Transgender Movement & Fascism


I have only recently come across this paper which, surprisingly, was co-authored by an academic in a U.K.University. The premise of the paper is that Transgenderism is “petty fascism” . Even after following this movement for the last eight years this paper clarified some of my thoughts.

Here is the abstract. 👇. The paper outlines the strategy of the transgender movement and it’s inherently anti-democratic tactics. Instead of winning hearts and minds they have appealed to authority, change laws, often by stealth, bypassing a public conversation. Their appeal is based on a fallacious victimhood; deployed to guilt and shame people into accepting their minority world view. This is combined with a suppression of debate and repression of alternative perspectives.

You can read the paper yourself, here.

Repressive Moralism 11

The paper is refreshing in its use of the description of people who are at odds with their biological sex; making it clear that the sex is, in most cases, observed at birth and having no truck with “sex assigned at birth”.

The paper does reference violence against “trans” persons, which it immediately follows with facts about out the high rates of violence against women (even of it does call us “Cis”). The authors also highlight the extent of the research into discrimination against “trans” people; they are looking very hard for this “evidence”. Having read much of that research it tends to rely on self-reports and it is not hard to garner false positives from a community groomed into victimhood. The paper doesn’t reference the rise of hate crime legislation but this is one way of inflating societal discrimination against “trans” people. In the U.K. we have “hate crime incidents” which don’t require any crime to have been committed and rely on the self-perception of the individual. It’s worth noting that there is no category for hate crimes against women.

Free Speech

The authors focus is on the importance of free speech and how crucial this is for democracy.

They think censorship should be limited to those sentiments that advocate violence and are, themselves, a threat to democracy. Otherwise people should be allowed to express dissenting opinions, because censoring opinions leads to a decline in trust which is bad for democracy.

The authors then detail an attempt, in Germany, to facilitate dialogue between a muslim and a “trans” identified male but this proved impossible as both participants were encouraged to withdraw by their own communities. This is a common occurrence, as we have seen in the U.K.; with “trans” activists having successfully shut down debates by refusing to share platforms with feminists, who campaign for single sex spaces. The BBC were particularly vulnerable to this tactic; having a policy of platforming both sides in an important debate. By withdrawing, often at the last minute, “trans” activists were able to suppress debate for a long time; because the segments were often, then, cancelled.

The fear of an adverse public reaction is a good illustration that the “transgender” community fear scrutiny and know that the vast majority are opposed to the extreme demands made by this group. As we have seen, in the U.K. this has allowed the promulgation of gender identity ideology with limited coverage of public opposition.

The authors describe what happens when “a socially constructed reality becomes intentionally detached from its constitutive spontaneity, and is used to enforce a specific set of interests, as in commercial or political propaganda”. They continue by pointing out one of the main strategies is the undermining of the reality of biological sex.

Basically “Transgender Ideology” wants to build a world based on subjective belief and force the rest of us to validate that belief. Moreover this “belief” does not arise in a vacuum and whilst those people who are invested in making these claims have not come to the conclusion they are “transgender” on their own; in short they have been indoctrinated, groomed.

Trojan Horse

Imposing this belief on society is a huge task because the vast, vast, majority of people know biological facts and, apart from changing our minds, this ideology a,so requires reordering society such as changing how sex is recorded on databases and eradicating single sex spaces. The first step is people must be made to accept that our sexed bodies are secondary to a self-defined “gender”. Moreover laws must be passed to enshrine this ideology in law. As outlined in the Denton’s document one strategy is to force team groups and push through legislation using the social capital built by other groups, notable the gay rights movement.

If you have not read the Denton’s document then do visit my piece which links to the full document.

That Denton’s Document

The next step is also straight out of the Dention’s playbook 👇

The authors draw attention to how this differs from previous minority rights claims which are not hidden from public scrutiny but were, largely, conducted openly or at least operated with an accompanying public discourse to complement the private lobbying. What the “trans” rights activists have done is to entirely ignore the feelings /beliefs of the ordinary populace and gone directly to those in control of the levers of power.

Another strategy is to create a narrative of perpetual victim status. In this the “trans” activists have been spectacularly successful. By claiming to be the most marginalised they have elevated themselves into the primary victim, who should therefore be allowed to trample over the sex based rights of women, trash child safeguarding and call Lesbians “sexual racists” if they don’t include penis-havers in their dating pool.

This tactic works at the level of emotional blackmail, which is the stock in trade of abusive men. This men’s sexual rights movement has persuaded society that “trans” are the most vulnerable minority and women are their persecutors whilst having sufficient power to rewrite laws and problematise to all mention of women as a sex based class.

This movement is only possible in Liberal societies and because of the legacy of gay, women and disabled rights movements; all groups that have a lot to lose if “trans” lobby groups get their way. Crucially this also required the internet which serves to magnify their appeal and allows activists to hide behind avatars and filters; so that people are hoodwinked into supporting the rights of massive blokes to invade single sex spaces. It is in real life encounters, such as sport, that the full impact (literally) of these demands is on display.

The capture of academia

A huge part of their leverage is because of the capture of academia. Liberal management has bough the “most vulnerable” propaganda, hook line and sinker. All the while it is another group entirely that is actually marginalised and hounded over their beliefs, 👇

As I have said before the only way this movement can work is authoritarianism and repression because the vast, vast, majority of people know that sex is real, immutable and there are only two. Social media is the ideal vehicle for this because anonymous “trolls” can whip up a fevered hostility on line and highlight opinions that are opposed to transgender ideology, tagging in employers etc. to threaten livelihoods. As the ideology embeds itself via propaganda, in schools and universities, the corralling of public opinion can be undertaken by named trolls (Owen Jones springs to mind) and other people with large followings. No woman is immune as is evidenced by the treatment of JKRowling who, I am sure, knew exactly what she was walking into.

The paper covers the abuse that Rowling gets but I won’t go over that here because it’s well documented. Rowling’s entry into the fray began with her open support for Maya Fostater, who lost employment, in essence, for believing biological sex was real and for saying it out loud.

The authors cover the first tribunal hearing which resulted in Judge Taylor finding that Maya’s opinions didn’t pass the Grainger test, which is not mentioned in this paper. The Grainger test is detailed in this clip. Basically gender critical beliefs were deemed “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”. (This is why you will sometimes see WORIADS in some tweets. The judiciary have refused to say who trains them on this issue but I am going to guess GIRES) That decision was overturned by a second tribunal and, in the U.K, gender critical beliefs are now legally protected.

The paper then details some of the people who have suffered “cancellation” or attacks because of varying degrees of these beliefs but finds it unsurprising that men (Richard Dawkins) are also attacked. I think they missed a trick here, by not recognising that there is a bias towards attacking the female sex and men are allowed a greater degree of latitude. The authors also characterise Rowling’s essay as “weaponised discourse” which suggests this is being treated as the same as the confected victimisation of the “trans” community. Perhaps Rowling is using emotive language to make her point but, at heart, she is fighting for single sex spaces so women can heal because they are literal victims of male violence /sexual assault. I am opposed to Identity Politics hijacking the left as much as anyone but we can’t give up the rights of 51% of the population to secure this.

The next section gets to the meat of the argument by comparing the tactics of the “transgender” activists to a form of fascism.

Petty Fascism

The experience of the populace, under fascism, is reminiscent of living under the Gender borg.

The authors quote some German research showing how many people feel unable to voice their tru opinions, the figure was only 59% even to their closest friends. And what were they most afraid of saying?

They argue that this is achieved by threats of ostracism rather than the law /force. I would argue that we do have laws, by now, and the police are now checking peoples thinking as the numerous court cases attest. (See Harry Miller, Kate Scotow, Miranda Yardley etc).

In a pluralistic society we must tolerate a diversity of opinion / belief. This doesn’t mean we can’t draw the line at human rights violations, under the guise of religion but it does mean recognising that someone has the right to their faith but, crucially, not to force you to profess that same belief.

What the “trans” rights lobby is demanding is not a simple “live and let live”; there is a testerical level of demand that we profess belief in something which is simply not true. We are expected to remain silent when a man tells us he is able to menstruate or lactate or that his penis is a female organ. The crazy level of demand means we have no choice but to resist.

This paragraph sets out why we are justified in calling this fascism.


Compelled speech and thought policing are hallmarks of repressive /fascist regimes; this is what we are witnessing. We are in danger of undermining democracy and, sadly, our political class, with honourable exceptions, have not the wit to realise it. These are the rights we have to defend. Open debate and, heaven forfend, even jokes /limericks.

The author’s then reflect , with some detachment. on the rifts this has caused in feminism and gay rights movements. He also points to the divisions this has caused in left wing politics with some embracing identity politics (with some fervour, I would add) and the old Left which focuses on improving material conditions and women’s /minority rights. The former they describe as sanctimonious and self-righteous, a perspective with which I concur wholeheartedly.

He then points to the hypocrisy of our political elite who are surely lying.

They end with a call to fight to keep the public discourse on this ideology open.

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 could use some donations this month but only give if you have surplus monies that can’t be put to better use elsewhere.

My Substack

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


That Denton’s Document

Primary Sources.

This document sets out the strategy for advancing Transgender Rights across Europe, with a specific focus on young people.

You can find the 65 page document on-line here Link

I attach a version which I downloaded in December 2019. IGLYO_v3-1.  I notice there is another version. I attach both, in case of any changes, IGLYO_v3-1 2


The introduction flags up the Corporate backing for this, allegedly, marginalised minority.  The world’s largest law firm and a global foundation are writing strategy documents to embed Gender Identity ideology, in law.  This has all the hallmarks  of astro-turfing; which  is when a well funded, social engineering, project is presented as an organic, grassroots campaign. In reality Transgender Ideology is backed by significant funding.  You can read more on this phenomenon  here

And now Google are interfering. Jo Bartoch Article here.

Another relevant piece, by  Jennifer Bilek, lifts the veil on the rich & powerful men driving Transgender Ideology. here

These are the organisations providing pro-bono support for the report under consideration.  Thomson Reuters Foundation and the largest Legal Firm in the world.

Thompson Reuter’s


Dissenting Voices from the LGB & I

The report is on behalf of a group of 96 organisations, who claim to speak for LGBTQI youth across the Council of Europe region.


In the U.K, we now have a breakaway group, LGB Alliance, who do not feel their interests are served by mainstream LGBTQI organisations. These organisations reject the notion of biological sex /sexual dimorphism thereby making it difficult/impossible,  to defend sexual orientation. Exhibit A:  Stonewall UK have, as an Ambassador,  a bearded male who claims to be a Lesbian.  See Alex Drummond. 👇

It is also worth noting the letter I, in LGBTQI, claims to represent Intersex people.  These are people with Disorders/Differences of Sexual Development.  Many of this community also resent their medical condition being co-opted as an “identity”, by the rainbow alliance. 

To hear more of these dissident voices you can read about LGB Alliance here

You can follow an intersex advocate’s blog here

U.K. Named & Anonymous Backers

To return to the Denton’s document. It outlines the progress in establishing transgender rights across European countries. Here’s  who is involved in the U.K. Note that one of the organisations didn’t even want their name to be made public. The other one already accesses state funding.


Mosaic received funding from the Government Equality Office for a project working to stop homophobic, bi-phobic and transphobic bullying in schools.  You can find this information in the accounts submitted to the Charity Commission.


A quick check on their timeline shows a devotion to the Trans Advocacy lobby group Mermaids.  #PinkNews #Stonewall #ProudTrust also figure prominently.  Mosaic Youth Trust are  enthusiastic advocates for medical intervention, for children, even using an emotive appeal from a  trans identified child.

Twitter account  @TheMosaicTrust.  Their Website

There are very few public resources available on their twitter timeline or  website.  This, I find, is one of the more disturbing aspects of many of these smaller charities. No public access to resources that are going into our schools!  The Denton’s document proffers an explanation for this secrecy, which I will get to…


The introduction was written by a well known Trans Activist based in the UK.

D522F479-352F-473B-A30A-7158261E6810A0FF747E-1CEB-42C0-A3AC-E06089985184You can read more about this activist here.  Identifies as non-binary.  In a relationship we would have formerly described as heterosexual.  As Ugla makes clear here this is no longer acceptable.  Heterosexuality is thus redefined as queer. Hey presto it’s under the 🌈 and there’s a crock of s**t at the end of this one.

Mentioning the fact  biological sex exists is now  a “transphobic dog whistle”.  

Legislation by stealth

The two admissions in this next paragraph are crucial to understanding how so much has happened without people, particularly women, marshalling our resources to resist. Most of us didn’t know there was a new threat to women’s rights wearing  Joseph’s technicolour raincoat. We were too busy attending Pride marches and gleefully singing #BornThisWay.  While we were singing Lady Gaga there was a new Gaga Lyric in town #BornInTheWrong Body.

👇Here are some of the strategies recommended. Pass legislation “under the radar”, “latch…onto more popular legal reforms”.  This tactic has served them well.  Note that Ireland passed legislation around Gender Recognition before it legalised abortion. Malta still has not legalised abortion but it does allow self-identification of “Gender”.


For Trans Activists the failure, in Ireland, to lower the age for Legal Gender Recognition is seen as a warning against compromise.  The stage is set for a new offensive. Note that the age for gender recognition is also under review in Scotland, who seem minded to implement the more controversial of reforms.  This legislation is also under review in England and  Wales which appears to be heading in a different direction. However, there is no room for complacency.

The role of education & attacks on parental rights

Below is a snippet on Tactics picked up from Portugal.  First make sure you train teachers.  Get the teachers on board with gettin rid of sex segregated toilets.


The inculcation of gender ideology is well underway in the UK.  Many parents are now discovering this with recent publicity on School Transgender policies. (Quite a few of which have been withdrawn as parents protest about their contents). The Denton’s dossier is a full frontal attack on parental protective responsibilities. Here is a thread I did on those school Transgender guidance packs, specifically how they seek to undermine parental responsibility.  Thread

Here a few examples of how parents are referred to in numerous school packs on Transgender pupils.

Another common tactic is to talk about “minors” say you mean 16-18. Then switch to “child”. Talk a lot about a child’s legal rights and their autonomy. This is another attack on parental responsibility. As is made more explicit. They want Parental Consent to be over-ridden


Here are some quotes about parents in the document under consideration here. 👇


These excerpts are even more disturbing. Mandating state action against parents advocating for “watch and wait” rather than medical intervention. It is factually true ,historically, some jurisdictions enforced sterilisation clauses prior to undergoing Sexual Reassignment surgery.  These clauses have rightly been removed. However we have not eliminated this for young people. Children put on Puberty Blockers, invariably, progress to cross sex hormones, they will not have a puberty and will be rendered infertile.


Norway allows legal gender recognition for six year olds. For now (?) this is restricted to children with disorders of sexual development.  It is possible that I am overly cynical /hyper-vigilant about why these kids are being housed under the Transgender Umbrella. They are not “transgender” kids, however, could their status be hijacked to campaign for Gender recognition of  6 year olds. Even if they are not “intersex” but do believe they are born in the wrong body?


De-medicalising the process or Medicalising it?

Another aspect of the coverage deemed problematic is the focus on medicalising Gender Identity. This is  deemed unhelpful.  The problem identified in this quote exposes a central contradiction in trans ideology. For adults there is a push to de-medicalise the process for self-identification of your “gender”. For children there is a push to medicalise them. Here it is claimed that UK voices are simply “confused”.


The debate is confused.  Not, however,  on the Gender Critical side. It is reflective of an internal contradiction on the Trans Activist side.


The penis retention status of so many Trans-identifies males has not escaped the attention of U.K. females. Indeed the phrase suck on my  dick appears with unfailing regularity in responses to inconvenient women.  Had the esteemed authors of this report consulted women they would have known the deployment of the penis, by our wannabe sisters, was a strategic fail. Documented here Peak Trans

Here is a direct focus on the “highly problematic” system of separate toilets for girls/women and boys/men. 👇 Given the history of women’s fight to have safe public bathroom facilities this is a direct attack on the rights of women and girls.   Note the vehicle for grooming our children to accept this is Teachers. . This is what the frequent “we just want to pee is really about. 👇


The document undertakes a country, by country analysis and the United Kingdom is singled out for its non-compliant women.  The document doesn’t shy away from  using a slur associated with threats of rape and violence (Terf) . It goes on to draw the conclusion that press coverage is problematic. The lesson to be learned is that the freedom of the press has created a divisive issue.  In fact the press have, finally, begun to cover something which simply is a contentious issue.


Women are labelled “trans-hostile” because we are not giving up sex based rights without a fight. These are existing rights enshrined in Law, by a Labour government, but the document suggests only the right wing media are raising it. By extension, it implies,  it’s only right wing women who have an issue with it.  (The uber left wing Morning Star is one of the papers that has tried to provide coverage for these non-compliant women).

The preferred campaign strategy is to provide human interest stories but, the document claims, the current atmosphere is so hostile they are unable to do so.  The Guardian and the BBC, Teen Vogue, Pink News, Independent, Mirror, Sun, Telegraph appear not to have received the memo. Coverage of “trans kids” is ubiquitous.  This is a strategic. By deploying children it de-sexualises motives for transition  and helps persuade people that the trans community are a vulnerable community.

Another way  this strategy has been deployed, in the UK, is the many Trans Activists who  refuse to appear, along side feminists, to debate any issues.  The series on Radio 4 Women’s hour was notable for the number of Trans Activists who would only provide pre-recorded discussions, rather then debate the issues with feminists. Example here


The above is laughably poor research into the actual profiling of young trans people in the British media. A quick search brings up masses  of coverage of Young Trans Children. There  was a seemingly endless parade of “transgender kids” on British Media.  There are loads of celebratory tales of young “transgender” children.  Here’s an entire documentary by Victoria Derbyshire. Transgender Kids. 

The Children’s BBC programme “I am Leo” was broadcast directly to our kids on CBBC. I presume this was just in case the home schooled had missed out on Transgender Indoctrination. The documentary follows a young female as she embarks on medicalisation to cement her male Gender Identity. Below is a clip of he Director of the U.K’s premier Gender Identity Clinic, who appeared on I am Leo. Juxtaposed with a contemporary statement , somewhat at odds with what our children were told.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The language of Human Rights advocacy is deeply embedded in the propagation of this ideology. Women’s rights to privacy and dignity has been trampled underfoot which underlines the depressing realisation that we are not considered human.  Access to women’s sex segregated spaces is now badged a human rights issue for male bodied “women”.


Of course anyone who is trans-identified should have human rights.  The women fighting for our sex based rights are not trying to strip rights away from any male who is a refugee from his sex.  The rights we are asserting are existing rights, in law, to allow women to act as a political class to defend women’s, sex based, rights.


Watching the naivete of young, female, politicians who are throwing away women’s rights I think they need to read this document and consider if they are being played.  The young politicians are being targeted. The senior, older, politicians, don’t want to lose the youth vote so are letting them lead the way.


Another tactic is to make sure activists get ahead of the politicians. It’s a new area and fraught with political banana skins. What better way to avoid a slip. Outsource your opinions to Lobby groups. They are more than happy to oblige. It’s a great strategy.

This document is a must read. Don’t use it to hold anyone accountable. Lawyers must Lawyer and they have already got their defence ready.  Power without responsibility