Stephen Whittle: 2022

Featured

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: 👇

Stephen Whittle

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:

2007 Interview

Or, consider what Whittle had to say about her mother, seven years ago, at Durham University.

You can find this quote at 12 minutes 48 seconds into this YouTube. (Which I will do a piece on because it’s full of WTF moments).

{I am pretty sure I have heard Whittle talking about years of estrangement from her parents and I will add if I can verify and locate the source.}

Stephen Whittle at Durham University

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:

Carol Steele: Trans Britain (Part 5)

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 Akua Reindorf 👇. 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 Mo Mowlem 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 👇.

Trans Crime U.K.

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.

TRANS MURDER MONITORING

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. 😉)

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.

£10.00

Women’s Equality Party: 5

The expulsion of Heather Brunskell-Evans.

This is the fourth post on W.E.P following their vote to accept men who self-identify as women. You can read the rest of the series here: 👇

Women’s Equality Party

This one will focus on an episode of the moral maze, from 2017; which BBC licence holders can listen to here: 👇

Moral Maze November 2017

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 Marci Bowers 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.

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.

£10.00

Women’s Equality Party: 4

The expulsion of Heather Brunskell-Evans.

This is the fourth post on W.E.P following their vote to accept men who self-identify as women. You can read the series here: 👇

Women’s Equality Party

This one will focus on an episode of the moral maze, from 2017, which BBC licence holders can listen to here: 👇

Moral Maze November 2017

This was the Composition of the panel:

These were the witnesses who were called :

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 : 👇

Michele Moore

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.

I assume this is the WPUK event in question.

Heather at WPUK

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.

Open Letter

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.

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.

£10.00

Women’s Equality Party: 3

The expulsion of Heather Brunskell-Evans.

This is the third post on W.E.P following their vote to accept men who self-identify as women. You can read the series here: 👇

Women’s Equality Party

This one will focus on an episode of the moral maze, from 2017, which BBC licence holders can listen to here: 👇

Moral Maze November 2017

This was the Composition of the panel:

These were the witnesses who were called :

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: 👇

Stephen Whittle

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.

Brain Sex

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.

On Ireland 👇

Barbie Kardashion

On Norway

Christine Ellingen

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 “Oh for 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.

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.

£10.00

WPATH on Children

Featured

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. 👇

You can watch this here:

Amy Tishelman

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.

Marci Bowers

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 👇

A childhood cannot be reversed

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.

Detransition: Cambridge Study (2)

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.

My substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.

£10.00

WPATH: Guidelines V 8 {1}

Featured

World Professional Ass. for Transgender Health.

WPATH set the treatment protocols for “Transgender” health that guide organisations the world over. You can download the full guidance here: 👇

Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People Version 8

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:

Marci Bowers

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: 👇

Littman and Detransition

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.

You can read my series on detransition here 👇

Detransition

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”.

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.

£10.00

Martine Rothblatt: Transgender to Transhumanism. Chapter 7

Featured

We are on the home stretch. This is the penultimate chapter.

This is the new edition of a book originally entitled the Apartheid of Sex. The author is a “trans-identified”, heterosexual male. He is married and fathered three children. He is also a transhumanist who believes we can live on as “cyber-conscious” beings after our flesh suits have degraded. You might think this would render him an outcast but, in fact, he is currently a trustee sitting of Mayo Clinic, who are a large hospital charity; sometimes described as foremost in the world.

You can catch up with the series here:

TRANSGENDER TO TRANSHUMAN

Beyond gay or straight.

If chapter 6 has not convinced you that Gender Identity Ideology is an existential threat to gay rights this ought to do it. Rothblatt wants any acknowledgment that sex is real, and that we are a sexually dimorphic species, eradicated. He wants to purge references to male and female from language or repurpose them to mean your subjective sense of self. This is all to validate the author who believes himself to have a female soul. Lest it is not immediately apparent what the consequences are for the L, G and B here are his thoughts.

Heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual lose all meaning in a world where sex isn’t real and enough people have been sold a “synthetic sexual identity”. Note that Rothblatt does not insist on any hormonal/surgical treatment to justify claiming to be the opposite sex.

He is insistent, consistent and persistent with this messaging. He really wants it to sink in.

This is where the conflation with racism seeps in. He returns to this theme repeatedly to generate feelings of shame.

You would think bisexuals would get a free pass but, no, they fall foul of the “bi” which acknowledges two sexes. They have to be redefined as “multi sexual” so they don’t leave out anyone who doesn’t identify with the binary. Now he performs faux perplexity about the dating choices of Butch lesbians. The short answer is that same sex relationships do depend on sex organs. A Butch Lesbian who dates a “femme” lesbian would not be similarly attracted to a “femme” gay male because of his sex!

Multisexuality

After sex has been abolished and we have all been recategorised according to colours (really! see chapter 6) this is how Rothblatt imagines the future. Notice how he cannot imagine a partnership that does not depend on “mount or be mounted”! Does he seriously think people don’t exchange roles in sex already? All he seems to imagine is a binary of passive v dominant which is the same old binary thinking.

Of course Rothblatt believes your identity is valid no matter your hormone/surgical status but he also normalises irreversible body modifications. 👇 Note the casual reference to “hysterectomy” to eliminate “her” period”. This is a serious surgery that will trigger early menopause and heighten the risk for early onset dementia. Also he is pretending to assume the use of a dildo changes someone sex. There is no point at which two females, who are in a sexual relationship, become a heterosexual couple even if one of them takes synthetic sex hormones has surgeries or uses a dildo.

He begins this paragraph saying there are no valid answers but proceeds to argue that it is valid that one “feels” male more than if they have surgeries. 👇

Notice he first says there is no valid answers, then gives this “valid” answer then undercuts himself again.

He digresses at this point to talk about laws against sodomy and gay marriage. Interestingly he claims that marriage was performed between two people based on their appearance. I suspect this may not be wholly accurate. The problem, he argues, only arises if they separate and one of them wishes to annul the marriage, perhaps to avoid spousal support.

Same sex marriage now exists, in U.K law and, in fact, most of the opposition to the Gender Recognition Act came because the opposition were largely opposed to same sex marriage. The bizarre consequence of the GRA (in the U.K) was that, initially, for people who obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) who were in a heterosexual marriage had to end; this affected women, predominantly because most GRC applications were from men. However, two people of the same sex could marry if one of them had a different legal sex. In effect parliament legalised same sex marriage for this special category of men and made it illegal for some women to remain in their marriage.

He then spends some time talking about the multiple ways in which children could be produced in these relationships. Get your head around this? 👇 “If one of the women was a sterile man” . He is going for the terms “mother” and “father”.

This is also quite revealing. My other half is more nurturing than I. I still carried and gave birth to my two sons and I will always be their mum, just as their dad is their dad and nothing about being male should preclude him from being the primary carer, which he was. This 👇 is like something out of the 1950’s.

Cybersex.

We have not, as a society, fully appreciated what happens to the human mind when they can cos play in cyber space. I remember being nonplussed by my son playing animal crossing. It was all perfectly innocent stuff but I wonder now how much living a “virtual life” impacts on the brain. Rothblatt is, naturally, celebratory about the experience of living a different identity on line. Are we fostering this disassociative state on line?

Are our kids performing their “gender” on line, receiving “affirmation” and never engaging with the reality of how they are perceived outside their bubble? Rothblatt seems to have a negative view of real life interactions because they reinforce sexist stereotypes. 😳 I am no fan of the “real life” tests as a gatekeeping tool of sex conformity clinics but now our kids are “affirmed” with only on-line reactions to judge acceptance rates, by we are setting them up for rejection. Are male “lesbians” getting “affirmed” on line and believing the propaganda? Dr Az Hakeem said his most “contented” patients were those with autism because take it all on face value; they took polite pronoun use as evidence they “passed” and were therefore accepted in female spaces.

Rothblatt laments the lack of sensation available in cyber spaces but hails the new technological developments which will allow cyber suits where the subject will be able to feel touch in the virtual sphere.

Doing this in the virtual sphere has no lasting harm written on your body, at least. The effect on the brain, given neuro-plasticity is probably under-researched though I did find one paper.

Disorders from problematic game use

Rothblatt mentions none of this. 👇.

Trouble is when you have taken synthetic hormones, removed your breasts had a hysterectomy or been castrated /had your penis inverted logging off is no longer an option.

Transhuman joy without orgasm.

There follows a section about living a post flesh existence with no ability to erotic function. He believes there will be “killer orgasms” in a future decades away. In my darker moments I wonder if he is watching the deliberate creation of a new inorgasmic breed of males and seeing how it plays out. Nothing suprised me anymore.

He concludes by singing the praises of all the joys of life that are to be had outside of sexual pleasure. Reading, conversation and witnessing the diversity of life with friends and family. If this doesn’t convince you he speculates on the future ability to grow humans, to adult size, in a man-made faux womb. He thinks market forces will make it happen.

If you want to tip the balance against these crazy billionaires you can support me here:

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.

£10.00

Long Term Follow up: Transsexuals

I have quoted this study often but never actually featured it on my blog. Time to remedy this deficit. Study linked below:

Long Term Follow up TS

This study is from 2011. It followed 341 ”transsexual” persons for a median period of 11 years. They had ”transitioned” between 1973 and 2003. 191 were male and 133 were female.

The author’s explain there is a dearth of long term follow up and this remains the case, nearly 20 years later, measured against the end point of those surveyed. This despite sky rocketing numbers of children and young people, in particular, claiming a ”transgender” identity. In the UK there has been a 4000% + spike in females referred to the Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS). Last time I looked the increase for males was 1152%. There are also rising rates of detransitioners. I cover this on my series on detransition.

Detransition

This study sought to remedy the deficit in research by following up a cohort and evaluating patterns of morbidity, mortality and also criminality. Median length of follow up was 11 years. They looked at people who had undergone “sexual reassignment” from 1973 to 2003. The researchers also matched each group to compare outcomes measured against their biological sex and the sex the participants wished they were.

Abstract

The study looks at mortality and morbidity rates as well as patterns of criminality.

Results

As you can see mortality was higher, particularly due to suicide, psychiatric inpatient care remained higher for this demographic, females also had a higher propensity for criminality than the rest of their sex. (“Transsexual” males matched the pattern for their sex).

Despite the less than optimal outcome, hormonal /surgical treatments remain the recommended treatment for “Gender Dysphoria”. These are the treatments listed in the study which seem to assume patients are male. (I am basing this on the fact that females would not require body hair removal). However, from 1973 to 2003 the majority of patients would have been male.

This research followed patients from 1973 to 2003. Even then they point out that outcome data is scant. (Despite protestations to the contrary, the data still remains scant, in terms of long term follow-up). All the other studies quoted are referenced so can be looked at in more detail. (I will post on any that are open access). The rate of suicides does look high to me and later the authors compare these rates to the rate for their actual sex and the sex to which they aspire. ( Until I read this paper I also had no idea that people can actually die from complications following “sexual reassignment surgery”).

Other referenced studies. 👇

This is the one that followed up 24 “transsexuals” :

The same names appear on this study which looks like another worthwhile piece to follow up.

These were the other two referenced studies.

You can access the second one (7) here:

5 year follow up

Here are a few more studies:

/

References to the quoted studies:

I could only find links to a full copy for this one.

11. Gooren, Giltay et al

Back to this study.

The data is inconsistent but overall the authors concluded the “evidence base for sexual reassignment surgery is of very low quality” .

This is a very good summary of the limitations of the research that does exist. Some of the reasons seem insurmountable (double blind, randomised trials, for example) but for others it is baffling why there has not been sufficient will to overcome them. I am thinking about the surgeries that were funded by the NHS, in the U.K. These should have made it possible to do long term follow up.

There follows a thorough outline of the methodology. For those of you interested in this it is a very comprehensive section. One thing to note is that accurate follow up needs to record biological sex and a way of coding “sexual reassignment surgery”; such that outcomes can be tracked. Those people arguing for the end to recoding biological sex in any formal documents are going to undermine this kind of follow up.

Of the “transsexuals” in this study their hospitalisation rates for psychiatric issues, other than gender identity issues, were four times the rate for the control group. This was prior to “transition”. As I have said before there are victims in this cohort; notwithstanding their plight has been weaponised against the female population.

There was an increased rate of criminal convictions after sexual reassignment.

More details on co-morbidities, substance use and accidents paints a picture of a vulnerable population both pre and post “transition”.

For this of you who like a graph what is buried in this one is that the suicide rate for this demographic is 19 times higher for this demographic.

The authors make a distinction in patterns for criminality based on the dates of their surgeries.

Notice that the differences in patterns of suicidality conform to birth sex not “gender identity”.

While the surgeries are deemed to alleviate “gender dysphoria” psychiatric co-morbidities remain. The authors may see this as a success because once post-operative there is nothing, material, that can be done to address the felling of a mismatch between their biology and their outward appearance. However, what if the psychiatric co-morbidities remain because they surgeons were treating the wrong problem?

The retention of a male pattern of criminality also suggests our politicians are wrong to place men in female prisons, regardless of any “identity”. To be clear there are more issues than male patterns of criminality to exclude males from female spaces. Women should be allowed single sex spaces for privacy and dignity, irrespective of safety. The increased rate among females warrants some research into the impact of testosterone on a female body.

More detail on those patterns of criminality. 👇

Strengths of this Study.

The period of time followed, low drop out rates and surveying a clear population of post operative “transsexuals” are all strengths. Also important was that the group surveyed are compared to both their biological sex and the sex they aspired to. This is important because, for example, the higher rates of criminality in females would have been masked if only measured against males.

There is a detailed sections on the limitations of the study. Among the arguments are that “transsexualism” was still only a low number of people, in Sweden; during the period covered by the survey. They argue psychiatric treatments have improved over this period. Furthermore people treated for other psychiatric conditions continued to have high rates of referrals for mental illness which, they argue, cannot be assumed to be because of the treatment they received.

Wherever you stand on the wisdom of medical responses to “gender dysphoria” it is clear that this patient group are poorly served in terms of follow up and long term, evidenced based, research. Even if you were to find a group willing to opt for solely therapeutic care to deal with their “gender dysphoria” ; to compare to those given hormones /surgeries, I suspect the results would be dismissed. The group willing to try therapy only, would automatically be assumed to be less “dysphoric”.

You can support my work here. Any contribution is gratefully received and enables me to keep my content open and cover my costs.

Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women’s rights, child safeguarding, freedom of speech and the truth. Speaking up in the hope that people wake up to the harm we are doing to our gay, autistic and other vulnerable groups.

£10.00

Bernadette Wren:Tavistock 3

Featured

Part 3 on this talk by Wren.

You can see earlier parts of this series on this page:

Bernadette Wren

We rejoin Wren explaining about the rising referral rates to GIDs and the witch from predominantly male referrals to 75% female. Wren repeats the statement, made earlier, about the poor research base for the treatments for which she makes referrrals.

At this point Wren tells us that adults who have undergone these treatments do have a degree of continuing mental health issues, based on studies (which she does not name), but with small amounts of regret. For children and adolescents she references a Dutch study (again no specific reference provided) which followed a small group of “treated” referrals who were all doing well. She does, however, concede that this group tended to be very well functioning and arrive at the clinics at an older age. It is worth noting that the Tavistock were ideally placed to have conducted their own research. The childhood and adolescent branch of the tavistock was set up in 1989. They began administering puberty blockers in 2011. This talk was in 2019.

The next slide shows the diversity of the Tavistock’s clientele.

Evolutionary Biology

Finally we get to the question of evolutionary biology. Wren begins by pointing out that evolutionary biologists assume that humans are motivated by the aim of reproducing and leaving partial copies of ourselves on this earth; we are assumed to have an imperative to pass on our genes. She then breaks off and makes an interesting comment.

She continues by focussing on research re homosexuality which, she is careful to point out, she is not conflating with gender atypical presentations. She then says “Obviously, like Gender Dysphoria we assume like homosexuality has existed throughout history and in all known cultures” . I would say that is a highly contested statement, the latter yes, but “Gender Dysphoria” is a relatively new concept which has pathologised people who do not conform to expectations for their sex, many of them homosexual.

Wren continues by acknowledging that homosexuals are a statistically small section of society but then swiftly moves on to argue that sexuality can be fluid, particularly in females. (Is this how she is able to ignore the targeting of Lesbians who do not wish to entertain “male lesbians” as partners?).

Wren expresses caution about looking for a biological explanation, for both homosexuality and gender identity, because it risks being oppressive. If we seek explanations we could also seek the means to “cure” or “suppress” these experiences. This is where lumping homosexuality in with “gender minorities” is deeply unhelpful. The former does not need a lifetime’s dependence on cross sex hormones or risky surgeries.

Theories of adaptive advantage to homosexuality, she continues, are that they may confer advantages to relatives who do reproduce. Gay Uncles and Lesbian Aunts helping with child rearing, I assume she is referring to.

Next she turns to considering whether there is a biological basis for “gender identity”. Her hypothesis is that an explanation will not be located in a single gene but will be multi-factorial. She then switches to point out a third of their referrals have features of autism so, I assume she is making the link to autism as an inherited trait.

Heritability of “Gender Identity”.

Most of the evidence comes from twin studies. One such was by Holderman et al, in 2018. They looked at eleven studies. She breaks off to add a not of caution that these studies run the risk of conflating gender non-conforming behaviour with a transgender identity. [You don’t say! Exactly what we think has been happening at the Tavistock!]. Despite expressing reservations about the methodology, such as using sex stereotypes to determine whether a child displayed “opposite sex behaviours”, she repeats the conclusion that gender identity shows a pattern of heritability around 28% to 40% for identical twins, half that for non-identical twins.

Next she explores the work of Melissa Hines who looked at girls with disorders/differences of sexual development. They tended to show toy preferences aligned with “boy” choices but she concludes this was because they were less responsive to social cues directing them to “girl” toys.

Brain Structures

There is research looking at whether “transgender” individuals have brain structure more aligned to the opposite sex, with which they identify, or their natal sex. The criticism of these studies, that I have encountered ranges from small sample sizes ; failure to control for homosexuality; failure to consider the impact of opposite sex hormones and failure to account for neuro-plasticity. Wren concludes that the picture is uncertain.

Wren concludes that the explanations are likely to be multi-factorial, possibly a genetic predisposition, an interaction between social and biological factors and the role of culture; whether an individual lives in a society that encourages or suppresses atypical “gender identities”.

Wren also points out that if a biological maker were identified that may limit treatment for those who do not have that marker. That’s quite the statement. What it means is that Wren is happy for people to be medicalised even if it is discovered that they do not have the condition! She justifies this by reference to bodily autonomy and Human Rights.

Reproduction

There are a lot of “ifs” in this next statement. I guess when you have presided over the sterilisation of children you believe what you need to so you can sleep at night.

In the next bit Wren postulates that gender non-conformity in “cis-gendered” people may be an attractive feature signalling genetic superiority and this somehow leads to the idea that we may replicate gender diversity for some sort of evolutionary advantage. This, to me, feels like clutching at straws.

Cultural Evolution

Leaving evolutionary biology, Wren moves on to cultural evolution. This is the idea that these things can be “culturally transmitted” which, to me, seems dangerously close to the idea it is a social contagious.

She further reflects on how this might impact, in particular, adolescents for whom “there may be complex social forces shaping the formation of an atypical gender identity”.these social forces, she continues may be: 👇

In other words all the features of a typical adolescence that few people escape.

By jove she’s close to getting it!

But, not quite. She speculates on the interconnected ness of this generation and the speed of the transmission of ideas and how our youth are “a generation who are , almost routinely, asking themselves if they might be “trans” or differently gendered to explain their feelings their bodily alienation and discomfort and they are resistant to cultural norms for male and female behaviour and heteronormative sexuality”

Because of the above some people, she concludes, will feel they are “a better fit for another gender or indeed to attempt to be a different sex” . So, not to challenge societal norms at all, just take drugs and surgeries to better fit with the sexist stereotypes associated with the societally enforced, norms of behaviour you are putatively rebelling against!

Her conclusion.

Is it me or does she look haunted as she finishes with this statement?

Questions

There are questions about autism and how an inability to read social cues might lead to feeling of gender dysphoria. Wren answers this with reference to how their autism and their emerging gender identity may play a role. I don’t know the intention of the questioner but, to me, the concern is that autistic girls, and boys, may latch onto “Gender Dysphoria” as a more palatable explanation for not fitting in.

Another man asks a question which relates to cultural issues giving rise to “Gender Dysphoria” . This question very nearly hits the mark.

Wren thinks it is a very good question about “whether there are aspects of our culture that are amplifying gender dysphoria” and furthermore, in respect of the dramatic increase in numbers “as a service we are really on the backfoot in relation to these numbers” . She admits there are issues around the question of the high number of females referred to the Tavistock. She conceded that the pathways to the clinic may be very different for “people born into female bodies” ! Of course there are!

The next question centres on future directions for research. Wren can’t resist a side swipe at the Daily Mail who, she says, would have you believe the “trans lobby is very powerful” . Research, she answers, is very much focussed on the brain as preferred by “trans” people who see it as a route to validation. She talks about a focus on the suffering of those with “gender dysphoria” and whether the problem is an individual problem or societies for a lack of acceptance. (It does not seem to occur to her that if we tolerated behaviours that don’t match sexist expectation, for your sex, we could work to transform society instead of putting children/adolescents on a path requiring drugs and surgeries). She herself does not have a preferred area of research but does state that the Tavistock have just obtained a very large grant to track the people that have been through their service, for long term follow up for ten, twenty or thirty years. (Which is interesting because the Tavistock have previously claimed that is too difficult because people have changed their NHS numbers). Here was her answer.

The final question asked if a biological, or other cause is found and a treatment to resolve Gender Dysphoria (absent drugs and surgeries, I assume he means) would it be ethical to take this route? Wren answers with stories of people who reconciled to their sex after having been, initially, certain about their gender identity. She is careful to say they would not practice “Conversion Therapy” but if the young person was willing they would work, therapeutically with that person. This sounds as if a young person was so certain and would not co-operate then they would not get the chance to reconcile their sex /sexuality.

My conclusion.

Looks like we have our answer about which way the service is heading.

If you are able to support my work you can do so here. All gifts gratefully received.

D35496A1-6A40-413E-9A06-28E4F8EB3D8C

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and all its harms so we never forget.

£10.00

Bernadette Wren: Tavistock 2

Featured

Part two on this talk by Wren to a room full of evolutionary biologists.

You can read part 1, here, which covers the first fifteen minutes. A link to the YouTube is included.

Bernadette Wren:Tavistock

We return to Wren discussing the variety of ways societies have accommodated, mainly men, who do not conform to cultural expectations, for their sex. Many of these accommodations look, to me, as, potentially, benign ways to accommodate men who wish to have sex with men. The Hjira, who Wren references, though, may have a darker underbelly in that young boys may be groomed into these roles to provide a sexual outlet for older, married men who wish to have sex with boys. Likewise gay men may be left with little choice. This may be the only way for homosexuals to survive in India. See this account here. 👇 (Homosexuality was only legalised, by India, in 2018)

Hijra

Wren continues with this statement about “cisgender” people.

I am going to assume she means that people who identify with their birth sex can also be resistant to sex stereotypes, which of course is true. There have been people, I would argue the vast majority, who depart from sexist expectations for their sex. Despite Wren’s obsession with “de-pathologising” she has played a role in problematising behaviour at odds from cultural expectations for your sex. This has specific implications for gay people who can display “gender non-conformity” at an early, pre-sexual age. This deviation is not, however, confined to homosexuals, there are many, straight women, who have dominant personalities and there are “theatrical” straight males. The situation we have arrived it is one where the only “real” women are deemed to be the ones who conform to sexist “gender roles”. If this keeps up the vast majority of women will need to exit our sex class for not “womanning” correctly.

After a wander through other cultures, Wren returns to the U.K. context to explain that Western nations are catching up with the issue of “third genders”. [I sense she is building up to explaining the meteoric referrals to the Tavistock with her “look there are an estimated one million Hjiara people”. ]

On referrals to the Tavistock, Wren advises that many young people arrive with total conviction about their pathway. They feel it is an “un shiftable” part of their self ; some of those people went on to detransition.

Authentic Self

Some clinicians also share this believe system 👇. Those of with children who are part of the gender church will recognise the phrase “true self” or “authentic self”. Both recurrent phrases from the true believers. [The evidence for a biological under-pinning to “gender identity” is very poor, by the way ]

Gender Fluid

Wren is careful not to exclude anyone from the trans umbrella so she quickly adds this 👇to encompass the part-time larpers. She also avoids saying “healthy body” by using the term “non anomalous” for the bodies she sends to be cut up.

Non-Binary people

Non-Binary people claim to be neither male nor female but this does not preclude them from going under the surgeon’s knife. Wren advises that they want more “tailored” surgeries. To get an idea of the more extreme manifestation of “tailored” surgeries you can have a look at what is in offer in the United States. Nullification is the removal of all genitalia like a Ken Doll. Men can also opt to have a “neo-vagina” but retain their penis. Non-binary females can have a double mastectomy.

Referral Rates to the Tavistock, Children’s Service

All that scene setting was to prepare the audience for the following slides.

Unlike the earlier slides, Wren does not appear to want to linger on this one. As you can see there has been a dramatic increase in girls.

This is as good a point as any to break off, even though I have only made it to the 20 minute mark. Part 3 to follow. Now the Law suits are rolling in, I want to provide detailed coverage of the belief system underpinning practice at the Tavistock.

Article in The Times.

You can support my work here: Don’t prioritise me above legal cases. I get by but donations help me to keep going. Irrespective my work will remain open access.

D35496A1-6A40-413E-9A06-28E4F8EB3D8C

Investigating the Gender Industrial Complex, Gender Identity Ideology and the impact on women’s and Gay rights.

£10.00