Examining Gender Identity ideology and its impact on Women's Sex based rights and Gay Rights. Exploring how this has taken such firm root in Western societies (Cognitive & Regulatory Capture).
Lockwood was born Peter, in 1965. He has been married at least thirty one years and has at least two children. He has quite a lot of content on his own podcast and has done interviews where he explains that he sold his business, predictably in IT, to live his authentic truth. He appears to have started living full-time in his late fifties. Subsequently he got caught up in tax arrears, lost his house and took out an IVA which is an agreement to pay off his creditors. It’s worth thinking about in what predicament this left his wife. Also worth reflecting on this which is on his YouTube channel. £7000 spent on personal grooming.
Screenshot
He has recently begun to be trotted out on GB News which is where I came across him. Before I get into all his other content it is worth looking at this Channel 4 documentary which focuses on Jo/Pete getting a new wig.
Screenshot
In marked contrast to his wife Lockwood is clearly giddy with the attention he is getting. Marie, his wife, has to go outside and in another space to hide her tears. Her husband has already been on hormones for two years but watching him get a more permanent weave/wig is clearly traumatising.
Screenshot
Clearly she is wondering how she will feel sexually attractive to him whilst he emphasises that he doesn’t want to lose her because they are best friends. He needs a woman to cos play as his girl friend to make the fantasy real.
The young hairdresser sees Marie go outside and Lockwood emphasises his care for her and his empathy, the cynic in me thinks he has read that females are more empathetic and so he must perform it now he is a “Lady”. Her distress provides another opportunity for him to indulge his fantasy.
Screenshot
By contrast Marie constantly suppresses her own feelings to prioritise her husbands but she is clearly struggling.
Screenshot
Lockwood can barely suppress his excitement at his transformation and, in a very revealing, aside he lets slip what this is really all about. There are three of them in this marriage and two of them are Pete/Jo.
Screenshot
After expressing her difficulty with accepting his transformation and indication that divorce couls still be on the cards they have this exchange. He did try to inject somewhat of a questioning tone to his voice but the words are stark.
Screenshot
Screenshot
Marie tries to make light of it and jokes that he would have to get divorced first snd also that she still has not made her mind up. Clearly this attempt at levity is too much of her and she moves away and turns her back on the camera and is clearly sobbing, Notice how every time she dares to think about the impact on her she soon centres her husband. She knows he is the most important person in this drama, to everybody around her and doesn’t even dare to say the truth that its invaded HER life.
Screenshot
Meanwhile The husband talks like a teenage boy fantasising about his very own pair of tits. I don’t know any women who celebrate the bouncing breasts of the stairs climber. But “Jo” finds this validating. Interestingly this was the segment of the show about how Marie was finding it difficult to come to terms with and it soon becomes clear they are in separate beds.
Screenshot
He cant see anything beyond his own need for validation. The next seen is a visit to a couple who are friends. Marie has decided not to go and look at how her husband describes this and how soon he brings the discussion to focus on himself. Her pain is another opportunity to revel in his own “femininity”
Screenshot
When he arrives at the friends’ house, without his wife he can’t resist telling them that it was Marie who put his hair in a bun while he asks the male friend which hair colour he prefers referring to his previous, blond, wig. Men like this require validation from males as well as females.
Marie must have some good friends who have told her what he is doing is selfish. Bravo her for feeling able to vocalise it. “Selfish” is in her top ten of words to describe what he is doing. That is not all he is doing but Marie likely doesnt have any experience of this and is blindsided after thirty one years of marriage.
Screenshot
Screenshot
The show ends with Marie and “Jo” celebrating their thirty first wedding anniversary with a trip to Amsterdam.
I will do a follow up piece on his podcast content and his new career as a public speaker and diversity consultant. I have already listened to his first podcast where he, predictably, picked (tricked?) a woman with a PhD who talks about neuroscience and discrimination against women in the workplace. Ironically she is big on trusting your instincts but thinks some women should deny their instinctive recognition of men, She was smug and infuriating…till next time.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully receive 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. 😉)
This is another one of the panels that hosted Tweedale. His contributions were illuminating, as were those of his co panelists. All of the other participants seemed well meaning but I am not sure they have thought beyond #BeKind.
The panel were discussing Faith and LGBT issues at Bradford University. Tweedale turned up in his signature choker with dark glasses and a top hat in view.
Also on the panel were a Labour councillor, a Humanist /Feminist and Lesbian, a Catholic teacher and a Few Muslim voices, as you would expect in Bradford.
Screenshot
Screenshot
Screenshot
I was already aware of Dunbar who is very pro what he thinks of as “trans” rights. (He is the nephew of Andrea Dunbar, the playwright). In 2022 he announced he would not be standing at the next local elections.
ScreenshotScreenshot
Dunbar seems to see everything through the lens of the T, despite being a gay man; who’s very sexual orientation is under attack, by trans ideology.
Screenshot
Janice Thornton is a committed feminist activist having been involved in a grass roots organisation set up to oppose their local MP, Phillip Davies, who is outspoken in his opposition to feminist voices. She covers this in the talk and it shows a tiny organisation was able to mobilise opposition, to Davies, managing to get a march of over 1400 in a short time. Shipley was the town Womens Equality Party (WEP) chose to launch its first parliamentary candidate. There was local opposition to the decision, by WEP, to field a candidate thus splitting the vote and making it more, not less, likely that Davies would be returned to Parliament; which he duly was.
Screenshot
Jez Hodgson is a longtime teacher of religious education and, then, the regional cordinator of an organisation called Quest. I looked them up and this is what I found. It is indeed an LGBT+ Catholic group who, in the past, hosted Ruth Hunt, former CEO of Stonewall and herself a Catholic, plus Beardsley who is “transgender” and a United Reform Church Minister.
Two other attendees were the LGBT officers for Bradford University and Bradford College, respectively. Both seem like well meaning, young, people who want to make the world a better place, however misguided I think they were/are.
(NB. It should be “to” not “too”, in the image below. Apologies)
Screenshot
Screenshot
I cover this discussion not to bring opprobrium on the participants but to demonstrate how well meaning people go along with absurdities when confronted with this ideology. Tweedale, a man, introduces himself as a Lesbian in front of an actual Lesbian 😳. This is why we must stop the forced-teaming of the LGB with the T. Heterosexual men do not belong in the Gay Rights movement.
Screenshot
We also learn that Tweedale is a Pagan, former teacher, and quite proud of his innovative modification to the curriculum; adding Paganism. Claiming that all religions are accepting of LGBT peoples is a somewhat bold claim. 👇
Screenshot
Then one of the Muslim participants talks about the different interpretations of Islam throughout the ages and how cultural claims can distort Islamic teaching. He is very “inclusive” talking about his gay, Christian and Jewish friends. Unfortunately his “inclusive” stance also includes a tale that there was a “transgender” person who looked after one of the prophet Mohammed’s wives.
Screenshot
I am, obviously, not an Islamic scholar but I did a search to find reference to “Het” which I may have misheard. He is correct that some cultures found a way of integrating gay men in society, and to a lesser extent Lesbians, by pretending they were the opposite sex/gender. Some of these, muslim led, cultures, for example Iran, do not accept homosexuals, at all, but do accept men and women who adopt an opposite sex role and they also fund “transition” surgeries. It seems to be quite a complex picture. Here, Mohammed, is reported as being uncomfortable with men who adopt a “female” role.
Mukhannathun was also used to describe gay men and people with disorders of sexual development.
State Religion
There follows an interesting discussion about the role of secularism, separation of Church and State and what happens when the State adopts,and mandates, adherence to a specific religion. Tweedale had this to say which put me in mind of the State imposition of the neo-religion of Queer Theory /All things LGBTQ+.
Screenshot
Screenshot
Brexit, Trump and the Far Right.
There is an undercurrent of alarmism about the rise of the far right which, for some participants, is linked to the vote for Brexit. As someone who campaigned for Remain, including in Bradford, this seems somewhat unhinged, particularly as Bradford voted for Brexit and the voters for Brexit included a large section of the Asian diaspora. Tweedale was not the only one indulging in hyperbole on this topic and confusing the political landscape in the United States with that of the U.K.
Screenshot
Neo-Feminism jumps to Gender Fluidity
Next we hear from a female muslim who is a member of an “inclusive” mosque. First she describes the reaction to a female religious leader who appeared with uncovered hair. Shortly thereafter she burnishes her progressive credentials with a reference to gender identity ideology. LGBTQ+ is merely part of an off the peg list of approved beliefs which allow people to blend a concern about the visibility of female role models to move seamlessly onto a denial that male and female exist. Sigh.
Screenshot
Screenshot
Teaching LGBT + issues
This man is a secular member of the panel who is concerned about the campaign against compulsory sex education in schools, via, he says, powerful Religious Lobby groups. His first mistake was mentioning a member of the demented, Green Party and his second was conflating sex education with LGBT. I can’t be the only person who was very pro sex education in schools who would now be opposed because its a gift to Transgender Lobby groups/proponents of Queer Theory.
Screenshot
Topher interjects to proclaim a desire to be an activist teacher on LGBT issues.
Screenshot
The issue of disseminating transgender ideology is clearly extending to different faith communities and here a teacher/youth worker, claims her pupils, mainly muslim girls, chose LGBTQ topics of their own volition.
Screenshot
It is worth following this part of the dialogue and what is meant by “safe” spaces by this individual. Her perspective is that pupils must be allowed to express their opinions, or their “bigotry” so that they can be led to the sunny uplands of the correct opinions.
Screenshot
Now the Catholic teacher talks about his experience teaching in Catholic schools and he has an interesting observation on the impact of Section 28. This clearly contradicts the LGBT agenda and even the Gay Rights party line predating the addition of the T.
Screenshot
He continues on this theme and seems irritated by the assumptions of some the panel about current teaching in Catholic schools. This is an unhelpful narrative for the victimology aficionados who catastrophise the legacy of Section 28, even today, often to turbo charge fundraising.
Screenshot
Not sure what I think about this. When I was a teenager I went on a Catholic retreat, with my school. We all had to have one to one discussions with a monk /priest about our faith. My interview was a discussion about being an atheist and the idea whether people, like me, without faith have a moral compass. What did EVERY single one of the boys get asked about…?
Screenshot
You guessed it..their masturbatory habits 😳.
In comes Tweedale, a heterosexual man, to claim he was a hero during the time of Section 28, boasting that he pledged to break the law and he did. There is a strong streak of narcissism in these statements.
Screenshot
Not content with that bit of grandstanding he claims that he left teaching on a matter of principle and laughably that he wanted to promote critical thinking.
Screenshot
Something tells me this may not be the whole story about Tweedale’s exit from teaching. In the meantime he is being feted by other organisations.
Screenshot
All of the above puts me in mind of the Late, Great, Magdalen Berns.
Screenshot
Screenshot
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully receive and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute.
Eve is another trans activist and part of the stable that is Trans in The City. This is his bio:👇 Notice he boasts that he was part of the Good Law Project’s High Court case against NHS England to protest NHS waiting times. Of course they lost.
Screenshot
Eve is the media person at Trans in The City and boasts of their collaboration with the esteemed, peer reviewed journal Pink News.
Screenshot
He is yet another Trans Activist who has inveigled his way into the Crown Prosecution Services, to sit on their Hate Crime panel.
Screenshot
He also boasts about advising the London Metropolitan Police and is part pf their learning and development team.
Screenshot
Eve Echo also gave a Ted Ex talk specifically for women. This was Teeside Women.
Screenshot
What did the man, who has a wife who is a tatoo artist, choose for his topic? Apparently it was billed as a talk on seizing opportunities but he wasn’t going to talk about that. He turned up in a sort of baby doll dress, like something Grayson Perry would wear.
Screenshot
He announced he would be changing the topic of his talk and began to wax lyrical about his nipples! Yes, thats right. He dresses it up in some sort of pseudo, feminist, argument about the way women are oppressed because our culture doesn’t allow women to display their nipples, in public, but we allow this privilege to men. I hope by now women, if only my readers, are wise to this tactic.
Screenshot
In another YouTube he delved into the vexed issue of trans-exclusion in the field of Sport. He appeared along side Verity Smith (ex of Mermaids) and another Trans in the City person, Oscar Hoyle. Heres what he had to say which was the usual bad faith argument.
Screenshot
Eve is really angry about campaigns for single sex sports and expresses it with the usual tinpot totalitarian vibe.
Screenshot
This is an overview after watching all the content I could find. If it is a little thin its because there does not seem to be much depth to our Mr Echo. Also one of his interviews was along side Freda Wallace and he didn’t get much of a look in. Another one of the panel appearances was along side an elderly trans activist, Roz Kavenney so he was somewhat over shadowed there too. He likes to describe himself as gobby and does not give much biographical detail, though he does let slip he used to play Chess tournaments for his Cheshire school.
He is not a very interesting subject but is working with the police, the CPS, and is part of an exhibition at the Science Museum so hundreds of school children will have been exposed to him.
I think its about time I covered Roz Kavenney, so I might do him next.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully receive 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. 😉)
Before I covered this paper I had a look at Peggy Cohen-Kettenis to see any interviews she had given. I found her make this statement about “Patient B” who was the inspiration for beginning pubertal suppression in children who presenting with “gender incongruence”. Here’s was Cohen-Kettenis had to say about “Patient B”
You have to look at Michael Biggs work to get a little more detail on “patient B” 👇
It later transpired that patient B was also a Lesbian.
Cohen-Kettenis was described as “brave” by John Money. 👇
John Money was the man responsible for experimenting on the Reimer twins. One of the twins had a botched circumcision which destroyed his penis. Money advised his parents to raise him as a girl and hide this sex from him. Later it was also revealed that the twins were subject to some sexual impropriety at the hands of Money. It was hidden for many years that the experiment failed and the twin realised he was actually male and reverted to living as a man. Tragically, both twins committed suicide.
Cohen-Kettenis also does not dwell on the boy who died during the attempt to fashion a simulacra of female genitalia. This outcome is given in one sentence, in the report on the outcomes of the Dutch Protocol.
Again Michael Biggs sheds more light on the reason why this patient died. He died as a result of complications from surgery, that were a direct consequence of the pubertal suppression.
She proceeds to describe how feminine were the people who had early treatment and mentions Nikki, of Nikki’s Tutorials, who is a make up YouTuber. Nikki is a hugely successful social influencer who recently married another man. So, another homosexual who has been “transed”. We will never know what Nikki’s life could have been or whether he could have lived happily as a gay man.
I was inclined to sympathy for Nikki until someone sent me this information about him representing women at the United Nations.
Nikki did not start puberty suppression till age 14 which, from my research, would suggest he had already reached the age of sexual function. Unlike the kids who have their puberty blocked earlier and, as Marci Bowers, president of WPATH, admitted will be rendered anorgasmic.
The paper outlines the arguments in favour of pubertal suppression and those against. The pro-arguments focus on avoiding the “torment” of going through the wrong puberty and the passability of those wishing to mimic the opposite sex. She does outline some research suggestive of the idea that there may be a biological cause for “Gender incongruence”. However even she is not confident in the research and concedes that, in the absence of a definitive diagnostic tool, we are reliant on the subjective assessment of the patient, which will likely be mediated through a practitioner of “gender medicine”.
She also admits that all the research shows a shocking percentage of these kids will resolve their gender incongruence, if left alone. It is not highlighted that most of these kids would simply turn out to be gay.
She admits that there are some clinicians who are less than confident about the interventions based on the diagnostic tools available. Here it is described it as “a less than solid foundation” for the medical interventions prescribed.
The arguments pro pubertal suppression centre on the children who have presented with a persistent rejection of their natal sex. The authors describe a myriad of mental health conditions that they argue are not co-morbid with the “gender dysphoria” but are rather caused by the Gender Identity Disturbance. They report parents and patients confirmed there was a relief of suffering once puberty was halted. This, they argue, gave the patients “time to think” a phrase that, some would argue, is undermined by the fact that 98% + continue onto cross sex hormones. Yet, the authors present the opposite argument, the continuance on this path is because the diagnostic criteria applied has a high degree of accuracy.
There is a high premium placed on “passability” as the opposite sex. The emphasis on this seems in part driven by the masculine appearance of the late transitioning males who wish to pass as women. This is less of an issue for females who take testosterone who, at least superficially, more likely to pass as small men.
The other argument is that stopping the development of secondary sexual characteristics removes some unnecessary surgeries. moreover it is argues that there are worse outcomes the later the surgery takes place. Finally the authors contend that not providing this option risks patients seeking illegal means to access the drugs.
The case against: When in doubt abstain?
We now move onto the arguments opposed to these early interventions. These centre around the difficulty of diagnosis and skepticism about the stability of the child’s /adolescent identity. In addition the physical development brought about through puberty may resolve the “gender incongruence” . (In particular relationships my develop that enable acceptance of a homosexual orientation which, bizarrely, is not mentioned).
The high rates of desistance are, to my mind, a particularly compelling argument. 80-95% would be better off if left alone! Again. no mention of how many of these would simply be gay!
Another risk relates to bone density and brain maturation.
The riskier surgery for males deprived of normal penile development.👇. The authors argue that new techniques have been developed to address this issue but note that Jazz Jennings required revisions after his surgery as do many other “transitioners” who have gone public about their surgeries.
This is all an experiment driven by the belief in “gender identity” as an innate facet of the “trans” child. Yet the authors speak of the torment of going through a natural puberty.
Screenshot
The authors describe blocking puberty as reversible but also concede that the impact on brain maturation is unknown. 🤷♀️
ScreenshotScreenshot
The authors conclude my claiming that not intervening is more of an ethical dilemma than intervening. We are a long way from ending this practice. Cass Review is out this week but, sadly, I don’t anticipate it saying what needs saying.
Screenshot
You can see the work of Michael Biggs in this YouTube. His work is exemplary.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully receive 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. 😉)
I only became aware of “Katie” because he was one of the men asked to represent women at the United Nations. He’s very proud of this achievement. This is him boasting about it on linkedin.
He is not the only man representing women at the United Nations. Monroe Bergdorf, Bobbi Pickard and Pippa Bunce were also delegates. All promoted by the faux feminist charity UN Women U.K. which I cover in this piece.
He also boasted about a speaking engagement on International Women’s day.
Screenshot
Not to be outdone the BBC, lately the propaganda arm of the trans lobby, promoted another man at the vanguard of the attack on women’s rights. Our Katie was hired by the BBC!
Screenshot
Neeves also now claims to be a Lesbian and the Vichy Lesbian, Linda Riley, at Diva Magazine, was only too happy to agree.
Screenshot
Screenshot
Dupers Delight!
There is a lot to work with when investigating Neeves. Like many other of these men he is publicity hungry and superficially “honest” about his back story. I sometimes call this “Dupers Delight” . This refers to the dopamine rush when getting away with a lie. The woman behind @TransWidowsVoices goes one better, she calls it “strategic minimisation” and once she named it I couldn’t stop seeing it. As soon as I find myself grateful for any frankness in “trans” narratives, I remind myself I am being hoodwinked.
ScreenshotScreenshot
Cross-Dressing.
Cross-Dressing usually involves an erotic component and will usually involve masturbating, the borrowed items add to the sexual thrills as does the secrecy. Many men report being able to hold themselves in check for years but something then triggers the need to perform full-time. Sometimes this involves the wife becoming ill or the birth of a child. Often a female child.
Neeves has made a number of revealing disclosures about his previous (current) life as a cross-dresser. Like a lot of these men they often locate this confession in their pre-pubertal existence to deflect from any recognition of any erotic component to the activity. Neeves is one such.
Screenshot
Neeve’s cross dressing continued with him accessing his sister’s clothes and later his wife’s. Gulf and self-loathing would follow. Like a lot of these men he describes attempts to get this under control until. aged 48, he succumbed to his inclinations completely.
Screenshot
He also stole his wife’s clothes. Here he discusses it with another male who claims womanhood.
Screenshot
He went through two marriages over this fixation. He eventually married his second wife in 2017 but it was not long before he made the decision to “transition” full-time shortly after.
Screenshot
Screenshot
He provides more details in this article about creeping into his sister’s room. to steal her underwear and celebrates access to his wife’s clothes on their marriage. His second wife accepted his cross-dressing but only if he kept it to once a week and didn’t want to “transition” . He was also asked to restrict his “dressing” to times when his daughter was not around. He broke every one of those promises shortly after they married. The marriage ended but he is very open about how “accepting” his daughter is and describes taking her with him, while dressed as “Katie”, in the hope of winning his elderly mother round.
Screenshot
Martin, like many of these men, describes an escalating compulsion he could no longer control. Conveniently these transvestites can claim “Gender Dysphoria” but the real truth is much darker. Gender Dysphoria is the cover story. Envying women is another feature of this fetish. Claiming women’s awards is the ultimate display of male dominance and misogyny.
Screenshot
Screenshot
Screenshot
J.K Rowling.
Neeves reached out to “educate” J.K Rowling with an open letter, dripping with passive aggression and patronising to a disturbing degree. He tells the egregious lie that her words have directly led to self harm and even suicide.
Screenshot
Screenshot
He mentions her often on the various podcasts.
Screenshot
His feminine side?
Katie describes the impact of the hormones on his personality. He claims to be more prone to crying especially when watching films with his daughter
Screenshot
This is another common fantasy in men who larp as women.
Screenshot
There is plenty of material about Katie on his YouTube channel. Cool2BTrans. These clips are from these interviews linked below.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)
This document sets out the strategy for advancing Transgender Rights across Europe, with a specific focus on young people.
You can find the 65 page document on-line here Link
I attach a version which I downloaded in December 2019. IGLYO_v3-1. I notice there is another version. I attach both, in case of any changes, IGLYO_v3-1 2
Astro-Turfing
The introduction flags up the Corporate backing for this, allegedly, marginalised minority. The world’s largest law firm and a global foundation are writing strategy documents to embed Gender Identity ideology, in law. This has all the hallmarks of astro-turfing; which is when a well funded, social engineering, project is presented as an organic, grassroots campaign. In reality Transgender Ideology is backed by significant funding. You can read more on this phenomenon here
And now Google are interfering. Jo Bartoch Article here.
Another relevant piece, by Jennifer Bilek, lifts the veil on the rich & powerful men driving Transgender Ideology. here
These are the organisations providing pro-bono support for the report under consideration. Thomson Reuters Foundation and the largest Legal Firm in the world.
Thompson Reuter’s
Dentons
Dissenting Voices from the LGB & I
The report is on behalf of a group of 96 organisations, who claim to speak for LGBTQI youth across the Council of Europe region.
In the U.K, we now have a breakaway group, LGB Alliance, who do not feel their interests are served by mainstream LGBTQI organisations. These organisations reject the notion of biological sex /sexual dimorphism thereby making it difficult/impossible, to defend sexual orientation. Exhibit A: Stonewall UK have, as an Ambassador, a bearded male who claims to be a Lesbian. See Alex Drummond. 👇
Stonewall Lesbian
It is also worth noting the letter I, in LGBTQI, claims to represent Intersex people. These are people with Disorders/Differences of Sexual Development. Many of this community also resent their medical condition being co-opted as an “identity”, by the rainbow alliance.
To hear more of these dissident voices you can read about LGB Alliance here
To return to the Denton’s document. It outlines the progress in establishing transgender rights across European countries. Here’s who is involved in the U.K. Note that one of the organisations didn’t even want their name to be made public. The other one already accesses state funding.
Mosaic received funding from the Government Equality Office for a project working to stop homophobic, bi-phobic and transphobic bullying in schools. You can find this information in the accounts submitted to the Charity Commission.
A quick check on their timeline shows a devotion to the Trans Advocacy lobby group Mermaids. #PinkNews #Stonewall #ProudTrust also figure prominently. Mosaic Youth Trust are enthusiastic advocates for medical intervention, for children, even using an emotive appeal from a trans identified child.
There are very few public resources available on their twitter timeline or website. This, I find, is one of the more disturbing aspects of many of these smaller charities. No public access to resources that are going into our schools! The Denton’s document proffers an explanation for this secrecy, which I will get to…
Introduction
The introduction was written by a well known Trans Activist based in the UK.
You can read more about this activist here. Identifies as non-binary. In a relationship we would have formerly described as heterosexual. As Ugla makes clear here this is no longer acceptable. Heterosexuality is thus redefined as queer. Hey presto it’s under the 🌈 and there’s a crock of s**t at the end of this one.
Mentioning the fact biological sex exists is now a “transphobic dog whistle”.
Legislation by stealth
The two admissions in this next paragraph are crucial to understanding how so much has happened without people, particularly women, marshalling our resources to resist. Most of us didn’t know there was a new threat to women’s rights wearing Joseph’s technicolour raincoat. We were too busy attending Pride marches and gleefully singing #BornThisWay. While we were singing Lady Gaga there was a new Gaga Lyric in town #BornInTheWrong Body.
👇Here are some of the strategies recommended. Pass legislation “under the radar”, “latch…onto more popular legal reforms”. This tactic has served them well. Note that Ireland passed legislation around Gender Recognition before it legalised abortion. Malta still has not legalised abortion but it does allow self-identification of “Gender”.
For Trans Activists the failure, in Ireland, to lower the age for Legal Gender Recognition is seen as a warning against compromise. The stage is set for a new offensive. Note that the age for gender recognition is also under review in Scotland, who seem minded to implement the more controversial of reforms. This legislation is also under review in England and Wales which appears to be heading in a different direction. However, there is no room for complacency.
The role of education & attacks on parental rights
Below is a snippet on Tactics picked up from Portugal. First make sure you train teachers. Get the teachers on board with gettin rid of sex segregated toilets.
The inculcation of gender ideology is well underway in the UK. Many parents are now discovering this with recent publicity on School Transgender policies. (Quite a few of which have been withdrawn as parentsprotest about their contents). The Denton’s dossier is a full frontal attack on parental protective responsibilities. Here is a thread I did on those school Transgender guidance packs, specifically how they seek to undermine parental responsibility. Thread
Here a few examples of how parents are referred to in numerous school packs on Transgender pupils.
Another common tactic is to talk about “minors” say you mean 16-18. Then switch to “child”. Talk a lot about a child’s legal rights and their autonomy. This is another attack on parental responsibility. As is made more explicit. They want Parental Consent to be over-ridden
Here are some quotes about parents in the document under consideration here. 👇
These excerpts are even more disturbing. Mandating state action against parents advocating for “watch and wait” rather than medical intervention. It is factually true ,historically, some jurisdictions enforced sterilisation clauses prior to undergoing Sexual Reassignment surgery. These clauses have rightly been removed. However we have not eliminated this for young people. Children put on Puberty Blockers, invariably, progress to cross sex hormones, they will not have a puberty and will be rendered infertile.
Norway allows legal gender recognition for six year olds. For now (?) this is restricted to children with disorders of sexual development. It is possible that I am overly cynical /hyper-vigilant about why these kids are being housed under the Transgender Umbrella. They are not “transgender” kids, however, could their status be hijacked to campaign for Gender recognition of 6 year olds. Even if they are not “intersex” but do believe they are born in the wrong body?
De-medicalising the process or Medicalising it?
Another aspect of the coverage deemed problematic is the focus on medicalising Gender Identity. This is deemed unhelpful. The problem identified in this quote exposes a central contradiction in trans ideology. For adults there is a push to de-medicalise the process for self-identification of your “gender”. For children there is a push to medicalise them. Here it is claimed that UK voices are simply “confused”.
The debate is confused. Not, however, on the Gender Critical side. It is reflective of an internal contradiction on the Trans Activist side.
The penis retention status of so many Trans-identifies males has not escaped the attention of U.K. females. Indeed the phrase suck on my dick appears with unfailing regularity in responses to inconvenient women. Had the esteemed authors of this report consulted women they would have known the deployment of the penis, by our wannabe sisters, was a strategic fail. Documented here Peak Trans
Here is a direct focus on the “highly problematic” system of separate toilets for girls/women and boys/men. 👇 Given the history of women’s fight to have safe public bathroom facilities this is a direct attack on the rights of women and girls. Note the vehicle for grooming our children to accept this is Teachers. . This is what the frequent “we just want to pee“ is really about. 👇
The document undertakes a country, by country analysis and the United Kingdom is singled out for its non-compliant women. The document doesn’t shy away from using a slur associated with threats of rape and violence (Terf) . It goes on to draw the conclusion that press coverage is problematic. The lesson to be learned is that the freedom of the press has created a divisive issue. In fact the press have, finally, begun to cover something which simply is a contentious issue.
Women are labelled “trans-hostile” because we are not giving up sex based rights without a fight. These are existing rights enshrined in Law, by a Labour government, but the document suggests only the right wing media are raising it. By extension, it implies, it’s only right wing women who have an issue with it. (The uber left wing Morning Star is one of the papers that has tried to provide coverage for these non-compliant women).
The preferred campaign strategy is to provide human interest stories but, the document claims, the current atmosphere is so hostile they are unable to do so. The Guardian and the BBC, Teen Vogue, Pink News, Independent, Mirror, Sun, Telegraph appear not to have received the memo. Coverage of “trans kids” is ubiquitous. This is a strategic. By deploying children it de-sexualises motives for transition and helps persuade people that the trans community are a vulnerable community.
Another way this strategy has been deployed, in the UK, is the many Trans Activists who refuse to appear, along side feminists, to debate any issues. The series on Radio 4 Women’s hour was notable for the number of Trans Activists who would only provide pre-recorded discussions, rather then debate the issues with feminists. Example here
The above is laughably poor research into the actual profiling of young trans people in the British media. A quick search brings up masses of coverage of Young Trans Children. There was a seemingly endless parade of “transgender kids” on British Media. There are loads of celebratory tales of young “transgender” children. Here’s an entire documentary by Victoria Derbyshire. Transgender Kids.
The Children’s BBC programme “I am Leo” was broadcast directly to our kids on CBBC. I presume this was just in case the home schooled had missed out on Transgender Indoctrination. The documentary follows a young female as she embarks on medicalisation to cement her male Gender Identity. Below is a clip of he Director of the U.K’s premier Gender Identity Clinic, who appeared on I am Leo. Juxtaposed with a contemporary statement , somewhat at odds with what our children were told.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
The language of Human Rights advocacy is deeply embedded in the propagation of this ideology. Women’s rights to privacy and dignity has been trampled underfoot which underlines the depressing realisation that we are not considered human. Access to women’s sex segregated spaces is now badged a human rights issue for male bodied “women”.
Of course anyone who is trans-identified should have human rights. The women fighting for our sex based rights are not trying to strip rights away from any male who is a refugee from his sex. The rights we are asserting are existing rights, in law, to allow women to act as a political class to defend women’s, sex based, rights.
Watching the naivete of young, female, politicians who are throwing away women’s rights I think they need to read this document and consider if they are being played. The young politicians are being targeted. The senior, older, politicians, don’t want to lose the youth vote so are letting them lead the way.
Another tactic is to make sure activists get ahead of the politicians. It’s a new area and fraught with political banana skins. What better way to avoid a slip. Outsource your opinions to Lobby groups. They are more than happy to oblige. It’s a great strategy.
This document is a must read. Don’t use it to hold anyone accountable. Lawyers must Lawyer and they have already got their defence ready. Power without responsibility
This conference was set up by the Beaumont Society which began as a support group for men who cross-dress, for erotic purposes, and eventually set up a sister organisation (BeaumontTrust) to support the wives of these men. This is an article presented at their conference in 1998.
Diana opens by recognising the gains made by the “transgendered” individuals, in the last three decades of the twentieth century, but laments the lack of recognition of the impact on their partners, almost invariably, wives. Women who are damaged by their association with the cross-dressing men are generally left out of the “brave and stunning” narratives, to this day.
Diana refers to these men as afflicted by “Gender Dysphoria”. and is keen to assure her audience that she is not intending to censure the men in this community.
G.P.s. were apt to dismiss the experience of the women, caught up in these marriages, who find they do not meet with the same compassion as their “transgender” partner. The impact on the wives resulted, in some 100 cases, in a need for psychiatric care. That’s an estimated 5% of those who contacted the Beaumont Trust! This is likely to be the tip of the iceberg as most woman, who knew the origins of the Beaumont Trust, would be unlikely to seek their support. To give Diana credit she doesn’t fail these women and presents two horrific case studies to the Gendy’s Conference. How I would love to know the response from the men present.
Aitchison lays out the background: The wife’s become some sort of “muse” for their husbands. His intense interest in her stems, not from love, or desire, but from a kind of identity plagiarism or identity theft.
She has plenty of experience of the wives experiences, having taken calls from over 2000 women over ten years. The wives who contact her are, overwhelmingly, shocked, many she describes as “frightened”.
For anyone who wants a detour to explore Peggy Rudd’s story, mentioned above, here is her book. I confess I am not tempted.
We can thank Trans Widow’s voices for challenging the dominant image of the “gender dysphoric” subject. Far from being prey to a debilitating medical condition, many appear to be in the grip of a porn fuelled obsession. Their partners /exes are the collateral damage.
So, why are these wives so defeated and traumatised? This 👇 sounds like living with your stalker, but with no escape. These men are practising a sort of vampirism of the soul. Aitchison describes this mimicry as the commonest complaint from wives. It’s clearly not an aberrant minority.
Mrs A : Case Study 1
First is the example of Mrs A. She discovered her husband wearing her nightgown and impersonating her sleeping position. It was not his first offence, He ignored her efforts to complain, sulking if she attempted to remonstrate with him. She ends up deciding to say nothing.
Like many an abusive husband he tortures her with “mind games” and accuses her of being mentally ill. After this gaslighting she does have a severe breakdown. His quest for an “identity” stripped his wife of hers…👇. She was an unwilling role model.
I am no expert on trans widows but I have seen enough parallels with the treatment of domestic abuse victims (which these women clearly are). One of the common complaints is how galling is the assumption that only the weak would fall prey to these men. It’s the same old “Why didn’t she leave him?”. As Aitchison points out the women don’t, at first, realise what is happening and, by then, they are more entrapped psychologically and, perhaps, financially. How many of these men wait until their wife has children and financially dependent before unleashing their paraphilia on their wife?
This comparison took me by surprise. The breaking down of the wife’s will is compared to the techniques for breaking the spirit of a wild horse.
The wives may not even know they are being subjected to this “shadowing technique” , I once, naively, assuming the husbands were not so vile as to deploy this as a conscious strategy to break their wives’ spirit; I now think they know exactly what they are doing.
This is a form of coercive control likely undetectable to the victim let alone an outside observer. Even worse he may look like a devoted spouse and she appears unhinged and unkind.
Barbara’s Story: Case Study 2
Barbara’s story if even more stark. Barbara is anxious to make it clear this was atypical behaviour. Maybe the ones writing to trans widows voices are atypical or maybe these are the ones who have managed to escape? Can we trust public accounts of wives who remain entombed in these marriages? I suggest the correct approach is extreme skepticism.
Barbara’ story gets darker. Her husbands behaviour emerged after the birth of her second child and only four years into her marriage. He also appropriated her night clothes and informed her there was nothing she could do about it, she would remain married to him for another 31 years despite the end of their sex life,
His domestic abuse wasn’t confined to the psychological abuse he was also violent to both her and her son. He displayed a different side to his daughter thereby ensuring he ruptured the bond between mother and daughter. Naturally he also became preoccupied by pornography.
In another echo of domestic abuse scenarios he made sure to cut his wife off from any potential support avenues. After lying to her sister she would be estranged from her for thirty years. He made sure to perform his role, as a loving husband, in public whilst being cold and distant in private. At the same time he insisted on wifely obedience from Barbara. Of course he was a transvestic fetishist, something he concealed from their children. Some of these men are being platformed by women’s rights organisations to the dismay of Trans Widows.
Eventually, once the children had left home she broke down and finally realised she could leave the marriage. Fearful of him she signed over her share of the marital assets but he still sent threatening messages to her and continued to disparage her as “mentally ill”.
He remains in her daughters life as a grandfather and she has discovered he is taking hormones. Barbara has lost any close bonds with her children, one too damaged and one living in ignorance of her fathers true nature.
Barbara now helps other women in her situation. Many are bewildered and shocked and some discover their husbands secret life after thirty years.
Not all the women who make contact are middle-aged some young women make contact. Like Barbara they have young children. At the same time they fear their experience will not be understood or believed.
I suspect the Beaumont Trust was not likely to have developed comprehensive support for the women subjected to abuse by cross-dressing spouses. The Trust was set up to support wives to, in turn, prop up their husbands and is predicated on their remaining with their husbands.
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.
The first question relates to this book by David Valentine:
The book is based on ethnographic research looking at mainly MTF (Male to female “transgender” people) who he sought out in the drag balls, clinics, bars, support groups and cross-dressing organisations.
The term “transgender” was gaining currency in social settings but also in policy, medical terminology and the legislative context.
Nevertheless there was some resistance to the term “transgender” from the people Valentine encountered, in the nineties; people who preferred to be identified by their sexual orientation and not their “gender identity”. 👇
Whittle is asked if David Valentine is correct that the use of the term “transgender” creates implicit hierarchies, based on race and class.
Whittle chooses to answer the question in terms of the desire, and ability, to pass as the opposite sex, should you wish to do so. She makes an interesting observation on how liberating the computer was in allowing you to pass as the sex you wished you were. On-line “we were who said we were” . A lot of this movement is fostered by the dis-embodied lives of the internet generation. The problem arises when you take your fantasy into real life and demand that it be allowed to trump reality. Nevertheless, Whittle adds, the debate has moved on and “trans” people no longer aspire to “pass” or blend in with normative body types; because the expectation that “trans” people should disappear was “the most oppressive thing that ever happened to us”. My response: Expecting women to accept an obvious man in our single sex spaces is “the most oppressive thing that ever happened to women”.
Whittle follows this up celebrating how many “trans” people there are now in the world; how the smart phone has brought them into our living rooms and trans activists are spreading all over the world. I can think of no other condition where we would celebrate a group of people who are going to be dependent on #BigPharma for life.
The next question comes from an American who ask a question about medical focused on replicating “cis-bodies” . He /She is from the U.S where you can “buy whatever” and he wonders how Whittle feels about bodies “outside the binary”. Whittle gives a rather surprising answer to this, explaining the limitations of achieving a male body for a “trans” man and how she had to reconcile to that difference once she removed her clothes. She now looks on with alarm (this was seven years ago) at people taking flaps of skin from their arms to construct a facsimile of a penis; with all the limitations in terms of sexual function. She even goes so far as to question clinicians “Why are you doing it on kids?”
On “tran women” she is even more blunt.
Whittle elaborates on this theme admitting that there is a lot of denial/self-deception about surgical outcomes. It’s worth sharing these statements in full:
Whittle also points out that our bodies are not like flat pack IKEA furniture, something Mary Harrington calls this treating our bodies as “meat lego”.
Whittle recounts tales he has heard from mother’s who had sons left disappointed at the outcome of the surgeries and its failure to deliver the new life /girlfriend anticipated. Whittle admits a desire to be blunt about these facts and encourage more realistic expectations; though the message is somewhat undercut with the next bit about how having unrealistic dreams can be enjoyable, nevertheless.
There follows a question about how racism was tackled and the use of an essentialist position about race, as a political strategy, even though nobody really believes an essentialist position about race. Whittle is asked how that compares to the politics of “gender”. Whittle talks about how the aim should be that we don’t see “race” anymore. Then she makes an analogy with gender and the gender based violence perpetrated against you because you are a girl, or a boy. (Whittle thinks “gender” creates this violence). Whittle is not explicit about an exact political proposal but the inference is things should get better for females, and males, if we didn’t see “gender”. This ignores the fact that the kind of violence females are subjected to is, frequently, sexual violence, i.e. because of our biological sex. If we pretend sex isn’t real then we can’t see sexism and it’s naive to think this would eradicate sexual violence. Yet, at 1:17 Whittle admits they don’t even know what “gender” is.
The next question is about Facebook and their 51 gender identities. During this exchange we learn that Whittle was involved in the Facebook consultation and personally added six of these “gender identities”. As part of their answer Whittle talks about finding two women with a different style of clothing and, if he asked them to swap clothes, they wouldn’t because “it just isn’t me”. He then makes it clear that he thinks these different styles of dress are different “genders”. Whittle then claims the ability to spot 8 different woman genders based just on looking at women’s outfits! Also she finds it harder with men because their clothing is more. boring; making it abundantly clear he thinks “gender” is your sartorial choices. In the next breath, she says, if you have 51 genders it becomes meaningless and a civilised society will just get rid of the idea of “gender”. I agree we should get rid of the notion of “gender identity” and understand that we are shaped by the treatment we receive as a result of our biological sex and our behaviour, to some degree, is predicated on our biological sex. This does not mean we fit neatly into sexist stereotypes or that women should be limited by our biology, neither can we simply disregard that female bodies are different.
Whittle then talks about cultures that have more than one “gender”. There are, indeed, different cultures that accommodate men, usually gay, by the idea of a different kind of male/gender. These may be a benign way to include gay men. There are less examples of similar accommodations for females. The ones I have found are in societies hardly liberating for women. There are cultures that allow a girl to be treated as “male” if there are no sons in the family. This does not remedy the general position of girls in these societies, instead, it allows the societal structure, which renders girls as less desirable, to remain intact. Similarly societies which allow widows to don a “male” identity to provide for her family. The status of women doesn’t change and, in fact, this exception props up the existing sex hierarchy. See “Bacha Posh”
Or the Burnesha of Albania. 👇
Final question is about the different generations of “trans” people with different understandings of what it means. Does this have implications for the cohesion of the community?
Whittle answers with, firstly, that nobody needs to know your gender and most of the time you don’t need to know what sex people are. He thinks we are obsessed with knowing if you are men, or women, male or female. He adds an anecdote about having to produce documentation showing that he was a woman.
This final statement exposes the regressive nature of this cult. Whittle seems unable to imagine a world where a woman demands to be able to do anything irrespective of her sex. Instead “trans” is envisaged as a liberating project if, crucially, you repudiate your sex. Whittle seems to think the only way a woman can conceive of an occupation which is not “traditional” for women is by identifying out of your sex.
How about a world where women can aspire to transcend societally imposed restrictions, for women, and still own their sex? That would be progressive. Instead, Whittle, seems to live her life as if the only way she could love other women and storm the citadel of male domination is pretending to be a man.
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. 😉)
This post covers a talk given by Professor Stephen Whittle at Durham University in 2015. It’s quite a long talk and there is a lot to cover so this is part 1.
This will be added to my series on Whittle which you can find here:
In the brief introduction Whittle’s achievements are listed and the fact that he advises governments around the world as well as the Council of Europe, European Union and The European Commission; bear this in mind when you listen to some of the more outlandish statements.
Whittle begins with an anecdote about how the concept of “gender” was explained to their four year old son, by Whittle’s wife, a nurse. He asked his parents how they know the twins were girls. This was the answer given to him:
Many years later Whittle overhears this same son passing on the same explanation to a friend and comments “we trained him well”. Whittle then elaborates on the process of sex determination by adding this explanation:
Next people with disorders of sexual development (DSDs) are pressed into service, to prop up gender identity ideology. At the risk of repeating myself, DSDs, do not mean anyone is born without a sex, we are a sexually dimorphic species. We are all either male or female.
Whittle anticipated the audience may be confused that she is questioning the Future of “Gender” when her whole life has been a quest to live as her “Gendered self”. So, why is she? The concept of “gender” ,she explains, has only a recent history. She then asks if Gender a matter of being “male” or “female”? Apparently the answer to that question is “no” because we also categorise animals as male or female but we don’t call them “girls” and “boys”. Well, we wouldn’t, would we,because this is the terminology for human beings. Apparently, this is because, according to Whittle, we don’t think dogs have a gender identity. (Conveniently overlooking that we do have words to differentiate the sexes in the animal kingdom).
Whittle then argues this is because “gender” is not “biologically related” and the gender you have is something separate from being biologically male or female. The next question is to ask if being male or female is socially constructed. Whittle says “possibly” and we will come back to this. He then asks if “masculine” and “feminine” are culturally determined. Apparently this is worth looking at in some depth so, Whittle promises, we will come back to it.
Whittle then examines whether we are defined by our hormones /chromosomes and then throws out a question to the audience asking if anyone knows what their chromosomes are. Predictably people don’t know. Whittle asks why we are defining humanity by our chromosomes when nobody knows what they are? This is a ludicrous argument. The number of people with chromosomal abnormalities is a tiny proportion of the population. Additionally, routine karyotype tests, to check for chromosomal abnormalities, at gender clinics, were abandoned; because they are not a feature of the referrals to such clinics. 99% of people can be correctly sexed with a simple observation of our genitalia. Whittle uses this argument to question one of the fundamental organising principles of society, based on biological sex. Our sex doesn’t always matter but sometimes it does; this could be for health reasons where your biological sex is a predictor of risk for certain health conditions; or where symptoms present differently in males and females. It matters for single sex spaces so women have safe spaces from the sex that commits 99% of sex offences.
Whittle uses this same argument to question the case of April Ashley, a male, who had his marriage annulled; because same sex marriage was illegal in the U.K at the time. Ashley had never tested their chromosomes, had removed their male genitalia and taken synthetic “female” hormones for decades. Whittle uses this argument to cast doubt on April’s sex to shore up her insistence that “gender identity” should take primacy over “sex”. She does this by casting doubt on the definition of biological sex and implying that April is a woman because their self-identity should take precedence over biological reality.
At 11:30 minutes in Whittle pokes fun at Civil Servants trying to establish if a Civil Partnership for same sex couples can be annulled on the grounds of non-consummation; ultimately they decided it couldn’t. This was because they could not decide which sex act would have to be performed to establish consummation. Whittle paints herself as the rational voice educating the stuffy Civil Servants. She also claims that she had to educate the Civil Servants on the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act which, in effect, allowed marriages for same sex couples, providing one had a Gender Recognition Act. I am not persuaded this happened.
Whittle then asks if “Gender” is a matter of attribution i.e. is it when we call our children our son or daughter that we somehow define their gender? This argument is, once again, intended to undermine the reality of biological sex and Whittle used her own situation to explain how this is flawed because:
The next consideration is to ask if “gender” is a matter of psychological differences. She doesn’t elaborate.
Whittle then argues that there are journals across the sciences, the natural sciences, biochemistry, psychology and even English Literature publishing hundreds of articles discussing “gender”, because it has become a profoundly important question. This question is only of importance to the navel-gazing, gender identity ideologues. Whittle then makes a joke about how it keeps people, invested in Gender Studies, in work. She is not wrong.
I am not going to lie the calibre of this talk is making me lose all respect for the Professorial class! Next Whittle says we have got the issue “arse about face” and proceeds to ask if anyone in the room fancies David Beckham. He assumes someone does, which is a fair assumption, but then she goes into the realms of gender woo woo.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say it’s reasonable to assume David Beckham has a penis and the discovery he had not, or had female genitalia, would be a deal breaker for heterosexual women, or gay men. It’s this kind of rhetoric that leads to confused teenage girls assuming gay men would be attracted to them. Exhibit A 👇 (Our kids really believe this).
And
In case it’s not clear Whittle thinks “gender presentation” drives sexual attraction. “Nothing whatsoever to do with their body”!
Bearing in mind Whittle is talking in 2015, the very year Stonewall added the T to its remit. 👇
Part two makes it clear Whittle knows the statistic about the sexual abuse women face and she still thinks abolishing single sex spaces is morally acceptable.
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. 😉)
This is an interview that Stephen Whittle gave two weeks ago. I am going to cover it as part of my series on Whittle because it contains a very different narrative than the one I have heard recounted before. The rest of the series is here: 👇
The interviewer begins by asking Whittle to share their back story. Whittle paints a picture of two parents who were immediately “affirming” and in fact had always known. This was the way her mum is alleged to have responded. This was in 1973.
While coming out to her mother her father walked in the room and he too was completely unfazed. Again, I am just going to point out this was in 1973.
Contrast this with what Whittle said about his father in this, 2007, interview in the Guardian:
For the next bit I could use some Lesbians who were at the Women’s Liberation Conference in Edinburgh to comment. Whittle describes realising they didn’t fit in when the women circle danced naked in the evening; to much audience laughter. Whittle explains it was in that moment they knew this was not who they were. The decision to come out as a man was made and, the way Whittle tells it, all the feminist /Lesbian women were unsurprised and supportive; rallying round and finding “him” men’s clothes to pass on. One of the women even knew a “transsexual” they could introduce to Whittle; this was Carol Steele who I covered here:
This meeting proved fortuitous and together Whittle and Steele set up a support group for “trans” people this would become Press For Change. Whittle talks a lot about how they were involved in the Gay Switchboard and how they had fantastic support from Gay men. (As we will see in my next piece she, and the T more generally, repaid this by denying same sex attraction was based on the SEX of the person. This is betrayal of the highest order).
Whittle then talked about what tremendous support she had from Manchester Metropolitan University (then a Polytechnic), her employer, to socially “transition” at work. There appears to have been zero opposition at work, according to Whittle’s account. The interviewer then prompts Whittle to talk about the hard times (lest things get too upbeat) and Whittle duly obliges, revealing all the times they lost employment when forced to show their birth certificate. She also claims this was often accompanied by accusations of paedophilia and maintains this is what happens today when anyone expresses support for “trans children”. I am going to go out on a limb here and say these are prepared taking points.
Whittle describes how they studied the law, at night school, to enable her continue the journey to “transition” by living as a “man” while a student. She also realised the law could be used to further the strategic aims of the “trans” community. They looked for suitable test cases and Whittle talks us through the various legal victories, obtained by Press For Change, and some of the losses. Whittle failed to obtain the right to be recorded as the “Father” for the four children had by her wife, Sarah. At the same time, Whittle explained they always “spun” the losses as victories; which is an ongoing strategy. See this comment on Stonewall by AkuaReindorf 👇. This is from a report into Essex University who had de-platformed female speakers with “gender critical” beliefs. Essex University were found to have followed guidance from Stonewall, who train organisations, not on the law, as it is, but how they wish it to be.
Even more astonishingly, about the 30 minute mark, Whittle makes this claim either without a shred of self-awareness or as a deliberate falsehood.
In 1996 London Pride were persuaded to include the T and Whittle talks about taking the children who were entertained by a trans-identified male, Fay Presto, who was also a magician. (You can find fascinating documentaries about Fay Presto on YouTube). In 1997 they had their first stall at the Labour Party conference and Whittle shows a picture which includes MoMowlem and Cherie Booth (QC and wife of Tony Blair).
Whittle then describes how she set up a network of FTM (Female to Male) “trans” people and began sending out a regular newsletter which reached 4000 people before it ceased. The BBC also began showing documentaries about FTM people, called The Decision Make Me a Man. Whittle describes them as documentaries “we” made which suggests collaboration with the BBC commenced at least as early as the 90’s.
Next up Whittle reveals his psychiatrist, who was assessing his suitability for medical transition, told him he had not been approved. Whittle leaves the session in despair but tells this tale about what happened next. 👇
This anecdote serves as a useful jumping off point for Whittle to criticise the gatekeeping / safeguarding involved in a medical pathway and call it fundamentally flawed while promoting “trans” led health care. It is also an opportunity to promote the Manchester “Gender Identity”service that no longer requires any psychiatric assessment to access the medical pathway.
There follows a revealing discussion about Press For Change working with Government departments, Civil Servants and Ministers to draft the Gender Recognition Act. Whittle encounters some questioning from a Civil Servant and in walks David Lammy, the Minister responsiblefor getting the GRA into law. Here Lammy is painted as giving Whittle carte blanche.
Now to the “Culture Wars”
I typed this as I was watching and my fury is only matched by my incredulity at Whittles disingenuousness, which, at times, tips over into brazen, outright, lies.
The interviewers brings up the shocking “anti-trans” backlash happening in the U.K. This is how a defence of women’s rights and against the sterilising of children is framed. (Starts from 40 minutes in). Whittle, correctly, identifies the moves to try to allow any man to self declare a woman, and vice versa, as the trigger for women’s resistance. Whittle cites Ireland as the exemplar; and claims there have been no problem; which is wilful ignorance on her part. (See Barbie Kardashian).
Whittle also claims the “links” between women’s groups and the “Proud Boys” are only now becoming clear. (This is a reference to a alleged member of the right wing, Proud Boys, group who had a selfie taken with Posey Parker who had no idea who he was. Plenty of politicians have been caught out this way). Whittle believes the government are stoking a culture war to distract from issues of corruption, which they may well be, but there are plenty of left wing, trade unionist, women leading this fight. Whittle ignores those.
She then goes onto mock women’s fears about men in our intimate spaces; adding the threat that if we don’t want men in our intimate spaces we can have women, like her, back in the female loos. Now she is attacking crowdfunding which has allowed women to legally, defend our rights. What a patronising ar**! She is now saying naive people have been persuaded to give money to causes they don’t properly understand! Now she is mis-characterising the argument saying women think children are being given sex changes at the age of 12! Actually we oppose children being given puberty blockers at age 10. Fact! Teenage girls are getting double mastectomies in the U.K. Granted the age range is not as low as in the United States, where cases of thirteen years old girls getting these surgeries have been documented. Now he is alleging three million pounds have been poured into these legal cases and nobody knows where the money has gone! (Is there some confusion here with the Good Law Project who have been criticised for their fundraising strategy?)
Now she is acknowledging the social contagion element of females in flight from their sex but claims that the Gender Clinics would see these girls and explain why they are not “trans”. This after she has argued that “we know who we are” and psychological assessments are not necessary.
Jesus! Whittle is now acknowledging there are category errors happening with girls thinking they are trans and that she wants to be able to have that conversation but the hysteria around the topic means they are not allowed to! #NoDebate came from your side Whittle!
Now Whittle is disputing claims of issues with trans-ID males and patterns of criminality. She claims there has only been one incident of a pre-op “transwoman” exposing their penis to women and it was someone having a psychotic breakdown, who was mortified by what they had done. Anyone wanting to challenge Whittle on this can find numerous examples, just in the U.K , at this site 👇.
This is just a snapshot. No doubt the “trans” community will claim some are not really “trans” but these are their rules. Steve Wright, for example, was a transvestite. That now comes under the trans umbrella. See also “We are who we say we are”.
Whittle then tells a tale of a “trans woman” friend who gets up at 3am to sort their make-up out and then uses this as an argument to say no men would go to all that trouble to access women’s spaces. Also the “trans woman” is more scared than you are! We are just at the outright lying stage now. The trans-identifying male is to be believed when he is too scared to use male spaces but women are not to be believed when we say we don’t want mixed sex facilities. Whittle also pleads with women to recognise that “trans women” are great allies to feminists.
We are nearly at the end and Whittle now suggests we are at the point where both sides can start to talk. He mentions the spectre of potential violence against the “trans” community by right wing men with guns or a “trans” kid being provoked into “doing something stupid” . Whittle also claims to have reached out to people he knows “on the other side” claiming he is concerned there will be another Jo Cox incident; she then specifically invokes Eddie Izzard as a visible and vulnerable person. What Whittle is hoping is that she can reach out to make a secret deal with “moderate” voices.
No more back room deals!
I hope none of the feminists, who Whittle is approaching, don’t get blinded by flattery: {“You are one of the reasonable voices” } and think they can give away some women’s rights to appease the likes of Whittle; #NoPenisInOurTime.
Questions from the audience.
First question is what can business do to support “trans” colleagues.
Whittles answer is they can remember we exist and support trans day of remembrance for all the dead trans people, who have been murdered (None, in the U.K. is the answer for the last few years). Cue loads of hyperbole about trans murder rates using global data. (Facts below) She also claims that hardly any companies remember to note this day which is another egregious lie.
Whittle is asked about the conflict between women’s rights and trans rights. Gives an answer about knowing what it’s like to be a teenage girl and how she wouldn’t dream of using women’s spaces, which is hardly the point, but then says “trans women” also don’t want men in women’s spaces and have a lot in common with you if you just sit down and talk. She also makes a veiled threat that, if we don’t want men in our spaces she could start using them and “you wouldn’t want that”.
Whittle seems to be quite keen to signal a willingness to have dialogue and claims that her side are willing to come together to talk but the “other side” don’t turn up unless it’s to shout “penis” at a trans woman. Again this is blatant lying. Who was it who coined #NoDebate? How many discussions did Stonewall manage to stop by refusing to turn up and allowing the BBC to claim discussion could not go ahead “without balance”?
A man who is from an organisation for the Supporters of Sexual violence (in Brighton) claims all the people in the sector are “trans-inclusive” but there are problems with “grifters” using crowd funding to litigate against this approach. He goes on to accuse “cis, lesbian” women actively trying to close down sexual violence services. {I think he is talking about a case asking if a rape crisis service, in Brighton, would provide a single sex group, in addition to the trans inclusive and the trans only service. She was refused}.
Whittles answer is that, as a group, they have to be clever and, by implication, outsmart the legal challenges. I will cover Whittle’s other talk, which I linked above, in another blog.
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. 😉)
You can read more about this activist here. Identifies as non-binary. In a relationship we would have formerly described as heterosexual. As Ugla makes clear here this is no longer acceptable. Heterosexuality is thus redefined as queer. Hey presto it’s under the 🌈 and there’s a crock of s**t at the end of this one.
