Jane Fae: Trans Britain (Part 13)

“Jane” Fae.

Can’t quite believe I have never covered Fae before. Fae has his own chapter in the book “Trans Britain”. Fae is another, heterosexual, man who married, fathered children and, when he hit middle age, began to identify as a woman. In his previous name “John Omizek” he was a defender of extreme porn and has published on this topic in the Guardian, Index on Censorship, Liberty etc. He has also self-published a book called “Taming The Beast” which also explores the attempts to regulate pornography.

You can read Fae on porn in this article. This article was originally published as John Omizek.


The article defends extreme pornography, dismisses feminist’s who expose the harm of this material, uses the language of the “coven” to describe those “witches” who oppose pornography and even appears to question the idea that men, who possess violent pornography, might be unsuitable for some forms of employment. Here are a coups of clips.

Above ☝️ Fae displays his witch-finder general side. Below is his view on the possession of extreme pornography. 👇

Apparently a chill wind has passed over the practitioners of sadomasochism. Fae paints the Labour party as the prudish maiden aunt of politics. Fae himself is a Liberal Democrat.

His chapter in Trans Britain introduces him as a “feminist” and journalist. Like a lot of these men have a background in I.T and an interest in preserving the rights of purveyors of extreme pornography.

Fae’s chapter repeats much of the ground by other contributions so I won’t detain you with much of the detail. He analyses coverage of the “trans” community in print media complaining that it tended to to be treated as if it was a sexual kink. I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest Fae’s “kink” and interest in BDSM is his route into the identity of “transwoman”. As if enjoying being hurt during sex is the essence of being “female”; a not uncommon attitude from the penis wing of “womanhood”.

He is not alone. Here are some prominent “trans” identifying males pontificating on what it means to be a “women” to them. These are the extremely sexist fantasies of porn-addled men.

Fae allows himself a detour to attack Janice Raymond’s book “Transsexual Empire” which I cover in this series.

Janice Raymond: Transsexual Empire: Final

He also takes side swipes at Germaine Greer and Julie Bindel, who he has debated a few times. You can find some of his debates,with Bindel, on YouTube should you wish to see him in action. In one he appeared alongside Bindel and Milo Yiannopolous; where he ostentatiously produced his knitting; a common hobby in behavioural autogynephiles.

Much of his chapter is repetitive but I do want to single out this one quote 👇 which lies about the law to claim that “transgender” is a legally protected characteristic. It is not. The protected characteristic, in law, is “Gender Reassignment”. The GRA is a very badly drafted piece of legislation but it does not do what Fae says here. 👇

In Trans Britain Fae links the backlash to the election of Donald Trump which, he argues, unleashed anti-trans sentiment and imported narratives about “bathroom” usage to the U.K. This resulted in a plethora of articles he labels “anti-trans” from a range of media outlets.

Along the way Fae finds time to attack coverage of the medical malpractice of Russell Reid which I covered here:

Russell Reid: Part One

Fae expresses his misogyny in interviews on YouTube and on his twitter account. This is one interview well worth a listen. The trans activist has rather a puerile introduction which relies on the scatalogical humour of the adolescent male. You might want to fast forward that but. 😳

 Jane Fae

In this interview Fae claims that “terfs” are allied with regressive movements in the United States and the crowdfunding to defend women’s rights is a great way to launder money from across the atlantic. This is how Fae characterises gender critical feminists on his twitter account.

His interviewer goes further and calls LGB Alliance a homophobic, hate group who are supported by neo-nazis. Fae also uses the tired old trope about middle-aged women being prudes and lacking a sex life. Sigh.

Both men pretend that the women they call “terfs” have shown zero concern about male violence against women and are using faux feminist credentials as a cover for their “anti-trans” hate. These men also claim to have done more work to oppose male violence which, of course, in their minds is only perpetrated by “cisgender” men. Let us remind ourself about Fae’s work on male violence against women. This 👇 is called blaming the victim.

Coming out as “trans”

Here is an interview with Fae on coming out as “trans”.

Coming out

We learn that Ozimek had been married before and had a daughter who was 16 when he decided to “come out” as “trans”. His teenage daughter had a hard time with the transition and elsewhere blamed the stress on her failed A’Levels. This is the reason Ozimek gives for the failure of the first marriage.

There is a strategic omission about his interest in sadomasochistic practices but he does admit to an early history of transvestism; which “thrilled” and “terrified him. He gives no further details of the nature of the “thrill”.

His then partner vowed to stand by her man but it was clearly taking its toll on her:

This is Fae’s public narrative about how he came to identify as a woman. The usual sexist, regressive bullshit carefully crafted to de-emphasise any connection to a sexual motive.

Fae and partner had a five year old son. She attempts a bit of levity about now being a “lesbian”. I don’t think they remained together.

Consensual Slavery

Before I leave Fae just a reminder of when John Ozimek engaged in that most feminine of pursuits; defending Consensual slavery.

Here is advising about how to evade new laws about extreme porn even offering tips about how to clean up your hard drive.

Obscenity Laws: Darryn Walker

This is a legal case in which Ozimek appeared as an expert witness for the defence.

John Ozimek Legal case

This is what he was defending 👇

His sympathy lies entirely with the porn-addled bloke, a civil servant.

I was going to finish on the unexpected discovery that, as John Ozimek, the son of a doctor and graduate of Oxford University, was an erstwhile joke writer for Noel Edmonds. However, I read Fae’s Submission to the Transgender Equality Inquiry and came across something I found more noteworthy (and, frankly, disturbing). Fae boasts of advising an organisation dedicated to child safeguarding. Why is the U.K Council for CHILD internet safety listening to a defender of extreme porn?

If you still believe Fae got into this through an excessive love of ironing I have a bridge to sell you. Next piece, in this series, is on the delightful Annie Wallace.

You can support my work here. All donations gratefully received, or consider a paid subscription to my substack.

My substack

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


Rev Christine Beardsley: Trans Britain. (Part 8)


Rev Christine Beardsley

Beardsley is a gay male who is in a long-standing relationship but came out as “trans” in his forties. Regular readers will know that I am generally more able to find empathy with homosexuals who claim a “trans” identity. Sometimes this may lead to less objectivity and I think my reaction to Beardsley is somewhat conflicted because of my own love, for my son. Bear this in mind while reading.

As a young boy he explains that he was a very effeminate boy. I prefer to use the phrase “variant in how he expressed his masculinity” because “camp” behaviour bears little relationship to how most women behave. Women are not a “drag” costume. We exist.

Where I can express sympathy is for the little boy who knew he had disappointed his father.

Clearly this would have been distressing for a little boy shamed by crushing expectations of conformity with male sex stereotypes and then compounded by a growing awareness he was homosexual. At some point he clearly internalised that his natural inclinations were at odds with societal expectations but he also internalised the sex stereotypes as “real” which then emerges as a cross-sex identification. This is in direct conflict with a feminist project to dismantle expectations based on sex (sexism). An early history of cross dressing, in secret, must have placed intolerable pressure on him as a young boy.

I have slightly less sympathy for an adult man who refuses to look at the harm being done to the female sex. This is something I struggle with in respect of my son. I know that part of his condition began with horror at the negative experiences of women and girls, at the hands of men. However, as the impact of this ideology, on women, unfolds where is the empathy for the sex he identifies “as”? Beardsley was forty-six when his “gender identity” issues became overwhelming. He had already entered the priest hood; in a time when women were barred. This was prior to the impact on women, girls and our gay boys that we see today. At what point is it reasonable to expect someone to disassociate themselves from this harm? I think now would be a good time because every day that passes implicates any man, who claims to be women, in the harms being caused to the female sex and the children being sterilised in the name of this new religion.

His long term husband is, reportedly, supportive of his “transition”, though we don’t have his direct testimony. Having already been with him for 25 years. It is not clear if he had always been aware of his partner’s inner turmoil. The language of “true” self always raises alarms for me because it sounds quite cult like. I also find men who do this in later years, who seem overly invested in childhood medical interventions, a tad problematic. I wonder also how much his religious sensibilities play in his flight from his sex.

He takes on a tour of his growing awareness of “trans” as a boy. Virginia Prince was an early activist who remains a controversial figure in the LGBTQ community as he is on record as against “sex reassignment surgery”. April Ashley figures as does Julia Grant. He also shares a book, subsequently made into a film, I had not heard of before. Superb title: I want what I want.

As I write this film is available on YouTube. Link below. 👇

I want what I want

What Beardsley wanted to see were images of ordinary “transsexuals” and he makes an extraordinary statement about what attracted him to the priesthood. Conflating priests with women because they don’t “go out to work” and have “soft hands” and some had “high pitched voices”. 😳. The deployment of these, rather sexist stereotypes a very old fashioned and undermine the feminist project to break down these expectations on the female sex. At the same time did a small boy internalise these beliefs in such a way that he has never been able to break free? And if that is true do women have any responsibility to accommodate these males at a cost to ourselves? The answer is no.

Beardsley claims the Church of England used to be a less hostile place for gay, male, priest until the late 1970’s. At that time a more Christian Evangelical group were committed to purging gay priests from the Church of England. For Beardsley he was keeping another secret in how he perceived himself.

Eventually he had an epiphany about God’s love which lead him to come out to his congregation. He was both “coming out” and remaining in the closet as he makes clear below. Notice he also describes his experience, at a dance class, 👇 as being with “other women”.

Following changes in the law and the support of Press For Change, Liberty and a Christian organisation Sybil, Beardsley came out as “transgender”.

You can read the Gender Reassignment Regulations (1999) here:

Gender Reassignment Regulations (1999)

I am not legally trained but, whilst the intention may have been to protect occupation requirements that only a natal woman can perform certain roles I imagine some of the wording can be used to argue the opposite. As we have seen women’s rights to be able to reject a trans-identifying man in their spaces have been eroded following this shift and the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.

As an aside the Clare Project remains in operation to this day and has obtained funding from the National Lottery, local council the NHS as well as LGBT organisations.

As you would expect, from a Reverend there is a lot of discussion in respect of the position of the Church of England to a “transition” and other Vicars who have taken the same route are named along the way. I won’t detain you with the details but if you are interested in this you can listen to this discussion.

Christina Beardsley & Preston Sprinkle

The only comments I will make on this podcast relate to Beardsley’s faith, misplaced in my view, in the World Professional Association on Transgender Health (WPATH) and the NHS on the treatment of Gender Dysphoria in the modern era. This discussion predates the closure of the Tavistock and the interim Cass report. At the same time coverage of the impact of Puberty Blockers predates this interview. Beardsley is also skeptical about the phenomenon of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, denies that young people are being rushed into transition and is in favour of a bill that would ban therapeutic approaches to gender dysphoria. There is also a good discussion about how it looks like gender medicine is over reliant on old fashioned sexist stereotypes. Preston Sprinkle seems to have considered the situation quite deeply and is aware of the rising rates of detransitioners. Beardsley also thinks concern about a lack of caution in transitioning our kids is a fantasy. It’s fair to say that no consensus was reached but it was a calm and compassionate exchange. I think as the medical scandal unfolds Beardsley will regret this stance. I did reach out to Tina for comment on this view.

The next chapter looks at landmarks in trans-activism.

You can support my work below at my paypal or consider a paid subscription to my substack.

My substack

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


Mermaids: Trans Britain (Part 6)



Chapter 4 covers the controversial charity, Mermaids. Using a pseudonym, a mum who “transitioned” her son speaks. At the time “Margaret Griffiths” was in her seventies so Her child will be in their forties, at least, by the time of the (2018) publication of Trans Britain.

The mother explains her route into becoming an advocate for her “daughter” while she was a stay at home mum. These two things may not be unconnected. She ended up with a role at Mermaids, on the committee, dealing with a lot of press enquiries given her availability.

Like a lot of these children “Lisa” had a history of being bullied and not fitting in at school and was also highly intelligent.

She is at pains to dispel any notion that she was unhappy about her child’s sex and claims that if she had expressed a preference it would have been for a boy as she had fond memories of the younger brother, who was ten years younger. The issue of “Lisa’s” gender identity came to a head when her son was fourteen years old and refusing to go to school.

Lisa is described as not “notably effeminate” and she “hid her problem well” . He also had not expressed any issues as a young child. What she had was a gentle son who did not like rough and tumble and who may have been a gay boy.

It is not clear what her /her husband’s attitude to having a gay son was, unlike Susie Green of modern day mermaids who made this statement in her Ted Talk.

“Margaret” sought for explanations for her son refusing to go to school and runs through a check list of issues. Again this is someone looking back in 2018 but the story bears additional scrutiny. She has just told us her son was getting bullied in the same chapter but here she says she asked him about that and she seems to have accepted his denial. He also denied being gay.

We are then told that they happened to see the story of Caroline Cossey (a “transsexual” and model who was outed by the press). She describes her reaction as one of pity for the experience Cossey was undergoing. Learning about Cossey, as she tells us, inspired her to ask her son if this was the problem.

”Lisa” was asked if he was happy being a boy and, as she describes it, his mum immediately accepted this and promised to fight for the way to deal with this problem.

This is a familiar trajectory in the parents I have covered. An immediate acceptance that this is the issue and a switch to activist mode. It maybe also be significant that she was a reader of Family Circle; which is quite a conservative publication sparking a backlash when it featured a gay couple as late as 2014.

She discovers an organisation set up by a therapist, Fran Springfield, and is disconcerted by the deep voice of the “transsexual” who answered the phone.

Things move pretty fast, from an outside perspective. We have already switched to a new name and referrals to the Childhood and Adolescent Mental Health Services end in frustration as her son is fixated on “gender reassignment”.

Soon both the G.P. and the mother are demanding action and this results in a referral to the Gender Identity Services, led by Domenico Di Ceglie.

You can read more about Di Ceglie in my series on him, below. 👇

Domenico Di Ceglie: Tavistock

“Lisa” is soon on puberty blocking drugs and the mum seems quite keen to point out her son was one of the first to be given puberty blockers, maybe even the first. Lisa seems to have embarked on this course of treatment age 14/15. (Since 2011 the Tavistock have been giving PBs to children from as young as aged ten).

Griffiths argues that the treatment is safe (and reversible) because the drugs have been used for decades in children with precocious puberty. This is a common argument and there are a few problems with it. In experiments on Sheep it was shown to lower IQ. Most of the research is on females. Girls put on lupron, in the U.S, for precocious puberty have taken legal action over the consequences. Given that Griffith’s first came across a quite beautiful model, in Caroline Cossey, and then a “transsexual” with a deep voice it seems that she is in a race against time to make sure her son “passes”.

To Griffith’s this preserves her son’s option and he will be better able to fit in. She goes on to say that allowing a natural puberty is not a neutral act.

This clip confirms the close relationship between Mermaids and the Tavistock. Griffith’s describes their relationship as one of mutual dependence.

Apparently adult “trans-identified” males were involved from the start. Given the link between computer specialists and a “trans” identity it is no surprise one of them was able to set up their website. I cannot find any information about Pamela Crossland but there is some public information about Krystyna Haywood.

Krystyna has stood for public office, for two different political parties in true trans fashion.

Haywood was also a social worker and remains on the register.

Here is a clip from an article about Haywood. The main thrust of the article was Haywood complaining that “sexual reassignment surgery” was delayed on the NHS. This is also not the first “trans” identified person who talks of the loss of a twin.

There follows a bit of a discussion about how one of the children chose the name Mermaids. Below it is made clear that the Beaumont Society were donating money. Beaumont Society started out as a support group for adult, male, transvestites. Press for Change was the organisation set up by Chris Burns and Stephen Whittle, among others. The donation from Pete Burns was a surprise to me.

Pete Burns was a pop star from Liverpool who was married for 25 years, to a woman, and then married a man, before his death at 57. Along the way he had series of extreme plastic surgeries and remedial procedures. This is Pete Burn’s speaking in his final interview which makes sense of his support for Mermaids.

The mum claims it all worked out well but Lisa still has “issues”. This is how parents justify a razor focus on “gender” to sort that out before worrying about any other issues. The other justification is that if you don’t do this your kids will commit suicide. That’s just a lie.

There is plenty more to come from this book. It seems worth it to document the links between these groups and the same names cropping up. Someone suggested I do a Spider diagram which I may do, once I figure out what one is. 😂.

You can support my work here. Thank you to those who do. You can send donations in a variety of ways. You could consider a paid subscription to my substack. I will link a Stripe and Donor box for the boycott paypal people as soon as I figure out how to do it.

My Substack


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


Carol Steele: Trans Britain (Part 5)


Who is Carol Steele?

Steele is another trans-identified male who Burns includes in his book. Remember these are selected as positive ambassadors for the “trans” movement. Steele got some coverage in the Times because he trains the Devon constabulary.

Steele and the police

In the article it highlights that Steele had weighed in on a violent assault on a woman in her sixties by a man in his twenties. (In the same article it was revealed that “Kellie” Maloney had also trained Devonshire police despite being on the record about committing violence against his ex wife).

Steele’s biography offered the usual backstory about having always known he was meant to be a girl, formulated a plan to run away to Italy having read about “Castratos”, attempted suicide… and so on. I am sure I appear dismissive in this section but I have read so many of these narratives I am afraid they all appear to me to be retconned. By which I mean established retroactively to explain a current state. There’s always a claim of childhood onset to cover up any sexual motive. That could be autogynephilia or internalised homophobia /an attraction to straight men.

Not many of these men openly admit it began by masturbating into a female relative’s, often a mum/sister, underwear. Yet we know this is the origin story for many of these men. Burns makes a slight reference to man who cross-dress for relaxation/pleasure but omits the form this “pleasure” takes.

None of this is to say Steele followed this path. On face value he appears to a homosexual male who was subject to homophobic bullying and eventually this led to internalised homophobia and the repudiation of his sex/sexuality.

I am inclined to be sympathetic, perhaps overly so, for this group of men, for reasons that should be obvious. {As a mum of this type of man my judgment may well be clouded so you should bear this in mind}. Burns explicitly rejects this framing.

Here is another quote from Steele about discovering he was attracted to boys. We learn that Steele’s father took a very dim view about “transsexuals” but not whether he had a disease for homosexuals.

He also relates a tale of violent assault from a male partner on revealing his biological sex. He does not go into as much detail in Burn’s book but he is more elaborate on his own website.

Steele’s blog

Nobody deserves any form of violence but neither is it ethical to conceal something so fundamental about yourself.

Steele was employed by the chemical industry who funded his degree and PhD. When he began hormone treatment his employer, we are told, terminated his employment. This led to Steele relocating to Devon where, we are told, he lived in stealth (lied about his sex) and ran a hair salon and had a photography business, filming children.

Steele also set up a “trans” lobby group and boasts of having trained the police and NHS staff. The NHS are also listening to his charity on the issue of “transgender children”.


Steele also volunteers with the Samaritans and is also a member of the Independent Advisory Group for the police.

The Samaritans link is interesting because I did a bit of digging on the Samaritans; because of their failure to call out the egregious use of suicide threats by the “trans” lobby. You can read that piece here: 👇

Samaritans: It is time to talk

What I had not understood was how deep the links with the Samaritans go. Burns was involved with the Beaumont Society which also set up the Beaumont Trust. Apparently the trust was set up with the Samaritans as key members and they remain so to this day.

Beaumont Society

The Beaumont society was set up for heterosexual males who cross dressed. They explicitly excluded any homosexuals, so eventually Steele parted ways with the group. Burns explains this away as not being “anti-gay” but simply wanting to distance themselves because of the prevailing attitudes to homosexuality. Quite how cross-dressing men came to take over all the Gay Lobby groups is a PhD thesis in waiting.


Feeling unwelcome at the BS was what promoted Steele to set up their own support groups. Steele describes their time there as a “nightmare” which suggests the BS were really rather unfriendly to homosexuals.

This led to the birth of transfigurations. You can watch Steele talk about this in an interview done by the local health authority.

Carol Steele

Transfigurations has a twitter account which is not very active at the moment.

Trans Devon

A quick scan of the account shows Steele to be a defender of Mermaids, in general, and Susie Green in particular. He was very keen on “trans” children being able to access puberty blockers and also to get a Gender Recognition Certificate.

He also likes to attack “Terfs”. This was an article about a man who was trans-identified and took up a post at a women’s aid refuge.

He is particularly enraged about the work of Transgender Trend.

This is turning into quite a lengthy series but there is much more to cover. I will be back with part 6. If you can support my work here is one way to do so. Or considered a paid subscription to my substack. There are trans-identified men getting paid to write about this stuff but less opportunity for those of us who call a man a man.

My Substack

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


A third Sex? : Trans Britain. (Part 4)


This piece will cover the way trans activists have appropriated people with disorders of sexual development and anthropologist’s work on the way other societies recognise people as “third genders”. In both cases the intent is to undermine facts about sexual dimorphism (there are only two sexes) and to claim “trans” people have always been with us. As is often the case the claims have a factual basis but, once appropriated by trans activists the facts are re-purposed to serve the agenda of men trapped in men’s bodies.

Third Genders

It starts off reasonably enough by accepting that labelling historical figures as “transgender” is a dangerous business. The term was only invented in the twentieth century. However, it is imperative that people believe that “trans people” have always been with us so DSDs and cultures who accept “third gender” are pressed into service. After a promising start, Burns soon veers off into magical thinking.

What people like Burns need is a script to explain who they are and, naturally enough, the labels of transvestic fetishist /autogynephile are shunned. For those who are afflicted with these paraphilia the shame causes narcissistic injury should anyone use accurate labels. More palatable explanations are, arguably, a psychological necessity and this is where “third genders” and people with DSDs come in. The different ways other cultures accommodated, mainly homosexual, men are seized upon.

The examples are real enough.

It is true that many societies found a way to accommodate homosexual men by introducing the concept of a different kind of man (it was mainly men). In some cases this may have been a more benign way of recognising gay men; though this is not to ignore the subtext that gay men are “not real men”. The story of the hjjra seems, however, to have a somewhat darker underbelly as covered by Vaishnavi Sundar in this piece.


and this one 👇 

Abduction and Castration

It seems that, in this instance, this may have always been, or has become, a way to press boys into sexual slavery to accommodate the peccadilloes (perversions) of men with an appetite for young boys.

It is noticeable that there are less examples of accommodations for females who don’t fit the sex stereotypes of their age/culture. The examples I have found allowed widows, or only daughters, to become the “man” of the house and therefore be socially sanctioned to work to support their families/inherit land. One example is the Albanian Burrneshas or “sworn virgins”.

Females have long been barred from inheritance or certain occupations and to, publicly, embark on relationships with other women. This would seem to explain the examples of women, masquerading as men, put forward by Burns. In fact he does acknowledge that, in the examples from the U.K, there were more women than men, identifying out of their sex. Burns found this “interesting”. He cannot probe further or it will topple the house of cards he is building.

There does not appear to have been negative coverage of these women, when discovered and this is surely because it is a tale of two sexes. Just as in 2022 there is less concern about females “invading” male spaces because they simple have less propensity for sexual violence and less able to overpower a man.

Burns acknowledges that in claiming women who disguised themselves to access male professions, like “James Barry”, the trans activists are appropriating women’s, often Lesbian heroines. (James Barry was female and adopted a male persona to gain access to the medical profession. Something not possible, as a woman).

Disorders of Sexual Development (DSDs).

It is often claimed that people who have a DSD, undermine the fact that we are a sexually dimorphic species. This is one of the more shameful of appropriations, because some of these conditions are life-threatening and many come with an inability to reproduce. Not only that but some of them are girls who would have had an oestrogen fuelled puberty, and have no idea they are chromosomally male until their teenage years. Having a condition called CAIS ( Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome) means a total inability to process testosterone. They will mainly be socialised as females and may only discover their predicament when menstruation doesn’t occur.

Most children with CAIS are raised as females. They usually have their testes surgically removed because undescended testes can become cancerous later on. They may need treatment to develop the vagina. They develop breasts but do not have menstrual periods and may have very little pubic and/or underarm hair. They may also need to take estrogen, a female hormone, for the rest of their lives.

Since gender identity ideology is essentially a parasitic movement the experiences of “intersex” people have been weaponised to advance the argument that trans-identified males are another kind of “intersex”. Some TRAs publicly claim to be intersex, with little evidence, and Burn’s covers the most egregious imposter, Roberta Cowell.

Cowell was an ex spitfire pilot, a motor racing, heterosexual, father of two. To access medical treatment he claimed to be “intersex”. In order to persuade his doctor he had to repudiate his children and, publicly, accuse his wife of infidelity. Something which must have earned her opprobrium in the aftermath of World War 2. He walked out on his daughters in 1948 and would never see them again. He died alone and impoverished, at the age of 93, his daughters would not find out about his death until two years later.

Burns makes some acknowledgment of this when describing the Jewish acknowledgment of 6 genders and concedes this was likely a description of DSDs:

A woman who was born with a condition called MRKH wrote about a “transsexual” who encourage the “trans” community to identify as intersex. Unfortunately the linked article appears to have been removed.

Why do TRAs claim to be intersex?

Here are the alleged contents of O’Keefe’s essay.

Lies, half truths and obfuscation

In conclusion the attempts to claim a long history of “trans people” are based on half truths and outright lies. William Shakespeare said it best:

Where there’s smoke there’s mirrors.

You can support my work here. All donations gratefully received. I know paypal has alienated many people so you could consider a paid subscription to my substack. I do this full time and there are no billionaires beating a path to my door. 😂

My Substack

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


Political Ambitions: Trans Britain. (Part 3)


Political ambitions.

There’s an interesting insert in this chapter which highlights that trans-activists work has been going on for decades and only now being noticed. Maybe this is because of the strategy outlined in The Denton’s Document: “Avoid press coverage”.

Many trans-activists got involved in various political parties to advance their agenda. I am trying not to be cynical about motivations but some of the party-hopping trans-activists suggests they are not conviction politicians, in the traditional sense.

Mark Lees

Mark Lees is a trans-identified female who held a council seat for the Liberal Democrats. Lees has quite a sad story about how he came to repudiate his sex.

Lee first came to prominence in 1986 when he took a case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Lees is a Christian who had also tried to be ordained but denied because females were precluded from ordained ministry. This is what prompted the legal fight. After this case Lees was contacted by a prominent Liberal Democrat and encouraged to pursue political office. Lees organised a meeting at the House of Commons and was involved in setting up the organisation Press For Change.

Lees does not appear to be promoting extremes and so I include only because many of the females caught up in this are in flight from their sex for complicated reasons. Some, as here, seem to be rooted in grief. Still others are autistic some struggle to accept their same sex attraction and still others reject their sexed body because of childhood sexual abuse. There are victims as well as perpetrators and even then these labels are not mutually exclusive. Blameless children can move between the two. It is also, ironically enough, very much a tale of two sexes.

Nikki Sinclaire

Sinclaire was a U.K.I.P Member of the European Parliament who was investigated over fraudulent expense claims but subsequently acquitted. Sinclaire was, allegedly, only “outed” after his period of office which lasted from 2009 to 2015.

Aimee Challenor

Aimee Challenor was a candidate for the Greens who had a previous conviction , as a minor, of threatening terrorist activity. Trans Crime cover his earlier charges (subsequently dropped) here:👇 Challenor was also a member of Stonewall’s (S.T.A.G) Trans Advisory Group.

Aimee Challenor

Challenor was investigated further when it emerged his father had been charged for the rape of a 10 year old girl, while acting as Challenor’s election agent. A crime for which he was subsequently convicted. Following an investigation, Challenor left the Green Party only to resurface in the Liberal Democrats. He was suspended from both parties. He subsequently married Nathan Knight and moved to the United States. It then turned out that his husband wrote pornographic fiction involving minors and incest. Here is how Pink News reported it:

In fact Nathan Knight had admitted he wrote this fiction. As covered by Feminist Current:

Aimee Challenor/Knight

Challenor /Knight then became a moderator on a Reddit forum, one of which was accessed by minors. He was finally removed after a protest by Reddit Users.

Challenor is an example of a kid who never stood a chance and I can feel pity for his earlier self. I dread to think what he was exposed to in the house he shared with his parents. Tragically the cycle of predatory behaviour can echo down the generations.

Sophie Cook

I have written about Sophie Cook before. Cook has the same pattern of standing for office and then standing as an independent, undermining the vote for his original party. Cook was ineligible for candidacy, second time around, because of an undeclared bankruptcy.

Sophie Cook: TRAs behind the scenes

Sophie took a place on the Women into Leadership scheme set up by U.K. Labour to redress the under-representation of women. He was not alone in doing this.

Cook was also recently announced as a “Speak Out” Champion for the Crown Prosecution Services.

Helen Belcher

Belcher has stood, unsuccessfully, for the Liberal Democrats, as an M.P twice but is a sitting Liberal Democrat Councillor. Belcher is a co-founder of Trans Media Watch. This organisation appeared in part two because Jane Fae is one of the trustees. Belcher doesn’t appear on the list of trustees and recently supported Mermaids, who are trying to strip the U.Ks only exclusively LGB charity (LGB Alliance) of its Charitable status. In that press statement Belcher does so in the name of an organisation called Trans Actual. Both Belcher and Fae are listed as Directors of Trans Actual at Companies House.

Here Liberal Democrat M.P., Layla Moran, describes Belcher as a friend. Sourced from Hansard, the official record of proceedings in the House of Commons.

Belcher also boasts of support from Ed Vaizey, a Conservative M.P.

Belcher is a heterosexual, married, father of two and was, formerly, a Christian Evangelical. It was his leadership role in the Church that inhibited him from cross-dressing at Church. Eventually he was driven to leave the Church and his wife, subsequently left the Church. You can hear Belcher talk about this in this podcast.

In this interview he claims his parents know he was “trans” from age 5 but also he became estranged from his father. His mother had died before he married. He also details his career in computing, not an unfamiliar story in trans identified males.

Helen Belcher

In this interview Belcher states that his first foray into activism was to oppose the “Spousal Exit Clause”; which allows a wife to divorce her husband if he wishes to “transition”. It is often misrepresented as a “Spousal Veto”, which is deliberate terminology designed to imply the wife can stop any change of “identity” or physical change. All she can do is exit the marriage before she is officially recorded as married to a “legal woman”.

Belcher also argues that even if “trans women” are more dangerous it is a form of apartheid to deny males access to female spaces. He claims that groups fighting for single sex spaces are waging a hate campaign and aim to eliminate “trans” people. He also says no “trans woman” will use male facilities because “Why would we put ourselves in danger?” Also this. 👇

Here are a few more statements from Belcher: This is reminiscent of Martine Rothblatt.

Absolutely no concern for the detransitioners and the harm wreaked upon Keira Bell and the nearly 40,000 young people on the detrans subreddit.

More transperbole: 👇

The above picture is a clip from one of Belcher towering over Jo Swinson, then leader of the Liberal Democrats. Worth remembering the Liberal Democrats have taken £1.4 million from the makers of puberty blockers.

Liberal Democrats & Big Pharma

Belcher also lost a complaint against The Times who he claimed were responsible for child suicides due to an article by Janice Turner. Details below: 👇

Failed Ipso Complaint

Belcher has a full chapter and perhaps in that I will find out exactly what Belcher is working on in Parliament as he mentions in the above interview. It is suggested he is an advisor to a Baroness in the House of Lords.

Heather Peto

Heather Peto seems to struggle with basic facts about his previous name, age and whether or not he took up a place at the Jo Cox, Women into leadership programme. I will just include a few images and you can read more on Glinner’s substack.

There is quite a lot of information 😳 on Heather Peto in sources I am not going to link to, in this piece. You can read more here:

Heather Peto

In part four I will look at the evidence put forward to claim “trans” people have existed across time and the globe as well as some of the “role models” who our children have been taught about in schools.

You can support my work below or consider a paid subscription to my substack. All contributions are gratefully received.

My Substack

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


C.Burns: Introduction: Trans Britain (Part 1)


Now seems as good a time as ever to cover more of Burn’s work, especially because this book is dedicated to Mermaids.


Here is the dedication to Mermaids 👇. controversial

Mermaids is a charity which promotes the idea children can be born in the wrong body and need to be prevented from going through a natural puberty / prepared for a life of surgeries. Older (trans-identified) men are especially keen to promote “transgender” children because it desexualises the motives that direct many older male “transsexuals” It is also feeds a fantasy of “passing” better as the sex they wish they were; a kind of retrospective wish fulfilment.

The foreword is written by Dr Aaron Devor who is a Canadian “trans” activist who occupies the worlds first Chair of Transgender Studies at the University of Victoria in British Columbia. The post was funded by a donation of $1 million from the Tawani Foundation run by a trans-identified male called “Jennifer” Pritzker. You can read more about Pritzker here:

Who is bankrolling “Transgender” Ideology

The book opens with a glossary to educate the readers in the “new speak” of “transgender” ideology, and makes it clear the definition of “trans” includes cross-dressers. Burns explains cross-dressers in this clip 👇 but omits the way the man obtains his “relaxation” and “pleasure”; which is by masturbating while wearing clothing associated with the female sex. The goal is to distance themselves from any link to transvestic fetishism. Women can’t be allowed to know that some of the men, now claiming access to spaces, formerly reserved for women and girls, do so because they are sexually motivated.

Burns opens the book by celebrating the way in which this rampant mysogyny has taken hold, in the preceding decades. One notable example is the celebration of Caitlin (Bruce) Jenner as woman of the year. Burns can’t quite repress his 1950’s version of sexism here and describes Caitlin as “head of the Kardashian family”.

At the other end of the age range Burns includes Jazz Jennings. Jenning was first sponsored by a pharmaceutical company and progressed to a TV series documenting his life from puberty blockers, followed by cross sex hormones, castration and ,finally, penis inversion. Jennings, sadly, appears to have lost any ability to achieve orgasm, infamously asking if an orgasm was “like a sneeze”? The penis growth was so stunted, by the pubertal suppression, he needed multiple surgeries to create a faux vagina using experimental techniques. Jazz is one of the victims of this ideology but, to Burns, he is to be paraded as a celebrity. Burns nails it with the acknowledgment of the role of “corporates” in peddling this ideology to minors. Jazz is a brand ambassador but he will soon be cast aside because his sexual dysfunction and massive weight gain are not quite the image the Gender Industrial Complex had in mind.

Burns takes us on a whistle stop tour of “trans” celebrities, almost all of them male, before moving onto “transgender” people in politics (again most of them male). First we learn about Georgina Beyer who became an MP In New Zealand having first been a prostituted male and drag queen. You can watch an interview with Beyer here at the Cambridge Union. Beyer talks of his role in passing legislation to decriminalise male sex buyers and mentions, in passing, his invitation to the U.K. House of Lords by Michael Cashman. He also references the opposition to the Gender Recognition Act reforms by British radical feminists. Beyer finishes by boasting about being included in the celebrations for the anniversary of women’s suffrage in New Zealand. He is delighted he has been accepted “as a woman” but, bizarrely, adds that we should be grateful for the men that voted for female suffrage.

Georgina Beyer


All this visibility, Burns argues, led to an inevitable backlash. Burns attributes this to the right wing and fundamental Christians. It remains to be seen whether Burns acknowledges the opposition from left wing feminists and the homosexual community.

Without a trace of irony he argues that the focus on “bathroom” bills is designed to bar “trans” people from public life, nicely ignoring the urinary leash women operated under prior to the provision of female only facilities.

In fact we know that making female facilities mixed sex increases the risk of sexual assault but Chris doesn’t care about anything else but his own validation as something he is not.

In the next section Burns details the increased visibility of “trans” people in the U.K. He begins with reference to a 2010 serialisation of a “transition” journey by Juliet Jacques.

Jacques publicly admits that his cross dressing started at 10 and had a sexual element to it in this talk.

Juliet Jacques

Trans media watch: Jane Fae

Burns then covers the organisation Trans Media Watch which worked hard to increase transgender visibility a kid of product placement, if you will.

Here is the press release put out by Channel 4 at the time.

Channel 4. Trans Media Watch

One of the trustees for Trans Media Watch is a man called Jane Fae. A late transitioning male who is a defender of extreme porn.

Jane Fae on laws about porn

Fae also defends BDSM and “consensual slavery” . This is from an article he wrote for the Guardian in 2011.

He also began as a cross-dresser:

I see this Trans Media Watch as a men’s sexual rights organisation intended to carefully curate their image, in effect to sanitise their “gender identity” to make it more palatable to the general public. This allows the public parading of a fetish and simultaneously forcing women to participate; which gives an added frisson to the undercover brothers.

Fox Fisher

Next up Burns references another trans activist: Fox Fisher.

Fox Fisher is a trans-identified female who first came to prominence in the above documentary and is now in a heterosexual relationship with a trans-identified male. The male in question is Ugly Stefania who you may be familiar with. Ugly is a trans-activist who wrote the foreward to the infamous Denton’s document. The Denton’s document is a must read if you want to see how trans-activism strategised how to socially engineer society to bow to their demands. I cover it here : 👇

That Denton’s Document

Ten years on from that documentary Fox has the tell tale voice of a woman on testosterone is post double mastectomy and is, as I write, recovering from Metoidioplasty: a surgery to create the approximation of a penis. Even before Fox went under the knife he didn’t rule out a future phallioplasty if the operation didn’t bring enough “euphoria” down below.

Fox is charge of Brighton Pride despite being in a heterosexual relationship and despite this comment made at a Mermaids summer camp.

Fox Fisher has frequently been platformed by Childline which is run by the N.S.P.C.C (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children). The N.S.P.C.C is the only charity which has statutory powers to remove children from their parents. Childline relentlessly push transgender content at your kids. I covered this here:

Queering the NSPCC? FINAL

Paris Lees

Next up is Paris Lees. Another trans-identified male given prominence over the last decade. Lees was formerly incarcerated for a robbery that, eventually, resulted in a man’s death. He also has a background as a prostituted male.

Here is Paris talking about his background as a male prostitute and robbing a client.

Here are a few more contributions from Paris Lees.

Here is Paris defending the charity Mermaids which I include because the Charity Commission are about to investigate the Charity.

Frank /Kellie Maloney

Next up we celebrate the boxing promoter who came out as “Kellie”.

Here’s “Kellie” talking about the time he tried to strangle his wife.

Here Tracy talks about their marriage. Frank had been keeping a secret flat and he only revealed his secret life, as a cross-dresser when the press threatened to expose him.

He tried to blame his wife for the many rows.

When he initiated divorce proceedings he allowed people to think it was his wife who had abandoned him.

These are the brand ambassadors selected by Burns. In the next I will have a look at the Soap stars used to promote gender identity ideology and “trans” identified people who have attempted to gain political office in the U.K.

If you appreciate my work you can support me here or consider a paid subscription to my substack. All donations gratefully received.

My substack

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


Nancy Kelley & Al Jazeera Part 2.


Part one set the scene for this interview giving the background of the interviewer and the participants.

Nancy Kelley & Al Jazeera Part 1

After a long preamble, replete with many false/exaggerated claims (debunked in part one) Lamont goes in 👇

He addresses the question to trans activist, Christine Burns, who feigns bafflement and, after a little chuckle, claims it’s a mystery.

What Burns omits is the over-reach of trans-activists who right around this time were making ever more extreme demands. The specific issue that woke a lot of women up, especially lesbians, was the campaign to de-medicalise ”transition” and allow bearded, penis-wielders, to self-identify as women.

Burn’s then outlines how much progress had been made in protecting ”trans” rights including their own role in getting the Gender Recognition Act passed, in 2004.

Nancy Kelley then jumps in to make somewhat contentious claims about public acceptance of ”trans” people. She is right that there was a widespread acceptance of people we used to call ”transsexuals”. If they thought about the issue at all, people assumed we were talking about, a tiny number of, people who were post-operative. When it is explained that many/most retain their penis and are heterosexual there are significant qualifiers to that “acceptance”. Nancy also implies it is a matter of education.

Back to Burns to explain why our media are so out of step with views Kelley claims are held by the majority of the British public.

In reality most people had no idea activists were involved in a social engineering project; to reorganise society on the basis of ”gender identity” and ride roughshod over women’s sex based rights. Once that became clear opposition began to mobilise.

Lamont then reads, in a skeptical tone, some of the U.K headlines. They all seem rooted in reality to me 👇

Nancy wades in about the proliferation of articles in the media. Nancy thinks it’s too much and would really rather it wasn’t covered. Of course she does, thats the advice from the Denton’s document.

Lamont then asks Burns why so many of the criticisms come from women who ”identify as feminists”.

Burns is having none of it and invents a complete fiction that second wave feminists were working with men, like Burns, because we had common interests. 🤷‍♀️

Then Burn’s pivots to ”White Supremacists” . Bit of a leap there Christine, love. 👇

After he takes it upon himself to define feminism he then advances the argument that these feminists, many of whom are Lesbian, are trying to separate the T from LGB so that the rights of the other letters can be attacked.

The interviewer pushes back, a little bit, to ask Burns for his thoughts on ”Terfs”. [BTW No self-respecting woman, let alone a “Terf” accepts the appellation “cisgender”. ]

Christine, like sexist men from the beginning of time, thinks we have misunderstood.

LGB Alliance

Lamont now turns to Nancy:

Nancy doesn’t dare, outright, deny this.

Next Nancy, conveniently, overlooks that even Stonewall didn’t include advocacy for ”trans” rights until 2015.

It’s women’s rights, stupid!

The interviewer is from the United States and, to give him credit, he does not assume U.K politics is a mirror of the political landscape of our American cousins. However after raising the source of the ”transphobia” on Terf Island (It’s women’s rights, stupid) he immediately pivots to how dangerous it is to be ”transgender”.

Burn’s arguments are all about the difficulty of looking like a man and being unable to use female changing rooms. Worrying about being recognised as a man when going to get a pint of milk. This, right there, tells you he has no idea of what it means to be a woman. Men who identify as women are well on their way to having more rights than actual women. That’s male privilege Christine.

You can support my work here. Only if you have surplus, after the many worthy crowdfunders and if you are not panicking about your fuel bills.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and how it’s has such a stranglehold over our institutions, politicians and the elites who run our media.


Nancy Kelley & Al Jazeera Part 1


As part of my series on Nancy Kelley I found this astonishing interview on Al Jazeera: a media outlet partially funded by the government of Quatar. You can watch it at the link below: 👇

Nancy Kelley on Al Jazeera

YouTube add a note to the Al Jazeera YouTube channel to highlight their financial backers.

Gay Rights in Qatar

A reminder of the state of gay rights in Qatar. 👇 The punishment for homosexuality is death.

The alleged context for the interview.

The segment focus is on the rising ”transphobia” in the U.K. To explore the issue Christine Burns,trans-identified” male and Nancy Kelley are invited to a discussion. In truth Burns is given much more air time than Kelley. Burns is a key trans-activist (TRA) in the U.K. Nancy Kelley is the CEO of controversial, lobby group Stonewall. You will also notice the interview takes place against a background draped in the transgender flag.

The presenter is Mark Lamont Hill, a former journalist with CNN who was, reportedly, let go for his views on the Israeli-Palestine conflict. He is also a Professor of Media Studies.

Lamont Hill introduces the segment by claiming that Hate Crimes against trans people are rising, there is hostile media coverage and he singles out the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, for failing to introduce a ban on ”Conversion Therapy”.

Mark Lamont

Hate Crime: The Facts.

These are the numbers charged with a hate crime defined as ”transphobic”. As you can see it was 49.

Its important to note that misogyny is not considered a hate crime so offences motivated by animus, toward the female sex, is not monitored. If we consider rape /domestic violence as a proxy for misogyny the statistics below are for one quarter of the year. The statistics are taken from the Crown Prosecution Service.

Media Coverage

Complaints are made about the volume of media coverage with little attempt to explain why this became a contested area in 2017. Neither Nancy or Burns explain that Stonewall only began to campaign on “Transgender” issues in 2015 and this has been accompanied by an escalation in demands. TRAs openly began to demand that any man could ”selfidentify” as a woman and campaigned vociferously for access to female only spaces. Here is Stonewall’s open statement that they wish to see the end of single sex spaces. This 👇 is a blatant attack on women’s rights to dignity, privacy and, crucially, safety,

In truth papers like the Guardian, Independent, Pink News and free paper, Metro, are cheerleaders for the Transgender Lobby. The Guardian in particular, much to the dismay of this erstwhile reader. I wrote about the Guardian links to lobby groups here:

Why are the Guardian suddenly so woeful on women’s rights?

Conversion Therapy

The demand to ban conversion therapy includes both gay conversion therapy and ”gender identity” . The main place where gay conversion therapy takes place, in the United Kingdom, is at U.K gender clinics. These are the statistics for referrals to the Tavisticock, looking at sexual orientation.

Here is a reminder of what Professor Villain had to say about this. He is one of a growing number of experts raising the issue of Gay Conversion Therapy in relation to Gender Clinics.

Including ”gender identity” in the bill would hamper therapeutic approaches to treat “gender dysphoria”. This context it important but the audience will gain no understanding of this from the interview.

Framing the question

After this disingenuous framing the interviewer turns to his guests. At least he doesn’t project a U.S perspective onto the U.K political context by assuming we are right wing, Evangelical Christians. 👇. He does recognises the concern’s raised about women’s rights before pivoting to the vulnerable, transgender people. An editorial decision was taken to invite a trans-identified male and Nancy Kelley on the show, even though they agree with one another. Noticeably they failed to invite anyone with an opposing viewpoint.

Christine Burns

Burns is a trans activist who appears here with the book Trans Britain; which they edited, in the background as well as the M.B.E they were awarded.

Burns is asked to define ”trans” and ”cis” . I won’t insult your intelligence by repeating the usual verbiage.

Lamont now references a Council of Europe report which conflates the attacks on gay rights and reproductive freedom in Hungary and Poland with UK feminists opposed to Gender Identity Ideology. I covered in this blog, below 👇. In brief they completely mis-characterise the debate we are having in the U.K, quoting the controversial lobby group, Mermaids amongst others. You can read more about this here: 👇. Short read: Blatant propaganda.

Council of Europe: Moral Panic

Burns, is asked to explain why if has got so bad for ”trans” people in the U.K. Burns professes bafflement and, claims everything was going in the right direction up until 2017 and implies this came out of nowhere. “It’s a mystery“ says Burns.

Burns fails to mention that people were unaware of what was happening in our schools, prisons, NHS wards and all our major institutions because it was a deliberate strategy. As set out in the Denton’s document, a guide to embedding Gender Identity Ideology in law and in life.

I wrote about the Denton’s document here 👇

That Denton’s Document

Of course, Burns doesn’t mention the campaign to let any man self-id as a woman; putting male rapists in female prisons; the sterilisation of children and the other horrors, which galvanised women and generated this backlash. Here’s a clip from a chapter in Burn’s own book illustrating Burn’s complicity.

The mendacity is strong with this one. Burns was one of the architects of the Gender Recognition Act , which set the stage for this debacle, and proudly boasts of it in this interview.

I will cover the details of the interview in part 2.

You can support my work here. Don’t donate unless you have surplus cash, I know there are lots of important legal cases going on at the moment.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology to expose the fact it is a social engineering project which hurts women’s rights, gay rights and the bodies of our young gay, lesbian, autistic and other vulnerable children and teens/ young people.