Long Term Follow up: Transsexuals

I have quoted this study often but never actually featured it on my blog. Time to remedy this deficit. Study linked below:

Long Term Follow up TS

This study is from 2011. It followed 341 ”transsexual” persons for a median period of 11 years. They had ”transitioned” between 1973 and 2003. 191 were male and 133 were female.

The author’s explain there is a dearth of long term follow up and this remains the case, nearly 20 years later, measured against the end point of those surveyed. This despite sky rocketing numbers of children and young people, in particular, claiming a ”transgender” identity. In the UK there has been a 4000% + spike in females referred to the Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS). Last time I looked the increase for males was 1152%. There are also rising rates of detransitioners. I cover this on my series on detransition.

Detransition

This study sought to remedy the deficit in research by following up a cohort and evaluating patterns of morbidity, mortality and also criminality. Median length of follow up was 11 years. They looked at people who had undergone “sexual reassignment” from 1973 to 2003. The researchers also matched each group to compare outcomes measured against their biological sex and the sex the participants wished they were.

Abstract

The study looks at mortality and morbidity rates as well as patterns of criminality.

Results

As you can see mortality was higher, particularly due to suicide, psychiatric inpatient care remained higher for this demographic, females also had a higher propensity for criminality than the rest of their sex. (“Transsexual” males matched the pattern for their sex).

Despite the less than optimal outcome, hormonal /surgical treatments remain the recommended treatment for “Gender Dysphoria”. These are the treatments listed in the study which seem to assume patients are male. (I am basing this on the fact that females would not require body hair removal). However, from 1973 to 2003 the majority of patients would have been male.

This research followed patients from 1973 to 2003. Even then they point out that outcome data is scant. (Despite protestations to the contrary, the data still remains scant, in terms of long term follow-up). All the other studies quoted are referenced so can be looked at in more detail. (I will post on any that are open access). The rate of suicides does look high to me and later the authors compare these rates to the rate for their actual sex and the sex to which they aspire. ( Until I read this paper I also had no idea that people can actually die from complications following “sexual reassignment surgery”).

Other referenced studies. 👇

This is the one that followed up 24 “transsexuals” :

The same names appear on this study which looks like another worthwhile piece to follow up.

These were the other two referenced studies.

You can access the second one (7) here:

5 year follow up

Here are a few more studies:

/

References to the quoted studies:

I could only find links to a full copy for this one.

11. Gooren, Giltay et al

Back to this study.

The data is inconsistent but overall the authors concluded the “evidence base for sexual reassignment surgery is of very low quality” .

This is a very good summary of the limitations of the research that does exist. Some of the reasons seem insurmountable (double blind, randomised trials, for example) but for others it is baffling why there has not been sufficient will to overcome them. I am thinking about the surgeries that were funded by the NHS, in the U.K. These should have made it possible to do long term follow up.

There follows a thorough outline of the methodology. For those of you interested in this it is a very comprehensive section. One thing to note is that accurate follow up needs to record biological sex and a way of coding “sexual reassignment surgery”; such that outcomes can be tracked. Those people arguing for the end to recoding biological sex in any formal documents are going to undermine this kind of follow up.

Of the “transsexuals” in this study their hospitalisation rates for psychiatric issues, other than gender identity issues, were four times the rate for the control group. This was prior to “transition”. As I have said before there are victims in this cohort; notwithstanding their plight has been weaponised against the female population.

There was an increased rate of criminal convictions after sexual reassignment.

More details on co-morbidities, substance use and accidents paints a picture of a vulnerable population both pre and post “transition”.

For this of you who like a graph what is buried in this one is that the suicide rate for this demographic is 19 times higher for this demographic.

The authors make a distinction in patterns for criminality based on the dates of their surgeries.

Notice that the differences in patterns of suicidality conform to birth sex not “gender identity”.

While the surgeries are deemed to alleviate “gender dysphoria” psychiatric co-morbidities remain. The authors may see this as a success because once post-operative there is nothing, material, that can be done to address the felling of a mismatch between their biology and their outward appearance. However, what if the psychiatric co-morbidities remain because they surgeons were treating the wrong problem?

The retention of a male pattern of criminality also suggests our politicians are wrong to place men in female prisons, regardless of any “identity”. To be clear there are more issues than male patterns of criminality to exclude males from female spaces. Women should be allowed single sex spaces for privacy and dignity, irrespective of safety. The increased rate among females warrants some research into the impact of testosterone on a female body.

More detail on those patterns of criminality. 👇

Strengths of this Study.

The period of time followed, low drop out rates and surveying a clear population of post operative “transsexuals” are all strengths. Also important was that the group surveyed are compared to both their biological sex and the sex they aspired to. This is important because, for example, the higher rates of criminality in females would have been masked if only measured against males.

There is a detailed sections on the limitations of the study. Among the arguments are that “transsexualism” was still only a low number of people, in Sweden; during the period covered by the survey. They argue psychiatric treatments have improved over this period. Furthermore people treated for other psychiatric conditions continued to have high rates of referrals for mental illness which, they argue, cannot be assumed to be because of the treatment they received.

Wherever you stand on the wisdom of medical responses to “gender dysphoria” it is clear that this patient group are poorly served in terms of follow up and long term, evidenced based, research. Even if you were to find a group willing to opt for solely therapeutic care to deal with their “gender dysphoria” ; to compare to those given hormones /surgeries, I suspect the results would be dismissed. The group willing to try therapy only, would automatically be assumed to be less “dysphoric”.

You can support my work here. Any contribution is gratefully received and enables me to keep my content open and cover my costs.

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

£10.00

Graham Linehan: On Newsnight

Featured

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

Linehan Newsnight

Sarah Smith interviews Linehan

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

White Knighting?

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

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

Toxic Debate

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

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

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

Moral Panic?

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

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

Puberty Blockers!

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

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

I did a piece on this funding.

Liberal Democrats & Big Pharma

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

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

Less heat, more light, Sarah.

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

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

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

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

Bodily autonomy versus child safeguarding.

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

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

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

Gay Eugenics.

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

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

Both sides!

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion.

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

Final word to another Tavistock whistleblower.

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

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

£10.00

Nancy Kelley: Woman’s Hour

Featured

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

Nancy Kelley

Here is a transcript.

Nancy Kelley WH interview 18th Nov 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stonewall and the Scottish Government.

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

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

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

Sexual Racists.

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

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

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

Barnett then digs up another quote from Nancy :

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

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

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

Is JK Rowling a transphobe?

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

Kathleen Stock

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

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

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

Nolan Podcast

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

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

Nancy Kelley

Ruth Hunt

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

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

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

£10.00

MORGAN PAGE: Stonewall Ambassador

Featured

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

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

Alison Bailey

Cotton Ceiling

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

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

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

“Trans” social group: Toronto

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

GNC Centric and her “trans” youth group

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

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

Page at Slut Walk

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

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

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

“Trans feminism”.

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

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

Alison Bailey: Legal Judgment

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

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

£10.00

Alison Pritchard: TRA behind the scenes? Part one: GEO

Featured

Pritchard does have a social media presence but, certainly on twitter and facebook, they are not vocal on ”trans” rights. Perhaps when your CV has seen you deeply embedded, at a senior level, in the Civil Service you have all the voice and influence you need?

Prichard’s linkedin does not go back further than 2009 but elsewhere we can learn they have been with the Civil Service since 1987.

Government Equality Office (GEO)

As far as I could ascertain their are no smoking guns or controversial statements in the public domain but is it really coincidental that moves to embed “Trans” rights at the expense of women’s rights, tend to follow him around? Let us have a look I at the actions of the various of the departments during Pritchard’s time in post. First up the Government Equality Office between 2009-2012 when Pritchard was Head of Strategy.

During Pritchard’s tenure the GEO began a review of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. This document covers the outcome if this consultation.

review-information-advice

This is a list of the organisations consulted:

Follow the money!

I have had a look at all of these organisations websites and they are all paid up purveyors of Gender Identity Ideology. Of course I can’t check their stance back to 2011 but even End Violence against Women no longer defines women based on biological sex. The Equality and Diversity Forum is now called Equally Ours and its funders are some of the foundations committed to spreading Gender Identity Ideology. Esme Fairburn also funds End Violence Against Women which explains a lot. Paul Hamlyn Foundation shares a trustee with the Scott Trust that oversees the Guardian media, group. Barings Foundation funded Stonewall to provide secretarial services for the All Parliamentary Group on LGBT issues.

The document itself is very dry and goes into quite a lot of detail on the efficiency (or not) of its helpline services and its grant making powers. A few points stand out. The EHRC is criticised for the power imbalance between the organisation and those grassroots organisations it funds. The grant recipients are also, it is argued, hindered in meeting the criteria for obtaining and monitoring grant expenditure. Moreover the report highlights that some groups who are part of the more established protected characteristics my be getting more priority. This is despite the review having this to say about the EHRC grant allocation.

Gendered Intelligence is singled out for particular comment. Was the review setting the scene for more grant awards to specific organisations and a relaxation of the ”stringent” criteria?

The report also details a specific intervention made by the Scottish EHRC in relation to the ”Transgender” community. Was this to shame the English EHRC for not attemp to obtaining similar concessions from the English NHS? 👇 A not so subtle hint about what would be considered good practice?

Outcome of the Review

The resulting proposals were set out in a document signed off by the then Home Secretary, Theresa May and Lynne Featherstone who was Minister for Women and Equalities; a title she shared with Theresa May. Their proposals were outlined in the document below:

Building a fairer britain EHRC-consultation-

The decision was taken to end EHRC’s grant making powers. It was also determined that the EHRC would no longer be required to foster good relations between different protected characteristics. This has significant implications when one protected group, Gender Reassignment, is demanding rights which the protected characteristic of Sex had been granted; namely the right to single sex spaces which exclude males irrespective of their ”Gender Identity”.

This despite the overwhelming number of respondents opposing the repeal of this responsibility.

The appendix lists organisations that responded and I counted only few organisations that were women’s organisations. Scottish Women’s Aid is not exclusively for women but regards ”Trans women as Women”. The Women’s Resource Centre and National Board for Catholic Women (NBCW). I can find no reference to this issue on the NBCW website.

Whatever their position in the past the Women’s Resource Centre does have a statement on their website which defends sex as a biological reality and wishes to preserve the right to single sex services. It is, however, clear that they represent members who adopt a variety of positions.

Statement on Women’s Services

The list of trans organisations is somewhat longer. Gender Identity Research and Education Society, LGBT Youth Scotland, Press for Change and Stonewall all made submissions.

I will return to Pritchard as he continues his career to examine any other pertinent activities which occurred on his watch.

If you wish to support my work with a gift you can do so here. All donations gratefully received. I now have a subsistence level income (finally) so only give if you have something to spare.

DD44E02E-B4E2-4BB3-B581-8BB81DBDC0A0

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and the impact on women’s rights, gay rights and the medical experiment on children.

£10.00

Jess Phillips. Feminist? Meninist?

Featured

Worth a look at Phillips who enhances her political credibility by reading out the names of murdered women and claiming to be a feminist. She can of course call herself what she likes but actions speak louder than words.

Jess Phillips co-sponsored a bill to replace the protected characteristic of ”gender reassignment” with ”gender identity”. Men can already get a Gender Recognition Certificate whether or not they have a penis. Broadening the ”protection” to ”Gender Identity” would be a disaster for women’s, sex based, rights. Try to find anyone able to define ”Gender” without recourse to sexist stereotypes. Clip from Hansard, the official record of the British Parliament.

Phillips also boasted about opposing the Spousal Exit Clause, for women trapped in marriages with men who are wishing to identify as women. It does not stop the man doing anything to his body, changing the way he presents or what pronouns he claims. All it does is allow the woman to exit the marriage before she is officially recorded as being married to someone claiming a legal identity as a ”woman”, based on ”gender”.

Here she is again. This is also from Hansard. Megan Key is a trans-identified male who thinks men who sexually offend, against women, should be allowed in female prisons. What did Phillips say? NOTHING! Professor Brookes is also willing to make women participate in a social experiment against our will.

Jess Phillips has shown who she is, we need to believe her.

This is how Jess Phillips describes herself on her website:

Who funds her?

Attached is a PDF of all her donations as recording on the Electoral Commission website.

Donations

Ranked in order of contribution level we find that a Fiona McTaggart is a significant donor: 

Different kinds of women? 😳

This would appear to be the Fiona McTaggart who was head of the Fawcett Society. Here is Jess retweeting her in 2016.

Here is how the Fawcett society responded to the new EHRC guidance which attempted to clarify guidance about single sex spaces.

The proceeded to express concern that the bar for accessing single SEX spaces may ”unfairly” exclude some males.

In conclusion, Jess Phillips has shown us who she is.

If you want to support my work you can do so here…Irrespective my work will be open access. Contrary to the propaganda women are doing this on their own dime and not many right wing, Christian Evangelicals donate to Atheist, Left Wing Feminists. 🤷‍♀️

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and how it has captured the political and media elite, to the detriment of the female sex and gay rights.

£10.00

Liberal Democrats & Big Pharma

Featured

I have covered this topic, in passing, on other blogs but, since local elections are coming up, in the U.K. here is some information on the Liberal Democrats, political party. They are very keen on promoting “trans rights” but in recent years they have an additional incentive.

The Times covered this story in 2019 but vastly underestimated the monies involved.

The Electoral Commission has a searchable database which you can use to track donation to individual politicians and political parties. Here is a link so you can see the results for the Liberal Democrats and Ferring Pharmaceuticals.

Ferring Pharma & Liberal Democrat’s

Here is the headline figure

Here is a PDF of the search results.

Ferring Pharmaceuticals

Here is a Freedom of Information request which confirms that Tripolterin is being used at the Tavistock, Gender Identity Service (GIDS). From 2011 this treatment began to be used in children as young as 11 and reportedly even one of 10 years old.

FOI_19-20152_Application_Response_re_2010_Trial_Using_Triptorelin

Tripolterin is also used in the treatment of sex offenders as detailed in this study of serious offenders held in maximum security conditions.

Triptorelin

Details of the age range of the prisoners and their crimes is below. As you can say they were convicted of offences which include sexual assault, some on minors, hostage taking and arson. One continued to offend whilst in custody.

These are some of the side effects reported:

Further side effects were reported below. Testicular atrophy and hot flushes.

In these patients the intention was to reduce sexual aggression and indeed it is reported that it induced effects akin to ”surgical castration”.

Bear this in mind when it comes to exercising your vote in the May elections. If you believe women have a right to single sex spaces and not to be redefined against our will. If you don’t think we should be blocking puberty in minors, do the Liberal Democrats deserve your vote?

Let me remind you of the words of Lynn Featherstone, former MP and now in the House of Lords. This is what she said on the Liberal Democrats own website. (A post I can no longer link to, by the way). Here is a reminder.

You can support my work here.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology. The impact on women’s, sex based, rights and gay rights. Documenting all the ways elites are imposing this ideology in our schools and institutions.

£10.00

Limerick Prison Report.

This is a special report into Limerick Prison since housing three male prisoners in the women’s wing. The full report is below. 👇

Limerick-Prison-COVID-19-Thematic-Inspection-Report-2021

I did a piece on Barbie Kardashian for Graham Linehan’s substack; a seriously disturbed young man with convictions for violent attacks on women. Brought up by an abusive father he was recruited to join in the violent assaults on his mother. I have reproduced this on my blog with a link to the court case which brought this young boy to my attention. Now he identifies as a “woman” and has been transferred to the female estate, in Limerick Prison. He has not only committed serious violence against women but he threatens sexual violence and has a specific resentment for the female sex. 

I blogged on him here. Article contains links to the original court transcript, relating to a previous detention order. This was prior to his current conviction for which I have not managed to get a court transcript.

Barbie Kardashion

Limerick Prison was subject to an official inspection in April 2021. At that time three males, with a transgender identity, were held in the female estate. Limerick Prison houses both males and females who are, normally, held separately. 

Because males are generally held in the estate suitable for their sex the inspections cover the male and the female experience. For the females one of the issues raised was lack of access to tampons even through there was a scheme to provide them free of charge.

The other issues mentioned were the lack of any toilet facilities, for females, in the exercise yard. There were facilities for males. Without a trace of irony the inspection report points out their own recommendation which states women should be allowed time to exercise “out of sight of male prisoners”. The total and utter disrespect shown by making female prisons mixed sex and still feigning support for women’s dignity!

That is about as much attention as they gave to female prisoners. But they do spend an inordinate length of time angsting about the male sex /violent offenders they have put on the women’s wing.

The Yogyakarta principles are a document drawn up by some of the more extreme trans-activists. These principles have no standing in international law despite being referred to by many HuMAN rights organisations, who claim they promote best practice. One of the men involved recently broke ranks to criticise them and admit that too little thought was given to the rights of women. Robert Wintemute, one of the signatories, to the principles admits the rights of women were not given sufficient consideration. 👇

The Irish Prison Inspectorate seems to have fully aligned with the Yogyakarta principles as they demonstrate below. 👇 Note the prisoner has a voice about where they are placed in the prison accommodation. What about the women?

Ireland operates on the self-identification principle such that even a male with a history of violent/sexual abuse of women is not precluded from obtaining a gender recognition certificate. There is no safeguarding built into this process. Any man who claims to identify as a “woman” is granted a GRC. This has created the inhumane policy of housing males in female prisons. (Not just Ireland, by the way, Scotland allows “self-id” and so do England. There are no female prisons in Wales. I don’t know the situation in Northern Ireland). 

Now we come to the conditions in which the males, with a claimed trans-identity, are held. They are held in their prison cells for 23 out of 24 hours. They appear to have single cells, which are somewhat of a rarity in Irish prisons. I agree it is inhuman to restrict prisoners in this way, unless the alternative is to expose women to risk. Notice the Irish prison service have adopted the language of gender identity ideologues so you have to do some mental gymnastics to realise we are not talking about women here. We are talking about males. At least one of those males is a grave danger to women.

The situation for these detainees is, I agree, likely to be causing them psychological harm. However, the risk to females, if they were allowed free association, is likely to be more than psychological.

If ever there was a prisoner that could use access to a “listening” service whilst in prison this person would appear to be one. However, having read some prisoner accounts of the “listener” service it would appear it is not an unmitigated good. The service is run by other prisoners and there are reports some use information shared, by vulnerable prisoners, for nefarious reasons. It is not clear if the “listeners” are male or female.


I would agree. 👆 the prison service are in an impossible position. Forced to allocate dangerous males, in a female wing, afraid of the consequences of fully unleashing them on the female population, then criticised for segregating them. Either the trans-identified, and male, prisoner is placed in a solitary /segregated scenario or they are allowed to mix with “general population”. The population referenced here would appear to mean the women on the wing. The prison service would be forced to deploy staff to protect, potential, female victims.


The Prison confirms that the processes needed to protect these trans-identified males are labour intensive. Nowhere do the prison inspectors cover the issue of the risk to actual females by forcing the prison to adopt the, naive, recommendations of the Yogyakarta Principles. They do at least manage to include a reference to female staff being coerced into giving bodily searches to males. 

The prisoners have complained about mis-gendering so naturally the prison staff are also to be forced to undergo re-education programmes. Prison staff will be forced to call a violent male, with a deep seated loathing of women “Barbie”.


The prison inspectorate mandates prison staff should receive training on LGBT + issues. They do not recommend any training covering the impact, on females, of being housed with males. Males, let me remind you, with histories of violence /sex offending against women. This is despite the fact that female prisoners have been shown to be disproportionately impacted by domestic violence and sexual assaults, by men.

As far as I can ascertain the requirement to draft a new policy has not yet been undertaken or is not yet published on the Irish Prison service website. The inspectorate makes clear, in its action plan, they will be closely monitoring compliance with the LGBT+ training. This will be developed in collaboration with an appropriate civil society organisation, which, I infer, means a Trans Lobby group. The transgender prisoners will also get a voice in this training. Not the women. The Inspectorate also require attendance numbers and frequency of delivery/updates to the training programme. Big Brother is watching you!

The interesting double-think required for these policies is evident in the policy written for the Scottish Prison Service. The policy for trans-identified females, in Scotland, specifically highlights the danger of sexual assault to a female held in the male estate. Trans-identified men are invariably held in the female estate. Sex would appear to matter for the trans community after all. The Scottish policy does claim the trans-identified females should be given a choice. The other women get no choice about forcible detention with males.

Would love to see the LGBT training materials the prison are now using. They provided them, to the inspectorate, in June 2021. They don’t appear to be available on their website.

When will they listen to women’s groups?

Parents of ”trans” kids. Infertility: Part 10.

Featured

This is part 10 of a series on Parents who believe they have a ”transgender” child. The project is funded by, amongst others, Oxford University. Mermaids representatives sit on the steering board. The research is hosted on a website called healthtalk.org. This episode is on parents discussing their child’s fertility. Many of these children have been on puberty blockers followed by cross-sex hormones. They will be sterile. Some of these parents seem to be unaware of this fact.

Here Oonagh says she does think about the long-term impact of the cross-sex hormones her son is taking.

Oonagh thinks her child is too young to know how he will feel in the future. He is too young to appreciate the consequences of the treatment he is going through. She also does not know much about the options for fertility preservation. She seems to be a bit late in the day to be admitting this.

Maybe science will come up with something?

There is ongoing research into preserving fertility for those undergoing fertility destroying treatments. The Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority even have a page for Trans and non-binary people. They even advise that there is provision for egg/sperm storage to be extended beyond the usual ten years to 55 years for anyone facing premature infertility. Even if you are taking these treatments voluntarily. Link below: 👇

HFEA

Some of the children were not interested in any measures to preserve their fertility and see adoption in their future.

This is an example if the magical thinking of these kids. A male wants to meet a girl who wanted to be a boy so they could have children together. One parent does not remember any conversation about fertility at GIDs.

One parent says his child does not want to think about anything relating to certain parts of their body. Another says their child was too embarassed to be in a room where sperm was discussed. I am going to suggest that these kids are embarking on treatments for which they are not mature enough to give informed consent.

Lesley’s child is being treated for mental health issues, as an in-patient. She disagrees with the decision to take her daughter off testosterone during this stay. CAMHS felt that her daughter was showing doubt about loss of fertility.

Parents feel their children are not being treated as well as cancer patients in this respect. However another parent says his daughter felt concern about fertility was a way to gatekeep access to testosterone.

Ross felt their child complied with the process, to a degree, because they lacked the confidence to refuse. To him, their child was adamant she did not want children.

At last they mention ”safeguards”.

Where are the social workers?

BASWK who regulate social workers are also captured. From their website:

They include ”gender” and ”gender identity” in their list of categories of “oppressed” people.

Here a parent reflects on the future fertility of her child. Her child is on route to ruined fertility and yet this parent wishes to find a route so they can still procreate.

She is reduced to doctor google!

One of the options she is considering is having a baby before embarking on cross-sex hormones.

The local authority, social workers, the foster carer are all going along with this, let that sink in. The capture is across the board.

I do this unwaged. Donations very welcome. Irrespective my content will remain free.

Researching gender identity ideology and covering the biggest medical scandal of this century.

£10.00

GRA: Transsexual Working Group

Featured

Who advised parliament on the Gender Recognition Act?

In part 1 on the Hansard audit trail, David Lammy referenced the work done by rhe Transsexual Working Group that paved the way for the passing of the Gender Recognition Act. You can read this document here: 👇

Transsexual Working Group 2000

These are the groups that were consulted. Note, not one women’s rights group was consulted even though it was clear the majority of those seeking to be redefined, in law, were men who wished to be recognised, legally, as women.

The also had submissions from additional groups, again no representatives from women’s organisations.

The report introduces this as a ”medical condition”. A person has a firm conviction they are the opposite sex. It makes various claims suggesting this has a biological origin, for which the evidence is flimsy. Somehow they seem to have managed to convince politicians this is the case despite the existence of many late transitioning males, some of whom admit to having the sexual paraphilia, autogynephilia.

Intersex/Disorders of Sexual development

One transsexual was quoted claiming to have a #LadyBrain and being careful to distance any notion this is connected to ”sexual preference”. To believe this guff about ”thinking like a woman” you would have to have pretty sexist views about women.

A group of trans lobby groups were invited to give a presentation to the working group where the claim they suffered from a type of ”intersex” condition was repeatedly made.

This explains how our parliamentarians were hoodwinked. A conviction you were meant to be female/male, when your natal sex is the opposite, is a psychological condition. Its etiology varies, some may be gay males /Lesbians in flight from their sex/sexuality, some are hetereosexual men with a paraphilia, autogynephilia. They are not intersex. The main U.K Gender Clinic actually abandoned karyotype tests because chromosomal abnormalities are not a feature of their referrals. Here is the relevant clip: 👇

You can read that full article at the link below:

Karyotypes and Gender Clinics

The report sets out the role of the European Court of Human Rights in prompting a review of legislation, in this area, after some notable court cases. Having determined that parliament would review this area the working group was established to consider three options, as follows: Retain the status quo; allow new birth certificates possibly displaying a new “sex” or grant full recognition of the ”acquired gender”. As you can see the tactic of switching between sex/gender was used from the outset.

These were the areas the working group was tasked with looking at. Zero consideration that this law might impact on women, the female and only kind.

The section on birth registration uses the intersex gambit to argue that we already amend birth certificates where there was uncertainty, at birth, because of a disorder of sexual development. It covers different ways a ”transsexual” could have a newly issued birth certificate, what it should record and how to protect the privacy of the person in receipt of one.

The report makes a clear statement about the limits of ”transition” which is a statement of fact and would nowadays be considered ”transphobic”.

Marriage

The marriage section covers the right to retain a marriage after a person claims to be the opposite sex, the right to marry in a new “gender” and the implications for a marriage between two persons of the same sex; given this was not legal. It also considers existing spouses and the impact on them. This also forms a big part of the discussion on pensions if the act required marriages to be voided if one, usually the man, wanted to be legally recognised as a woman. The pensions section also spends some time looking at pensions implication for the ”transsexual”. This would eventually result in males getting a pension at 60 and females, who identified as men, having to wait a further five years. Both these issues are now resolved by gay marriage and equal pension ages for both sexes.

Family Law

This section is concerned with the right to a family life, the rights and responsibilities of parents who identify as trans. The legislation proposed is not retroactive and, at this stage, activists were not attempting to change birth certificated to record a male as a ”mother” or a female as ”father”. There is some discussion about inheritance but nobody made a claim to inherit titles that follow the male line. In fact, when the legislation was passed, primogeniture was protected such that a female cannot accede to titles intended to follow a male line, even with a GRC. Neither can she become a priest in any religious denomination that does not allow female priests.

Criminal Justice System

The report reiterates the law that rape can only be committed by a male, a statement that would result in a twitter ban in 2022, and which remains the case. There is a lot of discussion about how males who identify as ”transsexual” would be treated in the judicial system. Even as far back as 1999 the situation was that someone would be treated according to the ”gender” they claimed. New names were to be respected but the report admits this may place a case in jeopardy if sex was not recognised for offences that can only be committed by a male. The report also makes it clear that intimate body searches should be conducted by someone of the same ”gender”. If THEY CONSENT!

The report does make a distinction between pre and post-operative transsexuals and recognises the impact on women.

Interestingly the report has this to say about Scottish Prisons.

Sport

The working group made it perfectly clear that “inclusion” in sport would introduce unfairness for female competitors but nevertheless made it clear a man, with a GRC, would be entitled to compete against women.

The issue was nicely sidestepped paving the way for Liar Williams and Laura Hubbard.

Legal Recognition

The report makes it perfectly clear that it was anticipated that men, even pre-operative men, would be allowed to avail themselves of a GRC. (For the avoidance of doubt I don’t share the view that this is a meaningful distinction. There are many, post-operative, men who appear to envy, even hate, women. Where sex matters female only spaces should be for females only). Despite this they determined that the marker of having joined the female sex class would be a GRC. This would be for ALL purposes.

As we now know the eventual legislation did carve out some exceptions. Women are able to exclude a male, even one with a GRC from single sex spaces. Many organisations are too afraid/complicit to enforce these exemptions but they do exist. Here’s what the working group had to say: 👇

The authors, I would suggest deliberately, chose an example of a male only service and focussed on a male who changed ”gender”. So, in fact he still met the sex specific criteria. They presumably did not anticipate that a male would lie about his sex and end up running a rape crisis centre, for women.

They did, bizzarely, worry about a transsexual Nanny and made it clear there would be exceptions for a private home. Presumably this was a scenario the MPs could identify with.

No such exception was made for some of the most vulnerable in our society. Here it was made clear it was envisaged vulnerable women would have to accept intimate care from a male with a GRC.

The eradication of Sex in life and law.

I will end my coverage here but the report also continues with a presentation by trans lobby groups. I will cover that presentation, at some stage. The presentation used the intersex gambit, veiled threats of legal action, emotional blackmail and suggested ways to accomplish the change and avoid media scrutiny. They knew what they were doing. I will just leave you with one suggestion they made. This puts the decisions about the census and data gathering, in general, into context.

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

Researching Gender Identity Ideology, it’s impact on women and gay rights. I look at legislation, medical treatments of “transgender children” and criminal cases.

£10.00