Examining Gender Identity ideology and its impact on Women's Sex based rights and Gay Rights. Exploring how this has taken such firm root in Western societies (Cognitive & Regulatory Capture).
I thought it would be timely to add Ms Eagle to my series on Respect My Sex (to get my X), especially after her contribution in the Parliamentary debate on the definition of sex.
Angela Eagle became an MP In the 1990’s and is an open Lesbian and figures prominently on the list of gay influencers. She is also all in on the biological sex denying cult.
I began by looking at her funding which you can check at the Electoral Commission.
Apart from her Union backers Anthony Watson cropped up a fair few times. In fact she has had over £90,000 from this source.
Correction it was £97,500
Anthony Watson was the first British person to sit on the board of GLAAD. This was originally a gay rights organisation (Gays and Lesbians against Defamation) but, in an all too familiar story, is now mostly an advocate for “trans” issues.
He has donated a lot of money to the Labour Party.
GLAAD collaborated with Arcus Foundation who crop up a lot on my blog because they are a key player in embedding gender identity ideology across the world.
GLAAD have a section on their website called The Accountability Project which is every bit as sinister as it sounds.
It is effectively a black list. A U.K. journalist Helen Lewis has an entry as does JK Rowling.
The organisation, Save Women’s Sport, to stop biological men taking stealing women’s prizes also gets an entry as does any politician, or Doctor, trying to put the brakes on children being given puberty blockers, cross sex hormones and surgeries. Abigail Shrier, the author of a book on the Transgender Craze, also appears as does Deborah Soh another person skeptical about the Transgender issue.
Linda Riley and the Global Diversity Awards.
Another donor is Global Diversity Awards Ltd. That company appears to be in the middle of getting wound up and the only listed director is Linda Riley.
Linda Riley is another Lesbian who has decided to betray women. These two clips, from Private Eye will give you an idea of the calibre of this person. Riley is behind the Jack the Ripper Museum but on the planning application it said it would be a museum for women’s history. Dawn Butler is another recipient of Anthony Watson’s money.
Lord Waheed Ali
She has also received funding from Lord Ali, the first openly gay peer. He doesn’t appear to be a regular contributor in the House of Lords so I drew a blank on Hansard in terms of a clear statement of his views on Hansard.
As he works in the media it is likely that it would be social suicide to depart from the script. I did find one clip from an interview he gave on a project to raise the visibility of Gay Asians.
Andrew Davenport & Lawrence Kenright
Davenport is the maker of Telly Tubbys and In the Night Garden, children’s TV. There is nothing much to say about him on this topic. Kenright is a property developer in Liverpool who is setting up an organisation to field independent candidates in elections. The movement is called Liberate Liverpool. Here are a couple of statements following a row which broke out about one of the candidates on “transgender” issues. Guess which group don’t get a mention in their statement about intersectional issues.
That’s enough about Angela Eagle. She is unlikely to change her stance.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open. Only give if you can and don’t prioritise me over important legal cases. Every little helps.
Angela Eagle is a Labour MP and a Lesbian. She has been a Labour MP since 1992. Before I cover her contribution to the debate I just want to share some history about her funding. She has taken £95,000 from Antony Watson who is an LGBT activist on the board of GLADD, another gay rights organisation gone rogue. (Source: Electoral Commission)
Bear this in mind when you listen to Eagle. I will add a full profile about Eagle to my Respect My Sex series.
She opens with this statement which attacks the contribution of Miriam Cates as “provocative”. The fact that homosexuality is under attack with having being redefined as “same gender attraction, most prominently by Stonewall, was amply covered by the MP, Joanna Cherry. (See Part 2). Lesbians, in particular, are castigated for not including obvious men in their dating pools. To deny this, at this point, is extremely disingenuous. Eagle, herself, is in a same sex relationship and not forced to fish in these new dating pools.
Joanna Cherry attempted to intervene at this point but Angela Eagle was not going to allow facts to get in the way of her hyperbole. She continues, claiming that the current legislative situation is fine as it is and to clarify what is meant by sex would lead to incoherence! Gender Grievance warriors need the current lack of clarity it is “strategic ambiguity” and it has worked well for the activists; better than an all out assault on women’s single sex spaces, until now.
There is no paradox here, only a clear intention to ring-fence single sex spaces to the sex they are intended for, also an appeal to international human rights obligations no longer cut any ice since those same bodies are captured by gender identity ideology. Eagle presses on to suggest women are getting bees in their bonnets about a tiny minority and it is these men who would be left humiliated and damaged. We are talking about men, the females are only rolled out when the men need cover, there is little incursion into male spaces by “trans men” and they are not likely to be intimidating; while still an intrusion the consequences are vastly different.
The next statement is hysterical so she employs DARVO to label her opponents of exhibiting the behaviour of which she is in fact guilty. She burnishes her credential to demonstrate that she has always been a feminist blah blah blah.
Joanna Cherry is also a Lesbian, and Eagle here is smearing her using a stream of judgemental words; bigotry;prejudice;misogyny and homophobia. She also deploys another common tactic which is to shift the debate to the U.S context and imply that abortion rights will also be under attack if we allow this state of affairs to continue.” Let men in your bathrooms or abortion rights get it”. The legislation that Eagle is referring to are efforts to protect women from unfair competition in sport and stop children being sterilised and having mastectomies whilst they are in their teens, or younger.
Eagle finishes with this to which I would counter if we are honest that the legislation already meant biological sex we would uphold the law as it was passed. Women and girls would have the right to spaces for their own sex. We are not just talking about post operative males, with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), because there is no requirement for surgery, but surgically unaltered males who will also appear to be the men they are , on sight. Women and girls should not have our boundaries violated in this way, it’s inhumane and unacceptable.
Angela Richardson
Angela is a conservative MP. She points out that while we’ll intentioned the attempt to bring all the different characteristics together, in one single act, has led to a lack of clarity which is harming people. (I have seen people argue for legislation on one axis because whenever you put women into a group with another minority it’s the women who get forgotten). She also makes an excellent point which undermines Eagles pretence that we are making a fuss about a tiny number of people. We are not. We gave an inch and they took a mile.
As Richardson points out we are now in a position where, even where services are advertised for one sex, women don’t know if they are truly single sex. A GRC does not confer an automatic right to breach women’s boundaries.
I am still trying to understand how, even with sex clarified, in law, service providers can be confident about enforcing this while the Gender Recognition Act exists and people are allowed to get sex falsification certificates (GRCs), from the government.
Richardson has a “radical” solution. Provide separate services for males and females were sex matters. Accommodate people, as far practicable, who are not comfortable in spaces for their own sex. What is not acceptable, and has happened, is that the mens remain mens, because urinals, and the women’s is converted to unisex.
Richardson finishes with the revolutionary idea that men, inflight from their sex, are not the same as women, we have different needs and by attacking single sex spaces it is clear that our interests are often diametrically opposed to the men colonising women.
Jess Phillips
This was interesting from the woman who was a sponsor of a bill to promote the idea of men being allowed to make “gender identity” a protected characteristic in lie of “gender reassignment” into the opposite sex category. She also opposed the spousal exit clause, which allowed women to seek divorce before their truth was rewritten in favour of their husband retconning his narrative:
I have written a longer piece on Jess Philips here.
You will see why I was skeptical about her intervention but she did in fact embrace the need for clarity. My interpretation is that she is seeing a change in the direction of travel and has decided to join the winning side. Send is still allowing herself wiggle room seemingly uncomfortable about saying she is on one side or another. She also says that every “trans” person she knows doesn’t deny their sex. This is not the same thing as saying no “trans” person denies their sex is real. We all know that sex denialism is a key feature of trans activists rhetoric.
Yes, we know you did, which is why it has been a puzzle to see you so reluctant to speak up.
So Jess finally speaks up and acknowledges that sex discrimination is because of biology, the Equality Act is not working, and women need services for women only. Women who offer single sex spaces are also being decommissioned because they don’t also run services for men (and she doesn’t mean “trans-identified” men. She covers herself by saying she has, while working for Birmingham council, commissioned services for LGBT people. I will leave you to read the rest of Phillips contribution on Hansard. For me, it’s too little, too late, but at least it suggests she has seen the writing on the wall.
Next up Peter Bottomley, Rosey Duffield and Nick Fletcher.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)
After the debate is opened a Conservative MP, Ranil Jayawardena, the first to speak. I had not heard of him before but, it turns out he voted against making LGBT teaching in schools compulsory, in 2019.
As a mum of a gay son I entirely share his position. Parents should have the right to opt out of sex education, it is the means by which our kids are indoctrinated into “gender identity ideology” and, as I never tire of saying, this is very harmful to proto-gay kids.
His statements are clear and unequivocal.
He has also done his homework. I suspect most parents aren’t aware that schools have abandoned single sex facilities on this scale. I have written extensively on the corruption in the NHS but even I am shocked at the starkness of hospital policies which think it’s O.K to abandon single sex services.
It is particularly enraging that these are the same hospitals that have such a lamentable record on sexual assaults on their watch.
He is very clear what is at stake and how the march of this ideology, through our institutions, is harming the most vulnerable in our society. He is also right that women’s rights are being stolen out from under us, with some foolish women aiding and abetting them.
He calls for clear, common sense language and clarity in law, he also comments that it should not take bravery to say these things. I imagine the reaction to this next statement would have induced conniptions in TRA twitter.
Useful idiot, Layla Moran, interjects to throw in one of the TRA misdirections about “intersex” ; which he bats away, effortlessly.
Joanna Cherry
Next up is SNP, MP, Joanna Cherry. Cherry argues that the law is muddled and we urgently require clarity that sex means biological sex but not sex as modified by a Gender Recognition Certificate. I disagree on this next point but she is a politician and a lawyer so she may just wish to get people to understand that GRCs are handed out to men with penises. She is on the Advisory board of Sex Matters and her position is not for repeal.
Cherry gives a bit of legal background to the way confusion has been built into the law but her focus moves onto the impact this has on the protected characteristic of sexual orientation.
Cherry goes on to take aim at Stonewall who have unilaterally amended the definition of sexual orientation to “same gender” attracted which has had the effect of men who cross-dress identifying as Lesbians. She calls out the homophobia implicit in this stance.
She also has a pop at one of Scotland’s “Trans” lobby groups with a name that suggests it’s for equal rights for all. Cherry makes it clear they don’t speak for her:
She finishes by referencing a few of the women’s groups that have supported her.
Miriam Cates.
Cates is a Conservative MP, and a former biology teacher.
Cates then brings up a legal case which lays out the issues in a stark bollocks naked kind of way. 👇
She rightly points out how destabilising this is for society.
This next statement is about to trigger one of our Scottish MPs. She’s not holding back.
Hannah Bardell, of the SNP, is not happy with this language calling it unparliamentary and anti-democratic!
In part three we see Angela Eagle and Jess Phillips.
You can support my work by takingr out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute.
I have written about the Samaritans before, mainly because I was puzzled about why they consistently fail to hold “Trans” lobby groups to account, for their egregious use of ,discredited, suicide statistics. Here is what I found:
In the first blog I discovered their historic links to the Beaumont Society, an organisation for fetishistic transvestites, who later found a way to sanitise their erotic motivations under the “Trans” umbrella. What I wasn’t aware of was the “Brenda Line”;this was a dedicated line for men who wished to talk to the volunteers, but their purpose was masturbatory.
Samaritans was founded by an Anglican minister by the name of Chad Verah. He was motivated, to set up the organisation. after officiating at a funeral for a 13 year old suicide victim. She had begun menstruating and thought the blood indicated she had contracted venereal disease. Reportedly, this inspired the reverend to not only set up the help line but also to begin sex education for the young people in his youth club.
He was further inspired to set up a dedicated helpline for masturbating men, in response to a member of staff who asked “What to do about obscene calls?”.
His response was “befriend them” and the Brent line was born. This was later rechristened the “Brenda Line” after objections from the Brent Office.
Varah wrote a manual for staff which is now housed at the Wellcome collection. Apparently it was very amusing 😳.
Varah had a side hustle as a sex therapist and writer for porn magazines which may explain his relaxed attitude to the women who provide this service, for men, because, as we shall see, it was women who had to take the pervert calls.
There is more on this theme revealed when Varah was interviewed by the Washington Post, while on a tour of the United States, funded by Penthouse magazine. Varah had written for Forum magazine, a sister publication to Penthouse, he was also a sex therapist.
He was an advocate for using pornography and did so with impotent men which is ironic because there are now rising rates of erectile dysfunction in young men which is convincingly linked to excessive use of pornography.
So, after this context about Varah, let’s get back to the masturbators. Some of them were calling to cause distress women. He classified them into “befriendable” and those who were not and some of them were manipulative psychopaths.
Of course some of them were calling for a laugh or boys wanting to know about sex. The staff were encouraged to engage with them and teach the callers useful information, about sex, whist ignoring the ongoing masturbation. Some were classified as lonely men who were unable to form relationships with women and Varah believed the women who worked the Brenda line could help these men form respectful relationship with women. However, there were other types of callers….the fetishists and transvestites.
Another group of callers were sadi-masochists which, from my reading, has an overlap with the men who identify as “trans” identified males. This was Varah’s instruction to the phone handlers. Basically these men are using the Samaritans as free phone sex lines.
In this part of the guidance the callers could even come to the premises in person and, if I am reading this correctly, do their masturbation in person. 😳
Another group were young men who liked exposing themselves to women who reminded than of their mothers. Notice how this is framed to blame the mother for the son’s paraphilia. A story as old as time.
Reading this next bit made me think I should research whether any women who worked at the Samaritans were ever murdered! Oh, a manipulative psychopath, let’s invite him round.
I didn’t find any cases of Samaritan’s volunteers being murdered but I did find this case from 2004.
Apparently it is policy to enforce confidentiality even when callers share intelligence about crimes that have committed and, presumably, ther desire to commit a crime.
So who were the women who were talking to these men? Because it was all women. Men could not be trusted. But, in any case, the Brenda callers were invariably men and would put the phone down if a man answered.
The level of expectation on these volunteers seems like a dangerously unregulated experiment.
The manual recognised that be manipulative to get their sexual gratification and i am struck by the similarities between the mass unleashing of male fetishists calling themselves “transgender” and treating all women like an extension of the Brenda project. All women are now being coerced to be therapeutic aids for autogynephiles by emotional blackmail , suicide threats and now we are passing laws to compel this. Time for the Duluth Wheel.
The end of the Brenda Project.
The common objection was that the women felt like “unpaid prostitutes” . It seems like the “M” calls were not to be tolerated any more, which Varah thought was “prudish”. In his autobiography he describes the policy of the charit “ the Samaritans were willing to liston, calmly to tales of murder, massacre, mayhem and matricide…but not masturbation”
When the Samaritans droppped the Brenda project , a year after Varah retired, he tried to remove their Charitable registration:
Apparently the Samaritans now operate a three strikes and you are out policy, with obscene callers. You can find women talking about their experiences on line. Some are on mumsnet and other sources. Some felt violated and that the Samaritans didn’t take this seriously
Another volunteer echoes a common these about callers to the Samaritans; cross-dressing men and paedophiles. Many women commented about the rate of sexually motivated callers with some feeling the charity down played the extent of this.
Sounds as if this is another charity that needs a review.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. Only give if you can afford it and if there are currently other causes more important for your woman tax then give there.
This is the week we finally got a debate, in Parliament, about the clarification of “sex” in law. I will do a series on the points made in that debate and some of the key speakers. In doing so I hope to develop my thinking around this topic. Lobby groups, for the “T” have benefited from the strategic ambiguity over biological sex, indeed, this was their intention. Nobody was pretending to be confused about “sex” when women’s sex barred us from the vote , certain professions, or even the ability to take out a mortgage. It seems straightforward that we cannot protect women from sex discrimination if we can’t define sex. What makes me hesitant about the revision of the Equality Act is our legislators may take the opportunity to strengthen the concept of “legal” sex and embed gender identity ideology deeper into the law. Nevertheless this debate helped showcase the arguments and it is to be welcomed.
Ultimately I would like the “Gender Recognition Act” repealed which is an argument that makes people nervous. Quite simply, there is no other class who is forced to accept the appropriation of our very existence by the group that causes such harm to women. Our society has developed an infrastructure so we can escape men, when we at our most vulnerable. Trans lobby groups, such as Stonewall, openly campaigning to dismantle female only, single sex spaces. (From the publicity campaign for the launch of a document called Vision For Change 2017 -22.)
The debate
The debate was opened by the Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi. She acknowledges how contested this issue is, dividing political parties and family and friends. She also comments that there is a real fear about speaking on this topic but, also, relief that it is finally being discussed, in Parliament.
The first intervention comes early from Liberal Democrat MP, Layla Moran, who offers a counter view that her constituents have contacted her to say they are “scared” that this is going to be discussed and claiming it will cause “a rise in hatred and violence”.
An elected MP saying that discussing women’s rights causes a spike in hate! Here is Layla answering a question about whether she would be happy to share changing rooms with a fully intact man.
Tonia responds like a grownup, something sadly lacking on this topic. At least we have some adults back in the room.
What is at stake is outlined in her next statement. Female sports, single sex spaces for women, at our most vulnerable moments. The right to have our boundaries respected whether that is in changing rooms or health care. The right for same sex attracted people to have free association with others of the same sex.
Unbelievably Lesbians in Tasmania have already lost the right to exclude men from Lesbian groups.
Tonia then explains that she has met with people from LGB Alliance and the LesbianProject to understand their concerns. As she points out, without recognising biological sex we may as well dispense with the protected characteristic of “sexual orientation”. It is noticeable that there are a plethora of “trans” only groups and nobody is going around threatening their rights of assembly, the same cannot be said for Lesbian events.
Research needs to be able to legally distinguish actual Lesbians for data gathering purposes.
This argument extends to all women. Already we have had debates , in the House of Lords, and House of Commons, which looks at the health needs of Lesbians, Bisexual and “Transwomen”. It makes no sense to look at these groups together, “transwomen” are biologically male so the correct comparator should be females that claim a “trans” identity.
Putting validation above facts doesn’t just damage women’s health, it helps obscure the health impacts of “transgender medicine”. My son now has an increased risk of multiple sclerosis nearly at x 7, added to a genetic predisposition from me. We need to research this based on biological sex. 68% of people who get MS are female, but males have a worse prognosis. I need to know if my son is l more at risk of male pattern MS and we won’t find out if our research is based on fantasy, not reality.
Tonia has also spoken to “trans” lobbyists who want the confusion in the Equality Act to remain. They claim that there is no opposition to men using women’s spaces. This is a blatant lie. 👇
So, “transwomen” are at risk if they use spaces for men so women have to budge up, no matter how uncomfortable, or fearful, this makes us? Does anyone think women deserve human rights?
This is who Tonia spoke to before the debate. Dr Paul Martin, from LGBT Foundation, who I covered in my series on the guidance he drew up for the NHS Confederation. He drips with contempt for the female sex. You can find out more about him here:
Also Nancy Kelley of Stonewall infamy. Nancy is a Lesbian who thinks you are are “sexual racist” if you don’t consider “transbians” a.k.a men, as part of your dating pool. can read more about Nancy Kelly here:👇
Male barrister, Robin Moira White, often crops up to claim that all women have accepted him in the female facilities and are not made uncomfortable with his presence. If they were, would they dare say? Here is Robin with noted trans-activists ChrisBurns, Jane Fae, and James Morton.
Robin has a tenuous grasp on reality and believes that we can believe Robin is a man but should not be allowed to express these beliefs.
Dr Finn Mackay, describes herself as a “queer male” and is wheeled out to argue that women like her are at risk of being challenged in female facilities. Nobody who has seen footage of Mackay would be left in any doubt about her sex.
Dr Finn Mackay deserves a deep dive herself. She describes herself as a radical feminist. 8 years ago she spoke out against legalising prostitution, which must make her an outlier in “queer” circles. Here she is promoting her work on a channel hosted by a man who claims to be a woman. Both Mackay and the man explain that they could not be Lesbian/Gay because they need their partner to be attracted to them as a kind of “queer male” or a “trans woman”.
This quote 👇 , from Antoniazzi’s opening statement, expresses that authoritarian nature of the trans-stasi who even have the gall to try to mandate what we allowed to think.
Antoniazzi also spoke to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) who agreed that clarification of “sex” to mean “biological sex” would bring clarity in some areas but “potential ambiguity in other areas”. I would like to see legal opinion about where this ambiguity might occur.
Next intervention is from a MP , Lloyd Russell-Moyles the honourable member for Brighton. He is keen to claim that there had always been an intention to introduce “Self-ID” policy. ( This would allow a self-declared statement of what sex you are.)
I have written about Russell-Moyles before. He made the following statement, about a young relative of his, in a parliamentary debate about what should be taught, in schools, on the topic of sex education. Somebody needs a refresher training on child safeguarding.
This MP has been campaigning against single sex spaces since his University days. He was also involved in an outfit that strategised to provide sex education, to children, behind parents backs. I wrote about that here.
This was the response to Russell-Moyle’s intervention. 👇 Tonia rightly points out that the discussion has moved on from 2004. Worryingly she seems amenable to codifying “non-binary” in law. We will need to be vigilant as we will see the horse trading and appeasement of the “trans” lobby, particularly as the Civil Service seem particularly captured.
Despite the note of caution there are some important voices weighing in and this is critical. We need to start from the basis of “shared facts” and get away from the emotive language so beloved of our political class.
I will turn this into a series covering the highlights from the rest of the debate. A link to the written record of the debate is below.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. We need to redress the balance cos the other side have billionaires on their side. Most marginalised my a**.
This is part two looking at the organisation who published a guide to dealing with “trans” and “non-binary” patients and staff. In part one I looked at Matthew Taylor, Chief Executive, and touched upon their recruitment of ex mermaids staff. You can read part one here: 👇
Since writing part one it has been pointed out that the NHS Confederation is a charity whose members are drawn from NHS Trusts and other providers of NHS Services. Their guidance may be influential but it is not binding in any way. I notice that, until March 2022, one of the trustees was Paul Jenkin of the Tavistock and Portman, NHS, Trust.
In this post I will look at this guidance: 👇 (PDF embedded in part one).
This document drips with contempt for patients, particularly women. I imagine there are many males who would prefer same sex care but the implications for women have an additional layer of concern. That anyone who works in this sector can publicly trash women’s right to set their own boundaries is rape adjacent. The two men who wrote the introduction to this document should be held accountable.
The guidance was drawn up by the extremist, “trans” lobby group, LGBT Foundation.
The guidance begins by claiming victim status and the usual hyperbole relying on self-reports and the manipulated hate crime statistics. I don’t think we need lend any credence to these statements, they are designed to appeal to emotion. I think it’s worth including this clip which references women’s experience but, even then, elevates the experiences of “trans” and “non-binary” people to “most victimised” because of their “trans” status.
There is a nauseating section on how to be the best “ally” and how, to be effective, we must learn about the culture, language etc of this community. This bit is easy. Learn the popular phrase “Punch a Terf” and how to wield a baseball bat and the new tradition of covering yourself in Urine outside the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
The guidance also says that these discussions may make allies uncomfortable about their own identity and a good ally should just “sit with their discomfort” . This message is, no doubt, meant for women uncomfortable about getting intimate care from men.
The guidance does address to Fostater ruling because the belief in the reality of biological sex is now legally protected. The guidance does it’s best to undermine this ruling by emphasising that it is not a carte blanche to “mis-gender” anyone. They also go to some lengths to advise people how to label Freedom of Information requests as “vexatious” and to avoid compliance with these requests as well as how to deal with “hostility” on social media. That the guidance anticipates hostility, online and from patients and family members, shows they are aware that many /most people will be against these “reforms” and, in their arrogance, they decided to press ahead anyway.
Naturally training on “gender identity” is to be mandated and you can bet LGBT Foundation delivers, and profits, from this training/indoctrination. Only “gender identity” is singled out for universal and mandatory training. I guess the rest of the protected characteristics don’t need the propaganda campaign.
The provision of single sex toilets as male or female was singled out for criticism.
Though focus group discussions a preference was expressed for mixed sex facilities not to replace male /female the guidance still says that the special rainbow people can override other staff’s consent.
They add a caveat about communal showers but couch it in terms of the “trans” person’s comfort. Too chicken shit to mandate keeping men out of female facilities they argue it should be decided on a “case by case” basis. That’s not leadership, it’s cowardice.
Another example of describing the law not as it is but as Stonewall wish it to be. Now the legally protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” is to be jettisoned; aided and abetted by the useful idiots on the Women And Equalities Committee. Claiming it covers “non-binary” identities is just an outright lie; as is “non-binary” as a category of person. They also argue it covers “gender fluid”. I despair of every politician who pretends to believe there is even such a thing as “non-binary” a confected identity born out of excessive rumination.
All of this guidance centres the “trans” person and, not content with stealing the word woman they also appropriate “female”. Notice in this clip 👇 the women are positioned as the abusers not the man violating women’s boundaries. Classic D.A.R.V.O.
The guidance does cover people’s right to request single sex care but then claims there is no legal right to know the sex of the person providing you with intimate care! If a woman requests single sex care and, in the unlikely event of a man successfully passing himself off as a woman, he violates this request I would regard this as sexual assault.
They do acknowledge that a female who has been sexually assaulted, by a man, may request a female but then follow it with a concern for the “trans” person. If a woman has been requested and a “trans woman” is assigned to give the care the employee should check that the “trans” person is comfortable with providing the care! There are many issues. Firstly is the hospital is requiring disclosure of sexual assault history to even be considered for female only care? Secondly they think it is OK to still over-ride her consent but only if the man with special “ladyfeelz” is comfortable with it. What kind of sociopath would sign this off?
This next clip again reiterated that only people “thecomfort of the staff member should be prioritised” and emphasises that their “validation” takes precedence over the rights of patients.
The patient who refuses to accept treatment from an obvious man is a bigot. 👇. I should add that the document is littered with references to a zero tolerance policy to harassment and threats of disciplinary action , for staff, and exclusion from the hospital for patient’s family. Even going so far as to threaten a delay in treatment or requiring the patient to find another hospital.
As low as it is to use patients as a captive audience for your social experiment adding to the trauma of a dementia patient is next level barbarity. Note that the sinister call for this to be documented!
Here is a reminder of the Nursing and Midwifery Council.
I have read many documents for this series and unfortunately this is now common across many NHS Trusts. This is a systemic problem which has been allowed to get out of control under a Conservative government but would, I fear, be much worse under Liberal Democrats and Labour. We urgently need a new political force which is unabashed about centring the rights of women.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open. Even small amounts help to offset the massive disparity in the money, from global foundations and governments to socially engineer the primacy of gender identity ideology. Resist!
Before I delve into the content I want to revisit Matthew Taylor, the head of the NHS Confederation. He decided to listen to an extremist, “trans” lobby group; LGBT Foundation; in the news, recently, for attacking the only charity exclusively for Lesbians /Gays/Bisexuals. LGBTFoundation joined with the charity Mermaids to try to strip LGB Alliance of its charity status. We have not yet had the outcome of that case but, in the intervening time, Mermaids has been put under investigation, by the Charities Commission,
It turns out I have written about Matthew Taylor before; when he appeared on the Moral Maze, when he was CEO of the Royal Society for the Arts (RSA). He was a supercilious, arrogant man on that show and, I said at the time, it was a worry that he had moved on to the NHS. I decided to revisit his contribution on the Moral Maze before writing about the guidance.
In the introduction Michael Buerk lays out the issues pretty well. The making of female changing rooms, even “open” ones, mixed sex; the introduction of “trans” issues to children via schools; the sky rocketing referrals to “gender” clinics and concern about medicalisation of children. He also lays out the implications for rape crisis, domestic abuse refuges and single sex wards. This was when self-identified “gender” was still on the cards, After this introduction what does Mr Taylor have to say? Right out of the starting gate he shows no empathy for women.
He listened, in silence to Jane Fae /John Ozimek who told bare faced lies about puberty blockers. Ozimek is a defender of extreme porn. He also had no questions for James Caspian who raised medical ethics and detransitioners. Furthermore he remained silent during Stephen Whittle’s testimony. After sitting in silence while Stephen Whittle claimed she did not want to reorganise society to accommodate her, he decided to lob this question at the next speaker, Heather Brunskell-Evans. This comment had far more relevance to the demands of Fae and Whittle, who are demanding the world be reorganised so they can live a lie.
He continues with this, illustrating his lack of grasp on feminist thought and alignment with “trans” ideologues. Women want to liberate women from sexist stereotypes but Matthew thinks they are innate. Proponents of “gender identity ideology” think if you don’t align with the stereotypes, for your sex, you can carve them into, and out of, your flesh.
Heather comments that these “choices” are in the context of social norms. Matthew thinks that women are still choosing to be “feminine” demonstrating that he believes in these regressive, sexist stereotypes. He also thinks boys /girls, at odds with the expectations for their sex, should be able to modify their body to conform.
This was his final position. I wonder if this is how he landed the job as head of the NHS Confederation?
He clearly attached more weight to the testimony of Fae, who was disingenuous, in the extreme, about puberty blockers and Whittle who denied that she is trying to force the world to be reorganised to enable her disassociation. from her sex.
I would be very interested to know how this sociology graduate, with a Masters in Industrial relations, came to be regarded as a suitable candidate for this role.
Another senior employee has pronouns in his bio.
Most shocking of all they have an ex Mermaids employee.
Next up I will have a deep dive into the guidance which, in my view, should result in senior people losing their posts.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. Even small amounts are appreciated to enable me to sustain me and offset the billions going to shore up this ideology.
I did not think I would be back here but it seems Oxfam have learnt nothing. To celebrate Pride they decided to commission a video. It didn’t take long for people to draw the obvious conclusion. This was yet another attack on women using the mysogynist slur “terf”. It was, of course, meant to depict Rowling, in the most unflattering light and to strip her of any appearance of being female. It was the definition of hateful.
Such was the outcry they were forced to edit the video and issue a public statement. There was every intention to depict J.K Rowling and to attack women who are standing up for sex based rights. In the U.K the right to hold “Gender critical” beliefs is protected, in law as a “philosophical belief”. This is where we are in 2023, it is a FACT that it is impossible to change your sex but, because of our naive political class, this truth is becoming unsayable. Below Oxfam make it clear that, irrespective of your sexual characteristics your “gender identity” is valid. This is signalling adherence to the #LadyPenis belief system.
They also sent an internal email claiming that overall feedback was positive 😳 but there had been some backlash and apologising that the coverage may upset some “trans” colleagues but nothing for staff who may be gender critical and labelled “Terfs”.
This is the filmmaking company responsible. They appear to be based in Bangalore and claim to be “woman led”. They have now protected their tweets.
The edited video is now up and it is hardly better. The new version promotes double mastectomies and pushes the idea of a “chosen family”.
It contains the usual transperbole and this signals a willingness to sacrifice women’s sport.
Stonewall.
So why are Oxfam (U.K) proselytising gender identity ideology? One clue is in their “Head of Influence” .
Turns out Sam Dick spent 5 years at Stonewall. 2015 is the year Stonewall took $100,000 from ArcusFoundation to add the T to LGB.
Turns out he was also seconded to the Government Equality Office during his time at Stonewall.
Govt Equality Office
Guess who was Head of Strategy at the Govt Equality Office during this period? A trans-identified male known as Alison Pritchard. I wrote about Pritchard some time ago.
Pritchard is now the Deputy Head of the Office for National Statistics who botched the (once every 10 years) opportunity to garner accurate census data, despite losing a legal challenge to their idea that you can self-identity your sex. So confusing was the census that we have ended up with an implausibly high number of “trans” people in areas with a high density of people with English as a second language.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. Every contribution matters if we are to turn back the tide on this madness.
This is the third in my series on this man. For this blog I am going to concentrate on his work with a Bradford based charity. The charity/company in question is BRADFORD LGBTQ+ STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP LTD.(Company number 05545105). Tweedale was involved for three years so I had a look at the accounts only during the period he was active.
At that point in time they were coming to the end of a National Lottery Grant but they managed to secure some funding through the Tudor Trust; who have cropped up a few times on my block as a group who funds LGBTQ+ issues.
Here they talk about their links to Braford University; we heard in part 2 that Tweedale gave a talk at Bradford University about why the T should be attached to the LGB.
One of the trustees whose tenure overlapped. with Tweedales was a Professor from Bradford University, Ian Burkitt.
He is now an Emeritus Professor and this is what he says about his work. Researching “social contexts in which we become particular social beings”, latterly “broadened to include forms of human embodiment”.
The charity /company also received funding from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust who have also appeared on my blog a few times. Notice the forced-teaming with Black and Ethnic Minority groups and a reference to the DWP National Diversity group of which Tweedale is a member. Apparently he was piloting work on a “Trans” Equality Pledge which has signed up Braford and Leeds Health Trusts.
More partnership working with NHS Trusts, plus Age Concern, Age U.K. Alzheimer’s society and of course Bradford Metroplotan District Council.
Here we have grants from Bradford Council and our old friends the Arts Council, who you may remember stripped a grant from LGB Alliance.
More funding details. Joseph Rowntree grant was £30,000, the Dept for Public Health nearly provided nearly £50 grand and nearly £10 grand for Wakefield Primary Care Trust.
The one amount identified for a Women’s Group, donated by the Lesbian Identity Project, was a staggering £117. Yes just over a hundred pounds, to to help with room booking costs.
I had a look at the Lesbian Identity Project. This is there blurb. So not just Lesbians then.
Sure enough a trans-identified male features prominently.
Another pot of money came from the Police and Crime Commissioner and they also had input to the NHS Equality and Diversity Strategy.
The money from West Yorkshire police force pushed hate crime reporting. Remember there is no hate crime category that covers women.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. Every amount helps me to sustain my work.
This is my second piece on Tweedale; a civil servant who proposed a motion, as part of his union work, to demonise women, defending our sex based rights, as akin to fascist. He also makes the testerical claim we are planning to enact a genocidal plan for “trans” people. See below:
This is him.
In part one I covered an interview that this man did with West Yorkshire’s Deputy mayor, Alison Lowe. Lowe has form on promoting trans-identified males and attacking LGB Alliance. I decided to make it a series because he did another interview and makes some claims about being promoted by a Permanent Secretary in the Civil Service. For those who are not aware a Permanent Secretary is the senior civil servant, who supports the Minister, in a government department, the Minister is an elected official, the civil servant is not elected and many of them appear to have forgotten this. He was also involved in a Bradford Charity so I want to look at them, that will need to be in another piece. Link to part one below.
Jade Beckles is herself involved in the Diversity and Inclusion Industry but has a background in the police. Her linkedin shows a sixteen year career in the police about which she has this to say. 👇. I find it interesting that she claims child protection as one of her responsibilities but there also appears to have been a heavy emphasis on Diversity and Inclusion. Don’t misunderstand me, we need more black women in policing and to tackle racism, I am just not convinced that this batch of race equality specialists have got the right approach.
She also set up a group for black women embarking on motherhood. That sounds like an excellent initiative giving the appalling mortality rate for black women. Following a year or so running her own consultancy she now has salaried role and it is in this capacity she is interviewing Saorsa/Simon
The introduction covers all of Saorsa’s roles as the national advisor on trans issues for the Dept of Work and pensions (DWP) and he sits on the national LGBT+ group for the TUC. He goes on to explain what these roles mean, in practice.
He proceeds to talk about his work with schools etc.
On his “rapid rise” at the DWP it’s not clear if he is referring to career based promotion or appointments as the co-chair of the local and then national Gender Network. The gender network appears to be the network intended for women because he then proceeds to complain there was no “trans” network and the LGB network excluded him because it was run by someone who wanted it to focus on sexual orientation. He and another trans-identified male set up the first “trans” network. When the organisation decided to dissolve these networks and, instead, set up a body to advise on equality issues across the board, Tweedale became a member, automatically, having been displaced from his role as chair for the gender network.
He remained on the advisory committee for four years and claims that the Permanent Secretary became aware of all Tweedale’s work he directly intervened, with his line manager, to insist that Tweedale was able to continue.
Having looked at the list of Permanent Secretaries who may be responsible It may be Sir Robert Devereaux. This is from the Financial Times, it’s behind a paywall but this preview seems a fit. 👇(He retired in 2018 after 10 years in the role).
Tweedale was allowed to write his own job description, according to him, and set his key objectives. I find his involvement in policies, which affect women, deeply sinister. He is clearly unable to hide his glee.
At this point I would bear in mind the concept of “Dupers Delight” which is the pleasure experienced when you have managed to deceive/manipulate a person or organisation.
In the next section, Tweedale is asked what are the challenges faced by the “Transgender” community and he talks of hostile forces outside the DWP. Alarmingly he then claims that he has had a role in advising senior leaders on the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act in particular in relation to “safe” spaces, by which he means, but won’t say, single sex spaces. In a revealing moment he claims “my job is not to proselytise”.
He then says senior leaders don’t know what to do when they are asked questions like this; “What is your policy on single sex spaces?” . He suggests they panic and turn to him. In response Tweedale explains he has to correct “misinterpretations” of the law! Guess which group he prioritises?
Beckles response displays a breathtaking misunderstanding of the law.
This what the company which employs Beckles says about itself.
Tweedale explains he has to emotionally detach himself to give professional advice; which must be correct. He than says the law sets the minimum but people should always strive to follow best practice. This sounds like to “go beyond the law” advice which I covered in a another piece on Global Butterflies; another organisation led by a trans-identified male, which you can read here:
He says people in leadership positions need to bridge the gap between policy and practice, they should also capture data on trans and non-binary identies and also ensure there is visibility for these staff. Then he follows up with advice on ways for applicants to hide their sex. Surprisingly he concedes that organisations should provide single sex facilities because “there will always be people who say they need them for religious or cultural reasons”. However he thinks gender neutral, a.k.a mixed sex, facilities are best practice. He also claims “this is not even controversial.. it’s just common sense”. Proving, once again, that this is a man talking.
Then he says pronoun display is important and also that you should not make a fuss if you get a new “trans” employee. How this ties in with the calls for visibility I don’t know.
I took a far different interpretation from this statement than, I am sure, was intended.
The interview ends with a touch of sycophancy and a statement about how Tweedale is having such an impact. Beckles clearly thinks this is a good thing. She needs to learn about autogynephilia. After I did the last piece I realised this was the same man I have seen in Bradford Train station, wearing ludicrously short skirts and fishnet stocking. . Apparently he is known locally as “Geriatric, Gothic, Lolita”
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. Every amount helps sustain me in this fight.
