When she has completed her “prevarications” (I don’t think she knows the meaning of this word, by the way) she invites questions. I am confident this offer was delivered in the certain knowledge disagreement would not be forthcoming. People know what the limits of free speech are on this topic. I didn’t expect any dissenting voices and I was not disappointed. This group think is precisely why Ruth Hunt remains isolated from contrary opinions,
Social Media / Twitter
The first question is about the “fisticuffs” on social media. Ruth talks about her own experience here: “Ihave had a relentless kind of kicking”, which seems to be related to her, now deleted, twitter account. She goes on to lament the fact that nobody is taking “collective leadership” to reinforce a better culture on social media. Here she justifies silence about the social media attacks on others. Call me cynical but I don’t think she is talking about routine threats, of sexual violence, which accompany the term “terf”. She does, however, make an important point about people unwilling to jump to others defence.
What Hunt fails to extrapolate from this observation is what it says about how people use social media. Women attract, arguably, the worst abuse when standing up for sex based rights. There are twitter rules that officially allow women to be banned for referencing biological reality. Women have been removed for stating the legal definition of Rape, for correctly sexing abusive males and simply for quoting the official crime statistics on sexual offences. (At least 98% of perpetrators are male). If someone, with her social position, and organisational backing, admits to shying away from “a toxic debate” what does she think happens to women without these resources?
It is also worth pointing out the vast, vast, majority of people are not on twitter. Those of us who retain a connection to real life, and move in less elite circles, know most people have no clue about Queer Theory. The magical thinking of the Genderists may have corrupted the powerful but ordinary people do not (yet?) believe that Lesbians come equipped with penises.
Ruth then tells us of some research Stonewall commissioned, from a peace-keeping charity, to help the organisation on “trans issues” and social media. This was their finding: Apparently the opposition came from a “nest” of 700 accounts who were found to be linked up with Liz Truss. As an aside, I found her choice of words, and body language fascinating, through this interview.
So what conclusions did Ruth draw from this exercise? It seems the organisation determined they were giving too much credence to the unhelpful opinions of the, predominantly, female people. The nasty wimmin were a distraction 👇
There is a significant time given over to discussing the incivility on twitter and the failure to establish a culture of respectful dialogue. Hunt compares this to the conduct in the House of Lords and in Academia. (As an aside she expresses surprise that the House of Lords don’t regulate her conduct on social media). She clearly thinks legislation has a role but offers us the benefit of her experience on legal remedies. An observation which is daily more demonstrated by increasing public awareness of, and rejection, of the notion of women with penises.
Hunt rightly identifies the change of heart from Conservative Ministers was on the basis of the perceived benefits to capitalism. Not a principled stance but governed by hard cash.
Ruth acknowledges her behind the scenes role with government 👇
Decline in Trust in organisations
Ruth Hunt, below, talks about the loss of faith in our institutions. Many of us would entirely agree with this observation and link our own disillusionment, directly, to the widespread adoption of policy based on Stonewall’s “misguided” advice on the law. My own council replaced “sex” with “gender on its public information, as did the Crown Prosecution Services in a guide for schools. Here Hunt identifies a direct line from a decline in trust in once respected, institutions to the emerging of terrorism.
It is not clear whether Ruth anticipates the emergence of balaclava clad bitches running riot across the land with bombs strapped to our bosoms, because we surely have lost faith in, the U.K. charity, Stonewall.
Sex Not Gender
In this aside Ruth cannot even bring herself to say the protected characteristic of SEX. She also prefers to imply that the nebulous concept of gender has some special status which needs to be enshrined in policies to tackle societal inequality. Gender is not, for the people at the back, a legally protected characteristic in U.K. Law.
President Joe Biden
All is not lost though, she reassures her audience. Joe Biden may be our saviour. Britain needs to trade with the United States and we may need to throw off our reputation for being “transphobic” to maintain our alliance with Uncle Sam (or should that be Auntie Samantha?)
Biden, as we know has embraced the rise of medically constructed identities with alacrity and elevates “Gender Identity” above biological sex, in his rush to appease the Gender Industrial Complex. This in a country that has failed to protect access to abortion or paid Maternity Leave. (See the draconion anti-abortion legislation passed in Texas). Just today Biden’s twitter account claimed this would affect “people”. Neither him nor the female Vice President acknowledged the “people” would be women!
Next she launches a broadside against The Sunday Times for shedding some much needed light on the activity of Stonewall and her own role in its, plummeting, reputation. For Ruth there is no legitimacy to the critiques, the media coverage is just click bait to appeal to shameless populism.
However, all is not lost. We may have fallen behind in passing legislation to elevate the transgender community but, she claims, to have the support of Boris Johnson’s wife.
Evidence Based Data
Here, without a trace of irony, she makes a plea for data based on the health and sexual orientation. In a world where women die, needlessly, because we don’t research sex based differences in health she is happy to undermine data on the category of SEX. She collides with the eradication of research, for women, but wants evidence based health care for herself. This is quite hypocritical because she has repeatedly bemoaned the people who think only in terms of “Me” and not “We”.
So where else will Ruth wander in the Q & A session? She is most proud of her caped crusader stint at Stonewall, where she spent 14 years “righting wrongs”. Stonewall do indeed have a proud legacy, right up to her tenure. Hunt took the helm and set in motion the new sex denialism, despite the fact biological sex is foundational to defending same SEX attraction. It is difficult to judge whether this is naïveté or knowing complicity.
Her next proud achievement, is, she claims the gullible companies, and public sector organisation who were co-opted as “campaigners” without them realising they were part of her cunning plan:
The question of regret garners some thoughts about reflective practice, learning all the time, constantly re-evaluating etc. Yet, the regret she focuses on is her adoption of a “heroic leadership” model when she became Stonewall CEO. Note the blame is shifted and described as mandate by Stonewall. Note also the consumer driven terminology as she laments the negative impact on the Stonewall “brand”.
She had another regret which was the failure to teach the Judiciary about “trans” asylum seekers which, helpfully, gets it on record that the CEO of Stonewall was training our judiciary.
The questions return to how transphobic the British are and the moderator asks Ruth to explain how she measures this and what are her benchmarks? Of course she goes straight to the, discredited, Hate Crime statistics. For the neophytes she is taking about “crimes” that are automatically recorded as “Hate Crime Incidents” based entirely on the perception of the “victim”.
Further evidence of our nation’s “transphobia” relies on the way we are percieved by Americans (by which she seems to mean the U.S because she has a habit of referring to “America” when she clearly means the United States). Yes Ruth it’s not science. 👇
Peppered with observations about British exceptionalism, a post Brexit society and our delusions of still having a great Navy she compares and contrasts the nature of the debate in the U.K with the United States. She waxes lyrical about our sophisticated “American” cousins. We, in the U.K, are aggressive which, she argues, is so “unBritish”. Well worth watching her body language at 1 hour 8 minutes, when she talks about the bigoted women worried about pesky details, such as the destruction of female sports and males invading rape crisis centres.
Finally she weighs in on the issue of Academic Freedom. Notice she substitutes and example about race for trans issues. She does this on the spurious grounds that people get so confused about trans issues and if they look at it in the same way as racism the course of action will be much clearer. This is a deliberate strategy. It would be a rarity for anyone in British public life, or private individuals, to advocate for racial segregation. The idea that women and girls don’t need sex specific spaces is far from won which is why she uses another example.
Academics discussing the importance of sex based data, rights to single sex spaces, accurate teaching about biology are not the descendants of the Klu Klux Klan FFS!. This is dangerous and irresponsible framing.in my opinion.
Some thoughts from Ruth on PRIDE. Given she has courted big business and establishment figures, as a central component of her advocacy, I would take this with a pinch of salt. In an era when Lesbians are ostracised, at Pride events, for declaring the exclusion of males from their dating pools, and when a gay man is rounded upon by a 🌈🌈 draped mob there is nothing to be PROUD of…
I will leave you with this final thought from the moderator. Yes. He really did say this:
He also commends Ruth for her kind and compassionate lecture. There is something interesting about the appeals to the divine in this debate and the faith like certainty that they are on the side of the Angels. One thing is clear there is a lot of resentment that the days of backroom deals are over. The scrutiny of the media/social media has, hopefully, limited the stealth activism which has served the advocates of this ideology so, so well.
I have also transcribed (most of it and will add it here when I have finished Part 2.
After a potted history of her career (Baroness) Hunt made attempt at levity re the zoom times and engaging an on-line. She tells us she enjoys a live audience and, in the absence of one, she is going to get out her lego figures and pretend her Jodie Whittaker figure is here to appreciate her words of wisdom. As this is Ruth Hunt I fact checked this and there is indeed a lego figure for Whittaker.
I found it a rather painful introduction but I am not the target audience and it may have gone over quite well with “da yoof”. Ruth explains that she wishes she could see the faces of her audience. Trust me, she doesn’t want to see mine as I watch her pontificate on social justice issues.
She first provides some personal background information and we learn that her mother is a trained Nurse, midwife and a retired Professor of women’s health and midwifery. I wonder if her mum agrees with terms such as “bleeder”, “birthing person” and the attempts to pretend women’s historic position in our society has nothing to do with the fact we are of the reproductive sex class? She also shares a very personal revelation about the death of her young aunt, in childbirth. For both these reasons I find it hard to understand why she has allowed herself to be persuaded that biological sex is no more than an “identity”. Hunt also explains her Christian faith and realise she was a Lesbian. She talks about the books she read and which she doesn’t recommend, and that Lesbian kiss in Brookside.
Another revelation was that Hunt began writing for “Diva” magazine at age 16. She describes herself, at this stage as very much “Cock of the Walk”.
Diva magazine, as you may be aware, was started by Linda Riley who has an interesting background. Private Eye cover some of her chequered financial history and also her notorious involvement with the Jack the Ripper Museum; which claimed to be a Women’s history museum on it’s planning application. 😳
Ruth then treats us to a potted history of her progress through Oxford University where she became the first Lesbian to become the President of the Student Union following her grammar school education and being Head Girl. She relates how she was subsequently head hunted by prominent companies and how she was attracted to the idea of joining the Army. In the end she rejected all of these options because “they won’t want me, they want someone prettier, with longer hair and swishy head, brooch wearing and ears pierced and loveliestness (sic)” So, instead she took a job at Stonewall (U.K.) .
Ruth gives us a whistle stop tour of the achievements of Stonewall up to 2010 and how she felt they were “banking” success during this period. She also deliberately uses the phrase “Gay Rights” and explains, to her audience, that Stonewall was, in those days, campaigning for Lesbian and Gay rights and had not yet included the bisexual and trans groups in their advocacy. All that was about to change when Hunt became CEO, in 2014. Hunt’s appointment coincided with the legislation to introduce the right for Gay marriage so a cynic might say Stonewall was casting around for a new remit. Hunt describes this in a somewhat different way and seems to think her projective was all about collectivism and a move away from individualism. I find this deeply disingenuous. The neoliberalism on cross sex hormones, that is Gender Identity Ideology, is deeply individualist with a strong streak of narcissism.
Hunt contextualises the environment in which Stonewall pivoted to campaign for trans rights and makes an interesting slip in this clip. She begins to describe legislation about “Gender” and then corrects herself to acknowledge the legislation was actually to do with Sex discrimination. She makes a similar slip when she takes about the Trade Union movement being led by White male misogy…but she stops herself from acknowledging misogyny.
Ruth then talks about opposition to “trans-inclusion” which is really an opposition to the sex denialism of Stonewall’s position with the concomitant impact on Women’s (sex based) rights and Gay rights. Like many commentators she situates this conflict of rights in the context of the advent of social media and the rise of Donald Trump. Indeed Trump which may explain some backlash, in the United States, but has zero to do with the Left–wing and TradeUnion women who established, for example, Women’sPlaceU.K. This is how she characterises the debate on social media:
Ruth Hunt clearly found the responses very challenging. She is keen to point out that she has many times sat in rooms with people who disagreed with her stance on a range of issues. It is, by now, abundantly clear it is in back rooms in which Stonewall has been operating. The people who were not around this ever inclusive table, which Ruth likes to refer to, were the female people with a secondwave feminist analysis. Ruth prefers to lament a lack of social cohesion and a decline of acceptance to the Brexit vote and the rise of Trump. That serves her narrative better than the truth which is the opposition of simple, grass roots, women’s rights campaigners and Gay rights activists. Never let truth get in the way of a good story, eh, Ruth?
This next clip takes some chutzpah. Ruth thinks we don’t have FACTS! Ruth has deleted her twitter account ostensibly because it was an unproductive and agrees i’ve medium. I think she has deleted it so she can avoid scrutiny and accountability for the damage she has done to Women, especially Lesbians and our Gay youth of both sexes.
She characterises the opposition to Stonewall version of “trans rights” as “cruel” and “mean” . Yet not one word does she say about the violent threats, often sexual in nature, which accompany attacks on “Terfs”. It also doesn’t seem to occur to Hunt that is precisely the awareness campaigns, pushed by Stonewall, that have informed more and more people about Gender Identity Ideology.
In all this Hunt looks to the United States for inspiration and remind us that President Biden has his pronouns in his bio and appointed a trans person to a senior position in his administration. The trans-identified male, appointed to policy-making positions around health issues, is a heterosexual, late transitioner who publicly refused to oppose puberty blockers for children. Where Hunt feels hope there is only despair. She is right that there is a danger in our need to trade with the United States, especially post Brexit.
So where does Ruth stand on the bridge building? She concedes that there is a need to speak to the “enemy” but then goes on to say this:
So it seems Ruth Hunt has declared WAR and yet she seems in utter ignorance about why so many people, within the Lesbian and Gay community, are also at odds with the Stonewall agenda. It also seems the Lady is not for turning. There is no golden bridge for those of us who are not won over by her arguments. So how does Baroness Hunt propose to win the war?
She will be using her position in the House of Lords and also her new initiative Deeds not Words. She will be withdrawing from those talks to more backroom discussions with government departments. What is becoming clear is that this agenda doesn’t have widespread public support and Hunt likes to operate in stealth. Using the precise tactics advocated for by the Dentons Document which I cover here:
The article explains that you only need 25% of committed activists to reach a tipping point and, ironically, the hypothesis was first tested on eradicating sexist behaviour in the workplace. The authors do however identify a danger in this type of activism. It can also be used by “organisations trying to control people”
All of which brings to mind the many articles that abound in the demonic power of self-righteousness. Maybe Ruth needs to consider the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. I am not in possession of religious faith but I get a strong sense of Messianic zeal from the Baroness. Pride comes before a fall.
Ruth then expounds on her theories of declining power of our politicians and presents a theory about different kids of activism and how to use your power for good. One of the ways Ruth intends to use her power in the house of Lords is to effect legislative change to help “trans people” or to destroy women’s sex based rights, depending on your perspective. She also claims it is important to be unafraid of uncertainty which is something she may also wish to reflect upon.
Next up Ruth shares her views on forgiveness. She recounts a tale about a good friend of hers being confused about the important of pronouns. Saint Ruth realists, she tells us, the temptation to lecture her friend by, er, lecturing him on any pronouns are important t until he adds pronouns to his email.
Full disclosure: Kathleen, very kindly, donated a signed copy of her book which she took the trouble to post to me. This was done despite Kathleen being aware that I was unlikely to agree with every one of her ideas or conclusions. It is true that I diverge on some issues but, nevertheless I highly recommend this book.
Kathleen (Professor Stock) writes from the perspective of an academic, philospher, whilst currently holding a post within a UK University. She has been subjected to a campaign of villification, from within her own discipline, and the university sector more generally. Even the main union for University staff, UCU, has not stepped up to protect women in Kathleen’s position. I cannot begin to imagine writing this book, from within academia, and I commend her courage in doing so. As Kathleen points out there is a huge struggle to get dissenting voices into the literature on this topic. This book represents a significant milestone in breaking this silence.
My reception of the book probably needs some clarity about my own perspective, or biases, if you will. I am not pure enough to claim the label radical feminist but I would say I am radical feminist adjacent; since their analysis makes the most sense to me. In a twist of fate I now find myself the mum of a trans-identified male and caught up in a fucked up, post modern, version of Sophie’s Choice. I am expected to hand my (gay) son over to the medical profession who, I am assured, will return a living “daughter”. My perspective is thus informed by both my feminism and the impact on my son. This is not easy terrain to navigate when you are also a stalwart defender of women’s, sex based, rights. It also makes me more, perhaps too, inclined to want to understand motivations for homosexual transitioners. My compassion should not be taken as compromise where women’s rights are concerned.
A brief history of Gender Identity
The book traces the origins of Gender Identity as a concept and covers feminist voices who argued that feminism could be advanced by a more extreme belief that sex differences were wholly “culturally constructed”. She covers Simone de Beauvoir, JohnMoney, Anne Fausto-Sterling (of “five sexes” fame), Judith Butler and also cites Julia Serano as one of the trans voices covered. I would have added the work of Janice Raymond to this list because “Transsexual Empire” is a seminal text on this area. Its omission may have been tactical because Raymond’s book tends to inflame those who see themselves as activists for the “Transgender” community.
John Money and Robert Stoller concieved of the idea we each have a “gender identity” which, as we have seen, is now being embedded in society and rapidly being privileged over biological sex.
This chapter also covers the Yogakarta principles which are essential to understanding how activists envision a world where gender identity is embedded in the law. There is also a section on the origin of the term “Terf” ; which is useful for those of you unaware of the history of it’s coinage.
What is sex?
The What is Sex chapter is a good debunking of the common arguments claiming it is difficult to define sex, that we are not sexually dimorphic and conflating issues of intersex (disorders of sexual development) with a trans identity. It may seem ludicrous but some, self-identified, serious academics proclaim we didn’t know to which sex to deny the vote. Apparently it was all a random act of disenfranchisement based on the nebulous concept of “gender identity”. If only Emmeline had come out as Edward Pankhurst the women’s rights movement could have been exposed as a complete waste of time. Below is a seaside postcard from the time.
For those of a philosophical bent this chapter will particularly appeal. I have rehearsed these arguments with trans-activists over many years so much of the content was familiar. One of the key issues that resonates with me is that we must not simply reduce everything to XX chromosomes. I am thinking of women with no abiliity to process testosterone. Their chromosomes will be XY but they will have had a female (oestrogen led) puberty They often have no idea they have male chromosomes until they fail to menstruate. (I am thinking of twitter user @ClaireCais when I type this and some of the painful things she has had to endure). If only for women with DSDs this chapter is important. It is also a useful source to debunk the false conflation of a transgender identity disorders of sexual development.
Why Sex Matters?
Stock then goes on to make a compelling case for why sex matters. She covers medicine, sport, sexual orientation and sex based statistics on crime. Women are still fighting for a world which doesn’t treat males as the default humans. Denying that sex is a significant variable in many areas will further, negatively, impact women. For more on this you can read Caroline Criado-Perez.
Though it is possible that somebody at the Guardian has read Kathleen’s book since the clarification, below, is from the Guardian in July 2021!
Now we are starting to see males competing, at the Olympics, in the women’s category will more people start speak out. Laurel Hubbard , who is competing in the 87kg women’s weight lifting category, may prove a tipping point.
Legal cases such as the issue of males in women’s prisons and the recording of male sex crimes as if they were committed by women is also covered in this chapter. I have covered many such cases on my blog about this so I am pleased to see this.
What is Gender Identity?
The topic on Gender Identity I found a difficult read, for personal reasons. As a woman I instintively recoiled from Monroe Bergdorf locating the film “clueless” as prompting their thoughts of transition. After watching this film they state: “Oh my God, this is where I fit in, these are my people”. Stock does not include some of the more controversial utterances from Monroe Bergdorf; one of them being to demand that women stop centring reproductive rights on a women’s march. This won’t please all readers but I think she is wise to avoid more sensationalist copy.
The recollections of Paris Lees and other gay trans people echo what I know of the impact homophobic bullying can have on self-acceptance. Interestingly this is a Paris Lees quote from an article (London Review of Books 2014). This was quite an honest assessment and pre-dates Lees adding “Adult Human Female” to their twitter bio:
On the topic of homosexual transsexuals I , inevitably, find myself conflicted. I want boys like my son to be protected in all their variant masculinity. I don’t want to enshrine “gender identity” in law and legitimise the sterilising of, likely gay, males. Neither do I want those gay males, who do fail to reconcile to their sex, to be unprotected. What I do know is that “gender identity ” must never take primacy over biological sex, for the sake of women. Enshrining “gender identity” in law would be disastrous for women’s rights. Sex also matters for trans-identified people. It is dangerous to become so immersed in an identity you deny that sex matters for your health care.
I was pleased to see this statement in the book: “in my view there are no cirumstances in which minors should be making fertility and health affecting decisions involving blockers, hormones or surgery”. Personally I take a harder line re decisions to embark on medical pathways. Achieving the magical age of majority is not sufficient for me. I know, from personal experience, our teenagers are being handed prescriptions with no counselling and no interrogation of what motivates a flight from their sex. I would ban it for under 25’s which we know is the average age of brain maturity. Whether it would deflect many from this path we can’t foresee. We do know many de-transitioners embarked on surgery, in their early twenties, only to regret it. Persuading legislators of this is likely to be an uphill, near impossible struggle, at this moment in time. Alarm bells should be ringing as the number of detransitioners in increasing daily. Sadly I fear many more broken bodies before this madness gets reined in.
In this chapter the author also attempts to elucidate the position of various schools of thought on Gender Identity. This is no mean feat giving the contradictions inherent in Gender Identity Ideology. This chapter uses the terminology of Trans Idealogues comparing “Cis” people to “trans people” and even using “non-trans”. That will irk some readers. However I see this chapter aimed at an audience (academics? politicians?) who have wholesale adopted the nomenclature of Gender identity Ideologues. The chapter does end with an unequivocal statement warning of the danger in accepting something which is “in danger of looking unverifiable as when Stonewall tells young people “” Someone else can’t tell you what your gender identity is – only you know how you feel””. This is not a sound basis on which to enact legislation, and perhaps using trans-approved language will convince more people?
What makes a woman?
There follows a long chapter interrogating “What makes a Woman” and looking at the definition of Adult Human Female versus Woman as Social Role. I suspect some people view this chapter as capitulation and some as compassionate. I subscribe to Adult Human Female but welcome the recognition that some people have built their lives around the narrative “Trans Women are Women”. These quotes sum up the difficulty, with the demand that the word “woman” is handed over to males in flight from their sex.
Marilyn Frye is quoted on page 152:
“If a woman has little or no economic or political power, or achieves little of what she wants to achieve, a major causal factor is she is a woman. For any woman of any race or economic class being a woman is significantly attached to whatever disadvantages and deprivations she suffers be they great or small” In response to the (much longer) quote Stock argues “Getting rid of the concept WOMAN would mean we couldn’t desribe, explain, predict or manage these distinctively caused phenomena”.
To those who have built their lives around the idea they are really women, Stock has this to say:
“People have built their lives around this narrative. Perhaps it feels as though I’m ripping all that away, and that causes you pain”.
I have seen this pain up close and its not the performative, twitter, transperbole: though that certain exists. It can be raw and very real. I think compassion has a very real place on this topic and it needn’t include abandoning a very clear view about the necessity for sex based rights and a male exclusionary feminism. We don’t need to be inhibited from centring women in our feminism, indeed it is a necessity if women’s rights organisations are to serve women, as a sex class.
Once again, I quote Miranda Yardley (male transsexual): “Refugees from masculinity exist” and add my own caveat “it is not women’s job to run the refugee camps”.
Immersed in a fiction
This chapter begins with some commentary on the passing of the Gender Recognition Act, 2004. This enshrined to idea of a “legal fiction” allowing males, then the majority sex visiting Gender Clinics, to have their birth certificate amended to show their sex as female. Its astonishing to see the quality (or lack thereof) of contributions to the debate on the passage of the bill in the House of Commons. Below is a link to historic archives on Hansard. I find myself in the unusual position, for me, of recommending Norman Tebbit’s contribution which Professor Stocks also references in this chapter.
Stock them goes on to discuss the difference between fiction and reality and quotes both Miranda Yardley and Fione Orlander. I met both Fionne and Miranda on the same night and it was the first time I spoke publicly about my situation. Here Miranda clearly states ” I now disavow use of the word “woman” for myself and other transgender males, preferring to use the term “transsexual” or “transsexual male”. I should also point out that both Miranda and Fionne used male facilities at the meeting.
Stock covers the therapeutic benefit , to the individual, of being immersed in a fictional belief about your place within the sex binary. She also expresses concern about the risk of losing capacity to think rationally about your biological reality. This detachment from reality can be maladaptive and harmful. Moreover what latter day trans activists are increasingly demanding is the coercion of others to overtly participate in this fiction. This can result in the controlling of others around you. I was particularly pleased to see this sentence“Yet it isn’t reasonable to expect the person who gave birth to you, or the person who married you, or your own children to permanently relate to you mentally as of a different sex when they know you are not”
In addition the author sounds the alarm about the corruption of data which occurs when “gender identity” is substituted for sex. A particular danger is to criminalise speech such as “misgendering”. Something, by the way, which is already criminalised in some of the United States.
How did we get here?
This chapter is an excellent overview of how trans-activists have been allowed to lobby government to set the legal agenda whilst politicans were negligent, in seeking contributions from women’s groups. Stonewall figure prominently, as do Mermaids, and The Guardian newspaper does not emerge covered in glory. Jess Bradley of Action for Trans Health is also consulted. Professor Stock refrains from any reference to the sacking of Jess Bradley. He was the first Trans Officer at Manchester University and departed for sharing a bit more his anatomy ,at work, than would be considered decent.
This chapter has an excellent overview of the propaganda deployed to further Transgender Ideology. One of these is the egregious use of suicide statistics, which are based on dubious data. Hate crime statistics also create a false narrative about widespread abuse of this population.
This chapter also looks at the pornified representations of women and those public “transwomen” who draw on these depictions to demonstrate membership of the female “gender”. These performances reify dehumanising representations of what it means to be a woman; another reason why women are not served by any alliance.
The chapter on autogynephilia is where our attitudes diverge. In part this because my empathy goes to the women who find their husbands are autogynephiles. These women are now getting a voice by organising as “trans-widows”. I have read enough of these accounts to see commonalities with men who coercively control their wives. Many of these women found themselves subject to degrading and humiliating treatment. At the extreme end it involved forced participation in sexual acts which validated their husbands alter ego. At the milder end women report having their personal style and friendship groups co-opted by their husbands almost as if they were replicating, or replacing, their wives.
Even, seemingly, benign, behavioural autogynephilia includes males inserting themselves into female spaces, and conversations, to gratify their need to assert their membership of the female group. The wives, or trans widows, then find themselves excluded from the support of women because their erstwhile husbands have colonised their places of refuge.
Kathleen asks why the lack of coverage, on the gender critical side, relating to trans-identified females. This is surely because, whilst it exists, androphilia (sexually fetishising a male identity) is relatively rare? Women tend to focus on “trans-men” as female and are concerned that many would, if left alone, simply be Butch Lesbians. Gay males are latterly, waking up to the encroachment of those females who identify as gay men on their spaces. Defending gay male spaces is surely the job of gay men and they do seem to be, belatedly, joining the debate in growing numbers.
A better activism in future.
Those not immersed in this debate may regard this chapter as even-handed and reaching out to those who have feared to dip their toe in the water. Others may bristle at the criticism of Radical/Gender Critical feminists.
Julia Long came in for some criticism by name. For the record I am an admirer of Julia Long’s uncompromising stance. I think we need straight-talking women who reject the mantle of “Be Kind”. As a (heterosexual) woman who lives with three males I think Lesbian feminists, of a separatist persuasion, have often been the clearest sighted about the threats Gender Identity Ideology poses to women’s rights. I wish I had listened to them sooner. I also find Julia funny, she has Ovaries of steel; and is unafraid to offend in her direct action. She appeals to my Yorkshire bluntness and I admire her, albeit from some ideological distance. She is unashamedly woman-centred and some of the terminology used is reminiscient of attacks used by Men’s rights activists. For me we need the range of activists challenging this ideology and some of the women shifting the overton window won’t be invited to the top table discussions but will have opened the doors for the women who do get a seat.
At the same time Julia warns about using terms, such as “transsexual” and “transwomen”. I no longer use the latter but I do sometimes use the former whilst also sometimes, speaking plainly about “men”. I am inconsistent in my application and I don’t advocate for my, selective, approach as a basis for any women’s movement. It just happens to be a response to my personal circumstances. I choose to use less alienating language for those I love, or like and respect. I therefore do perform “polite fiction” on this issue and live with some cognitive dissonance.
Kathleen also warns about the alienating use of words like “mutilated” when describing the surgical harms to girls; subject to double mastectomies and other surgical procedures. Again those of us with our offspring’s skin in the game, literally, adopt different tactics in this area. I do regard these surgeons as butchers who are mining my son’s body for profit. I am angry about this. At the same time we need to find a welcome back, into the sex class they never left, for detransitioners. I was irritated by blue-tick feminists (not Kathleen) getting the vapours about some graphic images of phallioplasty procedures. Simultaneously nobody wants to exacerbate the regret of those who have found their way out of the gender cult. This is extremely difficult terrain to navigate because we want people to stare directly at the reality and not minimise by using euphemisms like “top surgery”.
The chapter outlines some ways in which these disparate groups might make common cause. I honestly don’t know if the extreme sex denialism, of the Trans lobby, will allow for compromise. Will it allow women the right to define ourselves and exclude males in any settings?
At an individual level, I find some of the more ruminative transsexuals, suprisingly, find meaning in a radical feminist analysis. They see common elements in questioning sex based expectations and are reflective on how they may have followed very diffent paths had they encountered this framework. At the same time I know of transsexuals who found Kathleen’s analysis of their path as an immersion in a fiction meaningful. Invariably these are homosexual transsexuals who are not quite so invested in the need to validate the “woman” they wish to consecrate their lives to….
It is possible therefore that some of the linguistic concessions, in this book, will reach a new audience who would shrink from the plain speaking of a Janice Raymond. It is also a book written from within existing employment in academia and that surely has an impact on which audience it is intended to reach.
One page 272, there is a really useful list of all the areas which need more exploration (data) and research. She devotes three pages to these areas and it is quite shocking to consider the policy decisions taken without this data. Stock argues that their is a “surfeit high theory” in activism and public discussion. This includes Trans Studies. She goes on to say “High theory is abstract, totalising, seductively dramatic in its conclusions and relatively insulated from any directly observable empirical consequences – which ….makes it harder to dislodge”. She then returns to a critique of Judith Butler whose conclusions are “reached through a byzantine set of theoretical manoevres”. I think it fitting that a critique of the High Priestess of Gender Bollox is in the conclusion.
My conclusion. I think this is a very important book. I imagine every single reader will diverge at some points with the book’s stance. We all are in this with varying perspectives and we need to navigate a path to enable disagreements to be voiced from within feminism. I am one of six sisters and only one of them feels able to agree with me. I still love them and hope they will come round. Thanks for writing this book Kathleen. I hope I have done it justice.
Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth. Support is always appreciated (I have no income). All my content is open access so if you can’t speak publicly, and want to support those who can, only IF you have spare cash, this helps me keep going.
Who exactly is writing policy for the Ministry of Justice?
This blog is going to focus on what Rothblatt had to say about prisons. Rothblatt has a lot to say about a range of issues; as a late-transitioning transsexual with an interest in Trans Humanism. I will do a series looking at Rothblatt’s ideas across a range of topics impacting women. Women are a SEX CLASS not an “identity” for men to claim whether it is done as an act of dominance or as a refuge. We can support males who reject their masculinity but no ally would claim to be the same as a woman; especially now the damage, to women, from Gender Identity Ideology, has become apparent.
Martine lays out his vision in his manifesto for a new“sexual revolution”. I find that an interesting choice of title because, from my vantage point, this is the perfect description. This a Men’s Sexual Rights movement masquerading as the civil rights issue of our time.
In this book he argues that the categories of male and female lead to a sort of apartheid, which is how he categorises sex segregated spaces. Martine argues his proposals have emerged from feminist thinking. When a man like Rothblatt starts, approvingly, quoting feminism, he is either going distort it beyond recognition, or he is quoting Dick pandering, doormat, ”Feminism”
I did a long thread, over on twitter, about Martine Rothblatt which you can find here:
What does this Martine’s vision have in store for women in prison? Martine argues that the justifications for sex segregated prisons are postulated on the basis of women’s “frailty”. He argues that these claims are suspect.
Before I continue here are some facts about the U.K Prison estate. 👇These were published in 2020 and represent the data as of November 2019. Please be aware that, stark as the sex differences are, some of these offenders are males allowed to blame their crimes on women. Despite this, state-sanctioned, gaslighting, the male-inclusive, category of women is still a tiny proportion of the prison population. Women are less likely to be imprisoned for crimes against the person and only 2% are recorded as imprisoned for sex offending. Note that some of those “female” crimes are actually committed by males. Thanks to a recent court case we now know that there is an over-representation of male “women” incarcerated for sex offences. With such small numbers even one male added to this category of criminal offences can make a huge difference. Hence we have an entire programme on the BBC expressing horror at an 84% rise in female paedophiles. Are they female? Really? Shamefully the BBC chose not to question the data, Fairplay For Women did, see link below.
He goes on to argue for his own solution to prison accommodation in a novel version of carceral feminism. Unbelievably he argues sex segregated, prisons have done nothing to stop rape in prisons. What he fails to mention is he is talking about male on male rape! (See below). Of course the Prison Industrial Complex, especially after the introduction of the profit motive, keeps costs low by providing low staff to prisoner ratios. I don’t disagree that the prison system fails to protect vulnerable, male, prisoners in the male estate. Prison reform campaigners have long argued single occupancy cells would reduce the numbers of men raped and murdered. Yet the solution selected has been to place, actual, and so called, “vulnerable” males, claiming a female identity, in the women’s estate. This has resulted in male sex offenders being housed with women, illustrating the naivete, or worse, nefariousness, of the architects of the policy. A system which denies women’s need for sex segregation and prioritises the needs of males, is a blatant example of institutional sexism.
Even worse is that final sentence. Men are to be allowed to mix with women because it may help with their rehabilitation. This is woman, as support human, territory.
FARMER V BRENNAN
Here Martine quotes a court case from 1994 where a be-penised inmate, who Rothblatt calls “her”, sued the government to be moved out of the prison where he was held. Ruth Bader Ginsberg was also involved in that case, but didn’t act for the prisoner.
I took a little detour to look at the Farmer case. Dee Farmer had a twenty year sentence for credit card fraud. They appear to have been moved to a higher security prison following further offences in the prison estate. They were a pre-operative “transsexual” in terms of being penis-intact. They had been transferred to the higher security prison because of a continued pattern of criminal offences. (No violent ones were reported or sex offences against women).
Dee was moved to administrative (segregated) detention due to engaging in consensual sex, whilst HIV positive. Farmer was seeking a move to a lower security prison with less violent offenders. Ruth Bader-Ginsburg drew attention to other groups of vulnerable male offenders in the oral arguments. In my darkest (or more realistic?) moments I think the madness may end when other (Gay?) males claim discrimination because they are being treated less favourably. Maybe men will be listened to and effect some change? Policy makers and politicians are clearly comfortable with ignoring the negative impact on women.
They were not asking to be moved to the female estate having dropped an earlier petition as detailed below. Undoubtedly, were this case to be brought today, the claimant would have targetted a move to the female estate.
BACK TO ROTHBLATT.
Now we come to some of the practicalities of this new utopia. Here Martine has to deal with the fact that women exist, as a sex class, and the fact it is the female people who get pregnant. How does he propose to get around this? We will forcibly implant contraceptives in the women and suppress sperm production in the men. The risk of pregnancy, he argues, can be remedied by a pharmaceutical solution which he is quite happy to be “mandatory”.
Here he avoids the use of woman but reduces the inmates to their “genitalia”. The use of “accidental pregnancy” also avoids having to confront whether these pregnancies would be the result of rapes; a distinct possibility when female prisoners are confined with men. Nowhere does he address the fact that 99% of prison convictions for sexual offences are committed by the male sex or the fact the female population will be vastly outnumbered by the men.
In summary, Martine constructs an argument which ignores the significance of biological sex in determining likely predators and prey. He leverages the clear vulnerabilities of a pre-op transsexuals. He conveniently ignores likely vulnerability of other young males; who may be gay and also deviate from accepted performances of masculinity. Worst of all he is prepared to expose women to serious risk because he cannot bear any division between his imaginary female identity and actual women. This is the misogyny peculiar to autogynephiles.
He then proposes the barbaric, and likely illegal, mandatory contraception for women. He shows little concern this is necessitated by the higher risk of rape. As an aside he claims that mixing the sexes may encourage lower rates of recidivism, a spurious claim given that you are providing sex offenders with captive prey. These men are not known for their restraint.
This book is from 1994. Had I encountered it at the time I would have dismissed this as merely the work of a deranged mind. Never could I have imagined it as a blueprint for the future. In 2021 it is eerily reminiscient of official Ministry of Justice policy and that should enrage us all.
You can support my work here. Only do so if you have surplus cash I know many people are struggling.
If you have been paying attention you will have identified some common themes in school guidance to protect “transgender children”. I was surprised this had made it into the Catholic sector but it seems we might have some woke bishops after all. Seems to have become accepted much quicker that gay rights. I wonder why that is? This is the second one I have looked at from within the Catholic sector. I have chosen to blog this one as I am familiar with this school.
Wholesale acceptance of the idea that we have an assigned sex is ubiquitous. As I frequently point out sex is simply observed and recorded in all but an infinitessimally small number of cases. These cases are commonly referred to as “intersex” but are better described as disorders/differences in sexual development. (DSDs). In these cases there may be genuine ambiguity at birth. None of which makes them transgender.
In fact “transgender” is not interchangeable with transsexual. The term transsexual is one used to describe someone who has undergone gender reassignment and for whom the, legally protected characteristic, of the same name, was passed into law. The attempt to claim equivalence with “transgender” is ideological in intent. The Transgender umbrella covers a much wider array of “identities” including part-time cross dressers who may, or may not, be transvestic fetishists which has a sexual motive. In another example of over-reach the school are now teaching children the central tenets of Queer Theory including, as they do below, the idea that “gender” is fluid. Note the idea that “gender variance” may not persist following puberty. We know this so why are the school casually advocating puberty blockers?
The next claim is also straight out of gender identity ideology. Children as young as two can begin to recognise their sex and even perform in ways that match/do not match the expected behaviour for their sex. The idea that two years olds have a “gender identity” and therefore, potentially, a “Gender Identity Disorder” is why we have three year olds referred to the Gender Identity Disorder Service (GIDs). The last sentence is also one being pushed by Trans Lobby Groups who wish to remove the requirement for a diagnosis of “Gender Dysphoria” because it is currently required to access medical treatment/ get aGender Recognition Certificate.
Note also that the school are pushing “Hormone Blockers” in the above quote. The same puberty blockers how declared an experimental treathment which require a court order to put under 16’s on them. This despite the earlier statement that post puberty any Gender Variance may dissappear. Advertising the services of GIDs is also common in school guidance packs which is a shame because this immediately concretises an “identity” without a preliminary assessment for other competing issues, for example autism or homosexuality.
Once again there are indeed nine protected characteristics. One of them is sex. Transgender is not one of them and is not a synonym for “gender reassignment”. This is a common tactic. known as Stonewall Law. If it is not law then simply sneak it into guidance and training until everyone thinks it is. Of course it also helps if every arm of the State seems to be a Stonewall Champion. Including Parliament.
Here we see the elevation of correctly identifying sex defined as “bullying” and ranked alongside actual prejudice due to race or sexuality. Equating this to hate and hate crimes is to criminalise what surely is a hard wired evolutionary attribute: the correct recognition of sex. Whether for mating purposes, or to assess risk, this is a fundamental human trait. Interestingly one of the common manifestations of homophobic bullying is calling gay males “girl”. Now that is lauded as good practice. The self-righteous tone of much of this guidance is elitist piffle…. all that the ignorant need is to be “educated” for which read “indoctrinated”. Presumably this re-programming will take place in a gulag for Gender Apostates.
The brass neck of this. Any male pupil identifying as a “girl” will be a pre-op, male bodied “girl”. Here the school mandates their inclusion in female facilities and any girl who objects will be found alternative facilities. What girl would object in these circumstances? The school are effectively planning to ostracise any girl who feels uncomfortable/unsafe in mixed sex spaces. As mentioned in my previous blog there have been 600 rapes in schools in recent years. These are male on female crimes yet here it is the “transgender” person who is posited as “at risk”. Whilst a male-identified female using male facilities is likely vulnerable so areall females whose facilities are to be shared with males.
Next up. The school will set up a transition plan with the student. Yet they reserve the right to deny the parents the right to know about their own child. I doubt many parents in this school know about this policy. I wonder how many are “educated” enough to agree with it?
Whilst I was on their website I wanted to see what their other policies there were to see how they aligned with one another..So I looked at the sex and relationshp policy. Reverence for fertility is par for the course in a Catholic school but it doesn’t sit well with putting pupils on “hormone blockers” . They will, invariably, progress to cross sex hormones and they won’t have any fertility to revere. They also celebrate joy in their “own bodily nature” unless they happen to be “Born In the Wrong Body”? . Honouring a different “sexual identity” unless you are a femine gay male or a butch lesbian and then we will ccollude with transing the gay away?
Below the School attempts to detail the provisions of The Equality Act of 2010. It is refreshing to see they recognise there are nine protected charactistics and they make a stab at acknowledging the need to balance the needs of all the different groups. They also recognise that Sex is one of them. Here is where the good reviews end, however, since the school has also included “gender identity” which is not only not covered by the legislation there is no definition of what it means. This is straight out of the Stonewall play book. If the law doesn’t say what you want it to say just lie and eventually Stonewall Law will exist in policy if not on the statute books. Of course it also helps if Parliament and many areas of the State are Stonewall Champions.
I am starting to see more references to the Fraser Guidelines and this reads as if lobby groups are trying to scare schools to hide information from a parent. I am surprised this had taken hold in Catholic Schools which tend to promote the family and here are happy to undermine parental rights by hiding information from the parents. These guidelines are named after Lord Fraser and relate to the legal case which defined Gillick competence. This allows children under the age of 16 to get advice on contraception, later widened to sexual health, and keep this confidential from their parents. I suspect references to these guidelines are yet another attempt to justify keeping parents in the dark when our children come out as “Transgender”. Whether it actually does apply is likely something that would need to be tested in court, however, as we have seen Trans lobby groups don’t wait for legislation they just make sure it is embedded in policy as if it is actually the law. These excerpts are likely enough to scare schools into submission. (These are my thoughts, but if anyone has a good legal opinion for me to include .let me know and I will add it)
Here is the school transition plan. Planning to hide information from other parents which means you won’t know if your daughter is effectively forced to share single sex spaces with a male. Even worse she won’t be made aware so is robbed of any agency in proctecting her bodily privacy. Who are the extermal agencies that the school is going to invite in? Mermaids?
Note the emphasis on the transgender pupils’ dignity and privacy but no similar consideration for the girls. And yes this also impacts on boys who also deserve their dignity and privacy but we all know why girls are more vulnerable due to this ideology.
Never mind. The school will clearly have conducted some sort of Equality Impact assessment and looked at all the protected characteristics wouldn’t they? What do they say about the implications for the protected characteristic of sex?
Apparently the impact is deemed to be “neutral”.
Before we all relax and thing the government has listened to women my next blog will be on new guidance issues in December 2020. I have had a cursory look and will cover it in detail in my next blog. You are going to be very disappointed.
Support for my work. Pay pal at /STILLTish or email address below.
If you are unable to speak up and still salaried any help appreciated to help me continue my work. I don’t want my content to be based on ability to pay but I am without any income so thsi helps me to keep going. I am required to specify an amount but please choose one that is manageable for you.
Transgender Guidance, for schools, draws support for its interpretation of the law from the Department of Education (DFE). This document illustrates how they have been cognitively captured by many of the prominent Trans Lobby groups. Many references to GIRES and Stonewall. None to women’s groups. Not a single one. The DFE also reference the Cornwall guidance which was the subject of my previous blog.
This is the document which advised schools how trans-identified pupils are covered by the, legally protected, characteristic of Gender Reassignment.
It is important to remember that sexual reassignment surgery is prohibited for under 18 year olds, on the NHS. Granting permission to male pupils, to use facilities in accordance with their “gender”, is mandating girls to accept penis in their intimate spaces. Gender reassignment was not intended to cover the modern idea of what it means to be trans.We did not consent to this.
The DFE briefing relies on advice from Stonewall and the Gender Identity and Research Education Society. (GIRES). A brief look at their supporters and trustees shows a heavy presence from trans-identified males. Below is a quick look at attitudes to sexual harassment from prominent transgender activists some of them associated with GIRES.
Anyone remember #MeToo? Is this the backlash?
Carlotta is not the only trans-identifying male who thinks women over react to men’s sense of entitlement to our bodies. There is a marked difference between a male and female perspective on sexual harassment. Paris Lees is advertised as a GIRES supporter on their website. Here Paris celebrates being objectified and arrogantly dismisses female fears about how transgender rights are being used to attack women’s right to single sex spaces. Ironically statistically escalators are more of a risk than Paris appreciated. There were, in fact, more people killed in escalator accidents than trans people were unlawfully killed, by all causes, in the year of this tweet. I would not trust Paris Lees to risk assess women’s expose to harm when single sex spaces become uni-sex.
A cursory look at the hyper-sexualised, look at me, performances of “femininity” from prominent TransGender activists bears witness to the fact that Paris Lees is not an outlier. Here Carlotta illustrates that males look at sexual abuse in a different way to women? For transgender males their perception is skewed because they have an excessive need to be validated, as women, which predisposes them to welcome what we repudiate.
I bring this up because, it seems to me, policy around sex segregated spaces is being DICKtated by males. Yes they may wish to identify as women but they seem unable to identify with our experience. The lobby groups advising government are drawn from this same population. Is it any wonder they have absolutely no idea of what it was like to grow up as a teenage girl? A cursory glance at the trustees of GIRES and supporters is enough to illustrate their likely bias.
As a result of these lobby groups we are opening up single-sex spaces at a time of unprecedented rates of sexual assault in schools. Here are a couple of slides from a presentation by MaureenO’Hara.👇. Over 600 rapes in a three year period. I was staggered by that figure.
Here is your regular reminder De Facto Self-identity, of “Gender” has already been introduced in policy if not in law.
The DFE will end up with a future appearance at the Inquiry into child sexual abuse, the only questin is when. We do not want to wait thirty years. We need to hold people accountable, during their time in office, and not when they are deceased or honoured with a with a seat in the House of Lord and a massive pension.
The usual suspects.
A lot has changed in the six years since this guidance was written. I suspect even the most zealous of Transgender Rights Activists (TRAs) didn’t anticipate the explosion of trans identifying children. My school, of 1000 pupils, had at least three females and one male in one year group! This is no longer “rare”. Eventually one would hope that politicians would wake up to the obvious connection between proselytising Gender Identity Ideology and rising rates of children claiming to be transgender.
Here the DFE expand on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and why it is deemed to cover school children.
👇 Again they link to GIRES website.
This was surely not the intention of the original lawmakers. Exhibit A. John Bercow. Hansard. Once again the interchangeability of gender as a proxy for sex makes for bad law. Bercow may have intended to reassure over single sex spaces or to obfuscate.
I am starting to come out in a rash when I see the word “gender”. The word that needs to be used all the time is sex. This quote below is disingenuous because all the guidance that flows from this has, effectively, stopped treating sex as a protected characteristic. This is a major change and not simply a reduction in paperwork.
I was not aware that harassment only applies to disability, race and sex but not the other categories listed. I will defer to legal peeps on what this means in reality. One noted feature of this is that gender identity is covered by hate crime legislation, even though it is not a legally protected characteristic. Sex, which is a protected character, is not covered. I am no fan of hate crime legislation, especially the ridiculous hate crime incident category, but women can’t point to any statistics on the hatred we experience using this method. A man can report misgendering as a hate crime but women can’t report any sexist abuse.! Women can’t laugh at a man but he can abuse us with impunity.
The inevitable referral to the Stonewall website and more links to GIRES material. The guide quoted below was made possible by funding from the Home Office which you can find confirmed in their accounts for year ending December 2013. When the fashion for outsourcing took over the governments, of all political persuasions, I had not understood this included sub contracting their own critical thinking. Lobby groups have been allowed to corrupt policy, and law, in this area for far too long.
It is well worth having a look at the GIRES website and, in particular, their trustees. Populated by trans activists with a strong presence from late -transitioning males with backgrounds in hyper-masculine occupations. They also have a trustee who is steeped in Queer Theory and can be found quoting Judith Butler in what reads like a PhD level argument for men who want to retain their penis. Here is a quote from Reubs Walsh from their public writing and their YouTube channel.
Reubs can also be found opposing the Keira Bell judgement and arguing for the early medicalisation of children. Once again I am struck by the contrast between adult men constructing arguments against surgery, presumably for themselves, but advocating medical solutions for children.
Support for my work. paypal.me.STILLTish
If you are unable to speak out and can support me to continue to undertake research my details are below. I am not in receipt of any form of income so every little bit helps me continue to devote myself full-time. Only give if you are able.
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children dates back well over a century. It was granted a Royal Charter, by Queen Victoria, in 1895. The NSPCC is the only UK charity which has been granted statutory powers under the Children Act 1989, allowing it to apply for care and supervision orders for children at risk. Childline, the charity founded by Esther Rantzen, became part of the NSPCC in 2006.
After looking at the ChildLine Content on Porn; I was moved to examine their other content. I focussed specifically on LGBTQ+ content and you can find these blogs all headed Queering the NSPCC.
In summary the Lesbian content is extremely limited. Where two females are included the word Lesbian seems to be verboten. Even the Gay males, who do get more coverage, seem obliged to reference the fluidity of their sexual orientation, identify as Queer but avoid any expression of an, exclusively, same sex orientation.
Here is a summary of their content and how much time it devotes to sexual orientation. I have been very generous in assigning the label Lesbian to the two I cover here. They are clearly female couples but do not mention the word Lesbian. Two of the posts left me in doubt about the sexuality of the interviewees. Asexual, we are told, covers 1% of the population and yet is given two YouTubes. Trans coverage is given 21% of the content and all the LGBTQ+ invariably foregrounds the T. The content for Gay males is higher but many pay lip service to the idea of Gendered Attraction, as opposed to being confident in proclaiming their exclusive sexual attraction to biological men.
Here is a spreadsheet of all the content with some notes, where appropriate. NSPCC Content
Below the NSPCC endorses controversial charity Mermaids which advocates for “Trans Kids”, campaigns for earlier medical intervention, and suggests children struggling with Gender Identity issues need to be safeguarded from parents. Mermaids think any parent who fails to agree their child is #BornInTheWrongBody is abusive and places their child in danger of suicide. They do this by referencing extremely dubious statistics. 👇 Suicide in the Trans Community
Do the NSPCC also agree with this characterisation of, parents of kids with Gender Dysphoria, as abusive if they dont’ medicalise? Their content is replete with the notion that sex is merely “assigned at birth” and they are confident signposting children to Mermaids.
They are also meeting with Stonewall. Once a venerable advocate for Gay rights. Now in total thrall to the Trans Lobby. Peter Wanless is the head of the NSPCC and Gender Identity Ideology has been peddled to vulnerable kids on his watch. 👇
I also had a delve into any content about women’s rights and unearthed this content. Even in content about women we are obliged to pay homage to the idea of Self-Identifying Women/Men. Abject nonsense about “people with periods”.
Queer Theory in Practice.
The NSPCC have also received some media coverage today for a Nude Family Swim which is an event at Waterworld in Stoke. Apparently the NSPCC were involved in developing the Safeguarding policy. I wish we lived in a world where childhood innocence was protected but it is naive to, implicity, endorse activities such as these 👇
I doubt I would have been moved to look at the NSPCC were it not for the responses they issued to people raising concerns about some disturbing social media activity by one of their employees. Full Story is below.
This story of James Making, a former employee, of the NSPCC until he was eventually Let Go is illustrative of how far this charity has lost its way, James was responsible for the short-lived role of Munroe Bergdorf, a trans activist, at the NSPCC. He then became known for more notorious activities at his place of work. This one story ought to have been a wake up call for the NSPCC but I fear they are unable to change course. I include this woeful tale because it is indicative of how the adoption of Gender Identity Ideology and the obsession with LGBTQ+ has clouded the Charity’s judgement. When you make any community into a modern day “Priest class” your critical faculties become dimmed.
James Making & Munroe Bergdorf
I began to look at the NSPCC following an incident involving an employee who clearly stated his employer on his Social Media accounts. He then posted footage of himself masturbating, in leather fetish gear, at work. Not content with this he added a clear statement that he was doing this at a Children’s Charity. Clearly this detail about the context was intended to further titillate his audience.
James was the NSPCC employee responsible for hiring a Transgender model/ activist as an advocate for the charity. Munroe had previously lost other roles after previous social media activity came to light. L’oréal, The Labour Party & the BFI were three such roles. Once the NSPCC post was announced the public backlash began. Munroe presents a highly sexualised image of what they believe to be female presenting. Potentially more worrying were public invitations for troubled children to contact them directly. As many people pointed out this showed a naïveté about safeguarding children. The model had posed for playboy, and solicited messages from “transkids”
The unsuitability of this role model is amply illustrated here 👇
Munroe also posted some invitations for children to contact them directly, via social media, in an ill-advised approach to #ChildSafeguarding.
The NSPCC dispensed shed with Munroe’s services, not without a hint of denial about their role, despite having publicly announced it.
Later they would issue a grovelling apology, to Munroe, for the manner of the sacking.
Here is the statement 👇
When the masturbatory antics of Mr Making were revealed the NSPCC’s Immediate response, astonishingly, was to berate people for raising concerns! It also accused them displaying homophobia and attacking their staff. Other high profile Guardian writers joined in 👇
So let me reiterate. A man was posting, publicly, video of himself masturbating on the premises of a Charity, whose remit is to protect children. Observers had no means of determining his sexuality, His actions were raising red flags all over the place.🚩
Here are a couple of clips from that article and one (censored) from the post made by Mr Making.
The NSPCC remained silent for some time until it emerged that the employee had been sacked.
The NSPCC openly proclaims that it’s priority is their LGBTQ credentials. My reading of their content shows they are committed to the Q at the expense of the rights of people who fought to gain legal protections for their sexual orientation.
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children dates back well over a century. It was granted a Royal Charter, by Queen Victoria, in 1895. The NSPCC is the only UK charity which has been granted statutory powers under the Children Act 1989, allowing it to apply for care and supervision orders for children at risk. Childline, the charity founded by Esther Rantzen, became part of the NSPCC in 2006.
What does Heteronormativity & Heterosexuality mean?
First off. Its not a bad idea to challenge assumptions that *everybody* is heterosexual. There is every chance a kid who doesn’t perform sex sterotypical behaviours is not heterosexual. I don’t propose to expound on whether this is hard-wired, #BornThisWay, or nurture. It is, however, one of the earliest signs a kid will grow up Gay. This early sign allows parent’s, like me, to signal acceptance in a number of ways. For me, I always talked about futher relationships in terms of “she” or “he” so my son knew this was perfectly acceptable and supported by his parents. So, on the face of it, challenging heteronormativity is no bad thing.
The conversation explores the impact of expectations of heterosexuality on kids who have a sense they are different / don’t conform to gendered expectations for their sex. One of the main concerns with this topic is the conflation of early signs of future homosexuality with being “trans”. The interviewer does this early on with the statement below. Here an effeminate boy, or a masculine female, immediately calls into question, not just their sexuality, but their sex/trans status. It is this way of thinking that can have a disastrous impact on the gay community. What could be more “heteronormative” than equating same sex orientation with the idea that you may just be “trans”. If an effeminate boy, attracted to males, is really a woman does that not make him straight? Is this not the ultimate in elevating the new version of heterosexual as the “norm”?
Calum continues the theme. “We’re brought up in a society where you are kind of expected to be cisgender, you are expected to be heterosexual”. What he fails to see is that Gender Identity ideology puts a massive question mark over the sex of, gender non-conforming, Gay males and Lesbians. Even though we know this behaviour is one of the earliest clues someone may grow up homosexual, we are offering the alternative narrative they may be #BornWrong. How is that progress?
I have also written about a project funded by the Government Equality Office which illustrates how this approach is being used in Primary Schools. That Equaliteach Project
Another common theme, on my blog, is the impact on child safeguarding. Anyone following my work will know I have a Gay son who also has Gender Identity issues. As a school boy he did not use girls spaces. (He still doesn’t). His circle of friends was wholly female. When sleepovers became a feature, of these friendships, he was excluded. His exclusion was the parents prerogative. It was never driven by unkindness. They had daughters and they did not know my son. We both respected the parent’s decisions. He was included in one sleepover and he was delighted. The parents knew him and it was their decision. I am not going to lie, I secretly had a bit of a cry when he was invited. However an individual invitation should not translate into blanket inclusion. It should not be a default expectation. (Fun fact. He was 11 and those, sugar and spice, girls sent him home with manually pierced ears!)
Anyway, I digress, Gemma here doesn’t get #ChildSafeguarding and, by extension, neither do #ChildLine . This is not about heteronormativity it’s about girls’ rights to set boundaries and not to be shamed about necessary exclusions. 👇
Again one of the central difficulties is that we are telling people that you can neither tell anyone’s sexuality or gender by the way they present themselves. This is problematic for all sorts of reasons, and not true, wholly, in either case. Gaydar is a thing and thank goodness it is for the dating ability of Gay Males and Lesbians. Detecting biological sex is also hard-wired and doesn’t change because of the massive strides in surgical mimicry.
I watched two gay men discussing this on Arty Morty’s youtube. Duncan, a gay man, tells a tale about identifying the one other gay man in a nightclub before either of them were out. Calum here is being disingenuous.
Closely followed by Gemma who extends this to deny we have any ability to correctly “gender” people. Er. We can sex them though!
This is duplicitous stuff. We don’t just detect sex for mating purposes. Women detect males because it has a huge impact on how we manage our safety in certain settings. This ideology tells us a) that it is bigotry to recognise biological reality b) tells us we have to accept bearded males as females and even lesbians! Cue Alex Drummond.
Stonewall Ambassador! 👇
Alex has delivered school talks about being a Lesbian! This is Gaslighting!
I too would like to see some understanding of different sexualities and family structures. The fact remains that most people live in heterosexual couples. It cannot be beyond our wit to make sure that children know there are different family structures. Not all of the children will end up in heterosexual relationships. I have no objection to this being signalled, even in primary school. This would allow chidren who may already have pre-sexual, innocent crushes, on the same sex, feel “normal”. We don’t have to wage a culture war on heterosexual norms just because heterosexual relationships are the majority.
You will not achieve acceptance for one sexuality if you attack another’s as somehow “invalid”. It really isn’t a good tactic. The sex denialism in Gender Identity Ideology is unmoored from biological reality and sexual desire. There is a conflict with the protection of women’s rights to sex segregated spaces and the right to be exclusively same sex attracted. The sooner politicians and Gay Rights Activists wake up to this the better.
We risk reversing progress made over 30 years!
If you want to support my work here is my paypal. Please only do so if you can afford. Any amount will help. firstname.lastname@example.org