Stephen Whittle: Q & A: Gender


Future of Gender: Part 3 : Q & A

This post covers the Q & A section of a talk given by Professor Stephen Whittle, at Durham University in 2015. We pick up the talk at 59:22.

This will be added to my series on Whittle which you can find here:

Stephen Whittle

You can watch the YouTube of Whittle’s talk here:

The Future of Gender

The first question relates to this book by David Valentine:

The book is based on ethnographic research looking at mainly MTF (Male to female “transgender” people) who he sought out in the drag balls, clinics, bars, support groups and cross-dressing organisations.

The term “transgender” was gaining currency in social settings but also in policy, medical terminology and the legislative context.

Nevertheless there was some resistance to the term “transgender” from the people Valentine encountered, in the nineties; people who preferred to be identified by their sexual orientation and not their “gender identity”. 👇

Whittle is asked if David Valentine is correct that the use of the term “transgender” creates implicit hierarchies, based on race and class.

Whittle chooses to answer the question in terms of the desire, and ability, to pass as the opposite sex, should you wish to do so. She makes an interesting observation on how liberating the computer was in allowing you to pass as the sex you wished you were. On-line “we were who said we were” . A lot of this movement is fostered by the dis-embodied lives of the internet generation. The problem arises when you take your fantasy into real life and demand that it be allowed to trump reality. Nevertheless, Whittle adds, the debate has moved on and “trans” people no longer aspire to “pass” or blend in with normative body types; because the expectation that “trans” people should disappear was “the most oppressive thing that ever happened to us”. My response: Expecting women to accept an obvious man in our single sex spaces is “the most oppressive thing that ever happened to women”.

Whittle follows this up celebrating how many “trans” people there are now in the world; how the smart phone has brought them into our living rooms and trans activists are spreading all over the world. I can think of no other condition where we would celebrate a group of people who are going to be dependent on #BigPharma for life.

The next question comes from an American who ask a question about medical focused on replicating “cis-bodies” . He /She is from the U.S where you can “buy whatever” and he wonders how Whittle feels about bodies “outside the binary”. Whittle gives a rather surprising answer to this, explaining the limitations of achieving a male body for a “trans” man and how she had to reconcile to that difference once she removed her clothes. She now looks on with alarm (this was seven years ago) at people taking flaps of skin from their arms to construct a facsimile of a penis; with all the limitations in terms of sexual function. She even goes so far as to question clinicians “Why are you doing it on kids?”

On “tran women” she is even more blunt.

Whittle elaborates on this theme admitting that there is a lot of denial/self-deception about surgical outcomes. It’s worth sharing these statements in full:

Whittle also points out that our bodies are not like flat pack IKEA furniture, something Mary Harrington calls this treating our bodies as “meat lego”.

Whittle recounts tales he has heard from mother’s who had sons left disappointed at the outcome of the surgeries and its failure to deliver the new life /girlfriend anticipated. Whittle admits a desire to be blunt about these facts and encourage more realistic expectations; though the message is somewhat undercut with the next bit about how having unrealistic dreams can be enjoyable, nevertheless.

There follows a question about how racism was tackled and the use of an essentialist position about race, as a political strategy, even though nobody really believes an essentialist position about race. Whittle is asked how that compares to the politics of “gender”. Whittle talks about how the aim should be that we don’t see “race” anymore. Then she makes an analogy with gender and the gender based violence perpetrated against you because you are a girl, or a boy. (Whittle thinks “gender” creates this violence). Whittle is not explicit about an exact political proposal but the inference is things should get better for females, and males, if we didn’t see “gender”. This ignores the fact that the kind of violence females are subjected to is, frequently, sexual violence, i.e. because of our biological sex. If we pretend sex isn’t real then we can’t see sexism and it’s naive to think this would eradicate sexual violence. Yet, at 1:17 Whittle admits they don’t even know what “gender” is.

The next question is about Facebook and their 51 gender identities. During this exchange we learn that Whittle was involved in the Facebook consultation and personally added six of these “gender identities”. As part of their answer Whittle talks about finding two women with a different style of clothing and, if he asked them to swap clothes, they wouldn’t because “it just isn’t me”. He then makes it clear that he thinks these different styles of dress are different “genders”. Whittle then claims the ability to spot 8 different woman genders based just on looking at women’s outfits! Also she finds it harder with men because their clothing is more. boring; making it abundantly clear he thinks “gender” is your sartorial choices. In the next breath, she says, if you have 51 genders it becomes meaningless and a civilised society will just get rid of the idea of “gender”. I agree we should get rid of the notion of “gender identity” and understand that we are shaped by the treatment we receive as a result of our biological sex and our behaviour, to some degree, is predicated on our biological sex. This does not mean we fit neatly into sexist stereotypes or that women should be limited by our biology, neither can we simply disregard that female bodies are different.

Whittle then talks about cultures that have more than one “gender”. There are, indeed, different cultures that accommodate men, usually gay, by the idea of a different kind of male/gender. These may be a benign way to include gay men. There are less examples of similar accommodations for females. The ones I have found are in societies hardly liberating for women. There are cultures that allow a girl to be treated as “male” if there are no sons in the family. This does not remedy the general position of girls in these societies, instead, it allows the societal structure, which renders girls as less desirable, to remain intact. Similarly societies which allow widows to don a “male” identity to provide for her family. The status of women doesn’t change and, in fact, this exception props up the existing sex hierarchy. See “Bacha Posh”

Or the Burnesha of Albania. 👇

Final question is about the different generations of “trans” people with different understandings of what it means. Does this have implications for the cohesion of the community?

Whittle answers with, firstly, that nobody needs to know your gender and most of the time you don’t need to know what sex people are. He thinks we are obsessed with knowing if you are men, or women, male or female. He adds an anecdote about having to produce documentation showing that he was a woman.

This final statement exposes the regressive nature of this cult. Whittle seems unable to imagine a world where a woman demands to be able to do anything irrespective of her sex. Instead “trans” is envisaged as a liberating project if, crucially, you repudiate your sex. Whittle seems to think the only way a woman can conceive of an occupation which is not “traditional” for women is by identifying out of your sex.

How about a world where women can aspire to transcend societally imposed restrictions, for women, and still own their sex? That would be progressive. Instead, Whittle, seems to live her life as if the only way she could love other women and storm the citadel of male domination is pretending to be a man.

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

My Substack

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


Stephen Whittle: Future of Gender


Part 1

This post covers a talk given by Professor Stephen Whittle at Durham University in 2015. It’s quite a long talk and there is a lot to cover so this is part 1.

This will be added to my series on Whittle which you can find here:

Stephen Whittle

You can watch the YouTube of Whittle’s talk here:

The Future of Gender

In the brief introduction Whittle’s achievements are listed and the fact that he advises governments around the world as well as the Council of Europe, European Union and The European Commission; bear this in mind when you listen to some of the more outlandish statements.

Whittle begins with an anecdote about how the concept of “gender” was explained to their four year old son, by Whittle’s wife, a nurse. He asked his parents how they know the twins were girls. This was the answer given to him:

Many years later Whittle overhears this same son passing on the same explanation to a friend and comments “we trained him well”. Whittle then elaborates on the process of sex determination by adding this explanation:

Next people with disorders of sexual development (DSDs) are pressed into service, to prop up gender identity ideology. At the risk of repeating myself, DSDs, do not mean anyone is born without a sex, we are a sexually dimorphic species. We are all either male or female.

Whittle anticipated the audience may be confused that she is questioning the Future of “Gender” when her whole life has been a quest to live as her “Gendered self”. So, why is she? The concept of “gender” ,she explains, has only a recent history. She then asks if Gender a matter of being “male” or “female”? Apparently the answer to that question is “no” because we also categorise animals as male or female but we don’t call them “girls” and “boys”. Well, we wouldn’t, would we,because this is the terminology for human beings. Apparently, this is because, according to Whittle, we don’t think dogs have a gender identity. (Conveniently overlooking that we do have words to differentiate the sexes in the animal kingdom).

Whittle then argues this is because “gender” is not “biologically related” and the gender you have is something separate from being biologically male or female. The next question is to ask if being male or female is socially constructed. Whittle says “possibly” and we will come back to this. He then asks if “masculine” and “feminine” are culturally determined. Apparently this is worth looking at in some depth so, Whittle promises, we will come back to it.

Whittle then examines whether we are defined by our hormones /chromosomes and then throws out a question to the audience asking if anyone knows what their chromosomes are. Predictably people don’t know. Whittle asks why we are defining humanity by our chromosomes when nobody knows what they are? This is a ludicrous argument. The number of people with chromosomal abnormalities is a tiny proportion of the population. Additionally, routine karyotype tests, to check for chromosomal abnormalities, at gender clinics, were abandoned; because they are not a feature of the referrals to such clinics. 99% of people can be correctly sexed with a simple observation of our genitalia. Whittle uses this argument to question one of the fundamental organising principles of society, based on biological sex. Our sex doesn’t always matter but sometimes it does; this could be for health reasons where your biological sex is a predictor of risk for certain health conditions; or where symptoms present differently in males and females. It matters for single sex spaces so women have safe spaces from the sex that commits 99% of sex offences.

Whittle uses this same argument to question the case of April Ashley, a male, who had his marriage annulled; because same sex marriage was illegal in the U.K at the time. Ashley had never tested their chromosomes, had removed their male genitalia and taken synthetic “female” hormones for decades. Whittle uses this argument to cast doubt on April’s sex to shore up her insistence that “gender identity” should take primacy over “sex”. She does this by casting doubt on the definition of biological sex and implying that April is a woman because their self-identity should take precedence over biological reality.

At 11:30 minutes in Whittle pokes fun at Civil Servants trying to establish if a Civil Partnership for same sex couples can be annulled on the grounds of non-consummation; ultimately they decided it couldn’t. This was because they could not decide which sex act would have to be performed to establish consummation. Whittle paints herself as the rational voice educating the stuffy Civil Servants. She also claims that she had to educate the Civil Servants on the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act which, in effect, allowed marriages for same sex couples, providing one had a Gender Recognition Act. I am not persuaded this happened.

Whittle then asks if “Gender” is a matter of attribution i.e. is it when we call our children our son or daughter that we somehow define their gender? This argument is, once again, intended to undermine the reality of biological sex and Whittle used her own situation to explain how this is flawed because:

The next consideration is to ask if “gender” is a matter of psychological differences. She doesn’t elaborate.

Whittle then argues that there are journals across the sciences, the natural sciences, biochemistry, psychology and even English Literature publishing hundreds of articles discussing “gender”, because it has become a profoundly important question. This question is only of importance to the navel-gazing, gender identity ideologues. Whittle then makes a joke about how it keeps people, invested in Gender Studies, in work. She is not wrong.

I am not going to lie the calibre of this talk is making me lose all respect for the Professorial class! Next Whittle says we have got the issue “arse about face” and proceeds to ask if anyone in the room fancies David Beckham. He assumes someone does, which is a fair assumption, but then she goes into the realms of gender woo woo.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say it’s reasonable to assume David Beckham has a penis and the discovery he had not, or had female genitalia, would be a deal breaker for heterosexual women, or gay men. It’s this kind of rhetoric that leads to confused teenage girls assuming gay men would be attracted to them. Exhibit A 👇 (Our kids really believe this).


In case it’s not clear Whittle thinks “gender presentation” drives sexual attraction. “Nothing whatsoever to do with their body”!

Bearing in mind Whittle is talking in 2015, the very year Stonewall added the T to its remit. 👇

Part two makes it clear Whittle knows the statistic about the sexual abuse women face and she still thinks abolishing single sex spaces is morally acceptable.

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

My Substack

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


Stephen Whittle: 2022


This is an interview that Stephen Whittle gave two weeks ago. I am going to cover it as part of my series on Whittle because it contains a very different narrative than the one I have heard recounted before. The rest of the series is here: 👇

Stephen Whittle

The interviewer begins by asking Whittle to share their back story. Whittle paints a picture of two parents who were immediately “affirming” and in fact had always known. This was the way her mum is alleged to have responded. This was in 1973.

While coming out to her mother her father walked in the room and he too was completely unfazed. Again, I am just going to point out this was in 1973.

Contrast this with what Whittle said about his father in this, 2007, interview in the Guardian:

2007 Interview

Or, consider what Whittle had to say about her mother, seven years ago, at Durham University.

You can find this quote at 12 minutes 48 seconds into this YouTube. (Which I will do a piece on because it’s full of WTF moments).

{I am pretty sure I have heard Whittle talking about years of estrangement from her parents and I will add if I can verify and locate the source.}

Stephen Whittle at Durham University

For the next bit I could use some Lesbians who were at the Women’s Liberation Conference in Edinburgh to comment. Whittle describes realising they didn’t fit in when the women circle danced naked in the evening; to much audience laughter. Whittle explains it was in that moment they knew this was not who they were. The decision to come out as a man was made and, the way Whittle tells it, all the feminist /Lesbian women were unsurprised and supportive; rallying round and finding “him” men’s clothes to pass on. One of the women even knew a “transsexual” they could introduce to Whittle; this was Carol Steele who I covered here:

Carol Steele: Trans Britain (Part 5)

This meeting proved fortuitous and together Whittle and Steele set up a support group for “trans” people this would become Press For Change. Whittle talks a lot about how they were involved in the Gay Switchboard and how they had fantastic support from Gay men. (As we will see in my next piece she, and the T more generally, repaid this by denying same sex attraction was based on the SEX of the person. This is betrayal of the highest order).

Whittle then talked about what tremendous support she had from Manchester Metropolitan University (then a Polytechnic), her employer, to socially “transition” at work. There appears to have been zero opposition at work, according to Whittle’s account. The interviewer then prompts Whittle to talk about the hard times (lest things get too upbeat) and Whittle duly obliges, revealing all the times they lost employment when forced to show their birth certificate. She also claims this was often accompanied by accusations of paedophilia and maintains this is what happens today when anyone expresses support for “trans children”. I am going to go out on a limb here and say these are prepared taking points.

Whittle describes how they studied the law, at night school, to enable her continue the journey to “transition” by living as a “man” while a student. She also realised the law could be used to further the strategic aims of the “trans” community. They looked for suitable test cases and Whittle talks us through the various legal victories, obtained by Press For Change, and some of the losses. Whittle failed to obtain the right to be recorded as the “Father” for the four children had by her wife, Sarah. At the same time, Whittle explained they always “spun” the losses as victories; which is an ongoing strategy. See this comment on Stonewall by Akua Reindorf 👇. This is from a report into Essex University who had de-platformed female speakers with “gender critical” beliefs. Essex University were found to have followed guidance from Stonewall, who train organisations, not on the law, as it is, but how they wish it to be.

Even more astonishingly, about the 30 minute mark, Whittle makes this claim either without a shred of self-awareness or as a deliberate falsehood.

In 1996 London Pride were persuaded to include the T and Whittle talks about taking the children who were entertained by a trans-identified male, Fay Presto, who was also a magician. (You can find fascinating documentaries about Fay Presto on YouTube). In 1997 they had their first stall at the Labour Party conference and Whittle shows a picture which includes Mo Mowlem and Cherie Booth (QC and wife of Tony Blair).

Whittle then describes how she set up a network of FTM (Female to Male) “trans” people and began sending out a regular newsletter which reached 4000 people before it ceased. The BBC also began showing documentaries about FTM people, called The Decision Make Me a Man. Whittle describes them as documentaries “we” made which suggests collaboration with the BBC commenced at least as early as the 90’s.

Next up Whittle reveals his psychiatrist, who was assessing his suitability for medical transition, told him he had not been approved. Whittle leaves the session in despair but tells this tale about what happened next. 👇

This anecdote serves as a useful jumping off point for Whittle to criticise the gatekeeping / safeguarding involved in a medical pathway and call it fundamentally flawed while promoting “trans” led health care. It is also an opportunity to promote the Manchester “Gender Identity”service that no longer requires any psychiatric assessment to access the medical pathway.

There follows a revealing discussion about Press For Change working with Government departments, Civil Servants and Ministers to draft the Gender Recognition Act. Whittle encounters some questioning from a Civil Servant and in walks David Lammy, the Minister responsiblefor getting the GRA into law. Here Lammy is painted as giving Whittle carte blanche.

Now to the “Culture Wars”

I typed this as I was watching and my fury is only matched by my incredulity at Whittles disingenuousness, which, at times, tips over into brazen, outright, lies.

The interviewers brings up the shocking “anti-trans” backlash happening in the U.K. This is how a defence of women’s rights and against the sterilising of children is framed. (Starts from 40 minutes in). Whittle, correctly, identifies the moves to try to allow any man to self declare a woman, and vice versa, as the trigger for women’s resistance. Whittle cites Ireland as the exemplar; and claims there have been no problem; which is wilful ignorance on her part. (See Barbie Kardashian).

Whittle also claims the “links” between women’s groups and the “Proud Boys” are only now becoming clear. (This is a reference to a alleged member of the right wing, Proud Boys, group who had a selfie taken with Posey Parker who had no idea who he was. Plenty of politicians have been caught out this way). Whittle believes the government are stoking a culture war to distract from issues of corruption, which they may well be, but there are plenty of left wing, trade unionist, women leading this fight. Whittle ignores those.

She then goes onto mock women’s fears about men in our intimate spaces; adding the threat that if we don’t want men in our intimate spaces we can have women, like her, back in the female loos. Now she is attacking crowdfunding which has allowed women to legally, defend our rights. What a patronising ar**! She is now saying naive people have been persuaded to give money to causes they don’t properly understand! Now she is mis-characterising the argument saying women think children are being given sex changes at the age of 12! Actually we oppose children being given puberty blockers at age 10. Fact! Teenage girls are getting double mastectomies in the U.K. Granted the age range is not as low as in the United States, where cases of thirteen years old girls getting these surgeries have been documented. Now he is alleging three million pounds have been poured into these legal cases and nobody knows where the money has gone! (Is there some confusion here with the Good Law Project who have been criticised for their fundraising strategy?)

Now she is acknowledging the social contagion element of females in flight from their sex but claims that the Gender Clinics would see these girls and explain why they are not “trans”. This after she has argued that “we know who we are” and psychological assessments are not necessary.

Jesus! Whittle is now acknowledging there are category errors happening with girls thinking they are trans and that she wants to be able to have that conversation but the hysteria around the topic means they are not allowed to! #NoDebate came from your side Whittle!

Now Whittle is disputing claims of issues with trans-ID males and patterns of criminality. She claims there has only been one incident of a pre-op “transwoman” exposing their penis to women and it was someone having a psychotic breakdown, who was mortified by what they had done. Anyone wanting to challenge Whittle on this can find numerous examples, just in the U.K , at this site 👇.

Trans Crime U.K.

This is just a snapshot. No doubt the “trans” community will claim some are not really “trans” but these are their rules. Steve Wright, for example, was a transvestite. That now comes under the trans umbrella. See also “We are who we say we are”.

Whittle then tells a tale of a “trans woman” friend who gets up at 3am to sort their make-up out and then uses this as an argument to say no men would go to all that trouble to access women’s spaces. Also the “trans woman” is more scared than you are! We are just at the outright lying stage now. The trans-identifying male is to be believed when he is too scared to use male spaces but women are not to be believed when we say we don’t want mixed sex facilities. Whittle also pleads with women to recognise that “trans women” are great allies to feminists.

We are nearly at the end and Whittle now suggests we are at the point where both sides can start to talk. He mentions the spectre of potential violence against the “trans” community by right wing men with guns or a “trans” kid being provoked into “doing something stupid” . Whittle also claims to have reached out to people he knows “on the other side” claiming he is concerned there will be another Jo Cox incident; she then specifically invokes Eddie Izzard as a visible and vulnerable person. What Whittle is hoping is that she can reach out to make a secret deal with “moderate” voices.

No more back room deals!

I hope none of the feminists, who Whittle is approaching, don’t get blinded by flattery: {“You are one of the reasonable voices” } and think they can give away some women’s rights to appease the likes of Whittle; #NoPenisInOurTime.

Questions from the audience.

First question is what can business do to support “trans” colleagues.

Whittles answer is they can remember we exist and support trans day of remembrance for all the dead trans people, who have been murdered (None, in the U.K. is the answer for the last few years). Cue loads of hyperbole about trans murder rates using global data. (Facts below) She also claims that hardly any companies remember to note this day which is another egregious lie.


Whittle is asked about the conflict between women’s rights and trans rights. Gives an answer about knowing what it’s like to be a teenage girl and how she wouldn’t dream of using women’s spaces, which is hardly the point, but then says “trans women” also don’t want men in women’s spaces and have a lot in common with you if you just sit down and talk. She also makes a veiled threat that, if we don’t want men in our spaces she could start using them and “you wouldn’t want that”.

Whittle seems to be quite keen to signal a willingness to have dialogue and claims that her side are willing to come together to talk but the “other side” don’t turn up unless it’s to shout “penis” at a trans woman. Again this is blatant lying. Who was it who coined #NoDebate? How many discussions did Stonewall manage to stop by refusing to turn up and allowing the BBC to claim discussion could not go ahead “without balance”?

A man who is from an organisation for the Supporters of Sexual violence (in Brighton) claims all the people in the sector are “trans-inclusive” but there are problems with “grifters” using crowd funding to litigate against this approach. He goes on to accuse “cis, lesbian” women actively trying to close down sexual violence services. {I think he is talking about a case asking if a rape crisis service, in Brighton, would provide a single sex group, in addition to the trans inclusive and the trans only service. She was refused}.

Whittles answer is that, as a group, they have to be clever and, by implication, outsmart the legal challenges. I will cover Whittle’s other talk, which I linked above, in another blog.

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

My Substack

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


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 flabbered 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.


C. Burns: Trans Britain: Part 17

Part Three: Growth

This chapter acts as a bridge from the historic movement and introduces the younger generation and the new set of demands. In this next part of the series this is who you can expect to meet.

Burns rehashes much of the earlier content in this chapter, reflects on past achievements and looks forward to more change from the new generation of activists. It is possible, and I am hopeful, that the hubris on display will provoke a serious challenge to this ideology in the coming decade. The chapter was written in 2017 and the landscape in the U.K is very different in Terf Island in 2022.

This sentence provoked an outburst of : “What more do they want?” from me. I expect we will find out soon enough.

This paragraph was reminiscing of a paragraph in Stephen Whittle’s paper called “Engendered Penalties”. 👇 This seems to presage the age of thought police which we are now living through. The problem people involved in this movement are demanding that we suppress natural instincts without which the species would not have survived. Much as these people wish to smash heteronormativity they cannot deny that every one of them was born of a mother. Heterosexuals are the majority and eventually (already?) people will get sick of the trans tyranny. My worry is that the backlash will extend beyond the T and generate backlash against the LGB too.

The Whittle paragraph I was thinking of came from a document I covered in this piece.

Engendered penalties: Whittle

Enforcement and Punishment

We are in the authoritarian phase of trans activism as demanded by Whittle.

Finally Whittle ends with a bit of transperbole about being able to sleep safely in their beds. I wonder how the women, incarcerated with rapists, sleep?

Whittle seems to have said the quiet part out loud while Burn’s claims these are the three priorities for the future.

Funny how women are berated for demanding we remain a sex class and not made invisible. Trans activists want to be included as “women” but simultaneously campaign for the words women use to describe our lives as “trans-exclusionary”. At the same time they are outraged at any failure to create a special category of “trans”. See this on the EHRC 👇. Trans women are women but the word women is treated as a trans exclusionary word! Make it make sense!

A similarly outraged paragraph appears when the NHS set up a Sexual Orientation Advisory group without pandering to the perpetually pissed off. Now a specific service for gay people cannot be allowed to leave out the genderists.

I will finish on this dishonest claim. Far from destroying sex stereotypes the trans movement has readied them and carved them into, and out of, their own flesh.

Trans activism is an attack on feminism at a fundamental level. This is just a new backlash. I am anticipating that part three will showcase some of the more left field ideas of the past two decades and how their excessive demands sowed the seeds of their own destruction, as an ideology. And, no, this is not a call for “trans” genocide simply a call for reality to reassert itself.

You can support my work, should you wish, either via my paypal or consider a paid subscription to my substack. Every donation helps me to keep going and to keep my content open in solidarity with the economically challenged.

My substack

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


Who decides if I am a woman?


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.


Stephen Whittle 2


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.


Engendered penalties: Whittle


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 👇


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. !


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.