Women’s Equality Party: 5

The expulsion of Heather Brunskell-Evans.

This is the fourth post on W.E.P following their vote to accept men who self-identify as women. You can read the rest of the series here: 👇

Women’s Equality Party

This one will focus on an episode of the moral maze, from 2017; which BBC licence holders can listen to here: 👇

Moral Maze November 2017

This was the Composition of the panel called to examine witnesses and come to a view on a complex, moral, conundrum. 👇

These were the witnesses called before the panel:

Part one in this series covered the founding of the W.E.P and it’s financial backers; part two the moral maze witnesses, Fae and Caspian and part three covered Stephen Whittle. Part 4 covered Dr Heather Brunskell-Evans and her subsequent removal from her post, in the Women’s Equality Party, which culminated in the resignation of her party membership.

This post will cover the final deliberations of the Moral Maze Panel which starts from 33 minutes.

Michael Buerk, the presenter, summarises the contributions of the witnesses. He begins with Jane Fae, a trans-identified male who describes himself as an “accidental activist”. Jane Fae first claimed that no “transgender” children had any medical intervention until age 16, but, under questioning, was forced to concede that younger children younger are being put on puberty blockers. In the U.K this can start as young as age 10. Fae then claimed this only delayed puberty; a discredited claim. The truth is that 98% of children progress to cross sex hormones once they have their puberty blocked. It’s worth reminding yourself what Marci Bowers had to say about these children. Marci Bowers is a trans-identified male and a surgeon who performs the surgeries known as “sex reassignment surgeries”. Marci was President Elect of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) when he made this statement👇. Marci also noted that, for males, the growth of the penis will be stunted which limits the options for future genital surgery.

Fae then used the argument that we give teenagers contraceptive pills and he claims this is equivalent to the hormone treatment given to “transgender teens”. Additionally he says going through a natural puberty also has an adverse impact and makes later surgeries more necessary. Finally Fae said that men like him wished they had not gone through a male puberty. Note that Fae married and had his own (biological) two children; something that will be denied to the children he is so keen to medicalise. These children are, in my view, being sacrificed because of men like Fae’s retrospective wish fulfilment.

Claire Fox is asked for her assessment of this witness and describes Fae as compelling, but disingenuous, for not recognising the role of widespread propagation of gender ideology to children and the promotion of unreality. This context is important to consider before we even get to the medical interventions we are giving to children. Because we are constantly talking to children about gender, particularly in schools, we end up in a situation where the normal confusions of childhood are examined through the prism of “gender”.

Matthew Turner says he didn’t know what he thought before he came on the programme but :

He finishes by saying that Jane Fae and Stephen Whittle helped him to come to the belief that critics are exaggerating the peril of people making these decisions. (It’s worth listening to his tone, throughout, I found him deeply patronising and antagonistic)

I believe, far from being undecided, he had already determined to listen selectively. He fails to reference the treatment of children, or to notice Fae’s attempts to mislead the panel. He is also grossly ill informed about how much care is taken before a prescription is issued. (My son was referred on the 7th November and the drugs arrived before Christmas. As it was during the height of the pandemic I am not even confident he had a face to face appointment). It is also a bit of a worry that this man has moved from the Arts sector to the NHS.

Ann McElvoy is concerned about the lack of an evidence base for gender reassignment which she describes as “slight”. Because we have not performed these surgeries on many people, in the past, we simply don’t know enough. She concedes that opponents may express strong views about the risk but, conversely proponents have a tendency to minimise the risk. McElvoy was interested in Jane Fae’s views on the age of consent, for these treatments; for McElvoy it was reminiscent of arguments about the age of criminal responsibility. Fae seemed to settle on the age of sixteen for irreversible interventions which is, McElvoy points out, is also age of peak teenage confusion.

Michael Buerk then asks Mona Siddiqui about the teenage girls who had hormones and double mastectomies and now regret their surgeries. As James Caspian noted these girls claim they had had these surgeries whilst also dealing with mental health issues. Siddiqui claims that she was not convinced by James Caspian because he would answer her question and say what the right reasons were for “transition”. She then repeats her belief that nobody would do this lightly and she also didn’t like it being swept up into mental health issues. Mona Siddiqui comes from the perspective that she has no right to question someone else’s identity and how they feel, just because they might change their mind. She then says there is a lot of things about this we don’t understand but we should not sit in judgment on how people feel.

Claire Fox then brings up the spectre of allowing self-declaration. Furthermore allowing people to change their birth certificate, to reflect the sex you are not, is “post-factual madness”. She also brings up the increasing numbers of young people identifying out of their sex and she believes we are encouraging this. Mona Siddiqui again claims nobody would self-identify as the opposite sex lightly. Sigh. This is clearly already happening, especially in prisons. Here are two letters from prisoners about sex offenders “jumping on the trans bandwagon”.

Ann McElvoy says it’s a tricky situation to balance the risk of regret with denying people the right to live as they wish.

Matthew Turner then says the Fae and Whittle were very reassuring but he believes Caspian and Brunskell-Evans revealed their prejudices and were treating this condition as “pathological”. He also accused Caspian of wanting to deny everyone the ability to “transition”. Saying that either he was lying to the panel or lying to himself. (Conveniently ignoring that Caspian and spent ten years working in a private gender clinic and had recommended “transition” for literally hundreds of patients). His hostility to both James Caspian and Heather Brunskell-Evans was on display in this intervention.

There follows a bizarre discussion where Stephen Whittle, a biological female, saying she would not use female spaces was assumed, by Buerk, to solve the issue of men accessing women’s spaces. 😳. This is an example of a time when using terminology like “trans man” confuses the thought processes. McElvoy doesn’t point out the problem with Buerk’s framing but she does ger to the heart of the conflict with feminists; the issue not your “identity”, per se, but the rights and responsibilities that are assumed to flow from that identity. This is literally a competition for moral and literal space.

Final words.

Ann McElvoy: It’s really about what rights and entitlements flow from you identifying as one thing or another; that’s not something you can fudge by saying we all have rights. There is a competition (I would say conflict) over moral and literal spaces.

Matthew Turner : We should trust people to make the right choices for themselves. (Turner’s answer ignores the impact on others).

Mona Siddiqui: I think should all of us should be less dogmatic and have the moral courage to admit that we don’t get this but that it is better to err on the side of empathy. (The #BeKind cop out.)

Claire Fox: The worlds gone mad and we should be at least able to challenge it when we think people are not speaking the truth.

You can support my work by a paid subscription to my substack or a donation below. All donations are gratefully received and help to cover my costs and keep my content open.

My Substack

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


Women’s Equality Party: 4

The expulsion of Heather Brunskell-Evans.

This is the fourth post on W.E.P following their vote to accept men who self-identify as women. You can read the series here: 👇

Women’s Equality Party

This one will focus on an episode of the moral maze, from 2017, which BBC licence holders can listen to here: 👇

Moral Maze November 2017

This was the Composition of the panel:

These were the witnesses who were called :

Part two covered Fae and Caspian and part three covered Stephen Whittle. I decided to devote an entire another post to Heather.

Buerk introduces the final witness, Dr Heather Brunskell-Evans, a research fellow at Kings College London, author of the book Transgender Children and young people (image below) Buerk adds that Heather is a feminist campaigner and then launches into questions,

Buerk notes that the “trans lobby” calls Brunskell-Evans a “terf” , a trans-exclusionary, radical feminist and adds “What does that mean and why don’t they like you?”.

Heather responds by explaining that this term is perjorative and that she is not alone in attracting the slur, “terf”; it is applied to anyone not accepting the “trans” doctrine. She also points out that she does not exclude anyone and is comfortable with people claiming the identity of “trans”. Heather also points out that the book 👈 is jointly edited by Professor Michele Moore.

(I have seen Moore talk live and also her WPUK talk. If you have not seen this talk, by Moore, I can highly recommend it : 👇

Michele Moore

Mona Sidddiqui then asks “Why do you think so many, liberal minded, progressive, young people are buying into the “transgender doctrine” as you put it?” (Loaded question). Heather responds that she actually finds transgender doctrine reactionary, that both girls and boys should be allowed to dress how they wish but what we are witnessing is a new social narrative around gender non conforming behaviour that says if a boy likes to wear dresses he is literally a girl. Mona then asks what if it is more than that and the boy says he doesn’t feel right in this body? Brunskell-Evans says a genuinely progressive society a boy should be allowed to display gender non-confirming behaviour in the body he is in. These children have always existed but we are developing a new language to describe them. (Siddiqui repeatedly tries to interrupt and speak over Heather but she persists.

Mona now asks :

Heather can be heard disagreeing with the claim that the phenomena of the trans-identity emergin in the last ten, twenty years. The “transgender” child is most definitely a recent invention. I think Professor Siddiqui is confusing people with disorders of sexual development with people who identify as “trans”.

Heather agrees that people need rights but Siddiqui makes the counter argument that Heather is constraining those right by saying a boy who likes to wear a dress should not reassign his body. Heather responds by saying we should be allowed to be as we wish without making it a problem of the male body or the female body; Telling a small child that there is something not quite right with its body it’s actually got the brain of the other sex creates a harmful narrative and it’s actually abusive.

Now Matthew Turner. This question would have been an excellent question to ask of the “trans” identifying witnesses but, instead, he asks it of Heather. (Turner is the CEO of the NHS Confederation now which is an interesting move from the Royal Society of Arts.)

Turner gets Heather to agree with the premise of alleviating human suffering and then makes this, astonishing, pronouncement. The policing of women’s bodies and the rigidity of beauty standards, for women, are worse now than I have ever known. He has no idea!

Heather interjects to point out that we always make choices within social norms.

Ah, I see where he was going with this. He thinks that the social norms don’t dictate that men have to be “masculine” and women “feminine” so if people still feel their body doesn’t align with their “gender” surely they should be allowed to align their body with their “gender”. Yet he doesn’t see that both boys and girls are being told that if they don’t conform to the Barbie or Ken mode of being they might just be “born in the wrong body”. He has no idea!

Heather responds to say that the problem with this debate is people are categorised and pro-trans or anti-trans. Heather emphasises that Adult’s should be free to claim a personal identity but the problem is we are extending this to children. We need a public debate and an examination of the “science” ; especially claims that there are male brains and female brains.

Matthew then asks her to specify the age at which a person can make these choices. Heather refuses to provide an age. She reiterates that the kind thing to do is to allow the child to experiment with their identity but it’s incumbent on adults, who are responsible for the child’s welfare not to go along with the narrative (that they could be born in the wrong body).

For the views expressed in this interview Heather was reported to the Women’s Equality Party and subjected to a three month long investigation. Here is the list of allegations.

The identity of the complainants is kept confidential but one member did comment on a Women’s Place U.K. meeting at which Heather spoke. Many of us have had abuse from this individual. Toni is a late transitioning, married, heterosexual man; who calls himself a “Lesbian”. Something tells me he is an Absolutely Genuine Person or AGP, for short.

I assume this is the WPUK event in question.

Heather at WPUK

The Women’s Equality Party upheld the complaints and stripped Dr Brunskell-Evans of her party role. She left the party as many of us did. You can read her own account here 👇 and you will also find a wealth of information on her website.

Open Letter

I will do a round up of the panel’s deliberations in a final post.

You can support my work by a paid subscription to my substack or a donation below. All donations are gratefully received and help to cover my costs and keep my content open.

My Substack

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


Women’s Equality Party: 3

The expulsion of Heather Brunskell-Evans.

This is the third post on W.E.P following their vote to accept men who self-identify as women. You can read the series here: 👇

Women’s Equality Party

This one will focus on an episode of the moral maze, from 2017, which BBC licence holders can listen to here: 👇

Moral Maze November 2017

This was the Composition of the panel:

These were the witnesses who were called :

Part two covered Fae and Caspian and in this one I will cover Stephen Whittle. I had intended to get to Heather’s contribution in this one but my ghast was so flabbered by Whittle I decided to devote the entire another post to her. I will give Brunskell-Evans a post to herself.

Stephen Whittle is a trans-identified female, Professor of Equalities Law at Manchester Metropolitan University, and quite a key figure in the promulgation of “transgender” ideology, in the U.K. Unsurprisingly they have cropped up quite a few times in my research. You can read my previous coverage here: 👇

Stephen Whittle

Whittle is introduced by the presenter, Michael Buerk, who then precedes to talk about males and females having different brain architecture and he asks Whittle how this squares with “his” claim that gender is a choice. Whittle begins by saying that “if you had said twenty years ago it was impossible to tell who was a man or a woman, everybody would have agreed with you”.{I don’t think this is what Whittle meant to say, from the subsequent comments I am going to assume that she means people would have agreed male and female brains are indistinguishable.}. Whittle continues by talking about new research that has discovered that the “transgender” brain is more aligned with the sex they identify “with”. In fact the jury is very much out on this point. The early post-mortem research failed to control for homosexuality, the impact of neuroplasticity, on a developing brain, or even the impact of the cross sex hormones. For an excellent thread on studies re brain sex, this thread is well worth a read and a follow, if on twitter.

Brain Sex

Leaving that to one side Whittle then says the brain sex argument is irrelevant to them because, as a lawyer, their only concern is with people’s rights.

Buerk hands over to Claire Fox who begins by expressing her bemusement at the male singer, Sam Smith, who is now a they/them and seems to associate females with sex (ist) stereotypes. This is a sample of Sam Smith’s idea of what makes him partly male and partly female.

Claire asks if Whittle understands why feminists are concerned that transgenderism is defining women by the trappings of femininity, which many women gave up a long time ago. Whittle responds with “Absolutely” and expands the answer below: 👇

This really doesn’t answer the question, to me. There argument is that there is a distinction between gender and gender expression, for “trans” people. This makes sense if we talk about how your sex doesn’t mean to have to dress like Ken /Barbie. Yet, for many “trans” people it seems perfectly clear they think “gender expression” = “gender”. This is what Sam Smith is doing. Yet we are also told we should not make assumptions about someone’s “gender” by the way they express themselves. This is why we have the acronym 0ET (zero effort trans) where a man with a beard has no shame about going on dating apps as a “Lesbian”.

Claire Fox then asks Whittle about the rapist Martin Pontin, who raped two sixteen year old girls, then identified as Jessica and was moved to a women’s prison as well as male pupils identifying as “girls” and demanding/ being alllowed to use facilities with girls.

Here is some background on Pontin. 👇. This is a picture of him.

As of 2022 it now emerges that Pontin has been granted a gender recognition certificate. Once again he got a GRC under the existing process, not the proposed self-identification route. This is what we must repeal the Gender Recognition Act.

This was Whittle’s response. Notice even Whittle can’t bring herself to say “she” and “Jessica”.

Whittle then proceeds to say countries who have introduced self-id have not seen any problems, listing Ireland, Malta, Norway and Denmark.

On Ireland 👇

Barbie Kardashion

On Norway

Christine Ellingen

It’is worth noting that Malta has some of the most draconian abortion laws in the world, not even allowing them to save the mother’s life.

In Denmark, in 2017, rape victims had to prove they had resisted to stand a chance of a conviction because rape was not defined by the absence of consent, there had to be additional, demonstrable “force”. Spousal rape was also only criminalised in 2013. Also, I give you Ibi-Pippi, legally a “woman”

Whittle finishes with this.😳 A cavalier disregard for the safety of women and girls. Heinous.

Ann McElvoy: “As a trans man are their any rights that you think you wouldn’t have, or shouldn’t have, that a biological man would have?”

Whittle can’t think of any rights he shouldn’t have, or doesn’t have that a biological man has. She then adds that they wouldn’t, at this stage of life, use women’s spaces. This is because they recognise that “whilst I may not be a man in the same way as my brothers I am no longer a woman in the same way as the women who use women only spaces”.

Ann McElvoy Do you think therefore that you should back off from that argument because one of the contested areas, particularly with feminists, or the most vocal feminists, has been about that space and who has the right to occupy that space, whether it is a lavatory or a changing room, places that are reserved for one or the other sex. You are challenging that idea and, at the same time, you are saying well I would actually stand back from it. I don’t think it’s right for me”

Whittle then decides there’s a huge difference between women only spaces and lavatories and changing rooms and, then seems a bit rattled “Oh for Christ’s sake we should all be able to go to the toilet in peace and quiet and privacy” . She then says all we need are decent locks and respect. After this Whittle turns the argument to focus on gender neutral facilities and claims they have been introduced at Manchester Metropolitan University and there have been no issues.

McElvoy then points out the inherent difficulty with self-identification because if you declare yourself to be the opposite sex you are mandating that everyone else has to go along with it. She then asks if Whittle sees any space for disagreement?

Whittle starts by saying they accept disagreement having lived with it for the whole of her life. She also says that she is not telling other people how to live their lives. (Hollow Laugh).

Whittle closes by saying that one of the problems is that “this has been medicalised before” (I assume she means being “trans” should not depend on hormones and surgeries).She also agrees with James (Caspian) that being “trans”is not diagnosable, it’s something that people do. Except Whittle doesn’t think you should have to “do” anything. It’s a shame the interview ended there because there is a lot to unpack here.

Firstly Whittle is imposing their way of life on the whole of society. She is in favour of any man identifying as a “woman” irrespective of surgical status (that’s the bit about “medicalising” gender dysphoria). She is also mandating that we accept those men in our spaces. That’s her dictating to women to accept dick in our spaces. Many of us don’t want any men in our spaces irrespective of their bodily modifications but Whittle doesn’t think you should have to “do” anything, other than declare your “identity”.

I will break off here and cover Heather Brunskell-Evans’ contribution and the panel conclusions in my next piece.

You can support my work by a paid subscription to my substack or a donation below. All donations are gratefully received and help to cover my costs and keep my content open.

My Substack

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


Women’s Equality Party : 2


The expulsion of Heather Brunskell-Evans.

This is the second post on W.E.P following their vote to accept men who self-identify as women. You can read part one here:

Women’s Equality Party: R.I.P

This one will focus on an episode of the moral maze, from 2017, which BBC licence holders can listen to here: 👇

Moral Maze November 2017

This was the Composition of the panel:

These were the witnesses who were called :

I will cover Fae and Caspian in this one and cover Whittle and Brunskell-Evans in the next one.

Quite a good introduction from Buerk recognising the exponential growth in referrals to the Tavistock, including children as young as three. He also asks if medicalising identity is solving a problem or creating one? He covers the issue of what accommodations are asked of the rest of us and whether that should compromise single sex spaces including NHS wards and Rape crisis centres etc.

The presenter first turns to the only person “who identifies as male”, ‘as introduced by Michael Buerk, Matthew Taylor. At the time he was chief executive of the Royal Society of the Arts. (R.S.A). he is now Chief Executive of NHS Confederation. He was formally head of Labour Party Policy unit under Tony Blair and worked at a left leaning think tank. This is his opening position.

Next up is Claire Fox who is perfectly fine for people to identify however they wish providing the rest of us are not forced to go along with it. She does worry the tyranny of coercing people and institutions have to go along with subjective beliefs about oneself. Fox also worries that this may be a fashion rather than the historic issue of people feeling “trapped in the wrong body”.

Mona Siddiqui believes we should try to find a safe space for minorities, try to accommodate as far as possible, to allow people to make their own mistakes and to have the right to self-expression.

Ann McElvoyI think it is easier, in principle, to establish the right to self-identity which many liberals would support than it is to work out what follows from it” She goes on to say this is a social, clinical, psychological and medical minefield. She advocates for a need for a very careful examination of the issues and stresses the need to consider the ethical issues it raises.

“Jane” Fae

Buerk then introduces “Jane” Fae as a “trans woman”, using she/her pronouns, he also references Fae’s close relationship with the controversial charity Mermaids. (Today the Charity Commission announced a statutory investigation into Mermaids.)

You can read an earlier piece on Fae below:

Jane Fae: Trans Britain (Part 13)

Buerk uses the language of “transgender children” in describing the work of Mermaids, rather than a more neutral framing of children showing gender identity issues. His opening question to Fae is that, whilst we might have sympathy for adults, like Fae, we can also worry about the administering of, potentially, irreversible treatments to pre-pubescent children; while their identities might seem to be in flux.

This was Fae’s response to that question. This, by the way, is a blatant lie because by 2017 we had been administering puberty blockers, to children as young as 10, for over five years. Later he will acknowledge, and defend, the very real medical interventions happening to children.

Fae is then asked about becoming an activist, by McElvoy, and what moral lesson would he draw from his experience. {Fae seems suspiciously keen to shoehorn a mention to the panel that he had given a talk at the WOW conference (Women of the World). WOW was set up by Jude Kelly formerly of West Yorkshire Playhouse in case you wondered where she stands. Fae has been invited more than once.} He then claims he became an accidental activist; forced into it because of a need to discuss the finer points of legislation. He also bridles at the suggestion there is any “agenda” being pushed by trans activists.

McElvoy presses him about the age for medical intervention and says 16 still seems very young. She also mentions the sky rocketing of referrals to the Tavistock, Gender Clinic. Again Fae talks about children only being “socially transitioned”. McElvoy doesn’t let him get away with this and mentions delaying puberty being a medical intervention. This forces him to admit we are giving medical treatment. His new argument is that if we don’t block puberty and the child turns out to be “trans” we are setting them up for more medical intervention /surgeries to reverse the impact of this puberty. Asked about whether he agrees with “watchful waiting” Fae brings in the fact that we allow contraception and abortions based on Gillick competence and claims this is equivalent because we already administer hormone treatment to girls. {Note contraceptive pills are not the same as giving testosterone to females and there is no equivalent of the pill for male children.}

Claire Fox follows up be raising the issue of affirmative approaches to children, who claim a “gender identity” at odds with their biological sex, and asks why we validate gender identity but not, for example, an anorexic? He again claims we are only supporting the child but he then conceded that age ten puberty starts to have a major impact and it is clear he knows full well we are blocking puberty from that age. Fox also interrogates what support for a child might look like? Re-organising society for a child that thinks they are the opposite sex? Fae dismisses this. {Another lie, this is precisely what is happening, schools are instructed to let boys who identify as girls use female changing rooms and toilets and be address by wrong sex pronouns}.

Fae then changes the subject, to respond to McElvoy’s earlier point, about the exponential growth in referrals. Fae claims that nobody becomes “trans” they simply are “trans” based on the medical model of a “trans” identity. The idea this is a natural occurring mutation is hugely contested. I will just leave you with these statements by Andrea Chu 👇 and remind you that, as John Ozimek, Fae was a vocal defender of extreme porn.

James Caspian

Next up James Caspian, a psychotherapist, who worked with this group of patients for many years until he became concerned about increasing incidents of post surgery regret. This is his background.

Djordjevic had recently had seven people approach him to get “reversal” surgeries which had concerned him greatly. It was for this reason that Caspian wished to research de-transition but, as you can see above, Bath Spa University blocked this research, fearing backlash.

Matthew Taylor opens his line of questioning by asking Caspian to agree that the marginalised “trans” community, until recently, paid a huge price when they begin to identify as the opposite sex. Taylor’s point is that increased social acceptance has increased the numbers identifying as “trans”. (Caspian, though is talking about increased rate of regret, which, based on Taylor’s argument we would expect to see decreased). Caspian then talks about his shock at seeing the increased rate of teenage girls who regretted their bodily changes including mastectomy. Taylor’s rejoinder is to ask why Caspian had chosen to focus on this group.

Caspian explains that, in his two years of preliminary research, he found that the detransitioners he spoke to were wrestling with mental health issues, eating disorders, previous sexual abuse and their “transition”had not alleviated their issues. He also pointed out that those with autism were over-represented x 6, based on its prevalence in wider society. This is something widely known but nobody understands why this is the case.

Mona Siddiqui now asks what Caspian’s opinion is on the “right” reasons to transition. Caspian makes it clear this is a complex question. For this condition there is no diagnostic test and he points out this is the only condition where we perform surgery when no medical cause can be identified. It is diagnosed by a self-report from the patient.

First Do No Harm.

James gives an excellent clinician’s answers invoking his professional responsibility and that of the Doctors to “Do No Harm”. We are not just talking about someone’s “identity” but the medical consequences. He reiterates the amount of detransitioned femsles who deeply regret the hormones /surgeries they underwent and how easy it was to access treatments under the “affirmative model”. He then also points to a book Blood and Visions, about detransitioning, written by 10 females. I have not been able to locate a copy but this is the tumblr account which appears to be behind it.


I will break off here so that I have space to cover Stephen Whittle’s and Heather Brunskell-Evans’ contribution but also to look at the consequences for Heather and her own commentary on the experience.

You can support my work by a paid subscription to my substack or a donation below. All donations are gratefully received and help to cover my costs and keep my content open.

My Substack

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


Women’s Equality Party: R.I.P

What a waste!

I still have my membership card for the Women’s Equality Party proudly displaying Founding Member number 303. A man would become member 4111 and boast about it on his blog. He will be one of the reasons the party is destined to fail.

This is he, posing with his wife; face painted with rainbows and wearing a Stonewall badge. Jon is a methodist minister and some big name in computer coding. He has three sons.

Jon even appears in W.E.P’s very first policy document. This is him, on page 13. Right out the gate the Women’s Equality Party was branding itself as a party that aimed to help all people.

This is what he said on his coming out blog on becoming a member.

Jon certainly put his money where his mouth was and became quite a large donor to the W.E.P. 19 donations totalling nearly £120,000.

Data from the Electoral Commission. Link attached to the search here and file attached 👇

Electoral Commission


Fast forward to 2018 and Sweet announced that one of his three sons is now his “daughter”

However, I am not ascribing blame to Skeet’s belief he has a “trans daughter”, for W.E.P policy. This is from their very first policy document. Seems they were always going to betray women in favour of the be-penised kind.

Right at the outset the party was compromised by the involvement of the Luvvie class. Back in 2015 I didn’t realise I needed to check a party for woman knew what a woman was. Now, when I look back at the celebrity endorsements, I realise it was doomed from the start. First up: Emma Thompson.

Emma Thompson is full on “Trans Women are Women”.

Here are a few more celebrity endorsements including Jack Monroe and Emma Watson.

Here is Emma talking to trans-activist Paris Lees.

Here is Monroe on coming out as “transgender” joking with James/Juno Dawson.

The modern leadership has gone down the pronouns in bio route. Here are the deputy leaders.

As I said I am not blaming Jon Skeet and his trans-identifying son for this parlous state of affairs but I don’t think he is going to help women’s rights anytime soon if he takes his cues from Julie Serano. This is from his blog. 😳

At some point I will blog on whipping girl but here is a sample.

Those of you following the W.E.P debacle may already know that they recently voted, at their sparsely attended conference, to support the idea that a man can self-declare his “gender”. A disastrous idea for women and girls. Ex-leader, Sophie Walker, penned an open letter, to the new leader (Mandu Reid) , pleading with her not to take this step.

Here is the letter: 👇

She was ignored.

You can watch Mandu Reid performing to camera all the reasons she believes Self-ID is the right policy. She manages to regurgitate most of the talking points of trans-activists. She appears deeply influenced by her own experience of racism and she thinks a women’s movement is a movement, for equality, more generally. Women’s movements fail the moment they fail to centre women and are not confident enough to advocate purely and simply for women. Reid, instead, seems to see W.E.P as a vehicle to advance all her own pet projects. It’s unconscionable to use women’s labour, and money, in this way. She is concerned about the polarisation on politics and sees women campaigning for our rights, as a sex class, as stoking division. She has bought into the TRA language and ideology. There is no way back for W.E.P.

Mandu Reid on Self-ID

Here are a couple of clips

In a turn out of only 138 (Compare that to the 1800 for Filia) the motion was passed. No vote was allowed for the wider membership which suggests, to me, they were not confident it has wide support. W.E.P has revealed itself to be an un-democratic and elitist organisation.

I will return to have a look at the W.E.P and cover their expulsion of Heather Brunskell-Evans, former W.E.P. spokesperson on Violence against Women and Girls (VAWG); after she appeared on the moral maze.

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. 😉)

My Substack

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