Examining Gender Identity ideology and its impact on Women's Sex based rights and Gay Rights. Exploring how this has taken such firm root in Western societies (Cognitive & Regulatory Capture).
I have written about the Samaritans before, mainly because I was puzzled about why they consistently fail to hold “Trans” lobby groups to account, for their egregious use of ,discredited, suicide statistics. Here is what I found:
In the first blog I discovered their historic links to the Beaumont Society, an organisation for fetishistic transvestites, who later found a way to sanitise their erotic motivations under the “Trans” umbrella. What I wasn’t aware of was the “Brenda Line”;this was a dedicated line for men who wished to talk to the volunteers, but their purpose was masturbatory.
Samaritans was founded by an Anglican minister by the name of Chad Verah. He was motivated, to set up the organisation. after officiating at a funeral for a 13 year old suicide victim. She had begun menstruating and thought the blood indicated she had contracted venereal disease. Reportedly, this inspired the reverend to not only set up the help line but also to begin sex education for the young people in his youth club.
He was further inspired to set up a dedicated helpline for masturbating men, in response to a member of staff who asked “What to do about obscene calls?”.
His response was “befriend them” and the Brent line was born. This was later rechristened the “Brenda Line” after objections from the Brent Office.
Varah wrote a manual for staff which is now housed at the Wellcome collection. Apparently it was very amusing 😳.
Varah had a side hustle as a sex therapist and writer for porn magazines which may explain his relaxed attitude to the women who provide this service, for men, because, as we shall see, it was women who had to take the pervert calls.
There is more on this theme revealed when Varah was interviewed by the Washington Post, while on a tour of the United States, funded by Penthouse magazine. Varah had written for Forum magazine, a sister publication to Penthouse, he was also a sex therapist.
He was an advocate for using pornography and did so with impotent men which is ironic because there are now rising rates of erectile dysfunction in young men which is convincingly linked to excessive use of pornography.
So, after this context about Varah, let’s get back to the masturbators. Some of them were calling to cause distress women. He classified them into “befriendable” and those who were not and some of them were manipulative psychopaths.
Of course some of them were calling for a laugh or boys wanting to know about sex. The staff were encouraged to engage with them and teach the callers useful information, about sex, whist ignoring the ongoing masturbation. Some were classified as lonely men who were unable to form relationships with women and Varah believed the women who worked the Brenda line could help these men form respectful relationship with women. However, there were other types of callers….the fetishists and transvestites.
Another group of callers were sadi-masochists which, from my reading, has an overlap with the men who identify as “trans” identified males. This was Varah’s instruction to the phone handlers. Basically these men are using the Samaritans as free phone sex lines.
In this part of the guidance the callers could even come to the premises in person and, if I am reading this correctly, do their masturbation in person. 😳
Another group were young men who liked exposing themselves to women who reminded than of their mothers. Notice how this is framed to blame the mother for the son’s paraphilia. A story as old as time.
Reading this next bit made me think I should research whether any women who worked at the Samaritans were ever murdered! Oh, a manipulative psychopath, let’s invite him round.
I didn’t find any cases of Samaritan’s volunteers being murdered but I did find this case from 2004.
Apparently it is policy to enforce confidentiality even when callers share intelligence about crimes that have committed and, presumably, ther desire to commit a crime.
So who were the women who were talking to these men? Because it was all women. Men could not be trusted. But, in any case, the Brenda callers were invariably men and would put the phone down if a man answered.
The level of expectation on these volunteers seems like a dangerously unregulated experiment.
The manual recognised that be manipulative to get their sexual gratification and i am struck by the similarities between the mass unleashing of male fetishists calling themselves “transgender” and treating all women like an extension of the Brenda project. All women are now being coerced to be therapeutic aids for autogynephiles by emotional blackmail , suicide threats and now we are passing laws to compel this. Time for the Duluth Wheel.
The end of the Brenda Project.
The common objection was that the women felt like “unpaid prostitutes” . It seems like the “M” calls were not to be tolerated any more, which Varah thought was “prudish”. In his autobiography he describes the policy of the charit “ the Samaritans were willing to liston, calmly to tales of murder, massacre, mayhem and matricide…but not masturbation”
When the Samaritans droppped the Brenda project , a year after Varah retired, he tried to remove their Charitable registration:
Apparently the Samaritans now operate a three strikes and you are out policy, with obscene callers. You can find women talking about their experiences on line. Some are on mumsnet and other sources. Some felt violated and that the Samaritans didn’t take this seriously
Another volunteer echoes a common these about callers to the Samaritans; cross-dressing men and paedophiles. Many women commented about the rate of sexually motivated callers with some feeling the charity down played the extent of this.
Sounds as if this is another charity that needs a review.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. Only give if you can afford it and if there are currently other causes more important for your woman tax then give there.
Part of a series on this excellent book. Waterstones may be hiding it but it’s too big a scandal to cover up and those of you cheering on this harmful ideology are going to pretend you didn’t!
Chapter 3 examines the pressure on G.I.D.s to embrace what has become known as The Dutch Protocol; namely the use of puberty blockers in children presenting with “Gender Dysphoria”. We have seem that there were tensions within the Tavistock as different ideologies were competing for dominance. Crudely, some clinicians were familiar with people presenting with distress, expressed as a bodily rejection, which could manifest as anorexia, self-harm, alcoholism or, in more extreme cases the rejection of a limb. (A condition known as apotemnophilia). The other camp, again crudely, believed in innate gender identity or a “Born In The Wrong Body” narrative. For the latter camp forcing a child to go through the “wrong puberty” was akin to abuse. I have said many times that once you believe in the existence of a “gender identity”, at odds with your biological sex, the next steps seem obvious and, perhaps, inevitable.
Pressure to prescribe came from all quarters, from parents;the kids themselves and lobby groups. The use of threats of suicide often accompanying these demands. Older people with a “trans” identity also seemed to use these kids as a kind of retrospective wish fulfilment. Those of us who cover the topic of autogynephilia see another motive; creating the idea of the “transgender child” to deflect attention away from trans-identified males with a sexual fetish; an accusation that can’t be levelled at a child.
Of course by the time we were in the 2000’s there were plenty of Lobby Groups pushing for earlier, medical intervention. We must not overlook the profit motive; Ferring Pharmaceuticals, the makers of Puberty Blocking drug, Triptolerin, funded the initial research into using Puberty Blockers, at Gender Clinics, and they have also donated £1.4 million to the Liberal Democrats, a U.K political party,
The claims made for the “Dutch Protocol” do not appear to be justified by the paucity of research.
In this chapter we find that clinicians were aware that most of these children, left alone, would reconcile to their sex and turn out to be gay males or Lesbians. Nevertheless despite the risk of “false positives” they would, eventually, capitulate.
In 2005 the association for Paediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes (BPSED) came out against this early intervention.
People were sounding a note of caution but one of the more shocking statements would come from an ex member of G.I.D.s staff about the role the possibility of medical interventions may have played in the strategy of its Director.
Elsewhere Barnes speculated that De Ceglie saw his role as making sure G.I.D.s survived as an organisation and that this may have taken priority over other concerns.
Whether due to the pressure from behind the scenes / public lobbying the outbreak of sanity at BPSED would not last. When the guidelines came up for review in 2008, they changed their stance.
For good or ill the NHS were now sterilising children.
The chapter ends with a reflection from Phoebe, a trans-identified male who had surgery to remove his genitals at age 18. Phoebe’s back story is that of a surviving twin whose sister was lost in uteru. Phoebe was a gender non-conforming male who had extensive homophobic bullying. Clearly he is same sex attracted but, age 28, a man who accepts him as a woman has proved elusive. Despite regretting the loss of a chance at biological children, Phoebe claims to have no regrets about his path but also has not managed to quell all doubts.
I am inclined to agree with Barne’s assessment that Phoebe is quite charming. He is also wary of rushing access to medications and surgeries.I am correctly sexing him here, because it’s important not to yield our language, but I wish him well and hope he never has cause to regret his surgery.
By Chapter 4, De Ceglie has been replaced by Polly Carmichael and G.I.Ds had, after a refusal, obtained ethical approval for a research project to block puberty for some of the children in their care. This chapter is a must read to understand why the staff at G.I.Ds chose not to use a control group so they could compare those given puberty blockers against a cohort who had not received them. It questions the results of the Dutch Protocol and whether the Tavistock were honest about the effect of the puberty blockers. In particular they describe them as granting a “pause” when they knew almost 100% of children progressed to cross sex hormones, as did ALL of the children in the Dutch Protocol. It also questions the impact on boys who would require a riskier surgery, using intestinal tissue, because of a stunted penis. (One patient in the Dutch protocol died from complications of the surgery). Moreover it points out that the fact all of the children who take PBs + Cross Sex Hormones will be sterile and not just have reduced fertility as the subjects were told. This is a must read chapter and while the revelations are explosive it is told in a calm and measured way by Barnes.
Barnes also revisits the first patient that started the push to use puberty blockers, patient B. This does not sound like an unmitigated success. It’s worth a long clip of this section.
Barnes references the excellent work of herself and Deborah Cohen for the Newsnight team and Professor Viper’s response to some of the relegations.
Jack
The chapter ends with another case study of a trans-identified female from the foster care system. Jack had a disrupted childhood with a family dealing with alcohol issues. She was a tomboy and attracted to other girls. The foster care broke down when they began to insist Jack ceased hanging out with boys and dressed more “feminine”. Jack had mental health issues and spent two years in a psychiatric facility. She describes a slow and careful assessment at G.IDs which was frustrating at the time. She also did not want to be a Lesbian.
Jack became attracted to the notion she was “trans” after watching the product placement of a trans character on a U.K soap aimed at teens. She also makes a startling observation on a further stint on a psychiatric ward shen she was older.
She also thinks the testosterone may have influenced her sexuality and now identifies as a gay man, attracted to males. In the end Jack took cross sex hormones and had a double mastectomy, neither of which she regrets. She does, however, think safeguarding young people from making a mistake is important.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)
This is an interview that Stephen Whittle gave two weeks ago. I am going to cover it as part of my series on Whittle because it contains a very different narrative than the one I have heard recounted before. The rest of the series is here: 👇
The interviewer begins by asking Whittle to share their back story. Whittle paints a picture of two parents who were immediately “affirming” and in fact had always known. This was the way her mum is alleged to have responded. This was in 1973.
While coming out to her mother her father walked in the room and he too was completely unfazed. Again, I am just going to point out this was in 1973.
Contrast this with what Whittle said about his father in this, 2007, interview in the Guardian:
For the next bit I could use some Lesbians who were at the Women’s Liberation Conference in Edinburgh to comment. Whittle describes realising they didn’t fit in when the women circle danced naked in the evening; to much audience laughter. Whittle explains it was in that moment they knew this was not who they were. The decision to come out as a man was made and, the way Whittle tells it, all the feminist /Lesbian women were unsurprised and supportive; rallying round and finding “him” men’s clothes to pass on. One of the women even knew a “transsexual” they could introduce to Whittle; this was Carol Steele who I covered here:
This meeting proved fortuitous and together Whittle and Steele set up a support group for “trans” people this would become Press For Change. Whittle talks a lot about how they were involved in the Gay Switchboard and how they had fantastic support from Gay men. (As we will see in my next piece she, and the T more generally, repaid this by denying same sex attraction was based on the SEX of the person. This is betrayal of the highest order).
Whittle then talked about what tremendous support she had from Manchester Metropolitan University (then a Polytechnic), her employer, to socially “transition” at work. There appears to have been zero opposition at work, according to Whittle’s account. The interviewer then prompts Whittle to talk about the hard times (lest things get too upbeat) and Whittle duly obliges, revealing all the times they lost employment when forced to show their birth certificate. She also claims this was often accompanied by accusations of paedophilia and maintains this is what happens today when anyone expresses support for “trans children”. I am going to go out on a limb here and say these are prepared taking points.
Whittle describes how they studied the law, at night school, to enable her continue the journey to “transition” by living as a “man” while a student. She also realised the law could be used to further the strategic aims of the “trans” community. They looked for suitable test cases and Whittle talks us through the various legal victories, obtained by Press For Change, and some of the losses. Whittle failed to obtain the right to be recorded as the “Father” for the four children had by her wife, Sarah. At the same time, Whittle explained they always “spun” the losses as victories; which is an ongoing strategy. See this comment on Stonewall by AkuaReindorf 👇. This is from a report into Essex University who had de-platformed female speakers with “gender critical” beliefs. Essex University were found to have followed guidance from Stonewall, who train organisations, not on the law, as it is, but how they wish it to be.
Even more astonishingly, about the 30 minute mark, Whittle makes this claim either without a shred of self-awareness or as a deliberate falsehood.
In 1996 London Pride were persuaded to include the T and Whittle talks about taking the children who were entertained by a trans-identified male, Fay Presto, who was also a magician. (You can find fascinating documentaries about Fay Presto on YouTube). In 1997 they had their first stall at the Labour Party conference and Whittle shows a picture which includes MoMowlem and Cherie Booth (QC and wife of Tony Blair).
Whittle then describes how she set up a network of FTM (Female to Male) “trans” people and began sending out a regular newsletter which reached 4000 people before it ceased. The BBC also began showing documentaries about FTM people, called The Decision Make Me a Man. Whittle describes them as documentaries “we” made which suggests collaboration with the BBC commenced at least as early as the 90’s.
Next up Whittle reveals his psychiatrist, who was assessing his suitability for medical transition, told him he had not been approved. Whittle leaves the session in despair but tells this tale about what happened next. 👇
This anecdote serves as a useful jumping off point for Whittle to criticise the gatekeeping / safeguarding involved in a medical pathway and call it fundamentally flawed while promoting “trans” led health care. It is also an opportunity to promote the Manchester “Gender Identity”service that no longer requires any psychiatric assessment to access the medical pathway.
There follows a revealing discussion about Press For Change working with Government departments, Civil Servants and Ministers to draft the Gender Recognition Act. Whittle encounters some questioning from a Civil Servant and in walks David Lammy, the Minister responsiblefor getting the GRA into law. Here Lammy is painted as giving Whittle carte blanche.
Now to the “Culture Wars”
I typed this as I was watching and my fury is only matched by my incredulity at Whittles disingenuousness, which, at times, tips over into brazen, outright, lies.
The interviewers brings up the shocking “anti-trans” backlash happening in the U.K. This is how a defence of women’s rights and against the sterilising of children is framed. (Starts from 40 minutes in). Whittle, correctly, identifies the moves to try to allow any man to self declare a woman, and vice versa, as the trigger for women’s resistance. Whittle cites Ireland as the exemplar; and claims there have been no problem; which is wilful ignorance on her part. (See Barbie Kardashian).
Whittle also claims the “links” between women’s groups and the “Proud Boys” are only now becoming clear. (This is a reference to a alleged member of the right wing, Proud Boys, group who had a selfie taken with Posey Parker who had no idea who he was. Plenty of politicians have been caught out this way). Whittle believes the government are stoking a culture war to distract from issues of corruption, which they may well be, but there are plenty of left wing, trade unionist, women leading this fight. Whittle ignores those.
She then goes onto mock women’s fears about men in our intimate spaces; adding the threat that if we don’t want men in our intimate spaces we can have women, like her, back in the female loos. Now she is attacking crowdfunding which has allowed women to legally, defend our rights. What a patronising ar**! She is now saying naive people have been persuaded to give money to causes they don’t properly understand! Now she is mis-characterising the argument saying women think children are being given sex changes at the age of 12! Actually we oppose children being given puberty blockers at age 10. Fact! Teenage girls are getting double mastectomies in the U.K. Granted the age range is not as low as in the United States, where cases of thirteen years old girls getting these surgeries have been documented. Now he is alleging three million pounds have been poured into these legal cases and nobody knows where the money has gone! (Is there some confusion here with the Good Law Project who have been criticised for their fundraising strategy?)
Now she is acknowledging the social contagion element of females in flight from their sex but claims that the Gender Clinics would see these girls and explain why they are not “trans”. This after she has argued that “we know who we are” and psychological assessments are not necessary.
Jesus! Whittle is now acknowledging there are category errors happening with girls thinking they are trans and that she wants to be able to have that conversation but the hysteria around the topic means they are not allowed to! #NoDebate came from your side Whittle!
Now Whittle is disputing claims of issues with trans-ID males and patterns of criminality. She claims there has only been one incident of a pre-op “transwoman” exposing their penis to women and it was someone having a psychotic breakdown, who was mortified by what they had done. Anyone wanting to challenge Whittle on this can find numerous examples, just in the U.K , at this site 👇.
This is just a snapshot. No doubt the “trans” community will claim some are not really “trans” but these are their rules. Steve Wright, for example, was a transvestite. That now comes under the trans umbrella. See also “We are who we say we are”.
Whittle then tells a tale of a “trans woman” friend who gets up at 3am to sort their make-up out and then uses this as an argument to say no men would go to all that trouble to access women’s spaces. Also the “trans woman” is more scared than you are! We are just at the outright lying stage now. The trans-identifying male is to be believed when he is too scared to use male spaces but women are not to be believed when we say we don’t want mixed sex facilities. Whittle also pleads with women to recognise that “trans women” are great allies to feminists.
We are nearly at the end and Whittle now suggests we are at the point where both sides can start to talk. He mentions the spectre of potential violence against the “trans” community by right wing men with guns or a “trans” kid being provoked into “doing something stupid” . Whittle also claims to have reached out to people he knows “on the other side” claiming he is concerned there will be another Jo Cox incident; she then specifically invokes Eddie Izzard as a visible and vulnerable person. What Whittle is hoping is that she can reach out to make a secret deal with “moderate” voices.
No more back room deals!
I hope none of the feminists, who Whittle is approaching, don’t get blinded by flattery: {“You are one of the reasonable voices” } and think they can give away some women’s rights to appease the likes of Whittle; #NoPenisInOurTime.
Questions from the audience.
First question is what can business do to support “trans” colleagues.
Whittles answer is they can remember we exist and support trans day of remembrance for all the dead trans people, who have been murdered (None, in the U.K. is the answer for the last few years). Cue loads of hyperbole about trans murder rates using global data. (Facts below) She also claims that hardly any companies remember to note this day which is another egregious lie.
Whittle is asked about the conflict between women’s rights and trans rights. Gives an answer about knowing what it’s like to be a teenage girl and how she wouldn’t dream of using women’s spaces, which is hardly the point, but then says “trans women” also don’t want men in women’s spaces and have a lot in common with you if you just sit down and talk. She also makes a veiled threat that, if we don’t want men in our spaces she could start using them and “you wouldn’t want that”.
Whittle seems to be quite keen to signal a willingness to have dialogue and claims that her side are willing to come together to talk but the “other side” don’t turn up unless it’s to shout “penis” at a trans woman. Again this is blatant lying. Who was it who coined #NoDebate? How many discussions did Stonewall manage to stop by refusing to turn up and allowing the BBC to claim discussion could not go ahead “without balance”?
A man who is from an organisation for the Supporters of Sexual violence (in Brighton) claims all the people in the sector are “trans-inclusive” but there are problems with “grifters” using crowd funding to litigate against this approach. He goes on to accuse “cis, lesbian” women actively trying to close down sexual violence services. {I think he is talking about a case asking if a rape crisis service, in Brighton, would provide a single sex group, in addition to the trans inclusive and the trans only service. She was refused}.
Whittles answer is that, as a group, they have to be clever and, by implication, outsmart the legal challenges. I will cover Whittle’s other talk, which I linked above, in another blog.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)
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.
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 theinternet” The Council of Europe and a coalition of “Charitable foundations” have badged the disparate group, opposed to gender ideology as “anti-gender” activists. This has allowed them to lump U.K. feminists /femalists in with Hungary’s Viktor Orban, for one. Orban is also keen, on restricting of both abortion and gay rights; treating us as if we are allies is known as the association fallacy and is intended to discredit us. I have done a series on these documents which you can read here:
Smith is confusing a retaliatory /defensive strategy for a pre-emptive strike.
Here is how Smith responds. I wonder if this is already coming back to haunt her.
Puberty Blockers!
Graham responds to defend his position, pointing out that we are performing experimental treatment on young women but it is actually worse than that. We are giving these drugs to children, of both sexes, as young as ten.
I believe the actual drug used in the U.K. is triptorelin, which, by the way, is also used to chemically castrate sex offenders. The specific drug is relevant in the U.K because the makers of Triptorelin are FerringPharmaceuticals, who gave the Liberal Democrats, U.K political party, £1.4 million in donations.
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.
The interview opens with a soft question about why Kelley wanted to become the CEO for Stonewall to which Nancy gives a predictable answer about wanting to “give back”. During the course of the interview we learn that Nancy is in a fifteen year marriage, to an American woman . They then covers a Lesbian couple and their fight to get access to in vitro-fertilisation. Then the interviewer, Emma Barnett dives in to the most controversial topic.
Nancy’s agrees that the BBC needs to be seen to be impartial but this part of the answer might be called disingenuous /damage limitation give Stonewall, at this time was haemorrhaging participants in its various, money making schemes. 👇
Barnett is not letting Kelley get away with that and responds “But, the sense where you said the BBC doesn’t agree with itself, well it obviously did, it pulled out”. She then goes on to make a really good point that all these organisations are actually paying money to a lobby group, to be lobbied. It is worth a reminder, at this stage, of how Ruth Hunt described these schemes. It was not flattering to the participants, it made them look rather gullible.
Nancy plays down the role of Stonewall schemes explaining that they have one strand of work to help firms become more “inclusive” (She uses this word repeatedly and I would have preferred for her to be pushed on what this means. To me, now, it means make sure men can invade female spaces). Then they have a “completely separate” team the lobby politicians and work with the media. Barnett presses her on this and Kelley conceded the two teams nevertheless have the same goals.
Next Kelley is tackled on the detail of the Workplace Equality Scheme and, in particular that Stonewall evaluate submissions from the scheme participants and suggest ways they can get an improved score. Following Stonewall “suggestions” helps get your company higher up the rankings and there will be entire teams who are set a performance objective to complete for an improved place on the Workplace Equality Index.
Nancy is also keen to emphasise that membership doesn’t compromise editorial integrity, at the BBC, which stretches credulity to breaking point. Kelley denies that the BBC is aggressively pro-trans rights and, in fact, argues it tips the other way. Nancy maintains their role is only advisory and they do not have control over what an organisation does. Furthermore she says she only wishes she had more influence.
Stonewall and the Scottish Government.
Next Barnett tackles Kelley about a leaked Freedom of information request, that illustrates how Stonewall encouraged the Scottish government to drop the word “Mother” from its maternity leave policy. Kelley insists that she doesn’t want the word “mother” eradicated, as a mum herself. She claims the FOI document is historic and Stonewall give a range of advice leaving it up to their scheme members to decide the course of action.
Barnett points out that the document is only two years old and that Stonewall did push to remove “all gendered language” from the Maternity policy and raises this with Kelley:
Next Nancy denies that Stonewall have an interest in changing language and illustrates this beautifully by talking about “cis” and “trans”. This was in response to a direct question about whether she believes people can change their biological sex. She avoids saying no or yes by talking about changing sex characteristics and claiming that everyone knows that “trans” bodies and “cis” bodies are different.
Sexual Racists.
Next Kelley is asked about Stonewall’s acceptance of male lesbians or “transbian’s” or females who identify as gay men. This section covers what Nancy had to say about lesbians who exclude males from their dating pools. Nancy lumps a belief in biological sex, women’s rights to exclude men from our spaces and Lesbians refusal of “lady penis” is on a par with anti-semitism”. 👇
This speaks to the right of lesbians to exclude men from their dating pools and has particular impact on dating apps and attempts to have Lesbian only events. This is no longer a hypothetical scenario: Tasmania a Lesbian groups has recently been told their women only, Lesbian nights are now illegal.
Nancy alleges that she was not talking about dating practices and that her wording was rather clumsy. This would be believable we’re it not for the fact that numerous trans-activists have used exactly the same argument.
Barnett then digs up another quote from Nancy :
Then we get onto Kelley’s dating preferences. A moot point because she is safely married. She claims to respect either people’s dating preferences and that she is “trans-inclusive”. Pretty confident this is a big fat lie and she knows she won’t have to walk the walk. This is the most despicable betrayal of Lesbians, especially newly out, young Lesbians.
Nancy slips in a “trans women are women” during this spiel and Barnett asks her if she is talking metaphorically. Kelley simply answers “literally”.
There follows a brief reference to the protection of Gender Critical beliefs which is clearly about the Forstater case but Barnett does not name it. Nancy ties herself in knots acknowledging that “Gender Critical” beliefs may be protected but there are limitations in how you express them. What Kelly would like is to create a world where you are allowed to think these things but you should not verbalise them.
Is JK Rowling a transphobe?
This section interrogates Kelley’s views on the world famous author. She tries to duck the question but ends up going round in circles about whether Rowling is a “transphobe” but, in the end, claiming that she had a large platform and had said things that had “caused harm” to trans people. Barnett does quite a good job in this section as she pushes Kelley to explain what she has said that was “transphobic”. Kelley pretty much ends up agreeing that an individual woman has the right to a single sex service if she has been raped or suffered domestic violence but still implies there is something wrong with saying this in the public square. I think she skewers Nancy in this bit and she does sound a bit petulant in places.
Kathleen Stock
This section was less satisfactory. Nancy manages to come across as reasonable and she expresses empathy for what Kathleen went throug, but, there are some very big buts. Barnett seems unwilling to raise the fact that Kathleen is a Lesbian, who Stonewall should protect. I think this made this section weaker than it should be. Stonewall’s CEO should have asked why they were silent on the harassment of a Lesbian.
Kelley affects to know little about the Stock case and falls back on the idea that Universities are responsible for adjudicating on staff issues. The Stonewall model seems to be built on encouraging their clients to over-extend/break the law and then running away when they’re are consequences. Any organisation still paying to be in this protectionless, protection racket needs to get a new head of Human Resources.
The interview ends with some general talk about how Stonewall are working to protect LGBTQ+ kids in school.
Nolan Podcast
Barnett ends the interview but added a couple of postscripts. Confirmation that Stonewall had attempted to get the word “mother” dropped from a maternity leave policy. The Scottish government claim they have not removed the word. Finally a, dignified, “no comment” from the Rowling team.
This piece is part of a series on Nancy Kelley’s public utterances. There’s not as much in the public domain as there is on Ruth Hunt. You can find the Nancy Kelly series and Ruth Hunt, former CEO, below.
If you can support my work with a gift here is one way you can do so. My content is all open access but I do have expenses so any help is much appreciated.
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 👇
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.
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 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.
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 ”GenderIdentity” 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.
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. 🤷♀️
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: 👇
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.
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: 👇
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: 👇
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.
In this post I cover the parent’s thoughts on referrals to Gender Clinics. What is striking is the various ways children can be referred to the national, NHS, Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) also referred to as the Tavistock.
You can access the rest of the series here, if you want to go through them in order: 👇
I am particularly concerned at the presence of “educational professionals” on this list. I am not, however, surprised because so many of the Transgender Guidance packs also imply, or state, that teachers can be involved in referrals. This is not appropriate.
Some of the parents found the referral process quite easy but some encountered difficulties which are, variously, ascribed to ignorance, or prejudice on the part of the health professionals or other agency. Most were referred by the mental health services for children and adolescents (CAMHS). Many of the children were not originally referred to CAMHS because of gender identity issues, meaning they had pre-existing mental health issues.
Here Lesley explains that she felt her child’s issue was gender identity and why she instigated the referral to GIDs. Her daughter was struggling with self-harm and suicide ideation. Another parent had the idea suggested by the psychiatrist who was of the view ”the gender stuff was a big issue“. 👇
Parents were often very proactive in ensuring their child had a referral. Here the persistence paid off and, after a few questions and a bit of paperwork they achieved the desired outcome; referral to GIDs.
Not all parents had such a prompt referral and some were redirected to their own GP. Ali also complains that CAMHS then abandoned them after they were referred to GIDs, thus cutting off mental health support and, presumably, reducing the numbers on CAMHS books. I concur with Ali that a shortage of funds may have driven that decision.
Unfortunately this left a vaccuum and Ali’s child sought on-line support. Ali does not elaborate about the sources, or nature, of that on-line support.
Mermaids
Here is Georgina, who you may remember made a doctor’s appointment the very next day her daughter “came out”, she tells us how she immediately joined a support group on line. There she learned to get Mermaids involved in the event of any lack of GP Compliance. Note that description a ”non-compliant” GP.
She needn’t have worried the GP was co-operative. He did not query anything but he did caution her to tell the father, of the child he was referring to a gender clinic. Georgina had made a tick list of all the things she needed to do and telling the father “was the last person on this…list” . Even then the father was painted as a potential obstacle not an interested party.
Another parent reported that their GP said he had not encountered the issue before and asked them to come back when he had done some research. He soon got back in touch and acquiesced to the referral.
Lisa reported a less positive reception from her GP who insisted, quite rightly, on referring them to mental health services. She felt her GP was dismissive and didn’t listen to her.
However, Lisa did not take no for an answer and persevered. She provides a bit more information, below. She considered the GP ”uneducated” but because they ”knew their rights” he was coerced into making the referral. 😳
Another parent was similarly dismissive of the GP’s knowledge so she sought also sought advice from, controversial, lobby group, Mermaids. Clearly he would have preferred it to be taken to a panel for a decision.
This parent was also quite scathing about what she saw as a lack of knowledge from an experienced, and senior, GP. Personally, I wonder if he knows rather too much?
Another parent was prepared to go on the offensive to make sure she obtained the necessary referral. Once again Mermaids were called upon to get involved. Turns out GiDS are accepting referrals from a trans lobby group!
How times have changed?
This is going to be quite a lengthy series to give you some insight into the world of parents of ”trans kids”. How did we allow it to get so our of hand?
All my content is free but I have no income and rely on donations. You can support my work here.
