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).
I have documented, in an earlier post, a small number of referrals to Gender Identity Clinics who openly admitted their motive for transition was paedophilia. This blog is here: Survey of Referrals to a Gender
This week two more cases of Trans identified males have been convicted of downloading child pornography. Both were afforded female pronouns. I blogged about one yesterday Here: #TheseAreNotOurCrimes
Today we had the outcome for another one. Media coverage here : Woman!
This weeks coverage made me return to this case. As usual, where available, I include the judicial transcript of the case. Here : Transcript
A quote here from the case: “The Claimant, now aged 60, is a transgender woman who seeks a referral for NHS-funded gender reassignment surgery (“GRS”). She is a serving prisoner. In September 2006 she was convicted and sentenced, as a man, for making indecent photographs of children” Bold added for emphasis.
The case was brought because the prisoner wishes to gain access to Sexual Reassignment Surgery (SRS), on the NHS, whilst incarcerated.
The prospective patient is arguing ,the Tavistock are refusing surgery on the basis of a protocol which denies SRS to existing prisoners. (Interestingly the judgement claims SRS is only made available to those with no hope of release!)
The existence of any such protocol is hotly contested. We are then taken through the history of the claimants interactions with Gender identity specialists. In this section we learn the offending history dates back to the 1980’s and the prisoner has a conviction for sexual assault, and grooming, of a young girl age 12. The matter of gender Identity was raised in 2011. 5 years into an indeterminate sentence.
Here the specialist expresses concern the prisoner may be drawn to further offending, even after SRS. The claimant admits this, initially, but then claims he would no longer need to offend, because he would not need to offend to “vicariously experience womanhood”. Below is a dose of common sense from Dr James Barrett. Indeed. Women don’t typically perform our expected gender role by grooming and performing sex acts on 12 year old girls.
” The fact that she had a history of sexual offences was a seriously complicating factor. People with gender dysphoria feel imprisoned in the wrong body, convinced they are a woman living in a man’s body. Women who are living in female bodies do not normally groom children, still less perform oral sexual acts on 12-year-old girls. It is unusual and it made it much harder to accept her history at face value.”
The withholding of SRS seems mostly related to the difficulty of having “Real Life Experience (RLE) “living as a woman”. This is one of the requirements prior to accessing irreversible surgery and there are a few cases which turn on what exactly this means. How does anyone live as a woman? Women are women by virtue of our biology . WE don’t all walk around performing sex stereotypes. Few things irk me more than the idea that a few men can assess another man about how well he is “womanning“. Only a fool would subcontract the definition of women to the opposite sex. There simply is no way to measure how to live as a woman without relying on sex stereotypes. Those same sex stereotypes women have been fleeing from/resisting for centuries.
In the event various clinicians saw the prisoner. They commenced on a low dose of oestrogen and later the dose was increased. Note that the letter below was sent to HMP Whatton, which is a man’s, Category C prison. Note that the prisoner also appears to have embarked on an application for a Gender Recognition Certificate, from within prison. Dr Barrett declined to provide any supporting documentation.
Here Dr Barret and Dr Lorimer both refer to the patients paraphilia, the cross-dressing and the fetishisation of the female experience, though it seems to only concern them when it is targeted at teenage girls.
The first prisoner to obtain a GRC , from within prison, was a pre-operative male as I cover in this blog HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN GOING ON? This prisoner committed an attempted rape of a woman after being legally re-defined as a woman. There is, to my knowledge, no process for rescinding a Gender Recognition Certificate, and certainly it was not done in the above case.
You can read another case which similarly involved a male paedophile. This one had the idea that the Spice Girls were a template for womanhood. Girl Power: The Spice of Life?
So there you have it. Men re-defining women against our will. Men defining men, as women, based on some projected sex stereotypes. An admission of the co-existence of paraphilias and fetishisation of women. Nobody was willing to outright refuse treatment so this person was given hormones and allowed to go on unsupervised day release, dressed as a woman. I presume the real life experience involved using female facilities.
Male paedophile, dressed as a woman, accessing spaces which could well include teenage girls. Nothing to see here? I now know who is responsible for the Mad Men series of images. Julian Vigo. Genius!
In brief the defendant was caught with a substantial hoard of the most serious category of Child porn (Category A). He attempted to use his “Gender Dysphoria” in mitigation, The judge dismissed this, The offender received a suspended sentence.
He was also given the “courtesy” of female pronouns in the press coverage. This is because it is mandated by the Independent Press Standards Organisation. It will be interesting to discover if the Judge also used female pronouns, in accordance with the advice given to Judges, via the Bench Book governing Equality Issues. This also mandates pronouns to be used which accord with someone’s “Gender Identity”. You can read this here. Bench Book
Even more interesting to find if this has been recorded as a female crime. These are crimes of the type overwhelmingly perpetrated by the male sex. A male with an unhealthy, predatory, interest in female children.👇
Category A offences are defined thus:
Category A images
Category A images are considered to be the ‘most severe’. The repercussions for indecent image offences within this category are typically the heaviest of all related offences.
Images classed in this category depict gross assault, sadism or bestiality – obscene images involving penetrative sexual activity. This category also extends to all images that depict a child subjected to pain.
Apparently it is still a step too far to correctly sex the perpetrator. In both the above articles we are treated to the hijacking of female pronouns to define a very male crime.
Here is the guidance produced by the Independent Press Standards Organisation which mandates female pronouns for the above offender.
Here are the resources which IPSO links. All are Trans Lobby Groups. Were any women’s groups consulted about male crimes being blamed on women?
I have documented, in an earlier post, a small number of individuals who openly admitted their motive for “Gender transition” was paedophilia. This blog is here: Survey of Referrals to a Gender Identity Clinic.
I will shortly add a further case. The next one will be of an incarcerated paedophile, also male. This case is in the public domain because the offender has taken the NHS to Judicial Review to seek Sexual Reassignment Surgery. All whilst he is detained, indefinitely, at Her Majesty’s Pleasure.
Gender Refusenik
Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women’s sex based rights and gay rights as well as the damage to Child Safeguarding.
This legal case centres on a prisoner who wished to access, NHS funded, Sexual Reassignment Surgery during a prison sentence. Covered by The Times here: KK appeal for SRS
In anticipation of the general denial on this issue I include, as always, the official, judicial transcript. KK: Legal Challenge for SRS.
There are a number of interesting aspects to this case. Firstly the recurrent appearance of the same clinicians whose advice is sought. There does seem to be quite a small number of specialists in this field. A feature of this case, once again, is the claimant’s complicating history of sexual offences. This is not unusual, in the cases which leave a trail in court paperwork. Another recurrent theme is the vexed notion of what “living as a woman” means. This resists definition and exercises the minds of our specialists, and the judiciary, far too little. Here we are told the claimant is 60 years of age, was sentenced “as a man” and has been given an indefinite sentence for public protection (IPP). We also discover that the bar for obtaining Genital Reassignment Surgery (GRS) is lower for a prisoner who will never be released than for those with the possibility of parole. There is no rationale given here for this policy.
The legal claim is made on a number of grounds. One of these is whether there exists a protocol which discriminates against prisoners wishing to access sexual reassignment surgery. Another aspect of the case is a rarely articulated concern about regret, in post-operative transsexuals. Here it is adduced as a factor in the, efusing the prisoner GRS. The existence of post-surgery regret is not denied. Instead, the argument hinges on the lack of peer reviewed research showing prisoners are at a higher risk of regret. The Trust, for its part, denies there is any such protocol.
Below is a reminder of the criteria to access genital surgery. It can be done from age 17, mental health conditions are no bar they must merely be “controlled”, a patient is allowed to progress even if they are “unwilling” to undertake hormone treatment. Furthermore the prospective patient should not be judged on how they perform their gender. God forbid we assign arbitrary expectations to performative gender, it might make us suspect the entire ideology is underpinned by reductive, sexist stereotypes. The absence of any externally verified way of measuring “Living as a Woman” does, however, beg the question how is this being measured? How can you assess if a male person is really of the female gender? What does living in the female gender role mean?
How can you possibly assess whether this identity is being adopted correctly if you don’t have pre-conceived notions of what “living as a woman” entails? Is it possible that this is a tad sexist?
Another revealing admission is that many of those who claim the status of “woman” in fact have no bodily modification at all. So living as a woman does not require anyone to be divested of that very male of appendages. One could be forgiven for assuming the penis part of the male anatomy which would give rise to dysphoric feelings. Yet it seems not to be the case. A large number retain their male anatomy. At the same time we, second class women, the biological kind, are expected to share our intimate spaces with the new, male-bodied, version of womankind. We hear much of the comfort surgery can bring to sufferers of Gender Dsyphoria. Where is the consideration for the discomfort of ,unbepenised, women forced to share our intimate spaces?
Cue cries of “transphobia” for wishing to be free of all genders of penis when women are in intimate spaces.
The next excerpt from the case provides more information on the sexual offences committed by the prisoner. Here we learn that the defendant begain offending in the 1980’s; when he groomed and abused a young girl, at the age of 12 . The defendant was, at that stage, 32 years of age. The girl endured this for four years. He served just one year. He was still sexually offending in 2006.
The claimant is late to a belief they are really a woman. He remained trapped in a man’s body at age 51. The claimant professes, to the therapist below, that his sexual offending may cease if he is allowed to transition. The therapist offers an alternative view. What if his attraction to the child images is related to him having missed out on 51 years of being a girl (WTF!). He may, in fact, be at a higher risk of offending after gender reassignment. He then proceeds to amend his statement with the outrageous implication that he resorted to offending to “vicariously experience womanhood”. Because nothing screams woman louder than sexually offending against a pubescent, female teen and downloading child porn! Types furiously…
Again there is a lot of evidence that males, who retain a sexual interest in females, and wish to transition, also have co-existing paraphilias. But hey, what could possibly go wrong!
Dr Lorimer is well aware that masochistic fantasies are not unusual. A cursory acquaintance with sections of the community reveal a correlation with interests in BDSM. Indeed here is a Masters Thesis about how sado-masochistic, role play helped one transwoman cement their identity. Naturally they played the submissive role. BDSM & Transgender Identity
Cross-dressing usually has an erotic component but the prisoners states this was not the case for them. Well he would wouldn’t he? Fetishising a female identity is pretty much the essence of the movement but I would say that wouldn’t I?
Fetishising sexual roles, with notions of submission and dominance, seems to be a core feature of how many males experience their female role. Acting female in a male prison is vastly different from women’s material reality, as pointed out below:
Here we find that the prisoner remains in a category C Male prison. Since they have been “in role” for 10 years in a male prison it rather begs the question about lack of safety in the male estate. Dr Barrett makes it clear they are not able to make a referral for a Gender Recognition Certificate. As we found out from earlier cases there is no bar to obtaining a GRC, from within prison, even with convictions for sexual offences against women. There are always other clinicians and a wealth of private providers that the prisoner can approach. Good to know. I was worried for a while.
We soon learn that the prisoner has been moved to an open prison. We are not told if this remains in the male estate. The prisoner has, however, been granted accompanied and unaccompanied visits to the local town. This is to gain that all important “real life experience” of living as a woman, whatever that means! This is a prelude to release. Prisoner also has hormone therapy increased. Below is another revealing statement that acknowledges that most denied of phenomena: “detransition”. When word gets out that Dr Lorimer has used this word will he be cancelled?
The prisoners sexual offences are deemed to “complicate” the picture for our clinicians. Further confirmation is provided below. Here we have a prisoner presenting as female, in the male estate, for 10 years! Again Dr Barrett makes it clear the imprisonment of a patient is no bar to obtaining GRS and, additionally confirms female prisoners are being made to share accommodation with pre-op males.
Yep Dr Barrett you bet the experience of living in the female role is artificial. I agree with you but probably for different reasons. Late transitioners, with a history of sexual offences, are a red flag but you can’t say that can you? We must not undermine the notion of a man trapped in a woman’s body. #AcceptionWithoutException. Though Dr Barrett comes pretty close with this gem of a contribution about Women “living in female bodies!” (spoiler there is no other kind ). Yes! We tend not to groom female children and perform oral sex on them.
So without wishing to labour the point the prisoner is denied. No mention is made of the obvious reasons! You know the late -transitioning, sexual offence history and interest in child porn. No. The real issue that seems to justify the refusal is a failure to demonstrate real lived experience, as a woman, because prison is an artificial environment! Whilst a male cos-playing as a woman is not artificial, in any way!
As activists in the trans community work to remove the “onerous” burdens placed on the community to legally “transition” I became curious about the legal cases in this area. Far from excessive gatekeeping the act is explicitly designed to be “permissive”. Has this permissiveness gone too far? It seems there is a low bar to be, legally, redefined as a woman. If you are not convinced have a scroll through my blogs. If you don’t want to take my word for it, fine, I would not believe me either! In every piece I link to the legal records. You can bypass my commentary and go straight to the Transcript
In brief no surgery, attempted rape convictions, being incarcerated for paedophilia are no bar to claiming “womanhood”! Remember that when someone tells you they “live as a woman”. Interrogate that phrase. Its ubiquitous and meaningless. Can I, a white woman, say I “live as a black woman”? Nope. So why is one form of appropriation Ok and the other is racist?
Reading through these cases the co-morbidities of mental health conditions is striking, even as they are dismissed as “co-incidental”. This has implications for treatment pathways and women’s safety. The recurrence of the same “experts” also shows how “gender identity specialists” are influencing the judiciary. The case I cover in this blog can be read, in full, here 👉: Ms Jay October 2018
Ms Jay versus the Secretary of State was instigated after three, unsuccessful, applications for a Gender Recognition Certificate. Presiding was a single judge, Lord Justice Baker. This case, as the Judge points out, was the first under new rules governing appeals against a GRC refusal. Below is some background about the complainant.
The clip below includes details of the short marriages, a self-reported feeling of being in the wrong gender, from puberty, and a secret history of “cross-dressing”. {Neophytes should search “autogynephelia” at this stage}
In addition to marrying three times, and fathering 7 children, the appellant has a criminal history. In 2011 they were sentenced to eight years in prison. The judge makes it clear that the appeal is not concerned with the criminal offences. Also the papers detailing the offence were not included and, moreover, that this was not relevant to the “wider public debate”. For the terminally curious. Here is a brief allusion to the offence so you can judge for yourself whether it is “relevant”
Some of the reasons the panel resisted awarding a GRC were; inconsistencies in the information supplied, the reversion to male names during “transition” and a Gender Identity specialist casting doubt on the diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria. Ms Jay appears to have had more than one name change during the process and questions were raised about multiple addresses. Questions were also asked about misleading information supplied about the marriages and why redacted documents were submitted to the panel. Here we are told the applicant has lived full-time as a woman since December 2008. Yet driving licence and passport were renewed, in the male name, in 2013. This a year after making a statutory declaration, to a judge of their “intention to live full-time as female until death”. (whatever living as a female means). The appellant had a name change in 2013 , whilst imprisoned, a surname change and then another first name change in 2018. I hope someone is keeping track of all those names! I echo the panel statement which questioned whether the applicant had something to hide!
I sympathise with a panel presented with this applicant. A person whose Gender Dysphoria remitted enough to marry three times and father seven children. Someone who manages to suppress their femininity sufficiently to amass explosives with intent to endanger life. ( No! I hear your outrage. You are right. Women can also amass explosives with homicidal intent. Must learn to Lean In….Bad Feminist!) Naturally, because of the name changes, I have found it impossible to trace the background to those offences. I can’t shed any light on the womanly way in which the crime was committed. I am actually not clear whether tracing this history is even possible if a GRC holder does not reveal past identities. It might even be an offence for me to try!
Warning! Tone Switch..
Having justifiable concerns about the impact of these decisions, on women, does not necessitate abandoning my humanity. The clip below paints a sad picture of the claimant. Nobody deserves to be vulnerable to sexual assault and I do wonder whether anyone is joining the dots between maladaptive coping mechanisms and prisoners undergoing transition. However I would also love to hear from the trans-widows in this case. Those women are the really brave and stunning ones in all of these tales. They may tell a very different tale.
The first application to the Gender Recognition panel appears to have commenced from within prison. The medical evidence submitted is from Dr James Barrett, a regular expert witness in these cases. He is generally very sympathetic to Transgender Appellant’s. His statement and comments are worth quoting in full. The history presented by the appellant is disputed and a concern focus on transition may be misdirected. A long history of psychiatric problems is noted. When even Dr Barrett thinks its a bad idea….its probably a bad idea!
The prisoner is released in March 2015 and finds a new doctor. Unfortunately the release didn’t last long and they were recalled to prison in less than 3 months, Here a new doctor appears on the scene. Dr Helen Webberley. Interestingly the panel note that they had not previously heard of Dr Webberley, in this field, which shows how recently they d£cid£d to cash in…oops I mean support such a vulnerable community:
The relationship with Webberley doesnt seem to persist and another doctor appears. The next Doctor issues a report which is submitted, in redacted form, the the Gender Recognition Panel. This doctor again refers to Ms Jay’s personality disorder and maladaptive coping mechanisms but does diagnose Gender Dysphoria. The diagnosis leads to the recommended treatment (gender reassignment) to resolve the psychiatric issues. Nobody asks whether craving Gender Reassignment is another maladaptive copingmechanism. That would be transphobic, just in case any of you are thinking that now! Gender Dysphoria has been rebranded as an “identity” not a mental health issue, it’s now a slur to suggest this. As an aside this expert also recommends consideration is given to moving the prisoner to the female prison estate. In March 2016 the application for a GRC was turned down. The doctor disappears from the case.
The prisoner is once again released in May 2016. Within 3 months he has found another doctor who provides this evidence ↓ Pay attention to the dates and the extensive treatment the patient has, we are told, undertaken in three short months. ( As an aside Dr Pasterski appears in other cases I cover & most notably opposed a Local Education Authority when it raised concerns about 3 unrelated “trans kids” in a foster family).
At this point the claimant becomes frustrated with the panel who have requested more clarification. The claim “I have always been female”would seem to write three wives and 7 children out of history! In August 2017 the Gender Recognition Panel again turned down the application. They expressed doubt about the credibility of the supporting evidence and , in particular that of Dr Pasteracki. They cast doubt on evidence supplied by the claimant.
Some awareness of the condition of Autogynephilia, in the Transexual Community would help the Judge here. Those who fit the profile for autogynephilia have a condition rooted in shame. Sufferers tend to be steeped in denial. Here is a quote from a Gender Identity Specialist:
We have seen this in an earlier case I covered GRC from Prison. In that case a male claimed to be homosexual, his attempted rape was minimised on that basis. Yet, since leaving prison, they now self-identify as a lesbian.
Back to this case. In November 2017 the prisoner was again recalled to prison. The judge noted that the claimant was still in prison at the time of the hearing.
Thereafter yet another doctor enters the fray! As the claimant is detained at her Majesty’s pleasure it is not clear how any assessments were carried out. This one is in Sheffield. Can’t change the opinion so change the Doctor!
Now we get to the aim of the court case. It turns out they there is provision for a GRC to be issued by this one judge who can bypass the Gender Recognition Panel. The advocate for the claimant also shares this interesting nugget about GRC applications. Less than 5% are refused its designed to be “permissive not restrictive”. You have to admire the fancy footwork of the Legal team. Ms McCann that the prisoner met the legal standard and that this Judge had the authority to award the Gender Recognition Certificate himself. Is it possible that some Judges are a tad vain and like to set precedents? Does the advocate absolutely know this fact about male vanity? [Strike that: Snarky opinion! My bad]
Ms McCann reminds of that many of these decisions emanate from the European Court of Human Rights. (If we Brexit do we lose Sexit? Sobering thought for a remainer such as myself!)
The right to self-determination includes “gender identification”. Laywoman opinion: Your right to self-determination is not absolute. If it denies me the personal autonomy to recognise and relate to someone as the sex they are!
To demand that I accede to your self-identity which may contradict my sex recognition skills springs from a totalitarian impulse. Chances are I will see your sex and if you walk behind me, late at night, I will react accordingly.
Furthermore can a person be “master” of his “ethnicity” as per the extract below? If I am objectively black can I identify out of racism? As a woman can I identify out of sexism?
To cut a long story short the Judge was persuaded by these arguments. He recognises that he is sitting alone, without assistance from a medical member of the panel but, in a Brave and Stunning decision, he decides to confer a Gender Recognition Certificate on Ms Jay, assuming that is still her name.
For those of you following this discussion just a reminder not to mention the elephant’s trunk in the room. That would just be rude.
I will leave you with this question. In making these determinations the Judge has to have regard to the individual’s Human Rights but also the wider rights of the Community. Are we well served?
This case is from 2003. It concerns a post-operative transsexual who had managed to go through a marriage ceremony, prior to the legalisation of same sex marriages. There were no issues of consent here. Both parties were aware of the sex of the “wife”. The registrar, however, was not made aware.
There were earlier cases, involving this couple, and this went to an appeal. Of all the cases I have read this one seems to have a better grip on the implications of the legal judgement. It is a very comprehensive case and, based on my previous cases, this one has a much better understanding of the issues at stake. You can read the original case here Bellinger 2001 Lords judgement is here : Bellinger
It’s worth noting that if same sex marriage had been legal this case may not have been brought. I have,however, no insight into whether this was a trans-activist’s test case, or just an ordinary person trying to regularise their relationship. {A significant issue in the enactment of laws in this area. A lot has been achieved, by stealth. Laws have been passed that turn out to have much wider implications, particularly for women’s rights, than is apparent at the outset. Always bear this in mind when law makers tell us they wish to make an innocuous change to any law impacting women}.
This case examines, in some detail, whether or not it is possible to literally change sex. Spoiler Alert: It is not. In 2019 this statement is controversial. Back in 2003 it had to be clearly established in the context of a country that did not have legal provision for same sex marriage.
The parties to the marriage were, as far as the evidence presented, both aware of the sex of their prospective spouse. There is no suggestion of any fraud perpetrated on the husband.
The case makes it clear that Mrs Bellinger was a biological male. In every sense. There is no confusion even the XY karyotype test is evidenced. There is some evidence presented that relies on the notion of a mismatch between biological sex and “brain sex”. This is the often cited notion that a female brain may be, wrongly, present in a biological male. A highly speculative claim. 👇
As is made clear this assertion remains “speculative” and indeed it is a significant area of contention, relying on the regressive notion of #LadyBrain. There are studies that show similarities in the brains of homosexual males and females. One theory is that this is due to “neuro-plasticity” and that the brain responds to commonality of experiences, when navigating the world as a woman or a “feminine” gay male. There is no definitive answer but any study that does not control for homosexuality, in transgender subjects, is flawed. Certainly if it was settled science then, presumably, an MRI would be the standard diagnostic criteria, for transsexuals, not a psychiatric assessment. You can read more research here: Lady Brain
The striking thing about this case is the amount of time spent on establishing biological reality, without which the court could not invalidate the marriage. In a pre-gay marriage era there may also have been an intention to make sure same sex marriage was not allowed in, by the back door. {This seemed to be a feature of the debates about the Gender Recognition Act in the U.K. Here is a thread on the UK debate by @HairyLeggedHarpy UK GRA Parliamentary Debate }.The gender identity arguments were subject to, relatively, rigorous scrutiny. Certainly the analysis, in this case, is more extensive than we have seen in English Law, and policy, especially post the (2004) Gender Recognition Act.
Another prevalent feature of this case is the willingness to debunk the conflation of intersex with “trans” this excerpt makes it clear that a distinction must be made. Key intersex advocates are keen to highlight that disorders of sexual development are not an “identity” and have no place in the Transgender “debate”. People who are intersex , sufferers of disorders of sexual development (DSDs), do not have a transgender “identity”. They have a medical condition that, for some, can be quite distressing. This case makes a clear distinction; which activists have tried to blur for political reasons You can read more about this here, by Claire Graham, who writes from her own experience. There is no I in LGBT
The case also makes it clear that a literal sex change is an impossibility. All of these facts are now casually disregarded by many trans lobbyists.
The case also recognised that transvestites are distinct from transsexuals. Transvestites are now included under Stonewall’s Transgender umbrella. My own council allows cross-dressers to, formally, register, with a gender identity, in respect of all council amenities. (I did this myself, on-line, to register my part-time cross-dressing self: Patrick). Stonewall definition of Trans below 👇
The sexual gratification that some men gain from cross-dressing is explicitly addressed here:
A cursory review of literature on paraphilias should have alerted our naïve political class that at least some, cross-dressing men, are fetishists. Not only are they sexually aroused, by dressing in “female” clothes, this gratification can be heightened in female only spaces. Breaching women’s boundaries can form part of the fetish and our politicians have just validated the perpetrators as a “gender identity”. Note that the aim is to validate “Gender Identity” in law. This is the policy of all the major political parties in the UK. These self same males are already being granted access to women’s spaces, which forces women to be, unwilling, participants in a male paraphilia. Yes they are distinct from many, maybe even most, covered by the trans umbrella, but women have zero way to determine which males will do us harm. This is why single sex spaces exist. Not because of “all men” but to strategically reduce the risk by giving women respite from “men” to exclude “those men”.
In an irony, not lost on me, older transsexuals, who have been quietly using women’s spaces, now feel driven out by the excessive demands of trans activists. I don’t see how we can row back from this. In an exchange, with one of those transsexuals, replete with black humour, we reached common ground when we agreed we would both end up in the male toilets cos all the predatory males would end up in the women’s! I take no pleasure in the impact on the homosexual transsexuals with whom I interact. That is the tragedy of the “woke” trans allies. They have hurt, not only women, but the community they purport to serve. I won’t be the only woman who never gave this a second thought until the Trans Activists/Male Rights Activists made me look, in more depth, at what lay under the Trans Umbrella. I had idea of the many paraphilias that co-exist in the wider T community. Autogynephilia , menophiliacs, shemales, sissyporn, etc etc. I no idea that post-op transsexuals may be heterosexual and fetishise women’s lives, bodies and spaces. Once seen it can’t be unseen. Woke Blokes made me look. I have lost my innocence.
Put simply, when transgressing women’s boundaries is a known male paraphilia there is a real risk in enshrining legal rights to access female only spaces. Sexual paraphilias are pretty much 100% male. Our political class are wilfully blind,woefully naïve or complicit.
Another aspect of this case which is worth mentioning is the compassion shown by the Judge to , on the face of it, a couple in difficult circumstances. The judge has obviously done due diligence on the nature of “gender dysphoria” and that, for some people, therapeutic resolution of an identity disorder can be unsuccessful.He is right to show such compassion. However kindness does not override the need to make legislation that is workable and, crucially, doesn’t dismantle protections for another vulnerable group. The judge does go on to raise the difficult judgements this would lead the law to make. Here he asks the burning question now dividing opinion in the UK. “Should self-perceived gender be recognised”.
Would that our current law makers were as well informed as this judge. Already he notes the varying degrees of surgery in the Transsexual community and the spectre of a male bodied person being redefined as a “woman” ; as is now the case in U.K. and Irish Law.
I suspect this would have been dismissed as the “slippery slope” argument. Well its not a slippery slope now. We are skiing down the slope like Eddie The Eagle without his glasses. (I do hope I got the pronouns correct). Yet here we are. Male bodied people i.e. men, are identifying as women and housed in female prisons and, we now know, allowed to demand to be on female wards in our hospitals. NHS policy on Single Sex Wards
The above NHS policy, published September 2019, contains this delicious nugget below 👇making it quite clear that sexual characteristics have absolutely no bearing on who ends up in which “single sex” ward. This is where we have ended up by trying to accommodate a tiny percentage of the population. It is a wholesale disregard of female people. We are so utterly dismissed by the society we live in as if we have no embodied reality. Well this Uturus-Haver has had enough!
As the above shows a definition of what “sex” means has much wider ramifications than on the small minority who are “Transsexual” . The legal case made it clear that such a significant change requires just the sort of societal debate we are now being denied in the U.K. The slogan used, by Trans advocates, #NoDebate was one of the earlier warnings that a debate was exactly what was needed. The “widest possible public consultation and discussion” the judge called for has in fact been suppressed. I can think of no other reason for this silencing except that it is known that the wider public will NOT agree with this redefinition of what it means to be a woman. In the end the Lords ruled against the appellant. Parliament were just about to legislate for Gender Recognition to be decided, in law. Sadly they seem now to have disregarded this astute advice. “Self-definition is not acceptable. That would make nonsense of the underlying biological basis of the distinction”. In practice the policy capture is so widespread that single sex spaces are not being protected because the law, which allows this, is not being invoked. Remember this when you see organisations lying about the law. Women’s Legal Rights to Single Sex Spaces.
Whether or not sexual reassignment surgery will, eventually, be deemed the wrong “treatment” the fact remains that society has colluded in the development of a “transsexual” community. Society now needs to resolve how they are accommodated. Gender Reassignment also needs a more critical evaluation. Is it a mechanism to sidestep the central issue: Why are so many men are in flight from masculinity? Why are males so threatened by feminine men? Why are we allowing men trapped in male bodies to redefine what it is to be a woman? These are big questions and few of our media are covering in any meaningful way.
There are a whole different set of questions for the females in flight from womanhood. It seems clear many are simply Lesbians. Others, now de-transitioned, say they had untreated eating disorders, a history of sexual abuse or were in flight from a society that hyper-sexualises women. The Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist slur (Terf) is inaccurate. Trans men remain under the female umbrella, though many “Transmen” will , ideologically reject this. They are still deserving of our support. They still need protection from sexual discrimination and share the vulnerability to male violence common to our sex.
Trans identified males remain of the male sex. The answer, as I have said many, many, times is not to make transsexual males a “woman problem”. Refugees from masculinity (to quote Miranda Yardley) exist. They are a problem for males. It is not women’s job to place ourselves at risk and run the refugee camps. Once again the blame for this lies squarely the door of the activists who have stretched women’s tolerance to breaking point. Female socialisation conditions women to compassionate responses but we are not bound to place male people’s interests above those of our sex.