David Lammy, as many of you will be aware, steered the Gender Recognition Act through Parliament, in 2004. Latterly he labelled women’s rights campaigners as dinosaurs, hoarding their rights. He also claimed that men can grow a cervix. If he ever goes on mastermind (again) I would suggest he does not make female anatomy his specialist subject.
David Lammy made some points which are now familiar arguments used by trans activists. He was very keen to point out the GRA would only affect an estimated 5000 people. He claimed this tiny minority were meek and timid and that his opponents in the debate needed to get a little perspective. His tone throughout was one of barely restrained exasperation in the face of objections. Sadly, few even mentioned the impact on women. Most of the tabled amendments focussed on the danger of allowing same sex marriage.
Lammy also compared the issue of sex segregated spaces to apartheid in South Africa. The clear implication is that women who don’t want to share spaces with biological males, aka men, are akin to racists.
For consistency with these series I also downloaded Lammy’s record of political donations. They are attached below:
There were two points of interest. One was a visit funded by Open SocietyFoundation. The Open Society has poured millions into the spread of Gender Identity Ideology.
The second was from Michael Hamlyn. Hamlyn was responsible for the film Priscilla , Queen of the Desert. He is also the son of Paul Hamlyn. The Paul Hamlyn Foundation shares a trustee with the Scott Trust, which oversees the Guardian. Michael Hamlyn sits on the board. The Paul Hamlyn Trust donated to Mermaids and other Trans Charities.
You can read more about the Paul Hamlyn Trust in this blog.
So, no real smoking gun re his donors. Can it be he really believes in this stuff 🤷♀️. The sad thing is he does make some great interventions in respect of women’s rights. He raises the rate of femicide in the UK, low sentences for rapists and women incarcerated at levels too high for the types of crimes (mainly non-violent and related to poverty). All of this good work is squandered when you argue for males to be in female spaces and, in particular, if you tacitly approve of those same rapists being housed in female prisons.
If you want to support my work you can do so here. As of this Friday I will actually have a small independent income so don’t donate if you are on benefits or a pension. No it’s not right wing money! 😂
In this interview Ruth Hunt talks to Sara Montague about her time at Stonewall and, in particular, her decision to expand the remit of Stonewall, traditionally a Gay rights charity, to include the Trans community. Link to interview here. It’s audio only so the pictures are taken from images on-line. I may have over-used the ones that make her look like a Bond Villain. 😉
The interview takes place after Ruth Hunt has announced she was stepping down, after 14 years at the helm of Stonewall. This was during a period in which more voices were beginning to speak out against the, extremist, positions the organisation was taking. After a brief introduction Sara gets straight to the heart of the conflict around the Gender Recognition Act.
It is certainly the case that Stonewall took the more extreme position on reform of the Gender Recognition Act. They advocate to allow anyone to self-identify, as the opposite sex, and have this belief ratified by the State. This changing legal landscape has occurred in countries such as Argentina, Malta and Ireland with little public debate. In Ireland this took place, notably, before Abortion was legalised and piggy backing on the bills for Gay marriage. This is a common tactic, a kind of forced-teaming. Very difficult to oppose a bull when a significant part of it is progressive and opposing it, because of the Self-Identified sex would have been easy to discredit as a cover for homophobia. The exact same tactic has been used with legislation agains Gay Conversion Therapy. The real intention is to out law therapy for gender confused teens, many of whom, if left alone, would simply be gay. A deeply sinister tactic.
The current position in U.K Law, is that a panel, made up of judges, determines whether an applicant can be granted a change to their birth certificate to retrospectively record a different sex from that recognised and recorded at birth.
I have covered the Gender Recognition Panel (GRP) based on an interview by one of the members , a Judge.
As you can see, from the above, the system was designed to be “enabling”. It is also perfectly legal for a SINGLE Judge to overturn refusals of Gender Recognition Certificates, made by the GRP. I covered one such example below. Here a thrice married, father of seven, with convictions for obtaining explosives with intent to endanger life, was granted a legal certificate to say he is a woman.
Sara presses on with this line of questioning: Here she makes it clear that Stonewall had other alternatives to the line they have chosen.
Ruth’s response was illogical. Apparently this is already the position and few people feel the need to get a Gender Recognition Certificate and self-identify already. Yet, she squandered Stonewall’s reputation go campaign for certificates which, by her own argument, few people feel the need to obtain! So which is it Ruth? A vital change? Or superfluous to “lived experience” ?
Next up Sara outlines what she thinks are the problems with the current process. I strongly disagree with this interpretation, as outlined in the above linked posts. I believe Sara has bought into the Stonewall narrative.
Sara does, at least, follow up on why Stonewall determined to lobby for the most extreme accommodations to be enshrined in law pushing for Hunt to say something about the process she proposes.
Ruth Hunt fleshes out the desired process for a man, who wishes to be recognised as a woman “for all legal purposes”, should go through. Sign a fucking form! Make a pinky promise! I am being a tad sarcastic here but there are no recorded cases, that I wcould find, of any prosecutions for lying on a Statutory Declaration. She seems similarly unaware of what that would mean for detransitioners. There is already one young woman having trouble because she was advised to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate to revert to her biological sex, in law. Problem is that it requires a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria and she cannot get one. BECAUSE SHE IS DETRANSITIONING due to the abatement of her Gender Dysphoria.
Hunt is also mandating how we are to even “think” about this. Because they say they are a woman, “that’s how they should be regarded”. Again, you can’t dictate an instinctive recognition of biological sex. Women need to respond to recognition of sex to ascertain our safety in certain circumstances. You can’t unpick evolution with a piece of paper, we are hard wired to recognise biological sex.
It is quite chilling to hear Ruth Hunt dictate how someone should be regarded when all the evidence, especially for biological males, is likely to contradict the way someone sees themselves. Testosterone, on females, packs one hell of a punch and it is likely they will be more “passing” but for biological males this is rarely the case. Trans-ID females, of course, are unlikely to present a threat in male spaces. Though there are more females demanding to be included in Gay Male spaces which is likely why we are seeing more Gay Men with Gender Critical positions.
Sara moves on to explore the cases of males abusing the self-declaration process to access vulnerable women, especially in prisons. First up Christopher Hambrook. This case is in Canada. Christopher Hambrook assaulted women in two homeless shelters in Toronto.
Ruth’s, disingenuous, response is to say that changing to a self-identification process would not make this any more likely to happen!
The above statement directly contradicts the advice of the British Association of Gender Identity Specialists, reproduced below, who had this to say in their submission to the Transgender Equality Inquiry. They called this stance naive.
Next up Sara confronts Ruth Hunt about the issue of female only spaces, generally. There are many reasons why women may wish to meet without any males present, however they identify. Some of them may relate to bodily privacy but others may be to discuss and advocate for women’s rights. Lesbians may wish to socialise with same sex attracted females. All of these things are under threat due to the domination of the Gender Identity Idealogues.
Ruth’s response is to advise that experts have been risk assessing the trans people (males) coming into female spaces for “a very, very, long time”.
Sarah’s rejoinder is to bring up the infamous case of “Karen” White who, according to the judge “used her transgender persona to put herself in contact with vulnerable persons”. Notice the judge grants the male rapist female pronouns but erases the raped women as “persons”.
Ruth’s defence of her position is to waffle on about risk assessments and how they clearly failed in the context of Karen White. She lays the responsibility firmly at the door of the Ministry of Justice. What she omits is any reference to who advised them in formulatig their policy. This was Jay Stewart., also from the queer theory stable. She even has the cheek to say we need to focus on safeguarding, which is the first casualty of this bonkers ideology.
The next exchanges cuts to the heart of the problem with the Gender Recognition Act and it’s privacy provisions. You are not allowed to ASK to see a GRC, and if you come by the knowledge of someone’s biological sex, in an official capacity, you are not allowed to disclose it. The penalties for this have been set very high, it is a criminal offence which attracts a level 5 fine which is unlimited.
This accounts for the bizarre position public officials find themselves in. A patient detained on a mental health ward sees an obvious man and a Nurse is forced to lie to the patient about the sex, of an obvious man, in the next bed. Even when he is exposing his genitalia. This actually happened by the way!
Asked about if she understands why some women “who feel very, very, concerned about the ease with which somebody could now say “I am now a woman”…Ruth interrupts with more guff about assessments which we are now seeing regularly “fail” across the Prison system.
The above amounts to Ruth telling us the privacy provisions set out in the Gender Recognition Act are already inadequate to protect female spaces so why not make it even easier?
Sara the. introduces the voice of transsexual campaigner Kristina Harrison. KH makes the point that Stonewall are enshrining the most extremist positions in law and the lack of any public debate. KH also takes aim at the stealth policy and legal capture and the “toxic authoritarian atmosphere and the dissenting voices being sidelined are particularly women”. I am not suprised Sarah uses a “trans” voice to articulate these points, which have been made by many, many women. This looks like a human shield tactic but nevertheless KH summarised the position well.
The astonishingly arrogant reply from Hunt is this. Apparently Parliament abolished sex in 2004 and there was a debate and everything…
Next up, without referencing Posey Parker /Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshall by name, Sarah talks about the billboard campaign involving the shocking use of the dictionary definition of women. Does Ruth find the words Adult, Human, Female offensive?
Ruth says no, she doesn’t find it personally offensive and says it’s not within her power to decide what goes on billboards or not. She then deflects with an astonishing bit of DARVO, (Deny, Accuse, Reverse, Victim and Offender).
I notice Ruth has now deleted her twitter account but she knows this bad on both sides argument is tosh. The rape threats, the obvious males posting with weapons, the die in a fire “Terfs” are ubiquitous from trans id males and allies. Women are generally much more restrained. Its almost as if this is a tale of two sexes. So, YES I agree with her, it is toxic. I part company on her delusional perspective which is wilfully obtuse.
Next we hear about one of the founders of Stonewall, Simon Fanshawe, who has publicly broken with the organisation. Eventually he will be followed by Matthew Paris and latterly Simon Callow. When asked about this he is dismissed because “he hasn’t been involved in Stonewall for over thirty years”. Hunt also repudiates any suggestions that Stonewall has shut down debate. This is interesting because they had a whole campaign saying #NoDebate. Hunt then claims that Stonewall have been involved in constant debates on this issue. That’s a whopping great lie for a woman who likes to bang on about her faith.
Undeterred Sara presses her on the fact that Stonewall have refused to debate and pulls people from panels when the topic is the GRA and the impact on women’s rights. I would argue that it is not entirely coincidental that the BBC have cancelled women speakers when Stonewall have refused to appear. The BBC claim “balance” wouldn’t be achieved with only one side willing to appear. I would say this is strategic and the BBC have either been played (or played along?). They should have “empty chaired” rather than amplifying the myth that Feminists are too terrifying for Trans people to appear alongside.
Sara then moves on to question Hunt about the opposition from Lesbians and Feminists including the public repudiation by a Lesbian and former donor. Maureen is a writer and a had been a high profile and generous supporter of Stonewall.
Ruth’s answer to this quetion is very revealing she immediately justifies Stonewall’s stance by referencing how lucrative it has been for the organisation.
I do wish that Sara had spent a little bit more time exploring Maureen’s concerns and mentioned the famous penis bearing “Lesbian” who is one of Stonewall’s advisors. Ruth should also have been confronted with the bodily modifications young lesbians and gay boys are being groomed to think are “natural”. It’s not “playful” when you sit, as I have done, with young women post testosterone, double mastectomies, hysterectomies and ovary removal. Women in their early twenties who realise, in the main, they were just lesbians.
And what does Ruth pivot to? MONEY and, below, their support from the establishment.
Ruth makes it clear that Stonewall have followed the lead of United States charities who added the T well before Stonewall. Nobody brings up the £100,000 the organisation took from Arcus Foundation to add Trans advocacy to their agenda. This was in 2015 and I am sure the fundraising department soon realised they were looking at a Cash cow if they added the T. She also makes it abundantly clear that this course of action was approved by the entire board, as the actions of her successor confirms.
Elsewhere Ruth has stated that they knew some people would be opposed to the addition of the T. They went ahead anyway. Who is paying for this? The bodies of our Gay boys and Lesbians who are being mined for profit by the Gender Industrial Complex. I don’t believe for a second she doesn’t know what she has facilitated. I hope she enjoys purgatory because, for me, nothing will expiate her sins. Luckily I am not God.