In order to contextualise the exporting of Gender Identity Ideology to the African continent it is necessary to look at the current legal position in respect of Lesbian and Gay rights. In many countries it remains illegal to be homosexual and , even where it is legal, this is relatively recent. Furthermore where laws have been enacted it doesn’t necessarily correlate with social attitudes within countries. It is possible that laws favoured by metropolitan elites do not necessarily translate transform prejudice overnight. It is also important that any data looks at the treatment of Lesbians and Gay males separately. As you can see they are not always treated equally.
Furthermore where laws have been enacted it doesn’t necessarily correlate with social attitudes within countries. Passing laws, favoured by metropolitan elites, do not necessarily transform prejudice overnight. A point made by an organisation (ILGA) who are one of the main drivers for the propagation of Gender Identity Ideology which, from one perspective, is increasingly at odds with Lesbian and Gay rights.
he same site also tracks Trans rights across the same geographic area. Note the number of countries that allow legal recognition, on the basis of “gender” with no requirement for any level of commitment re bodily modification.
Thus there are large swathes of territory in Africa who have approved, effectively, introduced a form of Self-Identified “gender” as well as areas where there is a degree of ambiguity or, at least, no prohibition. One can only fear the consequences in a country which outlaws homosexuality but allows a form of “transition”.
A case in point would be Iran: Homosexuality is illegal and subject to extreme punishment.
This article, from 2014, shows the unintended (or intended?) consequences of that disparity in treatment between the LGB & The T. In this article a Lesbian talks about how she was subject to discrimination for failing to conform to sex stereotypical modes of dress and expression. Her route out was seven years of cross sex hormones until she finally accepted that she was simply a Lesbian.
It seems astonishing to me that more campaigners for Gay Rights do not see the inherent danger of promulgating Gender Identity Ideology in countries with a fragile, or no, acceptance of homosexuality. However, lest we feel smug at the enlightened nations of the West, see this blog on our own version.
Posting this to document the situation on the African Continent in preparation for part two of my piece on a U.K. Foundation promoting Gender Identity Ideology, across Africa, under the badge of funding for International Development.
Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth. Support is always appreciated but I would be equally happy if you contributed to a legal case or a crowdfunder for Lesbian and Gay News.
I have covered the physical interventions we are visiting on children/youth, who present with Gender Dysphoria, here TAVISTOCK PART THREE (A)
I now want to examine what this talk tells us about how we diagnose these children and include a few quotes that didn’t make into part A. .
We are basing this diagnosis on the belief that, somehow, Gender Identity exists independently of biology and is sometimes in conflict with our biological sex.
⇐This slide shows that Dr Kelly recognises biological sex, sexual orientation and sexual identity exist. He also identifies, separately, Gender Roles, Gender Expression and Gender Identity.
Biological Sex is the easy one. Despite efforts to destabilise the definition of sex we are a sexually dimorphic species. Differences/Disorders of Sexual development (also referred to as intersex) don’t disrupt the “binary” of sex. Here are two people qualified to comment on the issue of sexual dimorphism. Claire’s comment, below, is a good one to keep handy as her article, published in the journal Nature, is often wheeled out to claim the opposite of what she meant. It is actually a fascinating Article
Dr Kelly defines our Biological sex as our anatomy and says it is an important part of our sexuality and sexual identity. I am not sure how sexual attraction is only partially reliant on biology, except that this matters in Transgender Ideology. Additionally, what does “sexual identity” mean here? It maybe to accommodate people who identify as the opposite sex (not just gender). Alternatively it is, perhaps, to include people who identify as a particular sexual orientation regardless of their sexed body. That is to be inclusive of self-described “male lesbians”, or female’s who identify as “gay men”.
Gender Identity is here described as a “personal and individual thing” which is not necessarily fixed. Yet another reason why it is not a good idea to base legal concepts on something undefinable and shifting. If Gender Identity relies on a personal, subjective feeling how is it sensible to codify it into Law?
Gender Expression. This seems to mean how you “perform” your gender and how you signal which gender you identify with/as.
Here Dr Kelly, an obvious biological male, talks about his identity as a man. We learn how this might be signalled by the way he dresses, manners, his hands and even the way he crosses his legs. This is all complicated by the notion of metrosexual males who may even cross their legs in a feminine way but still identify as male. Confused? Don’t worry. It is, apparently, complicated and kind of hard to think about. God help those of us with #LadyBrains.
Then there are Gender Roles.
Here he recognises these rely on gender stereotypes. Am I a woman because I pick up the dustpan and brush? Don’t be silly. That’s just a gender stereotype. We want to deconstruct those don’t we? And here we come to a startling admission. “The last thing we want to do is to have a young person changing their body to fit in with… societal rules”. Dr Kelly would love to take Gender out of this issue altogether. But, guess what, we have to deal with reality. I assume he means gender stereotypes are deeply entrenched and changing society is too hard. So what does he propose? We need to “carve out a space” for someone to express their gender, in ways that society will accept. Are we really carving up the bodies of young people because that is easier than transgressing expected norms of behaviour for fe/males? I am old enough to remember when Gender Non-Conforming behaviour was widespread. What happened? I give you Annie Lennox and Boy George. I could supply loads more examples.
Next we are introduced to the Gender Unicorn. (See Header). A slide that Dr Kelly uses to introduce concepts central to his work. Sex is, unsurprisingly, described as “assigned at birth”. People with DSDs are othered as a third sex. Sexual orientation is undermined by the inclusion of romantic/emotional attraction. We are using this tool in primary schools! So, is it entirely unsurprising we are seeing rising rates of Gender Dysphoria in girls, and boys? Who amongst us performs our sex stereotypical expectations 100% accurately?
It gets even more confusing when we examine how young children think about gender. We are provided with this slide which shows how children are socialised into expectations of what makes a boy or girl.
This kind of thinking, in a two year old, is quite cute. It is less so when espoused by our political, media and medical elite. I like my politicians to engage with issues as adults not toddlers.
There is not much to disagree with in the next slide except to wish the Dr would join the dots. Emerging sexuality and associated feelings of shame. (Surely worse for those who realise they are same sex attracted in a heteronormative culture). Anyone paying attention would see that the rigidity of the “gender binary” and the impact of parental or societal expectations has significantly worsened in the last twenty years.
Is the new rigidity of Gender Stereotypes a new Backlash against Women’s rights? As women encroach on male professions is this a new way to put women back in their box? Is the Public Femininity display a way to dispel the ball-breaking bitch trope? Are we displaying hyper femininity to signal we are no threat to men? This could be labelled compliance, or subversion, either way omething seems to be going on.
Moving on to the understanding of gender in 8 year olds. Dr Kelly makes an astute observation about the meaning of gender for young children compared to 38 year olds. Note that we are following one set of diagnostic criteria for both groups. Children pick up social cues which reflect the society in which they live. Adults, mainly males, also absorb expectations from adult depictions of female roles. Some of this in contexts (porn) that, you would hope, your eight year old has not encountered. See this interview with Andrea Chu who is remarkably honest about their pathway. You can read up on Chu’s thoughts on the role of sissy porn and the concept of the female as passive: here
Our kids are navigating such difficult territory. I was one of 8 children. Six of us girls. All the horrific statistics about sexual violence against women and children were played out on our bodies. I was a dungaree wearing, tree- climbing, jumper off buildings. We ran free and I was not unusual. Sure we had pretty dresses, for specific occasions, but overwhelmingly we lived in “playing out clothes”. These were the norm and we would nowadays, describe them as gender neutral. I was brought up in a pretty traditional household. Working class father. Manual occupation. Definitely seen as the breadwinner. Even in that context it was absolutely the norm for we girls to do this. Nowadays this would put us at risk of referral to the Gender Identity Industrial Complex!
Fast forward to puberty. As Dr Kelly recognises this is a hugely challenging time for young people. It’s a turbulent time for even the most well adjusted teen.
What happens if you throw in some complicated family dynamics? Below Dr Kelly outlines some scenarios. There are multiple everyday reasons why girls struggle during puberty. Growing up in a society with record violence against women, endemic woman hating porn, hyper-sexualised expectations for young women. No wonder girls are identifying out of their sex. For young boys, who don’t want to be associated with toxic masculine socialisation, who are gay and on the “femme” side the flip side of this equation comes into play. Throw in some domestic turbulence and you get some extreme rejections of what it means to be female /male in this society.
And lets not forget homophobia. Some parents would prefer a faux-straight child to a male child who they might think the behaviour, described below, signals their son may be a proto-gay male.
Dr Kelly goes on to talk about how people can hold toxic views about gender. People can also have quite toxic views rooted in homophobia.👇
I find myself bewildered that the Gender Identity Specialists didn’t anticipate this. The law of unintended consequences. Spend all your time banging on about undermining heteronormative culture and guess what? You did a great job of establishing a new, pernicious, way of establishing it. All your campaigning around “disrupting binary thinking about gender” and what did it achieve? We have actually established a way to make sex stereotypes “flesh” ; by carving up the bodies of boys and girls who don’t conform.
I wonder how many people, who have dedicated their lives to the furthering of this social revolution, have dark nights of the soul? They should.
This is some background to a talk given by a member of staff from the Gender Identity Services (GIDS) at the Tavistock. The talk is by Dr Polly Carmichael and provides insight into clinical/ethical issues for Gender Identity Services. I want to explore Dr Carmichael’s belief system and the alternative perspective of those of us who reject the Tavistock model. Dr Carmichael reflects on the tension between “affirmative” approaches to children with Gender Dysphoria and what she labels “reparative” or “conservative”. I will argue that parents resisting medical intervention are also “affirming”. You can listen to the talk yourself here
Proponents of an “affirmative” approach believe that a child can be “Born in the Wrong Body”. They will often use phrases like “assigned at birth” to describe how sex is determined. They argue the sex you are designated at birth may not match your “Gender Identity”. Therefore you may, in fact, have an opposite “Gender” to the sex which you were “assigned”. The theory of an innate Gender Identity mirrors established child development theory on the age a child realises they are a boy or girl. For advocates of Gender Identity Theory this is seen as a sign that we all have an innate sense of “gender” and become aware of it at around three years of age. Therefore if a child communicates some discomfort/distress, at being treated as a girl, or boy, they are deemed to be exhibiting a conflict between their sex and gender. As this is a feeling , relying on an internal sense of self, the child will, it is argued, know better than their parents which “gender” they are. This argument sets the stage for empowering children/teens to act without parental consent. Something lobbyists are openly arguing should take place. Those that subscribe to this belief often use language around bodily autonomy to push for positive affirmation of the child’s “gender”. This may take social forms; such as allowing a new name, style of dress or pronouns which match the preferred gender. This can also take the form of medical interventions such as Puberty Blockers followed by Cross-sex hormones.