Examining Gender Identity ideology and its impact on Women's Sex based rights and Gay Rights. Exploring how this has taken such firm root in Western societies (Cognitive & Regulatory Capture).
The 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.
This section outlines the authors thoughts on a “Gender Restrictive Worldview” which is how they characterise those resisting Gender Identity Ideology.
Anti-Gender Identity Ideology: Its a spectrum.
The conundrum facing the authors is how to demonise a group which includes women fighting for sex based rights; Lesbians opposing the colonisation of their spaces by males; parents opposed to medicalised responses to their Gay / Lesbian offspring. The answer is to single out Anti-democratic forces or religious conservatives and suggest we are acting in concert. Naturally the report does not address any of the legitimate but, instead, they claim Gender Critical/Radical Feminists are in an unholy (or Holy) alliance with Right wing, authoritarian regimes / Religious Conservatives. Writing from within the U.K context its hard to characterise this as anything other than unhinged. But, for the sake of argument, let me proffer an alternative perspective. The proponents of Gender Identity Ideology have handed a gift to right wing players, anti-democratic forces / authoritarian regimes who have grasped it with both hands!
As the paper relies on “forced-teaming” with children’s charities they begin by accusing the “opposition” of leveraging faux concern about children. They repeat this accusation throughout the report mainly focussed on the child’s bodily autonomy to express (medicate?) their ”Gender Identity”.
Background to the consortium who are behind the paper is covered here:
The title they have chosen for their own movement is the lovely sounding ”GenderJustice”. This allows them to imply they are on the side of women when their real aim is to elevate Gender Identity, above SEX, in law. This has significant implications, particularly under U.K Law because women are a protected characteristic as a sex class NOT as an identity.
The claim that Gender Justice has done anything positive for women’s rights is an egregious lie. Heres a short list of what this means for women: Women are facing the return of the urinary leash as toilets are made mixed sex. We are watching the beginning of the destruction of women’s sports, male rapists are being located in female prisons. Male crimes are being reported and recorded as female crimes. Men, who claim to be women, are running, party political, women’s groups (see the Green Party), a disproportionate number of places on the Jo Cox ”Women Into Leadership” programme were also taken by males, There are ZERO gains for women if we are redefined as an, all-inclusive, gender category.
The authors proceed to identify three factors which have contributed to the success of the backlash to Gender Identity Ideology. Here they claim that Gender Identity Ideology is being used as a substitute for ”Women’s Rights”; ”Equality”; ”the best interests of the child” all at the behest of the Vatican 😳. The reality is that women are fighting for our sex based rights and aghast at the erasure of female language and our dehumanisation as a collection of body parts. We raise child safeguarding because we do not believe it is in a child’s best interests to consent to Puberty Blockers and Cross-sex hormones, which will leave them sterile. I can assure you that the Pope is not in league with feminists of a radical persuasion. Papal opposition to women’s reproductive rights has set the Church on a collision, not a collaborative, course with feminists for decades, nay, centuries. This should not need pointing out but here we are…
It is a neocolonial movement if you import this ideology to parts of the world where women, and homosexuals have little or no rights. As catastrophic as this ideology has been for women, and gay rights, in the west, it has the potential to be far more deleterious in other parts of the globe. In Iran, for example, it is already seen as preferable to transition gay males, and Lesbians, rather than accept homosexuality. Exporting a belief in Gender Identity Ideology has the potential to be seen as a “cure” for homosexuality.
This is how they characterise Gender Restrictive Ideology.
A belief in two biological sexes: Spoiler alert Humans are sexually dimorphic. There are shades of opinion about how women and men are shaped by nature/nurture but Gender Critical Feminists recognising biological reality is not a belief in biological essentialism.
Women who recognise biology are not accepting an inferior position in the sex hierarchy. Quite the opposite.
Many of us are parents of gay males or Lesbians who do not believe our kids need to retreat into a faux-straight, medicalised closet.
The idea that Lesbians / Second wave feminists embrace a heteronormative view of the family and its reproductive mandate is beyond ludicrous.
The idea that a bunch of, often atheist, feminists are cloaking our religious motivation in secular language is another testerical falsehood.
Next up the association fallacy. The Pope believes in the family, the reproductive role of the biological female in news that suprises nobody. I think he would be suprised to know he is in a covert alliance with any brand of feminism, but radical feminists?
The authors deploy Donald Trump, Viktor Orban and Jay Bolsanaro as well as 4Chan fascists to smear by a non-existent association. What the Gender Justice Warriors have done is to hand populists an open goal by embracing the science denialism of Gender Identity Ideology.
Not content with this they accuse parents of denying their children’s rights by a refusal to grant bodily autonomy on the basis of gender and sexual identity. Let us unpack that. My son came out to me, as gay, age 11 as this is well below the age of legal consent my role was to accept his sexuality not support under age expressions of that sexuality. At 14 my son declared himself ”transgender” my role was to protect him from life-altering decisions until he reached maturity, not to allow Gender Identity Ideologues affirm his belief there is something wrong with his sex/sexuality. This entire movement seeks to drive a wedge between parents and children on this issue. You can draw analogies to Mao’s cultural revolution and Hitler Youth. Take your pick.
So, assuming they don’t mean bodily autonomy in respect of sexual behaviour, I can only assume they refer to accepting our children are #BornInTheWrongBody and affirming this belief by a social, or medical, transition. It is quite shocking to find a group of Children’s charitable organisations, signed up to this idea.
Here they reference Spanish Socialists who opposed 2020 bill which would allow teenagers to access hormone treatments without a diagnosis. The bill was also opposed by a far right group so they use this to smear the Spanish Socialist Worker’s party.
Note the final comment which demands funding organisations exclude feminist organisations which centre women in their work. If women don’t include males they are to be financially penalised. This is already happening, in the UK, with women only shelters and even rape crisis services cut off from funding if they are not Trans (meaning male) inclusive.
Next up they take aim at the U.K / Terf Island. Yes, there are numerous cases of male predators using a “trans-identity” to penetrate women’s spaces and bodies. Yes #BigPharma stands to make a killing from hormones by creating lifelong medical patients. There has been a 4000% increase in females presenting to U.K Gender Clinics and early detransitioners are predominantly female and, frequently, Lesbian.
All of the above issues are based on facts which are easily established.
The next target is the Women’s Human Rights Commission. Here they describe women with the acronym “Terf” . As I am sure the authors are aware “Terf” serves as a stand-in for bitch or witch and it is often accompanied by threats of violence, including rape.
You can check out the declaration by WHRC and sign it here: 👇
Another worrying reference is to claim there is no movement to normalise paedophilia as another sexual orientation. You don’t need a PhD to find that MAP has become an acronym shared by many twitter accounts. Gay Rights campaigners fought for decades to dispel any association with pederasty. Recently there are high profile organisations seeking to disassociate a sexual interest in children from any intention to sexually offend. See Protasia Foundation, who even have a twitter account. They market themselves as committed to the prevention of child sexual abuse whilst promoting BDSM, Age-role play and Only fans. I am not convinced.
You can read more about this movement in this article. Below is an extract which documents an attempt to add paedophilia, as a sexual orientation, to the Manual of mental disorders. 👇. Happening in plain sight.
The document attacks parental responsibility for our own children, denies the documentedpromotion of paedophilia as a sexual orientation, claims stating simple, biological truths are anti-trans. It repeats manifest untruths that are easily debunked. Attempts to smear women through association fallacy will fail. Buried in the 131 page document is this acknowledgement : They found NO EVIDENCE of any direct collaboration but they still accuse Gender Critical Feminists of being allied with the, mythical, Gender Restrictive Movement.
I am unwaged and do this full-time. If you are salaried and able to support my work it will be gratefully received.
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.
Why is a network of Charitable funding bodies fuelling a backlash against women’s sex based rights? Why are organisations, set up to protect children’s rights, teaming up with organisations promoting Gender Identity Ideology?
For part one see below 👇. My previous post showed the links between these foundations and links to some of my earlier work examining the activities of *some* of these organisations. It also contains the link to the, 131 page, document endorsed by Global Philanthropy Project and Elevate Children’s Funders Group.
In this post I want to cover the opening letter explaining why this coalition was established. I will also highlight some of the terminology they use in the glossary of terms. This is how they characterise women defending our sex-based rights. We are ”Gender Restrictive”. Heaven forfend we are simply called feminists because then it would be abundantly clear they attacking Women’s rights!
The coalition makes sense in one respect. Much of the opposition, to the spread of Gender Identity Ideology, raises concerns about the medical interventions perpetrated on children. By which I mean blocking puberty and introducing cross-sex hormones, all to cement a Transgender Identity; this despite the same ideologues arguing that “Gender can be fluid”. I have covered Puberty Blockers many times on this blog. For neophytes, or as a reminder; in the U.K we are giving Puberty Blockers to children as young as ten, on the NHS. They, almost, invariably progress to Cross Sex Hormones and as a result they will be sterile. It therefore a significant concern that a coalition of children’s charities have signed up to this document.
The authors recognise that childhood is defined as up to the age of 18 by the Children’s Rights Coalition (CRC). It nevertheless claims ”adulthood” is influenced by the social context in which the ”child” lives. As far as I am aware we don’t defend child marriage, or child labour, even where a child is based in a country, or culture, which normalises these practices. This blurring of the boundary between child/adult is necessary when arguing children have the right to bodily autonomy in respect of accessing “Gender Affirming” care. I believe this is why Children are being reframed across a myriad of public /campaigning bodies as mini-adults.
I am glad they reference brain maturity because credible research states that brain maturation continues up to the age of 25. One of the key battle grounds, for the promotion of Gender Identity Ideology, is to argue for the empowerment of children. This allows arguments, for children, especially teenagers, to access medical interventions to cement a trans-identity, without requiring parental consent.
Just a reminder about UK Law on getting a tattoo. It is not legal even with parental consent.
Next up the document quotes the Committee for the Rights of the Child (CRC) again. Note that the document explicitly references sex but the author’s quote another document to claim that this also covers ”Gender Identity”. Once again, this is a common tactic a sleight of hand to claim the law is in your side, even when you are arguing for it to be changed. A good example is the public campaign to allow anyone to ”Self-Identify” as the opposite sex and the more covert campaign to abolish single sex spaces. When it appears these laws are not going to change (outside of Scotland) campaigners are simply lying about the law to get it built into policy. [Hence the twitter hashtag #StonewallLaw].
Note the small print on this which references the ”transsexual” child. 👇.
Heres another interesting aside. The rights of the child must take into account the child’s views. They also posit the view that the argument of “Best Interests” cannot be used to justify actions “inconsistent with child rights”. In the context of Gender Identity Ideology this is often deployed to argue children/adolescents have the right to bodily autonomy and to access ”Gender affirming” medical interventions. This takes us back to the notion of “transsexual children”; a description usually avoided.
Glossary of Terms
The glossary of terms at the beginning of the document are illustrative of the ideology under-pinning this document. It includes the newspeak of Cisgender, Transgender, Heteronormative, Assigned Sex at Birth etc. Intersex also makes an appearance despite this not being favoured terminology among those with Disorders of Sexual Development (DSDs). The term ”intersex” won’t be given up without a fight because the Transgender movement use people with DSDs to muddy the waters and suggest there are more than two sexes. (Humans are, in fact, Sexually Dimorphic).
I won’t treat you to the entire glossary but its worth including a couple of examples. Under Gender and Sexual Diversity can be found the definition of sex. This recognises biological sex only to claim it is randomly ”assigned” . They also claim sexual dimorphism is based on a common belief in a binary sex classifications. This equates scientific accuracy to a faith based position. In this section 👇 the author’s also feign allegiance with the interests of people with DSDs; who often campaign against unnecessary surgery on infants. Note that some surgeries are in fact medically necessary, DSD activists oppose only cosmetic interventions on those under age.
The section dealing with SEXual orientation is below. Of course they define it as a Genderal Orientation. And we must have a category for the oppressed asexuals or as I call them ”the shag anything that moves brigade”.
Whoever named Pansexual after a mythical, horny old goat at least had a sense of humour: 😂
So far, so predictable. Now we get to the definition of ”Gender Justice”. Note that the definition includes (cis) women’s rights. Yay, we actually get a category of our own! Don’t get too excited, it is prefixed with the insulting ”cis” and, read on sisters, they graciously deign to consider redressing the power imbalance between men and women “if necessary”! I think it is FUCKING necessary since you are re-defining us against our will.
Introductory Letter
Now we get to the letter accompanying the document which purports to explain why they felt it necessary to join forces to expose ”Gender-Restrictive” folks. This is newspeak for Witches, by the way. 👇
It is hard to credit the claims made in this document and the level of testeria fuelling the authors of this ”research”. For those of you familiar with DARVO (Deny, attack, reverse victim and offender) this is a classic of the genre. Apparently WE are distorting huMAN rights. Which is a bit rich coming from the Gender Ideology lobby who are all about the MAN in human.
We are also being accused of ”anti-democracy”. I cannot think of anything more anti-democratic than following a blue-print that encourages the passing of laws, by stealth and avoiding press-coverage. (See the Denton’s document. Blog below). More D.A.R.V.O.
Women defending sex based rights, Lesbians refusing to accept males as sexual partners, mothers fighting to stop the medicalising of, among others, gay and autistic kids, are planning State Seizure! They actually sound crazy! Below they even claim women, fighting for sex based rights, are actually the ones attacking women’s rights.
Yes, there is a threat to children’s rights as activists are inculcating “Gender Dysphoria” in our kids and teens. Schools are teaching children a lack of adherence to sex stereotypes equals #BornInTheWrongBody. We are coaxing our gay youth into faux-straight, medicalised closets.
They also fear this Moralpanic is effective. If it is effective this is because it is rooted in truth and (biological) reality. For the avoidance of doubt they do mean us! Here is a reference to ”So called ”gender critical” feminists. Nobody is arguing against human rights for trans identified people, in GC circles, we are fighting for sex based rights for women. No Conflict They Said. So, why does every fight for women’s rights garner an “anti-trans” label.
Seriously they think we are well funded and have been planning this for 35 YEARS! I wonder why they didnt choose Terf Island (United Kingdom) for their country analysis? Could it be because it really doesn’t help their case? What with so many of us being Left-Wing, Trade Unionists.
The authors sound a warning to its disciples that they must unite to oppose the evil terfs and band together. Right side of history and all that.
I will leave this post with a list of the organisations that contributed to the document which includes Comic Relief whose funding is regularly used to promote bodily rejection.
I am going to do more on this document especially on the scurrilous attack on Womens Human Rights Coalition (W.H.R.C). I also have sisters from Bulgaria, Ghana and Peru looking at the country specific sections.
Finally those of you who are clearly sitting on the mounds of cash spare a bit for a sister! I seem to have missed out on the Swiss Bank account enrichment. 😂
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.
First of all kudos to GB News for tackling the issue of Gender Identity Ideology and having a, desperately needed, public debate. In this programme the perspectives of a Trans-Identified male, a Women’s rights campaigner, Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshall (A.K.A Posey Parker), Beverley Jackson (LGB Alliance), Gary Powell (Gay man) and Peter Tatchell (Human Rights campaigner) were interviewed. The U.K Charity, Stonewall, were invited to participate but, to no great surprise, declined to participate.
Today I want to unpack the contribution of Peter Tatchell. You can watch his contribution below.
Peter Tatchell is a, self-styled, Human Rights campaigner, best known for his Gay Rights Activism. His high profile arrest, in Putin’s Russia, for protesting against draconian, anti-gay legislation garnered headlines across the world. He also known, especially in Zimbabwe, for attempting a citizens arrest of Robert Mugabe. Latterly, he is better known, in some circles, for situating himself at the centre of conflict between Trans rights & the rights of Women. He has also attracted criticism from Lesbians and Gay males for his stance on “trans-rights” for ignoring the impact on homosexuals, especially the Lesbian kind.
Peter seems quite keen to speak on this issue. So many Trans Lobby groups refuse to debate the issues so it is, perhaps, unsurprising his views were sought. What is less clear are his motives. Why is he inserting himself in the middle of such a controversial topic? He is, however, especially keen to dispel any notion that he has anything to gain, though a cynic would observe the topic garners a lot of publicity.
Perhaps it is an elaborate penance for a letter he signed, defending free speech, on the controversial topic of Trans Rights? This resulted in, by his own account, the worst abuse he has had in decades of campaigning: Article below 👇
Perhaps he is driven by an ideological commitment to disrupting /queering social norms? Whatever the reason he does seem overly invested in an issue which is unlikely to impact him, personally. Tatchell is keen to neutralise criticism that he is elevating his voice above trans-people. It is noticeable that he does not show a similar concern about speaking over women.
This latest intervention comes after he withdrew from a debate, with Kathleen Stock, on this topic. Trans activists were vocal in their condemnation of him for agreeing to debate Professor Stock. They did not want him lending any credibility to Kathleen’s (quite moderate) stance on this issue. Many women were also unhappy about debating the issue, specifically with Tatchell, but his withdrawal from the debate was driven by Trans Activists, not the pesky women folk. 👇
Alex, the interviewer, opens the debate with two questions. Both relate to the practical implications of biological sex denialism; it’s impact on women’s privacy and the medicalisation of children who display “Gender” non-conforming (GNC) behaviour. Lesbians and Gay males often deviate from performing sex stereotypical behaviour which is why this question is a good one to ask a Gay man with a reputation for defending gay rights. He doesn’t respond to the question about medical interventions on children.
[Both proto-gay males and lesbians can present,early, with atypical expressions of femininity/masculinity, sadly that issue was not explored in this segment. This was a shame because I would like to see Tatchell oppose the Gay Conversion Therapy on his doorstep but he probably knows the headlines would not be as good].
Tatchell opens with a (nervous?) statement about the capacity in which he is speaking. He is, emphatically, not there to speak on behalf of the trans community. He is there as a Human Rights campaigner to speak up for the rights of both women and transwomen. By which, he means, for the rights of males to be included in the category of women.
He demonstrates his neutrality, beautifully, by directing his ire at the previous speaker, a woman. Kellie-Jay, made it abundantly clear that the category of woman is based on SEX not Gender Identity. Tatchell used the, common, tactic of associating women, defending the colonisation of our existence, with homophobia meted out to Gay rights campaigners. He also accused Kellie-Jay of whipping up hysteria about the dangers posed by “transwomen”.
Firstly, Gay men did not demand to be re-categorised as “women” and granted access to spaces where women are undressing, or merely associating, in a female only space. The legal recognition of same sex attraction had ZERO impact on the protected characterstic SEX.
Secondly he has no data to suggest males, who identify as transwomen, present a lower risk to women than other males. It is perfectly possible this category houses more predatory males because it includes those with the paraphilia “autogynephilia”. Also because of the queering of the boundaries, between males and females, we are being asked to accept the notion that some women have a penis . He is defending an ideology which promotes the idea of be-penised women and that a Lady Dick can be distinguished from the average penis. This kind of Phallus in Wonderland, magical thinking, sadly, was not exposed in this interview. I suspect the interviewer may be unfamiliar with the more radical claims of the Gender Identity Ideologues. Or, she may believe the general public are not quite ready to deal with the more outlandish claims. Sadly these beliefs are gaining traction among the political and Chattering Classes.
The various segments were not done in a format that allowed a right of reply so Kellie-Jay was not able to respond to the claims, made above. I wonder if Tatchell knows he is echoing the #NotAllMen phallusy of Men’s Rights Activists? Women exclude males, as a SEX class, because we know that some males are sexual predators. We should not, however, have to invoke fear of sexual violence to demand a right to exclude males. We should be legally protected because we have a right to bodily privacy. We should be, legally, able to congregate, in female only spaces, to discuss issues that affect our sex and only our sex. We don’t want to include males in these discussions.
The “handful” argument is belied by the increased media reports of sexual offenders gathering under the Trans Umbrella. When we finally get actual data monitoring this category of males, specifically, I fear it will confirm women’s worst fears. Presently, the prevalence of trans sex offenders is difficult to ascertain. We do know that under U.K law Rape is an offence specifically involving a penis and that there are over 400, allegedly, female rapists in UK crime statistics. I imagine the number who are actually female is vanishingly small.
It is also only possible to get information by trawling through mis-leading media reports which consistently report Male crimes as if they were commissioned by Women. This is because media guidelines demand female pronouns for male sex offenders. Thanks IPSO! It is IPSO who produced the media guidelines which encourage the media to hide male crimes. Below is a short piece on these guidelines 👇
Below is another diversionary tactic; the substitution of arguments about race to imply they are analogous to the issue of trans rights/women’s rights. By using this argument, Peter, tries to associate feminist arguments with racists. Instead of falling into this trap journalists should demand the interlocutor remain on topic. Argue the merits of your own case directly rather than implying that society needs to throw off the shackles of our backward Sexual Apartheid because it is bigotry akin to racism. For the avoidance of doubt, I don’t care what colour your dick is, for the purposes of women’s single sex spaces:
#AllDicksMatter
Tatchell then deploys another strategy. He claims the thing that women are complaining about has been going on for years and dismisses the “fuss” women are making. This is mendacious. The Transgender Lobby have just LOST (in the U.K) a very public campaign to allow any male to self-declare he is a woman. The new tactic is to claim males have been using women’s spaces for decades and we just didn’t notice! Sadly, for Peter, testosterone packs one hell of a punch and passing remains a pipe dream for most trans-id males, even those with resources to undergo significant surgery. Women are socialised to #BeKind but we do, in the main, recognise biological sex, evolution is such a Terf Bitch. Our safety depends on knowing if we are in a space with a male. Do we say anything thing? No! I refer you to #BeKind and our personal safety. We have all seen the Narcissistic rage of TRAs called “sir”, our lives depend on silence. Peter may interpret this as #Kindness but he is wrong to equate our silence with consent. It is more likely a result of #BeKind/ Doormat feminism or good old fashioned FEAR.
All the countries which have passed Self-ID legislation did so without holding a public debate. It was the public debate that did for this legislative change in the U.K. Grass roots resistance, led by a new group of women’s organisations, alerted ordinary women and we fought back. Women in Ireland, Malta and Argentina and the other countries were less prepared and this legislation was passed by stealth/ tacked onto popular causes. Professional women’s rights organisations were complicit and, consequently, women in these countries are only now waking up to the nightmare scenario the political classes have unleashed on women.
I have written extensively about the current process for obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) in the U.K. We have already given them to fully intact males, even where they have convictions for sexual assaults. For this reason I am not a defender of the status quo but allowing self-declaration would remove any gatekeeping. I would repeal the GRA and provide any protection needed, for refugees from masculinity, on some other basis. I would not allow males to identify into the legal category of woman, because it has been a disaster for women’s sex based rights.
Nobody can just declare they are “trans”
I assume Tatchell is here 👇 talking about the proposed changes to enact a self-id regime in the U.K, or the process in other countries. Here he is saying nobody can just “declare” they are trans by er, checks notes, outlining the process by which anyone can just declare they are trans!
Genius!
I do like his confidence. It seems such a shame to interrupt his confidence with some FACTS. Let me think of a few. Men in women’s sports, a man running a rape crisis centre and telling rape victims, afraid of ALL males, they need to unlearn their transphobia! Rapists in women’s prison, men taking a disproportionate number of places on the Women in Leadership (Jo Cocks) programme…I could go on.
Oh No! He said “Trans Women are Women”
Chanting a thought terminating cliche is beneath an intelligent man. I don’t doubt there are many issues faced by males who adopt the prescribed social norms for women. I don’t doubt they face sexual assault and harassment. Peter may not be aware that Hate Crime legislation doesn’t include the category of SEX, but does protect the category of “Transgender”. So, yes, he can produce the Hate Crime stats and all I have to counter it is a list of, not of the dead-named, but of the actual dead women. Misgendering is the least of our concerns.
This next bit is some forced-teaming from Tatchell. Come on girls, expend your energy being support humans to my undercover brothers, you know you want to! There is a concerted effort to invert the privilege hierarchy and place white males at the bottom of the pile, rhetorically speaking. To convince us black is white transperbole is deployed and, once again, he leverages the much discredited hate crime statistics. Not buying it.
The interviewer interjects at this point to thank Tatchell for his cogent and rational arguments. I instinctively bristle at a man being called rational. Fairly or not, what I hear is, rational as opposed to the hysterical women. Another pet peeve is the way this “debate” is portrayed as #BadOnBothSides. It is a War on Women. We are defending ourselves from the neo-colonialism that is Trans Activism. It is playing “nice” that has allowed the #BeKind Brigade to be, well “brigaded”. Women have been trans-jacked and fighting back is what you do when your rights are under attack. Additionally, anyone paying attention would see the threats of violence, much of it sexual violence, comes from the male people. Women’s counter “attack” is, at its worst, refusing to use female pronouns or commenting on masculine features.
So let’s hear more from a man white-knighting for this most marginalised community. Fact free assertions about inner identity, parroting the authentic selves narrative, bla bla bla, hate crime, marginalised etc etc. Also Peter is a libertarian dontchaknow. If people want to be lifelong medical patients they should be allowed. (I don’t think many people have argued for an end to all surgeries, though I would argue it should be a last resort AND still not grant access to spaces set aside for another sex) Peter is tilting at windmills.
Breathtaking arrogant assertion is his next gambit. People (by which he means women) are making a mountain out of a molehill. Women objecting to having our sex redefined to admit any male are over-reacting! These hysterical women are projecting onto a vulnerable community. So vulnerable they have managed to roll back gains women made over a hundred years ago. So marginal they have captured, nearly, the entire political class.
Safeguarding 101
Also👇the central plank of safeguarding is the need set to a bar high enough to protect vulnerable groups from the BAD APPLES! That’s 101 of safeguarding, design your policy with a focus on the BAD APPLES! Because predators will migrate to where the loopholes exist and this ideology is dismantling safeguards left, right and centre.
He can’t get any worse can he? Yep. He can. 😳. No we don’t ban cars Peter. We do make you pass a test, we make learners wear an L Plate, we fine people for motoring offences, we can ban you from driving and even imprison offenders. We also have social norms (and laws) against drink-driving. This is not the gotcha you think it is.
I like to think Alex had enough at this point. Here the interview should end, and it nearly does. I don’t think it’s a shame the debate is polarised. When someone proposes to socially engineer society, based on a toxic ideology, there is no compromise to be had. We can’t let men have some of women’s rights. The answer is NO! It is a shame that women are being forced to concede our hard won gains in 2021!.
Does Peter go gentle into his goodnight. No! he carried on and makes it, if you can believe it, much, much, worse.
His heart is breaking!
Gloves are off now. How FUCKING DARE you! I will decide who my sisters are thank you very much! We are not SUPPORT HUMANS, there to tend to those males you can’t bear to have in your sex class. YOU DO THE WORK! Maybe have a bit of a think about why you can’t tolerate variant masculinity in your spaces?
We are all Biological Essentialists (apparently)
Next up the old accusations of “biologicalessentialism”. The argument, he is making, is that Women are allowing ourselves to be defined, and limited by our biology. No, Peter, the “Biology is not Destiny” was an attempt to resist being defined ONLY by our reproductive functions. It did NOT mean we deny the basis of sex based oppression, which originates in our ability to gestate babies. Hence a significant amount of feminist activism has been about controlling our fertility in case you hadn’t noticed.
We were not marching for the right of Laurel Hubbard to lift weights with us!
Hijacking statements about women’s liberation to re-purpose them for trans idealogues is a tactic we have seen before. It lends credence to your argument, at a superficial level, if you can use our words against us. Way to put the MAN in HuMAN rights Peter.
Tactical Obfuscation
Next up he is claims being a woman is a psychological / emotional state. The last bit is nonsensical. No males are members of the sex class of women, irrespective of their intake of artificial hormones. The bit about reproductive capacity is nonsensical. What is he trying to say here? Even if the franken doctors manage to develop artificial wombs to validate a trans ID male, it STILL won’t make them a woman.
He surpasses himself with his sign off. He doesn’t mean hate us, he just knows better than we do. It is the smug, holier than thou, tone that is really enraging.
Thanks Peter. I feel I may be in danger of adding to the toxicity of this debate because all I have to say to you is FUCK OFF and when you get there FUCK OFF some more. (And I rarely swear on here but everybody has their breaking 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.
