Legal Sex: Parliamentary Debate 2

This is part two covering this historic debate in parliament. You can read part one here:


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!

Cates snaps back with this common sense.

You can read the hansard record here:


Or, if you prefer watch the debate here:

Parliament Tv

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.

My Substack

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


Oxfam 3 : Terf Wars


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.


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 Arcus Foundation 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.

Alison Pritchard: TRA behind the scenes? Part one: GEO


Alison Pritchard: TRA behind the scenes? Part one: GEO

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 see the edited video here;

Oxfams Shame

You can read my series on Oxfam here: 


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.

My Substack

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


Oxfam: Inclusive Language: Part 2


Before I covered the Oxfam’s new “inclusive language” guidance, I first provided a bit of background on the investigations over the behaviour of Oxfam staff in overseas locations. Oxfam were rocked by allegations of serious sexual misconduct by its male employees. Staff were found to be using women as “prostitutes” even on Oxfam premises. Allegations that some were underage were not investigated and, as a consequence, remain unsubstantiated. Allegations were made against workers in Haiti and Chad.

The Charity Commission published an investigation into Oxfam in 2019. There was also an Indeoendent report specifically looking at Oxfam and safeguarding.. I cover these investigations in part 1, below 👇

Investigation Oxfam

The investigations make it quite clear that the perpetrators were mainly male and the victims female. It was for this reason one of the recommendations was for female only meetings, designed to facilitate women to make allegations without fear. As we will see Oxfam now appears to have decided “Gender Identit” , as opposed to sex, is the primary basis for defining what makes a woman.

Recently Oxfam has published a style guide illustrating how deeply captured they are by Gender Identity Ideology.

Firstly, let us look at the author of this guide; an Oxfam employee, Helen Wishart, who was also a former employee of Annesty U.K. She describes herself as an intersectional feminist.

Amnesty U.K. has also been corrupted. I wrote about them here:

Amnesty U.K. What’s going on?

Wishart Was educated at various universities including Sussex; who allowed Dr Kathleen Stock to be hounded out of her post.

You can get a flavour of her thinking from an essay which remains on line. Here she is pretending that people who carve sex stereotypes into, and out of, their flesh are a symbol of hope and will destroy the patriarchy. Sigh. She also uses the usual appeal to emotion about violence against the “trans” community which is designed to silence your critical thinking skills.

Wishart basically argues that sex denialism will destroy the patriarchy because how can we be sexist if we don’t know what sex somebody is? This is an argument only acceptable for a juvenile to advance. The rest of the essay is similarly puerile. She has a lot to say about attacks on bisexual/pansexual individuals and how we are driven by heteronormative assumptions.

If I have not annihilated your will to live you can read more here:

Queer Resistance

The Guide:

The author is allegory concerned about erasing the experiences of women whilst it proceeds to problematise words describing uniquely female experience and centres the alphabet soup in violence against women and girls, a term it finds insufficiently “inclusive” !

Some of the newspeak

They also oppose the word “mother”

Oxfam also redefine same sex attraction to same gender attraction.

In the mix are some language changes that are not inherently objectionable and many are already in common usage and relatively uncontroversial. An example of this might be the assumption of chair man and the use of chair /chair person. I think these examples are used to disguise the top down imposition of Oxfam’s newspeak. Considering their history of using women and girls for sex, in poor countries. I find their rebranding of sexual exploitation deeply sinister. Who benefits when you say “people” who buy sexual access to poor women? We all know it’s invariably men who hand over money to get over tricky arguments about “consent”.

There’s quite a lot about privilege and white saviours and white feminism amd a warning that if you are infected with this privilege you might get defensive. This located any disquiet about the blatant social engineering in your own personal failing. Call me old fashioned but I think Oxfam should focus on their core mission, ameliorating poverty, and not proselytism for the gender borg.

I am particularly reminded about what Oxfam had to say about “white feminism” and carceral feminists who report rapists to the police. I wrote about that in 2021; thread linked below.

In this thread


Here are some of their references. Of course they have been Stonewalled.

And they recommend Meg John Barker who has cropped up a lot. She is/ was in a heterosexual relationship with a man who calls himself non binary. Sigh

Edward Lord, pictured below, is the man who made a public swimming pool, designated for women only, into mixed sex by changing the criteria to “self-identified” women.

There’s plenty more to irritate in this document. Here it is.


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. This month I have been hit by £288 for renewal fees so any assistance gratefully appreciated. It also helps me to maintain my commitment to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)

My Substack

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


Oxfam: The Investigations. Part 1

Seems Oxfam is the latest in a long line of N.G.O.s to capitulate to transgender ideology. The attraction of Rainbow washing for this charity probably lies in its shameful history of turning a blind eye to employees; who sexually exploited some of the most vulnerable women and girls on the planet. For anyone not aware Oxfam was accused of turning a blind eye to members of their staff sexually exploiting young women (and, possibly, under age girls) in Haiti.

Before I cover Oxfam’s new “inclusive language” guidance, in Part 2, here is a bit of background on the NGO.

The Charity Commission published an investigation into Oxfam in 2019. You can access their findings here along with an Independent assessment of Oxfam and Safeguarding.

Investigation Oxfam

There was an investigation by Oxfam and also an Independent Review of Oxfam, focused on safeguarding.

In this investigation they pointed out the sex of the victims and that of the majority perpetrators

They highlighted the lack of appreciation that safeguarding had any bearing on the way conducted its business. The review strongly opposed this perspective and insisting that the charity should adopt a Safeguarding First approach in all it’s activities. 👇

They also questioned the pervading “cultural relativism” which saw employees prioritising respect for local customs and culture, even when those cultural practices were inherently abusive.

The main focus was on Oxfam’s overseas activities but they also revealed nine cases of registered sex offenders working in Oxfam shops. Something they also pointed out, of which I was unaware, was that Oxfam was not legally able to obtain the type of criminal record check that would reveal these offences.

I am assuming these sex offences would only be revealed by an enhanced check under the disclosure and barring service. Having looked at the on line tool it appears that an employer of shop volunteer would not be entitled to make a DBS check. This looks like a loophole for the government to address.

Another disturbing issue is that some of these registered sex offenders were known to shop staff and allowed to continue in their role.

The Independent review made a number of recommendations one of which was to appoint people with a strong track record in promoting the rights of women and girls. How will this play out now Oxfam is questioning what is a woman/girl?

The investigation by the Charity Commission resulted in sanctions for the Charity using their regulatory powers.

In February 2018 allegations emerged which dated back some years.

Turns out that Oxfam do not explicitly oppose the sexual exploitation of women and girls. Some staff were sexually exploiting women/girls on the charity premises.

The charity seemed to spend more energy in finding ways to expel rogue staff members than they showed for the victims.

In another part of the report it was revealed that they had a less than rigorous approach to prospective employee references, in one instance one of the men had a reference from one of the men in Haiti who was implicated in the other allegations. During the investigation into Haiti further allegations arose in relation to Chad. These leads were not followed up.

This was one of the recommendations. There should be female only meetings when overseas locations are inspected.

My question is that if Oxfam are now pretending that they can’t define women and if they include men who identify women in our sex class how are they protecting female only meetings? This is their statement on women, from the inclusive language guide, making it clear they have erased women as a sex class.

Next I will cover their guide to “inclusive” language guide.

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. 😉)

My Substack

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


Citizens Advice


Cognitive Capture: Trans Ideology

Citizens Advice (formerly Citizens Advice Bureau) have been in the news for promulgating trans ideology, to the staff and potential clients, so, decided to have a look at their organisation. This is the article that made me curious, sadly, most of it is behind a paywall. 👇

CAB and Pronoun Badges

This is the headline:

The Daily Mail followed up with their own piece:

CAB and Pronoun Badges

Apparently the newspapers have got hold of the guidance, circulated to staff but it doesn’t appear to be available publicly. If but an interested reader has copies, they could share with me, discretion is guaranteed. I always prefer to link to the primary source,

People are facing a cost of living crisis with spiralling inflation, affecting staple food items, and fuel costs; do people seeking help from the CAB want the “luxury beliefs” of their, £170,000 a year, CEO rammed down their throats? Some staff think not 👇.

Meet The Trustees

You can find details of the Charity Trustees, via the Charity Commission so, this is where I started.


Most have Linkedin profiles many with pronouns in their biographies. Warren Buckley (He/Him) is the Chair of trustees and holds a senior post with Thames Water. This twitter user made a goeagle eyed, twitter user spotted, presumably because they were in dispute with Thames Water. Something I mention because it does illustrate the problem of a professionalised, charity sector which is cosy with the corporate sector. All of them have higher education, many from Oxford, or other elite, Universities.

As an aside Thames Water is still participating in Stonewall accreditation schemes and is in the top100 of Employers, as of 2022. Incidentally, the last record I could find of CAB and Stonewall was in 2011 whwn they made it to the top 21.

Steve Hughes also has pronouns in his bio and proclaims himself to be interested in Equality and Diversity Champion.

Steve Hughes’s also has a twitter account where he can be found admiring #DragRace by promoting trans issues, he particularly commends them for promoting “trans men”. I don’t know if that has any wider, personal, significance for Hughes.

Hughes also praises linkedin for adding a pronouns field.

Jabber Sardar has a HR background and is employed by a BBC offshoot company. Finola McDonnell is employed by the Financial Times. Lucinda Bell is a graduate of Oxford University and holds Company Director roles of an impressive array of companies. Jonathan Mogford has held a number of senior, appointments in the civil service:

Currently Mogford is in charge of the Corporate Conflicts of interest policy!

There is not much information, that I could find on Ann-Marie Hawkin but Will Cavendish also has an extensive background in the Civil Service.

Under the previous CEO, the Citizens Advice Bureau came under fire for some of their materials about hard to reach members of the BAME community. The idea that this list could have applied across Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Communities is not just racist. it is ludicrous set of sweeping generalisations. Just like lumping LGB with the T it obscures differences /conflicts of interest within these groups. Just to give one example the experiences, cultural differences and challenges facing Black British families, of Nigerian extraction, can be vastly different to those of Afro-Caribbean descent. We can’t even generalise within the B! It seems to me the use of these extended acronyms does not attack racial stereotypes it embeds them, leaving structural inequality, based on race unaddressed.

I mention this because this experience will, I am sure, have played a role in making CAB reflect on their organisation’s inherent biases and may have predisposed them to embrace, uncritically, the neo-pronouns agenda, I am told they have also embraced new guiding on “race” which staff find divisive; this is only from one, anecdotal, source so, I won’t give this too much weight until I see the materials. I will, however, say it fits a predictable pattern. The charitable view would be that this is an over-correction with laudable motivation. The less charitable is they are pink-washing.

Whatever their motivations they did appoint a new CEO in March 2021 and they selected another ex member of the Civil Service, also an Oxford graduate, Clare Moriarty.

Her CV as posted to Linkedin.

Clare Moriarty has long links to the Trans-activists embedded in the Civil Service. Here she is in 2016: 

Both Alison Pritchard and Jacqui Gavin appear in my series on Trans Activists behind the scenes. Both worked in the Civil Service. Pritchard worked at senior level at the Government Equality Office and now works at the Office for National Statistics. Jacqui was at the Cabinet Office.

“Trans”: Working behind the scenes

Here Moriarty is talking about discussing “trans” issues alongside a:Gender which an internal trans-lobby group, embedded within the Civil Service. 

Moriarty also has a more personal motive. She is the mother of a trans-identified female. Here she is announcing her Gender Recognition Certificate after a five year wait. This was in 2021 so it appears she has ben dealing with a daughter, who began to identify as male, atbleast as far backs as 2015/16.

After this background post I will start to have a look at what further impact this has had on their policy beyond the mandating of pronouns. In particular what advice are they giving about the Law?

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. 😉)

My Substack

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


British Psychological Society 2


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

Here are the named contributors to the BPS position statement.

Dr Lyndsey Moon (Chair)

Here is a profile of Dr Moon which makes it clear their interest in Queer Theory pre-dates this position statement by many years.

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

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

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

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

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

Dr H. Eli Joubert

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


Dr Claudio Pestano 

Dr Pestano works in the field of Gender Dysphoria though his main focus seems to be  Aspergers/Autism. 4A3B294D-1CF1-49ED-891B-A497D9FA6613

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

Dr Joanna Semlyen

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


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

Oral Evidence

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

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

Gay/Gender Identity:  Conversion Therapy  

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

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

That Denton’s Document

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

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



Regulatory capture is when special interest groups capture state apparatus.  The interests of these groups become so accepted by, and entwined with, the establishment the state becomes a tool of  special interests.   In respect of Transgender rights the cognitive capture of the political, legal, corporate and medical establishment seems pretty much complete. From politicians tweeting the mantra  “Transwomen are Women” (I notice “Transmen are Men” is less popular, almost as if this is a tale of two sexes) the capitulation to trans ideology is evident across the political spectrum.  The virtue signalling is merely irritating, what is happening in law and policy, much of it by stealth, is more sinister.

The  attack on women’s sex based rights has not arisen in a vacuum.   This is much more widespread than Local Government but I  will start with Leeds City Council. Living here is to have a bit part in a West Yorkshire spin off from the Handmaids Tale: Woke Gilead.



Let us first start with the widespread falsification of provisions in The Equality Act 2010.  This is a piece of legislation which protects “sex” and “gender re-assignment”.  These are the two legally protected characteristics which are pertinent to this discussion.  The latter category was enshrined in law, by the Gender Recognition Act (GRA). At the time, we were assured, it was to protect transsexuals, regularise their legal position and afford some protections by granting a “legal fiction” status. This allowed some, limited, recognition of their target “gender”.  This does not mean the state, legislated or determined that a transsexual had literally changed sex.  It did however confer some of the protections of the “target sex”.

Like a lot of women I was supportive of the legal change.  We were told it would help a small number of disadvantaged people and was a positive change, in keeping with a positive commitment to Human Rights. Until the government proposed a move to abolish the, already minimal, gate-keeping and allow anyone to “Self-Identify” as the opposite sex, I did not see the difficulties.  For a good article on that see here Oxford Law: Reform of the Gender Recognition Act   .

It was in this context of that women started to notice government agencies were getting ahead of the law. Many are acting as if Gender Identity, as desired by Trans Lobby Groups, has superseded the legally protected characteristics of Sex and Gender Re-assignment.  Local Councils have an obligation to uphold The Equality Act and are legally required (Public Sector Duty)  to monitor the impact of policy on legally protected, groups. Crucially they also have a legal obligation to foster good relations between the different, protected, characteristics.  In my view they are failing in this.

Women’s rights groups, like A Woman’s Place UK started to see the eradication of “sex” as a protected characteristic in government policies and publications from a wide range of organisations. Prompted by their work,  I checked Leeds City Councils website.  What did I discover?


Sex was omitted.  Gender was added.  Almost as if the wish was father to the thought.  Notice also that the protected characteristic is actually “Maternity” not “Maternity and Paternity”. Leeds City Council told me that it was their Equalities Team that maintained this part of the web-site.  I would be sacked if I did not get such basic information correct.

Leeds is a Labour Party dominated council and I was, at the time, a party member who campaigned for some of these councillors.  I decided to do a bit of digging to see who was advising them.  What has become clear is that politicians, at all levels, are outsourcing their critical thinking to lobby groups and, it turns out, my council is no exception.  Stonewall & Mermaids are acknowledged as advisors.  Stonewall, for those of you not aware, make explicit their aim is to remove “sex” segregated spaces and enshrine the notion of “Gender Identity” instead of both sex and Gender Reassignment.  Never did I think I would find myself opposing Stonewall.  I do now. They have betrayed women. (They have also betrayed  Lesbians and gay youth.  I will return to this in a later blog) Below is a clip from a Stonewall statement.


I could see why Stonewall are still, sadly,  seen as trusted advisors and they have traded on their past reputation to good, or, more accurately, ill effect.  Less understandable are some of the other groups that have had dialogue with Leeds City Council and, in some cases demonstrable input to their policy.

The Leeds branch of Action for Trans Health tweeted out a thanks to LCC LGBT to thank them for meeting up.  By this time I was already blocked, by my own councils LGBT twitter handle, so the replies are not visible.


I had to rely on citizen journalism to confirm that they do indeed liaise with this “client”. This account below is run by an HR employee of LCC who was the Chair of the representative for LGBTQ+ staff. (more on the man who runs this twitter account below)



For anyone not familiar with Action for Trans Health I intended to  insert a copy of their manifesto. Before it was suspended, for violating wordpress terms and conditions,  this used  to be available here 

Jess Bradley (First Trans NUS officer) was a founder member. Jess was suspended for allegations of lewd displays in the workplace.   Due to the dearth of coverage in our “progressive” press I am afraid I am now obliged to link to the Daily Mail. Action for Trans Health

You can find more about Jess Bradley on the youtube account of Rose of Dawn: Rose of Dawn: Jess Bradley

Here is a sample of the kind of extreme views set out in the Action for Trans Health manifesto which I had archived.


Demanding mandatory education, taught by trans people, for children even at nursery age, raises concerns about grooming.  At best this may mean vulnerable children being inculcated with “Gender Dysphoria” . The words safeguarding  and cult comes to mind. Note also that the recording of biological sex is seen as an act of state coercion and a violence against trans people.  If you think this sounds like some fringe extremists note we currently have a government funded project exploring the replacement of legal sex with gender. Kings College London

Action for Trans Health also have specific concerns about incarceration rates for trans prisoners.  I am no fan of the prison-industrial complex myself but a demand for a blanket release demographic is, at the very least, problematic.


Below are a further list of further demands.  I can hear distinctly my mother saying “Ooh. They don’t want much do they”.


Before I leave Action for Trans Health  confirmation below that  Jess Bradley and ATH are mentioned in Hansard (House of Lords)  debates on this issue. The named individuals, and groups, a check list of all the people and organisations  worst placed, in my view, to advise members on this issue. This is the Liberal Democrat, Baroness Barker, in Hansard, December 2014.  The debate was on the health of Lesbian, Bisexual and Transwomen. Even this grouping  illustrates the cognitive capture. Biological sex can be extremely relevant in medical settings and here male identified people with female biology are omitted, whilst female identified people are included.


I will leave Action for Trans Health there. Now we move on to TransLeeds, We do, in fact, have evidence that this group have achieved material policy change.  Policy change which, impacts women and girls.  Policy which has been developed with no consideration for, or consultation with, women’s groups.

You can read about them here

Worth having a look at the tone of the articles on that site.  Total misrepresentation of women’s use of Adult Human Female, which they define as a “hate-term” used to attack Transwomen.  When the dictionary definition of women is badged a “hate crime” something has gone seriously awry. Regulatory capture now extends to the corporate world who are so keen to appease the Transactivists and seem to forget women are 51% of the population. Here an abject apology is made for allowing women to proclaim the dictionary definition of woman.


Accusing women of defining ourselves only by our reproductive capacity and of “bio-essentialism is another spurious argument which TransLeeds advance.  Most women, involved in the fight for our sex based rights, reject biologically determinist arguments. This is the idea that  sex based stereotypes or “gender” are biological in origin; this is a central tenet of Trans ideology and therefore a blatant reversal to pin this on second wave feminists. For a movement built on the idea that you must modify your body to mimic female/male sexual characteristics, to express your “gender”, its laughable to describe women’s rights activists  as bio-essentialist.

 TransLeeds also offer a “binder” library for girls to compress their breasts.  Its not clear  if they inform parents.  Binding constricts breathing and has other negative implications for health.  An organisation that provides these should be explicit about the safeguarding of young girls and clear that they are not  usurping parental responsibility. Why, in 2019, this is being normalised is beyond my comprehension.  Here is an excellent article comparing the treatment of Breast Ironing (“bad”)  to Breast Binding (“progressive”).

Breast ironing V Breast Binding

Published in Culture, Health and Sexuality 2016. Here is an accessible version of a survey of the health consequences experienced by girls undertaking this: Breast Binding  

Skip forward to 2019 and Leeds City Council embark on another initiative, specifically formulated at the request of TransLeeds.  Seems they  are determined to get ahead of the law. The council have  introduced an on-line “Gender Change” to allow anyone to alter their details and ask for their “gender” marker to be changed from Male to Female and Vice Versa.  This is the guidance for the process and Leeds City Councils requirements for a “gender change”.  This paragraph leapt out:


First of all cross-dressing can be a harmless enough past-time. Not every man who cross-dresses has an explicitly sexual motivation. However for some this is a paraphilia. It is done for the purposes of sexual arousal and can be accompanied by a desire to breach women’s boundaries.  (NB Regardless of whether, or not, this is a sexually motivated means of expression, the notion this makes you a “woman” is deeply regressive, sexist and insulting).  This exposes women to the risk that males, who fetishise females,  will seek to access women’s spaces to enforce participation in this “fetish”.  So will this new “gender identity” give males access to female spaces? Single sex spaces are allowed, providing they serve a “legitimate & proportionate aim”.  Presumably Leeds City Council consulted widely?

FOI requests were submitted and , it turns out, Leeds City Council consulted with TransLeeds and TransLeeds only.  They were, specifically, asked if they had consulted any other groups (Duh…Women!) and they confirmed they only consulted with Trans people because it would not impact the rights of any other group.   Anyone who knows why women fought, and won, the right to sex segregated spaces would assume this would be considered.  Nope.  No Equality Impact statement was undertaken or deemed necessary.  The reason given, unbelievably, is that Leeds City Council state “The Council do not apply any sex based exemptions as no requirement has been identified”.  I think that will come as a surprise to women. I am sure most women thought we had the right to sex segregated changing rooms in Council run facilities.

As a final point some of you will have been following the debacle at Bradford Pride when Lesbians were surrounded by angry males, upset that Lesbians were declaring their same sex orientation.  It is now deemed Transphobic for Lesbians to make clear statements about their SEXual orientation, at a Pride March!  Account here:Lesbians In Chairs. Drinking Coffee

And who is one of the angry males featured in the above account?  HR employee of Leeds  City Council, until last Friday the Chair of LCC staff group for LGBT+ group.  Also the man behind the account above which confirms meeting with Action for Trans Health.  I won’t share his name even though I have had this done to me to silence me from speaking out against TransActivism.

Update with new information supplied by @LeedsCitizen.  Leeds City Council also have links, via an employee, with MESMAC.  A Policy advisor, at LCC,  is also a MESMAC Trustee.  You can read about this charity here MESMAC.  Digested read: Charity allowed workers to sleep with clients. Former Trustee jailed for child sex offences.

Here  is a link to a  government report on MESMAC Government Charity Case report

Report outlines  failures to report a serious incident to the Charity Commission and, as a result of an investigation, further historical cases came to light.  As a result of the investigation working with vulnerable young males was suspended.

Leeds City Council are  providing significant funding to this organisation.




Leeds City Council would appear to have been cognitively captured.

I will return to regulatory capture because there is so much of it! I will also do something on Gender Dysphoric Kids and anyone who wants to contribute, anonymously, or otherwise feel free to DM me on Twitter.