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).
This is part of a (very long) series based on the book Trans Britain. There was a wealth of detail in the chapter on Trade Unions, by Carola Towle, so it needed more than one post. You can read the first part at the link below.
Here is another activist from within the trade union movement, Phillippa Scrafton, who gained a seat on the national LGBT committee.
Scrafton came out in 2003 as “transgender”. He seems to have been age 35, at the time, and was in a heterosexual marriage. He explains that it was the prospect of children that prompted action and presents this as a stark choice between suicide or “becoming the person she knew she was”.
Based on his current social media he appears to be in a relationship with a female; though I am presuming by the use of “my Mrs” below.
Just two years into “womanhood” Scrafton made the front cover of the Unison magazine.
A cursory search of twitter turns up references to Scrafton speaking at Teesside University, N.E Ambulance Services, the NHS Business Services authority, Durham University, and Newcastle Medical School. He can also be found endorsing candidates for Darlington Labour. He also made a speech at the Unison women’s conference but this experience was not quite so positive, for either Scrafton or, it seems, the audience.
Apart from his job managing bin collections for the local council he also became a representative of Stonewall Scotland. In the latter capacity he spoke at an academic conference alongside PhDs with pronouns in their bios. 👇
Just out of interest I downloaded the conference programme for the above ☝️ just in case it’s worthy of a follow up.
I can only find one public recording, of Scrafton, (link below) and I found myself seriously underwhelmed. In no other circumstance would Scrafton be addressing University students, except as a member of this new priest class.
Apart from this Scrafton was a trustee of a charity called Gay Advice Darlington. This appears to have ceased operating though remains on the charity commission register, despite never posting any accounts.
In addition to this he was involved in a community interest company which appears to have lasted only one year.
Turns out Phillippa also advises the police, as do so many of the trans activists I have covered in my series on TRAs behind the scenes.
I noticed, from Scranton’s linkedin, that he was endorsed by Jacqui Gavin who I also covered in my series about men working behind the scenes. Small world.
Females are under-represented, as usual but we are introduced to a black “trans-identified” female. There is not much information about Biggs but I did find a reference to a presentation from 2016. @NELFT is an NHS mental health trust.
The slide showing ☝️is enlarged below and makes it clear that transvestites/cross-dressers are included under the trans umbrella; which means men with transvestic fetishism can claim to be women. These same men are being granted access to female spaces; even those which might include a teenage girl, in a state of undress.
Jaden would appear to be a nurse who is also qualified to dispense drugs.
Entry on the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) register.
Lucy Persechino
Persechino is another person presented as a positive role model in Towle’s chapter. Lucy was a member of the Unison national commitee.
Persechino was interviewed by the Daily Gazette and a link to the article is below.
Some more quotes from the article, background in IT ✅. Heterosexual, married man ✅ No early rejection of Male social roles✅ Now a “Lesbian” ✅. Thrilling experience in the Ladies Loos. ✅.
Another male claiming to be a “Lesbian” . How offensive. I think these men think women loving women are just a porn category.
In addition to his work for Unison Persechino also has ambitions to be an actor and has registered some further information, and pictures, with an on line agency.
Here are a few more images from his Star Now entry.
Cucumber, Banana, Tofu.
Persechino had a part in Cucumber, Banana and Tofu by Russell T Davies the writer of Queer as Folk and Its a Sin. These are three different shows, which can be watched independently, but are companion pieces. Cucumber is a series, Banana is a collection of short stories and Tofu is a documentary style where members of the cast talk about their sex lives interwoven with dramatic vignettes from, I presume, the companion shows. The title comes from a sexology institute that graded the firmness of erections from tofu, to banana to cucumber. You get the drift. Lucy appears in Tofu as a “lesbian” and a dominatrix.
[The series also stars Julie Hesmondalgh, who played Hayley Cropper, the “transsexual” in Coronation Street, who, by the way is even more irritating as herself with, in my view, a damaged relationship to sex and intimacy]. Here are Lucy’s highlights.
Lucy talks about torturing her male clients as part of their fetish. As you can see he is quite proud of being a “sadistic bitch”. Most of the more explicit references to Lucy’s dominatrix work appear in episode 8 at about the 8 minute mark. It’s worth watching this episode to see how porn has changed the sexual landscape, sadly not in a good way.
There were two males claiming to be Lesbians in Russell T Davies drama and a couple of trans identified females. It was noticeable that he didn’t promote the idea of a trans-identified female demanding entry into the dating pool of gay men. Funny that.
Lucy also worked for Southend Borough Council as the HR and diversity Officer. For 10 years.
Now that I have covered the trans activists who influenced the Union movement I will end with part 18 c which covers the rest of the chapter and one final man who has taken senior roles, meant for women, in UNISON.
You can support my work by becoming a paid subscriber to my substack or donating below. All donations help to keep me going and also keep my content open and free for those people who don’t have the wherewithal to pay.
Puzzled by the Guardian embrace of Transgender Ideology and lack of concern for the impact on women’s rights, I decided to have a look. As a lifelong Guardian reader the piece that prompted me to have a look was a campaign to move a ”transgender” prisoner to the female estate.
Marie Dean & Tara Hudson
I wrote a piece on that here 👇 below is a clip detailing the sexual nature of the offences.
Coverage of Tara Hudson was similarly misleading while a campaign was ongoing to move Tara to the female estate. 👇
The Scott Trust
Following the above coverage I started to have a look at the Guardian Group’s ownership and oversight. This led to the Scott Trust and a bit of digging into the trustees. 👇
The Scott Trust have oversight of the Guardian Group’s editorial policy in the event of any disagreement. They also have hiring and firing control over the Editor.
One of the Trustees also sits on the Paul Hamlyn Foundation. This foundation funds a number of trans-lobby groups including Mermaids.
Thompson Reuters Foundation
For those of you familiar with the Denton’s document you will be aware that the above foundation supported its production. The document is provides to strategic advice on how best to embed Gender Identity Ideology in institutions, the media and the political elite. I wrote about this here:
So, let’s take another look at the People who are trustees for the Scott Trust. 👇
As you can see one of the Trustees, appointed in 2021, also sits on the Thompson Reuters Foundation. She also used to work for twitter.
Open Society Foundations
I am indebted to Julian Vigo for this next section. I had been looking at the funding handed out by the Open Society Foundation. The OS Foundation funds many initiatives which are pro-democracy and many that , at least at a superfical level, appear to be laudable. At the same time they funnel money to organisations which are pro-prostitution and Gender Identity Ideology. Their database, of grantees, is on-line and searchable. This is what came up when I searched the Guardian.
It would be interested to know if anyone else think the Guardian coverage crossed a line in coversge of ”transgender” issues in the run up to the consultancy on the Gender Recognition Act.
Here are some other foundations funding content at the Guardian.
Revolving door in the Charity Sector.
Just as an aside the other way this ideology gets embedded is the revolving door between posts in the Charity Sector. This is Nancy Kelley’s CV; MIND, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Refugee Council and Barnados.
Also Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Stonewall Champion.
You can support my work here. Only if you have surplus. Don’t prioritise me over the legal cases.
Some research about female inmates and their reactions to being housed with males who have a ”transgender” identity. Since Claire Fox quoted it in the House of Lords I decided to seek it out.
Dr Matthew Maycock has also done research into what transgender prisoners want from the prison system. I will cover that paper in another blog post. He was employed by the Scottish Prison service for this research. The Scottish Prison service has worked closely with Transgender Lobby groups on their Prison policy. As evidenced by this statement, by James Morton, of Scottish Trans Alliance. This was published in Christine Burn’s book: ”TransBritain”
This lobby group ”strategised” that if they could make this “work”, for which I read ”get away with it”, they could then move on to eradicate all single sex spaces. Note their aim was to dispense with the requirement for a Gender Recognition Certificate. Admission to the female estate would be on the basis of self-declaration.
Dr Maycock now works at Dundee University. Here is his biography.
His starting point accepts the central tenets of transgender identity ideology; mainly that sex is “assigned” at birth and women need a new qualifier to our existence as females;”cis”. Matthew would do well to consider that many, maybe even most, women have issues with ”gender” (stereotypes) being imposed upon us because of our biology. Accepting the reality of our biological sex does not mean our sex allies with a mythical “gendered soul”.
I find these assumptions irksome, to say the least, but let us move on to consider whether he has tackled this issue fairly.
Here is the abstract: Notice the quote chosen to head-up the report. That gave me a clue about his perspective.
The abstract sets out Maycock’s aim. He will offer a ”corrective” to those feminists who ”claim” to speak for female inmates. Because Matthew works for the Scottish Prison service he has unique access to the female prison population housed with transgender inmates, of both sexes. If only there had been a requirement for ethical approval before the SPS unleashed males on incarcerated women. Their consent was either taken for granted or deemed irrelevant.
Maycock begins by claiming his research will be groundbreaking because it is the first time “cis-women” prisoners have been asked for their view. Let me repeat that. Only now is the Scottish Prison service even considering the views of females in custody. Since the SPS are also funding this research and surveying existing prisoners, in their custody, we need to bear the context in mind. The women are literal hostages to this policy. As becomes clear the “people”, referred to below, affected by this policy are the female kind. The females remain in the women’s estate irrespective of a transgender identity. 🤔. It would have been interesting had Maycock explained why this is the case.
At least Dr Maycock acknowledges that women have been marginalised in the wider debate about transgender issues. We will get on to what the good Doctor thinks about these ”feminist elements” who, against instructions, attempted to have some dialogue about prison policy. The language here is also revealing. If a male is excluded from single sex spaces we do not normally talk about it in the language of ”acceptance” and ”rejection”.
He continues with an outline of Prison Policy around the care and management of transgender prisoners. He claims England and Wales house persons in line with their sex unless they have attained the legal status as “women”. This is certainly not true. Males have been housed in the female estate without being “legally female” for some time. A little social justice speak creeps in here 👇 with the talk of the ”gender binary”. He means prison policy that recognises Humans are sexually dimorphic. Heaven forfend!
The situation in Scotland is because of the, afore-mentioned, involvement of Scottish Trans Alliance. {If you feel so inclined you could look up Gordon Pike who was also involved in drafting this policy. Pike is now subject to the judicial system himself. He was caught with thousands of indecent images of children}. The policy outlines its ethos of fairness to transgender prisoners. They interpreted fairness, to these males, as housing them in the female estate. 🤷♂️
The usual claims about risk profiles are made. Since we have been putting males in the female estate with criminal profiles, which include sex offences against women, I would be wary of claims about risk assessments. One such advisor on prison policy made it clear sex offences, against women, were not a bar to being placed in the female estate. This is a quote from Hansard, taken during an oral session of the Transgender Equality Inquiry. Chaired by Maria Miller and attended by Jess Phillips nobody in attendance objected to this statement. 👇. Megan is a trans-identified male.
Before Maycock gets onto the meat of his report he takes a couple of quite inaccurate side swipes against two groups who have undertaken research on the erosion of single sex spaces, in Scotland. On Women and Girls Scotland’s work he makes much of the fact that he doesn’t know the background of the women who undertook their research. He also casts doubt on their ability to speak for female women prisoners. He makes much of their lack of access to women in prison; something the authors at W&Gs Scotland are open about. {I doubt the Scottish Prison service would have been amenable to this organisation accessing women prisoners}. I will just point out that they did in fact state the background of the researchers. One of them was a “transwoman”, two were working class and all reside in Scotland. They also sent the survey out quite widely. The list below includes three organisations pushing trans-inclusive policies; Engender, Rape Crisis Scotland and the Women’s Equality Party.
W & Gs Scotland are also transparent about their lack of access to prisoners. This only comprised one chapter of their research. They did, nevertheless get responses from women with prison experience. 👇
They also make it clear that they regard this research very much as a beginning and much more is needed. They did get over 2000 responses to their survey. I will cover this research in more detail on another blog.
Maycock outlines the methodology for his research. It consisted of a survey and unstructured interviews. He spoke to 15 prisoners. He also makes quite a revealing statement about how the survey participants were selected. They were recruited by ”gatekeeper prison officers”. It would have been important, at this point, to clarify the recruitment process. It would have been helpful if we could be certain all the women impacted by this policy got an opportunity to participate. Even if the participants were a representative sample there is a risk that a female prisoner’s responses would simply toe the line; considering they are commenting on policy instituted by their prison over lords.
It takes a brave woman to express hostility to existing prison policy while incarcerated. Thankfully there were some prepared to be honest about their objections.
First Doctor Maycock gives a broad overview of the sample. All had been placed on a wing with a trans-identified male. They have varying length sentences to serve. Some are middle-class and educated others are described as working class with no formal education. They claim varying sexual orientations. Matthew then outlines his own identity as a white, cis, heterosexual male. (Of course he is!)
This is how he badges his findings. Prisoners who toe the prison authority line are labelled ”accepting” and those who raise objections or concerns are labelled ”rejecting”. Quite emotionally loaded terms.
The “accepting” women.
He begins with the ”accepting” women. Notice there are a lot of examples of the women as emotional support humans for the males. They are accepting, supportive, encouraging and recognise the authenticity of the males identifying as women, even the ones with a penis. They are all behaving in a compliant manner.
Lucy is fully on board with the prison agenda. Lucy is a newly minted lesbian who compares her journey to the “daily struggles” of the transgender inmates.
Another prisoner, Isla, is very supportive of the transgender inmates and repeats the narrative of the women nurturing the transgender inmates on their difficult journey. This is a recurrent theme. The author sees this as positive reinforcement for the policy, I see it as women pressed into service as validation aids. The women are providing, free, emotional labour.
In another revealing statement we find that the women are also supporting females who identify as transgender. Why are they not in the male estate living their authentic truth? 🤔
Next up Emily who is fully supportive, even to the trans-identified males who, she coyly observes, have their ”bottom bits” . Emily makes it clear the penis is not dangerous as it has been rendered impotent by the hormones. Apart from the penis ”she was just like a lassie”. Notice the author takes at face value statements like ”She didn’t act like a man. He has observations when some women question transgender males who didn’t ”act like women”. It seems it is perfectly possible to accept sex stereotypes if they align with a proclaimed gender identity but not if you question a man’s authenticity.
Matthew proceeds to talk about the wide acceptance of transgender women and the women who do not see them as a risk. He is particularly keen to hear from women who, despite a history of abuse by violent males, do not see the transgender males as “manly” or feel intimidated by them. Jessica tells him she sees the transgender inmates as women.
There are a couple of women who are heterosexual and claim it is the Lesbians who cause more problems. One of them, Ella, claims she has been exposed to Lesbians having sex. Matthew does not question this anecdotal evidence. Later in the report he does undermine testimony when women allege transgender prisoners have been caught having sex with women. The bias is evident throughout the report. The statements from women who accept Maycock’s agenda are accepted without question. The women who don’t accept men in women’s prisons are referred to as ”prejudiced” and accused of using ”Terf” talking points,
Maycock quotes another prisoner uncomfortable with Lesbians as a result of being straight and returns to Ella who is positively gushing about the opportunity to watch the journey of a transgender woman up close. Seems some of the glitter has rubbed off on Ella.
Here it is not clear what prompted this reply, from Jessica, questioning the work of Murray, Black, Mackenzie. They are another feminist group Maycock criticises. Whatever promoted Jessica’s response It does give the researcher a good quote. Jessica rejects the idea that female prisoners have any specific vulnerabilities. This runs counter to the many reports on the female prison demographic who demonstrate other wise.
Here is a quote from some research done by the Howard League, Scotland.
One of the ”accepting” women, Emily, who earlier waxed lyrical about a particular transgender women, qualifies her acceptance to limit it to the ”genuine” transgender inmates. The issue here is that the prison service is accepting men based on a self-declaration and leaving the untrained women to do their own risk assessments, on a case by case basis. As he does throughout Maycock quickly follows this critical comment with prisoner statements that there are “cis” women who are more of a risk to women than a transgender woman. This is a common tactic of trans activists. The Howard League report, quoted above, found less than 2% of Scottish, female, prisoners were held for violent offences.
Another prisoner, Alison, goes further to prioritise the vulnerability of the transgender inmates who, she feels, are the more vulnerable demographic. Alison is quoted at length stating that there is no evidence of violent trans prisoners. This is followed up by Matthew gushing about the acceptance, empathy and support the women display. He seems to like women who display maternal instincts to his brethren. This is a reflection of the way females are socialised to be accepting and kind. I think this can be a positive attribute so it is quite sickening to see how it is, here, being used against women.
The “rejecting” women
No we turn to the ”rejecting” women and what they have to say. Not all the women followed the script.
50% of a selected sample did not see the transgender women as women and believed they should be housed in accommodation appropriate for their actual sex.
As Rhona Hotchkiss (retired Prison Governor) points out the research showed 80% objected and only 3 had no reservations at all.
For Matthew this makes those women ”prejudiced”. The Curtice report, referenced below, contrasts with other reports which had quite different results when people realised some of those ”women” demanding access to female only facilities retained a penis.
Here Matthew uses a slur (Terf); which is often accompanied by threats of rape and violence. These women’s comments are being delegitimised in the way the preceding statements were not. One of the prisoners even inserts the, thought terminating, cliche ”Trans Women are Women”. Maycock is losing more credibility by the sentence and is hardly helped by referencing Sally Hines. 😳
How on earth can an intelligent man be shocked that females associate the possession of a penis with a man? Notice the women are having these secret conversations between themselves about the men they are forced to live among. Maycock attempts to extract some positives about a 50% rejection rate for the prison policy. He quotes a lot of women, somewhat apologetically, explaining how women who have histories of abuse associate a penis with a man. 🤷♂️
The women are clearly talking privately about their worries because they are being forced to pretend fully intact men are women. This is using a, literally, captured audience and forcing them to participate in this, ideologically driven, social experiment.
Here a prisoner expresses concern that she may be saying the unsayable to a prison employee which indicates she knows her views have become verboten. Clearly some women, with backgrounds of child abuse know a man when they see one. Matthew feels this complicates the issue. It doesn’t though. Taking advantage of female socialisation to encourage compliance with the idea men can become women is cruel. Looking for a loophole because some women are, or profess to be, OK with penis bearing women is unethical.
Ellie and all the other women are being forced to judge authenticity of motivation, to make their own risk assessments. We know that trained prison staff have allowed dangerous males to enter the female estate and the women’s fears are being dismissed /downplayed by this academic. What these women are being forced into by this prison policy is nothing short of a human rights violation.
The gaslighting here. Ella sees a man because he is a man. Yet, the researcher is writing her up as if her perception is problematic. The fact that this man 👇 starts an inappropriate conversation about porn is no surprise. She clearly finds him intimidating and points out that he has a man’s build.
He quotes Ellie at length and I suspect he finds her comments outrageous. I find her plain speaking utterly refreshing. Bravo Ellie!
Maycock, of course, intends to paint a picture which suggests Ellie is a conspiracy theorist. It is, however, naive to believe men are not plotting to escape the fate of being incarcerated with other males. Whether for nefarious motives, to access vulnerable women, or just to have easier jail time. Of course it is happening.
This is simply not true. Sex offenders, who are male, have been allowed into the female estate since at least 2009. I have covered more than one case on this blog.
Why didn’t Matthew produce some actual statement from the Scottish Prison Service that this doesnt happen; rather than using Freya’s faith in the system to undermine Ellie’s account? Why is he putting (wo) in brackets when Ellie is saying ”man”?
I was quite furious whilst reading this document. The version you are reading is significantly reduced in length. My first version included a lot more clips from the women. There is plenty more to be enraged about. Sadly.
Again Freya is used to undermine the testimony of Ellie. Since the staff are implemeting the policy and Matthew is funded by the SPS I am not surprised the prison officers did not corroborate Ellie’s story. Below the framing is also changed so that the fear of a penis bearing male is presented as a cross the trans-identifying male has to bear!
Some of the women then talk about transgender males who they had accepted and supported only to find those same men had re-identified with their birth sex as soon as they were released. Who’d have thunk it? The women talk about zero-effort males who enter the female estate and make no effort to pass as ”transgender” but, in fact behaved like controlling males.
Here a prisoner lists her experiences with men who she feels gamed the system.
Maycock, to his credit, perhaps, includes the statements but then interprets them as the women having stereotypical expectations of how a woman should behave. This is despite the women reporting men who made no effort to cover their genitalia which means the women have been subject to indecent exposure. I mean nothing says ”lady” like getting your dick out!
The prison service should protect vulnerable males. There are vulnerable wings for ex-police officers and paedophiles who are at elevated risk in the male estate. As it stands my trans-identified, and gay, son would be vulnerable on both those counts. He would only be protected for his ”trans-identity”. What the prison service have done is mask their own failures by making the problem a ”woman’s” problem. This is unacceptable.
Matthew’s conclusion is somewhat different to mine. He seems to be of the view that more exposure to transgender people will eradicate these transphobic views. In fact this policy has pitted two protected characteristics against one another. This is a dangerous, rash and insensitive way to treat women. Ironically this sex denying policy is 100% SEXist.
If you want to support my work you can do so here: I am unwaged but only donate if you can afford. I will keep my content free.
The Samaritans is a charity, based in the U.K, set up to help people in distress. They focus on providing 24 hour helplines, staffed by volunteers, whose aim is to avert self-harm or suicide. Apart from providing research on risk factors for suicide and they also teach media outlets how to report on completed suicides to avoid, inadvertently, fostering suicide ideation or even copycat suicides in specific demographics.
Given the charitable objectives of the Samaritans it has shown a marked failure to condemn the routine deployment of suicide threats to advance the aims of the Trans Lobby. If you are unfamiliar with the way questionable data on suicide ideation is used to promote medical responses to children with “Gender Dysphoria” I have written about it below:
The Samaritans have written extensively about how the media should avoid over-sensational media reporting, and simplistic narratives associating suicide with a specific demographic. They write, knowledgeably about suicide contagion and “clusters” of suicides associated with, for example, high-profile suicide of celebrities. They acknowledge the specific vulnerabilities of young people and yet…The Transgender Lobby break this code on a regular basis and are amplified by media outlets and even MPs. Yet the Samaritans remain, studiously, silent about the regular breach of its media guidelines on suicide by Trans Lobby groups.
So, why would the Samaritans ignore the most egregious breach of its media guidelines even though they *know* there is no epidemic of suicides in Gender Dysphoric youth? Could it be that they have been Stonewalled? Lets have a look at their CEO, Julie Bentley. She joined in October 2020 and had previously been CEO of Girl Guiding and Action for Children.
Her chosen profile on twitter has the tell-tale sign of pronouns in the bio, and proud proclamations about kindness and social justice along with the inevitable “feminist”.
Many of us have tagged Samaritans into tweets promoting suicide in our Gender Dysphoric youth and asking them for public statements to condemn the practice. This is just one example but I have done this myself, many times.
Previously Julie has been CEO of Girl Guides and Action for Children. Both these organisations are Stonewall Champions. It is not clear if Samaritans are paid up members of the Stonewall racket but Julie is an enthusiastic supporter. This is clip from an archive copy of Stonewall lists of supporters. As there are some high profile departures from the scheme Stonewall no longer allow public access to their supporter information.
Girlguiding has been the subject of some controversy under Bentley’s tenure as it was under her that the organisations became mixed-sex and guide leaders were terminated for raising concerns. Here is a link to her statement given at the time:
The response neatly side-steps the issue of Adult, male guide leaders. It also ignores a girls right to bodily privacy especially because some of these girls will have developing bodies and may already be menstruating. That is a time when many girls are self-conscious about their bodies and bodily functions.
Bentley also reveals that she was taking advice from a Trans Lobby group. Note that below she says that only in *some* instances are separate facilities used.
This remains a controversial topic for the Girl Guides long after Bentley has moved on. This is one of the guide leaders causing a fuss this week. You can read more about this below and note that women were expelled for warning this would happen.
Here Julie Bentley commends ex CEO of Stonewall, Ruth Hunt, who was responsible for turning Stonewall into a Trans Lobby group. 👇
Bentley continued her support for new CEO, Nancy Kelley.
Bentley has also spoken along side controversial Transing kids charity Mermaids. Two clips below, One from 2017 and an endorsement in 2020.
Samaritans have even promoted articles propagating articles about Transgender Suicide as far back as 2016.
Prior to Bentley’s time at the charity they also hosted “Dr” Helen Webberley of Gender GP. Webberley has had her registration suspended and is currently awaiting the outcome of another tribunal which is scrutinising her medical practices. Webberley was guest speaker at their AGM in 2016.
More recently Bentley nailed her colours to the mast as controversy blew up about Stonewall and she made it clear which side she was on.
I hope this explains why the Samaritans are maintaining a stubborn silence on the harms done in the name of Gender Identity Ideology. We are sterilising children, as young as 10, by putting them on Puberty Blockers which are invariably followed by cross-sex hormones. For males they will have stunted genitalia which will, even under their paradigm, make attempts to create a neo-vagina more difficult. Girls are put on a pathway to double mastectomy and often hysterectomy which is a response to vaginal atrophy induced by long term testosterone use. I cannot think of a situation more likely to see a spate of future suicides as regret kicks in. If CEOs of Charities don’t have the courage to do their job they should be removed.
While we are entitled to some celebration as more and more organisations extract themselves from Stonewall we are not going to be able to rest on our laurels. We face an uphill and lengthy battle to undo the damage. Firstly there will be multiple organisations keen to step into the breach and hoover up the Trans pound. Secondly Queer theory is embedded in our universities and churning out graduates saturated in (Judith) Butler Bollox. Whilst many of us were concerned that the European Union is captured there is a danger we could become tied to a U.S trade deal that comes with strings attached. The list of companies and public bodies who were indoctrinated by Stonewall is long. Even though Stonewall Champions list is shrinking (hence why it is no longer publicly names its supporters) the indoctrinated remain in those organisations.
Here is the archive list of Stonewall supporters. We need to root this ideology out of all of these organisations and it is going to take a long time. Help me keep going, if you can, below.
Since writing this article I discovered that the Samaritans were captured much earlier than I thought. In fact the Samaritans were involved in the Beaumont Society, an affiliate organisations for the wives of the Transvestite /“Transsexual” organisation, set up by the Beaumont Trust. {These quotes are from the book “Trans Britain” by Christine Burns).
The Samaritans listed all the organisations to help “transvestites/ “transsexuals” find each other back in the 1970’s.
Clearly the Samaritans remain captured. Here is a tweet from November 2022.
GIRES, another “trans” lobby group also boast about training the Samaritans,
Please support my work because many of the media are more involved in propagating this ideology than exposing it…only if you can afford it.
Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women & girls as well as the consequences for Lesbians, Gay males and autistic kids. I do this full time and have no income. All my content is open access and donations help keep me going. Only give IF you can afford. Thank you to my generous donors.
Peter Tatchell seems to be the go-to commentator on the anti-women’s rights movement which masquerades as a trans civil rights movement. I have transcribed this interview, by Alex Phillips, from GB News here:
The interview opens with this statement by the interviewer. I think she means this is a delicate topic and the campaigners are vociferous. She highlights the fact the term “terf” is thrown about with abandon. What she doesn’t say is the term “terf” is often accompanied with threats of rape and violence.
Calm down, dear
Peter’s response is to tell “people” to calm down; he often uses “people” when it is perfectly clear he means women. This is likely because he knows its a sexist putdown directed at the female type of people. Reassuringly Uncle Peter advises us that he does not see a conflict between women’s rights and the rights of men to identify as woman. Nothing to see here. Calm down you hysterical women. That is what I hear when he repeats the “calm down” mantra, ad-nauseum in every single interview, which I have seen, on this topic.
Tatchell includes males as women and is at pains to claim these men can be victims of misogyny. In fact the word itself is defined as hatred of women and derived from ”gyne” , meaning “woman” which is also the root of less obscure words such as gynaecology. Whatever males are suffering from it is not, therefore, misogyny. Naturally he references murder rates which I have covered before to show that trans-identified males are more likely to be perpetrators than victims. Posted in the link below. .
So here Tatchell is “forced-teaming” women. This is a tactic to convince a group they have common interests with another group/person this “alliance” may in fact, run counter to their own interests. In this instance it has been used to good effect, especially in the “professional feminist” sector, they have been de-fanged by capitulating to the invented category of male-born women. A woman’s movement that does not centre the female sex is not worthy of the name. As I demonstrated above this category of male retains a male pattern of violence. I might add that this category also show no less propensity to sexual violence against women. I based this observation on incarceration rates of males in female prisons, in the United Kingdom. 18% of those in the male prisons are detained for sex offences, the percentage of males in the female estate, for sexual offences, is over 40%. You can argue this is abusive males gaming the system, the end result is the same. A policy of allowing self-proclaimed women in the female estate demonstrably exposes women to unnecessary risk. Tatchell is asking women to treat a potentially more dangerous category of male, as a “sister”. As a side issue I do wish someone would push him on whether or not he believes in Lady Penis; not because I think a surgically modified male is a woman, but so the general public know what Tatchell is advocating for/demanding of women.
Mixed-Sex Toilets.
Peter then slips in a reference the fact that GB news have mixed sex toilets and he, a man, doesn’t see what the issue is. Once again he uses “people”, not women when it is perfectly obvious it is women who don’t like sharing intimate spaces with the sex that rapes us. This is a deliberate tactic.
Nice reply from Alex Phillips who reveals she doesn’t like mixed sex toilets and has to go out of her way to find toilets she feels comfortable using. She also, correctly, suggested that developers love uni-sex facilities because it is a way to reduce costs. Tatchell doesn’t challenge her on this point.
Oxfam: Transwashing
Next up Phillips asks Tatchell about the, cowardly, decision of Oxfam to withdraw a game celebrating female role models. There have been various theories about why Oxfam decided to erase women of achievement in response to staff complaints. Some say it is because one of the women was JK Rowling. Others say it is because Ellen Page no longer identifies as a woman. Either way the game has been removed which looks like a bit of Trans-washing by Oxfam who have been rocked by quite a few sexual abuse scandals in recent years.
False Equivalence: The “N” word
So how does Peter respond? He does a bit of #BeKind re the pronouns and then makes an astonishing pivot. He uses the analogy of racism to equate the erasure of successful women with people stoping using the “N” word. Is he saying it is offensive to trans-identifying males to see any celebration of successful women?
A man for the Salary
Are women allowed to be offended by the growing list of men who have been handed awards reserved for women? Some of who are not even full-time with their colonising. See Philip/ Pippa Bunce. A man for the salary and a woman for the photo-gallery.
Father Tatchell goes on to offer forgiveness for accidental (accurate), pronouns. Providing you repent and seek redemption, of course. How benevolent.
Outrage archaeology
Alex then draws an apt comparison between the witch-hunts and the militancy of the pronoun police. Somebody coined the term “outrage archaeology” which describes the phenomonon of actively seeking an adrelanine rush from digging out, often historic, opportunities to generate a feeling of “synthetic offence”.
Alex continues to raise the fact that Tatchell has been the target of abuse by trans-activists himself. Something I covered here 👇
I suspect his desperation to insert himself into this debate is motivated by self-aggrandisement, misogyny and a desire to ”queer” boundaries. His answer is to claim he has always campaigned for trans rights but he did sign a letter asking for a civilised debate and then, shock horror it turned out to have been signed by the wrong kind of feminists; who, of course, Tatchell calls “trans-critical”. He is keen to point out that letter “did not, in any way, criticise, deny or abrogate the rights of trans-people” , it merely called for civility. In conclusion Tatchell seems to acknowledge the tactics of the trans community are self-defeating.
I wonder if he got some pushback for acknowledging the aggressive tactics of trans-activists because the next interview I saw he made some astonishing arguments to claim there was “bad on both sides” . I will cover that interview next.
Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women & girls as well as the consequences for Lesbians, Gay males and autistic kids. I do this full time and have no income. All my content is open access and donations help keep me going. Only give IF you can afford. Thank you to my generous donors.
Why is a network of Charitable funding bodies fuelling a backlash against women’s sex based rights? Why are organisations, set up to protect children’s rights, teaming up with organisations promoting Gender Identity Ideology?
For part one see below 👇. My previous post showed the links between these foundations and links to some of my earlier work examining the activities of *some* of these organisations. It also contains the link to the, 131 page, document endorsed by Global Philanthropy Project and Elevate Children’s Funders Group.
In this post I want to cover the opening letter explaining why this coalition was established. I will also highlight some of the terminology they use in the glossary of terms. This is how they characterise women defending our sex-based rights. We are ”Gender Restrictive”. Heaven forfend we are simply called feminists because then it would be abundantly clear they attacking Women’s rights!
The coalition makes sense in one respect. Much of the opposition, to the spread of Gender Identity Ideology, raises concerns about the medical interventions perpetrated on children. By which I mean blocking puberty and introducing cross-sex hormones, all to cement a Transgender Identity; this despite the same ideologues arguing that “Gender can be fluid”. I have covered Puberty Blockers many times on this blog. For neophytes, or as a reminder; in the U.K we are giving Puberty Blockers to children as young as ten, on the NHS. They, almost, invariably progress to Cross Sex Hormones and as a result they will be sterile. It therefore a significant concern that a coalition of children’s charities have signed up to this document.
The authors recognise that childhood is defined as up to the age of 18 by the Children’s Rights Coalition (CRC). It nevertheless claims ”adulthood” is influenced by the social context in which the ”child” lives. As far as I am aware we don’t defend child marriage, or child labour, even where a child is based in a country, or culture, which normalises these practices. This blurring of the boundary between child/adult is necessary when arguing children have the right to bodily autonomy in respect of accessing “Gender Affirming” care. I believe this is why Children are being reframed across a myriad of public /campaigning bodies as mini-adults.
I am glad they reference brain maturity because credible research states that brain maturation continues up to the age of 25. One of the key battle grounds, for the promotion of Gender Identity Ideology, is to argue for the empowerment of children. This allows arguments, for children, especially teenagers, to access medical interventions to cement a trans-identity, without requiring parental consent.
Just a reminder about UK Law on getting a tattoo. It is not legal even with parental consent.
Next up the document quotes the Committee for the Rights of the Child (CRC) again. Note that the document explicitly references sex but the author’s quote another document to claim that this also covers ”Gender Identity”. Once again, this is a common tactic a sleight of hand to claim the law is in your side, even when you are arguing for it to be changed. A good example is the public campaign to allow anyone to ”Self-Identify” as the opposite sex and the more covert campaign to abolish single sex spaces. When it appears these laws are not going to change (outside of Scotland) campaigners are simply lying about the law to get it built into policy. [Hence the twitter hashtag #StonewallLaw].
Note the small print on this which references the ”transsexual” child. 👇.
Heres another interesting aside. The rights of the child must take into account the child’s views. They also posit the view that the argument of “Best Interests” cannot be used to justify actions “inconsistent with child rights”. In the context of Gender Identity Ideology this is often deployed to argue children/adolescents have the right to bodily autonomy and to access ”Gender affirming” medical interventions. This takes us back to the notion of “transsexual children”; a description usually avoided.
Glossary of Terms
The glossary of terms at the beginning of the document are illustrative of the ideology under-pinning this document. It includes the newspeak of Cisgender, Transgender, Heteronormative, Assigned Sex at Birth etc. Intersex also makes an appearance despite this not being favoured terminology among those with Disorders of Sexual Development (DSDs). The term ”intersex” won’t be given up without a fight because the Transgender movement use people with DSDs to muddy the waters and suggest there are more than two sexes. (Humans are, in fact, Sexually Dimorphic).
I won’t treat you to the entire glossary but its worth including a couple of examples. Under Gender and Sexual Diversity can be found the definition of sex. This recognises biological sex only to claim it is randomly ”assigned” . They also claim sexual dimorphism is based on a common belief in a binary sex classifications. This equates scientific accuracy to a faith based position. In this section 👇 the author’s also feign allegiance with the interests of people with DSDs; who often campaign against unnecessary surgery on infants. Note that some surgeries are in fact medically necessary, DSD activists oppose only cosmetic interventions on those under age.
The section dealing with SEXual orientation is below. Of course they define it as a Genderal Orientation. And we must have a category for the oppressed asexuals or as I call them ”the shag anything that moves brigade”.
Whoever named Pansexual after a mythical, horny old goat at least had a sense of humour: 😂
So far, so predictable. Now we get to the definition of ”Gender Justice”. Note that the definition includes (cis) women’s rights. Yay, we actually get a category of our own! Don’t get too excited, it is prefixed with the insulting ”cis” and, read on sisters, they graciously deign to consider redressing the power imbalance between men and women “if necessary”! I think it is FUCKING necessary since you are re-defining us against our will.
Introductory Letter
Now we get to the letter accompanying the document which purports to explain why they felt it necessary to join forces to expose ”Gender-Restrictive” folks. This is newspeak for Witches, by the way. 👇
It is hard to credit the claims made in this document and the level of testeria fuelling the authors of this ”research”. For those of you familiar with DARVO (Deny, attack, reverse victim and offender) this is a classic of the genre. Apparently WE are distorting huMAN rights. Which is a bit rich coming from the Gender Ideology lobby who are all about the MAN in human.
We are also being accused of ”anti-democracy”. I cannot think of anything more anti-democratic than following a blue-print that encourages the passing of laws, by stealth and avoiding press-coverage. (See the Denton’s document. Blog below). More D.A.R.V.O.
Women defending sex based rights, Lesbians refusing to accept males as sexual partners, mothers fighting to stop the medicalising of, among others, gay and autistic kids, are planning State Seizure! They actually sound crazy! Below they even claim women, fighting for sex based rights, are actually the ones attacking women’s rights.
Yes, there is a threat to children’s rights as activists are inculcating “Gender Dysphoria” in our kids and teens. Schools are teaching children a lack of adherence to sex stereotypes equals #BornInTheWrongBody. We are coaxing our gay youth into faux-straight, medicalised closets.
They also fear this Moralpanic is effective. If it is effective this is because it is rooted in truth and (biological) reality. For the avoidance of doubt they do mean us! Here is a reference to ”So called ”gender critical” feminists. Nobody is arguing against human rights for trans identified people, in GC circles, we are fighting for sex based rights for women. No Conflict They Said. So, why does every fight for women’s rights garner an “anti-trans” label.
Seriously they think we are well funded and have been planning this for 35 YEARS! I wonder why they didnt choose Terf Island (United Kingdom) for their country analysis? Could it be because it really doesn’t help their case? What with so many of us being Left-Wing, Trade Unionists.
The authors sound a warning to its disciples that they must unite to oppose the evil terfs and band together. Right side of history and all that.
I will leave this post with a list of the organisations that contributed to the document which includes Comic Relief whose funding is regularly used to promote bodily rejection.
I am going to do more on this document especially on the scurrilous attack on Womens Human Rights Coalition (W.H.R.C). I also have sisters from Bulgaria, Ghana and Peru looking at the country specific sections.
Finally those of you who are clearly sitting on the mounds of cash spare a bit for a sister! I seem to have missed out on the Swiss Bank account enrichment. 😂
Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women & girls as well as the consequences for Lesbians, Gay males and autistic kids. I do this full time and have no income. All my content is open access and donations help keep me going. Only give IF you can afford. Thank you to my generous donors.
First of all kudos to GB News for tackling the issue of Gender Identity Ideology and having a, desperately needed, public debate. In this programme the perspectives of a Trans-Identified male, a Women’s rights campaigner, Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshall (A.K.A Posey Parker), Beverley Jackson (LGB Alliance), Gary Powell (Gay man) and Peter Tatchell (Human Rights campaigner) were interviewed. The U.K Charity, Stonewall, were invited to participate but, to no great surprise, declined to participate.
Today I want to unpack the contribution of Peter Tatchell. You can watch his contribution below.
Peter Tatchell is a, self-styled, Human Rights campaigner, best known for his Gay Rights Activism. His high profile arrest, in Putin’s Russia, for protesting against draconian, anti-gay legislation garnered headlines across the world. He also known, especially in Zimbabwe, for attempting a citizens arrest of Robert Mugabe. Latterly, he is better known, in some circles, for situating himself at the centre of conflict between Trans rights & the rights of Women. He has also attracted criticism from Lesbians and Gay males for his stance on “trans-rights” for ignoring the impact on homosexuals, especially the Lesbian kind.
Peter seems quite keen to speak on this issue. So many Trans Lobby groups refuse to debate the issues so it is, perhaps, unsurprising his views were sought. What is less clear are his motives. Why is he inserting himself in the middle of such a controversial topic? He is, however, especially keen to dispel any notion that he has anything to gain, though a cynic would observe the topic garners a lot of publicity.
Perhaps it is an elaborate penance for a letter he signed, defending free speech, on the controversial topic of Trans Rights? This resulted in, by his own account, the worst abuse he has had in decades of campaigning: Article below 👇
Perhaps he is driven by an ideological commitment to disrupting /queering social norms? Whatever the reason he does seem overly invested in an issue which is unlikely to impact him, personally. Tatchell is keen to neutralise criticism that he is elevating his voice above trans-people. It is noticeable that he does not show a similar concern about speaking over women.
This latest intervention comes after he withdrew from a debate, with Kathleen Stock, on this topic. Trans activists were vocal in their condemnation of him for agreeing to debate Professor Stock. They did not want him lending any credibility to Kathleen’s (quite moderate) stance on this issue. Many women were also unhappy about debating the issue, specifically with Tatchell, but his withdrawal from the debate was driven by Trans Activists, not the pesky women folk. 👇
Alex, the interviewer, opens the debate with two questions. Both relate to the practical implications of biological sex denialism; it’s impact on women’s privacy and the medicalisation of children who display “Gender” non-conforming (GNC) behaviour. Lesbians and Gay males often deviate from performing sex stereotypical behaviour which is why this question is a good one to ask a Gay man with a reputation for defending gay rights. He doesn’t respond to the question about medical interventions on children.
[Both proto-gay males and lesbians can present,early, with atypical expressions of femininity/masculinity, sadly that issue was not explored in this segment. This was a shame because I would like to see Tatchell oppose the Gay Conversion Therapy on his doorstep but he probably knows the headlines would not be as good].
Tatchell opens with a (nervous?) statement about the capacity in which he is speaking. He is, emphatically, not there to speak on behalf of the trans community. He is there as a Human Rights campaigner to speak up for the rights of both women and transwomen. By which, he means, for the rights of males to be included in the category of women.
He demonstrates his neutrality, beautifully, by directing his ire at the previous speaker, a woman. Kellie-Jay, made it abundantly clear that the category of woman is based on SEX not Gender Identity. Tatchell used the, common, tactic of associating women, defending the colonisation of our existence, with homophobia meted out to Gay rights campaigners. He also accused Kellie-Jay of whipping up hysteria about the dangers posed by “transwomen”.
Firstly, Gay men did not demand to be re-categorised as “women” and granted access to spaces where women are undressing, or merely associating, in a female only space. The legal recognition of same sex attraction had ZERO impact on the protected characterstic SEX.
Secondly he has no data to suggest males, who identify as transwomen, present a lower risk to women than other males. It is perfectly possible this category houses more predatory males because it includes those with the paraphilia “autogynephilia”. Also because of the queering of the boundaries, between males and females, we are being asked to accept the notion that some women have a penis . He is defending an ideology which promotes the idea of be-penised women and that a Lady Dick can be distinguished from the average penis. This kind of Phallus in Wonderland, magical thinking, sadly, was not exposed in this interview. I suspect the interviewer may be unfamiliar with the more radical claims of the Gender Identity Ideologues. Or, she may believe the general public are not quite ready to deal with the more outlandish claims. Sadly these beliefs are gaining traction among the political and Chattering Classes.
The various segments were not done in a format that allowed a right of reply so Kellie-Jay was not able to respond to the claims, made above. I wonder if Tatchell knows he is echoing the #NotAllMen phallusy of Men’s Rights Activists? Women exclude males, as a SEX class, because we know that some males are sexual predators. We should not, however, have to invoke fear of sexual violence to demand a right to exclude males. We should be legally protected because we have a right to bodily privacy. We should be, legally, able to congregate, in female only spaces, to discuss issues that affect our sex and only our sex. We don’t want to include males in these discussions.
The “handful” argument is belied by the increased media reports of sexual offenders gathering under the Trans Umbrella. When we finally get actual data monitoring this category of males, specifically, I fear it will confirm women’s worst fears. Presently, the prevalence of trans sex offenders is difficult to ascertain. We do know that under U.K law Rape is an offence specifically involving a penis and that there are over 400, allegedly, female rapists in UK crime statistics. I imagine the number who are actually female is vanishingly small.
It is also only possible to get information by trawling through mis-leading media reports which consistently report Male crimes as if they were commissioned by Women. This is because media guidelines demand female pronouns for male sex offenders. Thanks IPSO! It is IPSO who produced the media guidelines which encourage the media to hide male crimes. Below is a short piece on these guidelines 👇
Below is another diversionary tactic; the substitution of arguments about race to imply they are analogous to the issue of trans rights/women’s rights. By using this argument, Peter, tries to associate feminist arguments with racists. Instead of falling into this trap journalists should demand the interlocutor remain on topic. Argue the merits of your own case directly rather than implying that society needs to throw off the shackles of our backward Sexual Apartheid because it is bigotry akin to racism. For the avoidance of doubt, I don’t care what colour your dick is, for the purposes of women’s single sex spaces:
#AllDicksMatter
Tatchell then deploys another strategy. He claims the thing that women are complaining about has been going on for years and dismisses the “fuss” women are making. This is mendacious. The Transgender Lobby have just LOST (in the U.K) a very public campaign to allow any male to self-declare he is a woman. The new tactic is to claim males have been using women’s spaces for decades and we just didn’t notice! Sadly, for Peter, testosterone packs one hell of a punch and passing remains a pipe dream for most trans-id males, even those with resources to undergo significant surgery. Women are socialised to #BeKind but we do, in the main, recognise biological sex, evolution is such a Terf Bitch. Our safety depends on knowing if we are in a space with a male. Do we say anything thing? No! I refer you to #BeKind and our personal safety. We have all seen the Narcissistic rage of TRAs called “sir”, our lives depend on silence. Peter may interpret this as #Kindness but he is wrong to equate our silence with consent. It is more likely a result of #BeKind/ Doormat feminism or good old fashioned FEAR.
All the countries which have passed Self-ID legislation did so without holding a public debate. It was the public debate that did for this legislative change in the U.K. Grass roots resistance, led by a new group of women’s organisations, alerted ordinary women and we fought back. Women in Ireland, Malta and Argentina and the other countries were less prepared and this legislation was passed by stealth/ tacked onto popular causes. Professional women’s rights organisations were complicit and, consequently, women in these countries are only now waking up to the nightmare scenario the political classes have unleashed on women.
I have written extensively about the current process for obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) in the U.K. We have already given them to fully intact males, even where they have convictions for sexual assaults. For this reason I am not a defender of the status quo but allowing self-declaration would remove any gatekeeping. I would repeal the GRA and provide any protection needed, for refugees from masculinity, on some other basis. I would not allow males to identify into the legal category of woman, because it has been a disaster for women’s sex based rights.
Nobody can just declare they are “trans”
I assume Tatchell is here 👇 talking about the proposed changes to enact a self-id regime in the U.K, or the process in other countries. Here he is saying nobody can just “declare” they are trans by er, checks notes, outlining the process by which anyone can just declare they are trans!
Genius!
I do like his confidence. It seems such a shame to interrupt his confidence with some FACTS. Let me think of a few. Men in women’s sports, a man running a rape crisis centre and telling rape victims, afraid of ALL males, they need to unlearn their transphobia! Rapists in women’s prison, men taking a disproportionate number of places on the Women in Leadership (Jo Cocks) programme…I could go on.
Oh No! He said “Trans Women are Women”
Chanting a thought terminating cliche is beneath an intelligent man. I don’t doubt there are many issues faced by males who adopt the prescribed social norms for women. I don’t doubt they face sexual assault and harassment. Peter may not be aware that Hate Crime legislation doesn’t include the category of SEX, but does protect the category of “Transgender”. So, yes, he can produce the Hate Crime stats and all I have to counter it is a list of, not of the dead-named, but of the actual dead women. Misgendering is the least of our concerns.
This next bit is some forced-teaming from Tatchell. Come on girls, expend your energy being support humans to my undercover brothers, you know you want to! There is a concerted effort to invert the privilege hierarchy and place white males at the bottom of the pile, rhetorically speaking. To convince us black is white transperbole is deployed and, once again, he leverages the much discredited hate crime statistics. Not buying it.
The interviewer interjects at this point to thank Tatchell for his cogent and rational arguments. I instinctively bristle at a man being called rational. Fairly or not, what I hear is, rational as opposed to the hysterical women. Another pet peeve is the way this “debate” is portrayed as #BadOnBothSides. It is a War on Women. We are defending ourselves from the neo-colonialism that is Trans Activism. It is playing “nice” that has allowed the #BeKind Brigade to be, well “brigaded”. Women have been trans-jacked and fighting back is what you do when your rights are under attack. Additionally, anyone paying attention would see the threats of violence, much of it sexual violence, comes from the male people. Women’s counter “attack” is, at its worst, refusing to use female pronouns or commenting on masculine features.
So let’s hear more from a man white-knighting for this most marginalised community. Fact free assertions about inner identity, parroting the authentic selves narrative, bla bla bla, hate crime, marginalised etc etc. Also Peter is a libertarian dontchaknow. If people want to be lifelong medical patients they should be allowed. (I don’t think many people have argued for an end to all surgeries, though I would argue it should be a last resort AND still not grant access to spaces set aside for another sex) Peter is tilting at windmills.
Breathtaking arrogant assertion is his next gambit. People (by which he means women) are making a mountain out of a molehill. Women objecting to having our sex redefined to admit any male are over-reacting! These hysterical women are projecting onto a vulnerable community. So vulnerable they have managed to roll back gains women made over a hundred years ago. So marginal they have captured, nearly, the entire political class.
Safeguarding 101
Also👇the central plank of safeguarding is the need set to a bar high enough to protect vulnerable groups from the BAD APPLES! That’s 101 of safeguarding, design your policy with a focus on the BAD APPLES! Because predators will migrate to where the loopholes exist and this ideology is dismantling safeguards left, right and centre.
He can’t get any worse can he? Yep. He can. 😳. No we don’t ban cars Peter. We do make you pass a test, we make learners wear an L Plate, we fine people for motoring offences, we can ban you from driving and even imprison offenders. We also have social norms (and laws) against drink-driving. This is not the gotcha you think it is.
I like to think Alex had enough at this point. Here the interview should end, and it nearly does. I don’t think it’s a shame the debate is polarised. When someone proposes to socially engineer society, based on a toxic ideology, there is no compromise to be had. We can’t let men have some of women’s rights. The answer is NO! It is a shame that women are being forced to concede our hard won gains in 2021!.
Does Peter go gentle into his goodnight. No! he carried on and makes it, if you can believe it, much, much, worse.
His heart is breaking!
Gloves are off now. How FUCKING DARE you! I will decide who my sisters are thank you very much! We are not SUPPORT HUMANS, there to tend to those males you can’t bear to have in your sex class. YOU DO THE WORK! Maybe have a bit of a think about why you can’t tolerate variant masculinity in your spaces?
We are all Biological Essentialists (apparently)
Next up the old accusations of “biologicalessentialism”. The argument, he is making, is that Women are allowing ourselves to be defined, and limited by our biology. No, Peter, the “Biology is not Destiny” was an attempt to resist being defined ONLY by our reproductive functions. It did NOT mean we deny the basis of sex based oppression, which originates in our ability to gestate babies. Hence a significant amount of feminist activism has been about controlling our fertility in case you hadn’t noticed.
We were not marching for the right of Laurel Hubbard to lift weights with us!
Hijacking statements about women’s liberation to re-purpose them for trans idealogues is a tactic we have seen before. It lends credence to your argument, at a superficial level, if you can use our words against us. Way to put the MAN in HuMAN rights Peter.
Tactical Obfuscation
Next up he is claims being a woman is a psychological / emotional state. The last bit is nonsensical. No males are members of the sex class of women, irrespective of their intake of artificial hormones. The bit about reproductive capacity is nonsensical. What is he trying to say here? Even if the franken doctors manage to develop artificial wombs to validate a trans ID male, it STILL won’t make them a woman.
He surpasses himself with his sign off. He doesn’t mean hate us, he just knows better than we do. It is the smug, holier than thou, tone that is really enraging.
Thanks Peter. I feel I may be in danger of adding to the toxicity of this debate because all I have to say to you is FUCK OFF and when you get there FUCK OFF some more. (And I rarely swear on here but everybody has their breaking point.)
Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women & girls as well as the consequences for Lesbians, Gay males and autistic kids. I do this full time and have no income. All my content is open access and donations help keep me going. Only give IF you can afford. Thank you to my generous donors.
The Arcus Foundation is heavily invested in the dissemination of Transgender Ideology. To learn more about this you can do no better than reading Jennifer Bilek on this topic. This article here is a good summary.
Some foundations have a tool to extract the data to an excel spreadsheet which facilitates analysis. Unfortunately the Arcus Foundation don’t have an obvious way to do this so I manually populated 400 + lines of data, so I could pivot table and analyse where their Social Justice fund was allocated. I tracked from 2016 to April, 2021. I only looked at the Social Justice category but Arcus Foundation funds across many other areas. The scope of their largesse, arguably, means many organisations, who don’t propagate Gender Identity Ideology, may, nevertheless, be compromised by the financial benefits they derive from this association . (Bear in mind this is a live database so I noticed even historic descriptions of activities seemed to change. )
As you can see there was a total approaching $74 million dollars spent promoting Social Justice issues, during this period. The majority had some aspect which promoted Gender Identity Ideology. Where there was a focus on a particular region I noted it. Where the project stated it’s aim was global I coded it to identify this ambition. Where the project identified international activity for specific regions I badged it “international” . I also noted the countries, identified as the focus, in the comments. Note that many of the Arcus grantees in turn, are also dispensing grants. Thus, if a country you are interested in, does not appear to be a direct recipient it may, nevertheless, have received monies indirectly.
For convenience I badged the funding as LGBTQ but, in reality, some of the grants omit the Q and others emphasise an I (for intersex). Some project detail is clearly focussed on sexual orientation but the project is still badged as variations of “LGBT”. I assume the Q is dropped, in some projects, because “queer” doesn’t have any currency in the countries where they are funelling funds.
A notable feature of the grants illustrates the tactic of forced teaming. This is where Trans Ideology proponents feign (?) alliances with established movements to establish “common cause” and piggy back on their reputations. The most obvious one is gay rights. Indeed Arcus donated $142,000 to Stonewall (Former Gay Rights Charity in the UK). This was just before Stonewall added the T to LGB and expanded their remit to cover Transgender issues. This was one grant. They also provided an additional $42,000 to support a project called “Rainbow Laces” to bring the LGBTQ into sport.
Arcus also gave Stonewall $75,000 to be involved in roundtable discussions to convince Business to back the LGBTQ because it was “good business strategy”. The aim was to “swing” these countries to their agenda.
At the time Stonewall changed direction it may have appeared, to their organisation, that the battles had been won in the United Kingdom. I disagree. The homophobia directed at our proto-gay youth has not gone away. It may not have been as lucrative a cause but they could have done some good work in the U.K. They could also have campaigned to fight for the rights of Gay Men and Lesbians abroad. They could have worked to stop the horrendous abuse of Gay men and Lesbians, in Iran, who were not accepted as homosexual but could have their surgery funded if they adopted a Trans-Identity. Instead they opted for a more lucrative (?) path.
It does not seem to have occurred to the bigwigs at Stonewall that the fight to defend same sex orientation depends on acknowledging that sex is a material reality. Transgender Ideology denies the reality of sex and therefore sex based attraction. That’s one of many conflicts between Trans rights and those of other groups.
But back to the Arcus Foundation:
Looking at the detail of these projects it was rare to find one that focussed on sexual orientation exclusively. Even where the project looked at same sex orientation the project was still labelled a variant of “LGBT” or “LGBTQ” to, effectively, join the causes together. By contrast there was a sizeable sum spent on exclusively “transgender” issues.
9 million dollars allocated to exclusively Transgender causes. Interestingly if you search for the mention of “transmen” specific projects you will not find any. However some of the projects detailed do focus on “Transwomen” usually Transwomen of colour.
As I have noted before “transmen” tend to get deployed when they are pregnant or when it is easier to argue aganst the, sex based, rights of biological women. Their omission from any specific projects aimed at the needs of “transmen” screams good, old-fashioned, sexism to me!
It appears another tactic was to join with women Fighting for reproductive justice. This means that women’s fight to control their fertility is hijacked with trans organisations hitching their wagon to these long running campaigns. This grant is pretty transparent about its “strategic collaboration”.
Another surprise, to me, is how much of a proportion is going to religious organisations including Evangelical Christians and Muslim organisations. Next time anyone tells you that you are in an alliance with religious groups heres a screenshot to share! Over $10 and a half million to religiouis organisations. These organisations were not simply those who you might have expected to hold liberal, progressive views on homosexuality or Gender Identity. Instead many in the United States were explicity Evangelical Christian Organisations deep in what we may have come to know as Trump supporting territory.
A couple of examples appear below from Atlanta, Georgia and Texas.
You will find similiar examples of “forced teaming” if you look at the grants focussed on racial justice or homelessness. There are also lots of grants to organisations looking at strategic litigation in the area of LGBTQ or exlusively “Transgender” organisations. A few projects are also engaged in educating/lobbying employees of the United Nations.
Many of the entries also talk of funding to “grow grassroots” activists. Somebody should explain that grassroots movements emerge organically. When you are targetting millions of dollars of funding to “grow” a movement you are engaged in Astro-turfing not grass roots activism.
The media narrative also comes in for some skilful manipulation. These are the organisations involved in journalism or documentary film-making who are taking the Arcus Cash. The explicit aim is to ensure media coverage is shaped by the Trans Lobby.
This is an example of the way these grants are described: To “ensure that coverage is either neutral or positive”. Also to be organised to ensure a response to any negative media coverage. Journalism? or Advocacy?
As many of us are trying to point out to radical leftist groups who are screaming “transwomen are women” ,or other mindless mantras, mainly at feminists of the left, you are being manipulated by billionnaires. This is not a grass roots movement its an elite project and there is a lot of money to be made in fostering a bodily dissassociative condition that unmoors us from our sexed bodies.
If you can support my work it would be greatly appreciated. If you can’t please share.
paypal.me/STILLTish
Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth. Support is always appreciated (I have no income). All my content is open access so if you can’t speak publicly, and want to support those who can, only IF you have spare cash, this helps me keep going.
This foundation not only funded the administrative support for the All Parliamentary Group for LGBT they also supported salary costs to embed a Stonewall employee in the Department for International Development. Curiousity piqued I resolved to have a look at what else they fund. I looked at all 163 grants given in 2020 but, for the purposes of this blog, I started drilling down to the funding allocated under the label “International Development”.
The issue is not one of a lack of transparency. All their grants are searchable. Guidance to setting up a Private, charitable foundation highlights the advantage of this vehicle for philanthropy: it allows the foundation to have complete control in terms of their funding priorities.
From 2013 this 👇 became the focus of Baring Foundation’s allocation for “International Development”.
“This programme aims to support civil society organisations to address discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) individuals and communities in sub-Saharan Africa. It focuses particularly on lesbian and transgender communities”.
Prior to 2013 the foundation had spent over ten years targeting issues of “gender” and many of the grants were available to women and girls. This is their new focus as the above quote illustrates.
This is a list of all the grants. All of them are either entirely focussed on Transgender causes or at least reference Gender Identity Ideology. Only the Forum for the Empowerment of Women seem the most focussed on actual lesbian issues. Looks to me as if they were included because it is transphobic to imply that Lesbians can’t be “transwomen”.
I have examined every one of these organisations via their websites. Even those that appear to be about Lesbians seem to have rather an elastic definition of what constitutes a “lesbian” and talk of diverse sexual identities.
Social, Health & Empowerment: Feminist Collective
Let’s look at the Social, Health and Empowerment , Feminist Collective. This group, they advise advocates for African transgender and intersex women and claims to employ a feminist framework.
Centring themselves in a discussion of women’s reproductive rights: Check ✅
Making sure the feminist message is rammed home by celebrating er, Beauty Pageants. 😳
Of course no self-respecting feminist group would be complete without undermining the rights of the same sex attracted people. This is how they redefine homosexuality.
The idea that a London based organisation is funding a group who are denying sexual orientation, on a continent where it remains illegal in many countries, should concern you. See my earlier post for the state of play re Lesbian and Gay rights on continental Africa.
Let us look at another the Forum for the Empowerment of women. This website mainly focuses on black lesbians but nods to the Gender Identity Ideology with a reference to SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity). It is difficult to ascertain if this organisation takes the money and does the bare minimum to demonstrate allegiance to any conditions attacked to their grants. Fair play to them if they do!. Website below. Most of the initiatives relate to Black Lesbians and are concerned with violence against this community and forging networks and up-skilling women to gain a footing in the corporate world. Website below. 👇
The largest sum went to Uhai.Eshari. They have a very unresponsive website but Barings published a case study on their organisation. Here is a clip. They have been given £760,000 since 2018. All to support queer and gender diverse communities.
Every one of these organisations promote Gender Identity Ideology. Projects are in Ethiopia, Malawi, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo and this is by no means an exhaustive list. This is what the are doing in Kenya. Maybe there are some more pressing needs in these communities than rolling out “Gender Affirming Care” to some of the poorest nations on earth?
Kenya is often hailed as a success story in terms of its economic development over the past decade. It is not the poorest country on the continent. Here a couple of issues highlighted by Oxfam Kenya. Gross inequality and 40% are without access to basic health services.
Sexual violence remains a significant issue and has surged during the Covid Pandemic.
Another organisation funded by Barings Foundation is Gender Dynamix.
They also focus soley on Trans and Gender Diverse Communities. What struck me about this organisation was the link to a consent form for accessing masculinising or feminising treatments.
Here are some clips which jumped out at me.. First up the possibility that your sexual orientation may change temporarily or permanently. This is reminiscent of Gay Conversion Therapy.
Secondly a list of side effects from feminising treatments. These list the impact of hormone treatments only.
Arundhati Roy called charitable foundations a way to “parlay wealth into power”. We should look at what those badging themselves pro-social justice with as much suspicion as any wealthy individual/group forcing through social change on the basis of their own ideology.
Is it wise to export this ideology to countries with no, or only recent, acceptance of homosexuality?
I am unwaged so any support much appreciated. If you are in a similar position a share is just as good. Thank you!
Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth. Support is always appreciated (I have no income) but I would be equally happy if you contributed to a legal case or a crowdfunder for Lesbian and Gay News.
For those too young to remember Barings foundation was linked to Barings bank, who were ruined by the combination of an expansion to Asia and the reckless speculation of an employee: one Nick Leeson. The foundation, however, survived and allocates funding which it identifies as Arts based, Strengthening Civil Society and International Development. Barings is a private charitable foundation so whilst this gives them control over the allocation of their funds it does have obligations, as a charity, to submit information to the Charity Commission.
This is legal advice about the responsibilities of charities 👇
This is the link to the Baring Foundations website where the information about its priorities is available. 👇
The inspiration for my inquiry was the revelation that Barings Foundation fund the All Parliamentary Group on LGBT issues. This group is chaired by CrispinBlunt and its vice chair is MichaelCashman. Crispin is an MP who came out, as a gay man, relatively late in life. Cashman is one of the original founders of Stonewall, a once great organisation now better described as a controversial lobby group.
Crispin Blunt was recently sanctioned for attempting to broker a back room deal on the controversial proposals to reform of the Gender Recognition Act. This despite opposition from feminist organisations concerned about the detrimental impact on women’s sex based rights. You can read an account of this here 👇. (You can also sign up as a supporter Sex Matters to defend sex based rights on the same site)
So I determined to have a look at the funding Barings made to this APPG, Stonewall and the Kaleidoscope Trust since they all figure in this story.
Barings have been funding Kaleidoscope Trust since 2015. 👇 (CHOGM is the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting).
They also provided £40,000 to the Kaleidoscope Trust to fund administrative support for the APPG LGBT. In addition they provided a further £148,415 direct payment, to the APPG LGBT+ group, to cover coordinator costs from 2020 to 2023.
This makes it clear that Stonewall were closely linked to APPG LGBT from the beginning. Also take a look at the origins of the person providing the support!
Anna Robinson was co-chair of the youth wing of IGLYO. You can learn more about this group in an earlier blog I did on The Denton’s Report
A quick look at the links ,the Barings Foundation has, with Stonewall shows the international reach of its activity in embedding LGBTI issues in government infrastructure.
Funding for Stonewall ,from this Foundation, also allowed them to embed a Stonewall advisor in what was then the Department for International Development. (DFID).
Paul Twocock reports on the project. Paul was interim CEO of Stonewall after the departure of Ruth Hunt. The funding allowed them to lobby the government to further their agenda.
Arundhati Roy called charitable foundations a way to “parlay wealth into power”. Charitable Foundations, with a pro-social justice agenda should be subject to as much scrutiny as any wealthy individual/group. When they are working with Lobby Groups who are committed to social engineering, on the basis of their own ideology, they should be investigated with as much vigour as #BigPharma.
Many former supporters of Stonewall are extremely concerned about the impact of Transgender Ideology on our gay youth. I cannot begin to imagine how this might play out in an International context where the rights of Gay males and Lesbians are fledgling or non-existent. Organisations working across different cultural contexts should be aware of the perils of this neo-colonialism.
Next up I will scrutinise all 163 grants from the Baring Foundation but, in particular, I will be looking at what they are funding under the heading International Development.
paypal.me/STILLTish
Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth. Support is always appreciated (I have no income). All my content is open access so if you can’t speak publicly, and want to support those who can, only IF you have spare cash, this helps me keep going.
on a particular region I noted it. Where the project stated it’s aim was global I coded it to identify this ambition. Where the project identified international activity for specific regions I badged it “international” . I also noted the countries, identified as the focus, in the comments. Note that many of the Arcus grantees in turn, are also dispensing grants. Thus, if a country you are interested in, does not appear to be a direct recipient it may, nevertheless, have received monies indirectly. 
