James Morton: Trans Britain (Part 16)


James Morton: Scotland

In the week that Scotland plans to let 16 year olds obtain a “gender recognition certificate” ,with only a six month waiting period, and refuses to rule out sex offenders from changing their legal sex, it is timely that I have reached this chapter. Morton is a trans-identified female who seeks validation as a “male” chauvinist by behaving in the most abominably sexist way in respect of women’s rights. Not content with acting out self-hatred on her own body she has turned this lack of self acceptance into an attack on all women.

Morton has been at this for twenty years! Manager of Scottish Trans alliance she has been lobbying the U.K and Scottish governments to institute the most extremist version of gender identity ideology and , unfortunately, has gained the ear of successive governments and political parties.

Here is the transcript from Morton’s appearance at the Women and Equalities Inquiry which is referenced above. (Also covers the late transitioning, male, Sue Pascoe and the woman who has sent years trying to get an X as her “gender” marker).

Transgender Equality Inquiry James Morton et al

Morton follows the usual playbook in describing the process to get a GRC as humiliating and degrading. On the Scottish context, below, like U.K Stonewall Morton makes it clear that cross-dressing men are covered under the “trans” umbrella. As has become clear Scotland are much more mired in this ideology than even Stonewall.

See my series on the Gender Recognition Certificates to see how easy the process actually is and this is before we move to self-identification in Scotland.

Gender Recognition Act: Series

Morton offers the usual reference to the Yogyakarta principles which have no legal standing and are a wish list from extreme trans-ideologues. One of the signatories to these principles has since acknowledged that insufficient account was taken of the rights of women, during their drafting. You can read more about this in this article but I will include a clip about his change of heart, below. Shockingly he admits that nobody raised the issue of the human rights of women.

Yogyakarta Principles

Morton claimed that “Self-Identification”. as the opposite sex, had raised no issues in countries that have adopted it. There is a lot of emotional blackmail and an implied aversion to recording biological sex, on legal documents, at all. So far so predictable. I do just want to bring your attention to this statement and reference to Vera Baird.

I wonder what her thoughts are on this now? I had her down as one of the good ones but, I confess, I have not done a deep dive on her thoughts; unlike the “Vichy” feminist Helena Kennedy who has utterly betrayed women on this issue. Baird did resign from her post as Victims Commissioner in September 2022 because victims of crime were being let down so I will reserve judgement, for now.

Scottish Context.

It is important to note that, in Scotland, the inclusion of the T with the LGB was accomplished much earlier than was the case in the rest of the U.K. as Morton makes clear in Trans Britain. It is also worth noting that the earlier organisations were a coalition between transvestites and “transsexuals”.

I have covered the Beaumont Society earlier in the series but it’s worth repeating that there was some hostility to homosexuals from the heterosexual transvestites. It is my contention that there is a basic incompatibility between people who are same sex attracted and believers that ones “gender identity” grants inclusion in gay dating pools, even if you are the opposite sex. This is becoming clear in the 2020’s but the tension existed from the start in expressions of overt homophobia,

In order to understand the roots of the Scottish movement I had a look at the newsletter for the TV/TS society and their newsletter the Tartan Skirt as well as figures like Julia Gordon and Anne Forrester. Gordon “transitioned” in his forties and seems better known for being an accordion player; specialising in Scottish folk tunes. Forrester seems to have been the more prolific contributor to the magazine. You can get an idea of the content from this snapshot.

You can find copies of the magazines at the digital transgender archive. The above gives you a flavour of the content. I took one for the team and browsed the archives. There are advertisements for gatherings for men who like to cross-dress. Tips on make-up; the best kind of nylons; where to buy women’s shoes for the larger feet; how to behave in the woman’s loo etc. Despite the fact that the sexual component is obvious Forrester, of course, denies there is any sexual component to it. Well, he would say that wouldn’t he?

The content of the magazine is deeply sexist and the men who do this are creepily fascinating by the “feminine” and project their fantasies about what it means to be a woman. They are like stalkers of our entire sex. There is also barely veiled hostility to the wives who don’t show the proper acceptance of this fetish. Here are a few clips from one list of things about cross-dressers. Not a sexual fetish?

Forrester speculated about why men are into cross-dressing going through the usual theories about hormones in utero; dismissing the sexual component; the need for the breadwinner to obtain stress release (executive relief?) ; lady brain inside a man, before, finally, querying whether they are not reincarnated with the legacy of an earlier, female, existence!

There is also a whole article about how to behave when using women’s toilets! The article goes into great detail even about how to pee so you sound like a “lady” and how to comport yourself when interacting with “other women”. It’s seriously creepy stuff once you know you are being forced to participate in a man’s sexual fetish.

Before I go end this digression I will just leave this clip which is also from the Tartan Skirt. In it there is a fantasy about setting up an organisation for Other Women who are sometimes mistaken for men (O.W.W.S.M.M). The premise of this fantasy is to prey on female socialisation to be kind and get around our boundaries in this way, making the man an object of sympathy and tricking women embraced him as a “sisters”. Something like this strategy under pins the instruction to #BeKind to the men who seek access to our spaces. Now men are even getting paid for larping as women at work, even in rape crisis centres.

The alliance of fetishistic men with the LGB started as early as 1997 in Scotland. For context Stonewall, covering the rest of the U.K, didn’t add the T until 2015.

Gordon was instrumental in their decision to deploy the new name “transgender” to, I would argue, distract from the transvestite origins. Morton claims the intention was always to aim to get protections on the more subjective “Gender Identity” idea. 👇

The group LGBT Youth Scotland also became trans-inclusive at the same time.

Funding by the government and NHS Scotland was also there from the start.

They were generating training resources at the outset and trained the NHS, youth workers, teachers, local council staff and even the police,

It was clear early on that the Scots were diverging in the way they were prepared to legislate on this issue; even to the extent of trapping spouses who’s partner had deceived them at the outset.

Soon a group of activists and allies from the NHS, LGBT Health and the Equality Network got together to form an overarching organisation Scottish Transgender Alliance. They also decided to not only include people who identify as “transgender” but also “non-binary” people as well as, of course, cross-dressers.

The Scottish government were involved almost from their inception 👇. In effect the from the Scottish govt were paying lobby groups to lobby them so creating the impression this was a grass roots movement.

It was Scottish government funding that paid for James Morton’s first post, working for Scottish Transgender Alliance. After one year the funding was due to run out and the Scottish National Party (SNP) came to power. Morton need not have worried the SNP were keen to continue supporting the group. Their motivation was described as related to their desire for Scotland to be seen as “progressive” by the European Union. I think this plays a significant role in their continuing motivation to push this agenda.

They were commended by the Council Of Europe, who are distinct from the European Union but hugely influential with the E.U.

European funding followed and this allowed them to pursue networks across the European Union with other activist groups. In Ireland Transgender Equality Network (TENI) outstripped Scotland’s “achievements” by bringing in self-identified sex.

One of the strategies they deployed was using Hate Crime legislation. They found a useful idiot in the Green Party’s Patrick Harvie and Scottish Trans Alliance were fully involved in drafting the legislation. The purpose of the legislation was to embed gender identity ideology in Scottish Law. A subsidiary purpose was to allow crimes to be reported based on a self-perceived notion of “hate” thus the statistics could be “gamed”. This served to convince politicians they were dealing with a bus abused, marginal, minority by inflating “offences”.

“We need the stats”

Here is Morton gaming the system by encouraging reporting because, and I quote, “we need the stats”.

This next quote shows how ethically bankrupt Morton is in her quest to be validated as a man. Claiming that unleashing men on vulnerable female prisoners was an “ethically important” “strategy” to pave the way for the destruction of female only spaces. The depth of contempt I feel for the people who sat in a room to decide this knows no bounds.

By getting people to accept you could house male rapists in female prisons they could push their other goals; men in single sex wards, girls forced to share changing rooms with boys and forcing to call James Morton a man and obvious blokes “women”. Never underestimate how selfish gender zealots are.

Vichy Feminists.

A reminder that nothing could have been accomplished without the women who collaborated. Trans-activists deliberately force-teamed women in the domestic violence sector. Jo Clifford is a heterosexual late-transitioning man who married and had children. The feminists who colluded with him should hang their head in shame for their complicity/gullibility.

This is how Clifford describes himself:

Lesley Irving and Nel Whiting are deserving of no respect for their advocacy of men in rape crisis centres which have resulted on a man running Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. Mridul Wadwha lied about his sex to infiltrate a rape crisis service for women. What kind of despicable man would do this? He then compounded his error by claiming that they would accept “transphobes” at the service and counsel them to “reframe” their trauma about men. He is at best doing this for validation at worse this allows a man who fetishises hearing women talk about their rape. A man who fetishised acceptance into female only spaces would salivate at breaching the boundaries of rape survivors for his own desires. Further to this one specific man the Scottish government will now not fund any exclusive service for women. However traumatised at the hands of men they are to be forced to share with males! {As an aside Morton mentions some disagreement within the T as to whether or not men who hadn’t had genital surgery were to be accorded the status of “women”. We know which side won.}

Lesley Irving has been rewarded with senior posts in the violence against women sector

Nel Whiting works for Scottish Women’s aid. Katherine Burrows held directorships with both LGBT Scotland and a Rape crisis centre.

Not content with trashing the resources for women they were also keen to make sure NHS Scotland following the clinical pathways as set out by the lobby group WPATH. Morton talks excitedly about how they rushed the changes through by editing NHS Scotland’s own documents to include the new guidelines and persuading the NHS to accept them. The rising rates of detransitioners can be laid at their door.

As much as I despise the men behind this movement I cannot understand females, in flight from their sex, some of them because they are Lesbians and others in flight from sexual trauma, who work so assiduously to strip protections away from women and girls. I can only conclude that their internalised misogyny is not pacified by the destruction of their own bodies; they despise women who have not adopted the “superior sex”.

You can support my work via my paypal below, or consider a paid subscription to my substack. All donations gratefully received.

My substack

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


Sue Sanders: Trans Britain (Part 15)


Sue Sanders

Sue Sanders is given a chapter in this book having set up LGBT History Month and also worked with an organisation called Schools Out and one called Chrysalis. Sue is a lesbian with a background in teaching and the arts scene. Here is an interview she did with “Christine” Burns who also claims to be a Lesbian a mum and a grandma even though he is a man.

Half an hour with Burns

This interview is from 2009 and Sue explains how she was working with senior civil servants to embed diversity training in the teacher training. 14 minutes in she explains how they got funding from the Dept. of Education to launch LGBT History month. By 2009 they had 600 events a year. 16 minutes in she talks about how a “brilliant” teacher Ellie Barnes was working to get this embedded in schools. Elly Barnes is part of Educate and Celebrate who used Jordan Gray to go into schools, denied it and then deleted their twitter account. Jordan Gray recently showed off his Gynecomastia and his penis on channel 4’s Friday night live.

Sue Sanders then explains how she is keen to get LGBT embedded in the school curriculum to “usualise” LGBT people among school children. Sanders also delivers inset training for teachers so that they can answer the questions from children. She is very critical of the training materials are excessively “heteronormative”. She then points out how different festivals during the year as a hook to get this content into schools. They chose February so that Libraries and Museums would seize on this as useful content to fill the half-term.

Here is the Schools Out website.

Schools Out

They target early years and have gained accreditation from OFSTED.

I hate to think of the indoctrination that goes on at these summer camps for kids.

Sanders also gave a Ted Talk which you can see here.

Ted Talk

This was the title of her talk:

Her “thesis” is that “queer” history has been hidden and that LGBT people have no visibility. Maybe that was true when Sue started out but it’s disingenuous to claim this is the case now when the “trans” agenda is rammed down our throats by every major corporation, governments etc. She also rails at psychiatry for labelling lesbians and bisexuals as wrong and in need of “treatment”. Oh, the irony. These are the stats for those receiving “treatment” at gender abattoirs. This is the new way Lesbians and gay men are labelled as “wrong” and Sanders is going along with it!

Ten minutes in she has this to say:

Her aim was to “usualise” Lesbians, gays, trans people and also other racial minorities and embed them in the curriculum by also embracing the decolonisation of the teaching materials. She rails against colonisation whilst embracing the colonisation of females by men claiming to be us!

Trans Britain.

After this detour let’s look at what Sanders says in her chapter. She was quite embedded in the establishment for someone decrying a lack of visibility; working with the metropolitan police and the criminal justice system on hate crime.

She decries Lesbians who didn’t accept “trans women” as like straight feminists who didn’t accept lesbians.

She also spectacularly misses the real scandal of “transing away the gay” by making the spurious comparison with the demonisation of homosexuals by section 28.

Sanders makes it clear she was “trans-inclusive” at the outset and her claims to be marginalised are laughable considering her C.V.

The composition of an advisory group she was asked to set up made sure to include “trans” voices. Grayson Perry, Christine Burns and Claire McNab.

She also consulted trans lobby groups GIRES, Gendered Intelligence and the beleaguered charity Mermaids. Burns and Stephen Whittle became patrons of LGBT history month.

They even invited Susan Stryker who this year was invited to represent “women” at a celebration of Lesbians!

Can also be found trying to besmirch U.K women (mostly left wing) who are fighting for our sex based rights.

In and amongst the blatant misunderstandings there is some good stuff on the impact of Section 28 and historic oppression of homosexuals. Unfortunately Sanders has “queered” the history of Lesbian and gay struggles and is unable to address the elephant in the room: Men who fetishise her very existence.

You can support my work below or consider a paid subscription to my substack. All donations gratefully received.

My substack

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


Annie Wallace: Trans Britain (Pt 14)


Annie Wallace

Wallace works as an “actress”; As an aside it is noticeable that only men cling to the actress moniker. Wallace worked behind the scenes advising Julie Hesmondhalgh who played a “transsexual” character in popular British soap opera, Coronation Street. The producers used an actual woman to play the character to soften up the audience for the admission of biological men into women’s spaces. A kind of “product placement” or false advertising. Hesmondalgh is described as the ideal choice as she was a social justice warrior.

Eventually Wallace moved in front of the camera to play a Head teacher, in the soap Hollyoaks; which of course he describes as a “headmistress”. The propagandists behind the soap decided to show an episode in which Wallace’s character is put in a female prison and is attacked and hospitalised by female prisoners. This is breathtaking dishonesty given that we are housing male rapists in the female estate and the risk is to females, by males. Men in women’s prisons are not at risk from females. It’s a complete inversion of the truth. Proof positive is that now females, however they identify, are housed in the male estate. There is provision for extremely violent females to be held in the male estate but it is rarely used.

Wallace’s chapter is quite repetitive of the content in previous chapters so I will leave out much of the sections on the increasing visibility of “trans” people. Earlier treatments of “trans” people he describes as treated as “perversions” by a “lascivious press”. (I think he means “salacious”).

He also objects to the depiction of “cross-dressers” which, may I remind you, are included under the “trans” umbrella. Some of these men are transvestic fetishists and adopt the garb of women for erotic purposes. Some in this group of men who are so addicted to this activity they are autogynephiles and wish to live as “women” full time. We used to be able to stigmatise men who like to masturbate while wearing female attire but now boundaries are under attack and this is called “transphobia”. This is why a man feels emboldened to dress in highly sexualised, female attire and parade around Bradford train station. A U.K city which is predominantly muslim, by the way, I have seen that man myself.

Wallace proceeds to reference Roberta Cowell, Jan Morris and April Ashley. All of whom I have covered in other pieces. Cowell was a man who abandoned his family and claimed to be intersex to get access to “trans” surgeries. In order to validate this claim he had to publicly denounce his wife as an adulteress and abandon his children. Jan Morris began his “transition” after the death of a child thereby compounding his wife’s grief. None of these men are good role models but they are being proclaimed as such in school teaching materials. He also mentions Julia Grant who I covered here 👇.

Julia /George Grant:Trans Britain 10

Wallace then mentions the film The “Crying Game” which involves trying to obtain sex by deception. This is a crime under U.K law and trans-activists have long had this law in their sights. For a man who is not homosexual this is a violation of his right to decide who is in his dating pool. Here the idea of “homophobia” is leveraged to shame Rea’s reaction and that is why they did not use a Lesbian, confronted with a surprise penis, this would have made the violation much clearer.

Wallace also references Adele Anderson who infiltrated a female only group, Fascinating Aida.

Wallace believes the character of Hayley Cropper was instrumental in softening up the public to accept a bill which, we now know, has resulted in men, even rapists, in female prisons and men cheating in women’s sports. How’s that social justice working out for you Julie Hesmondalgh? It’s also worth pointing out 👇 that trans-activists continually mis-characterise the role of the “spousal veto” which is in fact better called the “spousal exit clause”. A wife who discovers she is married to a transvestic fetishist is allowed time able to exit the marriage before a man can rewrite her history and claim she is married to a “lesbian” in official documents. She cannot prevent any steps in his “transition” she can just exit the marriage before she is redefined in law. The man is granted only an interim certificate unless she agrees to remain in the marriage or they divorce. Nobody should be assumed to consent to remain married to a man who is taking these steps.

Of course Wallace ☝️claims opposition only comes from right wing and Christian groups. Sigh.

Next he talks about the film “Trans America” which also used an actual woman (Felicity Hoffman) as the trans character. Now there are objections to not using “trans” actors but in the beginning it was helpful to use females to embed this ideology in the film industry. For the Huffman film they sought advice from noted trans-activist Andrea James.

James has a rather bleak backstory having orchestrated a campaign against Michael Bailey for the publication of his book “The Man Who Would Be Queen”. (MWWBQ).

I covered that book in this series: 👇

Man who would be Queen

This is a sample of James’work 👇

In this clip Wallace also shows how captured the BBC are:

There is nothing new in the remainder of the chapter so I just want to talk about this YouTube chat that Wallace had just four weeks ago. I anticipate that this will be removed as Wallace strays into defamatory territory in this interview. Starts about twenty minutes in.

Annie Wallace: Pride

Wallace makes a veiled reference to Helen Joyce who talked about limiting the amount of young people caught up in the social contagion of the “transgender phenomenon”; to stem the tide of detransitioners. Transactivists claim that what Joyce was doing was proposing a “genocide”. Wallace talks of women like us calling for the “elimination” of trans-identified people.

He then goes on to talk about the lies circulated about “trans” people and how he works to counter this disinformation with facts. Hilariously he then proceeds to talk about the Maya Fostater legal case but appears to be mixing it up with the Alison Bailey case. (About 23 minutes in).

You can read a brief piece about Alison Bailey’s case here: (By the way Bailey is appealing the loss against Stonewall) 👇

Alison Bailey: Legal Judgment

Worth mentioning that Wallace is a patron of the beleaguer charity Mermaids about which he says this:

Gay ConversionTherapy

He also ridicules the idea that we are “transing away the gay”

These are the stats at the Tavistock Gender Clinic; which has been ordered to close because it is not regarded as “safe” for children confused about their sex.

These are the words of a Tavistock whistleblowers 👇

Here he is pushing the idea that any parent who doesn’t support the idea their gay, autistic or otherwise vulnerable child is born wrong can be replaced by their a “glitter” family. This is one of the more sinister aspects of this ideology, in my view.

You can support my work by considering a paid subscription to my substack which is here:

My substack

Or a one off donation via paypal. I know many of you can’t afford to donate and that’s OK. If enough people cover my costs that enables me to keep going and keep content open.

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


Jane Fae: Trans Britain (Part 13)

“Jane” Fae.

Can’t quite believe I have never covered Fae before. Fae has his own chapter in the book “Trans Britain”. Fae is another, heterosexual, man who married, fathered children and, when he hit middle age, began to identify as a woman. In his previous name “John Omizek” he was a defender of extreme porn and has published on this topic in the Guardian, Index on Censorship, Liberty etc. He has also self-published a book called “Taming The Beast” which also explores the attempts to regulate pornography.

You can read Fae on porn in this article. This article was originally published as John Omizek.


The article defends extreme pornography, dismisses feminist’s who expose the harm of this material, uses the language of the “coven” to describe those “witches” who oppose pornography and even appears to question the idea that men, who possess violent pornography, might be unsuitable for some forms of employment. Here are a coups of clips.

Above ☝️ Fae displays his witch-finder general side. Below is his view on the possession of extreme pornography. 👇

Apparently a chill wind has passed over the practitioners of sadomasochism. Fae paints the Labour party as the prudish maiden aunt of politics. Fae himself is a Liberal Democrat.

His chapter in Trans Britain introduces him as a “feminist” and journalist. Like a lot of these men have a background in I.T and an interest in preserving the rights of purveyors of extreme pornography.

Fae’s chapter repeats much of the ground by other contributions so I won’t detain you with much of the detail. He analyses coverage of the “trans” community in print media complaining that it tended to to be treated as if it was a sexual kink. I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest Fae’s “kink” and interest in BDSM is his route into the identity of “transwoman”. As if enjoying being hurt during sex is the essence of being “female”; a not uncommon attitude from the penis wing of “womanhood”.

He is not alone. Here are some prominent “trans” identifying males pontificating on what it means to be a “women” to them. These are the extremely sexist fantasies of porn-addled men.

Fae allows himself a detour to attack Janice Raymond’s book “Transsexual Empire” which I cover in this series.

Janice Raymond: Transsexual Empire: Final

He also takes side swipes at Germaine Greer and Julie Bindel, who he has debated a few times. You can find some of his debates,with Bindel, on YouTube should you wish to see him in action. In one he appeared alongside Bindel and Milo Yiannopolous; where he ostentatiously produced his knitting; a common hobby in behavioural autogynephiles.

Much of his chapter is repetitive but I do want to single out this one quote 👇 which lies about the law to claim that “transgender” is a legally protected characteristic. It is not. The protected characteristic, in law, is “Gender Reassignment”. The GRA is a very badly drafted piece of legislation but it does not do what Fae says here. 👇

In Trans Britain Fae links the backlash to the election of Donald Trump which, he argues, unleashed anti-trans sentiment and imported narratives about “bathroom” usage to the U.K. This resulted in a plethora of articles he labels “anti-trans” from a range of media outlets.

Along the way Fae finds time to attack coverage of the medical malpractice of Russell Reid which I covered here:

Russell Reid: Part One

Fae expresses his misogyny in interviews on YouTube and on his twitter account. This is one interview well worth a listen. The trans activist has rather a puerile introduction which relies on the scatalogical humour of the adolescent male. You might want to fast forward that but. 😳

 Jane Fae

In this interview Fae claims that “terfs” are allied with regressive movements in the United States and the crowdfunding to defend women’s rights is a great way to launder money from across the atlantic. This is how Fae characterises gender critical feminists on his twitter account.

His interviewer goes further and calls LGB Alliance a homophobic, hate group who are supported by neo-nazis. Fae also uses the tired old trope about middle-aged women being prudes and lacking a sex life. Sigh.

Both men pretend that the women they call “terfs” have shown zero concern about male violence against women and are using faux feminist credentials as a cover for their “anti-trans” hate. These men also claim to have done more work to oppose male violence which, of course, in their minds is only perpetrated by “cisgender” men. Let us remind ourself about Fae’s work on male violence against women. This 👇 is called blaming the victim.

Coming out as “trans”

Here is an interview with Fae on coming out as “trans”.

Coming out

We learn that Ozimek had been married before and had a daughter who was 16 when he decided to “come out” as “trans”. His teenage daughter had a hard time with the transition and elsewhere blamed the stress on her failed A’Levels. This is the reason Ozimek gives for the failure of the first marriage.

There is a strategic omission about his interest in sadomasochistic practices but he does admit to an early history of transvestism; which “thrilled” and “terrified him. He gives no further details of the nature of the “thrill”.

His then partner vowed to stand by her man but it was clearly taking its toll on her:

This is Fae’s public narrative about how he came to identify as a woman. The usual sexist, regressive bullshit carefully crafted to de-emphasise any connection to a sexual motive.

Fae and partner had a five year old son. She attempts a bit of levity about now being a “lesbian”. I don’t think they remained together.

Consensual Slavery

Before I leave Fae just a reminder of when John Ozimek engaged in that most feminine of pursuits; defending Consensual slavery.

Here is advising about how to evade new laws about extreme porn even offering tips about how to clean up your hard drive.

Obscenity Laws: Darryn Walker

This is a legal case in which Ozimek appeared as an expert witness for the defence.

John Ozimek Legal case

This is what he was defending 👇

His sympathy lies entirely with the porn-addled bloke, a civil servant.

I was going to finish on the unexpected discovery that, as John Ozimek, the son of a doctor and graduate of Oxford University, was an erstwhile joke writer for Noel Edmonds. However, I read Fae’s Submission to the Transgender Equality Inquiry and came across something I found more noteworthy (and, frankly, disturbing). Fae boasts of advising an organisation dedicated to child safeguarding. Why is the U.K Council for CHILD internet safety listening to a defender of extreme porn?

If you still believe Fae got into this through an excessive love of ironing I have a bridge to sell you. Next piece, in this series, is on the delightful Annie Wallace.

You can support my work here. All donations gratefully received, or consider a paid subscription to my substack.

My substack

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


Lynne Jones: Trans Britain. (12 b)


Lynne Jones. Former Labour M.P

I split this one into two parts after finding rather a lot to write about Jones’ partner in crime, Zoe Playdon. You can find that post here:

C. Burns: Trans Britain. Part 13a

Lynne Jones was in the U.K parliament from 1992 until 2010.

She first came across this issue via a constituent who wished to speak to her about issues impacting his partner; who was a trans-identified male. The person is anonymised (as J) and claimed to be too afraid to present in person so was represented by the afore-mentioned Zoe Playdon. Jones begins with an apology for her previous use of the term transsexual even though that was a perfectly acceptable usage back then and remains in use for many people who claim that identity in 2022. She continues with an additional mea culpa for her old opinions. She used to find them “weird”; “disordered” or sexual deviants. She had not considered how “cruel” this perspective was and is soon firmly convinced synthetic, sex, identities are innate.

Jones came to feel ashamed at what she feels was her “complicity” in the injustices heaped upon this community. Given that Jones’ own self identity is bound up by being a warrior against injustice she felt compelled to atone for her own “sin” and become a cheerleader for this vulnerable minority. Not very well informed herself she relied on Zoe Playdon who, as we saw in part a, was ideologically committed to the “Transgender” project. Jones was all-in and began a letter writing campaign. She was particularly aggrieved at one response to her letter which conflated transvestites with transsexuals. Having read many of these narratives most heterosexual men who claim a “trans” identity have a history of cross-dressing though only a minority will admit that they began by masturbating into female underwear. These men more than likely have a paraphilia called autogynephilia. This condition is rooted in shame and therefore it must be denied at all costs.

Jones reserves a special kind of contempt for the women fighting to exclude males, irrespective of identity, from female only spaces. Here she mis-characterises feminist arguments dismissing them as some sort of conspiracy theorists. Men colonising women’s very existence to appropriate their identity, deny women the right to exclude them from our most intimate spaces? Call the police on women for correctly sexing them? What would you call it? Trans-Identified males are not women.

Jones is dismayed by the ministers reply indicating this was a very “complex” area. The issue of sexual assault against trans-identified males was what motivated her concern. (I don’t disagree with this because I personally know of a trans-identified male who was raped and treated abominably by the police). Where it does get “complex” is demanding that female staff perform examinations, searches or where males are assigned to a female prison.

Even though she ends with “I could not disagree” she proceeds to disagree and claims badging these areas as “complex” is a cop out.

Jones complains that M.Ps continues to see “transsexuals” as suffering from a psychiatric disorder and laments the responses to a concerted letter writing campaign. The only route was to appeal to the European courts to get domestic law over turned. I was not a brexiteer but watching how Europe has trampled over women’s rights to promote this ideology and could yet be a “sexiteer”.

As an aside Jones’ mentions that their constituent “J” had contacts with Stephen Whittle of the trans lobby group Press For Change. Whittle crops up a lot in this book but doesn’t get a dedicated chapter. I have done a series on Whittle, who is behind a lot of the attacks on her own sex class.

Stephen Whittle

Below she references a letter sent by a cross party group that claims “transsexualism” arises out of “biological and physiological causes”. She herself has a PhD in biochemistry so she has no excuse for passing this off as settled science; it is no such thing.

Jones’ aimed to set up an All Parliamentary Group on this issue but first she organises a meeting , at the House of Commons, to which she invited leading Trans Lobby groups like Press For Change and people like Stephen Whittle. Also invited was Domenico Di Ceglie who was head of the Tavistock Gender Clinic which has been ordered to close. You can read my series on him below.

Domenico Di Ceglie: Tavistock

This is a typical quote from him:

This lists some of the other attendees 👇

Dr Russell Reid is a familiar name to me because he lost his licence after botched surgeries. I did a slight detour to have a look at Reid so you can see the calibre of the members of the Parliamentary Commission on Transsexualism. You can read that here!

Russell Reid: Part One

The turning point came when the government realised they did not have the necessary expertise. Tragically they seem to have turned to the ideologues allied with Jones.

Jones argued that it was her own scientific background that helped her understand the issues and then spouts some guff about #LadyBrains ending up in men’s bodies.

This is a highly contested area. One paper I covered dismissed these arguments simply on the basis that if it was the case you would expect there to be a 100% correlation in identical twins both having a “trans” identity. Another claimed that post mortem examinations in “trans-identified” males (sample size 8) illustrated that their brain structures were more similar to female comparators. The problem here was that they did not. control for homosexuality or even the impact of synthetic “cross-sex” hormones, or take account of neuro-plasticity.

Jones found her own belief systems challenged by this ideology explaining her previous ideas thus: 👇

Keen to demonstrate her open mind she unquestioningly accepts the more extreme tenets of transgender ideology

Basically Jones is saying that a fully intact male who is a man, looks like a man, should be taken on trust that he is really a “woman”. This has major implications for women’s rights to single sex spaces but she won’t say that outright. Buried in all this obfuscation is a denial of biological reality. Forcing people to accept something that is manifestly untrue sets us on a path to totalitarianism. Already women are facing legal threats and losing their jobs for speaking not “their” truths but THE TRUTH.

After Labour won in 1997, Jones attended a fringe event run by Stonewall who, at that time, did not include trans activism in its campaigning. Still not happy with this guidance because a man would have to “appear” to be what he said he was. (I am using he because it is men who pose a threat to the female sex). For Jones this doesn’t go far enough because of a reliance that a man should look like a woman in order to take advantage of his new “identity”. She was an extreme proponent of the “self-identification ” route that has seen a man running a rape crisis centre, a woman refused a female only group to get support after her rape and male rapists in women’s prison. This, my friend, is what your “progressive” stance has led to…

The following clip suggests that supporting this ideology brought rewards to Jones’ status. The only government document that bore her moniker and “the highlight of my political career”. What a legacy?

Policy Capture 👇

As I covered in my series on men working behind the scenes to embed this ideology the infiltration of the civil service, police, press, judiciary, NHS, continued apace. Place men in key institutions working for their own self-interest and in opposition to woman’s interests.

“Trans”: Working behind the scenes

Below she repeats the LIE that puberty blockers are reversible and shows zero concern for a young woman irreversibly harmed by the ideology she peddled. This is also a lie because my (gay) son got wrong sex, synthetic, hormones within 6 weeks with zero counselling. See also my post on Russell Reid, above, who, admittedly at a private clinic, doled out hormones after one or two appointments.

She even writes proudly about campaigning to get the treatment model at the Charing Cross Clinic (where Russell Reid worked) to lower the barriers to “treatment”.

For her service to the men’s sexual rights movement she got an award from the lobby group Gendered Intelligence Research and Education Society (GIRES) which she is still very proud of…


Lynne Jones seems to be a woman who prizes her reputation as a champion of the underdog. Despite her PhD in biochemistry she seems to have allowed herself to be manipulated into believing pseudoscience. She also seems to delight in being thought of as “unreliable” and consequently was rarely included on any standing committees. She did garner homage in the “trans” community and appreciated being thought of as a “trans” MP. Naïveté? Or Self-aggrandisement? Probably a deadly combination of the two and atonement for her previous sins in thinking trans-identified people were disordered and sexually deviant. She has now over-corrected.

Next up “Jane” Fae. defender of extreme porn and media commentator.

You can support my work here. Donations are welcome or consider a paid subscription to my substack. I will keep my content open but this helps me cover costs and keep going.

My Substack

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


Zoe Playdon :Trans Britain. Part 12a


Lynne Jones: Labour M.P

Lynne Jones was an Member of the U.K parliament until 2010. She was very involved in promoting “trans” ideology across parliament and instrumental in establishing the legal framework that has been so instrumental in destroying sex based rights, gay rights and child safeguarding. Before I get to Lynne (in 13b) I want to cover her partner in crime ;Zoe Playdon.

Zoe Playdon

Playdon was in charge of education at a postgraduate, medical deanery and course leader for a course in medical humanities. Playdon was also involved in the 1996 legal case P v S and Cornwall County Council which made it unlawful to make someone redundant for undergoing “gender reassignment”. For these reasons Jones approached Playdon when approached, for help, by a “transsexual” constituent. They would eventually found the Parliamentary Forum for Transsexuals later to become the Parliamentary Forum for Gender Identity.

Playdon’s website is here: As you can see she gets around a bit, briefing parliament, in the United Kingdom and Scotland and hobnobbing with the likes of Victor Madrigal who is in charge of pushing “transgender” ideology for the United Nations; and Jayne Ozanne, a Lesbian who wants to make it illegal for therapists to try to minimise harmful surgeries on young Lesbians and gay boys. As you can see the activists are still granted audiences at the heart of government and the civil service.

Zoe Playdon

Zoe has written an article for another lobby group, Transactual, whose chair of directors is Helen Belcher (Belcher is covered in chapter 17 so will make a later appearance in this series). Transactual was set up in 2017. This is the link to Playdon’s article.

Playdon on Gender Clinics

Gender Identity Clinics: Genesis and Unoriginal Sin

The article gives a potted history of “trans” medicine in the United Kingdom; harking back to imaginary “better days” before lambasting modern day treatments with the customary transperbole of “trans genocide”. It is interesting that she acknowledges the deceit practiced to access hormones and surgeries.

She continues in this vein describing the way Gender Clinics operate as coercive places where patients are “groomed into compliance”. The irony in complaining about forced sterilisation for adults and turning a blind eye to the practice of sterilising “trans kids” as young as ten years old.

Here is Playdon’s take on the case of Corbett v Corbett. A legal decision brought by the late April Ashley (a trans identified male) in order to secure a divorce settlement. In that judgment Ashley was declared to be male and the marriage null and void. Below is Playdon’s argument for describing the “genocidal” condition into which “trans” people were forced to live.

On the Gender Recognition Act she is incorrect. The lobby groups advising the government managed to get politicians to agree that there would be no requirement for any medical intervention in order to get legal recognition as a “woman”. There is no requirement for sterilisation and it is quite shocking for this to be claimed whilst conveniently glossing over the current sterilisation of children at Gender Abattoirs.

I had a look at the #TransDocFail and harvested a few comments. Demanding that women include “trans” in the fight for reproductive justice! 😳

Mermaids Interview

Playdon also gave an interview to the discredited, charity Mermaids in February 2022.

Mermaids Interview

This interview was to discuss Playdon’s book about someone she claims was a trans-identified female, Ewan Forbes. Forbes came from an aristocratic background, trained as a doctor, married a woman and won a court case to be recognised as male, for the purposes of inheriting a baronetcy. Playdon claims the establishment covered this up and denied access to the legal record about this court case. Oddly it does appear the case actually did get contemporaneous media coverage.

Playdon describes this, admittedly, fascinating tale in her book. She claims he was on cross sex hormones. (if he did actually medicalise he must have been one of, or the, earliest to access testosterone.) He appears not to have undertaken his formal name change until the age of forty shortly, thereafter, to marry his housekeeper.

Playdon’s book ignores any suggestion that Forbes actually had a disorder of sexual development; which was the actual legal basis on which he was allowed to correct his birth certificate. Instead she is quite wedded to the idea he was the first “transgender” man. She argues that there was an establishment cover up and repeats the outrage that covering up this case condemned “trans” people to a live with no civil liberties and endure a brutal regime of compulsory sterilisation on the NHS.

This was the actual basis on which Lord Hunter legally recognised Ewan as male:

Playdon’s argument was that this was an establishment cover up because it could have provoked a constitutional crisis. This seems unlikely.

There was quite a discussion on legal twitter about the case and I can highly recommend this substack post about the kerfuffle. This 👇 is quite a forensic analysis of Playdon’s claims.

The Curious Case of Ewan Forbes

Whether or not there is any truth to the case I am with Barbara Rich on this one. An old campaigning hobby horse dusted off for a new generation.

Playdon goes on to defend her use of “terf”; a slur often associated with threats of rape and violence. Apparently even the Guardian criticised this usage. Playdon dismisses the Terfs (Radical Feminists) as 1970’s Stepford Wives and akin to creationists. 😳. This shows an abject failure to understand radical feminist arguments.

Not content with this Playdon argues that women are engaged in a moral panic about “trans” people and links her book to “decolonisation” projects; a nod to the twin pillars of transgender ideology and deconstructing our colonial history. What Playdon fails to see is men colonising women is as old as the hills.

Playdon wants the “transphobes” to feel shame and claims women concerned about single sex spaces are labelling “trans” people as predators; conveniently omitting that the concern is with men, however they identify.

The idea there are no examples of trans-identified males sexually assaulting women is a easily debunked. Here is an excellent website documenting them in the U.K. 👇

Trans Crime U.K

Here are a just a few examples.

Next Playdon claims women objections are part of a well-funded anti-trans campaign linked to alt-right Christian Evangelicals. Conspiracy theorist much?

Playdon then attacks the legal case taken out by a detransitioned woman, Keira Bell. Bell v Tavistock was a legal case brought by a young woman who had undergone treatment with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and a double mastectomy before realising her mistake. Playdon calls this “fake news”.

This is what she is selling. This entire thing is an attempt to reinvent history to claim self-ID of one’s sex was the norm in the good old days and try to gaslight women and persuade gullible politicians we just need to restore the rights “trans” people have lost.

Predictably wikipedia has been completely rewritten to tell Ewan’s story based on Playdon’s book. There is an unverified comment which claims to be from Forbe’s family. Quoted in the Void If Removed substack linked above. ☝️

Playdon seems to have wielded quite a lot of influence over Lynne Jones. They are named as a former member of Gay and Lesbian Liberation front. I have assumed Playdon is a “she” for the purposes of this post. She claims to be part of the “queer” community. Another Vichy Lesbian?

I had a brief look at her twitter account. This is what she has to say about “transphobes”.

This ☝️ is insanity.

You can support my work below or consider a paid subscription to my substack. All donations help me keep my content open access for those of who are unable to contribute.

My substack

Or a one off donation via paypal.

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


Mark Rees: Trans Britain. 11


Mark Rees.

Rees is a trans-identified female who played a significant role in paving the way for the Gender Recognition Act; which was passed into U.K Law in 2004.

Despite Rees’ pivotal role in getting this legislation on the statute books Rees chose to defer applying so that he could enjoy the earlier pension age for women which was then 60 years; rather than miss out on five years of pension. Interestingly Rees talks of his distress at seeing a female sex marker on official documents but was able to overcome this for pecuniary gain.

Another sad feature of Rees’ life was the death of a twin. Born one of two premature twins the other was to die after only five days. Rees appears not to have had a brother and it’s not known if the death of a twin, or lack of a brother, had any bearing on the repudiation of her sex.

Rees also saw Dr Randall who we encountered in the preceding piece on George /Julia Grant. Despite describing Randall as a saviour he was brutally honest with his female patient.

It appears that Rees was same sex attracted and also a devout Christian who desired to be ordained as a minister. Is this another case of internalised homophobia? One article describes Brenda’s struggle with being expected to follow traditional occupations for a woman, the taunting she had as a “mannish” woman and a three month psychiatric stay. The problems were exacerbated during a spell in the armed forces where she had a crush on another woman. Brenda, however, was determined she would never have a sexual relationship with a woman, as a woman.

Rees described realising she was attracted to girls making it clear she was horrified and regarded a relationship with a woman as “abhorrent”. It is not known if this disgust extended to all “practicing” Lesbians but it is a familiar theme in trans identified homosexuals.

Rees underwent surgery in the 1970’s.

On applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate, once aged sixty five, Rees was at first rejected. Part of the problem was that all the people involved in the process to get a diagnosis, and obtain surgeries, were dead. At this point Rees claims that even her own mother had been concerned about Brenda as a child and visited the doctor because of concern for the size of her clitoris. There is no way of verifying this statement so many years later. 👇

The above statement somewhat conflicts with this statement later in the chapter where Rees’ mother is presented as totally blind sided.

An aunt stepped in to provide evidence that “Mark” had rejected sex stereotypical behaviour from an early age. This was her statement in support of a case Rees took to the European Commission for Human Rights. Rejecting of female attire and a “masculine” gait. Like the many men who “transition” there are always these stories brought out to justify the belief someone was always meant to be the opposite sex. An alternative perspective is that the family preferred a man to a butch lesbian and this view was shared by Brenda. Bearing in mind this was decades before homosexuality was widely accepted and, even today, society punishes boys and girls who don’t conform to expectations for their sex. This can be a crushing burden and result in a flight from your sex /sexuality.

I would argue that the arrival of menstruation evokes negative emotions in a lot of girls but those who flee into a “male” identity seem to feel they are isolated in this experience. I don’t know any woman who doesn’t remember a rejection of the physical manifestation of “becoming a woman”.

Rees attempt to change the law was unsuccessful and resulted in the public revelation of her female sex and a round of media publicity. This brought Rees to the attention of a Liberal Democrat M.P, Alex Carlile who would go onto join the House of Lords. Thereafter Rees began to meet other people who had a “transsexual” identity and became involved in lobby groups like Press For Change. The media coverage was a mixed bag, some of it salacious but some sympathetic. Even then there was a desire for no opposition in the coverage and alternative view points are described as a media “trick” . This is a movement that does not like scrutiny.

Rees was supported by the organisation Liberty and other M.P.s. came on board. The Parliamenary Forum For Transsexualism was set by Lynne Jones (MP) with Zoe Playdon (Head of Education at South Thames,Postgraduate, Medical Deanery). I will cover their role in my next piece.

This resulted in the setting up of. Transsexual Working Group which was across 12 government departments. Lots of “transsexuals” were brought in to advise but nary a thought was given to listening to women’s groups. I wrote about that here: 👇

GRA: Transsexual Working Group

This chapter documents many of the legal cases that I have covered in other parts of this series. Rees makes an interesting aside about the slow attrition of the campaign strategy by repeated legal cases until the government was worn down. More belligerent voices were found unhelpful by Rees. Patient and polite was the preferred campaigning style. It was conceded that there was no political gain to passing legislation which was unpopular with the general public. Once the general public understand that this legislation is not a few meek, surgically modified males; but fully intact males with sexual fetishes, the public will roundly reject it. This is where females in flight from their sex come in handy, They are the fig leaf for a full frontal assault on the sex based rights of women. Unsurprisingly Rees did not see it this way, only “Bigots” would not be won over.

After all this Rees had to get Stuart Lorimer (who we will meet again) to provide the documentation so she could get a Gender Recognition Certificate. When the new birth certificate arrived Rees had an unexpected response to the legal fiction that she was born male.

Yet Rees’ then proposes to eradicate the record of our sex from everyone’s birth certificate! This is breathtaking entitlement.

The next statement is indicative that this is a religious belief and explains the messianic zeal of these campaigners. Everybody is expected to be a believer and activists wish their religion to be embedded in the law. This is why there must be pushback. An ideology built on lies can only be propped up by the deployment of the Woke Stasi, the Transtapo if you will.

Rees is not the most aggressive of the trans activists and seems to have achieved what they have by a quiet persistence. Women in flight from their sex are not a threat in the same way as m heterosexual males acting out a fetish. Because Rees is same sex attracted they don’t pose a threat to gay male spaces as the modern crop of heterosexual females do. Even so the nature of the threat from females is, inevitably, less of a threat than the male “Lesbians”. There is zero suggestion that Rees understands the impact on women from the ideology she pushes on all women. At the very least this shows a selfish disregard for other women. But, we are just bigots aren’t we?

You can support my work below or consider a paid subscription to my substack. My content will remain open but some paid subscriptions /donations help me keep going.

My substack

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


Julia /George Grant:Trans Britain 10


Julia Grant’s story crops up frequently in the book “Trans Britain” so, I have taken a break from that series to cover the story here. Grant was the subject of a documentary and many trans-identified males reference having seen this production.

You can still find the series on BBC iPlayer; if you are in the U.K. and have a TV Licence. There are five episodes.

Change of Sex

You can also find the series on this YouTube Channel:

Change of Sex

When I first encountered George I was inclined to be sympathetic because of his background. George was the oldest of eight children with a violent father and an alcoholic mother. Because of his mother’s drinking, and suicidal behaviour, he had to step in and perform caring functions, in her stead. There is also a suggestion his father attempted to rape him. Below he is described as “prostituting” himself as a teenager which I would describe, instead, as being sexually exploited as a young boy. It is not hard to speculate that any of these issues could have led to him wishing to escape his sexed body.

Marriage and the Gay scene.

George talked about becoming active on the gay scene from a very young age but he also admitted he was not comfortable on the gay scene and, in fact, he married a woman and fathered two children.

George went back and forth in respect of his cross-dressing behaviour which follows a familiar pattern, in men with a history of transvestism. These men will often pursue their cross-dressing furtively and, periodically, purge their wardrobes of “female” attire in an attempt to get their compulsion under control. This seems likely to be driven by autogynephilia, the usual diagnosis for men with heterosexual histories. This is how he described his marriage:

One interpretation of this is that somehow George internalised his self-image as a “mother” to his siblings and this became bound up with an urge to cross-dress. Admitting any erotic component to this activity would have likely resulted in a rejection by the gender clinic, so, his silence on any sexual motive unsurprising. This activity is accompanied by shame and attempts to “purge” this behaviour and fight the compulsion. It’s also worth reading this account of spouses from a conference set up so “trans” people could promote their cause. Quite a frank piece about the behaviour of “trans” spouses and the impact on the spouse which I am surprised made the cut for the “Gendys” conference. Tell me this is not a sinister manifestation of domestic abuse?

Impact on wives

Here are a couple of clips from that piece.

Grant’s marriage was to break down and there is little focus on the issue from that marriage. There is one telling moment when Grant seeks access to housing and is asked to reveal their financial commitments. A financial obligation to fund electrolysis is mentioned but nothing about childcare support!

Grant’s attitude to homosexuals is also revealed in this clip. Is this lover more important because he validates “Julia”?

Did he think about women’s rights?

Like a lot of men who are colonising our reality George is no fan of feminists. Apparently we have “privilege” and he is going to do what he wants whether we like it or not.

Gender Clinic.

The visits to the Gender Clinic are with an incredibly pompous, patronising, patriarchal man who we now know was John Randall. Randall openly says that some men are “inadequate” in the male role and therefore assessed to see if they can be accommodated as “women”. In order to access “treatment” the men have to prove that they can be accepted as “women” by women. This is Handmaid territory; women as validation aids for female impersonators.

There is an interesting exchange which could have been articulated by modern day, gender critical women. 25 minutes in to episode one Grant explains, with the usual script, that he feels like a woman trapped in a man’s body. He explains that he has “feminine” thoughts and rejects his masculinity which is only a construction that is put on his body. Randall brusquely responds “It’s not a matter of society, it is a matter of anatomy” .

Grant continues in this vein explaining he feels like a woman and thinks like a woman. Randall breaks off to ask a woman in the room what it feels like to be a woman.

Grant is too impatient to follow all the hurdles before accessing fake breasts and is chastised by Randall for going against the clinic protocol. During this exchange he stubbornly insists he wants things to move at a faster pace and makes a statement that was to prove horribly prophetic.

In a catch up some years after the first documentary it is revealed that Grant had horrible complications just six weeks after surgery. Information “Julia” hid from the public arena for fourteen years.

This led to the breakdown in Grant’s relationship with Amir and he was unable to have sex.

Looking back on the impact of the documentary Grant expresses guilt about those that followed his path.

Ultimately, for him, surgery had been a failure but, even so, it seems it was worth it for the six weeks of “euphoria” he described following the surgery. Thereafter Grant had business ventures and worked as a drag act before moving to own bars in Manchester. Ultimately Grant would go on to marry (a man) until one day the man walked out one morning and did not return. Despite what appear to be problematic attitudes to homosexuality Grant would turn up in Benidorm to set up Benidorm Pride.

Attitude to “child” transition.

In later life Grant questioned the “transing” of children and incurred the wrath of trans activists, before his untimely death in 2019.

Grant also expressed reservations about surgery, full stop, and certainly the lack of information about the consequences.

All in all Grant had a backstory that inclined me to compassion, somewhat undermined by their total lack of consideration for the sex class, in which they are nothing more than an interloper. The annoyance at this male arrogance was tempered by their willingness to speak out about the impact on children and the terrible price they paid on their own body and sexual function.

You can support my work below or consider a paid subscription to my substack. I want to keep covering this and for my content to be free to access. Please consider supporting me as a one off donation or a subscription.

My Substack

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


Transvestite to Transsexual to Trans: Trans Britain. (Part 9)


This chapter covers the move from transvestite to “trans” activism. This clever ploy to desexualise men who cross dress is why heterosexual men have been emboldened to demand to be called “Lesbians”; like a bad Bernard Manning joke. This chapter illustrates the tactics of the “trans” lobby, advance by stealth, strategically litigate, cultivate (groom?) people of influence.

This is how far out of the shadows (blatant) the author of Trans Britain is in 2012. He’s now claiming, not only the word woman, but lesbian and mum. Pride at this stage should be renamed (We have) “No Shame”.

You can watch him say that here: Worth watching for the exaggerated, high pitched, voice which sounds like no woman I know.

Burns is proud

They accomplished this by claiming to be a Human Rights movement. It much harder to sell transvestism to the public while ever there was a recognised paraphilia called “transvestic fetishism”. The general public would never be persuaded if it was admitted, openly, that cross-dressing, for at least some involves masturbating into women’s underwear. Beaumont Society, let me remind you, was formed by transvestites and expressly banned homosexual men lest, they claim, a whiff of “gay” occasioned reputational damage.

In reality this movement is an attack on the human rights of women, by entitled men. They wish to be validated as the sex they are not and strip the rights of women to exclude fetishistic males from our spaces and our activism. The fact they achieved so much is because women’s rights are always precarious, in a society predicated on the idea that men are the default human. This is why Rachael Dolezal was pilloried for identifying into another racial group but men can call themselves “women” and our political and media elites trip over themselves in the rush to accommodate their demands.

One of the tactics has been to claim to be a vulnerable, marginalised, minority hence the testerical claims about an epidemic of murders within the “trans” community. I debunk those claims here:


What began with an uneasy alliance between those who acknowledged their transvestism and those who adopted the identity of a “transsexual” led to a transsexual rights movement. The split led to the formation of the superbly named “SHAFT”.

{However this, in turn, to led to the modern LGBTQ+ rights activism which includes “cross-dressers” once again and heterosexual people who practice BDSM and claim the label “queer”}.

Judy Cousins.

Cousins was a major in the British army and later a sculptor. He was a married man with children. This did not stop him from faking his own death.

He resurfaced in a woman’s magazine. According to this source this new female persona came as a surprise to his family.

As usual he had a history of secret cross-dressing. He also described how he selected his girlfriends more because he wanted to be like them; which must have thrilled his wife. Jan Morris (U.K “Transsexual”) said something similar in his book Conundrum.

It’s a compulsion and once you have it…

”Judy” was traced and appears to have returned to the family. He switched to the ladies golf tournament (of course he did) and rose to the high ranks of amateur Ladies competitions.

SHAFT eventually changed its name but then fell apart but, according to Burns, it pointed to the vital need for a group more focused on “transsexual” people.

Alice Parnall

Alice Parnall is another “trans” activist credited with setting up the Gendys conference.

The first conference happened in the 1990’s and thereafter was held in alternate years. “Trans” people now had a coherent narrative and could hold clinicians to account.

The conference ceased in 2004 but there is an archive and some of the papers are reproduced in full.

Gendys Archive

Alice has a rather sad back story which likely had an impact on his rejection of his sex. Sexual abuse and his parent’s messy divorce during his teens. By age 15 he had invented a female persona.

Although under the care of a gender clinic he refrained from surgery, married his lover and fathered children; an option not available to the children sterilised at “gender” clinics.

He deferred surgery until the breakdown of his relationship and trained as a nurse. He also became involved in the European chapter of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH); a lobby group that seems to have a stranglehold on guidelines for dealing with “Gender Dysphoria”.

Corbett v Corbett

Next we move on to some of the legal cases in this area. The Corbett case was in respect of the late April Ashley. April was a trans-identified male and the case related to a divorce settlement from the man he married. Ashley lost the case, the implications of which, according to Burn’s perspective, were catastrophic. Here Burn’s makes it clear his interests are diametrically opposed to women’s because we DO want the law to act in circumstances where sex matters. Housing men in women’s prisons is one of those circumstances.

Burn’s lists the disadvantages accruing to men who wish to lie about their sex. Notice he switches to reference “gender” in this section about unequal marriage legislation. Same sex attracted people still could not marry but heterosexual marriage was an option for heterosexual men who claim to be “lesbians”.

He makes an interesting observation about the prevalence of heterosexual men hiding in the LGBTQ+ movement. This is why the T is in conflict with the Gay rights movement and Lesbians, in particular, as well as the actual class of women that they seek to usurp.

Notice the cocky way he claims women for himself and uses (non-trans) as a qualifier for actual women. The misogyny drips off him however much helium he uses for his baritone.

Mark Rees.

Rees is an FTM who took a case to the European Court of Human Rights to allow marriage to their female partner. It was not a successful case but Burns acknowledges that there is an ability to weigh the rights of the many against the few. 51% of the population agree and we would like Burns to stop appropriating women’s rights.

This statement is provably false. This entire movement demands “special privileges” to force us all to validate a delusion; even one driven by a sexual fetish and directly encroaching on women’s right to privacy, dignity and safety.

Denton’s Strategy.

This is perhaps the most revealing statement so far. Below Burns reveals the strategy deployed by trans activists to get their own way. The truth is the “trans” community needed to accomplish legal changes by stealth because the majority of the public oppose their extremism once they know what it entails. TRAs have groomed politicians for decades, behind closed doors and used the strong arm of the law when it suits them.

Here they are influencing senior politicians and the wife of Tony Blair, then Prime Minister.

The claim they use “facts” to educate people is laughable when the entire movement is an elaborate con trick.

In 1999 they had a significant win thanks to their successful infiltration into the Civil Service. (I covered this in part 8, with a link to the relevant law).

The 2000 report on “transsexual” people I cover in this piece. All the usual “trans” lobby groups were consulted but it seemingly never occurred to politicians that women might have thoughts on being redefined by men.

GRA: Transsexual Working Group

Then in 2004 the disastrous Gender Recognition Act was passed. Again working by stealth, men plotted with other men, and a useful handmaiden, to strip women of their basic human rights.

Part ten will cover legal strategy. I am following the way Burn’s structured his book.

You can support my work below or consider a paid subscription to my substack.

My substack

I appreciate times are difficult but all donations are gratefully received. My content will remain open for those who are not able to fund my work.

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


Rev Christine Beardsley: Trans Britain. (Part 8)


Rev Christine Beardsley

Beardsley is a gay male who is in a long-standing relationship but came out as “trans” in his forties. Regular readers will know that I am generally more able to find empathy with homosexuals who claim a “trans” identity. Sometimes this may lead to less objectivity and I think my reaction to Beardsley is somewhat conflicted because of my own love, for my son. Bear this in mind while reading.

As a young boy he explains that he was a very effeminate boy. I prefer to use the phrase “variant in how he expressed his masculinity” because “camp” behaviour bears little relationship to how most women behave. Women are not a “drag” costume. We exist.

Where I can express sympathy is for the little boy who knew he had disappointed his father.

Clearly this would have been distressing for a little boy shamed by crushing expectations of conformity with male sex stereotypes and then compounded by a growing awareness he was homosexual. At some point he clearly internalised that his natural inclinations were at odds with societal expectations but he also internalised the sex stereotypes as “real” which then emerges as a cross-sex identification. This is in direct conflict with a feminist project to dismantle expectations based on sex (sexism). An early history of cross dressing, in secret, must have placed intolerable pressure on him as a young boy.

I have slightly less sympathy for an adult man who refuses to look at the harm being done to the female sex. This is something I struggle with in respect of my son. I know that part of his condition began with horror at the negative experiences of women and girls, at the hands of men. However, as the impact of this ideology, on women, unfolds where is the empathy for the sex he identifies “as”? Beardsley was forty-six when his “gender identity” issues became overwhelming. He had already entered the priest hood; in a time when women were barred. This was prior to the impact on women, girls and our gay boys that we see today. At what point is it reasonable to expect someone to disassociate themselves from this harm? I think now would be a good time because every day that passes implicates any man, who claims to be women, in the harms being caused to the female sex and the children being sterilised in the name of this new religion.

His long term husband is, reportedly, supportive of his “transition”, though we don’t have his direct testimony. Having already been with him for 25 years. It is not clear if he had always been aware of his partner’s inner turmoil. The language of “true” self always raises alarms for me because it sounds quite cult like. I also find men who do this in later years, who seem overly invested in childhood medical interventions, a tad problematic. I wonder also how much his religious sensibilities play in his flight from his sex.

He takes on a tour of his growing awareness of “trans” as a boy. Virginia Prince was an early activist who remains a controversial figure in the LGBTQ community as he is on record as against “sex reassignment surgery”. April Ashley figures as does Julia Grant. He also shares a book, subsequently made into a film, I had not heard of before. Superb title: I want what I want.

As I write this film is available on YouTube. Link below. 👇

I want what I want

What Beardsley wanted to see were images of ordinary “transsexuals” and he makes an extraordinary statement about what attracted him to the priesthood. Conflating priests with women because they don’t “go out to work” and have “soft hands” and some had “high pitched voices”. 😳. The deployment of these, rather sexist stereotypes a very old fashioned and undermine the feminist project to break down these expectations on the female sex. At the same time did a small boy internalise these beliefs in such a way that he has never been able to break free? And if that is true do women have any responsibility to accommodate these males at a cost to ourselves? The answer is no.

Beardsley claims the Church of England used to be a less hostile place for gay, male, priest until the late 1970’s. At that time a more Christian Evangelical group were committed to purging gay priests from the Church of England. For Beardsley he was keeping another secret in how he perceived himself.

Eventually he had an epiphany about God’s love which lead him to come out to his congregation. He was both “coming out” and remaining in the closet as he makes clear below. Notice he also describes his experience, at a dance class, 👇 as being with “other women”.

Following changes in the law and the support of Press For Change, Liberty and a Christian organisation Sybil, Beardsley came out as “transgender”.

You can read the Gender Reassignment Regulations (1999) here:

Gender Reassignment Regulations (1999)

I am not legally trained but, whilst the intention may have been to protect occupation requirements that only a natal woman can perform certain roles I imagine some of the wording can be used to argue the opposite. As we have seen women’s rights to be able to reject a trans-identifying man in their spaces have been eroded following this shift and the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.

As an aside the Clare Project remains in operation to this day and has obtained funding from the National Lottery, local council the NHS as well as LGBT organisations.

As you would expect, from a Reverend there is a lot of discussion in respect of the position of the Church of England to a “transition” and other Vicars who have taken the same route are named along the way. I won’t detain you with the details but if you are interested in this you can listen to this discussion.

Christina Beardsley & Preston Sprinkle

The only comments I will make on this podcast relate to Beardsley’s faith, misplaced in my view, in the World Professional Association on Transgender Health (WPATH) and the NHS on the treatment of Gender Dysphoria in the modern era. This discussion predates the closure of the Tavistock and the interim Cass report. At the same time coverage of the impact of Puberty Blockers predates this interview. Beardsley is also skeptical about the phenomenon of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, denies that young people are being rushed into transition and is in favour of a bill that would ban therapeutic approaches to gender dysphoria. There is also a good discussion about how it looks like gender medicine is over reliant on old fashioned sexist stereotypes. Preston Sprinkle seems to have considered the situation quite deeply and is aware of the rising rates of detransitioners. Beardsley also thinks concern about a lack of caution in transitioning our kids is a fantasy. It’s fair to say that no consensus was reached but it was a calm and compassionate exchange. I think as the medical scandal unfolds Beardsley will regret this stance. I did reach out to Tina for comment on this view.

The next chapter looks at landmarks in trans-activism.

You can support my work below at my paypal or consider a paid subscription to my substack.

My substack

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