Graham Linehan: On Newsnight

As an archivist I have tended to cover people who are key influencers in this debate, but I have probably focused too much on those with whom I disagree. To remedy this I am going to give Graham his own series. I know it’s not exactly Netflix but his role needs to be on the record. I will start with his appearance on Newsnight, interviewed by Sarah Smith. Transcript below and a link to the YouTube.

Linehan Newsnight

Sarah Smith interviews Linehan

Smith starts the interview in, what seems to me, an accusatory tone. Full disclosure, I dislike this style of interview intensely, with both male and female interviewers. I think the idea is that if you rattle the subject they may reveal more than they otherwise would. At the same time, female interviewers tend to come in for more criticism, in general, and clearly it’s a very emotive topic, for me, so, I am not exactly impartial. That said, having watched it a few times, I am inclined to agree with Linehan’s sense that it was an ambush. Here is how the interview opens, after a perfunctory introduction. 👇

White Knighting?

Linehan explains that he felt obliged to step into the debate because he was witnessing the abuse and vilification heaped upon women, like Jane Clare Jones and Kathleen Stock, Graham felt a duty to speak up and also more able to, as he is self-employed. (As we have seen this did not protect him). Had a woman said this it would be unproblematic but I could already see he would be vulnerable to the accusation of “White Knighting” (Smith will raise this later in the interview). As an aside, men really can’t win on this one. I have been irritated myself with Johnny Come-Latelies entering the fray, who seem unaware the women have not been screaming from the rooftops, on this topic, for years and years. Linehan has been at this for years, at significant personal cost, and it is difficult to navigate how to be a male ally in this fight. I would just say, in comparison to Matt Walsh, Linehan is practically Graham Greer.

Also, to feminists like Janice Raymond and Sheila Jeffries, I am a Jane-Come-Lately and, no doubt they are, justifiably, irritated their pioneering work gets less mainstream attention, than it should. In the end I suspect the media will amplify whichever voices they find more palatable /moderate, to the frustration of us all.

Toxic Debate

Next Smith questions whether Linehan is adding to the debate in a constructive manner. 👇

Graham asks for examples and she duly delivers, with a bit of a chuckle, I might add. I presume she doesn’t think these interventions are funny because she is highly critical of Linehan’s rhetoric. So is it a “gotcha” chuckle?

It’s worth pointing out that Smith seems unaware that women are routinely called “Nazi” ; for speaking up about sex based rights or opposing “trans” medical treatments given to children. This, sadly is not confined to those my son dismisses as “nutters on the internet” The Council of Europe and a coalition of “Charitable foundations” have badged the disparate group, opposed to gender ideology as “anti-gender” activists. This has allowed them to lump U.K. feminists /femalists in with Hungary’s Viktor Orban, for one. Orban is also keen, on restricting of both abortion and gay rights; treating us as if we are allies is known as the association fallacy and is intended to discredit us. I have done a series on these documents which you can read here:

Moral Panic?

Smith is confusing a retaliatory /defensive strategy for a pre-emptive strike.

Here is how Smith responds. I wonder if this is already coming back to haunt her.

Puberty Blockers!

Graham responds to defend his position, pointing out that we are performing experimental treatment on young women but it is actually worse than that. We are giving these drugs to children, of both sexes, as young as ten.

I believe the actual drug used in the U.K. is triptorelin, which, by the way, is also used to chemically castrate sex offenders. The specific drug is relevant in the U.K because the makers of Triptorelin are Ferring Pharmaceuticals, who gave the Liberal Democrats, U.K political party, £1.4 million in donations.

I did a piece on this funding.

Liberal Democrats & Big Pharma

Furthermore, children put on puberty blockers will invariably progress to cross sex hormones. (98%) and they will be sterile and have ruined sexual function. Don’t take my word for it, here is Marci Bowers; a trans-identified male and a surgeon who performs surgery on “trans” patients. (Infamously on Jazz Jennings).

I should also add that Bowers also works to try to help rectify female genital mutilation and is one of the most high profile to speak up about this. Cynics may see this as damage limitation, and it could be self-interested, it could also be a genuine concern at seeing the results of puberty blockers on the operating table. This is because boys will have stunted genitalia which will not only make it harder to re-identify with their sex but will also make any genital surgery more difficult; crudely there will be less material to work with.

Less heat, more light, Sarah.

This is Smith’s response to the concerns raised about puberty blockers. I am tempted to say “less heat, more light,Sarah!”. Notice she does not respond to the substance of Linehan’s point but dismisses his expertise and focuses on the “offence” angle. Well, given this is happening to my son I frequently call it “Mengele Medicine”. Sue me!

Graham pushes back hard on this point and his rebuttal comes across strong when you watch him speaking. (at the 2:30 point). Here is the exchange. Notice she cuts him off and doesn’t allow him, from my vantage point, to make his point.

I also found this an astonishing admission after Linehan raises the issue of the 35 staff members who have departed the Tavistock. Many of those ex-staff became whistleblowers and some of them were interviewed by other Newsnight Staff!

I am inclined to concur with the theory that Newsnight were worried about the excellent research done by other journalists on the same team. This may represent real divisions in the Newsnight team or a belief that a hostile interview, with Linehan, would persuade Stonewall et al, of their “balance”. (The BBC was still in various Stonewall “schemes” at this point.).

Bodily autonomy versus child safeguarding.

Sarah also seems to be woefully unaware, or disingenuous, of what is being taught in schools about “gender Identity”; I am going with disingenuous because her own employer produced something, aimed at children, claiming there are a hundred genders. She seems to be arguing for bodily autonomy here 👇. Remember kids are referred to the Tavistock as young as three and we start puberty blockers at 10 years old. Should it be entirely up to them?

Graham pushes hard back at this point and again, you can see the passion and urgency in the recording. (Time stamp 3:07).

Smith is utterly dismissive on this point; calling it ridiculous exaggeration.

Gay Eugenics.

Graham then brings up the reports of homophobic parents at the Tavistock.

Here are the reports of the Tavistock whistleblowers supporting his claim. Smith studiously avoids responding to this point.

Both sides!

Linehan makes it clear that the women he supports are being deplatformed, attacked and getting rape and death threats online. He sees it as his role to amplify these voices. He says he would be happy to step aside once they are given a fair hearing. He also points out that he has had threats, police visits and been doxxed, as had his wife.

Smith does not respond to any of this. Nothing about the sterilisation of proto-gay kids. Nothing about the silencing of women, the threats or aggression. Instead she, predictably, attacks him for his presumption.

There is some repetition of Smith accusing Linehan of ramping up the toxicity of the debate as if the interviewer wants the viewer to be left with that impression and not what is being done to children. She shows no curiosity about this, at all; which is shocking for an ordinary citizen, let alone for a, purported, journalist.

Graham points out that a number of prominent people, even ex Stonewall founders, pleaded with Stonewall to open dialogue, precisely, to detoxify the discussion. Stonewall refused, the same day. Smith could have probed this a little further but, instead, she read out a prepared statement from Stonewall. There is no surprises in their content, it’s the usual claim that “trans” people are oppressed, abused and hate crime victims.

Graham is allowed a final response until he is cut off. He is cut off at the word children which seems fitting since this is what will be remembered from this interview; the complete unwillingness to consider that something really dark was happening at the Tavistock.

Conclusion.

Linehan is probably correct in his assessment that this interview was not a serious attempt to address the concerns he, and many others, were raising. However it felt, at the time, I think he has been vindicated and Sarah Smith should be haunted by her role. Imagine if so many journalists had not failed to do their job? Had this been stopped at the time of this interview maybe the reckless prescribing, currently harming my son, would have been stopped.

Final word to another Tavistock whistleblower.

If you think what I am doing is worthwhile you can support me here.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

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

Tavistock: Domenico Di Ceglie 3

Featured

Part three: Questions and Answers

This is the final part on Domenico Di Ceglie, the man who set up the children and youth service at the U.K’s main gender clinic. You can read parts 1 & 2 here. These posts are part of my series on the Tavistock.

Tavistock: Domenico Di Ceglio

Tavistock: Domenico Di Ceglio 2

This piece will focus on the question and answer session, following his talk which I covered in parts 1 & 2. The Q & A starts 48 minutes in:

Questions and Answers

Di Ceglie ends his talk with a reference to robots which struck me as quite an odd final comment and appeared to have little connection to what had gone before:

Then I remembered he also said this in part one and I wonder if he is envisaging his work as going beyond what it means to be human?

The question and answer section is quite revealing but it is a shame that, through time constraints, or perhaps deliberately, the audience will not have had time to register some of the more damning, and contradictory, slides which I covered in part two. In particular this one which sets out the risks of the treatments dished out at gender clinics.

Still there were some important questions at the end.

Two came from Bob Withers, a Jungian therapist, who I immediately recognised. Bob has done excellent work in this field. I did a series on Bob’s work: 👇

Bob Withers: Series.

His first question :

You may recall that Di Ceglie stated that no biological underpinning to explain the ”transgender” experience has been found and, believe me, they have been looking. There is a deep desire to find a ”Born this way” narrative to explain why some people experience “Gender Dysphoria” and to present the steep rise in referrals to clinics as a natural phenomenon. There is, as yet, no research that has convinced me. The studies that I have seen tend to cover small sample sizes, fail to control for homosexuality and even include men on synthetic cross hormones. I do not think we will find a common explanation that covers teenage girls, baby gays and heterosexual males who like masturbating in their wife’s knickers!

Di Ceglie valiantly tries, in a somewhat rambling reply. He concedes that no single biological cause has been found, as yet, and that the causes are multi-factorial, but include biology. He also claims that some people have a more rigid mindset (Does he mean autistic people?) and are unable to be fluid in their thinking and these people need to be helped by physical intervention. He also is careful to allow for the variety of choices re physical interventions because ”some people may choose one intervention and not another”. A sort of pick and mix of cosmetic surgeries for your ideal gender ”presentation”.. Humans as ”meat lego” is the phrase that comes to mind, as coined by Mary Harrington. This also reminds me of the man who took the NHS to court, multiple times, because he wanted fake breasts but he still retained a penis. I wrote about him below.

The Elephant in the room.

If you build Gender clinics they will come.

Di Ceglie further elaaborates on this theme by focussing on the patients as ”service users” and how the Tavistock needs to have a range of options to respond to the different needs, which I would call ”desires”. Remember in the opening to his talk he said this.

After Di Ceglie’s ,rather rambling, answer Bob’s rejoinder is much more down to earth.

Di Ceglie’s response:

He then repeats the uncertainty about knowing the final outcome for a specific child and here I must remind you, once again, that we are giving children, as young as ten, irreversible medications based on these theories.

In his next sentence he confirms what I suspected was his belief system. Some of these children have a fixity in their belief systems and features of autism. We already know autistic kids are over-represented at Gender Clinics. Di Ceglie exhibits no concern that they are harming a vulnerable group, instead he links the biological cause, for autistism, suggests a biological underpinning for Gender Dysphoria. He is not explicit about this but it was the inference I took from his response and is common belief among Gender Identity Ideologues.

The next question from another audience member is about the interaction between same sex orientation and a transgender identity.

Di Ceglie gives the stock answer we can get from any Trans activist on twitter. He sees sexual orientation and gender identity as two distinct things and to justify his stance he points out that some of their male subjects go on to have ”Lesbian” relationships. Nobody objects to this redefinition of the word Lesbian. He further points out that ”people assigned female at birth may go on to live in a homosexual relationship with another man”.

Final question, on camera, is from a Canadian woman, from Toronto, who advises that the Canadian Gender Clinic removed Ken Zucker because he was practicing reparative therapy, a form of Conversion Therapy, in her view. She explains that he was teaching kids how not to be ”trans”. She claims this was done in a coercive and controlling way and generating depression and anxiety in the children at the clinic.

Di Ceglie does not defend Ken Zucker but just talks about the complexity of the work and here the session breaks and no further questions are on camera.

I will leave the final word to Marci Bowers, a male who identifies as “transgender” and also performs the operations called ”sexual reassignment surgery”.

I hope this has provided some insight into the kind of thinking at work at the Tavistock. If you can support my work you can do so here. I do now have a limited income but I do still need assistance to keep the show on the road. You can donate to my paypal or my

https://ko-fi.com/stilltish

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s impact on women’s rights and the impact on gay rights.

£10.00

Or https://ko-fi.com/stilltish

Tavistock: Domenico Di Ceglio 2

Featured

Domenico Di Ceglio set up the childhood and adolescent services at the Gender Identity Development Service (G.I.Ds) at the Tavistock. This is part two on a talk he gave at a conference on “Transgender” issues. You can find the rest of my series, on the Tavistock, below.

Tavistock

You can watch the talk on YouTube, below. 👇

Domenico Di Ceglie

Part one is here

Tavistock: Domenico Di Ceglio

This is the title of that talk. Transgender , Gender and Psychoanalysis, with this subtitle.

In part one Di Ceglie covers his motivation for setting up the children and adolescent service at G.I.Ds; the astronomic growth of referrals and the tensions between staff who wished to provide only therapeutic support, to children, and those who advocated for the administration of puberty blockers. As suggested by the title he uses metaphors to convey his role in managing these tensions. A psychoanalyst might suggest that this allows him to distance himself from the choices he made during his tenure.

We pick up at around the 30 minute mark. Di Ceglie is using the myth of Scylla and Charibdys, from Ulysses, to convey his position at the Tavistock. Both Scylla and Charibdys pose a risk to Ullyses and his sailors but only Charbdys can sink the ship. Ullysses, therefore, steers close to Scylla even though he knows she will snatch some of his sailors and crush them with her grip, before swallowing them. Di Ceglie clearly feels the service is under threat so he needs to balance these risks and sacrifices will have to be made.

Di Ceglie then reflects that it was the more valiant of Ulysses’ sailors who fell victim to Scylla and offers an explanation with reference to G.I.Ds staff calling them ”crusaders,” , which is very revealing.

He explains that the Tavistock tries to steer a middle way neither neglecting the mind nor the body. He claims that they work to break the cycle of secrecy and shame involved in an atypical gender identity. He further argues that the foster uncertainty about the outcomes for any child. I don’t see how this is compatible with this statement: If we are allowing a social transition and puberty blockers there is near certainty (98%) of progression to cross sex hormones. They will be sterile and, as we saw in part one, they will have near zero chance of any orgasmic capacity.

He is also keen to dispel any suggestion that they practice ”reparative” therapy i.e that they seek to reconcile the child with their sex/sexuality. I imagine this is motivated by the wish to avoid the fate of the Canadian Gender Clinic which he mentions more than once during the talk. (Ken Zucker’s clinic was accused of practicing conversion therapy on gender confused kids and his clinic shut down. He won a legal case but was not restored to his post)

He does share a case study of a natal male who adopted a female identity, following the death of his grandmother. After giving him some help to articulate his grief he reconciled to his sex and desisted.

He further claims that clinics who are rigid in their approach to these children run the risk of embedding the cross gender identity even further. He may be correct in this but, again, it does not square with the medical treatments. He does, thankfully, recognise an 80% desistance rate if allowed to go through a natural puberty; shame he does not include how many end up good old-fashioned homosexuals.

Clearly the clinic are making judgements that some children are unlikely to change their minds. This clip suggests early onset gender dysphoria is believed to be more intractable.

He next speculates that gender dysphoria is more intractable with those with paranoid schizophrenic tendencies and even those who have been subject to traumatic events in childhood. This is starting to echo the criteria used to dish out lobotomies or Electric Shock treatment.

Empathising versus Systematising.

This looks at the work of Simon Baron-Cohen who conducted research into children with atypical ”gender ” development and seems to be driven by defining certain behaviours more ”male” / “female” and, presumably, looking for evidence of “true trans“. Unsurprisingly females scored higher on empathy and men on systems. Between a likely biological predisposition and female socialisation women’s scores are , to me, unremarkable. What did surprise me was the scores for trans-identifying males. While they did score lower on “systemising”, than the control of males who were not identifying as ”transgender”, they also had lower scores for empathy. Curiously although Di Ceglie talks of the value of further research into identifying potential desisters this does not appear to have been a research area of interest to the staff at the Tavistock.

Di Ceglie claims it is possible to identify good candidates for early intervention. Not on e does he refer to detransitioners but they may not have been as significant a phenomenon when this conference took place. The YouTube video was uploaded two years ago but it may have pre-dated the Kiera Bell case. It would be interesting to know if he is paying attention to the rising rates of regret.

At the end of the conference Di Ceglie rushes through his final slides so I had to slow down the speed to take screen grabs. He has two slides on the benefits of early transition quoting research papers from 2006 i.e before the current surge in transgender kids /youth. He also claims that puberty blockers are ”considered to be fully reversible“ on one slide but look at the next slide, it directly contradicts this statement.

What are the risks?

It is unclear what the long term impact is on bone development, height, sex organ development it may affect brain development, and it may even lock in the Gender Dysphoria.

Those are some big risks!

Now we have a growing number of detransitioners the chickens may be comimg home to roost. Currently there are 35,000 members on the reddit detrans forum. It is growing at an alarming rate.

In part three I will cover the question and answer session.

You can support my work here. Every donation helps because we are up against billionaires funding this ideology, globally. Contrary to the propaganda I am not funded by Evangelical Christians, the Far Right or Viktor Orban. I rely on donations to cover my costs but do not donate if you are on a limited income.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s impact on our gay /autistic youth, kids in care as well as the sex based rights of women and adult homosexuals, especially Lesbians.

£10.00

Tavistock: Domenico Di Ceglio 1

Featured

Domenico Di Ceglio set up the childhood and adolescent services at the Gender Identity Development Service (G.I.Ds) at the Tavistock. You can find the rest of my series, on the Tavistock, below.

Tavistock

To provide some background to a piece on the David Taylor report, into G.I.Ds, I did some research into the man who set up the children’s service. Domenico Di Ceglie can be seen on this YouTube of a conference contribution he made. 👇

Domenico Di Ceglie

This is the title of that talk. Transgender , Gender and Psychoanalysis, with this subtitle.

First he provides his motivation for setting up the service, he admits it was a new area for him until he encountered a teenage girl, who had attempted suicide three times and believed she should have been male. According to Di Ceglie she went on to identify as Ian and was suicidal no more. It was this patient, who wished her parents could have seen someone when she was five, that prompted the setting up of the service. Not everyone accepted this idea without question and someone raised the law of unintended consequences. In the retelling Di Ceglie seemed to think this an amusing moment. (I wonder if he is still laughing as we see more and more post ”transition” regret.)

This reminded me of a conversation I had with an adult male, who self-describes as a ”transsexual”; he observed that the Tavistock provided a solution that created the phenomenon. Or to use a phrase from the business world used in the Kevin Costner film, Field of Dreams:

”If you build it they will come”.

He then uses two Freud quotes and proceeds to talk about the impact of the ”uncertainty principle” in this field. This principle is actually derived from physics but it has acquired a more general use in terms of the difficulty in predicting human behaviour, or their development trajectories. I am sure there are some sound arguments for accepting this ability to tolerate ambiguity, in a therapeutic setting, but it does rather the beg the question about subjecting children as young as 10 on irreversible, medicalised, pathways. We used to accept the certainty we would grow up to be Adult Human Females or Males, needless to say this is still true.

He then introduces Pablo Neruda, the poet, from the Film, The Postman, explaining metaphors to a Greek Postman. Again, it is a perfectly charming clip, but this seems strangely whimsical when you are actually discussing serious medical interventions, in children.

John Money and Robert Stoller

Next we learn about two pioneers working in this field. John Money, for those of you who are unaware, was a pioneer in this field. He is infamous for intervening in the life of a child who had suffered a medical accident which removed his penis. David Rheimer was a twin which provided the perfect experiment in bringing him up as a, putative, girl. As, it turns out the two boys afforded access to children for Money who was subsequently outed as a paedophile. Both boys committed suicide. There is no explicit acknowledgement of the allegations against Money, only a reference to him being a ”controversial figure at the end of his life”.
Both Stoller and Money sensed the revolutionary impact of the concept of a “Gender Identity” or ”Role” which is at odds with your physical embodiment. Stoller puts it clearest here: 👇 The replacing of a subjective, sense of self, a ”gendered soul”; irrespective of your sexed body.

Money, talking in 1992, prophesied the societal revolution we are witnessing in 2022, with a reorganisation of society which is disregarding sex based rights. The obscured word at the end of this quote is ”principles”

Di Ceglie acknowledges that the ascendance of this idea has had huge, societal ramifications but, of course, there is no space to address the disproportionate impact on the female sex. He also seems quite excited about this social revolution comparing it to Copernicus who discovered that the earth rotated around the son and not the other way around. I should add that Copernicus made a discovery of fact he did not invent an unprovable theory of innate gender identity.

Brain sex #LadyBrain

In this section Di Ceglie concedes that attempts to prove a biological basis for ”gender identity’ have foundered.

At the same time he makes this astonishing claim which needs to be highlighted. He does not think we will ever have incontrovertible evidence because this is “beyond human”. The problem is we are not dealing with post-human society he is dealing with human beings. This statement looks like a nod to ”transhumanism”.

In this next section he covers the steep rise in referrals to G.I.Ds between 1989 to 2015. Most of you will be familiar with the fact we have had a 4000% increase in female patients; a complete inversion of the sex ratio as well as a dramatic lowering of the age profile. Same sex attracted youth are over-represented and not singled out for specific mention, neither is the prevalence of referrals of teenage girls with no concomitant rise of referrals of middle aged women. Surely if this was a product of more social acceptance we would see a surge in late transitioning females? Thankfully, whilst Di Ceglie shows little curiosity about this phenomenon we do have the words of his colleague, Bernadette Wren.

Cutting edge of a social revolution

Unfortunately, for us, you are literally cutting into the bodies of our children as part of this ”revolution”. Teenage girls with extreme body hatred is not new phenomenon as Wren knows very well.

Di Ceglie also uses a number of metaphors to explore his feelings about operating on the edge in terms of the Tavistock’s practices. If I were a psychoanalyst I might suggest that using metaphors, rather than grounded language conceals what he is actually enabling, perhaps even from himself. In plainer language he explains there is a fear of both action and inaction in relation to these children . There are pressures from within and without the clinic to begin prescribing puberty blockers, to children as young as 11. Some within the service wanted to limit their role to therapy, while others were keen to prescribe puberty blockers, early, in what was known as the Dutch protocol. As we now know, the latter group prevailed. Di Ceglie explores this debate by reference to Greek myths rather than saying, in plain language, the cost benefit analysis means we will sometimes treat the ”wrong” children. The correct number of children to be medicalised, for me, is zero. No child should be sterilised and have zero capacity to orgasm. You may be skeptical of this claim so I will share the words of Marci Bowers. Bowers is a surgeon and also a “trans” identified male. He performed surgery on Jazz Jennings. These children are being robbed of their sexual pleasure.

Autism

Later he will acknowledge the high number of autistic referrals and reference a theory that links this to atypical levels of testosterone in utero leading to ”masculine” brain type. My own theory, while I don’t wholly dismiss some, sex specific, biological imprint on male and female brains, is that *some* autistic girls are not as efficient at absorbing female socialisation. Conversely, I have also seen female socialisation as an explanation for why *some* autistic girls become adept at ”masking” /mimicking their peers so are often diagnosed late in life. (I will come back to Autism in a the next piece because it is a complex area. )

I will cover the rest of this YouTube in a further blog because there was more on autism and one person pushed him on the issue of high rates of referrals with same sexual orientation. I will leave you with Bob’s excellent question.

Questions

Bob Withers.

Bob asked an excellent question which goes to the heart of the matter. I have done a series on Bob’s work. (Link below).

Bob Withers: Series.

Now we have a growing number of detransitioners the chickens may be comimg home to roost. Currently there are 35,000 members on the reddit detrans forum. It is growing at an alarming rate.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s impact on our gay /autistic youth, kids in care as well as the sex based rights of women and adult homosexuals, especially Lesbians.

£10.00

Tavistock: Taylor Report

Featured

This is a report raising concerns about the Tavistock from way back in 2005. The report was released following a Freedom of Information request in 2020. Concerns are still being raised, approaching 25 years later. This is part of a series on the Tavistock. You can find the rest on this page:

Tavistock Series

Taylor Report: Link below

FOI_20-21117_2005_David_Taylor_Report

The report is intended for an internal audience so the language may be somewhat impenetrable, for the lay person. What it tells us is that, as far back as 2005, there were disagreements within the clinical team. This conflict had major implications for the treatment of children referred to the Tavistock. Since the clinic began referring children for Puberty Blockers, in 2011, it seems those who believed some children would not respond to therapeutic interventions, won the day.

To provide some background I did some research into the man who set up the children’s service. Domenico Di Ceglie can be seen on this YouTube talk.

Domenico Di Cegile

Domenico Di Ceglie

This is something he stated in this presentation. He seemed to think this was an amusing movement. I wonder if he is still laughing.

It would be worthwhile covering this presentation in a separate blog but these were the key things that stood out for me. Di Ceglie concedes there is no confirmation that the condition has a biological origin; he repeats the argument that puberty blockers are reversible (they are not); he acknowledges the high rates of autism in referrals but but not the high rates of referrals with same sex attraction. It is left to an audience member to ask him about this and his answer mirrors that of trans activists by his response that some males can be ”Lesbians”. As this is a childhood and adolescent service no mention is made of autogynephilia but this is a mistake since average age of first porn exposure is 9 years old; we may be seeing sexual fetishes at an earlier age.

Bob Withers.

Bob asked an excellent question which goes to the heart of the matter.

From this presentation it is clear that De Ceglie believes his service provides a ”third way” somewhere which is part affirmative and partially exploratory. He is keen to dispel any accusations of “Conversion Therapy” and it is clear the organisation was coming under a great deal of pressure from the referrals, their parents and Trans Lobby groups. At one point he uses a Frankenstein reference and I wonder if, deep down, he knows he created a monster?

Back to David Taylor

Taylor’s report makes it clear there were real tensions at the Tavistock. In part these were due to external pressures, from Trans Lobby groups, who were pushing for earlier interventions. There were also internal schisms between staff, at least one of whom is a trans-identified male. Other staff, who are amongst those who would leave the Tavistock, were gay and felt that same sex attracted youth were at risk of, unnecessary, medical intervention; ”Transing The Gay Away”. The kernel of the issue is summed up by this quote:

The professional differences of opinion were between those who sought to address gender dysphoria by exploring “psychic reality” versus those who sought to validate the wished for identity. Even in 2005 it seems it would be seen as inflammmatory to say ”biological reality”. Taylor outlines three approaches practices by different clinicians.

Psychological model

See’s the development of Gender Dysphoria as multi-factorial and considers issues such as same sex attraction, unstable identity, due to a disrupted childhood, perhaps including bereavement. Therapeutic approaches are prioritised and biological reality is affirmed.

Psychsocial Model.

Gender Identity is a preference for a particular social role and therapeutic approaches are more geared to facilitate ”gender transition”.

Genetic or neuro-genetic model.

In this model there is a belief that the origins of Gender Dysphoria has a biological cause. As we have seen there is no strong evidence for this but lots of theories. The proponents of this model tend towards what Taylor calls ”therapeutic pessimism”. For these clinicians any attempt to reconcile a patient to their sex is akin to conversion therapy.

You can see why the conflict arose. Gay members of staff thinking they are presiding over Gay Conversion therapy and trans identified staff thinking this is Trans Conversion Therapy.

Patient / Parental Pressure.

The rise of the Mermaids (Activist) parent who wants early intervention is already a factir as early as 2005.👇

Puberty Blockers

The formal launch of the experiment of giving puberty blockers did not commence until 2011 but it was this demand that was clearly exacerbating tensions. At this time clinicians were still describing them as facilitating a “delay” but, in fact, at least 98% progress to cross sex hormones and an irreversible path to sterility.

The report makes it clear that there was a dearth of research in this area: 👇

What actually happened was that the Tavistock began to treat children as young as 10 with puberty blockers. This was under the guise of a research project which was refused ethical approval at the first attempt. This was clearly to appease the “therapeutic pessimists” from the genetic /neuro-genetic camp.

Michael Biggs did excellent analysis of this, purported, research project. I covered it here:

TAVISTOCK 4 : Michael Biggs

Now we have a growing number of detransitioners the chickens may be comimg home to roost. Currently there are 35,000 members on the reddit detrans forum. It is growing at an alarming rate. I have done a few pieces on detransitioners. Link below.

Detransition: Series Summary

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s impact on our gay /autistic youth, kids in care as well as the sex based rights of women and adult homosexuals, especially Lesbians.

£10.00

Amnesty U.K. What’s going on?

Featured

Like many people I have ceased to donate to Amnesty following the revelation they took advice from Pimp Lobby groups before deciding to adopt the stance #SexWorkIsWork. The majority of the sold are women and the purchasers are, almost invariably, male no matter the sex of those being traded. A purported human rights organisation which prioritises male sexual entitlement over their victims is a Human Rights organisation only because they self-identify as such. 👇

You can read about this in full here https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/22/pimp-amnesty-prostitution-policy-sex-trade-decriminalise-brothel-keepers

As if to remove all doubt about their anti-women stance Amnesty Ireland recently castigated women for defending their sex based rights. Below is an astonishing foray into the controversy of allowing men to self-identify as women. Women who point out the conflict with sex based rights are lazily conflated with far right organisations and, Amnesty argues, should be denied representation for these views.

You can read more in this article, by Julie Bindel, below. 👇

here

However, today I want to talk about Amnesty’s startling intervention in the Keira Bell case. Full details of this case are below. The brief summary is that, in the U.K., a high court judgment has halted administration of puberty blockers, to under 16s, without a court order I have done many posts on the Tavistock and on Puberty Blockers. I have long expressed concern about setting children, as young as ten, on an irreversible path to lifelong dependence on the pharmaceutical industry. So why are a Human Rights organisation setting themselves against this judgement? The presiding, High Court, judges did not believe that children, under 16, could give informed consent to an experimental treatment with such significant implications; for physical and psychological development. They further cautioned, even for those age 16 and 17, an endocrinologist may wish to get court approval. Blog on this case below:

Kiera Bell: Judicial Review

Here was Amnesty U.K proclaiming their support for attempts to overturn the decision.

A cursory look at Amnesty financial statements demonstrate their adherence to the tenets of Transgender Ideology, Here is a statement which states a goal to protect “Gender Identity”. No definition is provided, naturally. It is impossible to define “Gender Identity” without using circular references. How can you have an “internal sense of oneself”, as a woman or a man, without first defining your terms? Invariably they depend on sexist expectations based on stereotypes. This is why so many of these conversations are a dead end.

A cursory glacé at their accounts shows they have one project to look at sex based issues which impact on women and girls. Female Genital Mutilation and forced, early, marriage. A lot of these charities, with an international remit, recognise sex based oppression and abuse, when it occurs overseas, but deny it in the Northern Hemisphere. I do wonder who runs the cognitive dissonance department. 👇. (Dilbert)

Perhaps the explanation for the stance Amnesty U.K. takes is influenced by the chair of their LGBTI network which tells its own tale 👇

Note that, in the Keira Bell case, both Mermaids and Stonewall were refused permission to intervene in the case because their evidence was deemed to have no bearing on the case. That’s a damning indictment of their preparedness /evidence supplied in this case. Amnesty: Do you know who you are allying with?

If you are able to support my ability to focus on this full-time you can do so here.

paypal.me/STILLTish

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth. Support is always appreciated (I have no income). All my content is open access so if you can’t speak publicly, and want to support those who can, only IF you have spare cash, this helps me keep going.

£10.00

Kiera Bell: Judicial Review

Featured

This Judicial Review was brought by Keira Bell and a parent of an autistic girl, identified as Mrs A. Applications to “intervene” in the case were brought by Mermaids, Stonewall and Transgender Trend. Only the latter were accepted by the Judges. Mermaids and Stonewall were not added to the case because the evidence they presented was not accepted, as relevant, by the by court.

You can read the full judgement here.

Bell-v-Tavistock-Judgment

Since 2011 the Gender Identity Service , in the U.K., commonly called GIDs or The Tavistock, has been prescribing puberty lockers to children as young as 10. This was originally agreed, by the Health Regulation Authority (HRA) as a research project. The first ethics approval panel rejected the project so the Tavistock submitted to a different Ethics approval panel, who did accept it. There is a complex back story to how this experiment was launched. You can read more about this on an earlier blog:

Michael Biggs: 👇

TAVISTOCK 4 : Michael Biggs

In this court case one of the patients from the Tavistock challenges the treatment she was given. Crucially the court considers the impact of the treatment, in both the short and long term, the evidence base for this treatment and whether these young patients can give informed consent.

One of the key issues is the lack of evidence supporting this controversial treatment. Nine years on and, by the time of this court case, the findings of this research study had still not been published! Below the Director of GIDs argued that they were about to publish the research which was too late for the Court case. Why would you not prioritise this research paper to ensure the court case had the evidence? Surely you would have expedited it if you were so certain it would support your case?

More than once the judge expresses surprise at the lack of data provided by GIDS.

Furthermore the Court, below, highlighted the dramatic rate of increase in referrals to GIDs and the change in the demographic. The lack of curiosity about this change is astounding.

It had not, however, entirely escaped the notice of GIDs. Here is Bernadette Wren, ex head of psychology at the Tavistock , speaking on this issue to the Women’s and Equalities Committee, on Transgender Equality. A social revolution that many have fought for! I wonder how many realised it would result in our young Lesbians medicalising themselves to the point of sterility? Or our gay sons retreating into faux-straight, medicalised closets? Some revolution!

The court also noted the proportion of autistic kids who are seduced by Gender Identity Ideology. This is why Mrs A is also part of this court case, her daughter is autistic. Once again the court expresses surprise at the lack of data available, from the Tavistock.

But the literature is available at the high number of referrals from neuro atypical children. It is so well known that Autistic charities have commented on its prevalence.

Once again we see the unexpected prevalence of autistic females. 👆 Indeed it is such a well known feature that Gender Identity Ideologues like Jo Elsson-Kennedy had this to say in a, now deleted, interview. This clip is taken from a transcript of the podcast by the controversial clinic (Gender GP) run by suspended General Practitioner Helen Webberley:

Here 👆 Olssen-Kennedy makes the extraordinary claim that symptoms of autism disappear when the Gender Dysphoria is treated.

In the full judicial transcript document the court elaborates the way Gender Dysphoria is diagnosed. I won’t reproduce here but it is a list based on how a young person deviates from sex stereotypes. I fit much of that criteria myself. How much more pronounced will Gender non-conformity be in a proto-Gay kid who may otherwise grow up as a Butch Lesbian or Femme Gay male?

These are the side effects of the treatment, Fertility and, for males, stunted genitalia high will impact on sexual function. Remember we are asking 10 year olds to sign up to this.

The Tavistock did have service users who spoke well of the Tavistock and their treatment. However these were the judges observations on the witnesses. It is extraordinary that GIDs thought their witnesses would strengthen their case.

On the contrary a neuroscientist called into question the ability of even teenagers to consent to these treatments and highlighted the lack of impulse control which is evident before brain maturation. Notably many commentators locate brain maturation at age 25 but certainly it has not been completed by age 18! In the United Kingdom double mastectomies are available from age 17 and sexual reassignment surgery from age 18. What makes this even more alarming is that children not allowed to experience puberty may be arrested in the development of cognitive development and lag behind their peers in respect of brain maturation.

Another plank of the case was the court’s rejection of the idea that puberty blockers provide a pause for young children to be relieved from the development of sexual characteristic and time to resolve their Gender Dysphoria. The court highlights the almost inevitability of puberty blockers to be followed by cross-sex hormones. Therefore consent for one needs to encompass the cross sex hormones.

The full document deals with the issues of Gillick competence with reference to many other legal judgements. Many lobby groups have tried to argue this legal case throws into question rights to contraception or abortion and to smear Gender Critical arguments on this basis. This is smoke and mirrors. It is rare to find any gender critical feminists who are against the right to control fertility. We do, however, oppose the eradication of fertility in minors. This is quite a different argument.

It is worth reminding people that these children will be dependent on pharmaceutical companies for the remainder of their lives. Does #BigPharma have a vested interest in creating life long patients? Are we monetising the confusion of children, and teenagers, who have been inculcated with Gender Dysphoria by the Gender Industrial complex?

The Tavistock have won the right to appeal against the initial judgment. Mermaids and Stonewall have, once again, not been granted the right to intervene in the case. However the Endocrinology society, in the United States have been allowed to intervene as has Brook, who you may remember as a Pregnancy Advisory Service. They are now expanding their remit and cover issues around “Gender”.

You can read about Brook’s belief about “Gender” : Here

These clips should give you a clue about the stance taken by Brook. Accessed on 16th February 2021.

As you can see they have not quite got around to updating their guidance on #PubertyBlockers. Here they describe it as merely a suspension which can be resumed if the person changes their mind. As noted above near 100% progress to Cross-Sex Hormones.

And, of course, they signpost these troubled teens to GIDs.

This incoherent ideology has captured, seemingly, all the charities operating in the U.K. Brook would appear to be another one willing to squander its legacy in the alter of Gender Identity Ideology.

If you are able to support my work you can do so below.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth.

£5.00

Cornwall: Transgender Guidance

Featured

Introduction

Cornwalls guidance has a particular flavour no doubt influenced by a collaboration with the police force. This one has a stronger emphasis on defining and reporting transgender hate crimes. The document is a joint effort between the local constabulary, the council and intercom trust.

You can read it, in full, here. 👇

Cornwall schools-transgender_guidance_booklet-2015

Intercom trust were familiar to me as they won a Pink News award for LGBT+ Community in November 2019. I noticed, at the time, their entire website had extensive guidance on Gender Identity issues but the FAQs for homosexual issues were not populated. One year on (02/12/2020) this part of the website remains unpopulated. 👇

This is a common pattern. Organisations purporting to be about the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual community are, instead, directing teens to gender identity resources.

The guidance is also, we are told, available on the Department of Education website.

The pack is in line with many of the other materials in that it uses the captured language of gender identity ideologues which claims sex is “assigned at birth” . Here pupils learn about gender essence and claims there can be a mismatch between your sex, and your gender, which they seem to reduce to “external appearance” in this excerpt. For anyone having trouble keeping up with the trans ideology note that, elsewhere, we are told that “gender expression” can be different to both your sex and your gender identity. The ground keeps shifting beneath my feet as I labour, in vain, to find any coherence to this ideology.

For parents struggling to understand how your child has returned home convinced they are transgender do check your schools. The obvious place to look is the Transgender Guidance but this also permeates anti-bullying policies and PSHE lessons. Furthermore guidance from Stonewall shows teachers how they can embed this ideology across the curriculum by providing examples that can be used in maths, science, history etc. Some of these examples, like Alan Turing, are welcome additions to the curriculum. Perhaps, after the Keira Bell case, we will see a bit more attention paid to the role of chemical castration since Turing was subject to hormonal treatment to suppress his sexuality. We live in hope.

This next excerpt has a revealing use of the word “enabled” in this section which explains the role the guidance believes it plays:

The school should indeed protect any child struggling with Gender Dysphoria. The problem with much of this guidance is it takes its duty to “inform” to propaganda levels. Furthermore, it is not the schools responsiblity to “enable” a pursuit of a medicalised identity yet, as with much of this school guidance, they are far too keen to include references to puberty blockers and sign post kids to Gender Identity Services. It almost takes on the appearance of free advertising.

The idea that gender identity disorder manifests at age two is a deliberate attempt to reframe a child’s understanding of their biology as evidence “gender identity” is biological. Here the school guidance acts as a drug pusher for “hormone blockers” ; which are presenting as a necessary treatment for “symptoms associated with being transgender“. Except they try to have it both ways because they also argue that someone who is transgender can still be so without having a diagnosis, or even having, Gender Dysphoria and without having any treatment. This mental gymnastics is necessary to include the growing number of adults, who claim to be the opposite sex, with no bodily modification.

More product placement as the guidances makes it clear where treatment is available. Though again they are keen not to offend the blue-haired, pronouns only, brigade who don’t want any “treatment” to join the queer community. Non-binary is the idea that people claim to have no “gender” which is interesting since we spend half the time being told everybody has an innate “ gender– identity“. Just to confuse things further we also have “gender variant” people who presumably have a mix and match approach to their gender identity and signify it via their pronouns and clothes. I know 😳, I don’t make the rules.

Good luck legislators. I fear you have bitten off a bit more than you can chew / define.

Definitions are subject to endless re-drafting in Stonewall law. Gender Reassignment was a category that was intended to cover transsexuals. It was envisaged that this would cover post-operative transsexuals but, somewhere along the line, it expanded to includ those who, it was argued, may not be able to acccess surgery. It was never intended to cover the “transgender” community as it manifests itself today. This doesn’t deter the activists, however, who simply re-write the law to say what they wish it said! The use of this characteristic to include school pupils is a bit of a stretch but it is such a bad piece of law anyone can say they “intend” to undergo a medical procedure. I can’t blame them for trying.

This guidance it not the worst one I have seen because it recognises a responsiblity to the wider school community. It does not, for example, insist that a boy has to be recognised as a girl in respect of changing rooms and other facilities. I have an issue with the default position of assuming the disabled facilities don’t already have a designated purpose, so it is only a partial victory, but here they appear to accept girls facilities should not be opened up to boys.

Generally the issue of toilets, in the other guidance I have read, prioritises the gender identity over the rights of girls (and boys) to sex specific spaces. Here they frame it in terms of the vulnerability of the “trans” child. I actually don’t disagree with this. A girl who uses male changing rooms would be at risk of unwanted attention however she identifies. Boys who are less than macho have always been bullied and toilets/changing rooms are ideal theatres for that sort of behaviour.

The usurping of disabled facilities is something that sets a, potentially dangerous, precedent but it may be a proportionate response depending on the school population. At least here the dignity of student’s with disabilities are also considered. It remains to be seen how this is managed to ensure that the rights of disabled students/people are not cast aside for this group.

👈 Another interesting aspect of this guidance is that it includes this comment from a parent. It seems parents are at the risk of being over-ruled by zealous gender identity idealogues even when they have negotiated a pragmatic path for their “trans-identifying” offspring. I am surprised this comment made it passed the editors. This may have been due to the influence of the, female, police officer. Maybe not. As we shall see the more problematic bits of this guidance are the way they address the issue of “hate crime”. No doubt this is a reflection of the inclusion of the police in writing a transgender guidance document for schools. It’s an odd partnership. I will come onto the issue of hate crime.

The guidance on changing rooms and sports is grounded in reality and the needs of other students as well as the “trans” students. The needs of the trans student should be sensitive to the needs of other groups. This should be considered for girls only facilities (defined by sex) and the needs of disabled students.

The clip further down also recognises biological reality on the sports field. If you have read the earlier blogs, on transgender policies, you will know that it is by no means the norm for any concession to be made to biological facts, or the needs of other pupils.

The treatment of parents in these guidance packs is something I covered in my blog below. 👇Parents are sidelined, information is withheld, and we are painted as potential villains. Here the Cornwall guidance cautions that parents may not be the “most supportive or appropriate person to assist the young person through transitioning”. I suppose we should just leave it to the Tavistock! What could possibly go wrong? Clearly the school here are completely prepared to keep parents in the dark and allow pupils to take steps to “transition” without informing their parents.

Putting the Loco in Loco Parentis

These are the clips on the treatment of transphobia as a hate crime. An example of transphobia, provided below, is using the incorrect pronoun. Notice how soon this escalates into the language of hate crimes and victims. It also argues for mandatory re-education on gender identity.

The document then goes on to suggest appropriate learning materials with which to ~~indoctrinate~~ oops educate our children.

This includes some publications which are innocuous enough and could be used to dispell myths rooted in sex stereotypes. Until we get to Alex Drummond’s book about being a “girl”.

Alex has a degree in gender studies and discovered his inner lesbian after jettisoning critical thinking for a dose of Butler Bollox. He is a Stonewall Ambassador who claims he is expanding the bandwidth for women. Not so much expanding the bandwidth as destroying the category of “woman” entirely. When a man, with a beard, claims to redefine what it means to be a woman he displays the male privilege that is the power of naming. He also claims to be a lesbian, who brings out the inner lesbian in women, just in case he hasn’t destroyed heteronormativity enough to claim his place in the annals of gender identity HIStory. To be fair if Alex was everyman he would create a fair few political lesbians providing we could stick to the old-fashioned type i.e. women, the biological kind.🧐

Below is some homework to begin your re-education. I am sorely disappointed they failed to share some examples of trans history for us to debunk. Learn the terminology and make a mistake at your peril. We are watching you!

Articles on Gender Identity Ideology paypal.me/STILLTish

If you are salaried and unable to speak out /appreciate my work here is a way you can support me. I do this full time and with zero income.

£5.00

TAVISTOCK 4 : Michael Biggs

Michael has been indomitable in his research into the use of puberty blockers on, ever younger, children. Michael is an Oxford University academic who researches social movements and ordinary people, driven to extraordinary actions. He also researches self-harm as a form of social protest. An interesting background. As you will see from his paper he was told by some woke students to Educate Himself. So he did! Here’s what he uncovered.

As always I am happy for you to bypass my commentary and access the paper directly here. Either way I recommend reading the full paper.

PDF attached in case his work is taken down: Biggs_ExperimentPubertyBlockers

The pressure, on the Tavistock, Gender Identity Service (GIDs) to introduce earlier intervention is well documented. For neophytes you can can see the tensions, between Tavistock staff & Lobbyists, in this oral evidence to the Transgender Equality Inquiry. here. With contributions from Susie Green, of Mermaids, and Bernadette Wren, of the Tavistock.

The aim of Trans Activists was to get “The Dutch Protocol” embedded in Tavistock practice. This protocol advocated earlier intervention, seen as the key to a more passing Trans Community. Blocking puberty was one way to do this, since it halted the process of masculinisation/feminisation. Publicly Blockers were touted as merely allowing a delay to explore gender identity issues. Based on research this would seem to be pure Public Relations.

The paper goes into some detail on the activists involved in the campaign to institute this changed treatment protocol. One of the familiar names is Stephen Whittle. Whittle is a transman and has played a key role in instituting Transgender Ideology. The best way to pass as a man, it would appear, is to be to behave like the most regressive mysogynist and attack women’s rights. Below are some other key figures together with groups which provided funding. ( I did a double take at the Servite Sisters! My Uncle was a Servite Brother; which is a Catholic order. Sure enough, it’s a Charity run by Catholic Nuns. Why would Catholic nuns fund blocking puberty?)

Norman Spack was involved in the treatment of Susie Green’s child. Susie is now the head of Mermaids, the leading UK charity advocating for medicalising children. Parents with children, who have been through this process, are evangelical in their zeal to extend this to other children. I suspect the motivation is to reassure themselves they did the right thing. The over-investment of older Trans activists, for early transition, looks like retrospective wish fulfilment.

As stated above the argument for puberty blockers had mainly been promulgated as a “pause” providing a, temporary, halt to the development of sexual characteristics. So what happened in the Dutch study? We know that the Tavistock were aware of this study but they didn’t include this fact in their bid for funding and ethical approval. No adolescent withdrew from puberty suppression and all started cross-sex hormone treatment, the first step of actual gender reassignment (de Vries, Steensma, Doreleijers, et al., 2010) Source.

Biggs paper highlights the discrepancies in the statements from GIDS clinicians on Puberty Blockers as a pause. He even highlights near contemporaneous, and contradictory, statements on the topic. See Polly Carmichael, from the Children’s BBC programme, I am Leo, juxtaposed with a statement she gave to the Guardian at around the same time. “We just don’t have the evidence…”

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Ultimately Polly Carmichael got her wish. The Gender Identity Development Service eventually received ethical approval to administer Puberty Blockers to children. A first attempt was rejected but, undeterred, the application was made again. This time the Tavistock chose to submit the application to a different ethical approval body. It was then approved. The initial study was based on participants from 12 years old. However the evidence suggests the actual age of commencement can be as young as 10. [See Michael’s paper for how he deduced this. Also Dr Aiden Kelly admitting this in my earlier piece TAVISTOCK PART THREE (A)]

The paper illustrates how Tavistock accounts of the actual number of subjects involved have varied. The figure of 44 does not remain constant . This matters because one of the failings in much of the research, in this field, is a failure to follow up patients long term. Biggs traces the various numbers used in the public reporting on the study. Damningly, despite being the custodian of the research project, the Tavistock does not appear to be keeping adequate records on the experimental subjects or taking the opportunity to rectify the dearth of long term follow-up studies. A missed opportunity or a deliberate attempt at obfuscation? Dr Carmichael admits that they lose contact with subjects once referred, at age 18 to the adult services. She also admits that they have not tracked those given hormone blockers in a single database! Thus the medium and long term consequences are not being tracked. Despite this look at the growth in numbers being given this treatment and the reduction in the age at commencement. Moreover changes to names and NHS numbers also make it difficult to track those on the receiving end of this experiment. ⇓⇓⇓. All set out in the clips below.

Also note that almost all cases led to cross-sex hormones. Just as in the Dutch Study. Therefore this was not a pause and, 9 years on, the Clinicians involved must know this. Interestingly only in May 2020 did the NHS change its own guidance to stop referring to Puberty Blockers as “fully reversible”.

Biggs has some significant criticisms of the project. Only one of which is the failure to meet any reasonable threshold for informed consent by not revealing the seemingly, inevitable progression to Cross Sex hormones. He also highlights the risks of the use of the drub triptorelin, whose negative outcomes have either been ignored or supressed.

There is more information, in the public domain, about the treatment of dangerous sex offenders, than there is of children put on the same drug. Let that sink in.

Below are a couple of quotes. You can read the full study here Triptorelin.

You can read a detailed list here of : Side Effects

More details of the impact on male children include a stunting of genitalia and negative impact on sexual function. Given that any surgeries to create a “neo-vagina” rely on sufficient penile tissue, for the most common techniques, this is another serious concern.

Other damning evidence suggests a negative impact on fertility and even sexual function.

Even from the limited evidence that GIDS has shared, mainly in Abstract Form from presentations at conferences, Biggs argues that negative outcomes have been omitted or downplayed. Some of these relate to bone density, which should be increasing during puberty. Others relate to reported psycho-social functioning and even suicidal thoughts.

In the light of the concerns raised by the scant evidence in the public domain why has their been no detailed report over 9 years since the project commenced? Biggs raises some serious questions about how a “research project” , instituted in 2011, has been allowed to progress to 2020 without publishing a full evaluation.

Increasing media coverage and the beginnings of political scrutiny may finally be about to shine a spotlight on this experimental treatment. Currently there is an ex-patient, Keira Bell, in the process of taking the Tavistock to Judicial Review over the medical intervention she received. The Safeguarding Lead is to take the Tavistock to court after being informed that safeguarding information was being deliberately withheld from her. Another former member of staff , Susan Evans, commenced legal action over the treatment of children. The Cass Review will look at Puberty Blockers on behalf of NICE. Liz Truss has signalled a change of direction over the treatment of under 18’s.

More politicians are also waking up to this issue.

An Ex- Labour peer, and Doctor of Medicine, Lord Moonie, has been raising issues on the medicalisation of kids and the impact on women’s spaces for well over a year. (Banned from twitter & resigned from Labour over this issue.) Latterly a Conservative MP , Jackie Doyle-Price has begun to speak up. Baroness Nicholson another Conservative Peer has been a tour de force in raising issues about the creeping influence of Gender Identity Ideology. Another Medically trained peer, Lord Lucas raised a question in the House of Lords in May 2019.

At the time of that question we were told the data would be available in the next 12 months. We have heard that before. However Lord Lucas is on the case and assured me he intends to follow this up.

Michael acknowledges the support he had in putting this document together which I include here:

I will leave you with the original patient who triggered the establishment of The Dutch Protocol in the early 1990’s.

Patient B has been followed all the way up to age 35. One would assume that the outcome would have been positive and indeed patient B is highlighted as a success. Indeed they say they do not regret their transition. This does not look like a good outcome to me and I fear we will have many more before someone, finally, halts this experiment. Allow me to also make the observation that if were talking about a biological male there is no way an absence of a healthy sex life would be regarded as positive.

TAVISTOCK PART THREE (B): Aiden Kelly

Tavistock: 1989-2018

This is based on this youtube presentation by a member of staff at Tavistock in March 2018. You can watch this: here.

Here’s a transcript of the talk TAvistock part 3

I have covered the physical interventions we are visiting on children/youth, who present with Gender Dysphoria, here TAVISTOCK PART THREE (A)

I now want to examine what this talk tells us about how we diagnose these children and include a few quotes that didn’t make into part A. .

We are basing this diagnosis on the belief that, somehow, Gender Identity exists independently of biology and is sometimes in conflict with our biological sex.

⇐This slide shows that Dr Kelly recognises biological sex, sexual orientation and sexual identity exist. He also identifies, separately, Gender Roles, Gender Expression and Gender Identity.

Biological Sex is the easy one. Despite efforts to destabilise the definition of sex we are a sexually dimorphic species. Differences/Disorders of Sexual development (also referred to as intersex) don’t disrupt the “binary” of sex. Here are two people qualified to comment on the issue of sexual dimorphism. Claire’s comment, below, is a good one to keep handy as her article, published in the journal Nature, is often wheeled out to claim the opposite of what she meant. It is actually a fascinating Article

Dr Kelly defines our Biological sex as our anatomy and says it is an important part of our sexuality and sexual identity. I am not sure how sexual attraction is only partially reliant on biology, except that this matters in Transgender Ideology. Additionally, what does “sexual identity” mean here? It maybe to accommodate people who identify as the opposite sex (not just gender). Alternatively it is, perhaps, to include people who identify as a particular sexual orientation regardless of their sexed body. That is to be inclusive of self-described “male lesbians”, or female’s who identify as “gay men”.

Gender Identity is here described as a “personal and individual thing” which is not necessarily fixed. Yet another reason why it is not a good idea to base legal concepts on something undefinable and shifting. If Gender Identity relies on a personal, subjective feeling how is it sensible to codify it into Law?

Gender Expression. This seems to mean how you “perform” your gender and how you signal which gender you identify with/as.

Here Dr Kelly, an obvious biological male, talks about his identity as a man. We learn how this might be signalled by the way he dresses, manners, his hands and even the way he crosses his legs. This is all complicated by the notion of metrosexual males who may even cross their legs in a feminine way but still identify as male. Confused? Don’t worry. It is, apparently, complicated and kind of hard to think about. God help those of us with #LadyBrains.

Then there are Gender Roles.

Here he recognises these rely on gender stereotypes. Am I a woman because I pick up the dustpan and brush? Don’t be silly. That’s just a gender stereotype. We want to deconstruct those don’t we? And here we come to a startling admission. “The last thing we want to do is to have a young person changing their body to fit in with… societal rules”. Dr Kelly would love to take Gender out of this issue altogether. But, guess what, we have to deal with reality. I assume he means gender stereotypes are deeply entrenched and changing society is too hard. So what does he propose? We need to “carve out a space” for someone to express their gender, in ways that society will accept. Are we really carving up the bodies of young people because that is easier than transgressing expected norms of behaviour for fe/males? I am old enough to remember when Gender Non-Conforming behaviour was widespread. What happened? I give you Annie Lennox and Boy George. I could supply loads more examples.

Next we are introduced to the Gender Unicorn. (See Header). A slide that Dr Kelly uses to introduce concepts central to his work. Sex is, unsurprisingly, described as “assigned at birth”. People with DSDs are othered as a third sex. Sexual orientation is undermined by the inclusion of romantic/emotional attraction. We are using this tool in primary schools! So, is it entirely unsurprising we are seeing rising rates of Gender Dysphoria in girls, and boys? Who amongst us performs our sex stereotypical expectations 100% accurately?

It gets even more confusing when we examine how young children think about gender. We are provided with this slide which shows how children are socialised into expectations of what makes a boy or girl.

This kind of thinking, in a two year old, is quite cute. It is less so when espoused by our political, media and medical elite. I like my politicians to engage with issues as adults not toddlers.

There is not much to disagree with in the next slide except to wish the Dr would join the dots. Emerging sexuality and associated feelings of shame. (Surely worse for those who realise they are same sex attracted in a heteronormative culture). Anyone paying attention would see that the rigidity of the “gender binary” and the impact of parental or societal expectations has significantly worsened in the last twenty years.

Is the new rigidity of Gender Stereotypes a new Backlash against Women’s rights? As women encroach on male professions is this a new way to put women back in their box? Is the Public Femininity display a way to dispel the ball-breaking bitch trope? Are we displaying hyper femininity to signal we are no threat to men? This could be labelled compliance, or subversion, either way omething seems to be going on.

Moving on to the understanding of gender in 8 year olds. Dr Kelly makes an astute observation about the meaning of gender for young children compared to 38 year olds. Note that we are following one set of diagnostic criteria for both groups. Children pick up social cues which reflect the society in which they live. Adults, mainly males, also absorb expectations from adult depictions of female roles. Some of this in contexts (porn) that, you would hope, your eight year old has not encountered. See this interview with Andrea Chu who is remarkably honest about their pathway. You can read up on Chu’s thoughts on the role of sissy porn and the concept of the female as passive: here

Our kids are navigating such difficult territory. I was one of 8 children. Six of us girls. All the horrific statistics about sexual violence against women and children were played out on our bodies. I was a dungaree wearing, tree- climbing, jumper off buildings. We ran free and I was not unusual. Sure we had pretty dresses, for specific occasions, but overwhelmingly we lived in “playing out clothes”. These were the norm and we would nowadays, describe them as gender neutral. I was brought up in a pretty traditional household. Working class father. Manual occupation. Definitely seen as the breadwinner. Even in that context it was absolutely the norm for we girls to do this. Nowadays this would put us at risk of referral to the Gender Identity Industrial Complex!

Fast forward to puberty. As Dr Kelly recognises this is a hugely challenging time for young people. It’s a turbulent time for even the most well adjusted teen.

What happens if you throw in some complicated family dynamics? Below Dr Kelly outlines some scenarios. There are multiple everyday reasons why girls struggle during puberty. Growing up in a society with record violence against women, endemic woman hating porn, hyper-sexualised expectations for young women. No wonder girls are identifying out of their sex. For young boys, who don’t want to be associated with toxic masculine socialisation, who are gay and on the “femme” side the flip side of this equation comes into play. Throw in some domestic turbulence and you get some extreme rejections of what it means to be female /male in this society.

And lets not forget homophobia. Some parents would prefer a faux-straight child to a male child who they might think the behaviour, described below, signals their son may be a proto-gay male.

Dr Kelly goes on to talk about how people can hold toxic views about gender. People can also have quite toxic views rooted in homophobia.👇

I find myself bewildered that the Gender Identity Specialists didn’t anticipate this. The law of unintended consequences. Spend all your time banging on about undermining heteronormative culture and guess what? You did a great job of establishing a new, pernicious, way of establishing it. All your campaigning around “disrupting binary thinking about gender” and what did it achieve? We have actually established a way to make sex stereotypes “flesh” ; by carving up the bodies of boys and girls who don’t conform.

I wonder how many people, who have dedicated their lives to the furthering of this social revolution, have dark nights of the soul? They should.

Tag: Puberty Blockers

Graham Linehan: On Newsnight

Smith is confusing a retaliatory /defensive strategy for a pre-emptive strike.

Like this:

Tavistock: Domenico Di Ceglie 3

Like this:

Tavistock: Domenico Di Ceglio 2

Like this:

Tavistock: Domenico Di Ceglio 1

Like this:

Tavistock: Taylor Report

Taylor Report: Link below

Like this:

Amnesty U.K. What’s going on?

Like this:

Kiera Bell: Judicial Review

Like this:

Cornwall: Transgender Guidance

Like this:

TAVISTOCK 4 : Michael Biggs

Like this:

TAVISTOCK PART THREE (B): Aiden Kelly

Tavistock: 1989-2018

Like this:

Smith is confusing a retaliatory /defensive strategy for a pre-emptive strike.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Taylor Report: Link below

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Tavistock: 1989-2018

Share this:

Like this: