Manufacturing Moral Panic 2

Why is a network of Charitable funding bodies fuelling a backlash against women’s sex based rights? Why are organisations, set up to protect children’s rights, teaming up with organisations promoting Gender Identity Ideology?

For part one see below 👇. My previous post showed the links between these foundations and links to some of my earlier work examining the activities of *some* of these organisations. It also contains the link to the, 131 page, document endorsed by Global Philanthropy Project and Elevate Children’s Funders Group.

Manufacturing Moral Panic

In this post I want to cover the opening letter explaining why this coalition was established. I will also highlight some of the terminology they use in the glossary of terms. This is how they characterise women defending our sex-based rights. We are ”Gender Restrictive”. Heaven forfend we are simply called feminists because then it would be abundantly clear they attacking Women’s rights!

The coalition makes sense in one respect. Much of the opposition, to the spread of Gender Identity Ideology, raises concerns about the medical interventions perpetrated on children. By which I mean blocking puberty and introducing cross-sex hormones, all to cement a Transgender Identity; this despite the same ideologues arguing that “Gender can be fluid”. I have covered Puberty Blockers many times on this blog. For neophytes, or as a reminder; in the U.K we are giving Puberty Blockers to children as young as ten, on the NHS. They, almost, invariably progress to Cross Sex Hormones and as a result they will be sterile. It therefore a significant concern that a coalition of children’s charities have signed up to this document.

The authors recognise that childhood is defined as up to the age of 18 by the Children’s Rights Coalition (CRC). It nevertheless claims ”adulthood” is influenced by the social context in which the ”child” lives. As far as I am aware we don’t defend child marriage, or child labour, even where a child is based in a country, or culture, which normalises these practices. This blurring of the boundary between child/adult is necessary when arguing children have the right to bodily autonomy in respect of accessing “Gender Affirming” care. I believe this is why Children are being reframed across a myriad of public /campaigning bodies as mini-adults.

I am glad they reference brain maturity because credible research states that brain maturation continues up to the age of 25. One of the key battle grounds, for the promotion of Gender Identity Ideology, is to argue for the empowerment of children. This allows arguments, for children, especially teenagers, to access medical interventions to cement a trans-identity, without requiring parental consent.

Brain Maturation

Here’s the abstract for that research.

Just a reminder about UK Law on getting a tattoo. It is not legal even with parental consent.

Next up the document quotes the Committee for the Rights of the Child (CRC) again. Note that the document explicitly references sex but the author’s quote another document to claim that this also covers ”Gender Identity”. Once again, this is a common tactic a sleight of hand to claim the law is in your side, even when you are arguing for it to be changed. A good example is the public campaign to allow anyone to ”Self-Identify” as the opposite sex and the more covert campaign to abolish single sex spaces. When it appears these laws are not going to change (outside of Scotland) campaigners are simply lying about the law to get it built into policy. [Hence the twitter hashtag #StonewallLaw].

Note the small print on this which references the ”transsexual” child. 👇.

Heres another interesting aside. The rights of the child must take into account the child’s views. They also posit the view that the argument of “Best Interests” cannot be used to justify actions “inconsistent with child rights”. In the context of Gender Identity Ideology this is often deployed to argue children/adolescents have the right to bodily autonomy and to access ”Gender affirming” medical interventions. This takes us back to the notion of “transsexual children”; a description usually avoided.

Glossary of Terms

The glossary of terms at the beginning of the document are illustrative of the ideology under-pinning this document. It includes the newspeak of Cisgender, Transgender, Heteronormative, Assigned Sex at Birth etc. Intersex also makes an appearance despite this not being favoured terminology among those with Disorders of Sexual Development (DSDs). The term ”intersex” won’t be given up without a fight because the Transgender movement use people with DSDs to muddy the waters and suggest there are more than two sexes. (Humans are, in fact, Sexually Dimorphic).

I won’t treat you to the entire glossary but its worth including a couple of examples. Under Gender and Sexual Diversity can be found the definition of sex. This recognises biological sex only to claim it is randomly ”assigned” . They also claim sexual dimorphism is based on a common belief in a binary sex classifications. This equates scientific accuracy to a faith based position. In this section 👇 the author’s also feign allegiance with the interests of people with DSDs; who often campaign against unnecessary surgery on infants. Note that some surgeries are in fact medically necessary, DSD activists oppose only cosmetic interventions on those under age.

The section dealing with SEXual orientation is below. Of course they define it as a Genderal Orientation. And we must have a category for the oppressed asexuals or as I call them ”the shag anything that moves brigade”.

Whoever named Pansexual after a mythical, horny old goat at least had a sense of humour: 😂

So far, so predictable. Now we get to the definition of ”Gender Justice”. Note that the definition includes (cis) women’s rights. Yay, we actually get a category of our own! Don’t get too excited, it is prefixed with the insulting ”cis” and, read on sisters, they graciously deign to consider redressing the power imbalance between men and women “if necessary”! I think it is FUCKING necessary since you are re-defining us against our will.

Introductory Letter

Now we get to the letter accompanying the document which purports to explain why they felt it necessary to join forces to expose ”Gender-Restrictive” folks. This is newspeak for Witches, by the way. 👇

It is hard to credit the claims made in this document and the level of testeria fuelling the authors of this ”research”. For those of you familiar with DARVO (Deny, attack, reverse victim and offender) this is a classic of the genre. Apparently WE are distorting huMAN rights. Which is a bit rich coming from the Gender Ideology lobby who are all about the MAN in human.

We are also being accused of ”anti-democracy”. I cannot think of anything more anti-democratic than following a blue-print that encourages the passing of laws, by stealth and avoiding press-coverage. (See the Denton’s document. Blog below). More D.A.R.V.O.

That Denton’s Document

Gender Critical Women as an “Alarming Trend”

Women defending sex based rights, Lesbians refusing to accept males as sexual partners, mothers fighting to stop the medicalising of, among others, gay and autistic kids, are planning State Seizure! They actually sound crazy! Below they even claim women, fighting for sex based rights, are actually the ones attacking women’s rights.

Yes, there is a threat to children’s rights as activists are inculcating “Gender Dysphoria” in our kids and teens. Schools are teaching children a lack of adherence to sex stereotypes equals #BornInTheWrongBody. We are coaxing our gay youth into faux-straight, medicalised closets.

They also fear this Moral panic is effective. If it is effective this is because it is rooted in truth and (biological) reality. For the avoidance of doubt they do mean us! Here is a reference to ”So called ”gender critical” feminists. Nobody is arguing against human rights for trans identified people, in GC circles, we are fighting for sex based rights for women. No Conflict They Said. So, why does every fight for women’s rights garner an “anti-trans” label.

Seriously they think we are well funded and have been planning this for 35 YEARS! I wonder why they didnt choose Terf Island (United Kingdom) for their country analysis? Could it be because it really doesn’t help their case? What with so many of us being Left-Wing, Trade Unionists.

The authors sound a warning to its disciples that they must unite to oppose the evil terfs and band together. Right side of history and all that.

I will leave this post with a list of the organisations that contributed to the document which includes Comic Relief whose funding is regularly used to promote bodily rejection.

I am going to do more on this document especially on the scurrilous attack on Womens Human Rights Coalition (W.H.R.C). I also have sisters from Bulgaria, Ghana and Peru looking at the country specific sections.

Finally those of you who are clearly sitting on the mounds of cash spare a bit for a sister! I seem to have missed out on the Swiss Bank account enrichment. 😂

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women & girls as well as the consequences for Lesbians, Gay males and autistic kids. I do this full time and have no income. All my content is open access and donations help keep me going. Only give IF you can afford. Thank you to my generous donors.

£10.00

PETER TATCHELL

Featured

First of all kudos to GB News for tackling the issue of Gender Identity Ideology and having a, desperately needed, public debate. In this programme the perspectives of a Trans-Identified male, a Women’s rights campaigner, Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshall (A.K.A Posey Parker), Beverley Jackson (LGB Alliance), Gary Powell (Gay man) and Peter Tatchell (Human Rights campaigner) were interviewed. The U.K Charity, Stonewall, were invited to participate but, to no great surprise, declined to participate.

Today I want to unpack the contribution of Peter Tatchell. You can watch his contribution below.

Peter Tatchell : Gender Debate

Transcript here:

PETER TATCHELL GB NEWS

Peter Tatchell is a, self-styled, Human Rights campaigner, best known for his Gay Rights Activism. His high profile arrest, in Putin’s Russia, for protesting against draconian, anti-gay legislation garnered headlines across the world. He also known, especially in Zimbabwe, for attempting a citizens arrest of Robert Mugabe. Latterly, he is better known, in some circles, for situating himself at the centre of conflict between Trans rights & the rights of Women. He has also attracted criticism from Lesbians and Gay males for his stance on “trans-rights” for ignoring the impact on homosexuals, especially the Lesbian kind.

Peter seems quite keen to speak on this issue. So many Trans Lobby groups refuse to debate the issues so it is, perhaps, unsurprising his views were sought. What is less clear are his motives. Why is he inserting himself in the middle of such a controversial topic? He is, however, especially keen to dispel any notion that he has anything to gain, though a cynic would observe the topic garners a lot of publicity.

Perhaps it is an elaborate penance for a letter he signed, defending free speech, on the controversial topic of Trans Rights? This resulted in, by his own account, the worst abuse he has had in decades of campaigning: Article below 👇

Peter Tatchell and the Trans Backlash

Perhaps he is driven by an ideological commitment to disrupting /queering social norms? Whatever the reason he does seem overly invested in an issue which is unlikely to impact him, personally. Tatchell is keen to neutralise criticism that he is elevating his voice above trans-people. It is noticeable that he does not show a similar concern about speaking over women.

This latest intervention comes after he withdrew from a debate, with Kathleen Stock, on this topic. Trans activists were vocal in their condemnation of him for agreeing to debate Professor Stock. They did not want him lending any credibility to Kathleen’s (quite moderate) stance on this issue. Many women were also unhappy about debating the issue, specifically with Tatchell, but his withdrawal from the debate was driven by Trans Activists, not the pesky women folk. 👇

Alex, the interviewer, opens the debate with two questions. Both relate to the practical implications of biological sex denialism; it’s impact on women’s privacy and the medicalisation of children who display “Gender” non-conforming (GNC) behaviour. Lesbians and Gay males often deviate from performing sex stereotypical behaviour which is why this question is a good one to ask a Gay man with a reputation for defending gay rights. He doesn’t respond to the question about medical interventions on children.

[Both proto-gay males and lesbians can present,early, with atypical expressions of femininity/masculinity, sadly that issue was not explored in this segment. This was a shame because I would like to see Tatchell oppose the Gay Conversion Therapy on his doorstep but he probably knows the headlines would not be as good].

Tatchell opens with a (nervous?) statement about the capacity in which he is speaking. He is, emphatically, not there to speak on behalf of the trans community. He is there as a Human Rights campaigner to speak up for the rights of both women and transwomen. By which, he means, for the rights of males to be included in the category of women.

He demonstrates his neutrality, beautifully, by directing his ire at the previous speaker, a woman. Kellie-Jay, made it abundantly clear that the category of woman is based on SEX not Gender Identity. Tatchell used the, common, tactic of associating women, defending the colonisation of our existence, with homophobia meted out to Gay rights campaigners. He also accused Kellie-Jay of whipping up hysteria about the dangers posed by “transwomen”.

Firstly, Gay men did not demand to be re-categorised as “women” and granted access to spaces where women are undressing, or merely associating, in a female only space. The legal recognition of same sex attraction had ZERO impact on the protected characterstic SEX.

Secondly he has no data to suggest males, who identify as transwomen, present a lower risk to women than other males. It is perfectly possible this category houses more predatory males because it includes those with the paraphilia “autogynephilia”. Also because of the queering of the boundaries, between males and females, we are being asked to accept the notion that some women have a penis . He is defending an ideology which promotes the idea of be-penised women and that a Lady Dick can be distinguished from the average penis. This kind of Phallus in Wonderland, magical thinking, sadly, was not exposed in this interview. I suspect the interviewer may be unfamiliar with the more radical claims of the Gender Identity Ideologues. Or, she may believe the general public are not quite ready to deal with the more outlandish claims. Sadly these beliefs are gaining traction among the political and Chattering Classes.

The various segments were not done in a format that allowed a right of reply so Kellie-Jay was not able to respond to the claims, made above. I wonder if Tatchell knows he is echoing the #NotAllMen phallusy of Men’s Rights Activists? Women exclude males, as a SEX class, because we know that some males are sexual predators. We should not, however, have to invoke fear of sexual violence to demand a right to exclude males. We should be legally protected because we have a right to bodily privacy. We should be, legally, able to congregate, in female only spaces, to discuss issues that affect our sex and only our sex. We don’t want to include males in these discussions.

The “handful” argument is belied by the increased media reports of sexual offenders gathering under the Trans Umbrella. When we finally get actual data monitoring this category of males, specifically, I fear it will confirm women’s worst fears. Presently, the prevalence of trans sex offenders is difficult to ascertain. We do know that under U.K law Rape is an offence specifically involving a penis and that there are over 400, allegedly, female rapists in UK crime statistics. I imagine the number who are actually female is vanishingly small.

It is also only possible to get information by trawling through mis-leading media reports which consistently report Male crimes as if they were commissioned by Women. This is because media guidelines demand female pronouns for male sex offenders. Thanks IPSO! It is IPSO who produced the media guidelines which encourage the media to hide male crimes. Below is a short piece on these guidelines 👇

#TheseAreNotOurCrimes

Below is another diversionary tactic; the substitution of arguments about race to imply they are analogous to the issue of trans rights/women’s rights. By using this argument, Peter, tries to associate feminist arguments with racists. Instead of falling into this trap journalists should demand the interlocutor remain on topic. Argue the merits of your own case directly rather than implying that society needs to throw off the shackles of our backward Sexual Apartheid because it is bigotry akin to racism. For the avoidance of doubt, I don’t care what colour your dick is, for the purposes of women’s single sex spaces:

#AllDicksMatter

Tatchell then deploys another strategy. He claims the thing that women are complaining about has been going on for years and dismisses the “fuss” women are making. This is mendacious. The Transgender Lobby have just LOST (in the U.K) a very public campaign to allow any male to self-declare he is a woman. The new tactic is to claim males have been using women’s spaces for decades and we just didn’t notice! Sadly, for Peter, testosterone packs one hell of a punch and passing remains a pipe dream for most trans-id males, even those with resources to undergo significant surgery. Women are socialised to #BeKind but we do, in the main, recognise biological sex, evolution is such a Terf Bitch. Our safety depends on knowing if we are in a space with a male. Do we say anything thing? No! I refer you to #BeKind and our personal safety. We have all seen the Narcissistic rage of TRAs called “sir”, our lives depend on silence. Peter may interpret this as #Kindness but he is wrong to equate our silence with consent. It is more likely a result of #BeKind/ Doormat feminism or good old fashioned FEAR.

All the countries which have passed Self-ID legislation did so without holding a public debate. It was the public debate that did for this legislative change in the U.K. Grass roots resistance, led by a new group of women’s organisations, alerted ordinary women and we fought back. Women in Ireland, Malta and Argentina and the other countries were less prepared and this legislation was passed by stealth/ tacked onto popular causes. Professional women’s rights organisations were complicit and, consequently, women in these countries are only now waking up to the nightmare scenario the political classes have unleashed on women.

I have written extensively about the current process for obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) in the U.K. We have already given them to fully intact males, even where they have convictions for sexual assaults. For this reason I am not a defender of the status quo but allowing self-declaration would remove any gatekeeping. I would repeal the GRA and provide any protection needed, for refugees from masculinity, on some other basis. I would not allow males to identify into the legal category of woman, because it has been a disaster for women’s sex based rights.

Nobody can just declare they are “trans”

I assume Tatchell is here 👇 talking about the proposed changes to enact a self-id regime in the U.K, or the process in other countries. Here he is saying nobody can just “declare” they are trans by er, checks notes, outlining the process by which anyone can just declare they are trans!

Genius!

I do like his confidence. It seems such a shame to interrupt his confidence with some FACTS. Let me think of a few. Men in women’s sports, a man running a rape crisis centre and telling rape victims, afraid of ALL males, they need to unlearn their transphobia! Rapists in women’s prison, men taking a disproportionate number of places on the Women in Leadership (Jo Cocks) programme…I could go on.

Oh No! He said “Trans Women are Women”

Chanting a thought terminating cliche is beneath an intelligent man. I don’t doubt there are many issues faced by males who adopt the prescribed social norms for women. I don’t doubt they face sexual assault and harassment. Peter may not be aware that Hate Crime legislation doesn’t include the category of SEX, but does protect the category of “Transgender”. So, yes, he can produce the Hate Crime stats and all I have to counter it is a list of, not of the dead-named, but of the actual dead women. Misgendering is the least of our concerns.

This next bit is some forced-teaming from Tatchell. Come on girls, expend your energy being support humans to my undercover brothers, you know you want to! There is a concerted effort to invert the privilege hierarchy and place white males at the bottom of the pile, rhetorically speaking. To convince us black is white transperbole is deployed and, once again, he leverages the much discredited hate crime statistics. Not buying it.

The interviewer interjects at this point to thank Tatchell for his cogent and rational arguments. I instinctively bristle at a man being called rational. Fairly or not, what I hear is, rational as opposed to the hysterical women. Another pet peeve is the way this “debate” is portrayed as #BadOnBothSides. It is a War on Women. We are defending ourselves from the neo-colonialism that is Trans Activism. It is playing “nice” that has allowed the #BeKind Brigade to be, well “brigaded”. Women have been trans-jacked and fighting back is what you do when your rights are under attack. Additionally, anyone paying attention would see the threats of violence, much of it sexual violence, comes from the male people. Women’s counter “attack” is, at its worst, refusing to use female pronouns or commenting on masculine features.

So let’s hear more from a man white-knighting for this most marginalised community. Fact free assertions about inner identity, parroting the authentic selves narrative, bla bla bla, hate crime, marginalised etc etc. Also Peter is a libertarian dontchaknow. If people want to be lifelong medical patients they should be allowed. (I don’t think many people have argued for an end to all surgeries, though I would argue it should be a last resort AND still not grant access to spaces set aside for another sex) Peter is tilting at windmills.

Breathtaking arrogant assertion is his next gambit. People (by which he means women) are making a mountain out of a molehill. Women objecting to having our sex redefined to admit any male are over-reacting! These hysterical women are projecting onto a vulnerable community. So vulnerable they have managed to roll back gains women made over a hundred years ago. So marginal they have captured, nearly, the entire political class.

Safeguarding 101

Also👇the central plank of safeguarding is the need set to a bar high enough to protect vulnerable groups from the BAD APPLES! That’s 101 of safeguarding, design your policy with a focus on the BAD APPLES! Because predators will migrate to where the loopholes exist and this ideology is dismantling safeguards left, right and centre.

He can’t get any worse can he? Yep. He can. 😳. No we don’t ban cars Peter. We do make you pass a test, we make learners wear an L Plate, we fine people for motoring offences, we can ban you from driving and even imprison offenders. We also have social norms (and laws) against drink-driving. This is not the gotcha you think it is.

I like to think Alex had enough at this point. Here the interview should end, and it nearly does. I don’t think it’s a shame the debate is polarised. When someone proposes to socially engineer society, based on a toxic ideology, there is no compromise to be had. We can’t let men have some of women’s rights. The answer is NO! It is a shame that women are being forced to concede our hard won gains in 2021!.

Does Peter go gentle into his goodnight. No! he carried on and makes it, if you can believe it, much, much, worse.

His heart is breaking!

Gloves are off now. How FUCKING DARE you! I will decide who my sisters are thank you very much! We are not SUPPORT HUMANS, there to tend to those males you can’t bear to have in your sex class. YOU DO THE WORK! Maybe have a bit of a think about why you can’t tolerate variant masculinity in your spaces?

We are all Biological Essentialists (apparently)

Next up the old accusations of “biological essentialism”. The argument, he is making, is that Women are allowing ourselves to be defined, and limited by our biology. No, Peter, the “Biology is not Destiny” was an attempt to resist being defined ONLY by our reproductive functions. It did NOT mean we deny the basis of sex based oppression, which originates in our ability to gestate babies. Hence a significant amount of feminist activism has been about controlling our fertility in case you hadn’t noticed.

We were not marching for the right of Laurel Hubbard to lift weights with us!

Hijacking statements about women’s liberation to re-purpose them for trans idealogues is a tactic we have seen before. It lends credence to your argument, at a superficial level, if you can use our words against us. Way to put the MAN in HuMAN rights Peter.

Tactical Obfuscation

Next up he is claims being a woman is a psychological / emotional state. The last bit is nonsensical. No males are members of the sex class of women, irrespective of their intake of artificial hormones. The bit about reproductive capacity is nonsensical. What is he trying to say here? Even if the franken doctors manage to develop artificial wombs to validate a trans ID male, it STILL won’t make them a woman.

He surpasses himself with his sign off. He doesn’t mean hate us, he just knows better than we do. It is the smug, holier than thou, tone that is really enraging.

Thanks Peter. I feel I may be in danger of adding to the toxicity of this debate because all I have to say to you is FUCK OFF and when you get there FUCK OFF some more. (And I rarely swear on here but everybody has their breaking point.)

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

£10.00

RUTH HUNT: Culture Wars 2

Featured

This is part two of a post on a lecture, given by Ruth Hunt, on how to build bridges amidst the Culture Wars.

You can read that piece below :

Ruth Hunt: Culture Wars. 1

I have also transcribed it, after a fashion, below. Quotes used are verbatim but it was a long interview with some repetition so I have just summarised some parts.

Ruth Hunt Building Bridges

Building Bridges Amidst the Culture Wars

Just to recap. Ruth Hunt actually chose the title and topic for this lecture. 😳

Questions and Answers

When she has completed her “prevarications” (I don’t think she knows the meaning of this word, by the way) she invites questions. I am confident this offer was delivered in the certain knowledge disagreement would not be forthcoming. People know what the limits of free speech are on this topic. I didn’t expect any dissenting voices and I was not disappointed. This group think is precisely why Ruth Hunt remains isolated from contrary opinions,

Social Media / Twitter

The first question is about the “fisticuffs” on social media. Ruth talks about her own experience here: “I have had a relentless kind of kicking”, which seems to be related to her, now deleted, twitter account. She goes on to lament the fact that nobody is taking “collective leadership” to reinforce a better culture on social media. Here she justifies silence about the social media attacks on others. Call me cynical but I don’t think she is talking about routine threats, of sexual violence, which accompany the term “terf”. She does, however, make an important point about people unwilling to jump to others defence.

What Hunt fails to extrapolate from this observation is what it says about how people use social media. Women attract, arguably, the worst abuse when standing up for sex based rights. There are twitter rules that officially allow women to be banned for referencing biological reality. Women have been removed for stating the legal definition of Rape, for correctly sexing abusive males and simply for quoting the official crime statistics on sexual offences. (At least 98% of perpetrators are male). If someone, with her social position, and organisational backing, admits to shying away from “a toxic debate” what does she think happens to women without these resources?

It is also worth pointing out the vast, vast, majority of people are not on twitter. Those of us who retain a connection to real life, and move in less elite circles, know most people have no clue about Queer Theory. The magical thinking of the Genderists may have corrupted the powerful but ordinary people do not (yet?) believe that Lesbians come equipped with penises.

Ruth then tells us of some research Stonewall commissioned, from a peace-keeping charity, to help the organisation on “trans issues” and social media. This was their finding: Apparently the opposition came from a “nest” of 700 accounts who were found to be linked up with Liz Truss. As an aside, I found her choice of words, and body language fascinating, through this interview.

So what conclusions did Ruth draw from this exercise? It seems the organisation determined they were giving too much credence to the unhelpful opinions of the, predominantly, female people. The nasty wimmin were a distraction 👇

There is a significant time given over to discussing the incivility on twitter and the failure to establish a culture of respectful dialogue. Hunt compares this to the conduct in the House of Lords and in Academia. (As an aside she expresses surprise that the House of Lords don’t regulate her conduct on social media). She clearly thinks legislation has a role but offers us the benefit of her experience on legal remedies. An observation which is daily more demonstrated by increasing public awareness of, and rejection, of the notion of women with penises.

Political Strategy

Hunt rightly identifies the change of heart from Conservative Ministers was on the basis of the perceived benefits to capitalism. Not a principled stance but governed by hard cash.

Ruth acknowledges her behind the scenes role with government 👇

Decline in Trust in organisations

Ruth Hunt, below, talks about the loss of faith in our institutions. Many of us would entirely agree with this observation and link our own disillusionment, directly, to the widespread adoption of policy based on Stonewall’s “misguided” advice on the law. My own council replaced “sex” with “gender on its public information, as did the Crown Prosecution Services in a guide for schools. Here Hunt identifies a direct line from a decline in trust in once respected, institutions to the emerging of terrorism.

It is not clear whether Ruth anticipates the emergence of balaclava clad bitches running riot across the land with bombs strapped to our bosoms, because we surely have lost faith in, the U.K. charity, Stonewall.

Sex Not Gender

In this aside Ruth cannot even bring herself to say the protected characteristic of SEX. She also prefers to imply that the nebulous concept of gender has some special status which needs to be enshrined in policies to tackle societal inequality. Gender is not, for the people at the back, a legally protected characteristic in U.K. Law.

President Joe Biden

All is not lost though, she reassures her audience. Joe Biden may be our saviour. Britain needs to trade with the United States and we may need to throw off our reputation for being “transphobic” to maintain our alliance with Uncle Sam (or should that be Auntie Samantha?)

Biden, as we know has embraced the rise of medically constructed identities with alacrity and elevates “Gender Identity” above biological sex, in his rush to appease the Gender Industrial Complex. This in a country that has failed to protect access to abortion or paid Maternity Leave. (See the draconion anti-abortion legislation passed in Texas). Just today Biden’s twitter account claimed this would affect “people”. Neither him nor the female Vice President acknowledged the “people” would be women!

Next she launches a broadside against The Sunday Times for shedding some much needed light on the activity of Stonewall and her own role in its, plummeting, reputation. For Ruth there is no legitimacy to the critiques, the media coverage is just click bait to appeal to shameless populism.

However, all is not lost. We may have fallen behind in passing legislation to elevate the transgender community but, she claims, to have the support of Boris Johnson’s wife.

Evidence Based Data

Here, without a trace of irony, she makes a plea for data based on the health and sexual orientation. In a world where women die, needlessly, because we don’t research sex based differences in health she is happy to undermine data on the category of SEX. She collides with the eradication of research, for women, but wants evidence based health care for herself. This is quite hypocritical because she has repeatedly bemoaned the people who think only in terms of “Me” and not “We”.

So where else will Ruth wander in the Q & A session? She is most proud of her caped crusader stint at Stonewall, where she spent 14 years “righting wrongs”. Stonewall do indeed have a proud legacy, right up to her tenure. Hunt took the helm and set in motion the new sex denialism, despite the fact biological sex is foundational to defending same SEX attraction. It is difficult to judge whether this is naïveté or knowing complicity.

Corporate Campaigns

Her next proud achievement, is, she claims the gullible companies, and public sector organisation who were co-opted as “campaigners” without them realising they were part of her cunning plan:

The question of regret garners some thoughts about reflective practice, learning all the time, constantly re-evaluating etc. Yet, the regret she focuses on is her adoption of a “heroic leadership” model when she became Stonewall CEO. Note the blame is shifted and described as mandate by Stonewall. Note also the consumer driven terminology as she laments the negative impact on the Stonewall “brand”.

She had another regret which was the failure to teach the Judiciary about “trans” asylum seekers which, helpfully, gets it on record that the CEO of Stonewall was training our judiciary.

“Terf” Island

The questions return to how transphobic the British are and the moderator asks Ruth to explain how she measures this and what are her benchmarks? Of course she goes straight to the, discredited, Hate Crime statistics. For the neophytes she is taking about “crimes” that are automatically recorded as “Hate Crime Incidents” based entirely on the perception of the “victim”.

Further evidence of our nation’s “transphobia” relies on the way we are percieved by Americans (by which she seems to mean the U.S because she has a habit of referring to “America” when she clearly means the United States). Yes Ruth it’s not science. 👇

Peppered with observations about British exceptionalism, a post Brexit society and our delusions of still having a great Navy she compares and contrasts the nature of the debate in the U.K with the United States. She waxes lyrical about our sophisticated “American” cousins. We, in the U.K, are aggressive which, she argues, is so “unBritish”. Well worth watching her body language at 1 hour 8 minutes, when she talks about the bigoted women worried about pesky details, such as the destruction of female sports and males invading rape crisis centres.

Academic Freedom

Finally she weighs in on the issue of Academic Freedom. Notice she substitutes and example about race for trans issues. She does this on the spurious grounds that people get so confused about trans issues and if they look at it in the same way as racism the course of action will be much clearer. This is a deliberate strategy. It would be a rarity for anyone in British public life, or private individuals, to advocate for racial segregation. The idea that women and girls don’t need sex specific spaces is far from won which is why she uses another example.

Academics discussing the importance of sex based data, rights to single sex spaces, accurate teaching about biology are not the descendants of the Klu Klux Klan FFS!. This is dangerous and irresponsible framing.in my opinion.

Pride

Some thoughts from Ruth on PRIDE. Given she has courted big business and establishment figures, as a central component of her advocacy, I would take this with a pinch of salt. In an era when Lesbians are ostracised, at Pride events, for declaring the exclusion of males from their dating pools, and when a gay man is rounded upon by a 🌈🌈 draped mob there is nothing to be PROUD of…

Divine Wisdom

I will leave you with this final thought from the moderator. Yes. He really did say this:

He also commends Ruth for her kind and compassionate lecture. There is something interesting about the appeals to the divine in this debate and the faith like certainty that they are on the side of the Angels. One thing is clear there is a lot of resentment that the days of backroom deals are over. The scrutiny of the media/social media has, hopefully, limited the stealth activism which has served the advocates of this ideology so, so well.

Ruth Hunt: Culture Wars. 1

Featured

You can watch this here:

Ruth Hunt: Bridge Building

I have also transcribed (most of it and will add it here when I have finished Part 2.

After a potted history of her career (Baroness) Hunt made attempt at levity re the zoom times and engaging an on-line. She tells us she enjoys a live audience and, in the absence of one, she is going to get out her lego figures and pretend her Jodie Whittaker figure is here to appreciate her words of wisdom. As this is Ruth Hunt I fact checked this and there is indeed a lego figure for Whittaker.

I found it a rather painful introduction but I am not the target audience and it may have gone over quite well with “da yoof”. Ruth explains that she wishes she could see the faces of her audience. Trust me, she doesn’t want to see mine as I watch her pontificate on social justice issues.

She first provides some personal background information and we learn that her mother is a trained Nurse, midwife and a retired Professor of women’s health and midwifery. I wonder if her mum agrees with terms such as “bleeder”, “birthing person” and the attempts to pretend women’s historic position in our society has nothing to do with the fact we are of the reproductive sex class? She also shares a very personal revelation about the death of her young aunt, in childbirth. For both these reasons I find it hard to understand why she has allowed herself to be persuaded that biological sex is no more than an “identity”. Hunt also explains her Christian faith and realise she was a Lesbian. She talks about the books she read and which she doesn’t recommend, and that Lesbian kiss in Brookside.

Another revelation was that Hunt began writing for “Diva” magazine at age 16. She describes herself, at this stage as very much “Cock of the Walk”.

Diva magazine, as you may be aware, was started by Linda Riley who has an interesting background. Private Eye cover some of her chequered financial history and also her notorious involvement with the Jack the Ripper Museum; which claimed to be a Women’s history museum on it’s planning application. 😳

Ruth then treats us to a potted history of her progress through Oxford University where she became the first Lesbian to become the President of the Student Union following her grammar school education and being Head Girl. She relates how she was subsequently head hunted by prominent companies and how she was attracted to the idea of joining the Army. In the end she rejected all of these options because “they won’t want me, they want someone prettier, with longer hair and swishy head, brooch wearing and ears pierced and loveliestness (sic)” So, instead she took a job at Stonewall (U.K.) .

Ruth gives us a whistle stop tour of the achievements of Stonewall up to 2010 and how she felt they were “banking” success during this period. She also deliberately uses the phrase “Gay Rights” and explains, to her audience, that Stonewall was, in those days, campaigning for Lesbian and Gay rights and had not yet included the bisexual and trans groups in their advocacy. All that was about to change when Hunt became CEO, in 2014. Hunt’s appointment coincided with the legislation to introduce the right for Gay marriage so a cynic might say Stonewall was casting around for a new remit. Hunt describes this in a somewhat different way and seems to think her projective was all about collectivism and a move away from individualism. I find this deeply disingenuous. The neoliberalism on cross sex hormones, that is Gender Identity Ideology, is deeply individualist with a strong streak of narcissism.

Hunt contextualises the environment in which Stonewall pivoted to campaign for trans rights and makes an interesting slip in this clip. She begins to describe legislation about “Gender” and then corrects herself to acknowledge the legislation was actually to do with Sex discrimination. She makes a similar slip when she takes about the Trade Union movement being led by White male misogy…but she stops herself from acknowledging misogyny.

Ruth then talks about opposition to “trans-inclusion” which is really an opposition to the sex denialism of Stonewall’s position with the concomitant impact on Women’s (sex based) rights and Gay rights. Like many commentators she situates this conflict of rights in the context of the advent of social media and the rise of Donald Trump. Indeed Trump which may explain some backlash, in the United States, but has zero to do with the Left–wing and Trade Union women who established, for example, Women’s Place U.K. This is how she characterises the debate on social media:

Ruth Hunt clearly found the responses very challenging. She is keen to point out that she has many times sat in rooms with people who disagreed with her stance on a range of issues. It is, by now, abundantly clear it is in back rooms in which Stonewall has been operating. The people who were not around this ever inclusive table, which Ruth likes to refer to, were the female people with a second wave feminist analysis. Ruth prefers to lament a lack of social cohesion and a decline of acceptance to the Brexit vote and the rise of Trump. That serves her narrative better than the truth which is the opposition of simple, grass roots, women’s rights campaigners and Gay rights activists. Never let truth get in the way of a good story, eh, Ruth?

This next clip takes some chutzpah. Ruth thinks we don’t have FACTS! Ruth has deleted her twitter account ostensibly because it was an unproductive and agrees i’ve medium. I think she has deleted it so she can avoid scrutiny and accountability for the damage she has done to Women, especially Lesbians and our Gay youth of both sexes.

She characterises the opposition to Stonewall version of “trans rights” as “cruel” and “mean” . Yet not one word does she say about the violent threats, often sexual in nature, which accompany attacks on “Terfs”. It also doesn’t seem to occur to Hunt that is precisely the awareness campaigns, pushed by Stonewall, that have informed more and more people about Gender Identity Ideology.

In all this Hunt looks to the United States for inspiration and remind us that President Biden has his pronouns in his bio and appointed a trans person to a senior position in his administration. The trans-identified male, appointed to policy-making positions around health issues, is a heterosexual, late transitioner who publicly refused to oppose puberty blockers for children. Where Hunt feels hope there is only despair. She is right that there is a danger in our need to trade with the United States, especially post Brexit.

So where does Ruth stand on the bridge building? She concedes that there is a need to speak to the “enemy” but then goes on to say this:

So it seems Ruth Hunt has declared WAR and yet she seems in utter ignorance about why so many people, within the Lesbian and Gay community, are also at odds with the Stonewall agenda. It also seems the Lady is not for turning. There is no golden bridge for those of us who are not won over by her arguments. So how does Baroness Hunt propose to win the war?

She will be using her position in the House of Lords and also her new initiative Deeds not Words. She will be withdrawing from those talks to more backroom discussions with government departments. What is becoming clear is that this agenda doesn’t have widespread public support and Hunt likes to operate in stealth. Using the precise tactics advocated for by the Dentons Document which I cover here:

That Denton’s Document

She the. proceeds to reference research on how to effect social change and I think she is referencing the work covered in this article.

Tipping Point

The article explains that you only need 25% of committed activists to reach a tipping point and, ironically, the hypothesis was first tested on eradicating sexist behaviour in the workplace. The authors do however identify a danger in this type of activism. It can also be used by “organisations trying to control people”

All of which brings to mind the many articles that abound in the demonic power of self-righteousness. Maybe Ruth needs to consider the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. I am not in possession of religious faith but I get a strong sense of Messianic zeal from the Baroness. Pride comes before a fall.

Ruth then expounds on her theories of declining power of our politicians and presents a theory about different kids of activism and how to use your power for good. One of the ways Ruth intends to use her power in the house of Lords is to effect legislative change to help “trans people” or to destroy women’s sex based rights, depending on your perspective. She also claims it is important to be unafraid of uncertainty which is something she may also wish to reflect upon.

Next up Ruth shares her views on forgiveness. She recounts a tale about a good friend of hers being confused about the important of pronouns. Saint Ruth realists, she tells us, the temptation to lecture her friend by, er, lecturing him on any pronouns are important t until he adds pronouns to his email.

The Q & A will be covered in Part 2.

Ruth Hunt interview by Talcum X

Featured

Introduction:

Ruth Hunt may believe that she got out of, the UK Charity, Stonewall, reputation intact, I am here to state that she did not. More public, and private, bodies are declining to renew membership, of the Charity’s many, money-making initiatives. Hunt may be congratulating herself that this did not happen on her watch. She is in for a rude awakening, this is her legacy. I intend to capture as much evidence as I can while we wait for the public accountability as the dominoes begin to topple.

Now that Hunt has been elevated to the the House of Lords I want to remind her that it took decades for Lord David Steel to be held to account; over his failure to deal with the child predator, and MP, Cyril Smith. How many more children could have been saved from abuse had he spoken up? Similarly how many of our, young, gay males and Lesbians will have been unnecessarily medicalised before Gender Identity Ideology is defeated. David Steel, eventually, resigned from his party and stood down from the House of Lords. His status did not save him. Stonewall had a proud history of standing up for Gay Rights but have now trashed their reputation. They bear a significant share of responsibiity for the harm Trans ideology has visited on young Lesbians and Gay Males. As CEO Ruth Hunt is similarly tarnished.

Ruth Hunt will indeed have a reputation, even a place in history, but it is one likely to take the proud out of PRIDE! Queer Capitalism indeed!

Primary Source:

Here is the interview. I have saved a copy. There will be mass deletions of tweets, interviews, newspaper articles. We need to archive as many of these as we can. We must NEVER forget who is reponsible for the promotion of this ideology. (Ruth Hunt has already deleted her Twitter account).

Owen Jones interviews Ruth Hunt

Here is a transcript. I have tried to reproduce it accurately but I did have to correct some parts, the intent was clear, but it didn’t translate to the written word. You can cross check the interview for yourself.

owen jones and ruth hunt

The Interview:

The interview takes place when Stonewall were campaigning for a review of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA). The GRA allows someone to obtain a revised birth certificate to reflect a “sex change”. The legislation was designed to facilitate a legal fiction for, we were told, a tiny number of people who we commonly considered to be “transsexual”. What Trans Activists, supported by Stonewall, wished to do was to allow anyone to identify as the opposite sex on a “self-identifying” basis. This would remove any gatekeeping and, as I have shown in previous blogs the process, as it exists now, already allows fully intact, male, rapists to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate.

In the U.K, this proposed “reform”, triggered alarm in many women and led to the formation of Women’s Place U.K and Fairplay For Women as well as other, groups like Standing For Women. Other groups like Object and Filia had existed prior to the GRA.

The strategy Stonewall used to enable this legislative change was to avoid debate. We were told there was no need for one and we should just “skip it”. This approach was perfectly represented by this campaign material.

Stonewall and other Trans Activists also opted for a policy of #NoDebate on the spuriousgrounds that we “debated” Gay Rights and we should simply #Skipit this time. This strategy was exemplified in BBC Radio 4 Women’s Hour attempts to cover the issue. Those representing the Trans Lobby would refuse the appear, on the same programme as Women’s Rights campaigners, claiming this would render them unsafe. This propagated the myth of a vulnerable community and also avoided any, direct, challenge to their arguments. Sometimes Woman’s Hour used taped segments, other times Trans activists refused to appear, at all. Many segments were simply cancelled because nobody, for the Trans Side, would agree to contribute.

Freddy McConnell (Trans-identified Female) outlined their stance, re debate, for the Guardian. Note the framing, discussing this issue is presented as a literal threat to life. It is also notworthy that females are often put up to oppose Women’s rights campaigners to avoid people concluding, correctly in my view, that Trans Lobby Groups are dominated by Men’s Rights Activists. It is a lot easier to get away with the hyperbole of “vulnerable” trans people when using a female with a small build.

Ruth Hunt remembers Stonewall Strategy slightly differently. In this interview she claims the problem is that they had over-estimated the capacity of the general public to engage in the debate in a mature enough fashion. Elitist claptrap. I would, however, agree with Ruth on one point they legal/policy proposals are indeed “naive”. I would suggest the truth of the matter is that Stonewall thought that they could adopt the strategy of passing legislative change by stealth. (See my piece on The Denton’s Document. Thankfully the days of them operating in the shadows are over. We See You, as they say, and we don’t like what we are seeing..

Owen’s response is to profess bafflement. Who are the people (can’t even bring himself to say “women) who want to discuss the conflict of rights between Women and Men? They would be WOMEN, Owen. This illustrates how out of touch Owen is with the Working Class on whose existence and lives he has built his career and income streams. Not one thought for the women in prison’s forced to share space with male rapists? Naturally he frames this as “anti-trans” rather than pro-women. He is grossly ill-informed.

Ruth also knows perfectly well she is talking about people with no desire for a “medical” transition. She even claims that women, opposed to male-bodied people in their spaces, are in danger of putting pressure on the NHS who would not be able to cope with the demand. On this point I can set Ruth’s mind at reast. Surgery does not convert a man into a woman and women still have the right to single sex spaces irrespective of surgical status.

This is how Ms Hunt frames the discussion about the Gender Recognistion Act. It is well worth watching the footage to see the jocular way she and Tiny Owen discuss this proposed amendment to the GRA. “It’s just admin”.

Owen cannot contain his glee at the opportuniity to laugh at all those silly women, kicking up a fuss about nothing.

Ruth then goes on to share her opinion on the existing, legal position. This is what is known as Stonewall Law. Repeat the law as you wish it to be not as it is. If the law already allowed all these things there would have been no need for the amendment. What she is doing here is making sure, even if the law does not change, they can continue training organisations across the land that single sex spaces are illegal.

Below is a clip from the Reindorf Report which investigated the no-platforming of Feminist academics from Essex University. Here’s what the author had to say about Stonewall.

Ruth then goes on to make a statement worthy of Goebels level propaganda. The breathtaking audacity of the following statement flabberghasted me to the point of a Benjamin “butter gasp”!

Yes! It’s not as if we don’t already have male rapists in female prisons, competing in women’s sports, taking Women’s Officer roles in the Green Party and Labour. Its not as if a male, who lied about his sex, is now running a Rape Crisis centre for women. Its not a if Mental Health Nurses are telling a female patient, undergoing a psychotic episode the person who has just exposed his penis to her is a “woman”. Its not as if a man in Monkey costume complete wearing a Dildo is going into Nurseries to read books for children!

Hurdles versus Loopholes.

This is a major social engineering process which requires females accept males in every conceivable space. I cannot resist sharing one final screenshot of this interview. This is where Ms Hunt made a (freudian?) slip and substituted the word “loophole” when, from the context, it seems she meant to say “hurdle”. Daft!

I am looking forward to looking at how Ruth squares this with her Christian Faith and why she claims she would be a good person to navigate the so called “Culture Wars”.

paypal.me/STILLTish

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth. Support is always appreciated (I have no income). All my content is open access so if you can’t speak publicly, and you have spare cash, this helps me keep going.

£10.00

Material Girls: Review

Featured

Full disclosure: Kathleen, very kindly, donated a signed copy of her book which she took the trouble to post to me. This was done despite Kathleen being aware that I was unlikely to agree with every one of her ideas or conclusions. It is true that I diverge on some issues but, nevertheless I highly recommend this book.

Kathleen (Professor Stock) writes from the perspective of an academic, philospher, whilst currently holding a post within a UK University. She has been subjected to a campaign of villification, from within her own discipline, and the university sector more generally. Even the main union for University staff, UCU, has not stepped up to protect women in Kathleen’s position. I cannot begin to imagine writing this book, from within academia, and I commend her courage in doing so. As Kathleen points out there is a huge struggle to get dissenting voices into the literature on this topic. This book represents a significant milestone in breaking this silence.

My reception of the book probably needs some clarity about my own perspective, or biases, if you will. I am not pure enough to claim the label radical feminist but I would say I am radical feminist adjacent; since their analysis makes the most sense to me. In a twist of fate I now find myself the mum of a trans-identified male and caught up in a fucked up, post modern, version of Sophie’s Choice. I am expected to hand my (gay) son over to the medical profession who, I am assured, will return a living “daughter”. My perspective is thus informed by both my feminism and the impact on my son. This is not easy terrain to navigate when you are also a stalwart defender of women’s, sex based, rights. It also makes me more, perhaps too, inclined to want to understand motivations for homosexual transitioners. My compassion should not be taken as compromise where women’s rights are concerned.

A brief history of Gender Identity

The book traces the origins of Gender Identity as a concept and covers feminist voices who argued that feminism could be advanced by a more extreme belief that sex differences were wholly “culturally constructed”. She covers Simone de Beauvoir, John Money, Anne Fausto-Sterling (of “five sexes” fame), Judith Butler and also cites Julia Serano as one of the trans voices covered. I would have added the work of Janice Raymond to this list because “Transsexual Empire” is a seminal text on this area. Its omission may have been tactical because Raymond’s book tends to inflame those who see themselves as activists for the “Transgender” community.

John Money and Robert Stoller concieved of the idea we each have a “gender identity” which, as we have seen, is now being embedded in society and rapidly being privileged over biological sex.

This chapter also covers the Yogakarta principles which are essential to understanding how activists envision a world where gender identity is embedded in the law. There is also a section on the origin of the term “Terf” ; which is useful for those of you unaware of the history of it’s coinage.

What is sex?

The What is Sex chapter is a good debunking of the common arguments claiming it is difficult to define sex, that we are not sexually dimorphic and conflating issues of intersex (disorders of sexual development) with a trans identity. It may seem ludicrous but some, self-identified, serious academics proclaim we didn’t know to which sex to deny the vote. Apparently it was all a random act of disenfranchisement based on the nebulous concept of “gender identity”. If only Emmeline had come out as Edward Pankhurst the women’s rights movement could have been exposed as a complete waste of time. Below is a seaside postcard from the time.

For those of a philosophical bent this chapter will particularly appeal. I have rehearsed these arguments with trans-activists over many years so much of the content was familiar. One of the key issues that resonates with me is that we must not simply reduce everything to XX chromosomes. I am thinking of women with no abiliity to process testosterone. Their chromosomes will be XY but they will have had a female (oestrogen led) puberty They often have no idea they have male chromosomes until they fail to menstruate. (I am thinking of twitter user @ClaireCais when I type this and some of the painful things she has had to endure). If only for women with DSDs this chapter is important. It is also a useful source to debunk the false conflation of a transgender identity disorders of sexual development.

Why Sex Matters?

Stock then goes on to make a compelling case for why sex matters. She covers medicine, sport, sexual orientation and sex based statistics on crime. Women are still fighting for a world which doesn’t treat males as the default humans. Denying that sex is a significant variable in many areas will further, negatively, impact women. For more on this you can read Caroline Criado-Perez.

Though it is possible that somebody at the Guardian has read Kathleen’s book since the clarification, below, is from the Guardian in July 2021!

Now we are starting to see males competing, at the Olympics, in the women’s category will more people start speak out. Laurel Hubbard , who is competing in the 87kg women’s weight lifting category, may prove a tipping point.

Legal cases such as the issue of males in women’s prisons and the recording of male sex crimes as if they were committed by women is also covered in this chapter. I have covered many such cases on my blog about this so I am pleased to see this.

What is Gender Identity?

The topic on Gender Identity I found a difficult read, for personal reasons. As a woman I instintively recoiled from Monroe Bergdorf locating the film “clueless” as prompting their thoughts of transition. After watching this film they state: “Oh my God, this is where I fit in, these are my people”. Stock does not include some of the more controversial utterances from Monroe Bergdorf; one of them being to demand that women stop centring reproductive rights on a women’s march. This won’t please all readers but I think she is wise to avoid more sensationalist copy.

The recollections of Paris Lees and other gay trans people echo what I know of the impact homophobic bullying can have on self-acceptance. Interestingly this is a Paris Lees quote from an article (London Review of Books 2014). This was quite an honest assessment and pre-dates Lees adding “Adult Human Female” to their twitter bio:

On the topic of homosexual transsexuals I , inevitably, find myself conflicted. I want boys like my son to be protected in all their variant masculinity. I don’t want to enshrine “gender identity” in law and legitimise the sterilising of, likely gay, males. Neither do I want those gay males, who do fail to reconcile to their sex, to be unprotected. What I do know is that “gender identity ” must never take primacy over biological sex, for the sake of women. Enshrining “gender identity” in law would be disastrous for women’s rights. Sex also matters for trans-identified people. It is dangerous to become so immersed in an identity you deny that sex matters for your health care.

I was pleased to see this statement in the book: “in my view there are no cirumstances in which minors should be making fertility and health affecting decisions involving blockers, hormones or surgery”. Personally I take a harder line re decisions to embark on medical pathways. Achieving the magical age of majority is not sufficient for me. I know, from personal experience, our teenagers are being handed prescriptions with no counselling and no interrogation of what motivates a flight from their sex. I would ban it for under 25’s which we know is the average age of brain maturity. Whether it would deflect many from this path we can’t foresee. We do know many de-transitioners embarked on surgery, in their early twenties, only to regret it. Persuading legislators of this is likely to be an uphill, near impossible struggle, at this moment in time. Alarm bells should be ringing as the number of detransitioners in increasing daily. Sadly I fear many more broken bodies before this madness gets reined in.

In this chapter the author also attempts to elucidate the position of various schools of thought on Gender Identity. This is no mean feat giving the contradictions inherent in Gender Identity Ideology. This chapter uses the terminology of Trans Idealogues comparing “Cis” people to “trans people” and even using “non-trans”. That will irk some readers. However I see this chapter aimed at an audience (academics? politicians?) who have wholesale adopted the nomenclature of Gender identity Ideologues. The chapter does end with an unequivocal statement warning of the danger in accepting something which is “in danger of looking unverifiable as when Stonewall tells young people “” Someone else can’t tell you what your gender identity is – only you know how you feel””. This is not a sound basis on which to enact legislation, and perhaps using trans-approved language will convince more people?

What makes a woman?

There follows a long chapter interrogating “What makes a Woman” and looking at the definition of Adult Human Female versus Woman as Social Role. I suspect some people view this chapter as capitulation and some as compassionate. I subscribe to Adult Human Female but welcome the recognition that some people have built their lives around the narrative “Trans Women are Women”. These quotes sum up the difficulty, with the demand that the word “woman” is handed over to males in flight from their sex.

Marilyn Frye is quoted on page 152:

“If a woman has little or no economic or political power, or achieves little of what she wants to achieve, a major causal factor is she is a woman. For any woman of any race or economic class being a woman is significantly attached to whatever disadvantages and deprivations she suffers be they great or small” In response to the (much longer) quote Stock argues “Getting rid of the concept WOMAN would mean we couldn’t desribe, explain, predict or manage these distinctively caused phenomena”.

To those who have built their lives around the idea they are really women, Stock has this to say:

“People have built their lives around this narrative. Perhaps it feels as though I’m ripping all that away, and that causes you pain”.

I have seen this pain up close and its not the performative, twitter, transperbole: though that certain exists. It can be raw and very real. I think compassion has a very real place on this topic and it needn’t include abandoning a very clear view about the necessity for sex based rights and a male exclusionary feminism. We don’t need to be inhibited from centring women in our feminism, indeed it is a necessity if women’s rights organisations are to serve women, as a sex class.

Once again, I quote Miranda Yardley (male transsexual): “Refugees from masculinity exist” and add my own caveat “it is not women’s job to run the refugee camps”.

Immersed in a fiction

This chapter begins with some commentary on the passing of the Gender Recognition Act, 2004. This enshrined to idea of a “legal fiction” allowing males, then the majority sex visiting Gender Clinics, to have their birth certificate amended to show their sex as female. Its astonishing to see the quality (or lack thereof) of contributions to the debate on the passage of the bill in the House of Commons. Below is a link to historic archives on Hansard. I find myself in the unusual position, for me, of recommending Norman Tebbit’s contribution which Professor Stocks also references in this chapter.

Hansard Archive on GRA

Stock them goes on to discuss the difference between fiction and reality and quotes both Miranda Yardley and Fione Orlander. I met both Fionne and Miranda on the same night and it was the first time I spoke publicly about my situation. Here Miranda clearly states ” I now disavow use of the word “woman” for myself and other transgender males, preferring to use the term “transsexual” or “transsexual male”. I should also point out that both Miranda and Fionne used male facilities at the meeting.

Stock covers the therapeutic benefit , to the individual, of being immersed in a fictional belief about your place within the sex binary. She also expresses concern about the risk of losing capacity to think rationally about your biological reality. This detachment from reality can be maladaptive and harmful. Moreover what latter day trans activists are increasingly demanding is the coercion of others to overtly participate in this fiction. This can result in the controlling of others around you. I was particularly pleased to see this sentence“Yet it isn’t reasonable to expect the person who gave birth to you, or the person who married you, or your own children to permanently relate to you mentally as of a different sex when they know you are not”

In addition the author sounds the alarm about the corruption of data which occurs when “gender identity” is substituted for sex. A particular danger is to criminalise speech such as “misgendering”. Something, by the way, which is already criminalised in some of the United States.

How did we get here?

This chapter is an excellent overview of how trans-activists have been allowed to lobby government to set the legal agenda whilst politicans were negligent, in seeking contributions from women’s groups. Stonewall figure prominently, as do Mermaids, and The Guardian newspaper does not emerge covered in glory. Jess Bradley of Action for Trans Health is also consulted. Professor Stock refrains from any reference to the sacking of Jess Bradley. He was the first Trans Officer at Manchester University and departed for sharing a bit more his anatomy ,at work, than would be considered decent.

This chapter has an excellent overview of the propaganda deployed to further Transgender Ideology. One of these is the egregious use of suicide statistics, which are based on dubious data. Hate crime statistics also create a false narrative about widespread abuse of this population.

This chapter also looks at the pornified representations of women and those public “transwomen” who draw on these depictions to demonstrate membership of the female “gender”. These performances reify dehumanising representations of what it means to be a woman; another reason why women are not served by any alliance.

The chapter on autogynephilia is where our attitudes diverge. In part this because my empathy goes to the women who find their husbands are autogynephiles. These women are now getting a voice by organising as “trans-widows”. I have read enough of these accounts to see commonalities with men who coercively control their wives. Many of these women found themselves subject to degrading and humiliating treatment. At the extreme end it involved forced participation in sexual acts which validated their husbands alter ego. At the milder end women report having their personal style and friendship groups co-opted by their husbands almost as if they were replicating, or replacing, their wives.

Even, seemingly, benign, behavioural autogynephilia includes males inserting themselves into female spaces, and conversations, to gratify their need to assert their membership of the female group. The wives, or trans widows, then find themselves excluded from the support of women because their erstwhile husbands have colonised their places of refuge.

Kathleen asks why the lack of coverage, on the gender critical side, relating to trans-identified females. This is surely because, whilst it exists, androphilia (sexually fetishising a male identity) is relatively rare? Women tend to focus on “trans-men” as female and are concerned that many would, if left alone, simply be Butch Lesbians. Gay males are latterly, waking up to the encroachment of those females who identify as gay men on their spaces. Defending gay male spaces is surely the job of gay men and they do seem to be, belatedly, joining the debate in growing numbers.

A better activism in future.

Those not immersed in this debate may regard this chapter as even-handed and reaching out to those who have feared to dip their toe in the water. Others may bristle at the criticism of Radical/Gender Critical feminists.

Julia Long came in for some criticism by name. For the record I am an admirer of Julia Long’s uncompromising stance. I think we need straight-talking women who reject the mantle of “Be Kind”. As a (heterosexual) woman who lives with three males I think Lesbian feminists, of a separatist persuasion, have often been the clearest sighted about the threats Gender Identity Ideology poses to women’s rights. I wish I had listened to them sooner. I also find Julia funny, she has Ovaries of steel; and is unafraid to offend in her direct action. She appeals to my Yorkshire bluntness and I admire her, albeit from some ideological distance. She is unashamedly woman-centred and some of the terminology used is reminiscient of attacks used by Men’s rights activists. For me we need the range of activists challenging this ideology and some of the women shifting the overton window won’t be invited to the top table discussions but will have opened the doors for the women who do get a seat.

At the same time Julia warns about using terms, such as “transsexual” and “transwomen”. I no longer use the latter but I do sometimes use the former whilst also sometimes, speaking plainly about “men”. I am inconsistent in my application and I don’t advocate for my, selective, approach as a basis for any women’s movement. It just happens to be a response to my personal circumstances. I choose to use less alienating language for those I love, or like and respect. I therefore do perform “polite fiction” on this issue and live with some cognitive dissonance.

Kathleen also warns about the alienating use of words like “mutilated” when describing the surgical harms to girls; subject to double mastectomies and other surgical procedures. Again those of us with our offspring’s skin in the game, literally, adopt different tactics in this area. I do regard these surgeons as butchers who are mining my son’s body for profit. I am angry about this. At the same time we need to find a welcome back, into the sex class they never left, for detransitioners. I was irritated by blue-tick feminists (not Kathleen) getting the vapours about some graphic images of phallioplasty procedures. Simultaneously nobody wants to exacerbate the regret of those who have found their way out of the gender cult. This is extremely difficult terrain to navigate because we want people to stare directly at the reality and not minimise by using euphemisms like “top surgery”.

The chapter outlines some ways in which these disparate groups might make common cause. I honestly don’t know if the extreme sex denialism, of the Trans lobby, will allow for compromise. Will it allow women the right to define ourselves and exclude males in any settings?

At an individual level, I find some of the more ruminative transsexuals, suprisingly, find meaning in a radical feminist analysis. They see common elements in questioning sex based expectations and are reflective on how they may have followed very diffent paths had they encountered this framework. At the same time I know of transsexuals who found Kathleen’s analysis of their path as an immersion in a fiction meaningful. Invariably these are homosexual transsexuals who are not quite so invested in the need to validate the “woman” they wish to consecrate their lives to….

It is possible therefore that some of the linguistic concessions, in this book, will reach a new audience who would shrink from the plain speaking of a Janice Raymond. It is also a book written from within existing employment in academia and that surely has an impact on which audience it is intended to reach.

One page 272, there is a really useful list of all the areas which need more exploration (data) and research. She devotes three pages to these areas and it is quite shocking to consider the policy decisions taken without this data. Stock argues that their is a “surfeit high theory” in activism and public discussion. This includes Trans Studies. She goes on to say “High theory is abstract, totalising, seductively dramatic in its conclusions and relatively insulated from any directly observable empirical consequences – which ….makes it harder to dislodge”. She then returns to a critique of Judith Butler whose conclusions are “reached through a byzantine set of theoretical manoevres”. I think it fitting that a critique of the High Priestess of Gender Bollox is in the conclusion.

My conclusion. I think this is a very important book. I imagine every single reader will diverge at some points with the book’s stance. We all are in this with varying perspectives and we need to navigate a path to enable disagreements to be voiced from within feminism. I am one of six sisters and only one of them feels able to agree with me. I still love them and hope they will come round. Thanks for writing this book Kathleen. I hope I have done it justice.

paypal.me/STILLTish

£10.00

Talcum X talks Butler Bollox

Featured

Owen Jones talks to Judith Butler the Queen of Queer Theory. Full transcript attached. It was almost impossible to work out where the punctuation was intended. Apologies in advance to the Grammar police, I may have lost the will to live at some point. Transcription errors are mine. Failures of logic are Butler’s.

Owen Jones and Judith Butler

Here is the YouTube.

Owen Jones and Judith Butler

Who will rid me of these pesky transphobes?

OJ seems very keen to draw Butler into his public disagreement with Suzanne Moore. The piece starts, quite abruptly, with Butler criticising an unnamed woman who, we learn later, is Suzanne Moore. I would call this a response but it bears little resemblance to Moore’s actual writing on this topic. JK Rowling also comes under attack, as do feminists Janice Raymond and Sheila Jeffries. All women. When a man seeks to draw ~~women~~, oops Non-binary persons, into criticising their fellow women, I am a tad suspicious of the driving motivation.

Plenty of men have expressed skepticism about Gender Identity Ideology, including Douglas Murray (Gay Man) and Piers Morgan. He could have also targeted Simon Fanshawe (Stonewall founder and Gay man) who gave his support to LGB Alliance. Why did Jones pass up an opportunity to skewer his, male, political opponents? Instead he has his sights trained on a bunch of left-wing, trade union, women. Could it be that Owen knows what biological sex is when it matters….to him?

Transphobia and Islamophobia.

Owen asks Butler for her opionon on what is happening with British transphobia. Butler hesitates, for about a millisecond, to be the kind of American who comments on other countries. In her reply Butler hands Owen the answer he wants about British feminists, and simultaneously demonstrates ~~her~~ their complete ignorance about the U.K context. Butler is another U.S “feminist” who would be better concentrating on fighting for maternity leave and reproductive autonomy in their own country. U.K women will continue to fight for the sex-based rights these silly women are giving away. (Butler refers to UK women as silly and our arguments ridiculous so I make no apology for replying in kind).

If you are looking for dazzling insights, into feminism, prepare to be disappointed. If you seek incitement to hate on women, you came to the right place: It’s full of bitchwhistles. Owen, “I am not a misogynist” Jones runs through the usual slurs.

Transphobic. ✅

Racist.✅

Dismissal of “Older” women. ✅

Homophobic ✅

Owen deliberately ignores the impact of Gender Identity Supremacy on Gay Rights. What happens to SEXual orientation if men can claim to be Lesbians? Nowhere does he mention that many of us are parents of Gay Males. Some of us find it hard to see why calling our sons “girl” in the playground is “bullying” but when the Tavistock and Queer Theorists do it it’s “affirmation”. Why let the truth get in the way of a bit of performative misogyny?

In Butler Land sex, is of course, assigned at birth. The way Butler talks about the inside of the delivery room is reminiscient of the bonkers group Action for Trans Health. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this group, let me remind you, they argued that identifying biological sex was a violent act of State coercion. Butler continues in this vein with the inevitable guff about chromosomes making sex so, so, complicated to determine. Butler’s ham fisted attempt to deny biological reality echoes an average day, playing intersex bingo, with the Queer Theory twitterati.

I expected she would have enough in her arsenal to make me second guess myself. Nope. Turns out What the Butler Saw was not much.

The Trans person’s burden.

The idea that “transphobic” feminists are responsible for the deaths of “trans” people is how Owen chooses to frame the interview. The reference to suicide, at the outset, is grossly irresponsible. To promulgate the False suicide narrative, knowing people who identify as “trans” are among his most devoted acolytes, shows a reckless disregards for the dangers of fostering suicide ideation. Not only is this contrary to Samaritan’s guidance, on media coverage, it is cheap, emotional blackmail. This is Butler’s response to Suzanne Moore’s purported stance.

This is quickly followed by more transperbole. Women. Look what you made me do! Failure to recognise the preferred name/ identity of trans-identifying people means they will be unable to eat and breathe!

Later Butler depict’s Moore defending of women’s rights as based on a deep, subjective feeling that women wish to deny others.

You have just spent ages saying there is no right way to be a woman. Yet, here you are, saying being a woman is defined by this inner, subjective, feeling that we are woman. I don’t have this “genderfeelz” thing. I just am a woman. On the basis of this argument I will have to kick myself out of my own sex class… and see Butler in the non-binary section.

After the diatribe on Moore’s failure to understand trans peope etc Butler makes an astonishing attack:

Now, when someone like Suzanne Moore says “Oh transwomen just think they’re women because of a feeling they have”, That’s a deeply dismissive, transphobic… I’m sure she would be proud to be transphobic I don’t think it’s a falsehood to call her transphobic. I think she values transphobia. She wants more of it in the world.

No wonder Jones felt obliged to insert this slide..

Next up Butler bastardises feminist thought. They/Them repurposes centuries of work questioning the social construction of “femininity”, to better serve our Trans overlords. UK feminists have long argued that Gender Identity appears to be based on regressive, sex stereotypes. Butler bollox twists this to lend credence to the foolish notion that we have no idea what a man or woman is! Queer Theory does not, in fact, deconstruct “femininity”, or “masculinity” , it merely reassigns the sex of anyone who doesn’t successfully perform sex stereotypes. Queer Theorists also throw in a veritable smorgasboard of other identities like a post-modern pick and mix. Butler has, we later learn, opted for Non-binary, something inbetween. Sigh.

What is a woman?

This might fool a neophyte, like Jones, it ought not to have fooled so many others. Of course we should deconstruct societal expectations, of both femininity and masculinity. That should not mean reifying sexist stereotypes to assign flamboyant males, or butch women a new sex designation! Note the failure to conform to uber pornified “femme” presentation covers many more of us than Butch lesbians. It’s the stereotypes. Stupid!

More on the same theme. Who are these Women who do a thing and then immediately think, the doing of the thing, means they are “not really a woman”. When I was the person paying the mortgage one of the banks we applied to only had the option for MAN:Yes or MAN:No. This was twenty years ago, in England, not Afghanistan! Who exactly was telling me this was not something a woman should do? Could it be that the computer system was designed by a bloke still shocked that women had their own bank accounts? Why would this make me question my sex, rather than note the sexism?

What is “gender”?

The current trend for asserting the primacy of “Gender Identity”, over biological sex, is doing the EXACT same thing as rigid enforcement of sex appropriate roles. Are you are girl who likes short hair, trains, playing with boys, computer games? Are you really a “boy”? Same for boys who are bakers not fighters. It’s so utterly regressive. Before all this Queer Theory bollocks we were making some headway fighing to liberate females and males from these constraints. NOW? Oops I seem to be a great scientist and I fancy women: I must really be a man.

Butler’s arguments are so full of hesitation, deviation and repetition. They are also hard to follow. We are informed that, after Butler publishing her book,Gender Trouble, she had some negative feedback from the Trans community and how she learned to listen to trans people. They were were at pains to dispute the idea their Gender Identity was not innate. Butler offers up trans theorists who claim an innate Gender Identity and advises this is an area of much debate within “trans-studies”. She is abject in her desire to learn at the feet of the great trans theorists and scold’s transphobic feminists for not reading her recommended gurus. (We have, Judith. We just thought it was regressive claptrap, but, hey, maybe if it were not for my #LadyBrain I could grasp how this is meant to be progressive).

Butler concedes that there is a vast difference in expections of 1950’s women to modern day expectations. She understands the formation of “Gender Identity” varies according to historical context but still claims “Gender” is so deeply seated it is not really a choice.

So it’s not chosen. It’s not innate. It’s historically changeable but also deep seated. These are the kind of intellectual acrobatics required to include Bearded Lesbians, like Alex Drummond, under the trans umbrella.

Butler also takes issue with the misunderstandings about Gender which she patiently ~~explains~~, obfuscates. Gender is performative but not a performance, its deep-seated but not innate, it is performative but it’s not artificial, it’s a powerful social and historical reality but it isn’t just based on sex stereotypes. Keep up on the back benches. Are you really going to legislate based on this nebulous concept?

Here is how Butler experiences their “gender”. Seeing so many drag queens in gay bars helped Butler understand that some men could out perform her in “femininity”. Yep. People. This is what passes for progressive thinking. Women who don’t perform in the s expected way are somehow failing at being women and therefore must be non-binary? Men? #NobodyDoesItBetter apparently.

Stonewall and Historical Revisionism

Below Owen reminds us that Stonewall only added campaigning for the T in 2015. It has taken just five years to destroy an organisation once remarkable for it’s work defending gay rights. As we can see from this clip they justified this by the historical revisionism which claims Transwomen were key players in the Stonewall Riots. This is an egregious lie. In fact the Stonewall Riots were started by a Lesbian and supported by Gay men. Transsexuals /Transwomen played a minor, to non-existent, role. To see OJ cravenly thanking trans people for their liberation, as a gay man, is cringe-making. Later in the piece both Butler and Jones criticise historical revisionism and completely overlook this example of their own. In the same section Butler claims that post-modernists are not in the business, as far as she knows, of denying facts. Pull the other one.

RUTH HUNT

(Ruth Hunt now has a seat in the House of Lords. For swelling the Stonewall coffers with Trans Lobby cash and, in doing so, destroying the reputation of a once venerable organisation. Interview with Ruth Hunt , below, on Hard Talk makes it clear she measured success by revenue. Looking forward to how Ruth Hunt revises her history when the damage to young lesbians becomes clear. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csy97p)

Next up. This is how Butler characterises writers like Janice Raymond and Sheila Jeffries and women who are campaigning for penis free spaces. This argument would not be out of place on a Men’s Rights Forum, because this is exactly what this movement is. Butler below doing the classic #NotAllMen so beloved by MRAs and TRAs.

Once again. We exclude ALL men to safeguard women and girls from the FEW. We exclude ALL men not just for safety but for privacy and dignity. It is perfectly reasonable for women and girls to wish to undress, shower and acccess the toilets in FEMALE ONLY spaces.

Here she is on JK Rowling. Women talking about a history of domestic abuse are leveraging their trauma in order to persecute others!

Here are JK Rowling’s actual words. Trigger warning. They are PERFECTLY REASONABLE!

JK Rowling Statement

Owen commits and unpardonable faux-pas!

To end. Well worth watching this snippet to see Owen spluttering an apology after making a capital error and failing to respect Mx Butler’s identity! OJ decides to ask a question from one of his viewers and …

He, of course, blames the questioner..another woman and Butler makes ~~her~~ their feelings perfectly clear.

Lol!

Agreement?

I didn’t disagree with Butler on everything. She gives a creditable account of why the work of Kimberle Crensaw is important. Not withstanding the reputation of intersectional feminism is now utterly ruined by the parasitic leeching of Gender Identity Ideology. It is certainly true that women could have made common cause with refugees from masculinity IF they had not turned out to be neo-colonialists. Certainly those of us who are not willing to give up our sex based rights are not, as Butler mischaracterises us, unconcerned with structural racism. Once again the hijacking of #BlackLivesMatter by the obsession with trans issues has haomorrhaged respectability for that campaign, but the initial aims were laudable.

I also wholly endorse this statement though for rather different reasons than Butler

https://paypal.me/STILLTish

If you can support my work your contribution would be deeply appreciated. I am able to speak up because I have no employer, and therefore no income. If you have the latter but are not able to speak up this is a way you can help.

£10.00

The Department of Education

Featured

Transgender Guidance, for schools, draws support for its interpretation of the law from the Department of Education (DFE). This document illustrates how they have been cognitively captured by many of the prominent Trans Lobby groups. Many references to GIRES and Stonewall. None to women’s groups. Not a single one. The DFE also reference the Cornwall guidance which was the subject of my previous blog.

Cornwall: Transgender Guidance

This guidance, from 2014, asserted that the protected characteristic of gender reassignment now extended to school pupils. You can read the full document below. 👇

Equality_Act_Advice_Final 3

This is the document which advised schools how trans-identified pupils are covered by the, legally protected, characteristic of Gender Reassignment.

It is important to remember that sexual reassignment surgery is prohibited for under 18 year olds, on the NHS. Granting permission to male pupils, to use facilities in accordance with their “gender”, is mandating girls to accept penis in their intimate spaces. Gender reassignment was not intended to cover the modern idea of what it means to be trans. We did not consent to this.

The DFE briefing relies on advice from Stonewall and the Gender Identity and Research Education Society. (GIRES). A brief look at their supporters and trustees shows a heavy presence from trans-identified males. Below is a quick look at attitudes to sexual harassment from prominent transgender activists some of them associated with GIRES.

Backlash?

Anyone remember #MeToo? Is this the backlash?

Carlotta is not the only trans-identifying male who thinks women over react to men’s sense of entitlement to our bodies. There is a marked difference between a male and female perspective on sexual harassment. Paris Lees is advertised as a GIRES supporter on their website. Here Paris celebrates being objectified and arrogantly dismisses female fears about how transgender rights are being used to attack women’s right to single sex spaces. Ironically statistically escalators are more of a risk than Paris appreciated. There were, in fact, more people killed in escalator accidents than trans people were unlawfully killed, by all causes, in the year of this tweet. I would not trust Paris Lees to risk assess women’s expose to harm when single sex spaces become uni-sex.

A cursory look at the hyper-sexualised, look at me, performances of “femininity” from prominent TransGender activists bears witness to the fact that Paris Lees is not an outlier. Here Carlotta illustrates that males look at sexual abuse in a different way to women? For transgender males their perception is skewed because they have an excessive need to be validated, as women, which predisposes them to welcome what we repudiate.

I bring this up because, it seems to me, policy around sex segregated spaces is being DICKtated by males. Yes they may wish to identify as women but they seem unable to identify with our experience. The lobby groups advising government are drawn from this same population. Is it any wonder they have absolutely no idea of what it was like to grow up as a teenage girl? A cursory glance at the trustees of GIRES and supporters is enough to illustrate their likely bias.

School context

As a result of these lobby groups we are opening up single-sex spaces at a time of unprecedented rates of sexual assault in schools. Here are a couple of slides from a presentation by Maureen O’Hara.👇. Over 600 rapes in a three year period. I was staggered by that figure.

Here is your regular reminder De Facto Self-identity, of “Gender” has already been introduced in policy if not in law.

The DFE will end up with a future appearance at the Inquiry into child sexual abuse, the only questin is when. We do not want to wait thirty years. We need to hold people accountable, during their time in office, and not when they are deceased or honoured with a with a seat in the House of Lord and a massive pension.

The usual suspects.

A lot has changed in the six years since this guidance was written. I suspect even the most zealous of Transgender Rights Activists (TRAs) didn’t anticipate the explosion of trans identifying children. My school, of 1000 pupils, had at least three females and one male in one year group! This is no longer “rare”. Eventually one would hope that politicians would wake up to the obvious connection between proselytising Gender Identity Ideology and rising rates of children claiming to be transgender.

Here the DFE expand on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and why it is deemed to cover school children.

👇 Again they link to GIRES website.

This was surely not the intention of the original lawmakers. Exhibit A. John Bercow. Hansard. Once again the interchangeability of gender as a proxy for sex makes for bad law. Bercow may have intended to reassure over single sex spaces or to obfuscate.

I am starting to come out in a rash when I see the word “gender”. The word that needs to be used all the time is sex. This quote below is disingenuous because all the guidance that flows from this has, effectively, stopped treating sex as a protected characteristic. This is a major change and not simply a reduction in paperwork.

I was not aware that harassment only applies to disability, race and sex but not the other categories listed. I will defer to legal peeps on what this means in reality. One noted feature of this is that gender identity is covered by hate crime legislation, even though it is not a legally protected characteristic. Sex, which is a protected character, is not covered. I am no fan of hate crime legislation, especially the ridiculous hate crime incident category, but women can’t point to any statistics on the hatred we experience using this method. A man can report misgendering as a hate crime but women can’t report any sexist abuse.! Women can’t laugh at a man but he can abuse us with impunity.

The inevitable referral to the Stonewall website and more links to GIRES material. The guide quoted below was made possible by funding from the Home Office which you can find confirmed in their accounts for year ending December 2013. When the fashion for outsourcing took over the governments, of all political persuasions, I had not understood this included sub contracting their own critical thinking. Lobby groups have been allowed to corrupt policy, and law, in this area for far too long.

It is well worth having a look at the GIRES website and, in particular, their trustees. Populated by trans activists with a strong presence from late -transitioning males with backgrounds in hyper-masculine occupations. They also have a trustee who is steeped in Queer Theory and can be found quoting Judith Butler in what reads like a PhD level argument for men who want to retain their penis. Here is a quote from Reubs Walsh from their public writing and their YouTube channel.

Reubs can also be found opposing the Keira Bell judgement and arguing for the early medicalisation of children. Once again I am struck by the contrast between adult men constructing arguments against surgery, presumably for themselves, but advocating medical solutions for children.

Support for my work. paypal.me.STILLTish

If you are unable to speak out and can support me to continue to undertake research my details are below. I am not in receipt of any form of income so every little bit helps me continue to devote myself full-time. Only give if you are able.

£1.00

Get ahead of the Law!

A short piece of published advice by the Solictors Regulation Authority. You can watch it here: https://youtu.be/kHXsaNMkQSU. Below is a transcript:

SRA Trans Inclusion

This YouTube was put up two years ago whilst the Gender Recognition Act was out for public consultation with a view to potential reformation. As you can see, from the title, it promotes advice about “Exceeding“ U.K. legislation in respect of the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act. Interesting choice of word.

Rachel Reese is the subject of the interview. Here is a little biographical information about Rachel.

There is a PhD waiting to be written about the number of, late-transitioning males, who have backgrounds in the tech industry. I have my own theories. While women’s rights to single sex spaces, roles and services are subject to a concerted attack, Global Butterflies “comprises trans only staff” . Not the first time I have seen such rank hypocrisy. Only a trans person can understand the “trans” experience, goes the argument. Meanwhile women are not allowed to advance the same argument about our experience.

http://jennytrout.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/oprah-is-not-buying-it.gif

Rachel’s organisation, Global Butterflies, is an advocacy organisation for Trans and Non-Binary people. The latter category, Rachel claims in this interview, make up the majority in the Trans-Community. That’s a bold statement.

Rachel is keen to advocate for the concept of “Non-Binary” to be enshrined in law. This would create a legal category denying the FACT we are a sexually dimorphic species. I am pleased the latest attempt, to erase legal sex, failed, (Search Christine Elan for more information on this) . Rachel also argues for 16 & 17 year olds to be able to “Self-Identify”. I presume this is to cover the age group not currently allowed to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate. GRC applications have a qualifying age of 18. Other activists wanted all ages to be able to Self-Identify.

Here is a bit more information about Rachel’s organisation and their own extensive networks within the legal profession, and beyond.

The final statement is incredible, coming from the Solicitors Regulation Authority. I should really have lost the ability to feel astonishment, after five years studying this movement. However, my ghast was flabbered by this next statement:

The breathtaking arrogance and presumption of the above statement. Changing practice in anticipation of a legal change! Didn’t we used to call this “breaking the law”? What they did not reckon with was that women would say NO. This is exactly what we are saying and not always in approved in language!

If you can support my work here is a way. I do this full-time, unwaged.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

£10.00

That Equaliteach Project

This project came to my attention when they were asked to remove the Government Equality Office (GEO) endorsement from their project report. The first version, below, clearly included the GEO logo.

Online Link to the project report (now deleted) was here

Document uploaded here. FREE-TO-BE-rev5

In fact the GEO funded this project to work with 27 primary schools. At a superficial level the project aims may seem laudable, a resource to tackle bullying in Primary Schools. However an examination of the materials in this pack reveal the underlying relationship to Queer Theory and the political project of disrupting social norms. Some social norms, such as homophobia, needed (still need) to be challenged. Other social norms exist for a reason, for example, to stigmatise the dangerous sexualisation of children. This entire document is a clear example of the political project of Queering the classroom. You can read and article on this here

My first red flag was a dangerous reliance on Stonewall reports.

The rise of hate crime on the basis of homophobia is disturbing. Especially since this is the least covered of the letters by Stonewall. However Stonewall extrapolates from the data to show an alarming % of hate crime, 53% in the 18-24 age bracket. However a hate crime is recorded based on the self-perception of the reporting individual and we know some of these are simple “mis-gendering”. Another puzzling claim is that this project aimed to dismantle gender stereotypes. This is the most disingenuous of claims since we are teaching children, who don’t perform sex stereotypes “correctly”, that they may be #BornInTheWrongBody.

My next red flag was a reference to this person Dr Ronz. The good doctor describes zimself as a “queer, black, androgynous, intersectional feminist”. Of course zie does. After making a good point about lack of visibility; which does impact Lesbians, in particular, she then colludes with the literal erasing of female, often Lesbian, bodies. A young woman describes difficulty walking, struggling to breathe, a hunched back and ribs popping out, all caused by breast binding. This young woman is manifesting an obvious bodily hatred. Dr Ronz fails to interrogate any underlying, psychological, issues, instead she merely advises her to wear a larger binder!

For further reading you can check out this excellent article on the different attitudes to breast ironing (bad) and Breast binding (progressive) in this article. here. What next corsets?

At last more organisations have realised they cannot get away with lying about the nine, legally protected characteristics. This is, at least, an accurate list. 👇. Brief sigh of relief but read on….they are still going to do it, just in a bit more of a sneaky way.

Later on we see the sleight of hand. They emphasise that the correct legal terms should be used except its OK to use “gender” instead of Sex & Gender Reassignment. The very same two protected characteristics now under attack can be replaced with the Stonewall preferred term. Coincidence? I think not.

Don’t take us for fools Stonewall. We see exactly what you are doing even if you have successfully hoodwinked the GEO. This is straight up Stonewall Law. Here’s Stonewall on The Equality Act. 👇

To ram home the point it quotes some of the schools involved who have proceeded to introduce mixed-sex toilets. No doubt after being introduced to this US Transgender Rights Activist who they quote in the document. 👇 Their claim to fame is destroying access to single sex toilets/changing rooms in their home state. There is quite a lot about making sure toilets are “gender neutral” in the pack as teachers fall over themselves to queer the toilet facilities.

Policing Language

There follows a long list of terminology for our primary school children, and likely the teachers, to learn. Why do primary age children need to know about “cisnormativity”, “heteronormative“, “pansexual” and “queer” . Kids are taught about “heterosexism” which is defined as a “belief that heterosexuality is normal and the norm”. Again this is straight out of Queer Theory. A reference to disrupting social norms which exposes the social engineering inherent in “free to be “. A long list of terminology but it only includes the word for the majority sexual orientation in the description for “heterosexism”. These Trans Ally activists seem to have studied Module 101 of how to provoke a backlash, to hard won rights for the LGB and even, ironically, the T.

A dissertation on pronouns follows. Why are we telling primary school children that an incorrect use of pronouns may constitute harassment?

Actually lying about the Law in a project sponsored by the Government! The Equality Act says no such thing! Wrong pronouns do not contravene the Equality Act!

These are primary age kids and, just in case we have all forgotten, we don’t use pronouns to anyone’s face! They are used to refer to people when they are not there!

Welcome to Dystopia. 👇

Gender Identity Ideology.

Naturally the document is saturated with teaching about Gender Identity. The pack quotes research showing that children from age three “can be aware of and talk abut their gender identity”. Children, as young as three, can show awareness of the expectations for their sex and conform to behaviours based on Gender stereotypes. This does not mean they have an innate “gender identity”. It just means boys and girls are socialised to conform from a very young age. Primary school children can indeed be aware of their sexual orientation but it is over-reach to claim that both sexual orientation and Gender Identity are innate. There is much evidence for the former but not the latter. This is not education its indoctrination.

This curriculum seems designed to inculcate a bodily dissociative disorder. The below quote is to remind us of the odious Section 28 legislation, which forbade references to homosexuality. However, Gender identity Ideology is actually the Woke Section 28. We are disproportionately sweeping up our gay youth in the Transgender phenomenon because, guess what, Butch Lesbians and Femme Gay males are a thing. We used to bully femme boys by them by calling them cissy/girl and now we are telling them they are literally girls! So, yes, we are promoting being transgender.

The document also admits that staff, who were worried about reactions from parents, initially, proceeded to teach this ideology in secret. As more parents became aware of this it generated a backlash. Recognising the days of stealth indoctrination have passed, our woke overlords resort to lying about the law and emotional blackmail. Teaching about Gender Identity is not mandated by law. Parents are objecting! And NO it is not a moral and legal duty. 👇

The document addresses questions of religious belief in the context of sexual orientation and then proceeds to answer the question encompassing the LGB & the T. This is a standard tactic. Many opponents of Transgender Identity Ideology are themselves homosexual. This is because there is a conflict between having a SEXual orientation, and demands that you include anyone with the same Gender in your dating pool, regardless of their biology. Activists know that people are generally shamed by being called homophobic so they exploit this fear to push transgender ideology.

Beware!

Next up is a scurrilous attack on organisations which question the new hegemony of “Born In The Wrong Body”, or raise issues of concerns about the impact on Women’s Rights. Worth reproducing this in its entirety. Note that once again Stonewall are quoted, approvingly, as are Mermaids. (The latter is a prominent, UK based, charity, which promotes medicalising “transgender kids” . The BBC has recently removed Mermaids from the list of charities they refer to as sources of advice). This document quotes them as a reputable group.

The authors are keen to make sure that parents and schools reject these organisations and do not, on any account, read what they have to say. They then detail tactics for making sure the entire school buys into the ideology. Get the Governors on board, get parents in for friendly coffee mornings…..basically “groom” them. The document also wrongly tells parents they can’t reject LGBT education. Not true. Sex Educations is expected to be mandatory from September 2020. It is not yet. There is no obligation to teach Gender Identity in schools but note that this document makes it clear it is to be embedded across the curriculum.👇

However if the Government reverse the mandatory sex education the document outlines how to make sure there will be no escape. There are pages and pages of all aspects of the curriculum and how to “Queer” it. There are examples of Home/School contracts so that parents know what is expected of them and their child. There are books like this by Jazz Jennings, the poster child for Gender Dysphoria. 👇 The little boy who had his puberty blocked and sadly, at age 16, did not know what an orgasm felt like. Nice accessible, heart-warming stories. Nothing about puberty blocking causing a penis so small there was not enough material to fashion a neo-vagina and Jazz Jennings multiple, and continuing, corrective surgeries.

Another part of the document includes retrospectively transitioning women, who masqueraded as men to access male professions, such as Dr James Barry. Or even claiming that Plato supported the LGBT+ which is ahistorical nonsense.

They do manage to dredge up an actual transsexual to offer up as a role model for children. Robert (a) Cowell was a late transitioning WW2 Fighter pilot, with a less than savoury tale.

Woke Stasi?

There is a reason why this term exists. Here teachers, it is suggested, observe pupils and keep a diary of their behaviour. Checking for implied homophobia or, heaven forfend, a style of play that assumes heteronormativity!

Parents

I have written about the way parents are treated in these guidance packs. Suffice to say that this one also advocates hiding information from parents. Affirming children at school and concealing this information from parents, This despite also claiming our children are at a heightened risk of suicide. Whilst repeating the mantra: This is not a safeguarding issue?

I will restrict myself to this one quote.

More on parents and transgender guidance is available here Putting the Loco in Loco Parentis

Queering the curriculum. Sexing it up?

The references and signposting at the end tells its own tale. Stonewall, Stonewall, Stonewall. Also Gendered Intelligence and Mermaids! Not to forget the Proud Trust, proud purveyors of the Dice Game as covered by this article. here.

The forces pushing this ideology have finally come out of the shadows, they have spread their tentacles throughout councils, parliament, police forces, the Judiciary, Universities and our schools. No longer acting in stealth more and more “normies” are waking up to its more sinister content.

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. Every amount helps me to sustain my work.

My Substack

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtis

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

Gender Critical Women as an “Alarming Trend”

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Building Bridges Amidst the Culture Wars

Questions and Answers

Social Media / Twitter

Political Strategy

Decline in Trust in organisations

Sex Not Gender

President Joe Biden

Evidence Based Data

Corporate Campaigns

“Terf” Island

Academic Freedom

Pride

Divine Wisdom

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Who will rid me of these pesky transphobes?

Transphobia and Islamophobia.

The Trans person’s burden.

What is a woman?

What is “gender”?

Stonewall and Historical Revisionism

Owen commits and unpardonable faux-pas!

Agreement?

Share this:

Like this:

Backlash?

School context

The usual suspects.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Policing Language

Welcome to Dystopia. 👇

Gender Identity Ideology.

Beware!

Woke Stasi?

Parents

Queering the curriculum. Sexing it up?

Share this:

Like this: