Examining Gender Identity ideology and its impact on Women's Sex based rights and Gay Rights. Exploring how this has taken such firm root in Western societies (Cognitive & Regulatory Capture).
In order to contextualise the exporting of Gender Identity Ideology to the African continent it is necessary to look at the current legal position in respect of Lesbian and Gay rights. In many countries it remains illegal to be homosexual and , even where it is legal, this is relatively recent. Furthermore where laws have been enacted it doesn’t necessarily correlate with social attitudes within countries. It is possible that laws favoured by metropolitan elites do not necessarily translate transform prejudice overnight. It is also important that any data looks at the treatment of Lesbians and Gay males separately. As you can see they are not always treated equally.
Furthermore where laws have been enacted it doesn’t necessarily correlate with social attitudes within countries. Passing laws, favoured by metropolitan elites, do not necessarily transform prejudice overnight. A point made by an organisation (ILGA) who are one of the main drivers for the propagation of Gender Identity Ideology which, from one perspective, is increasingly at odds with Lesbian and Gay rights.
he same site also tracks Trans rights across the same geographic area. Note the number of countries that allow legal recognition, on the basis of “gender” with no requirement for any level of commitment re bodily modification.
Thus there are large swathes of territory in Africa who have approved, effectively, introduced a form of Self-Identified “gender” as well as areas where there is a degree of ambiguity or, at least, no prohibition. One can only fear the consequences in a country which outlaws homosexuality but allows a form of “transition”.
A case in point would be Iran: Homosexuality is illegal and subject to extreme punishment.
In contrast.
This article, from 2014, shows the unintended (or intended?) consequences of that disparity in treatment between the LGB & The T. In this article a Lesbian talks about how she was subject to discrimination for failing to conform to sex stereotypical modes of dress and expression. Her route out was seven years of cross sex hormones until she finally accepted that she was simply a Lesbian.
It seems astonishing to me that more campaigners for Gay Rights do not see the inherent danger of promulgating Gender Identity Ideology in countries with a fragile, or no, acceptance of homosexuality. However, lest we feel smug at the enlightened nations of the West, see this blog on our own version.
Posting this to document the situation on the African Continent in preparation for part two of my piece on a U.K. Foundation promoting Gender Identity Ideology, across Africa, under the badge of funding for International Development.
Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth. Support is always appreciated but I would be equally happy if you contributed to a legal case or a crowdfunder for Lesbian and Gay News.
For those too young to remember Barings foundation was linked to Barings bank, who were ruined by the combination of an expansion to Asia and the reckless speculation of an employee: one Nick Leeson. The foundation, however, survived and allocates funding which it identifies as Arts based, Strengthening Civil Society and International Development. Barings is a private charitable foundation so whilst this gives them control over the allocation of their funds it does have obligations, as a charity, to submit information to the Charity Commission.
This is legal advice about the responsibilities of charities 👇
This is the link to the Baring Foundations website where the information about its priorities is available. 👇
The inspiration for my inquiry was the revelation that Barings Foundation fund the All Parliamentary Group on LGBT issues. This group is chaired by CrispinBlunt and its vice chair is MichaelCashman. Crispin is an MP who came out, as a gay man, relatively late in life. Cashman is one of the original founders of Stonewall, a once great organisation now better described as a controversial lobby group.
Crispin Blunt was recently sanctioned for attempting to broker a back room deal on the controversial proposals to reform of the Gender Recognition Act. This despite opposition from feminist organisations concerned about the detrimental impact on women’s sex based rights. You can read an account of this here 👇. (You can also sign up as a supporter Sex Matters to defend sex based rights on the same site)
So I determined to have a look at the funding Barings made to this APPG, Stonewall and the Kaleidoscope Trust since they all figure in this story.
Barings have been funding Kaleidoscope Trust since 2015. 👇 (CHOGM is the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting).
They also provided £40,000 to the Kaleidoscope Trust to fund administrative support for the APPG LGBT. In addition they provided a further £148,415 direct payment, to the APPG LGBT+ group, to cover coordinator costs from 2020 to 2023.
This makes it clear that Stonewall were closely linked to APPG LGBT from the beginning. Also take a look at the origins of the person providing the support!
Anna Robinson was co-chair of the youth wing of IGLYO. You can learn more about this group in an earlier blog I did on The Denton’s Report
A quick look at the links ,the Barings Foundation has, with Stonewall shows the international reach of its activity in embedding LGBTI issues in government infrastructure.
Funding for Stonewall ,from this Foundation, also allowed them to embed a Stonewall advisor in what was then the Department for International Development. (DFID).
Paul Twocock reports on the project. Paul was interim CEO of Stonewall after the departure of Ruth Hunt. The funding allowed them to lobby the government to further their agenda.
Arundhati Roy called charitable foundations a way to “parlay wealth into power”. Charitable Foundations, with a pro-social justice agenda should be subject to as much scrutiny as any wealthy individual/group. When they are working with Lobby Groups who are committed to social engineering, on the basis of their own ideology, they should be investigated with as much vigour as #BigPharma.
Many former supporters of Stonewall are extremely concerned about the impact of Transgender Ideology on our gay youth. I cannot begin to imagine how this might play out in an International context where the rights of Gay males and Lesbians are fledgling or non-existent. Organisations working across different cultural contexts should be aware of the perils of this neo-colonialism.
Next up I will scrutinise all 163 grants from the Baring Foundation but, in particular, I will be looking at what they are funding under the heading International Development.
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 want to support those who can, only IF you have spare cash, this helps me keep going.
The All Party Parliamentary group on LGBT rights is a cross party group established to raise issues affecting Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans rights. Like many of these organisations which begin supporting all the letters Recently they made a statement about the current administrations response to a consultation on the Gender Recognition Act. Crispin Blunt is the chair of APPG LGBT and nails his colours to the mast in this article. He actually calls women’s rights campaigners “strident” . Straight up, 1970’s style sexism.
APPG LGBT say their focus is principally international but they also include domestic issues in their remit. To this end they work with citizen groups, private and third sector organisations or, to give them another name, “LobbyGroups”.
Here I look at a document they produced in 2016. Here is the full document.
The chair of the group is Crispin Blunt. Vice chairs are Baroness Barker, Lord Cashman, Green party MP, Caroline Lucas and the SNP’s Stewart McDonald. All very familiar names for anyone who has been watching the march of Transgender Ideology through our political establishment.
At the outset the group identify 6 recommendations which lays out their strategy for embedding their policy aims across the various arms of the state, private sector and raising issues in both houses of Parliament.
Coordination across government departments to include;
Foreign & Commonwealth Office
Department of International Development
Home Office
The Private Sector
APPG LGBT & Parliament
The document advises that the group conducted an enquiry to which they invited those they identified as stakeholders. Stonewall are in the list of acknowledgements and their influence is immediately obvious in how the group define sexual orientation. 👇. I will unpack this statement because it encompasses a lot of the ideas of the Gender Identity idealogues in one paragraph.
The document, written in 2016, adopts the Stonewall definition of sexuality which claims sexual orientation can be based on GenderIdentity. Since someones Gender may be at odds with their biological sex this undermines the idea of , exclusive, same sex attraction but we are not supposed to notice this.
It also uses the loaded term “sex assignedat birth” which is a give away that the group are captured by Transgender Ideology. The idea that the assignment of sex is, somehow, problematic is a smokescreen. It is used to create an association between the trans community and people with differences/disorders of sexual development (DSDs). Once again, sex is observed and recorded in 99%+ cases. People require more investigation are subject to karyotype tests: to determine any chromosomal abnormalities. Gender identity clinics abandoned these tests because research showed it wasn’t a factor in their patient population. This phrase is designed to imply there is a biological basis for Gender Identity which is, to say the least, a hugely contested claim.
The above statement normalises bodily modification to match your Gender Identity, whilst simultaneously defending the right to claim a Gender Identity, irrespective of bodily change. This is why we now are expected to accept concepts such as a #LadyPenis and why Lesbians are called transphobic for not accepting phallus in their wonderland.
A later statement endorses another plank of the ideology.
Firstly, in the U.K. context, there is no requirement for divorce to undertake any social or medical “transition”. What does exist is a spousal exit clause (emotively referred to as the “Spousal Veto”). In reality this allows a wife, it is usually a woman, to obtain a divorce before they are redefined, in law, as the spouse of a fellow / legal woman. Women have the right to exit a marriage whose contractual basis has significantly altered. Many heterosexual men who “transition” are autogynephiles and many of the wives find themselves trapped in abusive relationships. You can read more of their stories here: https://www.transwidowsvoices.org/
Here are two statements on DFID and the Home Office:
DFID and the home office are urged to include the nebulous idea of GenderIdentity in policy and performance indicators. For DFID this could be tied to funding. Given that DFID operate globally, and do much work in regions where Transgender Ideology has not taken hold, this looks a lot like neo-colonialism. In practice this could undermine work in other jurisdictions where women are currently protected by policies which seek to extend, or establish, sex based rights for women. Prioritising “gender identity” in law, policy or practice will hurt the women in areas where DFID operates.
The home office are also advised to accept, and monitor, asylum claims based on “Gender identity”. I wonder how long this nebulous idea of Gender, which is based on a subjective sense of self, will stand up to the scrutiny of the Home Office. They are not known for welcoming asylum claims, with open arms, even when based on objective facts. Once again Stonewall are credited with making contributions on this issue:
The other interesting point is that Trans Activists have long opposed sterilisation clauses. In Norway it was normal practice to sterilise those undergoing sexual reassignment surgery (SRS). Interestingly now we know children, as young as 10, are being put on a pathway to sterilisation campaigners are peculiarly reticent about this issue. For more on this see my earlier posts on Puberty Blockers.
Here Human Rights are pressed into service in the interest of “Trans Rights”.
The above quote identifies criteria which they deem to be “Human Rights Violations”. One of these is to withhold legal recognition of your “Gender Identity” regardless of your sexed body. This demand dicktates (sic) that women accept a penis bearing male as a legal “woman”. This is already happening in many jurisDICKtions. In the U.K. we do not require SRS to be able to claim legal womanhood. We do, currently, require a diagnosis of “Gender Dysphoria” and a Gender Recognition Panel (GRP), which includes a judge, adjudicates on your sincerity. A reminder about this “onerous” process; it currently costs £140 and we already give Gender Recognition Certificates to male bodied individuals who wish to be recognised as women. You won’t have your GRC rescinded even if you commit male type violence/sexual assault. This legal recognition has forced the Ministry of Justice to rehouse attempted rapists in the female estate. The process is already broken as these two blogs illustrate. Yet despite this the MOJ current policy allows males to self-identify into the female estate.
The above case is from 2009. A pre-op male commits attempted rape after being released to a female bail hostel. Now this person identifies as a “lesbian”, tours prisons to highlight LGBTQ+ issues and was invited to the House of Lords, to advise on the treatment of Transgender Prisoners.
This case 👆 demonstrates that a single judge can overturn a refusal to grant a GRC. Here a thrice married, father of seven, with convictions for obtaining explosives, to endanger life, is granted a GRC even though the GRP turned him down more than once.
The document is interesting for the linguistic gymnastics required to sometimes treat transwomen as women and , at other times, be forced to recognise them as having common interests with other men.
The Current Ministry of Justice policy on Transgender prisoners is covered below.
Above the experiences of Lesbian, Bisexual and Transwomen, that is males, are treated together. This is illogical. The correct comparator here would be trans men but there is an ideological resistance to recognising sex based categories. This is ideological madness. Transwomen are not going to get Cervical cancer but are vulnerable to prostate cancer. Incorrectly recording sex, on NHS records, exposes this community to health based risks. There needs to be a way to identify sex based risks as well as recording, and following up, long term health risks associated with a medicalised “Gender Identity”. A lifelong dependence on opposite sex hormones or post-operative complications should be tracked, researched and evaluated. Not to acknowledge, sex-based, differences is to place trans people at risk. Anyone who seriously cares about this community would not collaborate with extreme sex denialism.
The above clip is interesting because it does refer to transwomen alongside men who have sex with men. Homosexual transsexual males need to be considered in this group because their exposure to risk, like HIV, is similar. However much Gender Identity ideologues join the flight from sex based realities they have to keep returning to it, regardless of their reluctance to acknowledge it.
Further examples, below, illustrate the problem.
Transmen have to be treated along side Lesbian and Bisexual women because they are dealing with specific issues that impact women who have sex with women. Lesbians and transmen face the same kind of sexual violence: because of their sex. Lesbians can be particularly vulnerable in some cultures, by men. Identifying out of sex based violence has not proved overly simple for Transmen.
Througout the document various countries are named because of legislation or practices that hurt the LGBTQ+ community. Countries are singled out for failing to recognise Gender Identity or, as in the case of Uganda the Anti-homosexuality bill. One country that is strikingly absent from this document is Iran and yet they have one of the most heinous approaches to dealing with homosexual men.
The APPG do offer some leniency for corporate clients who may face backlash or, heaven forfend, actual loss of market share for speaking up about LGBTQ+ rights. In India or China an anonymous (interesting) contributer advances this argument. Indeed the promulgation of Transgender ideology does look western because that it exactly what it is. Social engineering foisted on an unwilling public by hook or by crook but , mostly by stealth. I speak regularly to women in real life contexts, not feminist activist just ordinary women. Once they believe me about the female penis they provide a resounding NO! They do not accept this. Will not accept the colonising of women’s spaces and will not vote for any party that advocates this. Seems culturally sensitive approaches are allowed when there is commercial risk. Yet the APPG have shown no such cultural awareness to the feelings of UK Women.
Some of the comments on the international context show some awareness that the approach may generate backlash. If only they had applied this to the UK context and actually consulted women about the incursion into women’s rights. The stances taking by LGBTQ+ organisations have set up an unfortunate opposition between their organisations and the rest of Civil Society.
More and more evidence is showing that this will generate a backlash to the LGBT community because of the prioritisation of Transgender Ideology and the utter disrespect shown to women. Men projecting their own, pornified, image of women or carving these into their own flesh cannot define or be women.
Like many people I have ceased to donate to Amnesty following the revelation they took advice from Pimp Lobby groups before deciding to adopt the stance #SexWorkIsWork. The majority of the sold are women and the purchasers are, almost invariably, male no matter the sex of those being traded. A purported human rights organisation which prioritises male sexual entitlement over their victims is a Human Rights organisation only because they self-identify as such. 👇
As if to remove all doubt about their anti-women stance Amnesty Ireland recently castigated women for defending their sex based rights. Below is an astonishing foray into the controversy of allowing men to self-identify as women. Women who point out the conflict with sex based rights are lazily conflated with far right organisations and, Amnesty argues, should be denied representation for these views.
You can read more in this article, by Julie Bindel, below. 👇
However, today I want to talk about Amnesty’s startling intervention in the KeiraBell case. Full details of this case are below. The brief summary is that, in the U.K., a high court judgment has halted administration of puberty blockers, to under 16s, without a court order I have done many posts on the Tavistock and on Puberty Blockers. I have long expressed concern about setting children, as young as ten, on an irreversible path to lifelong dependence on the pharmaceutical industry. So why are a Human Rights organisation setting themselves against this judgement? The presiding, High Court, judges did not believe that children, under 16, could give informedconsent to an experimental treatment with such significant implications; for physical and psychological development. They further cautioned, even for those age 16 and 17, an endocrinologist may wish to get court approval. Blog on this case below:
Here was Amnesty U.K proclaiming their support for attempts to overturn the decision.
A cursory look at Amnesty financial statements demonstrate their adherence to the tenets of Transgender Ideology, Here is a statement which states a goal to protect “GenderIdentity”. No definition is provided, naturally. It is impossible to define “Gender Identity” without using circular references. How can you have an “internal sense of oneself”, as a woman or a man, without first defining your terms? Invariably they depend on sexist expectations based on stereotypes. This is why so many of these conversations are a dead end.
A cursory glacé at their accounts shows they have one project to look at sex based issues which impact on women and girls. Female Genital Mutilation and forced, early, marriage. A lot of these charities, with an international remit, recognise sex based oppression and abuse, when it occurs overseas, but deny it in the Northern Hemisphere. I do wonder who runs the cognitive dissonance department. 👇. (Dilbert)
Perhaps the explanation for the stance Amnesty U.K. takes is influenced by the chair of their LGBTI network which tells its own tale 👇
Note that, in the Keira Bell case, both Mermaids and Stonewall were refused permission to intervene in the case because their evidence was deemed to have no bearing on the case. That’s a damning indictment of their preparedness /evidence supplied in this case. Amnesty: Do you know who you are allying with?
If you are able to support my ability to focus on this full-time you can do so here.
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 want to support those who can, only IF you have spare cash, this helps me keep going.
Recently there has been a raft of Freedom of Information requests (FOIs) to ascertain the extent of the policy capture by Stonewall; a controversial lobby group. The intention was to discover how organisations demonstrate compliance with Workplace Equality Index, run by Stonewall, and how participants game the ranking system. {In an interesting aside the BBC refused to disclose the information requested. They claimed an exemption due to commercial sensitivity. I anticipate this refusal will be challenged but why are the BBC so reticent?}
The House of Commons did reveal the information requested and this may shed some light on the situation. Their response was in two documents which are reproduced, in full, below. 👇
Subscribers to Stonewall schemes are subject to an annual audit and their submission is monitored for compliance and ranked accordingly. Stonewall are embedded across government, the public and private sector and allies, until recently, were keen to promote their score across Social media. I predict that will change as more public scrutiny takes place.
The House of Commons obtained 23rd place in the 2020 rankings. The Ministry of Justice ranks higher. I would love to see if the MOJ leverage their role in locating female prisoners in with transgender rapists. 😳
The process of allocating rankings is accompanied by lengthy guidance and examples members could use to demonstrate subservience to their Rainbow clad overlords. Naturally Stonewall play fast and lose with pesky details, like the actual law of the land. Below is a classic of the genre. Stonewall lists a legally protected, characteristic; sexualorientation followed by two that are not; gender identity and trans identity. They then proceed to talk about other protected characteristics which neatly obscures the fact that they are mixing fact with fiction. They also ask for explicit bans on discrimination in which they throw in another characteristic; gender expression. 👇. Stonewall is a master (mistress) of these linguistic sleights of hand.
So how does the House of Commons respond? Credit where credit is due they lead with a legally accurate list. Whether this is a sign of resistance or naïveté about Stonewall’s agenda is not for me to determine.
Alas this is not consistently applied. Later in the House of Commons pivots to accede to StonewallLaw. Here sex is omitted and replaced with gender. 👇
We then come to the thorny question of gender neutral language. Feminists long campaigned for the language to recognise that we, the female people, could chair meetings and fight fires. The fight to make language less reliant on the default use of men; when describing roles, or occupations, is now relatively uncontentious. However women were not campaigning to make ourselves invisible! The intent was to lay claim to professional and leadership roles hitherto solely occupied, or dominated, by men. Using gender neutral language was to foster that aim. It was never intended to deny our bodily existence, as a sex class.
Stonewall have a rather different agenda. Their aim is to eradicate sex based language especially when it pertains to biologicalwomen in favour of the inclusion of ideologicalwomen (a.k.a males). Women did not campaign to ignore the reproductive labour of pregnancy and childbirth or deny the role of the female sex. Most theories of why women are subject to discrimination locate the explanation in our reproductive functions. We are subject to sex discrimination because we are, or are perceived to be, able to carry and bear children. Here 👇 the House of Commons talks of “pregnant employees” and the “person giving birth”. This is Stonewall speak.
The induction process takes the re-education agenda one step further by using an example of a “transwomen” as part of employee training. This scenario 👇posits women, asking for sex segregated toilets, as problematic. Women are, effectively, shamed for a perfectly legitimate need. They are so proud of this example they use it twice labelling it “bullying” and “harassment”.
The indoctrination continues with lunchtime seminars led by a Trans activist. Helen Belcher is a Transgender Lobbyist most notable for being involved in TransMediaWatch. This organisation seeks to change the way the media covers trans issues. This is one of the organisations responsible for the press regulator (IPSO) mandating use of preferred pronouns for trans identified males. This is now normalised, even when they have committed sex offences against women!
Helen Belcher is a Liberal democrat councillor and former parliamentary candidate. Layla Moran explicitly thanked Belcher for providing guidance on how to answer questions about the proposal to allow males to “self-identify” as women. Predictably pansexual Layla was all in favour of the proposition and provided one of the more memorable statements recorded in Hansard.
Layla dismissed women’s concerns and claimed to have a sixth sense in sniffing out predatory males. After some nonsense about women with beards she exposed her naïveté (complicity?) with this response.
Another invited guest to showcase the House of Commons willingness to subvert their public purpose to this lobby group was an invited artist, Dusty “O” who has a nice sideline in bepenised “women” in his oeuvre.
There are also invitations to drag artists and lots of talk of rainbow lanyards. They do note one concession to women’s demands, for a female only space, but why does the HOC feel the need for the word female to be placed in inverted commas?
Another astonishing admission the House of Commons raising funds to one of the more controversial charities working with children; Mermaids. A charity led by a woman who took her own child, aged sixteen. for sexual reassignment surgery in Thailand. Surgery which would be illegal in the U.K and is now illegal in Thailand (until aged 18).
The document is littered with positive references to Pink News. A comic which vigorously opposes women raising issues of concern about sex based rights. The editors also continue to conduct a campaign of vilification against author JK Rowling who, they claim, is “transphobic”. She is not but why let truth get in the way of a good story.
The HOC also boast about changing parliamentary identification to facilitate pronoun changes and recognise anyone changing their “gender expression”. Furthermore they promote a member of staff who pushed for mixed sex toilet facilities. 👇
Finally, as I have uncovered before, here is conclusive proof that Stonewall actively encourages its allies to troll InternationalWomen’sDay. They do this by suggesting active promotion of “transwomen” on a day set aside for women. This, of all their actions, is the most provocative.. Anyone taking seriously the need to foster good relations between different protected characteristics (Sex and GenderReassignment) should have predicted how inflammatory this course of action would be. Check #IWD2021 for how often this originates from Stonewall Allies.
I am unwaged and donations are always welcome but, with so many important legal cases under way, here is a worthy causes who could use some support: AEA Crowdfunder
This Judicial Review was brought by Keira Bell and a parent of an autistic girl, identified as Mrs A. Applications to “intervene” in the case were brought by Mermaids, Stonewall and Transgender Trend. Only the latter were accepted by the Judges. Mermaids and Stonewall were not added to the case because the evidence they presented was not accepted, as relevant, by the by court.
Since 2011 the Gender Identity Service , in the U.K., commonly called GIDs or The Tavistock, has been prescribing puberty lockers to children as young as 10. This was originally agreed, by the Health Regulation Authority (HRA) as a research project. The first ethics approval panel rejected the project so the Tavistock submitted to a different Ethics approval panel, who did accept it. There is a complex back story to how this experiment was launched. You can read more about this on an earlier blog:
In this court case one of the patients from the Tavistock challenges the treatment she was given. Crucially the court considers the impact of the treatment, in both the short and long term, the evidence base for this treatment and whether these young patients can give informed consent.
One of the key issues is the lack of evidence supporting this controversial treatment. Nine years on and, by the time of this court case, the findings of this research study had still not been published! Below the Director of GIDs argued that they were about to publish the research which was too late for the Court case. Why would you not prioritise this research paper to ensure the court case had the evidence? Surely you would have expedited it if you were so certain it would support your case?
More than once the judge expresses surprise at the lack of data provided by GIDS.
Furthermore the Court, below, highlighted the dramatic rate of increase in referrals to GIDs and the change in the demographic. The lack of curiosity about this change is astounding.
It had not, however, entirely escaped the notice of GIDs. Here is BernadetteWren, ex head of psychology at the Tavistock , speaking on this issue to the Women’s and Equalities Committee, on Transgender Equality. A social revolution that many have fought for! I wonder how many realised it would result in our young Lesbians medicalising themselves to the point of sterility? Or our gay sons retreating into faux-straight, medicalised closets? Some revolution!
The court also noted the proportion of autistic kids who are seduced by Gender Identity Ideology. This is why Mrs A is also part of this court case, her daughter is autistic. Once again the court expresses surprise at the lack of data available, from the Tavistock.
But the literature is available at the high number of referrals from neuro atypical children. It is so well known that Autistic charities have commented on its prevalence.
Once again we see the unexpected prevalence of autistic females. 👆 Indeed it is such a well known feature that Gender Identity Ideologues like Jo Elsson-Kennedy had this to say in a, now deleted, interview. This clip is taken from a transcript of the podcast by the controversial clinic (Gender GP) run by suspended General Practitioner Helen Webberley:
Here 👆 Olssen-Kennedy makes the extraordinary claim that symptoms of autism disappear when the GenderDysphoria is treated.
In the full judicial transcript document the court elaborates the way Gender Dysphoria is diagnosed. I won’t reproduce here but it is a list based on how a young person deviates from sex stereotypes. I fit much of that criteria myself. How much more pronounced will Gender non-conformity be in a proto-Gay kid who may otherwise grow up as a Butch Lesbian or Femme Gay male?
These are the side effects of the treatment, Fertility and, for males, stunted genitalia high will impact on sexual function. Remember we are asking 10 year olds to sign up to this.
The Tavistock did have service users who spoke well of the Tavistock and their treatment. However these were the judges observations on the witnesses. It is extraordinary that GIDs thought their witnesses would strengthen their case.
On the contrary a neuroscientist called into question the ability of even teenagers to consent to these treatments and highlighted the lack of impulse control which is evident before brain maturation. Notably many commentators locate brain maturation at age 25 but certainly it has not been completed by age 18! In the United Kingdom double mastectomies are available from age 17 and sexual reassignment surgery from age 18. What makes this even more alarming is that children not allowed to experience puberty may be arrested in the development of cognitive development and lag behind their peers in respect of brain maturation.
Another plank of the case was the court’s rejection of the idea that puberty blockers provide a pause for young children to be relieved from the development of sexual characteristic and time to resolve their Gender Dysphoria. The court highlights the almost inevitability of puberty blockers to be followed by cross-sex hormones. Therefore consent for one needs to encompass the cross sex hormones.
The full document deals with the issues of Gillick competence with reference to many other legal judgements. Many lobby groups have tried to argue this legal case throws into question rights to contraception or abortion and to smear Gender Critical arguments on this basis. This is smoke and mirrors. It is rare to find any gender critical feminists who are against the right to control fertility. We do, however, oppose the eradication of fertility in minors. This is quite a different argument.
It is worth reminding people that these children will be dependent on pharmaceutical companies for the remainder of their lives. Does #BigPharma have a vested interest in creating life long patients? Are we monetising the confusion of children, and teenagers, who have been inculcated with Gender Dysphoria by the Gender Industrial complex?
The Tavistock have won the right to appeal against the initial judgment. Mermaids and Stonewall have, once again, not been granted the right to intervene in the case. However the Endocrinology society, in the United States have been allowed to intervene as has Brook, who you may remember as a Pregnancy Advisory Service. They are now expanding their remit and cover issues around “Gender”.
You can read about Brook’s belief about “Gender” : Here
These clips should give you a clue about the stance taken by Brook. Accessed on 16th February 2021.
As you can see they have not quite got around to updating their guidance on #PubertyBlockers. Here they describe it as merely a suspension which can be resumed if the person changes their mind. As noted above near 100% progress to Cross-Sex Hormones.
And, of course, they signpost these troubled teens to GIDs.
This incoherent ideology has captured, seemingly, all the charities operating in the U.K. Brook would appear to be another one willing to squander its legacy in the alter of Gender Identity Ideology.
If you are able to support my work you can do so below.
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.
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 DouglasMurray (Gay Man) and PiersMorgan. 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!
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
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.
If you have been paying attention you will have identified some common themes in school guidance to protect “transgender children”. I was surprised this had made it into the Catholic sector but it seems we might have some woke bishops after all. Seems to have become accepted much quicker that gay rights. I wonder why that is? This is the second one I have looked at from within the Catholic sector. I have chosen to blog this one as I am familiar with this school.
Wholesale acceptance of the idea that we have an assigned sex is ubiquitous. As I frequently point out sex is simply observed and recorded in all but an infinitessimally small number of cases. These cases are commonly referred to as “intersex” but are better described as disorders/differences in sexual development. (DSDs). In these cases there may be genuine ambiguity at birth. None of which makes them transgender.
In fact “transgender” is not interchangeable with transsexual. The term transsexual is one used to describe someone who has undergone gender reassignment and for whom the, legally protected characteristic, of the same name, was passed into law. The attempt to claim equivalence with “transgender” is ideological in intent. The Transgender umbrella covers a much wider array of “identities” including part-time cross dressers who may, or may not, be transvestic fetishists which has a sexual motive. In another example of over-reach the school are now teaching children the central tenets of Queer Theory including, as they do below, the idea that “gender” is fluid. Note the idea that “gender variance” may not persist following puberty. We know this so why are the school casually advocating puberty blockers?
The next claim is also straight out of gender identity ideology. Children as young as two can begin to recognise their sex and even perform in ways that match/do not match the expected behaviour for their sex. The idea that two years olds have a “gender identity” and therefore, potentially, a “Gender Identity Disorder” is why we have three year olds referred to the Gender Identity Disorder Service (GIDs). The last sentence is also one being pushed by Trans Lobby Groups who wish to remove the requirement for a diagnosis of “Gender Dysphoria” because it is currently required to access medical treatment/ get aGender Recognition Certificate.
Note also that the school are pushing “Hormone Blockers” in the above quote. The same puberty blockers how declared an experimental treathment which require a court order to put under 16’s on them. This despite the earlier statement that post puberty any Gender Variance may dissappear. Advertising the services of GIDs is also common in school guidance packs which is a shame because this immediately concretises an “identity” without a preliminary assessment for other competing issues, for example autism or homosexuality.
Once again there are indeed nine protected characteristics. One of them is sex. Transgender is not one of them and is not a synonym for “gender reassignment”. This is a common tactic. known as Stonewall Law. If it is not law then simply sneak it into guidance and training until everyone thinks it is. Of course it also helps if every arm of the State seems to be a Stonewall Champion. Including Parliament.
Here we see the elevation of correctly identifying sex defined as “bullying” and ranked alongside actual prejudice due to race or sexuality. Equating this to hate and hate crimes is to criminalise what surely is a hard wired evolutionary attribute: the correct recognition of sex. Whether for mating purposes, or to assess risk, this is a fundamental human trait. Interestingly one of the common manifestations of homophobic bullying is calling gay males “girl”. Now that is lauded as good practice. The self-righteous tone of much of this guidance is elitist piffle…. all that the ignorant need is to be “educated” for which read “indoctrinated”. Presumably this re-programming will take place in a gulag for Gender Apostates.
The brass neck of this. Any male pupil identifying as a “girl” will be a pre-op, male bodied “girl”. Here the school mandates their inclusion in female facilities and any girl who objects will be found alternative facilities. What girl would object in these circumstances? The school are effectively planning to ostracise any girl who feels uncomfortable/unsafe in mixed sex spaces. As mentioned in my previous blog there have been 600 rapes in schools in recent years. These are male on female crimes yet here it is the “transgender” person who is posited as “at risk”. Whilst a male-identified female using male facilities is likely vulnerable so areall females whose facilities are to be shared with males.
Next up. The school will set up a transition plan with the student. Yet they reserve the right to deny the parents the right to know about their own child. I doubt many parents in this school know about this policy. I wonder how many are “educated” enough to agree with it?
Whilst I was on their website I wanted to see what their other policies there were to see how they aligned with one another..So I looked at the sex and relationshp policy. Reverence for fertility is par for the course in a Catholic school but it doesn’t sit well with putting pupils on “hormone blockers” . They will, invariably, progress to cross sex hormones and they won’t have any fertility to revere. They also celebrate joy in their “own bodily nature” unless they happen to be “Born In the Wrong Body”? . Honouring a different “sexual identity” unless you are a femine gay male or a butch lesbian and then we will ccollude with transing the gay away?
Below the School attempts to detail the provisions of The Equality Act of 2010. It is refreshing to see they recognise there are nine protected charactistics and they make a stab at acknowledging the need to balance the needs of all the different groups. They also recognise that Sex is one of them. Here is where the good reviews end, however, since the school has also included “gender identity” which is not only not covered by the legislation there is no definition of what it means. This is straight out of the Stonewall play book. If the law doesn’t say what you want it to say just lie and eventually Stonewall Law will exist in policy if not on the statute books. Of course it also helps if Parliament and many areas of the State are Stonewall Champions.
I am starting to see more references to the Fraser Guidelines and this reads as if lobby groups are trying to scare schools to hide information from a parent. I am surprised this had taken hold in Catholic Schools which tend to promote the family and here are happy to undermine parental rights by hiding information from the parents. These guidelines are named after Lord Fraser and relate to the legal case which defined Gillick competence. This allows children under the age of 16 to get advice on contraception, later widened to sexual health, and keep this confidential from their parents. I suspect references to these guidelines are yet another attempt to justify keeping parents in the dark when our children come out as “Transgender”. Whether it actually does apply is likely something that would need to be tested in court, however, as we have seen Trans lobby groups don’t wait for legislation they just make sure it is embedded in policy as if it is actually the law. These excerpts are likely enough to scare schools into submission. (These are my thoughts, but if anyone has a good legal opinion for me to include .let me know and I will add it)
Here is the school transition plan. Planning to hide information from other parents which means you won’t know if your daughter is effectively forced to share single sex spaces with a male. Even worse she won’t be made aware so is robbed of any agency in proctecting her bodily privacy. Who are the extermal agencies that the school is going to invite in? Mermaids?
Note the emphasis on the transgender pupils’ dignity and privacy but no similar consideration for the girls. And yes this also impacts on boys who also deserve their dignity and privacy but we all know why girls are more vulnerable due to this ideology.
Never mind. The school will clearly have conducted some sort of Equality Impact assessment and looked at all the protected characteristics wouldn’t they? What do they say about the implications for the protected characteristic of sex?
Apparently the impact is deemed to be “neutral”.
Before we all relax and thing the government has listened to women my next blog will be on new guidance issues in December 2020. I have had a cursory look and will cover it in detail in my next blog. You are going to be very disappointed.
Support for my work. Pay pal at /STILLTish or email address below.
If you are unable to speak up and still salaried any help appreciated to help me continue my work. I don’t want my content to be based on ability to pay but I am without any income so thsi helps me to keep going. I am required to specify an amount but please choose one that is manageable for you.
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.
This guidance, from 2014, asserted that the protected characteristic of gender reassignment now extended to school pupils. You can read the full document below. 👇
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 MaureenO’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.
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. 
