Women’s Equality Party: 3

The expulsion of Heather Brunskell-Evans.

This is the third post on W.E.P following their vote to accept men who self-identify as women. You can read the series here: 👇

Women’s Equality Party

This one will focus on an episode of the moral maze, from 2017, which BBC licence holders can listen to here: 👇

Moral Maze November 2017

This was the Composition of the panel:

These were the witnesses who were called :

Part two covered Fae and Caspian and in this one I will cover Stephen Whittle. I had intended to get to Heather’s contribution in this one but my ghast was so clabbered by Whittle I decided to devote the entire another post to her. I will give Brunskell-Evans a post to herself.

Stephen Whittle is a trans-identified female, Professor of Equalities Law at Manchester Metropolitan University, and quite a key figure in the promulgation of “transgender” ideology, in the U.K. Unsurprisingly they have cropped up quite a few times in my research. You can read my previous coverage here: 👇

Stephen Whittle

Whittle is introduced by the presenter, Michael Buerk, who then precedes to talk about males and females having different brain architecture and he asks Whittle how this squares with “his” claim that gender is a choice. Whittle begins by saying that “if you had said twenty years ago it was impossible to tell who was a man or a woman, everybody would have agreed with you”.{I don’t think this is what Whittle meant to say, from the subsequent comments I am going to assume that she means people would have agreed male and female brains are indistinguishable.}. Whittle continues by talking about new research that has discovered that the “transgender” brain is more aligned with the sex they identify “with”. In fact the jury is very much out on this point. The early post-mortem research failed to control for homosexuality, the impact of neuroplasticity, on a developing brain, or even the impact of the cross sex hormones. For an excellent thread on studies re brain sex, this thread is well worth a read and a follow, if on twitter.

Brain Sex

Leaving that to one side Whittle then says the brain sex argument is irrelevant to them because, as a lawyer, their only concern is with people’s rights.

Buerk hands over to Claire Fox who begins by expressing her bemusement at the male singer, Sam Smith, who is now a they/them and seems to associate females with sex (ist) stereotypes. This is a sample of Sam Smith’s idea of what makes him partly male and partly female.

Claire asks if Whittle understands why feminists are concerned that transgenderism is defining women by the trappings of femininity, which many women gave up a long time ago. Whittle responds with “Absolutely” and expands the answer below: 👇

This really doesn’t answer the question, to me. There argument is that there is a distinction between gender and gender expression, for “trans” people. This makes sense if we talk about how your sex doesn’t mean to have to dress like Ken /Barbie. Yet, for many “trans” people it seems perfectly clear they think “gender expression” = “gender”. This is what Sam Smith is doing. Yet we are also told we should not make assumptions about someone’s “gender” by the way they express themselves. This is why we have the acronym 0ET (zero effort trans) where a man with a beard has no shame about going on dating apps as a “Lesbian”.

Claire Fox then asks Whittle about the rapist Martin Pontin, who raped two sixteen year old girls, then identified as Jessica and was moved to a women’s prison as well as male pupils identifying as “girls” and demanding/ being alllowed to use facilities with girls.

Here is some background on Pontin. 👇. This is a picture of him.

As of 2022 it now emerges that Pontin has been granted a gender recognition certificate. Once again he got a GRC under the existing process, not the proposed self-identification route. This is what we must repeal the Gender Recognition Act.

This was Whittle’s response. Notice even Whittle can’t bring herself to say “she” and “Jessica”.

Whittle then proceeds to say countries who have introduced self-id have not seen any problems, listing Ireland, Malta, Norway and Denmark.

On Ireland 👇

Barbie Kardashion

On Norway

Christine Ellingen

It’is worth noting that Malta has some of the most draconian abortion laws in the world, not even allowing them to save the mother’s life.

In Denmark, in 2017, rape victims had to prove they had resisted to stand a chance of a conviction because rape was not defined by the absence of consent, there had to be additional, demonstrable “force”. Spousal rape was also only criminalised in 2013. Also, I give you Ibi-Pippi, legally a “woman”

Whittle finishes with this.😳 A cavalier disregard for the safety of women and girls. Heinous.

Ann McElvoy: “As a trans man are their any rights that you think you wouldn’t have, or shouldn’t have, that a biological man would have?”

Whittle can’t think of any rights he shouldn’t have, or doesn’t have that a biological man has. She then adds that they wouldn’t, at this stage of life, use women’s spaces. This is because they recognise that “whilst I may not be a man in the same way as my brothers I am no longer a woman in the same way as the women who use women only spaces”.

Ann McElvoy Do you think therefore that you should back off from that argument because one of the contested areas, particularly with feminists, or the most vocal feminists, has been about that space and who has the right to occupy that space, whether it is a lavatory or a changing room, places that are reserved for one or the other sex. You are challenging that idea and, at the same time, you are saying well I would actually stand back from it. I don’t think it’s right for me”

Whittle then decides there’s a huge difference between women only spaces and lavatories and changing rooms and, then seems a bit rattled “Oh for Christ’s sake we should all be able to go to the toilet in peace and quiet and privacy” . She then says all we need are decent locks and respect. After this Whittle turns the argument to focus on gender neutral facilities and claims they have been introduced at Manchester Metropolitan University and there have been no issues.

McElvoy then points out the inherent difficulty with self-identification because if you declare yourself to be the opposite sex you are mandating that everyone else has to go along with it. She then asks if Whittle sees any space for disagreement?

Whittle starts by saying they accept disagreement having lived with it for the whole of her life. She also says that she is not telling other people how to live their lives. (Hollow Laugh).

Whittle closes by saying that one of the problems is that “this has been medicalised before” (I assume she means being “trans” should not depend on hormones and surgeries).She also agrees with James (Caspian) that being “trans”is not diagnosable, it’s something that people do. Except Whittle doesn’t think you should have to “do” anything. It’s a shame the interview ended there because there is a lot to unpack here.

Firstly Whittle is imposing their way of life on the whole of society. She is in favour of any man identifying as a “woman” irrespective of surgical status (that’s the bit about “medicalising” gender dysphoria). She is also mandating that we accept those men in our spaces. That’s her dictating to women to accept dick in our spaces. Many of us don’t want any men in our spaces irrespective of their bodily modifications but Whittle doesn’t think you should have to “do” anything, other than declare your “identity”.

I will break off here and cover Heather Brunskell-Evans’ contribution and the panel conclusions in my next piece.

You can support my work by a paid subscription to my substack or a donation below. All donations are gratefully received and help to cover my costs and keep my content open.

My Substack

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

£10.00

Who decides if I am a woman?

Featured

This is a post based on a Radio 4 programme, from 2013. Whittle is just one of a number of people interviewed. This programme also alerted me to the role of Alex Carlile, ex of the Liberal Democrat’s, who has sat in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Most of the contributors are proponents of Gender Identity Ideology with the exception of Julie Bindel.

Transcription here:

Analysis Woman Defined FINAL

I transcribed it because I find these sources are in danger of disappearing but you can still listen to it, as of March 2022, here 👇. {The featured image is the one used by the BBC by the way}

Analysis: Women. Who decided

The list of contributors:

James Barrett is features, lead clinician for the UK national Gender clinic, as is Alex Carlile, ex Liberal Democrat who tabled a bill to allow ”trans identified” people to change their birth certificates, in 1996. Also interviewed are Melissa Hines, who believes in self-defining your sex/gender and Richard O’Brien who believes he is 30% female and takes oestrogen, Ruth Pearce, a trans-identified male, and Stephen Whittle, a trans-identified female. Julie Bindel is somewhat outnumbered. Here is the presenter, Jo Fidgen.

The format is not a round table discussion. The presenter asks some direct questions and interjects her own voice as narrator, whether the notes of incredulity are faux-naive I will leave you to judge, when she reaches her breathless, excited conclusions.

First up Whittle casts doubt on the rigour of hospital staff assessing sex at birth. I find the calibre of this argument ludicrous, to be frank.

The presenter raises a contemporary furore after the Observer published a provocative comment piece by Julie Burchill calling “male-to-female” transsexuals a ”bunch of bedwetters in bad wigs”. The context for this piece was that Burchill’s friend, Suzanne Moore, had posted a piece about body shaming women; who are being sold the idea the ideal body shape is one favoured by Brazilian “Transsexuals”. Cue threats of rape and violence which resulted in the police being called and, predictably, claiming to be unable to help.

The presenter omits the above context but does admit it plays into the current debate and claims, whilst once she was confident she was a woman, ”Now, I’m not so sure”.

Next up Alex Carlile explains how he became interested in the plight of transsexuals. He was approached by a female constituent about which he has this to say:

Carlile goes onto explain how his constituent had various difficulties being a female but ”living as a man”. He then claims his constituent faced difficulties in using male facilities because he could have been accused of doing something wrong. Females are always used to support this argument because we all know it’s not females who commit 99% of sex offences, overwhelmingly against women. Men are unlikely to by intimidated by a female who, according to Carlile, is indistinguishable from any other man.

We are informed that Carlile tabled a bill, as far back as 1996, to allow ”transsexuals” to change their birth certificates to reflect the sex they wish they were. I had a look at that debate and was struck by one comment which sheds light on why falsifying birth certificates was more acceptable than gay marriage, which by the way was not legalised until nearly a decade after the Gender Recognition Act. Note also that Press For Change were lobbying these Conservatives decades ago. (Source:Hansard).

The Bill did not pass but, Carlile explains, it piqued Labour’s interest. Next up Whittle waxes lyrical about the UK, Gender Recognition Act which is described as ”State of the Art” in comparison to ”anywhere in the world”. In just five short years Whittle would see the GRA as out of date and advocate for self-identification of ”sex”!

We have a slight detour at this point to explain that Whittle has a ”vested interest” in this debate as a ”transman”. We also hear about how Whittle now has a surgically constructed ”penis” but has kept some, unspecified, female parts so has a sort of “mixed body”. Next Whittle says the quiet part out loud.

Fidgen interjects with a question about how radical this is and, finally, brings in Julie Bindel, who explains it is, in reality, ultra conservative.

Whittles rebuttal of this point is astonishing, to me, makes perfect sense to anyone whose thought processes have been addled by Queer Theory. 🤦‍♂️

Jo goes back to Bindel to ask if Stephen has a point. Bindel cuts to the heart of the matter. Feminism wants to dismantly gender stereotypes, transgender people want to uphold them. They rely on stereotypes of masculinity and femininity so they have a template to ”perform” their gender.

Ruth Pearce, a trans-identified male, repudiates this and claims he is quite scruffy and generally in jeans and T Shirts, even hoodies 🤷‍♀️. Pearce argues that Bindel is out of date. Stereotypical expectations are simply not a feature gender clinics anymore. Pearce claims he is a feminist and a trans perspective is not necessarily at odds with feminism. Ruth explains that he was seen as weird and strange as a teenage boy and was often asked if he was gay. His interests were typically associated with being a girl so now he identifies as one. To Ruth this is not shoring up stereotypes (🤔) and he believes, ultimately, we will abandon the categories of male and female. This is the magical thinking driving this ideology. Ruth thinks they are going to dismantle the ”gender binary” by, checks notes, aligning their own self-perception with what society says are typical interests for a woman. Ruth has rejected his sex on the basis of the very sexist stereotypes he claims he wants to destroy. Make it make sense!

Can’t defend what you can’t define.

Bizarrely the presenter thinks Pearce is agreeing with Bindel. To be clear, one of them is living a life embodying a stereotype which Bindel wants to dismantle. Bindel is not seeking the destruction of sex based categories which underpin women’s legal right to single sex spaces.

Hines, no not that one!

We are then introduced to a Cambridge Professor, Melissa Hines, to introduce some science. Hines is a neuroscientist and spends a lot of time working with people who have disorders of sexual development. I could take some headlines from her work which focus on toy preferences and ”gendered” brains influenced by higher than normal levels of testosterone. Hines recognises the importance of socialisation but also argues there are biological processes at work. This, seems perfectly plausible to me since humans are sexually dimorphic and evolution is likely to have introduced differential development in the sex that does the child-bearing. Conceding the complex interaction between nurture/nature doesn’t mean we are all biological essentialists who think women belong in the kitchen. It’s also important to retain some skepticism about claims in respect of #LadyBrains which is just as ideologically predicated as a 100% denial of the role of biology. Three books for anyone interested in following this up.

Hines lost me at this point, even the interviewer sounded a note of incredulity.

Hines therefore argues that exposure to higher levels of testosterone pre-disposes some females to adopt preferences associated with the opposite sex. Jo Fidgens adds in the known association of victims of childhood sexual abuse and a rejection of your sex. This gets little attention because we then proceed to discuss research into post mortem examinations of the brains of male transsexuals. Interestingly, Hines is on the fence about this research; questioning whether the experience of “gender dysphoria” causes the change in brain structure. (Search neuroplasticity).

James Barrett

James Barrett was lead clinician at a U.K Gender clinic and has appeared in my blogs frequently because he often appears as an expert witness in legal cases I have covered. Here he talks about how he would assess a patient who presented with gender identity issues. He makes if clear that the assessment must involve not just your self-identificaion but how you are percieved by others. This puts the burden for acceptance on females, in the main, who are mandated to #BeKind, validate these men and accept them men in our spaces. #NOThankyou

Born This Way?

Whilst accepting the evidence of a biological explanation is inconclusive we now consider the issue of Puberty Blockers. In 2011 the Tavistock Gender Clinic began experimenting /researching the effect of placing ”Gender Dysphoric” children on medication to block a natural puberty. This is still often described as a ”pause” and ”reversible”. It is not a ”pause” the long term impact is uncertain and 98%+ proceed to synthetic drugs to mimic the effects of cross-sex hormones. I have written about this a few times here:

Puberty Blockers

Julie Bindel is asked for her thoughts on this:

Julie is right to point out the danger of over-diagnosis in young Lesbians and Gay males. Not conforming to sex stereotypes is elevated in children who, left alone, would become homosexual adults. These are the last figures I have on same sex attracted referrals to the Tavistock Gender Clinic. With all the fuss about the #GayConversionTherapy ban why haven’t people realise that the main place this is happening is at Gender Clinics?

Single sex spaces.

Julie Bindel then brings up an incident with a pre-operative male behaving aggressively in a space for vulnerable women. I think the law is misinterpreted here because it is technically permissible to exclude a male, even with a GRC, from a single sex space. Though it is correct to say too many organisations fail to apply this exception. Bindel then raises the issue of males in female prisons even when he has committed a an offence against a female.

Fidgen then puts this hypthetical to Lord Carlile which leads to this, astonishing, exchange. {Worth noting, at this point, that Carlile was head of a Penal Reform charity, the Howard League, for a number of years}.

We next take a detour to learn that Richard O’ Brien takes oestrogen for his 30% female part. Ruth Pearce thinks the next legal battle will be to recognise people who don’t identify as male, or female, and Whittle boasts about how we have been ”de-gendering the law for twenty years. Whittle then tells what I am certain they think is a cute anecdote about his three year old asking how they know their twins are girls. Whittle’s wife explains they don’t. They made a guess and the babies can tell them, when they are older, if they got it wrong. I find that a rather sinister tale.

This was Jo’s conclusion.

The Denton’s document is a must read to understand how we got here. I covered it here:

That Denton’s Document

The conclusion Jo comes to reminds me of the book Pollyanna. It has not worked out that way.

The Battle of the X’s.

Time for a new suffragette movement and thankfully one is here:

You can learn about Sex Matters, and donate, here.

Respect my Sex

If you want to support my work you can do so here:

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s impact on women’s rights, gay rights and the healthy bodies of our kids. Trying to get one step ahead of the people who are deleting evidence as the medical scandal unfolds.

£10.00

Stephen Whittle 2

Featured

This is some content from YouTube. When I first penned this piece I could not find the original. Someone contacted me and alerted me to the YouTube which still exists. You can watch it here 👇

Hormones: Stephen Whittle

The screen shots I did, back in December 2020, are quite revealing.

Do it to Julia!

Hormones: Feminist, Transgender and Intersex

Before I begin a word about Whittle. Whittle is female but has taken testosterone, had multiple surgeries and adopted what they believe is a man’s ”gender” role. This would appear to be Whittle’s idea of ”living as a man”. Asked why the on-line discussions, about the Gender Recognition act, were so male-dominated with a noticeable absence of “transmen” this was the answer given: 👇 Sproggets! 🤷‍♀️ (Clip from that radicalisation portal that is mumsnet).

For background about Whittle here is an interview they did with Christine Burns, of the Trans Lobby Group, Press For Change.

Whittle: Interview

In this interview Whittle explains their sexual attraction to both sexes but how they married a woman. They have four children. Whittle fought to gain the right for their partner to be artificially inseminated, with donor sperm; also tried, thankfully failed, to be recorded as the “father” on the children’s birth certificates. Whittle was brought up in a council house on one of the largest council estates in Europe. The father sounds rather abusive and this is one of the stories Whittle tells about him. One wonders what toll it takes on the female psyche to be presented with such an overt display of aggressive male dominance?

The fact this was triggered by wearing apparel, traditionally reserved for the male sex class, is also intriguing. Is Whittle’s entire life a fuck you to the Father or an over-identification with the oppressor class? A strategy of escape or one for dominance? I suggest it is a combination of the two.

There are complex reasons for females to reject their sex class, some of them invite our compassion; such as extreme sexual abuse /paternal violence. Girls learn early that inhabiting a female body invites unwanted sexual contact. My compassion, for Whittle, is severely limited by the role they have played in throwing the bodies of other women in the paths of dangerous men. In the dismantling of women’s same sex spaces Whittle is, perhaps unwittingly, behaving like Winston Smith in 1984. Whittle’s life is one long “Do it to Julia”.

One of the ways Whittle harms women is a denial that male pattern offending remains the same in those who identify as ”trans”. One claim made in the Guardian had to be retracted.

The reality is the pattern of sex offending remains exactly the same. There is thus no argument for removing single sex spaces for women.

Whittle also had a side hustle of writing for porn magazines. The overlap between porn-saturated culture and trans identities is such a central feature of this ”community”. At least Whittle turned a profit.

Transitioned States: Hormones: Whittle et al.

Now to the event at which Whittle spoke. It was chaired by Jo Winning who works with Zoe Playdon running a course in Medical Humanities. I cover Zoe Playdon in this blog post. 👇

C. Burns: Trans Britain. Part 13a

Whittle is preceded by a campaigner on intersex rights, Valentino Vecchietti, who raises the issue of medicalising children with variations in sex characteristics /Disorders of Sexual development without informed consent. He includes the removal of gonads which leads to lifelong dependence on hormones, issues with bone density and sterility. This is precisely the same set of issues with blocking puberty but, of course, the “trans” lobby doesn’t want to talk about that. Vecchietti talks about “trans” and “queer” children. This is a clip from one of their slides.

The next speaker is Celia Roberts, a professor of Gender and Science Studies. 😳. She talks, with breathless excitement about hormones as agents of social change.

Roberts has studied hormones for twenty years and is clearly very enthusiastic about their use:

And here she goes 👇

Despite this, I found her quite a compelling speaker as she covers the role of hormones in factory farming, and horses bred to produce female hormones. The horse hormones were for use in both menopausal women and for trans-identified males. She points out that hormones extracted this way were found to be harmful to menopausal women but was strangely silent about the risks to trans-identified males. She does explore ways in which the administering of hormones can be “oppressive” and this includes the chemical castration of sex offenders and the hyper-stimulation of the ovaries of surrogate mothers in India. Nothing about what is happening to kids at gender abattoirs, though. She says that withholding hormones can also be oppressive though she does say using hormones should be approached with caution. Well worth watching and she drops the names of some “queer biologists” should you feel inclined to further research.

Stephen Whittle

Now we come to Whittle’s part. He opens with a slide about what you would do if you were offered a “happy pill”.

Whittle claims this question is routinely asked at Gender Identity Clinics here (U.K) and the United States. Whittle proceeds to say that of course people would answer yes but no such pill exists for “trans” people.

Are you happy with what you have done?

This is next of the slides Whittle uses to defend their work. People have criticised the impact on the Butch Lesbian community by the widespread “transitioning“ of Lesbian women. Whittle is often heckled by Lesbians, we are informed. Clearly they are perfectly aware of the impact on the Lesbian community. In this talk Whittle boasts that Butch Lesbians approach her and say they wish they had the guts to ”transition”. I was left with the impression that Whittle’s response to this, legitimate concern, is one of mockery.

Whittle goes on to describe “Butch Dykes” as unable to receive sexual pleasure and rejects this life for ”himself”.

Here Whittle shares a slide about the meteoric rise in girls referred to the U.K main Gender Clinic. This is a cause for concern to many, rational, people but, to Whittle, it is a sign of the success of the Trans Lobby. This is a cause for celebration because the stigma of being ”trans”, {becoming a lifelong dependent on the pharmaceutical industry} has been removed. As you can see kids as young as three are being referred to the Tavistock (Gender Identity Development Service G.I.Ds). If Whittle had checked with adult clinics they would not find a concomitant rise in adult females coming out as “men”. . 🤷‍♀️

Whittle knows autistic people are also over-represented at Gender Clinics. The phenomenon is so widely known trans-activists cannot deny it. Their spin is that theories about the origins of autism proves the idea of a wrongly sexed brain. An alternative hypothesis is the difficulties of responding to social cues makes many autistic kids less able to navigate social expectations for their sex. If much of sex stereotypical expectations is embedded via socialisation this explains why autistic males, and females, may find themselves out of step with their peers. Transgender Ideology promotes the idea these kids are really ”trans”.

Females with autism are often under-diagnosed so their prevalence at Gender clinics is even more striking. One theory about late diagnosis hinges on female socialisation providing autistic girls with better ”masking” skills. They are taught better social cues because ”reading” other people is a survival skill for the female sex class. As a result they “pass” as neuro typical, better than their male counterparts. Whittle also these youths often have co-morbidities of mental health issues. This still doesn’t raise any alarm bells for the Trans party faithful. Instead this is put down to ”minority stress”.

Here are some figures shared by an Autistic society. As you can see as many as 30% have autistic traits. Females, with diagnosed autism, are over-represented by 10:1.

Here the high priestess of the Church of Gender even claims affirming a ”gender identity” can cure autism. (This clip is taken from a discussion Dr Jo had with our own Helen Webberley of Gender GP infamy, on their podcast).

Next slide, as I recall, was to deflect criticism about trans obsession with sartorial choices indicating a ”transgender” identity. Here Whittle is saying ”Lesbians do it too”.

Here Whittle points to the rejection of female attire by ”trans” identified females. Notice that trans boys ”hate” and trans ”girls” desire the pink and frilly.

This was an interesting aside. Whittle calls Julie Bindel a friend though they disagree. The argument that, in an ideal world, nobody would feel the need to become dependent on pharmaceuticals /surgeries to live an ”authentic life” should be the mainstream opinion. It is, however, now likened to some sort of demonic plan for mass extermination.

My “happy pills”!

Here Whittle simply promotes #BigPharma. This section was introduced, by Whittle, as about my ”happy pills”. The impact of male levels of, synthetic, testosterone on a female are quite different to the impact on a natal male. The slide should have examined the impact of synthetic testosterone on a female body. Whittle could have refected on the elevated risk of multiple sclerosis (x7) for males taking synthetic hormones which mimic oestrogen at levels not normally found in males. Whittle also has multiple sclerosis but has no hesitation promoting drugs enhancing the risk for natal males. Trans-identified males are also having their testosterone blocked so, presumably this slide could be used as is a cautionary tale for them.

Here are some side effects. Obviously some of these are desired for those in flight from their sex. This is from a site targeting menopausal women so it says nothing about the impact on fertility or vaginal atrophy and elevated risk for a medically necessary hysterectomy.

I know there are professional feminists who are critical of media outlets that put the spotlight on individual Trans Lobbyists. I have no such hesitation. It is because of this ideology that our gay boys are on the #TuringTreatment and our young Lesbians are having, unnecessary, double mastectomies. Also in case you think Whittle is going to stop here is an interview where Whittle advocates forcing women to give up single sex spaces. Whittle is no friend to women.

Time for a spotlight on the vichy women collaborating with this ideology and placing their own, excessive, need for validation above the harms to women, girls and gay boys.

If you are able to support my work you can do so here.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and the harms it is doing to women and girls as well as gay boys, like my son.

£10.00

Engendered penalties: Whittle

Featured

Stephen Whittle has been involved in trans-activism for decades. If passing as a man involves dismantling women’s, sex based, rights then Whittle is right up there with the worst of misogynists. Self-hating females are like homosexuals who spend years promoting Gay Conversion Therapy. They pursue the socially engineering of society, around their identity, with a prosecutorial zeal.

The document I am about to look at is called ”Engendering Penalties”. It is 122 pages long and is dated February 2007. Christine Burns was also involved. Copy of the document linked below 👇

EngenderedPenalties

The document aims to outline all the ways transgender / transsexual people are mistreated and discriminated against.

How do they define ”trans”:

The document makes it clear that pre-operative, post-operative and no-operative people, those who have no intention at bodily modification, are all included as ”trans”. This also covers part-time cross-dressers/transvestites.

This means men with transvestic-fetishism are included, that is men who get sexually aroused from wearing clothing associated with females. Closely linked to this paraphilia is autogynephilia. Whittle does not mention either of these paraphilias. A wise move when advocating for these men to enter female spaces.

The document was put together after surveying 873 people who claimed a transgender identity. The survey was conducted on line. 40% of respondents were not living, permanently, in the sex role stereotype of choice. Many admitted to being transvestites. Whittle estimates 1 in 20 males admit to being transvestites. *Some* of these men will do so for sexual gratification. Some of them will have autogynephilia (AGP) which is a sexual compulsion built on the need to breach women’s boundaries. This is paraphilia is poorly understood. When you see a trans-identified male adopting sex stereotypical pursuits, for their target sex ( e.g trying to join knitting circles, or the women’s institute or even feminist organisations) he is likely to be AGP.

Trans Advocacy.

Whittle argues that the internet brought new impetus to the fight for “trans rights” as so many trans-identified males were at the forefront of information technology. Trans people were now networking and also playing a leading role in policy-making up to government departmental level.

As far back as 1996 activists were trying to influence prison policy. I have tried to locate a copy of this report and, if I locate it, I will cover it:

Trans activists have allies in parliament. Here is Dr Lynne Jones raising the issue of allowing, preoperative males into the female estate. (Hansard. 1996).

At that time Jones received a reply stating that there were many , complex issues involved and one of them was how other prisoners would react. Whittle expresses frustration at the delay in prison guidelines but Press For Change, who Whittle worked with, were consulted on five separate occasions.

Harassment of ”trans” people

Whittle covers harassment in the workplace which places a significant emphasis on being accepted in toilets and changing rooms for the opposite sex.

Whittle makes it abundantly clear that none of this should be predicated on any permanent, surgical, commitment to “living as a woman” (whatever that means). Whittle makes much of the role ”Real Life Experience” plays in gathering proof you have been accepted in your “gender role”. Part of that requires use of facilities for the opposite sex, therefore anyone objecting is hampering a successful ”transition” and guilty of discrimination.

Other examples were being placed in a side room while in hospital, rather than on a female ward. A trans-identified female also claims the complications from taking testosterone were not dealt with appropriately because the problem with her, female, genitalia led to a suggestion she attend a women’s clinic.

Other examples of violence Whittle felt were under-reported because the trans-identified person did not ascribe the motivation to ”transphobia” because they ”passed”. Whittle argues this is a coping mechanism and therefore the harassment reported , or lack thereof, cannot be assumed to be accurate, it is, Whittle argues, under-reported. As an aside this also confirms the delusional belief which can accompany an opposite sex identity

Whittle then appropriates homophobic abuse as really ”transphobia”

This is the inevitable consequence on building your ideology on a victim narrative. Any acknowledgment of societal improvement removes a central pillar of trans-activism.

Criminal Justice

Whittle admits trans-identifed people are over-represented in prisons but argues this is because they are forced to resort to criminality to fund surgeries. We are also told three trans-identifed males were arrested when they defended themselves after a violent attack. They were each acquitted after Press For Change helped with their defence. Whittle uses this anecdote to suggest the CPS consider whether it is the public interest to prosecute trans people, who may be responding to a crime against them. At the same time transphobic crime should be recorded.

Manufactured martyrdom.

In drawing conclusions Whittle seems to get a burst of testosterone. Most of the incidents described are perfectly reasonable responses when faced with a male wishing to access female only spaces. The spectre of trans suicide rates is first invoked to set the scene for the demands which follow. Not sure post ”transition” suicide rates help the case in quite the way Whittle intends.

Be kind!

However, Whittle, is not prepared to let women defend our boundaries at the expense of trans identities. No, we must be forced to accept the eradication of women’s rights to validate people who deny their reality. Whittle claims to want only our “goodwill” but the language is of enforcement and learning the new rules. !

Punishment

Warming to the theme, Whittle continues.

The full force of the law must be brought to bear. This is not #BeKind it is #YouWillObey

You can support my work here. All my content is open access but I do incur costs.

Trying to ensure there is a record of the impact of Gender Identity Ideology and how we got here.

£10.00