Cornwall: Transgender Guidance

Introduction

Cornwalls guidance has a particular flavour no doubt influenced by a collaboration with the police force. This one has a stronger emphasis on defining and reporting transgender hate crimes. The document is a joint effort between the local constabulary, the council and intercom trust.

You can read it, in full, here. 👇

Cornwall schools-transgender_guidance_booklet-2015

Intercom trust were familiar to me as they won a Pink News award for LGBT+ Community in November 2019. I noticed, at the time, their entire website had extensive guidance on Gender Identity issues but the FAQs for homosexual issues were not populated. One year on (02/12/2020) this part of the website remains unpopulated. 👇

This is a common pattern. Organisations purporting to be about the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual community are, instead, directing teens to gender identity resources.

The guidance is also, we are told, available on the Department of Education website.

The pack is in line with many of the other materials in that it uses the captured language of gender identity ideologues which claims sex is “assigned at birth” . Here pupils learn about gender essence and claims there can be a mismatch between your sex, and your gender, which they seem to reduce to “external appearance” in this excerpt. For anyone having trouble keeping up with the trans ideology note that, elsewhere, we are told that “gender expression” can be different to both your sex and your gender identity. The ground keeps shifting beneath my feet as I labour, in vain, to find any coherence to this ideology.

For parents struggling to understand how your child has returned home convinced they are transgender do check your schools. The obvious place to look is the Transgender Guidance but this also permeates anti-bullying policies and PSHE lessons. Furthermore guidance from Stonewall shows teachers how they can embed this ideology across the curriculum by providing examples that can be used in maths, science, history etc. Some of these examples, like Alan Turing, are welcome additions to the curriculum. Perhaps, after the Keira Bell case, we will see a bit more attention paid to the role of chemical castration since Turing was subject to hormonal treatment to suppress his sexuality. We live in hope.

This next excerpt has a revealing use of the word “enabled” in this section which explains the role the guidance believes it plays:

The school should indeed protect any child struggling with Gender Dysphoria. The problem with much of this guidance is it takes its duty to “inform” to propaganda levels. Furthermore, it is not the schools responsiblity to “enable” a pursuit of a medicalised identity yet, as with much of this school guidance, they are far too keen to include references to puberty blockers and sign post kids to Gender Identity Services. It almost takes on the appearance of free advertising.

The idea that gender identity disorder manifests at age two is a deliberate attempt to reframe a child’s understanding of their biology as evidence “gender identity” is biological. Here the school guidance acts as a drug pusher for “hormone blockers” ; which are presenting as a necessary treatment for “symptoms associated with being transgender“. Except they try to have it both ways because they also argue that someone who is transgender can still be so without having a diagnosis, or even having, Gender Dysphoria and without having any treatment. This mental gymnastics is necessary to include the growing number of adults, who claim to be the opposite sex, with no bodily modification.

More product placement as the guidances makes it clear where treatment is available. Though again they are keen not to offend the blue-haired, pronouns only, brigade who don’t want any “treatment” to join the queer community. Non-binary is the idea that people claim to have no “gender” which is interesting since we spend half the time being told everybody has an innate “ gender– identity“. Just to confuse things further we also have “gender variant” people who presumably have a mix and match approach to their gender identity and signify it via their pronouns and clothes. I know 😳, I don’t make the rules.

Good luck legislators. I fear you have bitten off a bit more than you can chew / define.

Definitions are subject to endless re-drafting in Stonewall law. Gender Reassignment was a category that was intended to cover transsexuals. It was envisaged that this would cover post-operative transsexuals but, somewhere along the line, it expanded to includ those who, it was argued, may not be able to acccess surgery. It was never intended to cover the “transgender” community as it manifests itself today. This doesn’t deter the activists, however, who simply re-write the law to say what they wish it said! The use of this characteristic to include school pupils is a bit of a stretch but it is such a bad piece of law anyone can say they “intend” to undergo a medical procedure. I can’t blame them for trying.

This guidance it not the worst one I have seen because it recognises a responsiblity to the wider school community. It does not, for example, insist that a boy has to be recognised as a girl in respect of changing rooms and other facilities. I have an issue with the default position of assuming the disabled facilities don’t already have a designated purpose, so it is only a partial victory, but here they appear to accept girls facilities should not be opened up to boys.

Generally the issue of toilets, in the other guidance I have read, prioritises the gender identity over the rights of girls (and boys) to sex specific spaces. Here they frame it in terms of the vulnerability of the “trans” child. I actually don’t disagree with this. A girl who uses male changing rooms would be at risk of unwanted attention however she identifies. Boys who are less than macho have always been bullied and toilets/changing rooms are ideal theatres for that sort of behaviour.

The usurping of disabled facilities is something that sets a, potentially dangerous, precedent but it may be a proportionate response depending on the school population. At least here the dignity of student’s with disabilities are also considered. It remains to be seen how this is managed to ensure that the rights of disabled students/people are not cast aside for this group.

👈 Another interesting aspect of this guidance is that it includes this comment from a parent. It seems parents are at the risk of being over-ruled by zealous gender identity idealogues even when they have negotiated a pragmatic path for their “trans-identifying” offspring. I am surprised this comment made it passed the editors. This may have been due to the influence of the, female, police officer. Maybe not. As we shall see the more problematic bits of this guidance are the way they address the issue of “hate crime”. No doubt this is a reflection of the inclusion of the police in writing a transgender guidance document for schools. It’s an odd partnership. I will come onto the issue of hate crime.

The guidance on changing rooms and sports is grounded in reality and the needs of other students as well as the “trans” students. The needs of the trans student should be sensitive to the needs of other groups. This should be considered for girls only facilities (defined by sex) and the needs of disabled students.

The clip further down also recognises biological reality on the sports field. If you have read the earlier blogs, on transgender policies, you will know that it is by no means the norm for any concession to be made to biological facts, or the needs of other pupils.

The treatment of parents in these guidance packs is something I covered in my blog below. 👇Parents are sidelined, information is withheld, and we are painted as potential villains. Here the Cornwall guidance cautions that parents may not be the “most supportive or appropriate person to assist the young person through transitioning”. I suppose we should just leave it to the Tavistock! What could possibly go wrong? Clearly the school here are completely prepared to keep parents in the dark and allow pupils to take steps to “transition” without informing their parents.

Putting the Loco in Loco Parentis

These are the clips on the treatment of transphobia as a hate crime. An example of transphobia, provided below, is using the incorrect pronoun. Notice how soon this escalates into the language of hate crimes and victims. It also argues for mandatory re-education on gender identity.

The document then goes on to suggest appropriate learning materials with which to ~~indoctrinate~~ oops educate our children.

This includes some publications which are innocuous enough and could be used to dispell myths rooted in sex stereotypes. Until we get to Alex Drummond’s book about being a “girl”.

Alex has a degree in gender studies and discovered his inner lesbian after jettisoning critical thinking for a dose of Butler Bollox. He is a Stonewall Ambassador who claims he is expanding the bandwidth for women. Not so much expanding the bandwidth as destroying the category of “woman” entirely. When a man, with a beard, claims to redefine what it means to be a woman he displays the male privilege that is the power of naming. He also claims to be a lesbian, who brings out the inner lesbian in women, just in case he hasn’t destroyed heteronormativity enough to claim his place in the annals of gender identity HIStory. To be fair if Alex was everyman he would create a fair few political lesbians providing we could stick to the old-fashioned type i.e. women, the biological kind.🧐

Below is some homework to begin your re-education. I am sorely disappointed they failed to share some examples of trans history for us to debunk. Learn the terminology and make a mistake at your peril. We are watching you!

Articles on Gender Identity Ideology paypal.me/STILLTish

If you are salaried and unable to speak out /appreciate my work here is a way you can support me. I do this full time and with zero income.

£5.00

School Transgender Policy 2. Suffolk

I have done a number of twitter threads on School policies, ostensibly, about protecting “transgender children”. I have already blogged, on the way they treat parents. We are treated as potential bigots who need educating on Gender Identity issues. The Schools, invariably, take it upon themselves to keep parents in the dark about our “Gender Dysphoric” kids. They blithely inform us our kids are at significant risk of attempting suicide but still think it is good practice to hide pertinent information from parents. You can read that post here: Putting the Loco in Loco Parentis.

This is the second of a series on the policies I have found. Some have already been withdrawn but we need to preserve a record of the extent of the policy capture. Note that this series will be repetitive as they are clearly modelled on a small number of templates. The poor practice is widespread due to the cut and paste nature of the policies. The positive spin on this is that we can recapture in the same way. We only need sensible templates which balance the needs of kids with Gender Dysphoria and the protected characteristic of sex. We also need schools to stop usurping Parental Responsiblity. I know of multiple parents who only found out their daughters were adopting male identities, at school, due to an administrative error! This cannot be right. I was fortunate that this was not the case for my child, possibly, because it was back in 2015.

This post is on the Suffolk guidance. It is modelled on the Allsorts toolkit, which was the first one I covered. You can access the document below:

Suffolk Trans-Inclusion-Schools-Toolkit

Educate and Celebrate?

In the introduction we are told this was produced with input from transgender children and their parents. The other agencies they reference, quote, or signpost are listed below. Nearly all of these are Lobbying groups; advocating for the inculcation of Gender Identity Ideology in our schools, universities and other public, or indeed private, institutions. Stonewall, Mermaids, Gendered intelligence, Gires all get a mention.

I can’t possibly include all the clips I made of this document. I will just select the most egregious examples.

Predictably we go straight to the suggestion that trans-identifying children are at a greater risk of self-harm and suicide. This fear is leveraged to insist we have a “moral imperative” to act using emotional blackmail to demand “effective support”. What they propose , however, is the wrong kind of “support”.

I have rebutted the data on suicide many times on this blog. Below it is referenced once again. It is based on a study which included 27 trans-identifying people under the age of 26. Of that sample 13 had self-reported a suicide attempt. Even the author, of the PACE report, confirmed the difficulties that arise when research is used by lobby groups for their own purposes. Be very skeptical about suicide data in this field. It’s use, in my view, is not far removed from a terrorist tactic. Politicians are fond of saying they won’t negotiate with terrorists. In this case they have outright capitulated to lobbying groups deploying the most egregious of threats. Do this or I will kill myself/Your child will .

So how are Suffolk defining “trans”? Here is the list. This is unscientific nonsense and the last catetory is nonsensical. The authors clearly know we are making up genders, daily, so have added a catch-all category at the end.

Stonewall Lesbian

They also add this revealing caveat about why they are omitting “cross-dressers”. Most people don’t know that transvestites are considered to be “Trans” and covered by the Stonewall Umbrella.

It seems, for children, the authors recognise dressing up in clothes “stereotypically intended for the “opposite” sex” (note the inverted commas around the word “sex”) doesn’t make you “trans”. So what changes when you are an adult? Kids who experiment with dress are not automatically assumed to be “trans” but adult men who indulge in fetishistic transvestism are? Here we are grooming children to accept transvestites as some kind of “woman” when many do so for a sexual thrill. An erotic charge which can be heightened when undertaken in a forbidden (female only) space.

Below they engage in the linguistic gymnastics to change the definition of sexual orientation, a legally protected characteristic, by some careful wording. We used to call gay love the love that dared not speak it’s name. We are doing the same thing in 2020. This alteration of the meaning of sexual attraction to “romantic” is designed to make sure a heterosexual man, who identifies as a woman,can still be a “lesbian”. I concede that, if you are new to this subject, that last sentence will sound like an outlandish statement. Bear with me!

Here is Alex Drummond. Stonewall ambassador and bearded “lesbian”. Note the stance. I don’t think I have ever seen adult women adopt this, toes turned inward, stance. You won’t find a better take down of Alex than is to be found on the YouTube channel of the late, great, Magdalen Berns.

Safeguarding

We have just been told that any trans-identifying children are at a higher risk for self-harm and suicide but, now we are told there are no safeguarding issues. At the same time we also telling staff that it is Ok to allow children and young people to use the toilets and changing rooms of the opposite sex. NO SAFEGUARDING ISSUES?

Our children are also being taught that all people’s bodies and genitals are different. Not males and females have different bodies but “peoples”.

Yes we know the male people have different genitalia to the female people. Here they are indoctrinating children to divorce sexed bodies from “gender identity”. Specifically suggesting that recognising biological sex is based simple on “societal assumptions”. It is absolutely reckless to lower girls boundaries about male-bodied people, in their spaces, in this way. The tiny number of people with Disorders of Sexual development (here they use the term intersex) don’t undermine the fact that we are sexually dimorphic. This is why the word “gaslighting” is ever-present in this “debate”. if you don’t feel crazy trying to keep up with these teaching materials then you might not be sane!

Autism

Next up they acknowledge the high prevalence of children with autism who are questioning their gender. Here they warn staff not to limit the autonomy of the autistic child by questioning their gender identity. In fact the guidance is contrary to what is needed here. Children who are autistic are particularly vulnerable to gender identity ideology and ought to be protected from being defined as “trans” for behaviours common in autistic children. As an aside Autistic Charities have been reckless in their rush to embrace Gender Identity Ideology. Those thathave colluded with sterilising autistic ought to be removed from their posts. A clear out of senior staff at Autistic Charities is well overdue. I suspect, instead, they will end up in the House of Lords.

Withholding Information from Parents (again!)

Another common thread is the schools deciding to withhold information from parents about their own children. Parents are not told about a child’s transgender identity despite believing this makes them in a high risk demographic for suicide and self-harm. They don’t seem to see the safe-guarding concern in the denial of salient information to parents. On the contrary they see the safeguarding risk as originating with parents. Once again painting parents as less likely to care about our children than a transient person in the school. I would argue we are setting up a situation where a child has a secret with an adult which may make them more vulnerable to grooming by that member of staff?

Furthermore other parents are not to be told that a boy, a male for clarity, is using your daughter’s changing rooms. I absolutely hated even single sex, communal changing rooms and showers and I was not alone. It is beyond belief we would consider it Ok to put girls in this position.

Here it is made explicit that this is also intended to apply for overnight stays. 👇

Overnight school trips was that it was an important rite of passage to have nights away from home and typically the teachers left the girls unsupervised in the dormitories. This was a key part of the trip. The above guidance, however, means a teenage boy could be left in a girls dormitory. What will it take before some grown-ups step in and acknowledge that sexual offences, in schools are off the scale and are being committed by males, as a sex class, not as a gender identity.

The second point about that guidance is that any girl who feels uncomfortable will be stigmatised because she will be told she has to be the one to move. What girl will speak up in this climate?

So now we move on the case studies which, if you think I have been over-interpreting the guidance, lay out it clearly. This is a shameful misuse of the phrase “Human Rights” by the way. There is no human right to invade, women and girls, single sex, spaces.

Now we have taken away the right to single sex spaces what other ways could we screw over the female pupils? Oh, that’s right Sport. I am absolutely staggered that this policy was accepted without question. Of course a girl is going to be at risk playing a contact sport, like Rugby, against a male. And look at the language. “Trans boys are boys, not girls”. No they are females in flight from their sex but they are still female-bodied. Also make no mistake they always subsitute an example of a female (transman/boy) when they know using a male (transwoman/ girl) will look more blatantly wrong. .

Scenario 4 is yet another example of parents being painted as problematic if they resist affirming a trans identity. I think they deliberately used the idea of a Father opposting a gender non-conforming male because we all know gender non-conforming, gay, males who’s fathers had a hard time accepting having a gay son. So, let me present an alternative scenario. Supposing a young girl, with no history of any difficulty with their birth sex suddenly identifies as “male” in her teens. The mother is aware that her daughter shows autistic traits, or had a traumatic experience with childhood sexual abuse or has been bulllied after declaring herself attracted to females. The parents are not told about this and their daughter is allowed to express herself as male in school. She is using male toilets and changing rooms and she is wearing a breast binder, all unbeknownst to her parents. She is potentially placing herself at risk, using male facilities, and potential health issues by extended use of a binder. This can cause breathing difficulties and even , in extreme cases, broken ribs. This is not suppositiion. There are numerous YouTube influencers who have done all of these things before telling their parents and with the complicity of the school.

What is horrifying is that this guidance consistently ignores safeguarding red flags except when they wish to infer that we parents may be a risk to our children. Bearing in mind this risk appears to relate to parents who are not prepared to affirm a “gender identity” and any medicalised pathway for under-age kids. Does not mean we are not, for example, affirming their sexuality or their desire to mess with expected norms of dress. All of this was pretty standard fare as far back as the 1970’s. What it didn’t mean was that we advocated drugs and surgeries for teenage angst.

Here are all the usual suspects in the list of useful websites. A list of transgender lobbying groups, mainly, and not one womens’s group who might have an alternative perspective on the plight of confused girls. Also not included are any actual Gay Rights organisations. The kind that might take issue with the idea feminine gay males being told they might be girls. Make no mistake I definitely exclude Stonewall from any list of Gay Rights organisations. They have lost all credibility.

I note there is a policy for whistleblowers linked in the guidance. I feel for those teachers, of which I know many, who are apalled at what is going on in schools. Problem is this guidance is everywhere and I expect many teachers feel isolated and afraid to speak up.

This is why I do what I do. Unpaid. If you can help keep be going it would be appreciated. I email all donors and also offer to cover any topic which you may be unable to cover yourself.

paypal.me/STILLTish

If you are salaried but silent you can help me here with a donation. I don’t have any income and this helps pay for books, on this topic, or relevant on-line /conferences. Any amount is appreciated.

£5.00

This teaching has been going on in our schools now for at least 5 years. We are now seeing the fruits of this propaganda in the generation of teens who are identifying out of their sex.

All Parliamentary Group on LGBT: Statement on GRA

This group was founded in 2015 and its membership is drawn from all political parties in the UK Parliament. They are also closely aligned with Stonewall as is made clear on their website. https://www.appglgbt.org/secretariat.

The APPG is administered by Anna Robinson, who has served as the APPG Researcher and Coordinator and Researcher since February 2019. The Secretariat is supported jointly by the LGBT+ non-governmental organisations Kaleidoscope Trust, Stonewall, and Frontline AIDS.

APPG LGBT group was brought to my attention because of their, negative, reaction to the Government statement on the Gender Recognition Act. Liz Truss, the minister responsible, announced that the government will not be allowing anyone to Self-Identify into the opposite sex class. You can read the statement here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-responds-to-gender-recognition-act-consultation.

Saved file is here in case of Trans Revisionism.

APPG LGBT+ Chair’s Statement on the Government’s Response to the GRA Consultation — APPG on Global LGBT+ Rights

The APPG LGBT group, issued a statement expressing their disappointment with the government response. They also revealed they had attempted to broker a deal, behind closed doors, which they claimed would resolve the tensions over this issue. Unfortunately the document wasn’t published, prior to the decision. but I will cover the one they published after the fact and include it in APPG LGBT 2.

Argentina, and Ireland are frequently held up as exemplars of the policy of self-identification. Women’s groups were not consulted in either country. The Argentinian regime, then in power, seemed to be using it to distract from unsavoury elements of their government. There seems to be an inverse relationship between the countries who legislate for self-identified “Gender” whilst having less than progressive atttituded to women’s right to control her fertility. For more on Argentina see this thread: https://twitter.com/twisterfilm/status/1215336108776706050?s=21.

Anyone who has read my blogs on the Gender Recognition process may take issue with the idea that it is an invasive and onerous process. I have covered some of the people allowed to claim the status of “legal women” in a few of my posts.

HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN GOING ON? This is a case from 2009. GRC obtained whilst a serving prisoner and pre-op. Released to a female bail hostel. Attempted to rape a woman 5 days later. Recallled to prison and won a legal case to be moved to the female estate, still pre-op.

Gender Recognition Certificates Or this case. The Gender Recognition Panel turned this prisoner down multiple times. A single judge was able to overturn the refusal and grant a GRC. This to a thrice married, father of seven with a convicion for obtaining explosives with intend to endanger life. How very ladylike!

Gender Recognition Panels: A Judge talks. Here a judge speaks of her work on the Gender Recognition Panel. She describes the process as “enabling” and I agree; though I suspect I use the word in a different way to the way the good judge intends. A reminder. The fee to apply for a GRC was £140. There is no requirement for any bodily modification and applicants are not required to have a face to face interview. This latest announcement commits to reducing the cost and streamlining the process. Onerous? Invasive? Or Reckless.

Nothing is more galling than the “bad people on both sides” representation of this “debate”. It’s not women who are dishing out the threats of rape and violence. It is self-identified women, i.e. males, who appear to retain a very masculine committment to silencing non-compliant females, through fear. The idea that this is a “narrowly…held view” is laughable. Most people have not caught up with the idea that women must accept that women can have penises. When it is made clear that we are expected to give male-bodied access to female spaces it is roundly rejected. It remains to be seen whether the agression shown, even by *some* post operative transsexuals, has fatally undermined acceptance for this group. Not an outcome I wish for… Sex is a material reality. Gender is a set of reductive sex stereotypes. Males, who identify as women, have somehow internalised sex stereotypes as being natural and inevitable and this has given rise to a belief these can be transplanted into a male body. This is not Progressive and, interestingly, more and more transsexuals reject this dogma. They know they are male, or female, that sex is real. Many never anticipated that a tiny minority with real, intractable, Gender Dysphoria would be used like a battering ram to compromise women’s and gay rights.

We do not, routinely, assign a “gender” at birth. Nobody can, literally, change sex. Elsewhere the APPG LGBT argues for de-medicalising the process of “transition” which means nobody is expected to take “serious. life-changing steps to change their gender permanently“. Stonewall , their partner, include part-time cross dressers under the trans umbrella. It is clear that we are not expected to research transvestic fetishism which is sexually motivated. I expect there are half a million “trans” people in the UK due to the wide ranging, criteria. Hell! We are pretty much all “trans” or “non-binary” by Stonewall Law.

The APPG LGBT group quote the high rate of responses to the GRA Consultation, which agree with the proposal to dispense with any medical evidence and remove the requirement to “live in their acquired gender for two years”. What they fail to mention is many of these responses clearly co-ordinated by an organised Lobby Group. Indeed, rather shockingly, a children’s entertainer, on YouTube even persuaded children to get involved in filling out the GRA consultation. Now deleted but if you check out Pop ‘n’ Olly he is a childrens entertainer who is pushing this on Kids, relentlessly. This is a transcript of his content. Note it was produced in collaboration with Stonewall and Fox Fisher & Owl who are both trans activists. ( I will do a series on Pop ‘n’ Olly and will include the blog which is the source for the clip below , with acknowlegement.)

I blogged on Fox Fisher and Steph Kyriacou. Both produced content for ChildLine ( run by the NSPCC). Part-Two covers Fox Fisher, who also is linked to the Mermaids Charity for “trans-kids”/ Fox objected to being associated with Lesbians, Gay males and Bisexuals because it associated being transgender with “deviance”. A clip is included because Fox has now deleted it from their youtube.

Queering the NSPCC? Part Two: What it means to be Transgender.

Parts 7 & 8 cover some of Steph’s content, first for Child-Line and from their own channel.

Queering the NSPCC? Part 7: Trans Identity

Queering the NSPCC? Part 8: Sexual Identity and Gender Identity

No statement could be complete without reference to the idea that Transgender people and suicide attempts. The statistic that 50% of trans people have attempted suicide has been debunked many times. It goes against Samaritan’s guidelines for responsible coverage of suicide. It is based on flawed data. It may actually foster suicide ideation in the very group you are purporting to be concerned about.

I blogged about it the flawed data around suicide attempts here:

Suicide in the Trans Community

The next issue that the APPG LGBT group are focussing on is a ban on Gay Conversion Therapy. This follows legislation passed around the world and of course I support a ban on any attempts to change someone’s sexual orientation. Its regressive, harmful and it doesn’t work. However, the APPG LGBT group are insisting that any legislation also includes “gender identity”. Thus any parent of a gay male or a lesbian who takes time to accept their sexuality and identifies, instead, as the opposite sex would, potentially, be criminalised for opposing medical treatment to modify their childs sexual characteristics , block puberty or commence cross-sex hormones. Geraint Davies, a Labour MP, tried to pass a private members bill which also included “Gender Identity” in a ban on Conversion Therapy.

So yes. I oppose any ban on “Conversion Therapy” when it includes “Gender Identity. This will result in a prohibition of therapeutic responses to a discomfort with biological sex/sexuality. We would not have an epidemic among young people, adopting a trans-identity, if we were not inculcating it in School teaching. I have covered many of these policies on this blog.

By banning therapeutic responses to Gender Dysphoria we may, actually, be promoting a medicalised “Gay Conversion Therapy”.

https://paypal.me/STILLTish

Have a salary but can’t speak up for fear of losing your job/family/networks? I do this full-time with no income. Anything you can send my way allows me to keeo on keeping on ,

£5.00

Irreversible Damage: Abigail Shrier

The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters

Shrier’s book is a timely contribution documenting increasing levels of concern over the rising rate of Trans-identifying Females. Young girls are having drastic surgeries/medical intervention, at ever younger ages, in a quest to become their “authentic selves”. Sadly, some of those young women are emerging, in their earlier twenties, to the realisation they were simply Lesbian or in flight from their sex for other reasons. This self-knowledge sometimes comes after years on testosterone, double mastectomies and even hysterectomies /ovary removal.

Facts and figures on the rising numbers of these girls are included in Shrier’s book. Many of the statistics are from the UK because the NHS makes it easier to keep track of the figures. In the US there are now tens of “Gender Identity” clinics to service the rising rates of “transgender” children /teens. This is a phenomenon across North America, Europe and Australasia. Shrier’s book documents this with extensive references, an excellent bibliography and conversations with many people at the cutting edge. This includes practitioners working in the field or reporting on this area. She also shares personal testimony from the young women and their parents.

I have kept quotations to a minimum because you really should buy this book! I have, however, interspersed some links/blogs to expand, or reference the UK context.

Censorship.

When research papers, articles or books, are published on the phenomenon of Trans-identifying children/ teens, they are inevitably followed by calls to ban them, accompanied by attacks on the author, sackings, loss of office or sponsorship. This book is no different.

Here is Chase Strangio, from the ACLU (Americal Civil Liberties Union), calling Shrier’s book “dangerous polemic” and calling for it to be taken out of circulation.

The ACLU have a proud history defending Civil Liberties and Free Speech. A legacy which has been utterly squandered by its advocacy of Gender Identity Ideology. As an organisation they appear unwilling to accept that Women, LGB people and even Transsexuals, have legitimate concerns about the extremist positions of Gender Identity Ideologues.

Chase Strangio is a Transman and ACLU Lawyer. Anyone questioning the transitioning of children seems to be perceived as an attack on Chase’s identity, as a man. Choosing to critique a book without reading it seems to be common in this “debate” but Chase claims to have actually read it. This doesn’t prevent Chase from seeking to deny other people the opportunity. This smacks of authoritarianism and is shocking from an organisation which, not too long ago, defended the right to free speech for members of the Ku-Klux Clan.

What is happening to Abigail’s book follows a familiar pattern of silencing. This happened to the work of Michael Bailey, Lisa Littman, Ken Zucker and many researchers whose work I have covered on this blog.

Lisa Littman

Lisa Littman coined the term “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria”. Lisa Littman spoke to parents with children claiming to be transgender. These children/teens had not shown any signs of discomfort, with their sex, during childhood, and their stories were also at odds with the experience / recollections of their parents. Diane Ehrensaft, a proponent of Gender Identity Ideology, made this statement about talking to parents (p.28). claiming it was akin to “recruiting from Klan or alt-right sites to demonstrate that blacks really are an inferior race”. I would contend that parents are demonised because we know when our children fabricate a fantasy trans-narrative. This knowledge is perceived as dangerous, as is (legal) parental responsibility, to safeguard our children from youthful mistakes. Parents who affirm biological sex are a direct challenge to ideologues, like Ehrensaft, who contend three year olds are competent to know their “gender identity”.

You can read more about what happened to Dr Littman here https://quillette.com/2019/03/19/an-interview-with-lisa-littman-who-coined-the-term-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria/

You can meet Diane Ehrensaft here: https://youtu.be/DnILbwUL19Y

A tale of two sexes

Ms Shrier’s book centres teenage girls. This makes sense because young girls are emerging as the main demographic being harmed. The causes are also different for females. As a parent of one of the boys, caught up in this, I contend that, whilst there is some overlap in the causality, this is primarily a tale of two sexes. It therefore makes sense to cover boys separately. Let us hope someone takes up the challenge to look at the Transgender Craze in Our Boys. Maybe I will.

Autogynephilia

Shrier does not shy away from covering the more controversial issues accompanying Gender Identity Ideology in our society. This includes a reference to Autogynephilia (AGP) which is a male paraphilia. The love of oneself, as a woman, is the new love that cannot bear to be named. Acknowledging AGP tends to provoke narcissistic rage and backlash and explains a lot of the testeria in this “debate“.

Shrier also talks about the erosion of female only spaces (see anecdote about the bra-fiting for a teenage girl. p.143). She also covers the potential /actual destruction of female sports due to male inclusionary policies. Shrier quotes young women who told her the social cache attached to a transgender identity is in direct contrast to the disregard for Lesbians. (p.151). Why would you want to be Lesbian when it is mainly known as a category of porn? Indeed the depiction of young women, in porn generally, seems suffiicient explanation for a flight from the female sex. Looked at one way adopting a male identity is a perfectly rational response to a hostile environment.

School Policy

Shrier is also excellent on the way Transgender ideology is disseminated, particularly in schools. The same phenonemon is at play in the UK. Sometimes this is done overtly via a Transgender Policy but other times it is slipped in, covertly, under the guise of anti-bullying. To truly root it out you have to check school transgender policy but also anything referencing bullying or equality or inclusion. I am doing a series on all the policies I have found and downloaded. This is one.

School Transgender Policy 1. Brighton: Allsorts

Shrier’s also documents how parents are treated by these policies and by schools, generally. Parents are painted as a safeguarding risk to our children, if we don’t immediately “affirm” a trans identity. I blogged about this here 👇 covering school policies advocating lying to parents about our children and “socially transitioning” them behind our backs.

Putting the Loco in Loco Parentis

Another issue subject to scrutiny is the threat of suicide and the topic of transgender kids. Not just in the US but globally. This is despite the fact suicide attempts are actually no higher in trans-identifying children than other kids with mental health issues. Completed suicides are actually very rare in transgender youth but they are higher in the adult group post transition. One Swedish study, with the longest follow up time of any other study, found the suicide rate to be significantly higher than their comparator sex. You can read about this here:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885&type=printable

This is one of the longest follow up studies and points to a need for more after care and a review of the outcomes for post-operative transsexuals. This area is replete with references to suicide as evidenced by the repetition of “Better a live daughter than a dead son” . Yet discussion on post-operative mental health issues is verboten.

I wrote about suicide, in transgender youth, below.

Suicide in the Trans Community

Ray Blanchard

Shrier seems to have spoken to most of the prominent voices in this debate. Ray Blanchard is the man who coined the term Autogynephilia. He is very good on the psychological toll it takes to present as the opposite sex. I have written about this, which I call “imposter syndrome on steroids” , after observing and listening to adult transsexuals. Blanchard goes a bit “bad on both sides” re Trans Activists and Gender Critical Feminists (p. 132) but then we do appear to be, or are, critiquing his life’s work.

Medical Treatment

The book is bold and unflinching on the paucity of medical research and provides case studies on the deleterious impact of experimental, medical, solutions to a trans-identity. She points out that there is no reliable test for an innate “Gender Identity”. There is no biological marker. Detransitioners met the diagnostic criteria in the same way as did those who persist, for now, with a medicalised solution to their distress. She explodes the myth that puberty blockers are a pause and emphasises the public data which shows that 100%, put on puberty blockers, will continue to Cross Sex hormones. This is not a pause, it is the introduction to, an almost inevitable, pathway to medical transition. Shrier deals with the risks of puberty blockers (p.165); the shocking statistic of a 5 times higher rate of heart attack in females on testosterone (p. 169) and the medical complications leading to the high rate of hysterectomies after 5 years on testosterone. (p.171). She is also not afraid to name leading proponents of Gender Identity /Medical transition such as Jo Elsson-Kennedy who dismisses post mastectomy regret with this flip response “if you want breasts later on you can go and get them”. (p. 172)

Personal Testimony

The book is packed with personal stories from parents, adult transsexuals, desisters/de-transitioners. The bulk of these are females, as you would expect, but she does also reference young males. This approach allows us to meet some of the young girls/women caught up in the Transgender phenomenon, putting flesh on the bones of the statistics, just as surely as flesh is being put on the line. We hear the voices of parents endeavouring to navigate a path to protect their children, without alienating them. This is difficult and not always successful. Young women share their stories, one on being a Butch Lesbian, who identified as trans. The anorexic who swapped pro-ana sites for transgender ones. Crucially she ends the book with stories of those who made their way back, to reconcile with their sex and, very often to their formerly estranged families. Because: There is a way back!

Cultural differences

This is clearly a global phenomenon as I have tried to demonstrate. There are also some cultural differences. I don’t think therapy and medicalised responses to children/teenagers distress are quite as embedded in the UK. Though I am from the North of England and we can be a bit “haven’t you got any mates?” (Crocodile Dundee Style😉) about North American reliance on therapy. Shrier has lots to say about parenting styles and our growing impulse to step in when our children encounter difficulties. The phenomenon of Helicopter parents is less embedded in working class culture but is definitely rampant in middle class parenting. Overall this book translates very well, to the U.K. context, and it is eerie how much commonalty there is in the experiences of parents on both sides of the atlantic.

In Conclusion. This is a very important book.

Purchasing Abigail’s book via the link, below, will provide funds to a UK Parent’s group (Bayswater Support Group) who support families, with children who identify as transgender, to navigate a path to wholeness.

My copy of this book will be going to a generous donor who has purchased it to help fund my work. If you wish to support me you can do so here.

If you are able to support my work please do so. I am unwaged and all my content is open.

Investigating the march of Gender Identity Ideology. The impact on Women’s rights and the cost paid by our Gay offspring & children on the Autistic spectrum.

£10.00

British Psychological Society 5

DISSENTING VOICES.

https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-33/october-2020/freedom-expression-around-diversity-guidelines

A letter in response to the guidelines. Reproduced, in full, below.

Freedom of expression around diversity guidelines

Numerous psychologists call for review of the BPS Guidelines for Psychologists Working with Gender, Sexuality and Relationship Diversity; plus response.

Following the response to J.K. Rowling’s essay ‘Reasons for Speaking Out on Sex and Gender Issues’ and the 18 June Newsnight report of safeguarding concerns at the NHS Gender Identity Development Service, we call for an immediate review of the recent BPS Guidelines for Psychologists Working with Gender, Sexuality and Relationship Diversity (BPS, 2019).

These guidelines state that a ‘gender-affirmative’ stance should be the default position adopted by psychologists. We are concerned that the instruction to ‘integrat[e] an affirmative stance into their model of practice’ restricts the use of many core models (systemic, trauma-informed, developmental) in formulating the factors resulting in the clients’ presentation. This places limitations on researchers and practitioners exploring the wider context of ‘gender’ and seeking to establish ‘best-evidence’ for the support of individuals with gender dysphoria.

For those unfamiliar with the guidance or discussion in this field, ‘gender affirming’ practice calls for psychologists to work on the basis that an individual’s belief in self-ascribed gender is ‘valid and legitimate’. We hope all psychologists value and respect the varied understandings that people hold of the world around them and of their personal experience. We suggest it is possible to value and respect a client’s experience, without taking a position of affirmation. Indeed we often do this within our work with various client groups. The BPS guidance stipulates that practitioners validate a belief in gender (both in general and in particular to the individual’s sense of self) without considering the evidence base in relation to the practice of belief validation.

Individuals who are questioning their identity with respect to their sex and gender clearly report significant levels of psychological distress. The long-term implications for this population resulting from the provision or denial of access to treatment are substantial. We recognise that appropriate, evidence-based guidelines are imperative to support the skilled psychological practice which our profession seeks to uphold. However, such guidelines can only be effective when these are the result of comprehensive research, conducted in an environment that supports free and independent enquiry.

In particular, we think it is imperative that psychologists are not prevented from using our core professional skill of formulation, exploring the origins and nature of distress rather than ascribing to one pre-determined ‘diagnosis’ or explanation. With other presentations we are in agreement that there are multiple contributory factors to psychological distress. It is only from this exploration that we can develop individualised formulations to guide our attempts to alleviate that distress. We think the current guidelines effectively prohibit psychologists from taking a questioning approach and applying ethical practice in these situations. The absence of a robust evidence base supporting psychological and medical intervention is a concern in this rapidly growing population, leaving significant gaps in our understanding of many relevant issues. The disproportionate increase in presentations of females to services, the phenomenon of so-called Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria, the voices of individuals who have desisted or detransitioned, and the experiences of those for whom existing treatments have been of value must all be addressed in the search for quality research informing best-evidence practice. Such research can only be conducted in an environment that is open to discussion in a respectful and professionally inquisitive manner.

We would like to see the current guidance withdrawn and the topic reviewed afresh in accordance with the rules of proper intellectual inquiry: the weighing up of evidence; the ethical considerations of psychological practice; and the avoidance at all times of ad hominem forms of argument. Some of the signatories below, with others, have submitted a formal request for the withdrawal of the guidance to the Society. We hope that readers will support our expectation that the freedom of expression of all psychologists will be defended, unambiguously and at all times, in relation to both research and practice.

SIGNATORIES. (Some names are witheld)

Dr Katie Alcock (Senior Lecturer in Psychology)

Rachel Corry (Occupational Psychologist)

Ms Nina Gadsdon (Psychology Masters Student)

Dr Louise Fernandes (Clinical Psychologist)

Ms Pat Harvey (Guinan) (Former Chair of the Division of Clinical Psychology)

Dr Peter Harvey (Former Chair of the Division of Clinical Psychology)

Mr Ian Hancock (Retired Consultant Clinical Psychologist, Director of Psychological Services, NHS Dumfries and Galloway).

Dr John Higgon (Consultant Clinical Neuropsychologist)

Dr Anna Hutchinson (Clinical Psychologist)

Dr Gill I’Anson (Consultant Clinical Psychologist)

Mr Eric Karas (Retired Consultant Clinical Psychologist)

Dr Jeanie McIntee (Consultant Clinical & Forensic Psychologist & Psychotherapist)

Dr David Pilgrim (Former Chair of the History and Philosophy Section)

Julia Richards (Educational Psychologist)

Cas Schneider (Consultant Chartered Clinical Psychologist)

Karen Scott (Retired Educational Psychologist)

Dr Sarah Verity (Chartered Clinical Psychologist)

Dr Robert Watts (Clinical Psychologist)

Anne Woodhouse (Clinical Psychologist)

Colleagues who felt they needed to remain anonymous:

Consultant Clinical Psychologist NE England

Clinical Psychologist NE England

Consultant Forensic Psychologist S England

Clinical Psychologist NW England

BPS RESPONSE TO THE LETTER

Society response: We acknowledge that the BPS is a broad church, and there will always be differing views among our members on some issues. We are confident that our guidelines are based on the best current evidence and research in this important area, having been developed by experts working in the field. Clearly we share your concern about the safeguarding of children and young people, but our guidance is specifically for the care and treatment of adults, not children.

The draft guidance was sent out for Society-wide consultation on 19 March 2019. It was also sent to the Royal College of Psychiatrists, APA, BACP, BABCP, UKCP, Stonewall, LGBT foundation and COSRT for comment. At the close of the consultation on 12 April 2019 34 responses had been received. Just one of these responses mentions the issue of dissenting voices that is raised in your letter. This respondent also stated that the document was ‘well intentioned and positive’.

All our guidance is periodically reviewed. This particular guidance is the second version, having been revised in 2019. If there is a change in practice or evidence, then the need to revise the guidance would be established. In this instance, we will review the guidance if there are implications for the care and treatment of adults following the outcomes of:

the judicial review regarding the use of hormone blockers in child services on grounds of capacity to consent
NHS’s Independent review of puberty suppressants and cross sex hormones
NICE review of the latest clinical evidence.

As a Society we are committed to our members having a view and welcome different perspectives. As such any revised guidance will be sent out for Society-wide consultation and we would welcome your input into the revised consultation process.View the complete article as a PDF document
(Please note that some pictures may have been removed for copyright reasons)

If you are able to support my work please do so. I am unwaged and all my content is open.

Investigating the march of Gender Identity Ideology. The impact on Women’s rights and the cost paid by our Gay offspring & children on the Autistic spectrum.

£5.00

British Psychological Society 4

This is part 4 of a series on the British Psychological Society. This blog will examine the BPS treatment guidelines, from 2019. The 2012 version is covered in part three. The changes between the two versions are indicative of the level of mission creep. Unless otherwise indicated, all quotations are taken from this document. 👇

Guidelines for psychologists working with gender, sexuality and relationship diversity

Part One

In Part One I looked at the background to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that commits a number of organisations to reject Conversion Therapy

Part Two

In Part Two I looked at the BPS position statement, on therapy pertaining to sexual orientation, and examined the profiles of the authors.

Part Three

Part Three looks in detail at the recommended treatment guidelines and illustrates how far they stray from the impression given by the position statement.

Part 4 : The 2019 guidelines.

The authors/contributors.

The same names are involved, as were acknowledged in the 2012 version. You can find out more about some of these names in earlier parts of this series. Stonewall UK are also thanked for their help.

What changed in the new Guidelines?

Gone are the warnings that caution is required before any irreversible medical treatments Ditto concern about the impact of Schizophrenia, or Aspergers, on Gender Identity Issues. The fact that most children/teens, with Gender Identity issues, will, turn out to be mainly Gay males and Lesbians has also disappeared. Why? What has changed?

What has survived are the ideas around Sexual Identities / sexual practices.

⇐ Here we see that the guidelines encompass gender, sexuality and those with diverse relationships. The phrase “assigned at birth“ is used, an ideological formulation to suggest it is not obvious in 99.9% of cases. Also “Cisgender”; another, contested, term claiming anyone comfortable with their biological sex is in fact content with their “gender”. As many of us point out, ad nauseum, accepting your biological sex does not mean you are comfortable with “gender” ! Especially since any definition of “gender” seems to be the based entirely on reductive sex stereotypes.

Moving on, here is a full list of what the BPS includes under “diverse relationship/sexual practices”. A veritable, word salad of queer theory inspired, nonsense.

⇒

The practice of BDSM is culturally specific and hardly a biologically determined part of sexuality. The claim this is all part of “human diversity” strongly implies all these “identities” have been with us since the dawn of time. A categorical falsehood which only survives by a historical revisionism, deployed by Trans Activists, which shames Stalin. Anybody who confirms that women,and men, have always rejected the constraints of expected gender roles is simply retrospectively transed.

Membes are instructed on use of ⇒ ⇒⇒ preferred pronouns and warned not to stigmatise diverse sexual practices. Polite pronoun use is one thing, however, the use of “expect” and “correct” smacks of compelled speech and underlines how authoritarian this movement is.

The dismissal of emotional problems and suicide attempts from this client group also seems dangerously lacking in curiosity, or research, into post-transition suicidality. ⇓

Minority stress is undoubtedly an issue for Gay and Transsexual/Transgender clientele. I think it is over-stating the case to dismiss all of these co-morbidities as arising from lack of social acceptance. Some victims of sexual abuse locate their involvment, in BDSM, as a response to these experiences or even how the abuse manifested itself. Some women talk of their involvment in sadomasochistic practices as arising from/causing negative impacts on their mental health and self-esteem. Some transsexuals refer to the mental stress of “imposter syndrome” and the relief garnered from naming, and accepting, their biological sex. The thinking underpinning these guidelines seems to prioritise an ideology rather than centre the client’s well-being. Sweeping all of these identities, sexual practices and relationship types into the prohibition of “conversion therapy” may deny therapeutic help to vulnerable groups. Not analysing underlying /subconcious motivations seems reckless. Yet, the BPS do exactly that: ⇓

Who is covered by the prohibition of Conversion Therapy?

Autogynephilia & Fetishistic Tranvestism

It is also significant that all reference to fetishistic transvestism has disappeared from this edition of the guidelines. Another notable, I would also argue tactical, omission is the phenomenon of Autogynephilia (AGP). This is a paraphilia and affects heterosexual men. The clinical description is that they have an “erotic target location error” and are aroused by the idea of themselves “as a woman”. An AGP male can derive satisfaction, sometimes overtly sexual, from invading female spaces. Is it any wonder that activists do not wish to draw attention to this type of transsexualism/transgender identity?

Here there is a brief mention of the mental health conditions which may play a role in a particular “identity”. This document is very keen to badge these as “extremely rare”.

Notice the shaming tactic of inferring any dissent is akin to racism.

The omission of the paragraph below, from the 2012 guidelines, is more transgender washing. Most people have no idea about autogynephilia, yet it is paraphilia documented for decades. It is also a condition for which men have sought treatment, rather than “transiton” . This begs the question of where they get this help when therapists simply affirm a trans identity.. This is also a tactical omission because acknowledging men adopting women’s clothing/identity, for erotic purposes, isn’t good public relations . Telling the general public, men with a sexual a paraphilia can safely be given to access women’s spaces won’t be appearing on David Lammy’s campaign literature any time soon. (Lammy is the UK, MP responsible for the passage of the Gender Recognition Act)

Too many policy makers are treating any male with a Cross-Sex Identity as if it magically transforms them, literally, into their chosen “identity”. This matters because we treat men, as a class, a certain way becauuse of the the statistical sexual offending rate against women.. There is no evidence this, changes “post transition” whatever that means no we are told it is transphobiv to expect a penectomy has been performed. In fact it sex offenders may, in fact, by higher judging my the males in the UK prison population. Moreover our politicians would know this if they had bothered to undertake any impact assessments. Instead they have shown a feckless disregard for women’s rights.

Social Engineering.

Gender Identity Ideology has gained such traction by the take over of bodies responsible for making policy and laws. Here the BPS calls for its members to become active in policy making and their community to “effect change” . The wholesale social engineering necessary to make organistations afraid to use the word “woman” dopt a whole new (dehumanising) language to describe us is not happenstance. Its indicative of institutional capture.

For emphasis I am including this next paragraph, even thought it is somewhat repeat some earlier points. Here the mandated belief is that sexual attraction operates based on “gender identity”. The wording is, I would argue, deliberately obfuscatory so it is not readily apparent that the BPS are actually de-coupling sexual orientation from sex. We have already been told that a male-sexed, and male-presenting person, can be a lesbian. Shouldn’t a therapist be able to explore what has given rise to this belief, because it is patently delusional. Is it ethicaly to endorse the boundary breaching this entails for the old fashioned kind of Lesbian. AKA WOMEN!

Below it is made explicit that no assumptions should be made about any medical interventions required, or undertaken. Once again, for emphasis, this is why more and more Lesbians and Gay males are starting to sound the alarm for what this means for their exclusive same sex orientation. This ideology parrots the idea that being “exclusive” in your, same sex, dating practices is “transphobic”. Does the BPS agree with this? What does this say about the legally protected characterisic of sexual orientation?

If you have not yet acquainted yourself with the idea of “Lady Penis” then now is the time because it is being taught in primary schools. See my blog below.

That is right. Your children are being taught that some girls have a penis.

This paragraph is also worth reproducing to the maximum size possible. Basically if an obvious man, who belongs to the male sex, tells you that he is, nevertheless, a lesbian it is your duty to accept this. Then again he may wish you to call him “slut” . This immediately makes me wish I knew the relative price comparison for a session with a psychologist versus say, a dominatrix.

Yep. I went there. Being call “slut” by a dominatrix is big in “femdom” and sissy porn. Website below takes you to a content warning that it is only suitable for over 18’s. You can get the drift from the promotional blurb.

https://miss-kimberley.co.uk/

Here is a review: {I had better not be involved in a crime BTW as my search history….}

Ths next paragraph I believe is referred to as a bait and switch. There is growing evidence of the abuse, of female partners, by trans-identified males with Autogynephilia. However this document emphasises that a transitioning partner should not feel inhibited in complaining about an accepting partner. I imagine this excerpt will draw a rueful grimace from transwidows. This excerpt also inverts the power dynamics in a relationship where only one is non-monogamous or practices BDSM. These two “identities”, it is implied, will be the marginalised/oppressed. Thus, in one fell swoop, the woman with a partner who has sex outside the relationship, or pays to visit a Mistress Kimberley, will be deemed at the losing end of a power differential with his partner. This is gaslighting in a gimp mask.

Finally. In the previous version of the guidelines much more time was given to the potential implications of irreversible medical interventions on children/teens. In this version we are simply told that “reproductive optiions…may be more complex”.

I have lost count of the times I have been flat out contradicted for saying we are sterilising kids when we put children on puberty blockers. We are. When you put children, as young as 10, on puberty blockers they invariably progress to cross sex hormones. They will be infertile. We are doing this in the UK.

Finally in my next blog I will make it clear there is opposition/concern within the ranks of BPS members.

Next up: THE 2019 guidance and some dissenting voices from within the BPS membership.

If you are able to support my work please do so. I am unwaged and all my content is open.

Investigating the march of Gender Identity Ideology. The impact on Women’s rights and the cost paid by our Gay offspring & children on the Autistic spectrum.

£5.00

British Psychological Society 3

This is part 3 of a series on the British Psychological Society. This blog will examine the BPS treatment guidelines, referenced in the BPS position statement, covered in Part Two. Unless otherwise indicated, all quotations are taken from this document. 👇

Guidelines and Literature Review for Psychologists Working Therapeutically with Sexual and Gender Minority Clients (2012)

Part One

In Part One I looked at the background to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that commits a number of organisations to reject Conversion Therapy. The concern I have is the MOU to oppose “conversion therapy” includes both Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. An unintended consequence is gay males and lesbians may be placed on an unnecessary medicalised pathway to “transition”. Ironically this is actually a form of Gay Conversion. Therapists should be able to prioritise reconciliation to biological sex/sexuality as the ideal outcome. Same sex orientation doesn’t involve lifetime dependence on cross-sex hormones/surgery. This MOU effectively bans therapists / parents from affirming biological sex and sexuality.

In Part Two I looked at the BPS position statement, on therapy pertaining to sexual orientation, and examined the profiles of the authors. The BPS statement mentions “gender identity” only in passing, yet the full guidelines centre Gender Identity issues as much as sexual orientation. This has all the hall marks of yet more “stealth” activism.

Part Two

Part Three looks in detail at the recommended treatment guidelines and illustrates how far they stray from the impression given by the position statement. Even the title deviates from a focus on Sexual Orientation: “Psychologists working therapautically with Sexual and Gender Minority Clients”.

Unsuprisingly some prominent people from the UK main Gender Identity Clinic / Trans Activists were involved. ⇓

Christina Richards is employed at the Gender Identity Clinic (GIDs) sometimes, informally, referred to as the Tavistock. You can read about Christina here. Richards has a very high profile in the field of Gender Identity and especially in organisations which promote an “affirmation only” approach to Gender Dysphoria. :https://christinarichardspsychologist.wordpress.com/

Christina may also be remembered for defending a job advert which sought to recruit more people to work at GIDs and included this memorable part of the selection criteria:

Polly Carmichael is the director of the Gender Identity Service (GIDs) as I write. Penny Lenihan is also a psychotherapist based at GIDs. Meg Barker (now Meg-John) is an activist who campaigns on Bisexual issues and was the author of a bat-shit crazy document for the BACP (British Association of Counsellors and Psychotherapists). She campaigns for the recognition of those practicing BDSM/Kink /polyamorous relationships. Meg also thinks Bi-sexuals are stigmatised by the assumption that they are involved in diverse sexual practices. She/He/They/Zie (who the hell knows/cares?) states that the “bi” in “bisexual” is problematic as it suggests there are only two genders. Of course, sexual orientation is described, as same gender attraction which, as we now know, is not synonymous with biological sex. This has the effect of undermining Same-Sexual Orientation. (See later definition of “lesbian”)

Note also contributor Christine Burns, a prominent Trans Activist and editor of a collection of essays, in the book “Trans Britain”. Also Stephen Whittle, who obtained law qualifications, to better advocate for trans rights. These two names crop up numerous times, both are “trans”

Sexual Identities.

Here is a flavour of what the authors mean by “sexual identities”. It is not, as you may have expected, a reference to different sexual orientations. It includes sexual practices such as sado-masochism, transvestism as well as the more benign sounding asexuality.

The BPS document is very clear it includes “Fetishistic Transvestism” as shown by the quote below. Bear in mind that transvestites, now referred to as part-time cross-dressers, are officially under the Trans Umbrella, according to Stonewall UK. I wonder if this definition will appear in the 2019 version of this document? The protection of “sexual minorities” is now extended to people with a paraphilia, and by people I mean men. Remember this when you tweet out vacous statements about supporting people to “live as their authentic self”. I am pretty sure most people don’t realise this is what we are being asked to sign up to…. Did the MOU signatories?

Here we are reassured that not all of the cross dressing men, now officially transgender, are fetishistic. Once again women cry: “How do we know which one’s?”. Remember single sex spaces are not because all men are predators but because a minority are. The same applies to men. who identify as transgender. How do we know which part of the umbrella they come under? Too many policy makers are treating any male with a Cross-Sex Identity as identifying as if this magically transforms the statistical sexual offending profile to literally equate to that of natal (for emphasis only) women. There is no evidence of this, quite the contrary.

BDSM (Bondage, Discipline, Sadism & Masochism).

Another aspect of Gender Identity Ideology is the integral notion of power relations between “genders”. The notions of dominance and submission are necessary for sexual power games. The only subversion here is sometimes the sexes get to “play” different roles. The hierarchy remains intact but, gender identity ideologues argue, this somehow undermines “gendered expectations” and liberates us all! BDSM normalises the notion of pain, submission and servitude. To get an idea of just how liberating this has been, for women, find me a man who has died at the hands of a woman who then used then used the “rough sex” defence to avoid prison. Doesn’t happen.

To get a further idea of just how regressive this is let me quote an excerpt from a Master’s thesis. It was written by a man who documented how BDSM helped cement his identity as a transwoman. He had an unpleasant, sexual, encounter where his safe words were disregarded by the other participant. This is what he took away from that encounter:

“Sex Work”.

Naturally Queer Theory proponents avoid the unpleasant truth about prostituted women. Despite the fact clients are practically always men and the percentage of male prostitutes, also servicing men, are dwarfed in comparision to the females. The clinicians are warned about pathologising issues such as sex addction and pornography use.

In an outbreak of honesty they do, briefly, acknowledge there is a body of work (See Gail Dines) on the objectification of women in pornography.

The centrality of pro-prositution arguments within Trans-Activist ideology is indicated by the two slurs used against women, who question this belief system. These are Swerf and Terf, acronyms for Sex Worker/Trans Excusionary Radical Feminists. Some radical feminists are ex prostituted women who remain deeply concerned for the women who remain in prostitution. Others are opponents of the sale of women’s bodies and care deeply about the women labelled “sex workers”. Here the BPS pay lip service to the women who need an “exit strategy” . (What work requires an exit strategy?) but shamefully tries a “bad on both sides” argument re the perpetrators of violence. Even worse it suggests the “sex workers” need a route to empowerment and to learn to be assertive. Shame on everyone who agreed with this paragraph.

The centrality of pro-prostitution narratives is striking in prominent Trans activists and Celebrities. Janet Mock saw prostitution as a good way to validate their “womanhood”. Mock even compared prostitution to the underground railway that enabled Black people to escape the South and Slavery. Seeking male validation of your womanhood, via prostitution, runs counter to feminist campaigns to reject our commodification/ objectification. Yet another example where the “feminist” agenda of ,self-described, Transwomen, actually undermines women’s position in society. It is almost as if the interests of the new kind of women are perfectly in tune with men’s rights and diametrcally opposed to the interests of women.

I have seen many sad stories about gay males entering prostitution to fund their flight from their sex and sexuality. I have not seen any voices expressing concern about the rate of prostituted males killed in countries like Brazil. We see lots of concern about the deaths of transwomen but very little acknowledgment that their deaths are related to the prostitution industry which has a a high rate of violence and death. Not so much empowering but devouring this demographic. Clients are overwhelmingly men despite the attempt to pretend there is a high demand from women. I think the Chicks with Dicks phenomenon is likely near as dammit 100% male.

I include this quote just to note that the theme of Lesbians changing their orientation is recurrent.

Cultural appropriation: Lesbians

Here the BPS gives the word “lesbian” to males, who present as male, but describe themselves as “lesbian”. To all those people denying this is actually happening. Here is yet more confirmation.

The BPS also endorse the idea that sexuality is fluid. While there are complex debates around whether sexuality is innate and unchanging one of the key victories in Gay Rights movement was that their sexuality was fixed and therefore Conversion Therapy should not be attempted, and moreover, it won’t work. However this doesn’t chime with the idea that a Lesbian can express their sexuality with a male-bodied “lesbian”. Is this why the idea of a fluid sexuality has gained ground in advocates of Queer Theory?

Gender Performance.

Here the BPS explains that an absence of socialisation related to your preferred gender may mean that trans people have difficulty with their “gender performance”. That may explain the lingering male socialisation that generates so many woman-identified people threatening women with their male genitalia. Very interesting use of the word “performance” here. Performative femininity is something feminists have sought to resist and reject illustrating, once again, that it runs counter to women’s liberation for our sex to be reduced to simply an “identity”.

I would love to see some research about the long term mental health impact of pretending to be something you are not. The Imposter Syndrome must be debilitating and I cannot imagine it is psychologically healthy.

Therapy or Social Engineering?

Another interesting observation below. Yes! There are people who are fine with all sorts of personal self-expression and not conforming to expected sex stereotypes should be supported. The next sentence is fascinating. Ideologues insist that young people should be encouraged in this, regardless of personal cost, because it aids the “deconstitution of the gender binary”. That doesn’t read like a careful, therapeutic approach to clients with “Gender Dysphoria”. It reads as an appeal to harness them as activists for a wider project of social engineering. Is that even ethical?

Medical Interventions for Gender Confusion.

The quote below contains an important acknowledgment of research which highlights that the majority of “gender atypical” youth will be young gay males/lesbians. It also stresses the it is “imperative irreversible medical decisions should not be made“. This document is therefore not reflective of a purely affirmative model and thus gives contradictory messages. It is also interesting this comment survived the edit , though the BPS go on to advocate stopping puberty and early surgery. How clinicians were supposed to navigate these mixed messages is a mystery to me.

The document also raises some concerns which are echoed by those of us concerned about the impact of Gender Identity ideology on gay males and Lesbians. Here Clinicians are warned about the cultural context surrounding sex stereotypes. They raise the issue of father’s who may be concerned that they have a “sissy” for a son, we could call this homophobia. Again they also highlight that the majority of pre-pubertal children desist and later identify as gay or bisexual. I will be very surprised if this survives the BPS guidelines for 2019.

Furthermore it goes on to acknowledge the treatment for Gender Identity Disorder (previous name for Gender Dysphoria) is “experimental”. Note that by 2011 GIDS had already begun blocking puberty for children as young as 10. A decade later they still have not published the research outcomes from that “Study” ,despite being obliged to do so. I use inverted commas here because I am not the only one who feels this “study” was a pretext for embarking on the early medicalisation of gender confused kids/teens. We are starting to see some of the fall-out from this approach in the emerging phenomena of de-transitioners.

Another series of startling admissions echo the experience of parents dealing with our Gender Dysphoric kids/teens. Clinicians are warned that an obsession with changing sex may arise due to schizophrenia or Asperger’s syndrome. They also warn about the role of the internet in fostering a trans-identity. Furthermoe they caution people of the consquences of advising people who you do not really “know”. Anyone who has visited the Trans related subreddits will see that this sort of “coaching” is a regular feature of that forum.

Even more worrying is the growth of on-line Gender Identity services who are facilitating the dispensing of hormone treatment. These operate on the “informed Consent” model which basically hands the treatment decisions to their “clients”. Basically these practioners discourage any gatekeeping (caution) and agree that a “Trans” person knows their gender identity best. It is therefore the role of the clinician to “affirm” not “question ” a client’s Gender dentity. The caution expressed below seems to have all but disappeared in modern practice.

Below they highlight that trans individuals may “embellish or limit personal history information in order to obtain desired treatments”. Parents are well aware that our offspring re-invent the past and, in my opinion, this is one reason why we are demonised and sidelined. When our offspring claim to have always felt like the opposite sex we are the people who can offer a counter-narrative based on facts.

Here they present a list of the surgeries that may be on the list to enable people to “live as their authentic self”.

Next up: THE 2019 guidance and some dissenting voices from within the BPS membership.

If you are able to support my work please do so. I am unwaged and all my content is open.

Investigating the march of Gender Identity Ideology. The impact on Women’s rights and the cost paid by our Gay offspring & children on the Autistic spectrum.

£5.00

British Psychological Society 2

For the purposes of this blog I am interested in how the British Psychological Society (BPS) came to draft the Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) outlawing the practice of Conversion Therapy. I have revisited their pronouncements from 2012 to trace what led up to the BPS stance. First I looked at the summary document which doesn’t give much away. You can read this here: 👇

BPS Positions Statement on Therapies Attempting to Change Sexual Orientation (2013)

This document is dated December 2012 and it’s title is reassuring. Clear statement that the BPS is concerned with Sexual Orientation. No conflation of sexual orientation with Gender Identity.

Indeed the short document is focussed almost entirely on opposing conversion (sometimes referred to, sinisterly, as “reparative”) therapies relating to sexual orientation. Only this one sentence references “Gender Identities”.

If I had read only this position statement I would have assumed the BPS were still talking about Gay Conversion Therapy. If I was a stealth advocate of Gender Identity Ideology the above quote provides enough “plausible deniability” against accusations of duplicity. The authors can argue they referenced gender/identities in the summary document. Anyone not versed in Trans rhetoric, (who was in 2012?) would not have picked up the reference to “gender” and “identities” or the wider implications. I wonder how many BPS members read the full document to which they refer?

The authors allude to a 100 page guidance which sets out, in detail, the expected treatment guidelines that Therapists are expected to follow. If you didn’t go on to read this document you would be unaware of what you were actually signing up to…

I will cover the above document, in detail, in my next blog. First I want to have a look at the people, publicly, involved in producing the BPS position statement. If I have learned anything, from my deep dives into Transgender Ideology, it is that the same names recur. It is chilling because a tiny minority of activists have managed an astonishing level of cognitive and legal/policy capture.

Here are the named contributors to the BPS position statement.

Dr Lyndsey Moon (Chair)

Here is a profile of Dr Moon which makes it clear their interest in Queer Theory pre-dates this position statement by many years. https://www.beeleaf.com/beeleaf-team/igi-lyndsey-moon/

Here Dr Lydsey is referenced in relation to a meeting with the Government Equality Office, in July 2019. Note their attendance was by invitation of the GEO.

Below is the website which details the meeting with the GEO and also introduces another group : Psychotherapists and Counsellors for Social Responsibility (PCSR). Well worth reading this because they report that they felt “heard” and clearly have on-going contact with senior figures within the Government Equality Office.

https://www.pcsr.org.uk/resources/13

The link above also provides full details of the LGBT Advisory Panel to the GEO. Note the name of Dr Michael Brady LGBT advisor. The panel of LGBT advisors which includes Ruth Hunt (then CEO of Stonewall), Paul Dillane of the Kaleidescope Trust and Paul Martin of Consortium. This LGBT panel was expanded in membership later and included James Morton of Scottish Trans Alliance. The LGBT Advisory panel, to the GEO, is also crying out for a full analysis of it’s compositon and its activities.

By August 2020 Dr Moon appears to have a multiple identity as Dr Igi/Lyndsey Moon. Here she/he/they (who knows?) speaks fluent Gender Identity speak encompassing the gender fluid, the non-binary and their right to equal treatment (fair enough). The group also campaign for these identited to be protected from “conversion” therapy. Most people are aware of the shameful history of Conversion attempts of homosexuals. The literature on conversion attempts of the “Gender Fluid” and “non-binary” community is something with which I am much less familiar.

Dr Moon is also now the chair of this organisation to campaign against conversion therapy:

Dr H. Eli Joubert

Dr Joubert is another author who works in the field of Gender Dysphoria/Transsexualism. He provides diagnostic services to enable access to HRT (cross sex hormones) and surgeries. He also provides documentation to support applications for a Gender Recognition Certificate. He has also worked with Transgender prisoners. He is deeply entrenched in the Gender Medico-Industrial Complex.

Dr Claudio Pestano

Dr Pestano works in the field of Gender Dysphoria though his main focus seems to be Aspergers/Autism.

Estimates of the percentage of referrals to Gender Identity Clinics, with a diagnosis of Autism are up to 30%. Females with autism are less likely to have a diagnosis so the prevalence of diagnosed females, in Gender Identity Referrals, should raise alarm bells. Dr Postano may very well be aware of this and his therapy may be perfectly appropriate. I would, however, like to see more experts on autism raising some concern about why so many autistic kids are identifying as “transgender”.

Dr Joanna Semlyen

You can watch Dr Joanna Semlyen and Dr Moon speaking to parliament on LBGT mental health in May 2019. In it you will find references to Bridging hormones which is the practice of providing cross-sex hormones to those on the waiting list for Gender Identity Clinics. Lots of references to hetero-normative, different identities, non-binary, gender fluid etc. Dr Semlyen makes a plea for the inclusion of gender identity and sexual orientation in databases to make LGBTQ+ people feel confident in their acceptance. It’s not clear if Dr Semlyen advocates for sex to be replaced with “gender identity” but we now know this is already happening. The other panel member says acceptance is not enough. People with different identities should not be simply accepted they should be celebrated. One of the contributors is quoted saying the following: “LGBTQ identities should be very highly valued, not just equal, not just part of the mainstream, but much more valued”. It’s almost as if they have no concerns that they may be fuelling a backlash against the communities they purport to serve.

You can watch this session below and read the full transcript of the evidence. All via Hansard.

Oral Evidence

Or read the transcript Oral evidence – Health and social care and LGBT communities – 15 May 2019

Notice that Sarah Champion makes every effort to make sure the topic of trans suicides comes up. Suicide Ideation / attempts crops up frequently in this “debate” using statistics which have been debunked many times. I mention this because Sarah Champion has been challenged , my myself and others, due to her use of suicide statistics which inflate the risk to transgender teens. I wish politicians would do some due diligence and pay attention to Samaritan’s guidance on responsible coverage of suicide risk. I cover this here: Suicide in the Trans Community

Gay/Gender Identity: Conversion Therapy

Most people will, instinctively, wish to see Gay Conversion Therapy banned. Lobby groups know this so they are using stealth tactics to bolt on “Gender Identity ” to a popular cause. As I have argued, consistently, this legitimises the new Woke Gay Conversion Therapy. Activists argue that failing to adhere to sex stereotypes may mean you are born in the wrong body. Non-adherence to sex stereotypes is common, especially in Gay males and Lesbians. One from the rise outcome of Gender Identity Ideology is Lesbians and Gay males are, once again, hearing “born wrong” narratives dressed up in a rainbow costume.

This forced teaming, of the T ,with the LGB, has proved a disaster for homosexuals. in so many ways. Gender Identity Ideology threatens to undo the many victories of Gay Right’s activists In The Denton’s Document, Lobbyists for Gender Identity legislation are encouraged to latch onto popular legislation to sneak in further entrenchment of Gender Identity Ideology. Gay Conversion Therapy bans, which include “gender identity“, are no exception. I will link my piece on the Denton’s document here, Everybody should read it, 👇

That Denton’s Document

In this blog I am simply looking at the BPS position statement. I will follow this up with the a look at detailed guidance to which we are signposted. It is over 100 pages long in this edition and this article gives you a good idea of the kind of content you can look forward to from the BPS……

https://quillette.com/2020/10/31/i-signed-up-to-study-sexual-health-what-i-got-was-gender-ideology-fetishism-and-porn/

To avoid transmission of the POMO virus please wear a Mask?

British Psychological Society 1

For the purposes of this blog I am interested in how the British Psychological Society (BPS) came to draft this Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) outlawing the practice of Conversion Therapy. I imagine most people will, instinctively, see this as an unmitigated good but beware. As I have written in my blog below stealth tactics are in play. This is not just about Gay Conversion Therapy. it also includes “Gender Identity” which makes it a very different proposition. This is a tactic. See my post on The Activist’s play book below:

That Denton’s Document

Activists are encouraged to latch onto popular legislation to sneak in further entrenchment of Gender Identity Ideology. Gay Conversion Therapy bans, which include “gender identity“, are no exception.

Here I am simply looking at the MOU but I will follow up with blog on the BPS guidelines, referenced in this document. 👇

memorandum-of-understanding-v2-reva-jul19

First up a definition 👇 as provided, in the MOU, which you can read below

For regular readers you will know my concern is “affirming” a Gender Identity, at odds with your biological sex, may very well be a form of Gay Conversion Therapy. I cover this below.

The Woke Gay Conversion Therapy?

The BPS sets out its stance in this document. Sexual orientation is defined such that anyone whose “Gender Identity” is at odds with their biological sex is not excluded from the target of their sexual orientation. It paves the way for male lesbians and female gay men. It also includes asexual as a sexual orientation which is starting to become more prevalent in communications from the likes of Stonewall U.K. (For overseas readers Stonewall is a UK organisation which, historically, fought for Gay rights). The BPS also have signed up to the belief that sex isn’t binary despite the fact that we are a sexually dimorphic species. Sigh!

Next, clip below, BPS members are told they are not allowed to favour any Gender Identity over another. The language is obfuscatory. The BPS doesn’t support therapeutic approaches to reconcile a child /youth to a Gender Identity that aligns with their biological sex.The BPS effectively supports only a Gender Identity at odds with biological sex. How else will they disrupt the Gender Binary and queer social norms? Queering society turns out to have meant straightening the Gays. Who knew?

It is my, unashamed, preference that my son reconciles to his sex and sexuality. In an ideal world our offspring will live a full life, in their sexed body, with whichever sex forms the basis of their attraction. This means they won’t depend on cross sex hormones, for the rest of their life, or face unnecessary surgical procedures. This is the ideal outcoe and this should not be a controversial statement. What other area would parents be called bigots for wanting their offspring to reconcile to a healthy body as a first line of “treatment”? Or to be comfortable with their same sex orientation? We are living in the upside down.

Notice the quote, below, also includes the sentence includes both “Gender identity” and “Gender Expression”. I have yet to see a satisfactory, definition that explains why these terms are deemed to describe distinct phenomenon.

The MOU does state that it is permissible to access therapy to reconcile conflict about your sexuality, or gender. The question is how is this possible if therapists are too afraid to explore it? This doesn’t square with the idea it is harmful to seek the path of least medicalisation. Being gay doesn’t set you on a lifelong dependence on #BigPharma it also doesn’t mean you are born wrong, and definitely not in the wrong body. The exemptions the BPS do emphatise, below, are in respect of exploratory work to enable “trans” patients to access hormones or other medical treatments. Why no similiar exemption for patients who may be having trouble accepting their homosexuality?

Next up I will look at the guidelines quoted below. I have had a sneak preview of the latest ones and an earlier guide from 2012. In 2012 the summary guidance is scant on details. However both the 2012 guidance and the 2017 (updated 2019) are clearly driven by the involvement of prominent Trans Activists / proponents of Queer Theory. It appears to have taken less than a decade for the BPS to go full Gender Identity ideology compliant. The details of the guidance will be on my next blog which lists the many familiar names who have corrupted the BPS.

Here are a list of the signatories. I will just pick out a few. Jay Stewart, from Gendered Intelligence jumped out: A keen proponents of Queer Theory /Gender Identity Ideology. Gendered Intelligence are infamous for producing a guide to trans sex, for youth, which contained this gem.

I could have sworn it was Gendered Intelligence which produced a guide, to terminology, which claimed “vagina” for “transwomen”and relegated women’s vaginas to “front holes”. I couldn’t find that clip but if anyone has it let me know and I will add it.

The British Association for Counselling & Psychotherpy (BACP) also signed. The BACP regulate University courses in this area so Universities have to comply or they won’t have their courses accredited. The BACP also published a document which seemed to have difficulty including working class women, from the North of England, in their definition of a female gender identity. For more on this look at the #TransNorthern on twitter. We women, of the North, had a lot of fun with that one.

More worryingly, one of the signatories was the Medical director of NHS England. .

And here are the final signatures together with their supporters and it includes union members and the Royal College of ~~Genderal~~ oops General Practitioners.

Finally our old friends Stonewall. 👆.

Has there ever beeen an organisation that has trashed its reputation more thoroughly, in less than a decade, than Stonewall UK?

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.

£10.00

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

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

Share this:

Like this:

Educate and Celebrate?

Safeguarding

Autism

Withholding Information from Parents (again!)

Share this:

Like this:

By banning therapeutic responses to Gender Dysphoria we may, actually, be promoting a medicalised “Gay Conversion Therapy”.

Share this:

Like this:

The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters

Censorship.

Lisa Littman

A tale of two sexes

School Policy

Ray Blanchard

Medical Treatment

Personal Testimony

Cultural differences

Share this:

Like this:

DISSENTING VOICES.

Freedom of expression around diversity guidelines

SIGNATORIES. (Some names are witheld)

BPS RESPONSE TO THE LETTER

Share this:

Like this:

Part 4 : The 2019 guidelines.

The authors/contributors.

What changed in the new Guidelines?

Who is covered by the prohibition of Conversion Therapy?

Social Engineering.

Next up: THE 2019 guidance and some dissenting voices from within the BPS membership.

Share this:

Like this:

Unsuprisingly some prominent people from the UK main Gender Identity Clinic / Trans Activists were involved. ⇓

Sexual Identities.

BDSM (Bondage, Discipline, Sadism & Masochism).

“Sex Work”.

Cultural appropriation: Lesbians

Gender Performance.

Next up: THE 2019 guidance and some dissenting voices from within the BPS membership.

Share this:

Like this:

Dr H. Eli Joubert

Dr Claudio Pestano

Dr Joanna Semlyen

Gay/Gender Identity: Conversion Therapy

To avoid transmission of the POMO virus please wear a Mask?

Share this:

Like this:

Finally our old friends Stonewall. 👆.

Has there ever beeen an organisation that has trashed its reputation more thoroughly, in less than a decade, than Stonewall UK?

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: