Examining Gender Identity ideology and its impact on Women's Sex based rights and Gay Rights. Exploring how this has taken such firm root in Western societies (Cognitive & Regulatory Capture).
Lockwood was born Peter, in 1965. He has been married at least thirty one years and has at least two children. He has quite a lot of content on his own podcast and has done interviews where he explains that he sold his business, predictably in IT, to live his authentic truth. He appears to have started living full-time in his late fifties. Subsequently he got caught up in tax arrears, lost his house and took out an IVA which is an agreement to pay off his creditors. It’s worth thinking about in what predicament this left his wife. Also worth reflecting on this which is on his YouTube channel. £7000 spent on personal grooming.
Screenshot
He has recently begun to be trotted out on GB News which is where I came across him. Before I get into all his other content it is worth looking at this Channel 4 documentary which focuses on Jo/Pete getting a new wig.
Screenshot
In marked contrast to his wife Lockwood is clearly giddy with the attention he is getting. Marie, his wife, has to go outside and in another space to hide her tears. Her husband has already been on hormones for two years but watching him get a more permanent weave/wig is clearly traumatising.
Screenshot
Clearly she is wondering how she will feel sexually attractive to him whilst he emphasises that he doesn’t want to lose her because they are best friends. He needs a woman to cos play as his girl friend to make the fantasy real.
The young hairdresser sees Marie go outside and Lockwood emphasises his care for her and his empathy, the cynic in me thinks he has read that females are more empathetic and so he must perform it now he is a “Lady”. Her distress provides another opportunity for him to indulge his fantasy.
Screenshot
By contrast Marie constantly suppresses her own feelings to prioritise her husbands but she is clearly struggling.
Screenshot
Lockwood can barely suppress his excitement at his transformation and, in a very revealing, aside he lets slip what this is really all about. There are three of them in this marriage and two of them are Pete/Jo.
Screenshot
After expressing her difficulty with accepting his transformation and indication that divorce couls still be on the cards they have this exchange. He did try to inject somewhat of a questioning tone to his voice but the words are stark.
Screenshot
Screenshot
Marie tries to make light of it and jokes that he would have to get divorced first snd also that she still has not made her mind up. Clearly this attempt at levity is too much of her and she moves away and turns her back on the camera and is clearly sobbing, Notice how every time she dares to think about the impact on her she soon centres her husband. She knows he is the most important person in this drama, to everybody around her and doesn’t even dare to say the truth that its invaded HER life.
Screenshot
Meanwhile The husband talks like a teenage boy fantasising about his very own pair of tits. I don’t know any women who celebrate the bouncing breasts of the stairs climber. But “Jo” finds this validating. Interestingly this was the segment of the show about how Marie was finding it difficult to come to terms with and it soon becomes clear they are in separate beds.
Screenshot
He cant see anything beyond his own need for validation. The next seen is a visit to a couple who are friends. Marie has decided not to go and look at how her husband describes this and how soon he brings the discussion to focus on himself. Her pain is another opportunity to revel in his own “femininity”
Screenshot
When he arrives at the friends’ house, without his wife he can’t resist telling them that it was Marie who put his hair in a bun while he asks the male friend which hair colour he prefers referring to his previous, blond, wig. Men like this require validation from males as well as females.
Marie must have some good friends who have told her what he is doing is selfish. Bravo her for feeling able to vocalise it. “Selfish” is in her top ten of words to describe what he is doing. That is not all he is doing but Marie likely doesnt have any experience of this and is blindsided after thirty one years of marriage.
Screenshot
Screenshot
The show ends with Marie and “Jo” celebrating their thirty first wedding anniversary with a trip to Amsterdam.
I will do a follow up piece on his podcast content and his new career as a public speaker and diversity consultant. I have already listened to his first podcast where he, predictably, picked (tricked?) a woman with a PhD who talks about neuroscience and discrimination against women in the workplace. Ironically she is big on trusting your instincts but thinks some women should deny their instinctive recognition of men, She was smug and infuriating…till next time.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully receive and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)
Eve is another trans activist and part of the stable that is Trans in The City. This is his bio:👇 Notice he boasts that he was part of the Good Law Project’s High Court case against NHS England to protest NHS waiting times. Of course they lost.
Screenshot
Eve is the media person at Trans in The City and boasts of their collaboration with the esteemed, peer reviewed journal Pink News.
Screenshot
He is yet another Trans Activist who has inveigled his way into the Crown Prosecution Services, to sit on their Hate Crime panel.
Screenshot
He also boasts about advising the London Metropolitan Police and is part pf their learning and development team.
Screenshot
Eve Echo also gave a Ted Ex talk specifically for women. This was Teeside Women.
Screenshot
What did the man, who has a wife who is a tatoo artist, choose for his topic? Apparently it was billed as a talk on seizing opportunities but he wasn’t going to talk about that. He turned up in a sort of baby doll dress, like something Grayson Perry would wear.
Screenshot
He announced he would be changing the topic of his talk and began to wax lyrical about his nipples! Yes, thats right. He dresses it up in some sort of pseudo, feminist, argument about the way women are oppressed because our culture doesn’t allow women to display their nipples, in public, but we allow this privilege to men. I hope by now women, if only my readers, are wise to this tactic.
Screenshot
In another YouTube he delved into the vexed issue of trans-exclusion in the field of Sport. He appeared along side Verity Smith (ex of Mermaids) and another Trans in the City person, Oscar Hoyle. Heres what he had to say which was the usual bad faith argument.
Screenshot
Eve is really angry about campaigns for single sex sports and expresses it with the usual tinpot totalitarian vibe.
Screenshot
This is an overview after watching all the content I could find. If it is a little thin its because there does not seem to be much depth to our Mr Echo. Also one of his interviews was along side Freda Wallace and he didn’t get much of a look in. Another one of the panel appearances was along side an elderly trans activist, Roz Kavenney so he was somewhat over shadowed there too. He likes to describe himself as gobby and does not give much biographical detail, though he does let slip he used to play Chess tournaments for his Cheshire school.
He is not a very interesting subject but is working with the police, the CPS, and is part of an exhibition at the Science Museum so hundreds of school children will have been exposed to him.
I think its about time I covered Roz Kavenney, so I might do him next.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully receive and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)
Before I covered this paper I had a look at Peggy Cohen-Kettenis to see any interviews she had given. I found her make this statement about “Patient B” who was the inspiration for beginning pubertal suppression in children who presenting with “gender incongruence”. Here’s was Cohen-Kettenis had to say about “Patient B”
You have to look at Michael Biggs work to get a little more detail on “patient B” 👇
It later transpired that patient B was also a Lesbian.
Cohen-Kettenis was described as “brave” by John Money. 👇
John Money was the man responsible for experimenting on the Reimer twins. One of the twins had a botched circumcision which destroyed his penis. Money advised his parents to raise him as a girl and hide this sex from him. Later it was also revealed that the twins were subject to some sexual impropriety at the hands of Money. It was hidden for many years that the experiment failed and the twin realised he was actually male and reverted to living as a man. Tragically, both twins committed suicide.
Cohen-Kettenis also does not dwell on the boy who died during the attempt to fashion a simulacra of female genitalia. This outcome is given in one sentence, in the report on the outcomes of the Dutch Protocol.
Again Michael Biggs sheds more light on the reason why this patient died. He died as a result of complications from surgery, that were a direct consequence of the pubertal suppression.
She proceeds to describe how feminine were the people who had early treatment and mentions Nikki, of Nikki’s Tutorials, who is a make up YouTuber. Nikki is a hugely successful social influencer who recently married another man. So, another homosexual who has been “transed”. We will never know what Nikki’s life could have been or whether he could have lived happily as a gay man.
I was inclined to sympathy for Nikki until someone sent me this information about him representing women at the United Nations.
Nikki did not start puberty suppression till age 14 which, from my research, would suggest he had already reached the age of sexual function. Unlike the kids who have their puberty blocked earlier and, as Marci Bowers, president of WPATH, admitted will be rendered anorgasmic.
The paper outlines the arguments in favour of pubertal suppression and those against. The pro-arguments focus on avoiding the “torment” of going through the wrong puberty and the passability of those wishing to mimic the opposite sex. She does outline some research suggestive of the idea that there may be a biological cause for “Gender incongruence”. However even she is not confident in the research and concedes that, in the absence of a definitive diagnostic tool, we are reliant on the subjective assessment of the patient, which will likely be mediated through a practitioner of “gender medicine”.
She also admits that all the research shows a shocking percentage of these kids will resolve their gender incongruence, if left alone. It is not highlighted that most of these kids would simply turn out to be gay.
She admits that there are some clinicians who are less than confident about the interventions based on the diagnostic tools available. Here it is described it as “a less than solid foundation” for the medical interventions prescribed.
The arguments pro pubertal suppression centre on the children who have presented with a persistent rejection of their natal sex. The authors describe a myriad of mental health conditions that they argue are not co-morbid with the “gender dysphoria” but are rather caused by the Gender Identity Disturbance. They report parents and patients confirmed there was a relief of suffering once puberty was halted. This, they argue, gave the patients “time to think” a phrase that, some would argue, is undermined by the fact that 98% + continue onto cross sex hormones. Yet, the authors present the opposite argument, the continuance on this path is because the diagnostic criteria applied has a high degree of accuracy.
There is a high premium placed on “passability” as the opposite sex. The emphasis on this seems in part driven by the masculine appearance of the late transitioning males who wish to pass as women. This is less of an issue for females who take testosterone who, at least superficially, more likely to pass as small men.
The other argument is that stopping the development of secondary sexual characteristics removes some unnecessary surgeries. moreover it is argues that there are worse outcomes the later the surgery takes place. Finally the authors contend that not providing this option risks patients seeking illegal means to access the drugs.
The case against: When in doubt abstain?
We now move onto the arguments opposed to these early interventions. These centre around the difficulty of diagnosis and skepticism about the stability of the child’s /adolescent identity. In addition the physical development brought about through puberty may resolve the “gender incongruence” . (In particular relationships my develop that enable acceptance of a homosexual orientation which, bizarrely, is not mentioned).
The high rates of desistance are, to my mind, a particularly compelling argument. 80-95% would be better off if left alone! Again. no mention of how many of these would simply be gay!
Another risk relates to bone density and brain maturation.
The riskier surgery for males deprived of normal penile development.👇. The authors argue that new techniques have been developed to address this issue but note that Jazz Jennings required revisions after his surgery as do many other “transitioners” who have gone public about their surgeries.
This is all an experiment driven by the belief in “gender identity” as an innate facet of the “trans” child. Yet the authors speak of the torment of going through a natural puberty.
Screenshot
The authors describe blocking puberty as reversible but also concede that the impact on brain maturation is unknown. 🤷♀️
ScreenshotScreenshot
The authors conclude my claiming that not intervening is more of an ethical dilemma than intervening. We are a long way from ending this practice. Cass Review is out this week but, sadly, I don’t anticipate it saying what needs saying.
Screenshot
You can see the work of Michael Biggs in this YouTube. His work is exemplary.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully receive and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)
This document sets out the strategy for advancing Transgender Rights across Europe, with a specific focus on young people.
You can find the 65 page document on-line here Link
I attach a version which I downloaded in December 2019. IGLYO_v3-1. I notice there is another version. I attach both, in case of any changes, IGLYO_v3-1 2
Astro-Turfing
The introduction flags up the Corporate backing for this, allegedly, marginalised minority. The world’s largest law firm and a global foundation are writing strategy documents to embed Gender Identity ideology, in law. This has all the hallmarks of astro-turfing; which is when a well funded, social engineering, project is presented as an organic, grassroots campaign. In reality Transgender Ideology is backed by significant funding. You can read more on this phenomenon here
And now Google are interfering. Jo Bartoch Article here.
Another relevant piece, by Jennifer Bilek, lifts the veil on the rich & powerful men driving Transgender Ideology. here
These are the organisations providing pro-bono support for the report under consideration. Thomson Reuters Foundation and the largest Legal Firm in the world.
Thompson Reuter’s
Dentons
Dissenting Voices from the LGB & I
The report is on behalf of a group of 96 organisations, who claim to speak for LGBTQI youth across the Council of Europe region.
In the U.K, we now have a breakaway group, LGB Alliance, who do not feel their interests are served by mainstream LGBTQI organisations. These organisations reject the notion of biological sex /sexual dimorphism thereby making it difficult/impossible, to defend sexual orientation. Exhibit A: Stonewall UK have, as an Ambassador, a bearded male who claims to be a Lesbian. See Alex Drummond. 👇
Stonewall Lesbian
It is also worth noting the letter I, in LGBTQI, claims to represent Intersex people. These are people with Disorders/Differences of Sexual Development. Many of this community also resent their medical condition being co-opted as an “identity”, by the rainbow alliance.
To hear more of these dissident voices you can read about LGB Alliance here
To return to the Denton’s document. It outlines the progress in establishing transgender rights across European countries. Here’s who is involved in the U.K. Note that one of the organisations didn’t even want their name to be made public. The other one already accesses state funding.
Mosaic received funding from the Government Equality Office for a project working to stop homophobic, bi-phobic and transphobic bullying in schools. You can find this information in the accounts submitted to the Charity Commission.
A quick check on their timeline shows a devotion to the Trans Advocacy lobby group Mermaids. #PinkNews #Stonewall #ProudTrust also figure prominently. Mosaic Youth Trust are enthusiastic advocates for medical intervention, for children, even using an emotive appeal from a trans identified child.
There are very few public resources available on their twitter timeline or website. This, I find, is one of the more disturbing aspects of many of these smaller charities. No public access to resources that are going into our schools! The Denton’s document proffers an explanation for this secrecy, which I will get to…
Introduction
The introduction was written by a well known Trans Activist based in the UK.
You can read more about this activist here. Identifies as non-binary. In a relationship we would have formerly described as heterosexual. As Ugla makes clear here this is no longer acceptable. Heterosexuality is thus redefined as queer. Hey presto it’s under the 🌈 and there’s a crock of s**t at the end of this one.
Mentioning the fact biological sex exists is now a “transphobic dog whistle”.
Legislation by stealth
The two admissions in this next paragraph are crucial to understanding how so much has happened without people, particularly women, marshalling our resources to resist. Most of us didn’t know there was a new threat to women’s rights wearing Joseph’s technicolour raincoat. We were too busy attending Pride marches and gleefully singing #BornThisWay. While we were singing Lady Gaga there was a new Gaga Lyric in town #BornInTheWrong Body.
👇Here are some of the strategies recommended. Pass legislation “under the radar”, “latch…onto more popular legal reforms”. This tactic has served them well. Note that Ireland passed legislation around Gender Recognition before it legalised abortion. Malta still has not legalised abortion but it does allow self-identification of “Gender”.
For Trans Activists the failure, in Ireland, to lower the age for Legal Gender Recognition is seen as a warning against compromise. The stage is set for a new offensive. Note that the age for gender recognition is also under review in Scotland, who seem minded to implement the more controversial of reforms. This legislation is also under review in England and Wales which appears to be heading in a different direction. However, there is no room for complacency.
The role of education & attacks on parental rights
Below is a snippet on Tactics picked up from Portugal. First make sure you train teachers. Get the teachers on board with gettin rid of sex segregated toilets.
The inculcation of gender ideology is well underway in the UK. Many parents are now discovering this with recent publicity on School Transgender policies. (Quite a few of which have been withdrawn as parentsprotest about their contents). The Denton’s dossier is a full frontal attack on parental protective responsibilities. Here is a thread I did on those school Transgender guidance packs, specifically how they seek to undermine parental responsibility. Thread
Here a few examples of how parents are referred to in numerous school packs on Transgender pupils.
Another common tactic is to talk about “minors” say you mean 16-18. Then switch to “child”. Talk a lot about a child’s legal rights and their autonomy. This is another attack on parental responsibility. As is made more explicit. They want Parental Consent to be over-ridden
Here are some quotes about parents in the document under consideration here. 👇
These excerpts are even more disturbing. Mandating state action against parents advocating for “watch and wait” rather than medical intervention. It is factually true ,historically, some jurisdictions enforced sterilisation clauses prior to undergoing Sexual Reassignment surgery. These clauses have rightly been removed. However we have not eliminated this for young people. Children put on Puberty Blockers, invariably, progress to cross sex hormones, they will not have a puberty and will be rendered infertile.
Norway allows legal gender recognition for six year olds. For now (?) this is restricted to children with disorders of sexual development. It is possible that I am overly cynical /hyper-vigilant about why these kids are being housed under the Transgender Umbrella. They are not “transgender” kids, however, could their status be hijacked to campaign for Gender recognition of 6 year olds. Even if they are not “intersex” but do believe they are born in the wrong body?
De-medicalising the process or Medicalising it?
Another aspect of the coverage deemed problematic is the focus on medicalising Gender Identity. This is deemed unhelpful. The problem identified in this quote exposes a central contradiction in trans ideology. For adults there is a push to de-medicalise the process for self-identification of your “gender”. For children there is a push to medicalise them. Here it is claimed that UK voices are simply “confused”.
The debate is confused. Not, however, on the Gender Critical side. It is reflective of an internal contradiction on the Trans Activist side.
The penis retention status of so many Trans-identifies males has not escaped the attention of U.K. females. Indeed the phrase suck on my dick appears with unfailing regularity in responses to inconvenient women. Had the esteemed authors of this report consulted women they would have known the deployment of the penis, by our wannabe sisters, was a strategic fail. Documented here Peak Trans
Here is a direct focus on the “highly problematic” system of separate toilets for girls/women and boys/men. 👇 Given the history of women’s fight to have safe public bathroom facilities this is a direct attack on the rights of women and girls. Note the vehicle for grooming our children to accept this is Teachers. . This is what the frequent “we just want to pee“ is really about. 👇
The document undertakes a country, by country analysis and the United Kingdom is singled out for its non-compliant women. The document doesn’t shy away from using a slur associated with threats of rape and violence (Terf) . It goes on to draw the conclusion that press coverage is problematic. The lesson to be learned is that the freedom of the press has created a divisive issue. In fact the press have, finally, begun to cover something which simply is a contentious issue.
Women are labelled “trans-hostile” because we are not giving up sex based rights without a fight. These are existing rights enshrined in Law, by a Labour government, but the document suggests only the right wing media are raising it. By extension, it implies, it’s only right wing women who have an issue with it. (The uber left wing Morning Star is one of the papers that has tried to provide coverage for these non-compliant women).
The preferred campaign strategy is to provide human interest stories but, the document claims, the current atmosphere is so hostile they are unable to do so. The Guardian and the BBC, Teen Vogue, Pink News, Independent, Mirror, Sun, Telegraph appear not to have received the memo. Coverage of “trans kids” is ubiquitous. This is a strategic. By deploying children it de-sexualises motives for transition and helps persuade people that the trans community are a vulnerable community.
Another way this strategy has been deployed, in the UK, is the many Trans Activists who refuse to appear, along side feminists, to debate any issues. The series on Radio 4 Women’s hour was notable for the number of Trans Activists who would only provide pre-recorded discussions, rather then debate the issues with feminists. Example here
The above is laughably poor research into the actual profiling of young trans people in the British media. A quick search brings up masses of coverage of Young Trans Children. There was a seemingly endless parade of “transgender kids” on British Media. There are loads of celebratory tales of young “transgender” children. Here’s an entire documentary by Victoria Derbyshire. Transgender Kids.
The Children’s BBC programme “I am Leo” was broadcast directly to our kids on CBBC. I presume this was just in case the home schooled had missed out on Transgender Indoctrination. The documentary follows a young female as she embarks on medicalisation to cement her male Gender Identity. Below is a clip of he Director of the U.K’s premier Gender Identity Clinic, who appeared on I am Leo. Juxtaposed with a contemporary statement , somewhat at odds with what our children were told.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
The language of Human Rights advocacy is deeply embedded in the propagation of this ideology. Women’s rights to privacy and dignity has been trampled underfoot which underlines the depressing realisation that we are not considered human. Access to women’s sex segregated spaces is now badged a human rights issue for male bodied “women”.
Of course anyone who is trans-identified should have human rights. The women fighting for our sex based rights are not trying to strip rights away from any male who is a refugee from his sex. The rights we are asserting are existing rights, in law, to allow women to act as a political class to defend women’s, sex based, rights.
Watching the naivete of young, female, politicians who are throwing away women’s rights I think they need to read this document and consider if they are being played. The young politicians are being targeted. The senior, older, politicians, don’t want to lose the youth vote so are letting them lead the way.
Another tactic is to make sure activists get ahead of the politicians. It’s a new area and fraught with political banana skins. What better way to avoid a slip. Outsource your opinions to Lobby groups. They are more than happy to oblige. It’s a great strategy.
This document is a must read. Don’t use it to hold anyone accountable. Lawyers must Lawyer and they have already got their defence ready. Power without responsibility
This is an interview that Stephen Whittle gave two weeks ago. I am going to cover it as part of my series on Whittle because it contains a very different narrative than the one I have heard recounted before. The rest of the series is here: 👇
The interviewer begins by asking Whittle to share their back story. Whittle paints a picture of two parents who were immediately “affirming” and in fact had always known. This was the way her mum is alleged to have responded. This was in 1973.
While coming out to her mother her father walked in the room and he too was completely unfazed. Again, I am just going to point out this was in 1973.
Contrast this with what Whittle said about his father in this, 2007, interview in the Guardian:
For the next bit I could use some Lesbians who were at the Women’s Liberation Conference in Edinburgh to comment. Whittle describes realising they didn’t fit in when the women circle danced naked in the evening; to much audience laughter. Whittle explains it was in that moment they knew this was not who they were. The decision to come out as a man was made and, the way Whittle tells it, all the feminist /Lesbian women were unsurprised and supportive; rallying round and finding “him” men’s clothes to pass on. One of the women even knew a “transsexual” they could introduce to Whittle; this was Carol Steele who I covered here:
This meeting proved fortuitous and together Whittle and Steele set up a support group for “trans” people this would become Press For Change. Whittle talks a lot about how they were involved in the Gay Switchboard and how they had fantastic support from Gay men. (As we will see in my next piece she, and the T more generally, repaid this by denying same sex attraction was based on the SEX of the person. This is betrayal of the highest order).
Whittle then talked about what tremendous support she had from Manchester Metropolitan University (then a Polytechnic), her employer, to socially “transition” at work. There appears to have been zero opposition at work, according to Whittle’s account. The interviewer then prompts Whittle to talk about the hard times (lest things get too upbeat) and Whittle duly obliges, revealing all the times they lost employment when forced to show their birth certificate. She also claims this was often accompanied by accusations of paedophilia and maintains this is what happens today when anyone expresses support for “trans children”. I am going to go out on a limb here and say these are prepared taking points.
Whittle describes how they studied the law, at night school, to enable her continue the journey to “transition” by living as a “man” while a student. She also realised the law could be used to further the strategic aims of the “trans” community. They looked for suitable test cases and Whittle talks us through the various legal victories, obtained by Press For Change, and some of the losses. Whittle failed to obtain the right to be recorded as the “Father” for the four children had by her wife, Sarah. At the same time, Whittle explained they always “spun” the losses as victories; which is an ongoing strategy. See this comment on Stonewall by AkuaReindorf 👇. This is from a report into Essex University who had de-platformed female speakers with “gender critical” beliefs. Essex University were found to have followed guidance from Stonewall, who train organisations, not on the law, as it is, but how they wish it to be.
Even more astonishingly, about the 30 minute mark, Whittle makes this claim either without a shred of self-awareness or as a deliberate falsehood.
In 1996 London Pride were persuaded to include the T and Whittle talks about taking the children who were entertained by a trans-identified male, Fay Presto, who was also a magician. (You can find fascinating documentaries about Fay Presto on YouTube). In 1997 they had their first stall at the Labour Party conference and Whittle shows a picture which includes MoMowlem and Cherie Booth (QC and wife of Tony Blair).
Whittle then describes how she set up a network of FTM (Female to Male) “trans” people and began sending out a regular newsletter which reached 4000 people before it ceased. The BBC also began showing documentaries about FTM people, called The Decision Make Me a Man. Whittle describes them as documentaries “we” made which suggests collaboration with the BBC commenced at least as early as the 90’s.
Next up Whittle reveals his psychiatrist, who was assessing his suitability for medical transition, told him he had not been approved. Whittle leaves the session in despair but tells this tale about what happened next. 👇
This anecdote serves as a useful jumping off point for Whittle to criticise the gatekeeping / safeguarding involved in a medical pathway and call it fundamentally flawed while promoting “trans” led health care. It is also an opportunity to promote the Manchester “Gender Identity”service that no longer requires any psychiatric assessment to access the medical pathway.
There follows a revealing discussion about Press For Change working with Government departments, Civil Servants and Ministers to draft the Gender Recognition Act. Whittle encounters some questioning from a Civil Servant and in walks David Lammy, the Minister responsiblefor getting the GRA into law. Here Lammy is painted as giving Whittle carte blanche.
Now to the “Culture Wars”
I typed this as I was watching and my fury is only matched by my incredulity at Whittles disingenuousness, which, at times, tips over into brazen, outright, lies.
The interviewers brings up the shocking “anti-trans” backlash happening in the U.K. This is how a defence of women’s rights and against the sterilising of children is framed. (Starts from 40 minutes in). Whittle, correctly, identifies the moves to try to allow any man to self declare a woman, and vice versa, as the trigger for women’s resistance. Whittle cites Ireland as the exemplar; and claims there have been no problem; which is wilful ignorance on her part. (See Barbie Kardashian).
Whittle also claims the “links” between women’s groups and the “Proud Boys” are only now becoming clear. (This is a reference to a alleged member of the right wing, Proud Boys, group who had a selfie taken with Posey Parker who had no idea who he was. Plenty of politicians have been caught out this way). Whittle believes the government are stoking a culture war to distract from issues of corruption, which they may well be, but there are plenty of left wing, trade unionist, women leading this fight. Whittle ignores those.
She then goes onto mock women’s fears about men in our intimate spaces; adding the threat that if we don’t want men in our intimate spaces we can have women, like her, back in the female loos. Now she is attacking crowdfunding which has allowed women to legally, defend our rights. What a patronising ar**! She is now saying naive people have been persuaded to give money to causes they don’t properly understand! Now she is mis-characterising the argument saying women think children are being given sex changes at the age of 12! Actually we oppose children being given puberty blockers at age 10. Fact! Teenage girls are getting double mastectomies in the U.K. Granted the age range is not as low as in the United States, where cases of thirteen years old girls getting these surgeries have been documented. Now he is alleging three million pounds have been poured into these legal cases and nobody knows where the money has gone! (Is there some confusion here with the Good Law Project who have been criticised for their fundraising strategy?)
Now she is acknowledging the social contagion element of females in flight from their sex but claims that the Gender Clinics would see these girls and explain why they are not “trans”. This after she has argued that “we know who we are” and psychological assessments are not necessary.
Jesus! Whittle is now acknowledging there are category errors happening with girls thinking they are trans and that she wants to be able to have that conversation but the hysteria around the topic means they are not allowed to! #NoDebate came from your side Whittle!
Now Whittle is disputing claims of issues with trans-ID males and patterns of criminality. She claims there has only been one incident of a pre-op “transwoman” exposing their penis to women and it was someone having a psychotic breakdown, who was mortified by what they had done. Anyone wanting to challenge Whittle on this can find numerous examples, just in the U.K , at this site 👇.
This is just a snapshot. No doubt the “trans” community will claim some are not really “trans” but these are their rules. Steve Wright, for example, was a transvestite. That now comes under the trans umbrella. See also “We are who we say we are”.
Whittle then tells a tale of a “trans woman” friend who gets up at 3am to sort their make-up out and then uses this as an argument to say no men would go to all that trouble to access women’s spaces. Also the “trans woman” is more scared than you are! We are just at the outright lying stage now. The trans-identifying male is to be believed when he is too scared to use male spaces but women are not to be believed when we say we don’t want mixed sex facilities. Whittle also pleads with women to recognise that “trans women” are great allies to feminists.
We are nearly at the end and Whittle now suggests we are at the point where both sides can start to talk. He mentions the spectre of potential violence against the “trans” community by right wing men with guns or a “trans” kid being provoked into “doing something stupid” . Whittle also claims to have reached out to people he knows “on the other side” claiming he is concerned there will be another Jo Cox incident; she then specifically invokes Eddie Izzard as a visible and vulnerable person. What Whittle is hoping is that she can reach out to make a secret deal with “moderate” voices.
No more back room deals!
I hope none of the feminists, who Whittle is approaching, don’t get blinded by flattery: {“You are one of the reasonable voices” } and think they can give away some women’s rights to appease the likes of Whittle; #NoPenisInOurTime.
Questions from the audience.
First question is what can business do to support “trans” colleagues.
Whittles answer is they can remember we exist and support trans day of remembrance for all the dead trans people, who have been murdered (None, in the U.K. is the answer for the last few years). Cue loads of hyperbole about trans murder rates using global data. (Facts below) She also claims that hardly any companies remember to note this day which is another egregious lie.
Whittle is asked about the conflict between women’s rights and trans rights. Gives an answer about knowing what it’s like to be a teenage girl and how she wouldn’t dream of using women’s spaces, which is hardly the point, but then says “trans women” also don’t want men in women’s spaces and have a lot in common with you if you just sit down and talk. She also makes a veiled threat that, if we don’t want men in our spaces she could start using them and “you wouldn’t want that”.
Whittle seems to be quite keen to signal a willingness to have dialogue and claims that her side are willing to come together to talk but the “other side” don’t turn up unless it’s to shout “penis” at a trans woman. Again this is blatant lying. Who was it who coined #NoDebate? How many discussions did Stonewall manage to stop by refusing to turn up and allowing the BBC to claim discussion could not go ahead “without balance”?
A man who is from an organisation for the Supporters of Sexual violence (in Brighton) claims all the people in the sector are “trans-inclusive” but there are problems with “grifters” using crowd funding to litigate against this approach. He goes on to accuse “cis, lesbian” women actively trying to close down sexual violence services. {I think he is talking about a case asking if a rape crisis service, in Brighton, would provide a single sex group, in addition to the trans inclusive and the trans only service. She was refused}.
Whittles answer is that, as a group, they have to be clever and, by implication, outsmart the legal challenges. I will cover Whittle’s other talk, which I linked above, in another blog.
You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)
This was the Composition of the panel called to examine witnesses and come to a view on a complex, moral, conundrum. 👇
These were the witnesses called before the panel:
Part one in this series covered the founding of the W.E.P and it’s financial backers; part two the moral maze witnesses, Fae and Caspian and part three covered Stephen Whittle. Part 4 covered Dr Heather Brunskell-Evans and her subsequent removal from her post, in the Women’s Equality Party, which culminated in the resignation of her party membership.
This post will cover the final deliberations of the Moral Maze Panel which starts from 33 minutes.
Michael Buerk, the presenter, summarises the contributions of the witnesses. He begins with Jane Fae, a trans-identified male who describes himself as an “accidental activist”. Jane Fae first claimed that no “transgender” children had any medical intervention until age 16, but, under questioning, was forced to concede that younger children younger are being put on puberty blockers. In the U.K this can start as young as age 10. Fae then claimed this only delayed puberty; a discredited claim. The truth is that 98% of children progress to cross sex hormones once they have their puberty blocked. It’s worth reminding yourself what MarciBowers had to say about these children. Marci Bowers is a trans-identified male and a surgeon who performs the surgeries known as “sex reassignment surgeries”. Marci was President Elect of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) when he made this statement👇. Marci also noted that, for males, the growth of the penis will be stunted which limits the options for future genital surgery.
Fae then used the argument that we give teenagers contraceptive pills and he claims this is equivalent to the hormone treatment given to “transgender teens”. Additionally he says going through a natural puberty also has an adverse impact and makes later surgeries more necessary. Finally Fae said that men like him wished they had not gone through a male puberty. Note that Fae married and had his own (biological) two children; something that will be denied to the children he is so keen to medicalise. These children are, in my view, being sacrificed because of men like Fae’s retrospective wish fulfilment.
Claire Fox is asked for her assessment of this witness and describes Fae as compelling, but disingenuous, for not recognising the role of widespread propagation of gender ideology to children and the promotion of unreality. This context is important to consider before we even get to the medical interventions we are giving to children. Because we are constantly talking to children about gender, particularly in schools, we end up in a situation where the normal confusions of childhood are examined through the prism of “gender”.
Matthew Turner says he didn’t know what he thought before he came on the programme but :
He finishes by saying that Jane Fae and Stephen Whittle helped him to come to the belief that critics are exaggerating the peril of people making these decisions. (It’s worth listening to his tone, throughout, I found him deeply patronising and antagonistic)
I believe, far from being undecided, he had already determined to listen selectively. He fails to reference the treatment of children, or to notice Fae’s attempts to mislead the panel. He is also grossly ill informed about how much care is taken before a prescription is issued. (My son was referred on the 7th November and the drugs arrived before Christmas. As it was during the height of the pandemic I am not even confident he had a face to face appointment). It is also a bit of a worry that this man has moved from the Arts sector to the NHS.
Ann McElvoy is concerned about the lack of an evidence base for gender reassignment which she describes as “slight”. Because we have not performed these surgeries on many people, in the past, we simply don’t know enough. She concedes that opponents may express strong views about the risk but, conversely proponents have a tendency to minimise the risk. McElvoy was interested in Jane Fae’s views on the age of consent, for these treatments; for McElvoy it was reminiscent of arguments about the age of criminal responsibility. Fae seemed to settle on the age of sixteen for irreversible interventions which is, McElvoy points out, is also age of peak teenage confusion.
Michael Buerk then asks Mona Siddiqui about the teenage girls who had hormones and double mastectomies and now regret their surgeries. As James Caspian noted these girls claim they had had these surgeries whilst also dealing with mental health issues. Siddiqui claims that she was not convinced by James Caspian because he would answer her question and say what the right reasons were for “transition”. She then repeats her belief that nobody would do this lightly and she also didn’t like it being swept up into mental health issues. Mona Siddiqui comes from the perspective that she has no right to question someone else’s identity and how they feel, just because they might change their mind. She then says there is a lot of things about this we don’t understand but we should not sit in judgment on how people feel.
Claire Fox then brings up the spectre of allowing self-declaration. Furthermore allowing people to change their birth certificate, to reflect the sex you are not, is “post-factual madness”. She also brings up the increasing numbers of young people identifying out of their sex and she believes we are encouraging this. Mona Siddiqui again claims nobody would self-identify as the opposite sex lightly. Sigh. This is clearly already happening, especially in prisons. Here are two letters from prisoners about sex offenders “jumping on the trans bandwagon”.
Ann McElvoy says it’s a tricky situation to balance the risk of regret with denying people the right to live as they wish.
Matthew Turner then says the Fae and Whittle were very reassuring but he believes Caspian and Brunskell-Evans revealed their prejudices and were treating this condition as “pathological”. He also accused Caspian of wanting to deny everyone the ability to “transition”. Saying that either he was lying to the panel or lying to himself. (Conveniently ignoring that Caspian and spent ten years working in a private gender clinic and had recommended “transition” for literally hundreds of patients). His hostility to both James Caspian and Heather Brunskell-Evans was on display in this intervention.
There follows a bizarre discussion where Stephen Whittle, a biological female, saying she would not use female spaces was assumed, by Buerk, to solve the issue of men accessing women’s spaces. 😳. This is an example of a time when using terminology like “trans man” confuses the thought processes. McElvoy doesn’t point out the problem with Buerk’s framing but she does ger to the heart of the conflict with feminists; the issue not your “identity”, per se, but the rights and responsibilities that are assumed to flow from that identity. This is literally a competition for moral and literal space.
Final words.
Ann McElvoy: It’s really about what rights and entitlements flow from you identifying as one thing or another; that’s not something you can fudge by saying we all have rights. There is a competition (I would say conflict) over moral and literal spaces.
Matthew Turner : We should trust people to make the right choices for themselves. (Turner’s answer ignores the impact on others).
Mona Siddiqui: I think should all of us should be less dogmatic and have the moral courage to admit that we don’t get this but that it is better to err on the side of empathy. (The #BeKind cop out.)
Claire Fox: The worlds gone mad and we should be at least able to challenge it when we think people are not speaking the truth.
You can support my work by a paid subscription to my substack or a donation below. All donations are gratefully received and help to cover my costs and keep my content open.
Part two covered Fae and Caspian and part three covered Stephen Whittle. I decided to devote an entire another post to Heather.
Buerk introduces the final witness, Dr Heather Brunskell-Evans, a research fellow at Kings College London, author of the book Transgender Children and young people (image below) Buerk adds that Heather is a feminist campaigner and then launches into questions,
Buerk notes that the “trans lobby” calls Brunskell-Evans a “terf” , a trans-exclusionary, radical feminist and adds “What does that mean and why don’t they like you?”.
Heather responds by explaining that this term is perjorative and that she is not alone in attracting the slur, “terf”; it is applied to anyone not accepting the “trans” doctrine. She also points out that she does not exclude anyone and is comfortable with people claiming the identity of “trans”. Heather also points out that the book 👈 is jointly edited by Professor Michele Moore.
(I have seen Moore talk live and also her WPUK talk. If you have not seen this talk, by Moore, I can highly recommend it : 👇
Mona Sidddiqui then asks “Why do you think so many, liberal minded, progressive, young people are buying into the “transgender doctrine” as you put it?” (Loaded question). Heather responds that she actually finds transgender doctrine reactionary, that both girls and boys should be allowed to dress how they wish but what we are witnessing is a new social narrative around gender non conforming behaviour that says if a boy likes to wear dresses he is literally a girl. Mona then asks what if it is more than that and the boy says he doesn’t feel right in this body? Brunskell-Evans says a genuinely progressive society a boy should be allowed to display gender non-confirming behaviour in the body he is in. These children have always existed but we are developing a new language to describe them. (Siddiqui repeatedly tries to interrupt and speak over Heather but she persists.
Mona now asks :
Heather can be heard disagreeing with the claim that the phenomena of the trans-identity emergin in the last ten, twenty years. The “transgender” child is most definitely a recent invention. I think Professor Siddiqui is confusing people with disorders of sexual development with people who identify as “trans”.
Heather agrees that people need rights but Siddiqui makes the counter argument that Heather is constraining those right by saying a boy who likes to wear a dress should not reassign his body. Heather responds by saying we should be allowed to be as we wish without making it a problem of the male body or the female body; Telling a small child that there is something not quite right with its body it’s actually got the brain of the other sex creates a harmful narrative and it’s actually abusive.
Now Matthew Turner. This question would have been an excellent question to ask of the “trans” identifying witnesses but, instead, he asks it of Heather. (Turner is the CEO of the NHS Confederation now which is an interesting move from the Royal Society of Arts.)
Turner gets Heather to agree with the premise of alleviating human suffering and then makes this, astonishing, pronouncement. The policing of women’s bodies and the rigidity of beauty standards, for women, are worse now than I have ever known. He has no idea!
Heather interjects to point out that we always make choices within social norms.
Ah, I see where he was going with this. He thinks that the social norms don’t dictate that men have to be “masculine” and women “feminine” so if people still feel their body doesn’t align with their “gender” surely they should be allowed to align their body with their “gender”. Yet he doesn’t see that both boys and girls are being told that if they don’t conform to the Barbie or Ken mode of being they might just be “born in the wrong body”. He has no idea!
Heather responds to say that the problem with this debate is people are categorised and pro-trans or anti-trans. Heather emphasises that Adult’s should be free to claim a personal identity but the problem is we are extending this to children. We need a public debate and an examination of the “science” ; especially claims that there are male brains and female brains.
Matthew then asks her to specify the age at which a person can make these choices. Heather refuses to provide an age. She reiterates that the kind thing to do is to allow the child to experiment with their identity but it’s incumbent on adults, who are responsible for the child’s welfare not to go along with the narrative (that they could be born in the wrong body).
For the views expressed in this interview Heather was reported to the Women’s Equality Party and subjected to a three month long investigation. Here is the list of allegations.
The identity of the complainants is kept confidential but one member did comment on a Women’s Place U.K. meeting at which Heather spoke. Many of us have had abuse from this individual. Toni is a late transitioning, married, heterosexual man; who calls himself a “Lesbian”. Something tells me he is an Absolutely Genuine Person or AGP, for short.
The Women’s Equality Party upheld the complaints and stripped Dr Brunskell-Evans of her party role. She left the party as many of us did. You can read her own account here 👇 and you will also find a wealth of information on her website.
I will do a round up of the panel’s deliberations in a final post.
You can support my work by a paid subscription to my substack or a donation below. All donations are gratefully received and help to cover my costs and keep my content open.
Part two covered Fae and Caspian and in this one I will cover Stephen Whittle. I had intended to get to Heather’s contribution in this one but my ghast was so flabbered by Whittle I decided to devote the entire another post to her. I will give Brunskell-Evans a post to herself.
Stephen Whittle is a trans-identified female, Professor of Equalities Law at Manchester Metropolitan University, and quite a key figure in the promulgation of “transgender” ideology, in the U.K. Unsurprisingly they have cropped up quite a few times in my research. You can read my previous coverage here: 👇
Whittle is introduced by the presenter, Michael Buerk, who then precedes to talk about males and females having different brain architecture and he asks Whittle how this squares with “his” claim that gender is a choice. Whittle begins by saying that “if you had said twenty years ago it was impossible to tell who was a man or a woman, everybody would have agreed with you”.{I don’t think this is what Whittle meant to say, from the subsequent comments I am going to assume that she means people would have agreed male and female brains are indistinguishable.}. Whittle continues by talking about new research that has discovered that the “transgender” brain is more aligned with the sex they identify “with”. In fact the jury is very much out on this point. The early post-mortem research failed to control for homosexuality, the impact of neuroplasticity, on a developing brain, or even the impact of the cross sex hormones. For an excellent thread on studies re brain sex, this thread is well worth a read and a follow, if on twitter.
Leaving that to one side Whittle then says the brain sex argument is irrelevant to them because, as a lawyer, their only concern is with people’s rights.
Buerk hands over to Claire Fox who begins by expressing her bemusement at the male singer, Sam Smith, who is now a they/them and seems to associate females with sex (ist) stereotypes. This is a sample of Sam Smith’s idea of what makes him partly male and partly female.
Claire asks if Whittle understands why feminists are concerned that transgenderism is defining women by the trappings of femininity, which many women gave up a long time ago. Whittle responds with “Absolutely” and expands the answer below: 👇
This really doesn’t answer the question, to me. There argument is that there is a distinction between gender and gender expression, for “trans” people. This makes sense if we talk about how your sex doesn’t mean to have to dress like Ken /Barbie. Yet, for many “trans” people it seems perfectly clear they think “gender expression” = “gender”. This is what Sam Smith is doing. Yet we are also told we should not make assumptions about someone’s “gender” by the way they express themselves. This is why we have the acronym 0ET (zero effort trans) where a man with a beard has no shame about going on dating apps as a “Lesbian”.
Claire Fox then asks Whittle about the rapist Martin Pontin, who raped two sixteen year old girls, then identified as Jessica and was moved to a women’s prison as well as male pupils identifying as “girls” and demanding/ being alllowed to use facilities with girls.
Here is some background on Pontin. 👇. This is a picture of him.
As of 2022 it now emerges that Pontin has been granted a gender recognition certificate. Once again he got a GRC under the existing process, not the proposed self-identification route. This is what we must repeal the Gender Recognition Act.
This was Whittle’s response. Notice even Whittle can’t bring herself to say “she” and “Jessica”.
Whittle then proceeds to say countries who have introduced self-id have not seen any problems, listing Ireland, Malta, Norway and Denmark.
It’is worth noting that Malta has some of the most draconian abortion laws in the world, not even allowing them to save the mother’s life.
In Denmark, in 2017, rape victims had to prove they had resisted to stand a chance of a conviction because rape was not defined by the absence of consent, there had to be additional, demonstrable “force”. Spousal rape was also only criminalised in 2013. Also, I give you Ibi-Pippi, legally a “woman”
Whittle finishes with this.😳 A cavalier disregard for the safety of women and girls. Heinous.
Ann McElvoy: “As a trans man are their any rights that you think you wouldn’t have, or shouldn’t have, that a biological man would have?”
Whittle can’t think of any rights he shouldn’t have, or doesn’t have that a biological man has. She then adds that they wouldn’t, at this stage of life, use women’s spaces. This is because they recognise that “whilst I may not be a man in the same way as my brothers I am no longer a woman in the same way as the women who use women only spaces”.
Ann McElvoy “Do you think therefore that you should back off from that argument because one of the contested areas, particularly with feminists, or the most vocal feminists, has been about that space and who has the right to occupy that space, whether it is a lavatory or a changing room, places that are reserved for one or the other sex. You are challenging that idea and, at the same time, you are saying well I would actually stand back from it. I don’t think it’s right for me”
Whittle then decides there’s a huge difference between women only spaces and lavatories and changing rooms and, then seems a bit rattled “Ohfor Christ’s sake we should all be able to go to the toilet in peace and quiet and privacy” . She then says all we need are decent locks and respect. After this Whittle turns the argument to focus on gender neutral facilities and claims they have been introduced at Manchester Metropolitan University and there have been no issues.
McElvoy then points out the inherent difficulty with self-identification because if you declare yourself to be the opposite sex you are mandating that everyone else has to go along with it. She then asks if Whittle sees any space for disagreement?
Whittle starts by saying they accept disagreement having lived with it for the whole of her life. She also says that she is not telling other people how to live their lives. (Hollow Laugh).
Whittle closes by saying that one of the problems is that “this has been medicalised before” (I assume she means being “trans” should not depend on hormones and surgeries).She also agrees with James (Caspian) that being “trans”is not diagnosable, it’s something that people do. Except Whittle doesn’t think you should have to “do” anything. It’s a shame the interview ended there because there is a lot to unpack here.
Firstly Whittle is imposing their way of life on the whole of society. She is in favour of any man identifying as a “woman” irrespective of surgical status (that’s the bit about “medicalising” gender dysphoria). She is also mandating that we accept those men in our spaces. That’s her dictating to women to accept dick in our spaces. Many of us don’t want any men in our spaces irrespective of their bodily modifications but Whittle doesn’t think you should have to “do” anything, other than declare your “identity”.
I will break off here and cover Heather Brunskell-Evans’ contribution and the panel conclusions in my next piece.
You can support my work by a paid subscription to my substack or a donation below. All donations are gratefully received and help to cover my costs and keep my content open.
World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH).
Version 8 of the WPATH guidelines (2022). Let’s have a gander at what it says about treating children who we have decided are born in the wrong body. Before we get into the detail meet Amy Tishelman. She authored this chapter and explicitly said it was written in such a way to minimise legal consequences for practitioners. 👇
It is also important to listen to Marci Bowers; trans-identified male and a surgeon who performs “gender affirming” operations. Bowers is also the President elect of WPATH. Link below 👇 . Children (males) who have their puberty blocked will have a micro penis and will be unlikely to ever have an orgasm, when they are adults. Bearing in mind puberty can start from age 9, we are expecting these kids to know what they are giving up. Marci still signed off these guidelines.
These two contributions set the scene for the guidance on treating children who have been “diagnosed” as “transgender”. WPATH have to make sure that health insurance covers the procedures for which they advocate. At the same time they are keen not to expose practitioners, working in this field, to any legal consequences; particularly in the light of rising rates of detransitioners and the beginning of the first law suits.
This chapter outlines “guidance” for the treatment of pre-pubertal children. In order to legitimise this practice society needs to believe that childhood “gender diversity” has always been a feature of human development. They also need to facilitate access to medical intervention whilst simultaneously de-pathologising it and denying it is a mental illness. Claiming this is a “natural” variation in humans which, only sometimes, requires access to synthetic hormones and surgeries, takes some mental gymnastics. As we will see the author’s of the WPATH guidelines are up to the task.
At the same time WPATH also argue that “diverse gender expression” need not be a sign that someone is “transgender” or even that they are “gender incongruent”.
Any attempt to explore whether “diverse gender expression” is indicative of a “transgender” identity is labelled conversion therapy. It is perfectly clear that the best resolution for any child would be to reconcile to their biological sex/homosexuality and thus avoid a lifetimes dependence on hormones /surgeries. For this “condition” ,and only this condition, the medical profession is exhorted not to attempt curative treatments which, by the way, cuts off a profitable income stream for the pharmaceutical industry. They also assume that any attempts to reconcile a child with their natal sex would comprise “forcing” the child to behave in line with socially mandated expectations for their sex. In fact any decent therapist would explain that it is perfectly possible to be a girl who likes football or a boy who loves The Little Mermaid and would know there is a high chance that, if left alone, a significant proportion would grow up to be healthy gay adults.
This chapter also recognises the high rates of autism in kids who present with “gender dysphoria”. Given the difficulty autistic kids have in picking up social cues and fitting in with social norms, isn’t it more likely that they struggle to fit in with the expectations for their sex because “gendered” behaviour is, to a large degree learned?
The guidelines repeatedly assure parents that the children who thrive are the ones allowed to express their “identity” and that this may mean a social / medical approach. A social “transition” would allow the child to masquerade as the opposite sex amongst their peers, with or without their knowledge. The authors believe that a “gender” identity can emerge even in pre-school children; an assumption which seems to be made on the basis that two/three year olds learn the difference between men and women as well as the socially encouraged /proscribed behaviours for boys/girls.
Social Transition.
The consequences of social transition are dealt with in this article 👇
This seems a workable solution when a child is very young but when puberty arrives the fact that they are not like the other boys/girls becomes distressingly apparent. Making the path to puberty blockers more likely. Joseph/Joanna has not spent these years learning there is no right or wrong way to be a girl/boy but, instead, has spent them denying biological reality.
Practitioners working in this field are encouraged to discuss the advantages, and disadvantages, of a social “transition” but there is no discussion of the issues raised in the above article. In general it is promoted as having a positive impact on mental health. It has also expanded to cover “non-binary” whatever that means.
In this section they do acknowledge the potential impact on sexual function, though it merits much more detail than provided. Practitioners are advised to cover all these issues 👇
Gender Identity Ideologues are keen to warn against using the idea of “gender fluidity” to demure from socially “transitioning” your child.
Pharma funded, Jack Turban, also warns of the harms that may accrue to a child who does not “socially transition”. The non-conforming child may be ostracised or bullied ….so let’s sterilise them! This is so, so, regressive.
Social transition can, they advise, include any of the below actions. Whether or not this is revealed to other pupils/parents is depicted as a matter of choice for the “trans” child which means other children are having their consent, to share mixed sex facilities, overridden. The implications for females are also disregarded; in terms of participation in sport against biological males.
Detransition
As with the adolescent section WPATH can no longer deny cases of regret and detransition. The reddit detransition page is no approaching 40,000 and when I first starting looking at it there were less than 10,000. Commentators on that forum are openly skeptical about the repeated statistic of a 1% rate of detransition; which WPATH repeat in this section. The points they raise are the unwillingness to notify the clinic who harmed you and also the changing nature of the demographic due to lower/removal of gate keeping.
The figure of 8% is what one study, in the U.K. found even though the way they measured it seemed also destined to underestimate the numbers. I covered that study here.
Here is a clip from my piece on that study; which raises some of the difficulties with studies in this area. The definition of a “detransitioner” can be narrowed to exclude someone who may have ceased medical intervention but remains in “social role”. This maybe to remain in their “community”, it maybe that a man who is post-operative declines to reintroduce testosterone into his body and therefore remains, technically, a medical “transitioner”. ( I know of one man in this position).
Human Rights /Activism.
The Gender Industrial complex has been very successful at persuading erstwhile Human Rights Organisation to embrace “Transgender Ideology” as if it were a Civil Rights issue. Amnesty International has shown itself willing to be co-opted, as has the ACLU, Liberty and GLAAD and, of course Stonewall. Some adopt a name which suggests they are campaigners for Human Rights when they are anything but 👇. The HRC is the largest LGBTQ+ lobby group.
As this document makes clear Health Care Practitioners are also expected to be (trans) advocates with parents, schools, and the larger community.
Furthermore they are encouraged to get involved politics, education and legally and in the media. Challenging laws and social norms. This is an activists charter and sadly many of our health care “professionals” have responded to this rallying call.
In conclusion WPATH are going full steam ahead irrespective of the increasing research about the harms they are inflicting on our kids. This is a dark time for Gay Rights, Women’s Rights and will be a dark stain on the medical profession.
You can support my work here. All contributions gratefully received. Or consider a paid subscription to my substack.
The new guidance, published in 2022, adds a section for Eunuchs who are now to be included under the, ever expanding, transgender umbrella.
This organisation is listened to by the U.K. NHS. Those endorsing this guidance include Marci Bowers, President Elect of WPATH, who I wrote about here:
This is a reminder of a public statement made by Bowers about the impact of puberty blockers on sexual pleasure. Bowers still signed off this document.
Also signing this off was Diane Ehrensaft. She is infamous for telling parents how pre-verbal babies can signal their “gender”. It might be a girl who tears barrettes out of her hair to tell you she is a boy. Or this example 👇 of a boy who signalled his discomfort with his sex, she claims, by unsnapping his onesie.
Diane Ehrensaft was also associated with the discredited accusations of ritual, satanic abuse back in the 1980’s/1990’s. You can find a lot of her presentations on YouTube. This is another example of her magical thinking. This woman is taken seriously. 😳.
In the U.K the guidance is endorsed by the Nottingham “Transgender” clinic and the local University, Medical school.
Chapter 1 covers terminology and settles on “Transgender” and “Gender Diverse” but makes it clear these were not uncontroversial choices and notes that other cultures may use different terms; a theme expanded on in Chapter 2. Estimates of the “transgender” population are covered in the third Chapter recognising there are higher numbers selecting a “gender diverse” identity in the younger population; hardly a surprise since they have had gender identity ideology rammed down their throats for up to a decade. Chapter 4 is a long winded reminder to #EducateYourself in which they exhort govt. bodies, healthcare providers etc to learn about the “transgender population”.
Adolescents
I am going to skip over what they have to say about assessing adults and go straight to Chapter 6 and assessment of adolescents. They note the spike in teenage referrals and the over-representation of females and they are still describing puberty blockers as “fully reversible”
At the same time they are keen to point out that a natural puberty is “irreversible” leaving lasting changes to the body. One of those changes, for male children, is penile growth, those who have puberty blocked will have stunted genitalia and, as a result, operations to mimic female genitalia will be much more problematic.
WPATH contradict themselves numerous times in this chapter. Here 👇 they talk of the dangers of “extended” pubertal suppression and potential impact on neurodevelopment. This calls into question WPATH’s own claim that they are “fully reversible”. They recommend against prolonged useage. Predictably, they use this “danger” to argue for the earlier introduction of cross sex hormones.
They also recognise that brain maturation continues into the mid 20’s ; which concerns those of us who have children who embarked on these drugs in their late teens.
It is worth quoting the factors, listed below, in teenagers who embark on irreversible changes to their bodies. Increased risk taking, a sense of urgency, peer pressure all raised as potential influences with adolescents embarking on “gender affirming” treatments.
The authors do at least reference Lisa Littman’s research on Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria but cast doubt on its validity for these reasons: 👇. A biased sample drawn from parents skeptical about “affirmation” as a protocol.
Detransition
Littman also undertook some work on detransition which I cover below: 👇
WPATH admit there is a dearth of follow up studies on youth transitioners especially any that track them up until adulthood. 👇 A systematic review is therefore not possible. Remember we have been doing this for 25 years!
They then quote the “only” study to follow into children into adulthood but note this is only from 13 to 20 years old, right before brain maturation, which is expected to continue to around age 25. This is a study 👇 is from 2014. We are now in 2022!
They also cover another study and the author has accused them, publicly, of misrepresented their work. He believes that detransition is underestimated, contrary to the claims made by WPATH.
Because the phenomenon is now undeniable they do cover detransition. In this survey 25% had detransitioned before age 25.
Despite concern that there is a social contagion element to kids identifying as “gender diverse” the authors continue to push for promotion of “transgender” identities as a simple variation in nature that has existed since the beginning of civilisation. Certainly there have always been people who struggled to live within, rigidly enforced, sex stereotypes, many of whom were simply gay/lesbian. Claiming there have always been “trans” people on the back of gender non-conforming homosexuals is blatant propaganda. The existence of synthetic sex identities emerged only in the last century.
Plus ca Change.
This is the long list of demands WPATH issue which are all likely to continue the “social contagion” by promoting the idea that “gender identity” is real and a more meaningful category than biological sex. All this will do is continue to encourage excessive rumination and a search for meaning under the ever expanding list of “gender identities”.
Number 11 is an instruction to make toilets mixed sex, once again disregarding the need, especially for females, for sex separated facilities. A major impediment to the spread of this ideology would be the removal of any such incentives. It cannot be good for your mental health to hand your sense of self over to other people’s presumed perception of you as male or female. This need for validation of your identity drives ever more authoritarian moves to force society to collude with this most basic of untruths. This creates a false of reality and a danger of it all crashing down when the compulsion to believe your “gender identity” is non-existent.
Emotional Blackmail of parents.
They continue with a long list of adverse consequences, including suicide, for parents who don’t express 100% support for the synthetic sex identity. Parents are to be force-teamed into agreeing with the medicalisation of their children and even used to justify earlier surgeries on the grounds they can help with “post-operative” care. This is also used to justify earlier surgeries.
And heaven forfend you suggest that reconciling to your biological sex /sexuality is the healthier outcome. That would be “Conversion Therapy”. 👇 I cannot think of any other “condition” where doctors are actively discouraged from trying to avoid a life times dependence on drugs.
Breast binding and Tucking.
Instead WPATH recommend the promotion of breast binding and tucking male genitalia, despite the health risks.
Here is a list of side effects from using breast binders:
For tucking a significant risk is testicular torsion. 👇 Sounds a bit grim.
Recommendations
There is clearly no appetite for addressing the concerns raised by rising rates of detransitioners and WPATH have opted to include these surgeries for under 18’s. Here are their recommendations. They list includes orchiectomy, vaginaplasty, hysterectomy, facial feminisation surgery and phalloplasty.
Phalloplasty is included even though, elsewhere, they recommend against it, for under 18’s because of the high rate of complications.
There is some quoted research on orgasmic potential for those undertaking a “vaginaplasty” which claims 84% will be able to achieve orgasm. Which means 16% will not and, crucially, they do not include figures on what point the males had their puberty suppressed. This means they are not presenting any data allowing us to extrapolate orgasmic potential for those who have had puberty suppressed from a young age.
Despite this the document pushes for earlier “Gender Affirming Health Care” (GAHT) for under 16’s including double mastectomies for minors.
Human Rights Groups
We must never forget that all of this is advocated by, formerly respected, human rights organisations. Amnesty International is one such and they are also quoted in this document. This Mengele medicine would never have reached this stage without putative claims this is a new Civil Rights cause.
I will do a series and cover the other chapters. Next up the section on children.
You can support my work here if you want to tip the balance away from the billionaires driving “transgenderism”.
You can read more about this activist here. Identifies as non-binary. In a relationship we would have formerly described as heterosexual. As Ugla makes clear here this is no longer acceptable. Heterosexuality is thus redefined as queer. Hey presto it’s under the 🌈 and there’s a crock of s**t at the end of this one.
