Are gay people better off without Stonewall?

I have been meaning to cover this discussion for ages. It was hosted by Tortoise Media and had voices from across the “debate”.

You can watch it here:

Are gay people better off without Stonewall?

The host (referee) is a bit nervous about this discussion and recognises that the topic can be very divisive. She also states that she is a Lesbian so has skin in the game.

Jan Gooding

First introduction goes to Jan Gooding, ex Trustee of Stonewall. Here’s a bit of background on Jan. Main background is in marketing and I did have a wry chuckle at “Brand Reputation Specialist!

It was during Gooding’s time that Stonewall reviewed all their successes, legislatively and looked at their future direction. They had already achieved the repeal of Section 28 and sexual orientation was legal as well as same sex marriage. Seems they needed a new agenda.

Jan did not mention the $100,000 they took from the Arcus Foundation, specifically for them to add the T to their lobbying.

You can learn more about Gooding from her Stonewall review for 2018. #NoDebate

Jan Gooding: 2018

Targeting the Pink Pound.

During Gooding’s time at Stonewall that made many lucrative partnerships and this is one did start to look as if wooing the private sector was a key strategic priority. This is one of Stonewall’s partners; who are salivating at all the £££.

She talks about the history of Stonewall and how it was set up to oppose Section 28 legislation. For readers outside the U.K this was brought in by a conservative govt and banned the “promotion of homosexuality” in schools. Jan is then asked about Stonewall revenue schemes and she makes a couple of interesting comments. Apparently Ben Summerskill of Stonewall was against taking government money but all that changed and the government actively wanted a partnership with Stonewall.

The irony of her next statement was not lost on me given the fact that Stonewall has been misrepresenting the Equality Act consistently and accused of promoting not the law but the law as they would wish it to be. (Source: Akua Reindorf)

Specifically Stonewall set out their aim to undermine the protected characteristic of “sex”; specifically the right to legally protected female only spaces. This is an excerpt from their Vision For Change document.

The presenter then takes a question from an ex volunteer, for Stonewall, in the chat. He describes how he worked in Equality and Diversity but had been put off by the “hard sell” from Stonewall employees exhorting him to join the diversity scheme. He also had grave misgivings about the way Stonewall had embraced “trans” rights in choosing to adopt an extreme version which pushed for “Gender Identity” to be affirmed in all circumstances. Additionally, he also felt Stonewall’s choice to adopt a #NoDebate strategy and refusing to discuss the genuine conflict of rights this raised was a “lethal combination”.

The next commentator (Jonny Best) was again a long term supporter of Stonewall, and a gay man, who took issue with Stonewall’s condemnation of Lesbians who protested Pride in 2018. The group Get The L Out were protesting the Lesbian erasure and the insistence that same sex attraction is inherently transphobic because the women don’t accept trans-identifying males as partners. From his perspective Stonewall is now a Gender Identity Activism organisation who have redefined same sex attraction as problematic and, in so doing, reintroduced a kind of “gay shame”. Asked for a solution he says Stonewall has done so much damage it is now unsalvageable and should disband. Another gay man (Hassan Mandani) concurs and says Stonewall have tried to redefine his same sex attraction as “same gender” attracted thereby erasing the experience of gay men who are same sex attracted.

Christine Burns

After those questions, from the gay men, the presenter decides it is a good time to bring Christine Burns into the discussion. Burns is a trans-identified male and founder of a trans lobby group Press for Change, he also advises Stonewall. He explains that Press For Change was set up as a “trans” lobby group determined to establish their rights through strategic litigation. After outlining successive legal victories obtained by Press for Change the presenter then asks why they had not continued on their own? The answer from Burns is that Stonewall operated on a bigger scale and had money. Burns also reveals they had been working with the NHS after 2007 and also the Press Complaints Commission. Burns also reveals he worked closely with Ruth Hunt at the Department of Health. In addition Burns claims that same sex attracted people are discriminated against because of their perceived gender non-conformity and therefore they should work together.

Bev Jackson: Kate Harris

The presenter now brings in Bev Jackson of LGB Alliance. Bev explains that she and others had tried very hard to get Stonewall to engage over many years and it was only in the face of their intransigence that a decision was made to set up a new organisation. Stonewall’s strategy of #NoDebate had left them with no alternative. Bev also explains that people disagree and calling people “bigots” because they disagree is not helpful.

Christine Burns (Again)

After this brief segment Burns interrupts to state that the “nastiness” had only started in 2017 when Theresa May proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act. Burns had worked on the GRA and claims that many compromises were made to get it passed. The delay, Burns argues, had left a vacuum into which many bad faith actors had entered. 👇(Worth saying, at this point, that significantly more time has been allocated to pro-Stonewall voices at this point).

It is not clear whether this accusation is levelled at the previous speakers but Burns clarifies that he is not talking about people in this conversation but, nevertheless, the people on this call “seem to have the same mindset”. CB also makes it clear that Stonewall are right in their #NoDebate stance because there should be no negotiation about the rights he has enjoyed “quietly and politely” for the last decades. Finally Burn’s recommends reading his book to get educated. This is good advice. You can read an excerpt below about how they strategised to force mixed sex spaces on women; by experimenting on female prisoners.

The presenter seems conscious of the inequity in the time allocates so now brings in Kate Harris.

Kate Harris: LGB Alliance.

Kate says what we were all thinking. “Christine you have been speaking far too much”. 😂. Then she directs a comment to Jan Gooding; pointing out that she and others spent nearly three years trying to get dialogue with herself and Ruth Hunt including a petition signed by 10,000 people. Not going to lie, I had to break off during Kate’s contribution which was deeply moving.

Kate continues to explain that her life being ruined is not as much of a concern as the young people who have been impacted by Stonewall adopting Gender Identity Ideology in its new incarnation.

Kate continues to outline to focus of LGB Alliance who are in the business of telling the truth and having fact based dialogue and telling Lesbians you do not have to cut off your breasts and pretend you are a boy to be a Lesbian. Kate makes it clear she blames Stonewall for this (so do I) and also for men in women’s sports and for propagating the lies that Gender Identity Ideology is built upon. Finally Kate points out that the fastest growing demographic of supporters of LGB Alliance are “transsexuals”. At the end she asks Benjamin Cohen, of Pink News to stop lying about LGB Alliance. He doesn’t of course because he is in deep. Husband is /was a Trustee of Mermaids.

I don’t know who the next contributor is but he makes an excellent point about organisations that become part of the establishment, eventually, and because they feel they have succeeded in their earlier missions they look for new areas and this is when they can take mis-steps. He refers to the new direction as “mission creep” which has confused lots of natural allies. He also refers to recent homophobic attacks which shows Stonewall still have lots to do on their original mission. He finishes by saying that he hopes the conflict between “trans” people and LGB people can be resolved.

Christine Burns interjects (Again).

He tries to go on but the presenter cuts him off, very politely and brings in a young bisexual who has a boyfriend but has dated women and been publicly harassed for doing so. She explains that she is finding the whole discussion really distressing. She finds the prospect of losing Stonewall scary and references recent draconian, anti-gay legislation in Hungary.

Next up is a straight woman, Ruth Kennedy, who is grateful for the debate and says Stonewall has done great work but is now pushing a version of “trans” rights which is coming into conflict with other protected characteristics and that is a problem and in some contexts, sex matters and it should not be controversial to articulate this. Turns out she is an ex-premier ship Rugby player and is clear that sex matters in sport.

Next up is a woman who is disappointed at the amount of spats and personal point scoring going on. We then move on to the co-founder of Tortoise Media, who are hosting this debate. James Harding makes the point that this event has shown there is a need for this discussion and also how we generally hope a debate ends with consensual agreement but the nature of some debates is this is not always the outcome.

Jonny Best is now invited to share his thoughts about how the LGB could include the T. First of all Stonewall should not compel belief in Gender Identity Theory. He is also critical of Stonewall’s definition of “transphobia” which was a “totalitarian step” because it does demand acceptance of the belief system of “gender identity”. He knows this would not have satisfied many “trans” identified people who find it painful that people are allowed to disbelieve a fundamental belief about your identity. At the same time it was enforcing this ideology which, in his view, was where Stonewall went wrong.

Back to Jan Gooding.

Jan feels some of the accusations levelled at Stonewall misrepresent the organisation. She explains that it is not true they don’t debate and they are in dialogue all the time. That said Stonewall starts from a position of acceptance and here is Jan explaining why there can be #NoDebate

She continues to outline what follows from this premise. We have to accept people are who they say they are, they need to live their lives without shame, with dignity and able to use the loos, alongside people, without insults and without being “misgendered” They need the possibility of playing sport.

She finishes with her belief that the majority of “sensible” people accept Stonewall’s stance and calls “trans” people our siblings in the “queer” community who need to live lives of dignity and respect free from violence. So, basically, has not shifted her stance at all or answered the questions put to her by other people on the call and, in particular, from Kate Harris.

The End.

You can support my work here. If you have intended to do it before, now might be a good time since paypal are banning gender critical voices and I have just put my head above the parapet by formally complaining.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

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

£10.00

Graham Linehan: On Newsnight

As an archivist I have tended to cover people who are key influencers in this debate, but I have probably focused too much on those with whom I disagree. To remedy this I am going to give Graham his own series. I know it’s not exactly Netflix but his role needs to be on the record. I will start with his appearance on Newsnight, interviewed by Sarah Smith. Transcript below and a link to the YouTube.

Linehan Newsnight

Sarah Smith interviews Linehan

Smith starts the interview in, what seems to me, an accusatory tone. Full disclosure, I dislike this style of interview intensely, with both male and female interviewers. I think the idea is that if you rattle the subject they may reveal more than they otherwise would. At the same time, female interviewers tend to come in for more criticism, in general, and clearly it’s a very emotive topic, for me, so, I am not exactly impartial. That said, having watched it a few times, I am inclined to agree with Linehan’s sense that it was an ambush. Here is how the interview opens, after a perfunctory introduction. 👇

White Knighting?

Linehan explains that he felt obliged to step into the debate because he was witnessing the abuse and vilification heaped upon women, like Jane Clare Jones and Kathleen Stock, Graham felt a duty to speak up and also more able to, as he is self-employed. (As we have seen this did not protect him). Had a woman said this it would be unproblematic but I could already see he would be vulnerable to the accusation of “White Knighting” (Smith will raise this later in the interview). As an aside, men really can’t win on this one. I have been irritated myself with Johnny Come-Latelies entering the fray, who seem unaware the women have not been screaming from the rooftops, on this topic, for years and years. Linehan has been at this for years, at significant personal cost, and it is difficult to navigate how to be a male ally in this fight. I would just say, in comparison to Matt Walsh, Linehan is practically Graham Greer.

Also, to feminists like Janice Raymond and Sheila Jeffries, I am a Jane-Come-Lately and, no doubt they are, justifiably, irritated their pioneering work gets less mainstream attention, than it should. In the end I suspect the media will amplify whichever voices they find more palatable /moderate, to the frustration of us all.

Toxic Debate

Next Smith questions whether Linehan is adding to the debate in a constructive manner. 👇

Graham asks for examples and she duly delivers, with a bit of a chuckle, I might add. I presume she doesn’t think these interventions are funny because she is highly critical of Linehan’s rhetoric. So is it a “gotcha” chuckle?

It’s worth pointing out that Smith seems unaware that women are routinely called “Nazi” ; for speaking up about sex based rights or opposing “trans” medical treatments given to children. This, sadly is not confined to those my son dismisses as “nutters on the internet” The Council of Europe and a coalition of “Charitable foundations” have badged the disparate group, opposed to gender ideology as “anti-gender” activists. This has allowed them to lump U.K. feminists /femalists in with Hungary’s Viktor Orban, for one. Orban is also keen, on restricting of both abortion and gay rights; treating us as if we are allies is known as the association fallacy and is intended to discredit us. I have done a series on these documents which you can read here:

Smith is confusing a retaliatory /defensive strategy for a pre-emptive strike.

Here is how Smith responds. I wonder if this is already coming back to haunt her.

Puberty Blockers!

Graham responds to defend his position, pointing out that we are performing experimental treatment on young women but it is actually worse than that. We are giving these drugs to children, of both sexes, as young as ten.

I believe the actual drug used in the U.K. is triptorelin, which, by the way, is also used to chemically castrate sex offenders. The specific drug is relevant in the U.K because the makers of Triptorelin are Ferring Pharmaceuticals, who gave the Liberal Democrats, U.K political party, £1.4 million in donations.

I did a piece on this funding.

Liberal Democrats & Big Pharma

Furthermore, children put on puberty blockers will invariably progress to cross sex hormones. (98%) and they will be sterile and have ruined sexual function. Don’t take my word for it, here is Marci Bowers; a trans-identified male and a surgeon who performs surgery on “trans” patients. (Infamously on Jazz Jennings).

I should also add that Bowers also works to try to help rectify female genital mutilation and is one of the most high profile to speak up about this. Cynics may see this as damage limitation, and it could be self-interested, it could also be a genuine concern at seeing the results of puberty blockers on the operating table. This is because boys will have stunted genitalia which will not only make it harder to re-identify with their sex but will also make any genital surgery more difficult; crudely there will be less material to work with.

Less heat, more light, Sarah.

This is Smith’s response to the concerns raised about puberty blockers. I am tempted to say “less heat, more light,Sarah!”. Notice she does not respond to the substance of Linehan’s point but dismisses his expertise and focuses on the “offence” angle. Well, given this is happening to my son I frequently call it “Mengele Medicine”. Sue me!

Graham pushes back hard on this point and his rebuttal comes across strong when you watch him speaking. (at the 2:30 point). Here is the exchange. Notice she cuts him off and doesn’t allow him, from my vantage point, to make his point.

I also found this an astonishing admission after Linehan raises the issue of the 35 staff members who have departed the Tavistock. Many of those ex-staff became whistleblowers and some of them were interviewed by other Newsnight Staff!

I am inclined to concur with the theory that Newsnight were worried about the excellent research done by other journalists on the same team. This may represent real divisions in the Newsnight team or a belief that a hostile interview, with Linehan, would persuade Stonewall et al, of their “balance”. (The BBC was still in various Stonewall “schemes” at this point.).

Bodily autonomy versus child safeguarding.

Sarah also seems to be woefully unaware, or disingenuous, of what is being taught in schools about “gender Identity”; I am going with disingenuous because her own employer produced something, aimed at children, claiming there are a hundred genders. She seems to be arguing for bodily autonomy here 👇. Remember kids are referred to the Tavistock as young as three and we start puberty blockers at 10 years old. Should it be entirely up to them?

Graham pushes hard back at this point and again, you can see the passion and urgency in the recording. (Time stamp 3:07).

Smith is utterly dismissive on this point; calling it ridiculous exaggeration.

Gay Eugenics.

Graham then brings up the reports of homophobic parents at the Tavistock.

Here are the reports of the Tavistock whistleblowers supporting his claim. Smith studiously avoids responding to this point.

Both sides!

Linehan makes it clear that the women he supports are being deplatformed, attacked and getting rape and death threats online. He sees it as his role to amplify these voices. He says he would be happy to step aside once they are given a fair hearing. He also points out that he has had threats, police visits and been doxxed, as had his wife.

Smith does not respond to any of this. Nothing about the sterilisation of proto-gay kids. Nothing about the silencing of women, the threats or aggression. Instead she, predictably, attacks him for his presumption.

There is some repetition of Smith accusing Linehan of ramping up the toxicity of the debate as if the interviewer wants the viewer to be left with that impression and not what is being done to children. She shows no curiosity about this, at all; which is shocking for an ordinary citizen, let alone for a, purported, journalist.

Graham points out that a number of prominent people, even ex Stonewall founders, pleaded with Stonewall to open dialogue, precisely, to detoxify the discussion. Stonewall refused, the same day. Smith could have probed this a little further but, instead, she read out a prepared statement from Stonewall. There is no surprises in their content, it’s the usual claim that “trans” people are oppressed, abused and hate crime victims.

Graham is allowed a final response until he is cut off. He is cut off at the word children which seems fitting since this is what will be remembered from this interview; the complete unwillingness to consider that something really dark was happening at the Tavistock.

Conclusion.

Linehan is probably correct in his assessment that this interview was not a serious attempt to address the concerns he, and many others, were raising. However it felt, at the time, I think he has been vindicated and Sarah Smith should be haunted by her role. Imagine if so many journalists had not failed to do their job? Had this been stopped at the time of this interview maybe the reckless prescribing, currently harming my son, would have been stopped.

Final word to another Tavistock whistleblower.

If you think what I am doing is worthwhile you can support me here.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women’s rights, child safeguarding, freedom of speech and the truth. Speaking up in the hope that people wake up to the harm we are doing to our gay, autistic and other vulnerable groups.

£10.00

Nancy Kelley

Interview with Jessica Parker for the BBC. Link below.

Nancy Kelley May 2021

The interview took place after one of the fourteen founders of Stonewall, Matthew Parris, criticised the organisation. He is not along among the founders but joins Simon Fanshawe who also believes the former gay lobby group has lost its way. Here is why Parris is disillusioned. 👇

Kelley is dismissive of his concerns.

Section 28

It is worth remembering that Stonewall was formed to defend Gay rights during the era of Section 28. This piece of legislation was introduced under Margaret Thatcher’s government with the intention of stopping the “promotion” of homosexuality. The legislation was repealed in the year 2000, in Scotland, and in 2003 in England and Wales. This has been very hard to live down for the Conservative party and is partly explains why there has been a slow response to the promotion of Gender Identity Ideology in schools. To neophytes it looks as if any opposition is akin to eighties style homophobia. In reality, the idea gender non-conforming children should be medicalised, via puberty blockers, followed by cross sex hormones, disproportionately affects proto-gay kids. These are the statistics on referrals to the U.K. Gender Clinic. Natal females are in blue, males in orange.

Arcus Foundation

After the repeal of section 28, Stonewall still had work to do, to provide legal protection for gay couples. In 2004 legislation was passed to enable gay couples to enter a Civil Partnership; prior to this gay couples could find themselves unable to inherit their husband, or wife’s, assets or even to be in charge of funeral arrangements.. In 2010 the Equality Act was passed; which made sexual orientation a legally, protected characteristic. Finally in March 2014 the same sex marriage act passed into law. Stonewall found itself with less headline grabbing work to do. In 2015 the gay rights charity accepted $100,000 from the Arcus Foundation, money which was conditional on Stonewall adding the T to LGB.

You can read more about the Arcus Foundation here;

ARCUS FOUNDATION GRANTS

So, when Nancy Kelley became CEO, of Stonewall, it was a very different organisation to the one her predecessor, Ruth Hunt, inherited.

Free Speech

Stonewall now finds itself having the defend the idea that Lesbians have a penis and it is no longer “SEXual orientation” but “same gender attraction”. Unsurprisingly many people oppose this and after trying to impose a blanket ban, arguing for #NoDebate, on discussing Gender Identity Ideology, Stonewall now find themselves opposed by many who would have been its natural supporters.

Stonewall now find themselves opposing the Equality and Human Rights Commission who, somewhat belatedly, came out in favour of women’s right to discuss this issue. (The previous Chair of the EHRC, David Isaacs, came via Stonewall, which may have coloured his views).

Stonewall were clearly rattled by the intervention of the EHRC, who also cautioned the Scottish government about their plan to allow “self-identification” as the sex you wish you were. This was a provocation too far, for the Trans Lobby group, who appealed to the United Nations to intervene. The EHRC is accredited, as a Human Rights organisation, by the United Nations and, it seems, Stonewall wished to see this removed.

Kelley’s response to the EHRC is displayed below:

Writing this in the wake of Salman Rushdie’s stabbing gives new urgency on the right to defend free speech. 👇

Stonewall Law

Nancy denies that Stonewall are giving bad advice to the members of its protection racket, oops, Diversity Schemes.

The new spin from Stonewall when they are caught lying about the law.

Here is what Akua Reindorf said in the above mentioned report: “the law as Stonewall would prefer it to be rather than the law as it is”.

Unrepentant Nancy?

The attempt to label womens rights campaigners as akin to one of the most egregious forms of racism is rather too common in Trans Supremacist circles.

It is no accident. Accusations of “transphobia” have been denuded of their power, likely through their over abundant use, hence the escalation. Here is Judith Butler comparing us to fascists. 😳

750F76B7-4505-4823-B3CA-2AEFB30A4E4C

Nancy Kelley is what I call a Vichy Feminist. How any self-respecting Lesbian could be the midwife for this regressive, mysogynistic, lesbian hating ideology is beyond my underst££ding.

If you can afford to support my work it would be gratefully received. I have just had my annual bill for software and I am working up to get my stolen garden gate replaced. 😳. Only if you have ££ to spare. Irrespective my content will remain open access.

D35496A1-6A40-413E-9A06-28E4F8EB3D8C

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

Archiving information about the latest popular delusion.

£10.00

Nancy Kelley: Woman’s Hour

As promised this is a record of Nancy Kelley’s interview with Emma Barnett. You can listen to it here:

Here is a transcript.

Nancy Kelley WH interview 18th Nov 2021

The interview opens with a soft question about why Kelley wanted to become the CEO for Stonewall to which Nancy gives a predictable answer about wanting to “give back”. During the course of the interview we learn that Nancy is in a fifteen year marriage, to an American woman . They then covers a Lesbian couple and their fight to get access to in vitro-fertilisation. Then the interviewer, Emma Barnett dives in to the most controversial topic.

Nancy’s agrees that the BBC needs to be seen to be impartial but this part of the answer might be called disingenuous /damage limitation give Stonewall, at this time was haemorrhaging participants in its various, money making schemes. 👇

Barnett is not letting Kelley get away with that and responds “But, the sense where you said the BBC doesn’t agree with itself, well it obviously did, it pulled out”. She then goes on to make a really good point that all these organisations are actually paying money to a lobby group, to be lobbied. It is worth a reminder, at this stage, of how Ruth Hunt described these schemes. It was not flattering to the participants, it made them look rather gullible.

Nancy plays down the role of Stonewall schemes explaining that they have one strand of work to help firms become more “inclusive” (She uses this word repeatedly and I would have preferred for her to be pushed on what this means. To me, now, it means make sure men can invade female spaces). Then they have a “completely separate” team the lobby politicians and work with the media. Barnett presses her on this and Kelley conceded the two teams nevertheless have the same goals.

Next Kelley is tackled on the detail of the Workplace Equality Scheme and, in particular that Stonewall evaluate submissions from the scheme participants and suggest ways they can get an improved score. Following Stonewall “suggestions” helps get your company higher up the rankings and there will be entire teams who are set a performance objective to complete for an improved place on the Workplace Equality Index.

Nancy is also keen to emphasise that membership doesn’t compromise editorial integrity, at the BBC, which stretches credulity to breaking point. Kelley denies that the BBC is aggressively pro-trans rights and, in fact, argues it tips the other way. Nancy maintains their role is only advisory and they do not have control over what an organisation does. Furthermore she says she only wishes she had more influence.

Stonewall and the Scottish Government.

Next Barnett tackles Kelley about a leaked Freedom of information request, that illustrates how Stonewall encouraged the Scottish government to drop the word “Mother” from its maternity leave policy. Kelley insists that she doesn’t want the word “mother” eradicated, as a mum herself. She claims the FOI document is historic and Stonewall give a range of advice leaving it up to their scheme members to decide the course of action.

Barnett points out that the document is only two years old and that Stonewall did push to remove “all gendered language” from the Maternity policy and raises this with Kelley:

Next Nancy denies that Stonewall have an interest in changing language and illustrates this beautifully by talking about “cis” and “trans”. This was in response to a direct question about whether she believes people can change their biological sex. She avoids saying no or yes by talking about changing sex characteristics and claiming that everyone knows that “trans” bodies and “cis” bodies are different.

Sexual Racists.

Next Kelley is asked about Stonewall’s acceptance of male lesbians or “transbian’s” or females who identify as gay men. This section covers what Nancy had to say about lesbians who exclude males from their dating pools. Nancy lumps a belief in biological sex, women’s rights to exclude men from our spaces and Lesbians refusal of “lady penis” is on a par with anti-semitism”. 👇

This speaks to the right of lesbians to exclude men from their dating pools and has particular impact on dating apps and attempts to have Lesbian only events. This is no longer a hypothetical scenario: Tasmania a Lesbian groups has recently been told their women only, Lesbian nights are now illegal.

Nancy alleges that she was not talking about dating practices and that her wording was rather clumsy. This would be believable we’re it not for the fact that numerous trans-activists have used exactly the same argument.

Barnett then digs up another quote from Nancy :

Then we get onto Kelley’s dating preferences. A moot point because she is safely married. She claims to respect either people’s dating preferences and that she is “trans-inclusive”. Pretty confident this is a big fat lie and she knows she won’t have to walk the walk. This is the most despicable betrayal of Lesbians, especially newly out, young Lesbians.

Nancy slips in a “trans women are women” during this spiel and Barnett asks her if she is talking metaphorically. Kelley simply answers “literally”.

There follows a brief reference to the protection of Gender Critical beliefs which is clearly about the Forstater case but Barnett does not name it. Nancy ties herself in knots acknowledging that “Gender Critical” beliefs may be protected but there are limitations in how you express them. What Kelly would like is to create a world where you are allowed to think these things but you should not verbalise them.

Is JK Rowling a transphobe?

This section interrogates Kelley’s views on the world famous author. She tries to duck the question but ends up going round in circles about whether Rowling is a “transphobe” but, in the end, claiming that she had a large platform and had said things that had “caused harm” to trans people. Barnett does quite a good job in this section as she pushes Kelley to explain what she has said that was “transphobic”. Kelley pretty much ends up agreeing that an individual woman has the right to a single sex service if she has been raped or suffered domestic violence but still implies there is something wrong with saying this in the public square. I think she skewers Nancy in this bit and she does sound a bit petulant in places.

Kathleen Stock

This section was less satisfactory. Nancy manages to come across as reasonable and she expresses empathy for what Kathleen went throug, but, there are some very big buts. Barnett seems unwilling to raise the fact that Kathleen is a Lesbian, who Stonewall should protect. I think this made this section weaker than it should be. Stonewall’s CEO should have asked why they were silent on the harassment of a Lesbian.

Kelley affects to know little about the Stock case and falls back on the idea that Universities are responsible for adjudicating on staff issues. The Stonewall model seems to be built on encouraging their clients to over-extend/break the law and then running away when they’re are consequences. Any organisation still paying to be in this protectionless, protection racket needs to get a new head of Human Resources.

The interview ends with some general talk about how Stonewall are working to protect LGBTQ+ kids in school.

Nolan Podcast

Barnett ends the interview but added a couple of postscripts. Confirmation that Stonewall had attempted to get the word “mother” dropped from a maternity leave policy. The Scottish government claim they have not removed the word. Finally a, dignified, “no comment” from the Rowling team.

This piece is part of a series on Nancy Kelley’s public utterances. There’s not as much in the public domain as there is on Ruth Hunt. You can find the Nancy Kelly series and Ruth Hunt, former CEO, below.

If you can support my work with a gift here is one way you can do so. My content is all open access but I do have expenses so any help is much appreciated.

D35496A1-6A40-413E-9A06-28E4F8EB3D8C

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

Researching Gender Identity Ideology to document the madness and fight for the end to medicalising healthy bodies and trashing women’s rights.

£10.00

MORGAN PAGE: Stonewall Ambassador

Morgan Page is a member of the Stonewall Advisory group (STAG).

I have deferred this blog until the end of Alison Bailey’s Employment Tribunal, because Page featured in that case. Alison is a Black, Lesbian, barrister who is taking her Chambers to court alleging discrimination. The case hinges on whether Garden Court Chambers colluded with Stonewall to dish out treatment designed to have an adverse impact on Bailey’s career / income. You can read about Alison’s case here 👇

Cotton Ceiling

Morgan is a trans-identifed male who made an appearance in the tribunal because he infamously ran this workshop. 👇. The “Cotton Ceiling” refers to the underwear of Lesbian’s who, naturally enough, don’t wish to engage in sexual activity with men, even those who think they are women. Note also that this workshop was only open to men, here referred to as MAAB, meaning male assigned at birth. This is a queer theory version of the Pick Up Artist with added creepiness.

This was Alison Bailey’s comment on that Workshop 👇 (from the employment tribunal transcript).

This generated outrage at Garden Court Chambers who described it as “bloody shocking”

“Trans” social group: Toronto

You can also read about the time Page ran a ”trans” social group in Toronto and the experience of a young Lesbian, who was then trans-identified. This article appeared on the 4thWaveNow website. Below are a few key quotes.

GNC Centric and her “trans” youth group

In what appears to be a now deleted YouTube, Page talked about being a former prostitute and providing blow jobs. Despite all this being in the public domain Stonewall took issue with a description of their staff member as a ”stripper”.

Morgan was invited to speak at Slut Walk in Toronto and used the platform to attack radical feminism and claim that ”transwomen” were literally dying on the street because they were refused access to female only rape shelters. During this talk, to rapturous applause, Page referred to women as ”Cis” and explained this meant ”none transwomen”.

Page at Slut Walk

Page also did an elaborate thread, since deleted, attacking Janice Raymond, author of Transsexual Empire, accusing her and all Gender Critical Feminists, of stoking a genocide of trans people.

For those of you who have not read Janice Raymond’s work, or followed women resisting Gender Identity Ideology, this is a gross mischaracterisation. A medicalised identity, involving a life time of cross sex hormones and varying levels of surgeries, should be a last resort. Nobody sane would wish to create a class of people dependent on #BigPharma.

No other, purported, human rights, movement has allowed one class of people to claim the identity of an oppressed group. Furthermore the new eunuch class have proceeded to invert reality in order to claim that women; the people being colonised, are actually the ones harming our new overlords. This movement only makes sense if you fetishise the idea of women as a “victim class”. More victimised = more of a woman. By this twisted logic women have “cis-privilege” over men who identify as women.

“Trans feminism”.

A few samples of ”trans” feminism from prominent “trans” activists. You can be forgiven for thinking it kind of looks like a men’s sexual rights movement because, er, that’s exactly what it is 👇

You can read the outcome of Alison Bailey’s case here.

Alison Bailey: Legal Judgment

You can support my work here. Only if you have surplus and don’t prioritise me over important legal cases, or your gas bill.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

Researching Gender Identity Ideology, its origins, funding sources and impact.

£10.00

Nancy Kelley & Al Jazeera Part 2.

Part one set the scene for this interview giving the background of the interviewer and the participants.

Nancy Kelley & Al Jazeera Part 1

After a long preamble, replete with many false/exaggerated claims (debunked in part one) Lamont goes in 👇

He addresses the question to trans activist, Christine Burns, who feigns bafflement and, after a little chuckle, claims it’s a mystery.

What Burns omits is the over-reach of trans-activists who right around this time were making ever more extreme demands. The specific issue that woke a lot of women up, especially lesbians, was the campaign to de-medicalise ”transition” and allow bearded, penis-wielders, to self-identify as women.

Burn’s then outlines how much progress had been made in protecting ”trans” rights including their own role in getting the Gender Recognition Act passed, in 2004.

Nancy Kelley then jumps in to make somewhat contentious claims about public acceptance of ”trans” people. She is right that there was a widespread acceptance of people we used to call ”transsexuals”. If they thought about the issue at all, people assumed we were talking about, a tiny number of, people who were post-operative. When it is explained that many/most retain their penis and are heterosexual there are significant qualifiers to that “acceptance”. Nancy also implies it is a matter of education.

Back to Burns to explain why our media are so out of step with views Kelley claims are held by the majority of the British public.

In reality most people had no idea activists were involved in a social engineering project; to reorganise society on the basis of ”gender identity” and ride roughshod over women’s sex based rights. Once that became clear opposition began to mobilise.

Lamont then reads, in a skeptical tone, some of the U.K headlines. They all seem rooted in reality to me 👇

Nancy wades in about the proliferation of articles in the media. Nancy thinks it’s too much and would really rather it wasn’t covered. Of course she does, thats the advice from the Denton’s document.

Lamont then asks Burns why so many of the criticisms come from women who ”identify as feminists”.

Burns is having none of it and invents a complete fiction that second wave feminists were working with men, like Burns, because we had common interests. 🤷‍♀️

Then Burn’s pivots to ”White Supremacists” . Bit of a leap there Christine, love. 👇

After he takes it upon himself to define feminism he then advances the argument that these feminists, many of whom are Lesbian, are trying to separate the T from LGB so that the rights of the other letters can be attacked.

The interviewer pushes back, a little bit, to ask Burns for his thoughts on ”Terfs”. [BTW No self-respecting woman, let alone a “Terf” accepts the appellation “cisgender”. ]

Christine, like sexist men from the beginning of time, thinks we have misunderstood.

LGB Alliance

Lamont now turns to Nancy:

Nancy doesn’t dare, outright, deny this.

Next Nancy, conveniently, overlooks that even Stonewall didn’t include advocacy for ”trans” rights until 2015.

It’s women’s rights, stupid!

The interviewer is from the United States and, to give him credit, he does not assume U.K politics is a mirror of the political landscape of our American cousins. However after raising the source of the ”transphobia” on Terf Island (It’s women’s rights, stupid) he immediately pivots to how dangerous it is to be ”transgender”.

Burn’s arguments are all about the difficulty of looking like a man and being unable to use female changing rooms. Worrying about being recognised as a man when going to get a pint of milk. This, right there, tells you he has no idea of what it means to be a woman. Men who identify as women are well on their way to having more rights than actual women. That’s male privilege Christine.

You can support my work here. Only if you have surplus, after the many worthy crowdfunders and if you are not panicking about your fuel bills.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and how it’s has such a stranglehold over our institutions, politicians and the elites who run our media.

£10.00

Nancy Kelley & Al Jazeera Part 1

As part of my series on Nancy Kelley I found this astonishing interview on Al Jazeera: a media outlet partially funded by the government of Quatar. You can watch it at the link below: 👇

Nancy Kelley on Al Jazeera

YouTube add a note to the Al Jazeera YouTube channel to highlight their financial backers.

Gay Rights in Qatar

A reminder of the state of gay rights in Qatar. 👇 The punishment for homosexuality is death.

The alleged context for the interview.

The segment focus is on the rising ”transphobia” in the U.K. To explore the issue Christine Burns, “trans-identified” male and Nancy Kelley are invited to a discussion. In truth Burns is given much more air time than Kelley. Burns is a key trans-activist (TRA) in the U.K. Nancy Kelley is the CEO of controversial, lobby group Stonewall. You will also notice the interview takes place against a background draped in the transgender flag.

The presenter is Mark Lamont Hill, a former journalist with CNN who was, reportedly, let go for his views on the Israeli-Palestine conflict. He is also a Professor of Media Studies.

Lamont Hill introduces the segment by claiming that Hate Crimes against trans people are rising, there is hostile media coverage and he singles out the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, for failing to introduce a ban on ”Conversion Therapy”.

Hate Crime: The Facts.

These are the numbers charged with a hate crime defined as ”transphobic”. As you can see it was 49.

Its important to note that misogyny is not considered a hate crime so offences motivated by animus, toward the female sex, is not monitored. If we consider rape /domestic violence as a proxy for misogyny the statistics below are for one quarter of the year. The statistics are taken from the Crown Prosecution Service.

Media Coverage

Complaints are made about the volume of media coverage with little attempt to explain why this became a contested area in 2017. Neither Nancy or Burns explain that Stonewall only began to campaign on “Transgender” issues in 2015 and this has been accompanied by an escalation in demands. TRAs openly began to demand that any man could ”self–identify” as a woman and campaigned vociferously for access to female only spaces. Here is Stonewall’s open statement that they wish to see the end of single sex spaces. This 👇 is a blatant attack on women’s rights to dignity, privacy and, crucially, safety,

In truth papers like the Guardian, Independent, Pink News and free paper, Metro, are cheerleaders for the Transgender Lobby. The Guardian in particular, much to the dismay of this erstwhile reader. I wrote about the Guardian links to lobby groups here:

Why are the Guardian suddenly so woeful on women’s rights?

Conversion Therapy

The demand to ban conversion therapy includes both gay conversion therapy and ”gender identity” . The main place where gay conversion therapy takes place, in the United Kingdom, is at U.K gender clinics. These are the statistics for referrals to the Tavisticock, looking at sexual orientation.

Here is a reminder of what Professor Villain had to say about this. He is one of a growing number of experts raising the issue of Gay Conversion Therapy in relation to Gender Clinics.

Including ”gender identity” in the bill would hamper therapeutic approaches to treat “gender dysphoria”. This context it important but the audience will gain no understanding of this from the interview.

Framing the question

After this disingenuous framing the interviewer turns to his guests. At least he doesn’t project a U.S perspective onto the U.K political context by assuming we are right wing, Evangelical Christians. 👇. He does recognises the concern’s raised about women’s rights before pivoting to the vulnerable, transgender people. An editorial decision was taken to invite a trans-identified male and Nancy Kelley on the show, even though they agree with one another. Noticeably they failed to invite anyone with an opposing viewpoint.

Christine Burns

Burns is a trans activist who appears here with the book Trans Britain; which they edited, in the background as well as the M.B.E they were awarded.

Burns is asked to define ”trans” and ”cis” . I won’t insult your intelligence by repeating the usual verbiage.

Lamont now references a Council of Europe report which conflates the attacks on gay rights and reproductive freedom in Hungary and Poland with UK feminists opposed to Gender Identity Ideology. I covered in this blog, below 👇. In brief they completely mis-characterise the debate we are having in the U.K, quoting the controversial lobby group, Mermaids amongst others. You can read more about this here: 👇. Short read: Blatant propaganda.

Council of Europe: Moral Panic

Burns, is asked to explain why if has got so bad for ”trans” people in the U.K. Burns professes bafflement and, claims everything was going in the right direction up until 2017 and implies this came out of nowhere. “It’s a mystery“ says Burns.

Burns fails to mention that people were unaware of what was happening in our schools, prisons, NHS wards and all our major institutions because it was a deliberate strategy. As set out in the Denton’s document, a guide to embedding Gender Identity Ideology in law and in life.

I wrote about the Denton’s document here 👇

That Denton’s Document

Of course, Burns doesn’t mention the campaign to let any man self-id as a woman; putting male rapists in female prisons; the sterilisation of children and the other horrors, which galvanised women and generated this backlash. Here’s a clip from a chapter in Burn’s own book illustrating Burn’s complicity.

The mendacity is strong with this one. Burns was one of the architects of the Gender Recognition Act , which set the stage for this debacle, and proudly boasts of it in this interview.

I will cover the details of the interview in part 2.

You can support my work here. Don’t donate unless you have surplus cash, I know there are lots of important legal cases going on at the moment.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

Researching Gender Identity Ideology to expose the fact it is a social engineering project which hurts women’s rights, gay rights and the bodies of our young gay, lesbian, autistic and other vulnerable children and teens/ young people.

£10.00

Nancy Kelley: Transition

Ever the optimist that a post Stonewall world may be on the horizon I want to get on record the role its current CEO has played in besmirching the reputation of a once great organisation. I will begin with this interview, from two years ago, which she did with Linda Riley of Diva Magazine.

You can watch the interview here: 👇

Nancy Kelley: Interview

For those of you unaware, Riley has somewhat of a reputation herself as covered by Private Eye. None of these revelations concerned Dawn Butler, who appointed Riley as LGBT advisor to Labour.

The interview took place four weeks into Kelley’s tenure as CEO of Stonewall and Riley selected questions, put to her from Diva readers.

One of the earlier questions related to a question on whether Kelley had intended criticism of her predecessor, Ruth Hunt, in a Guardian interview. She had stated Stonewall would no longer insist everyone needed agree with their stance on “trans” rights. I am confident that this was the interview in question and the comment Riley singles out for questions is linked below: 👇

Kelley is keen to dispel any notion that she is being critical of her predecessor:

She proceeds to outline her own position which reflects the Stonewall dogma, right down to forgetting about ”trans” men, I might add.

She, then, professes to accept that not all feminists will be intersectional and it is these people she would like to reach. It all started so reasonably.

The next question asks if she can elaborate about her impressions on taking up the role and the thing that surprised her the most. Her answer is very revealing and somewhat ironic at this point; as we watching Stonewall’s influence drain away.

Later she follows up the issue of Stonewall’s influence, revealing that they are acfively lobbying the NHS over healthcare issues and why they are uniquely placed to be successful; because of the high number of NHS trusts in their protection racket, oops, sorry, I mean their Diversity Champions scheme.

Asked to let the audience know what she is currently up to she says the quiet bit out loud about her liaison with Stella Creasy and the attempt to class misogyny as a hate crime. Of course they are trying to make sure it covers trans-identified males; no doubt making some litigious trans activist salivate over the prospect of the maximum validation attainable in prosecuting a woman for the crime of misogyny against a “transgender woman”

She also reveals she has been doing a bit of Northern outreach to address concerns they are too London centric. This would be the same Andy Burnham who has remained studiously silent about the aggressive “trans” (men’s) rights activists in his city.

Sexual Racists

Nancy’s conciliatory tone didn’t last as illustrated in a superb article by Jo Bartosch.

The BBC finally covered some research about Lesbians being pressured to have sex with trans-identified males.

Nancy responded with an astonishing outburst about Lesbians who are ”gender critical”. i.e. think being a Lesbian means you can refuse to date men who identify as Lesbians (Nancy, is not vulnerable herself, as she is in a long term partnership with an American woman).

It then emerged that Stonewall had attempted to suppress the report on Lesbians being sexually harassed.

Five Year Plan.

I was disappointed that Nancy didn’t acknowledge Stonewall’s intention to indulge in a bit of historical revisionism about the riots which inspired their name. Pretending the entire Gay rights movement was kickstarted by ”Transgender Women” and ignoring the role of Lesbians and Gay men would have made even Stalin blush. This 👇is abject capitulation from a once proud organisation. She is bending the knee to a Men’s, sexual, rights movement and throwing the gay community, particularly, Lesbian under the “transgender” train.

Finally!

Lest Kelley tries to airbrush herself out of the trans debacle and the fall of Stonewall she condemned herself with this statement.

You can support my work here. Only if you have surplus after all the worthy legal cases. Every penny helps but I know everyone is feeling the pinch.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

Documenting the fall of Rome. Don’t let them lie about who removed the bricks from Stonewall till it collapsed. The end is Nigh.

£10.00

Samaritans: It is time to talk.

Originally published in 2021. Updated 2022.

The Samaritans is a charity, based in the U.K, set up to help people in distress. They focus on providing 24 hour helplines, staffed by volunteers, whose aim is to avert self-harm or suicide. Apart from providing research on risk factors for suicide and they also teach media outlets how to report on completed suicides to avoid, inadvertently, fostering suicide ideation or even copycat suicides in specific demographics.

Given the charitable objectives of the Samaritans it has shown a marked failure to condemn the routine deployment of suicide threats to advance the aims of the Trans Lobby. If you are unfamiliar with the way questionable data on suicide ideation is used to promote medical responses to children with “Gender Dysphoria” I have written about it below:

Suicide in the Trans Community

The Samaritans have written extensively about how the media should avoid over-sensational media reporting, and simplistic narratives associating suicide with a specific demographic. They write, knowledgeably about suicide contagion and “clusters” of suicides associated with, for example, high-profile suicide of celebrities. They acknowledge the specific vulnerabilities of young people and yet…The Transgender Lobby break this code on a regular basis and are amplified by media outlets and even MPs. Yet the Samaritans remain, studiously, silent about the regular breach of its media guidelines on suicide by Trans Lobby groups.

So, why would the Samaritans ignore the most egregious breach of its media guidelines even though they *know* there is no epidemic of suicides in Gender Dysphoric youth? Could it be that they have been Stonewalled? Lets have a look at their CEO, Julie Bentley. She joined in October 2020 and had previously been CEO of Girl Guiding and Action for Children.

Her chosen profile on twitter has the tell-tale sign of pronouns in the bio, and proud proclamations about kindness and social justice along with the inevitable “feminist”.

Many of us have tagged Samaritans into tweets promoting suicide in our Gender Dysphoric youth and asking them for public statements to condemn the practice. This is just one example but I have done this myself, many times.

Previously Julie has been CEO of Girl Guides and Action for Children. Both these organisations are Stonewall Champions. It is not clear if Samaritans are paid up members of the Stonewall racket but Julie is an enthusiastic supporter. This is clip from an archive copy of Stonewall lists of supporters. As there are some high profile departures from the scheme Stonewall no longer allow public access to their supporter information.

Girlguiding has been the subject of some controversy under Bentley’s tenure as it was under her that the organisations became mixed-sex and guide leaders were terminated for raising concerns. Here is a link to her statement given at the time:

The response neatly side-steps the issue of Adult, male guide leaders. It also ignores a girls right to bodily privacy especially because some of these girls will have developing bodies and may already be menstruating. That is a time when many girls are self-conscious about their bodies and bodily functions.

Bentley also reveals that she was taking advice from a Trans Lobby group. Note that below she says that only in some instances are separate facilities used.

This remains a controversial topic for the Girl Guides long after Bentley has moved on. This is one of the guide leaders causing a fuss this week. You can read more about this below and note that women were expelled for warning this would happen.

Helen Watts was joined by Dr Katie Alcock who is currently fundraising to support a legal challenge if you have any spare cash to contribute.

Help me challenge Girlguides

Here Julie Bentley commends ex CEO of Stonewall, Ruth Hunt, who was responsible for turning Stonewall into a Trans Lobby group. 👇

Bentley continued her support for new CEO, Nancy Kelley.

Bentley has also spoken along side controversial Transing kids charity Mermaids. Two clips below, One from 2017 and an endorsement in 2020.

Samaritans have even promoted articles propagating articles about Transgender Suicide as far back as 2016.

Prior to Bentley’s time at the charity they also hosted “Dr” Helen Webberley of Gender GP. Webberley has had her registration suspended and is currently awaiting the outcome of another tribunal which is scrutinising her medical practices. Webberley was guest speaker at their AGM in 2016.

More recently Bentley nailed her colours to the mast as controversy blew up about Stonewall and she made it clear which side she was on.

I hope this explains why the Samaritans are maintaining a stubborn silence on the harms done in the name of Gender Identity Ideology. We are sterilising children, as young as 10, by putting them on Puberty Blockers which are invariably followed by cross-sex hormones. For males they will have stunted genitalia which will, even under their paradigm, make attempts to create a neo-vagina more difficult. Girls are put on a pathway to double mastectomy and often hysterectomy which is a response to vaginal atrophy induced by long term testosterone use. I cannot think of a situation more likely to see a spate of future suicides as regret kicks in. If CEOs of Charities don’t have the courage to do their job they should be removed.

While we are entitled to some celebration as more and more organisations extract themselves from Stonewall we are not going to be able to rest on our laurels. We face an uphill and lengthy battle to undo the damage. Firstly there will be multiple organisations keen to step into the breach and hoover up the Trans pound. Secondly Queer theory is embedded in our universities and churning out graduates saturated in (Judith) Butler Bollox. Whilst many of us were concerned that the European Union is captured there is a danger we could become tied to a U.S trade deal that comes with strings attached. The list of companies and public bodies who were indoctrinated by Stonewall is long. Even though Stonewall Champions list is shrinking (hence why it is no longer publicly names its supporters) the indoctrinated remain in those organisations.

Here is the archive list of Stonewall supporters. We need to root this ideology out of all of these organisations and it is going to take a long time. Help me keep going, if you can, below.

Stonewall Champions

Update: 2022.

Since writing this article I discovered that the Samaritans were captured much earlier than I thought. In fact the Samaritans were involved in the Beaumont Society, an affiliate organisations for the wives of the Transvestite /“Transsexual” organisation, set up by the Beaumont Trust. {These quotes are from the book “Trans Britain” by Christine Burns).

The Samaritans listed all the organisations to help “transvestites/ “transsexuals” find each other back in the 1970’s.

Clearly the Samaritans remain captured. Here is a tweet from November 2022.

GIRES, another “trans” lobby group also boast about training the Samaritans,

Please support my work because many of the media are more involved in propagating this ideology than exposing it…only if you can afford it.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women & girls as well as the consequences for Lesbians, Gay males and autistic kids. I do this full time and have no income. All my content is open access and donations help keep me going. Only give IF you can afford. Thank you to my generous donors.

£10.00

Foster Care: Final

Here are links to my series on the over-representation of Looked After Children and Gender Identity Issues.

In part 1 I looked at two legal cases involving “transgender” children. The first one is related to a foster parents who have had three of the children in their diagnosed with “Gender Dysphoria”. One was their biological child and the other two were wards of the state. Three unrelated children, in one family, referred to Gender Identity Services.

Looked After Children & Gender Dysphoria 1

In part 2 I looked at a Canadian Gender Identity Specialist. This specialist openly admits that 50% of his referrals, that is 500 children, have come to him from the “looked after ” sector. He also recommends that one way to get access to a medicalised pathway is to make claims of suicide ideation/attempts or self-harm.

Looked After Children & Gender Dysphoria. 2

Part 3 examined a paper which looked at data, on looked after and adopted children, from the UK Gender Identity Service (GIDs) based at the Tavistock.

Gender Dysphoria: Looked after Children. Part 3. U.K. GIDS

In part 4 I looked at a Foster Agency which provides guidance to Professionals in relation to Trans-Identified Youth in their care.

This post will look at some guidance provided for professionals working with children in Foster Care.

You can read the full document here:

Trans+Youth+in+Care+-+A+Guide+For+Social+Care+Professionals

The kit is aimed at Social Care Professionals. It is produced by an organisation called Three Circles Foster Care who are a private limited company. They are involved in the delivery of foster care services across the North West and in Yorkshire. They offer a range of services which include respite care, long and short term placements, pre-adoption placements and a service for unaccompanied minors.

They also offer services from a partner organisation, The National Teaching & Advisory Service which has a common director and offers courses for Foster Carers and Social Workers amongst others.

Here is a link to their website: https://www.threecirclesfostering.com/

The guidance was produced in collaboration with the LGBT Foundation and advice was taken from Trans Activist and NHS employee, Tara Hewitt following a consultaion with The Proud Trust. For those of you unfamiliar with Tara please note them boasting, to Mermaids, about safeguard referring children if the parents are deemed to be unsupportive of a “trans-identity”. The second clip is a newspaper article at the time that Tara was on the candidate list for the Conservative party. Tara has been quite open about their niche sexual interests: BDSM, Bondage, sado-masochism and pet play, which I believe is known as “Furry” fetish. Can’t think of a better person to be advising on an issue that comes under child safeguarding.

As well as The Proud Trust the acknowledgements also thank Susie Green, from Mermaids.

As you can see from the clip below the guidance is s deeply wedded to Gender Identity Ideology. Gender, we are told, is assigned, it includes transgender, non-binary, no gender, gender questioning…but this is not an exhaustive list. As an aside, I notice that even groups deeply wedded to Gender Identity Ideology betray a nervousness that they cannot keep up with the ever widening “identities” under the Transgenda Umbrella.

Children in care /Looked after children are wards of the state for multiple reasons. These children are likely to be among the most vulnerable in our society. It is likely those without a background of trauma/abuse are in a tiny minority. I would go so far as to say that any child, no longer with their birth family, has some issues of “identity” to reckon with because of their background.

The director is Jacob Sibley. In his biography it is noted that he has links to the LGBT Foundation, who, in turn are partnered with the new Gender Identity Clinic (Indigo) which was set up in Manchester to provide an affirmative pathway for trans-identified folks. Indigo Clinic is provide care for those 17 years and above; though its website says this is an initial client group which implies they wish to expand their services.

Three Circles also partner with charities and help support them. Here is one of those Charities. The Proud Trust.

You may have heard of The Proud Trust. They got into some public relations trouble through their controversion sex education. They took money earmarked for women and girls to promote their gender ideology and controversial guidance to sexuality. You can read about them here: https://www.transgendertrend.com/proud-trust-nothing-proud/

The guidance for professionals dealing with “trans” youth has totalitarian overtones. The phrase “educate yourself” springs to mind. In this piece they make it clear that their aim is much broader than you would expect for a guidance pack. They also produce a leaflet which is even more direct.

Trans+youth+in+foster+care

Here is a quote:

They have an ambitious aim of “educating the masses”. Should they not place the children front and centre of all they do and not an agenda to socially engineer society? There are a few quotes which are out and out propagandising their belief system. I would not approve of religious indoctrination to vulnerable kids and this is a much more sinister (and de-stablisiing” ideology to be pushing. Here are another couple of clips:

I can’t think of anything more de-humanising than the adoption of “it” for a pronoun. Indeed in the age of the misery memoir there was a popular one of the genre called “A child Called “It”. I would be seriously concerned if any child insisted on that as a pronoun. It cannot possibly reflect good self-esteem.

Kids in care are also being handed a powerful weopen to challenge the staff/foster parents charged with their care. More than once they are advised to contact the organisation if the foster parents, social workers or Doctors show any resistance to their demands. They provide a phone number so that the child can call their organisation direct if the Foster Carer’s fail to accept their “gender identity”.

Starkly they advise the child that the Foster parents are wrong and the child is given a phone number so the organisation can “put it right”. I can only imagine how intoxicating this power would be to a child, who may have felt pushed from pillar to post /disempowered by becoming a ward of state. To unequivocally assume these vulnerable children are able to make “adult” decisions about their “identity” and ensure that the foster carer knows they are under scrutiny by these organisations is creating a chilling effect.

In another quote the guidance seeks to conjure up the spectre of a police force at your door for using the wrong name, or even “mis-pronouncing” it! Use of a child’s previous name is referred to as “deadnaming” . I have seen similiar statements in school guidance. Sadly, as orwellian as this sounds, you can indeed be reported for a hate crime on similar spurious grounds. The offence is defined by the “victim” so if they say its a hate crime it has to be recorded as such.

In addition the guidance makes it clear that recruitment strategy should also seek to screen for “transphobic” foster carers and make sure prospective foster carers are on board with transgender ideology.

I do want to highlight the pro-medicalisation stance, for kids, of this guidance. They make it clear that Foster Carers should facilitate access to trans groups for their charges. They provide information on how to make referrals to Gender Identity Clinics. They also link to shops to buy “equipment” for kids to enable them to perform their gender identity.

The guidance also includes a graph documenting referrals to GIDS over the preceding years. If this does not make people sit up and notice I despair. Look at the growth. We are referring kids as young as 3. This is not unconnected to the fact that we have let this propaganda be disemminated across our education, medical sectors, all amplified by a media which seems obsessed by “transgender tipping points”..

No guide would be complete without propaganda around the life of a trans person. Selling your wares via victimology is a strategic move when advocating for social justice issues. It cannot help the mental health of young people who have determined their issues will be resolved by “transition”. I cannot begin to understand why Samaritans are silent about the manipulation of suicide ideation to promote their cause. Below is a list of the fearmongering claims from lobby groups. Treat all of this with the scepticism they deserve.

Here is a quote from a young person used in the booklet. The silence of the Samaritans is less suprising when you know they have been trained by GIRES (Trans lobby group). Their current CEO came from Girl Guiding and was in post when they agreed that self-identifed “women” could access shared spaces with female children. I have also been sent confirmation about some of the activists delivering training to Samaritans. That is for another blog.

I find so much that is alarming in both the leaflet and the full document I could add many more clips to this piece. I would recommend you download it and would be pleased to see twitter users doing their own threads highlighting other disturbing aspects of this guidance.

%d bloggers like this: