Joanne (Pete) Lockwood

Lockwood was born Peter, in 1965. He has been married at least thirty one years and has at least two children. He has quite a lot of content on his own podcast and has done interviews where he explains that he sold his business, predictably in IT, to live his authentic truth. He appears to have started living full-time in his late fifties. Subsequently he got caught up in tax arrears, lost his house and took out an IVA which is an agreement to pay off his creditors. It’s worth thinking about in what predicament this left his wife. Also worth reflecting on this which is on his YouTube channel. £7000 spent on personal grooming.

He has recently begun to be trotted out on GB News which is where I came across him. Before I get into all his other content it is worth looking at this Channel 4 documentary which focuses on Jo/Pete getting a new wig.

In marked contrast to his wife Lockwood is clearly giddy with the attention he is getting. Marie, his wife, has to go outside and in another space to hide her tears. Her husband has already been on hormones for two years but watching him get a more permanent weave/wig is clearly traumatising.

Clearly she is wondering how she will feel sexually attractive to him whilst he emphasises that he doesn’t want to lose her because they are best friends. He needs a woman to cos play as his girl friend to make the fantasy real.

The young hairdresser sees Marie go outside and Lockwood emphasises his care for her and his empathy, the cynic in me thinks he has read that females are more empathetic and so he must perform it now he is a “Lady”. Her distress provides another opportunity for him to indulge his fantasy.

By contrast Marie constantly suppresses her own feelings to prioritise her husbands but she is clearly struggling.

Lockwood can barely suppress his excitement at his transformation and, in a very revealing, aside he lets slip what this is really all about. There are three of them in this marriage and two of them are Pete/Jo.

After expressing her difficulty with accepting his transformation and indication that divorce couls still be on the cards they have this exchange. He did try to inject somewhat of a questioning tone to his voice but the words are stark.

Marie tries to make light of it and jokes that he would have to get divorced first snd also that she still has not made her mind up. Clearly this attempt at levity is too much of her and she moves away and turns her back on the camera and is clearly sobbing, Notice how every time she dares to think about the impact on her she soon centres her husband. She knows he is the most important person in this drama, to everybody around her and doesn’t even dare to say the truth that its invaded HER life.

Meanwhile The husband talks like a teenage boy fantasising about his very own pair of tits. I don’t know any women who celebrate the bouncing breasts of the stairs climber. But “Jo” finds this validating. Interestingly this was the segment of the show about how Marie was finding it difficult to come to terms with and it soon becomes clear they are in separate beds.

He cant see anything beyond his own need for validation. The next seen is a visit to a couple who are friends. Marie has decided not to go and look at how her husband describes this and how soon he brings the discussion to focus on himself. Her pain is another opportunity to revel in his own “femininity”

When he arrives at the friends’ house, without his wife he can’t resist telling them that it was Marie who put his hair in a bun while he asks the male friend which hair colour he prefers referring to his previous, blond, wig. Men like this require validation from males as well as females.

Marie must have some good friends who have told her what he is doing is selfish. Bravo her for feeling able to vocalise it. “Selfish” is in her top ten of words to describe what he is doing. That is not all he is doing but Marie likely doesnt have any experience of this and is blindsided after thirty one years of marriage.

The show ends with Marie and “Jo” celebrating their thirty first wedding anniversary with a trip to Amsterdam.

You can watch it here

The Making Of Me

I will do a follow up piece on his podcast content and his new career as a public speaker and diversity consultant. I have already listened to his first podcast where he, predictably, picked (tricked?) a woman with a PhD who talks about neuroscience and discrimination against women in the workplace. Ironically she is big on trusting your instincts but thinks some women should deny their instinctive recognition of men, She was smug and infuriating…till next time.

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully receive and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)

My Substack

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

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

£10.00

I’m better than you: Jordan Gray

Featured

Jordan Gray has had quite a bit of coverage already, but I have been sent a few links and it seems worthwhile to add a post on the U.Ks Dylan Mulvaney: with added smut. Jordan Gray is a queer theory version of Benny Hill, who is trying to take the man out of Bernard Manning.

He first came to my attention when Channel 4 used him on a reboot of Ben Elton’s Friday Night Live. Elton ( He/Him. Who knew?) hosted and began with an abject capitulation to the show noun nonsense. Gray displayed his hormonally atrophied (I assume) penis and used it to play the piano. All standard fare for the trash tv favoured by Channel 4.

The more noteworthy aspect of Gray’s act was the lyrics to his song, which dripped with contempt for women.The refrain was “Better Than You”. He comes across as an incredible narcissist. The lyrics are illustrative of the way these men express their misogyny. There is a peculiar hatred of women expressed by men who cannot be us.

Educate and Celebrate

Gray was a patron of the above charity (Educate and Celebrate) along with Peter Tatchell, at the time of his Channel 4 appearance,

After his “performance” Gray was removed as a patron for the, now defunct, charity Educate and Celebrate. The charity moved swiftly to deny Gray had been into schools, on their behalf, and sought to disassociate from him.

Unfortunately, for them, it soon emerged the chair of trustees, Julie Bremner, had promoted his appearance.

I had a look at their entry on the Charity Commission website and it no longer appears to list their trustees. However, I downloaded them last year to have a look.

This is Julie Bremner and Elly Barnes, taken from their annual report.👇

Dame Vicky Paterson was executive head of three schools and achieved her Dame hood for services to education.

Remarkably this charity attracted government funding 👇

In a statement,following the closure, of the charity Bremner promised to be back in another guise.

Jordan Gray in schools.

He visited the Passmore Academy for International Women’s Day to inspire the school children.

It was not just secondary schools. He also went into primary schools at the behest of Educate and Celebrate.

Here is another example of him with Elly Barnes. 👇

Here he is with trans activist Lady Phyll.

Even more worrying he claims to be talking to toddlers about this topic.

Mermaids Fundraiser.

This man also fundraised for another controversial charity, Mermaids. He was in good company having been preceded by John Barrymore and Lorraine Kelly on DigiFest2020.

Channel 4. BBC Radio 4 and ITV.

After performing his mysogynistic song, Gray bashed a piano with his penis and completed his display with full frontal nudity which not only showcased his penis but also his hormonally induced chesticles.

Channel 4 were very proud of this performance. Here is Alex Mahon defending Gray’s display.

As if this wasnt insult enough they gave the talentless di** an award.

Not to be outdone BBC Radio 4 soon jumped on the bandwagon. Having waded through some of his content for the purposes of this piece, I can attest he is extremely unfunny and a bit of a one trick pony.

Bonus Content.

After I published I was sent this radio 4 show on “Breast Medicine” and of course Jordan Gay was invited to discuss his “breasts” along side a woman who actually had breast cancer and someone who pioneers the use of artifical intelligence to improve detection rates for breast cancer.

Breast Medecine

Somebody also reminded me that he appeared on ITV Transformation Street, where we find him having fake implants in his chest and trying on a wedding dress, for him, not for his fiancee.

Transformation Street

“Trans” day of Visibility.

This is a very revealing interview. Gray claims to be a Lesbian. How hetrosexual men have manged to hijack the gay rights movement will, eventually, produce numerous PhDs.

This man has no intention of removing his penis because his girlfriend likes it.

Here is his advice to others followimg in his footsteps. He makes it clear that everyone else’s discomfort is a price he is willing to pay. People can stand being a bit uncomfortable, apparently.

He also complains about trans bodies being fetishised unless, of course, that is your thing. Mustn’t kink shame.

Previous attempts to gain fame.

As far as I could see no judges turned around but he seems to have got a place on the Voice in 2016. Worth watching the performance which is incredibly bad. Subsequently I was told that another contestant, allegedly, dropped out for unspecified reasons and this allowed the judges to reintroduce him to the competition. I am not an avid watcher of these kind of shows but I am told this is highly unusual.

Cass Report

I was not going to write on Gray until this from Joe Lycett’s show. Gray is not only feted by Channel 4, Radio 4 but also by a host of comedians like Lycett, Ritchie Herring, Ben Elton and Russel Howard. This perforance,again on Channel 4, is the mist despicable, damaging contribution to public life i have seen. Imagine making a joke about the thousands of children, irrevocably harmed by gender “medicine”

You can watch his youTubes below. First up is his contribution to “trans” visibility. Gray On Trans Visibility

Here is his appearance at Passmore Academy school.

At Passmore Academy

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

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

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

£10.00

Eve Echo

Featured

Trans in the city

Eve is another trans activist and part of the stable that is Trans in The City. This is his bio:👇 Notice he boasts that he was part of the Good Law Project’s High Court case against NHS England to protest NHS waiting times. Of course they lost.

Eve is the media person at Trans in The City and boasts of their collaboration with the esteemed, peer reviewed journal Pink News.

He is yet another Trans Activist who has inveigled his way into the Crown Prosecution Services, to sit on their Hate Crime panel.

He also boasts about advising the London Metropolitan Police and is part pf their learning and development team.

Eve Echo also gave a Ted Ex talk specifically for women. This was Teeside Women.

What did the man, who has a wife who is a tatoo artist, choose for his topic? Apparently it was billed as a talk on seizing opportunities but he wasn’t going to talk about that. He turned up in a sort of baby doll dress, like something Grayson Perry would wear.

He announced he would be changing the topic of his talk and began to wax lyrical about his nipples! Yes, thats right. He dresses it up in some sort of pseudo, feminist, argument about the way women are oppressed because our culture doesn’t allow women to display their nipples, in public, but we allow this privilege to men. I hope by now women, if only my readers, are wise to this tactic.

In another YouTube he delved into the vexed issue of trans-exclusion in the field of Sport. He appeared along side Verity Smith (ex of Mermaids) and another Trans in the City person, Oscar Hoyle. Heres what he had to say which was the usual bad faith argument.

Eve is really angry about campaigns for single sex sports and expresses it with the usual tinpot totalitarian vibe.

This is an overview after watching all the content I could find. If it is a little thin its because there does not seem to be much depth to our Mr Echo. Also one of his interviews was along side Freda Wallace and he didn’t get much of a look in. Another one of the panel appearances was along side an elderly trans activist, Roz Kavenney so he was somewhat over shadowed there too. He likes to describe himself as gobby and does not give much biographical detail, though he does let slip he used to play Chess tournaments for his Cheshire school.

He is not a very interesting subject but is working with the police, the CPS, and is part of an exhibition at the Science Museum so hundreds of school children will have been exposed to him.

Here are the YouTube links

Gender Nebulous

And this one from Trans in the City.

With Verity Smith from Mermaids

This is the link to his Ted Talk.

The One with the Nipples

I think its about time I covered Roz Kavenney, so I might do him next.

My Substack

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

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

£10.00

Gender Affirming Care: 2008

Featured

Thanks to twitter user @Tea94852859 I was alerted to this paper from 2008, on whether or not to block puberty, Here it is : 👇

08sep-cohen-kettenis-jsm2008

Before I covered this paper I had a look at Peggy Cohen-Kettenis to see any interviews she had given. I found her make this statement about “Patient B” who was the inspiration for beginning pubertal suppression in children who presenting with “gender incongruence”. Here’s was Cohen-Kettenis had to say about “Patient B”

You have to look at Michael Biggs work to get a little more detail on “patient B” 👇

It later transpired that patient B was also a Lesbian.

Cohen-Kettenis was described as “brave” by John Money. 👇

John Money was the man responsible for experimenting on the Reimer twins. One of the twins had a botched circumcision which destroyed his penis. Money advised his parents to raise him as a girl and hide this sex from him. Later it was also revealed that the twins were subject to some sexual impropriety at the hands of Money. It was hidden for many years that the experiment failed and the twin realised he was actually male and reverted to living as a man. Tragically, both twins committed suicide.

Cohen-Kettenis also does not dwell on the boy who died during the attempt to fashion a simulacra of female genitalia. This outcome is given in one sentence, in the report on the outcomes of the Dutch Protocol.

Again Michael Biggs sheds more light on the reason why this patient died. He died as a result of complications from surgery, that were a direct consequence of the pubertal suppression.

She proceeds to describe how feminine were the people who had early treatment and mentions Nikki, of Nikki’s Tutorials, who is a make up YouTuber. Nikki is a hugely successful social influencer who recently married another man. So, another homosexual who has been “transed”. We will never know what Nikki’s life could have been or whether he could have lived happily as a gay man.

I was inclined to sympathy for Nikki until someone sent me this information about him representing women at the United Nations.

Nikki did not start puberty suppression till age 14 which, from my research, would suggest he had already reached the age of sexual function. Unlike the kids who have their puberty blocked earlier and, as Marci Bowers, president of WPATH, admitted will be rendered anorgasmic.

You can watch her here

Peggy Cohen Kettenis

The paper: Remember this was in 2008!

Here is the abstract.

Pro-Pubertal suppression

The paper outlines the arguments in favour of pubertal suppression and those against. The pro-arguments focus on avoiding the “torment” of going through the wrong puberty and the passability of those wishing to mimic the opposite sex. She does outline some research suggestive of the idea that there may be a biological cause for “Gender incongruence”. However even she is not confident in the research and concedes that, in the absence of a definitive diagnostic tool, we are reliant on the subjective assessment of the patient, which will likely be mediated through a practitioner of “gender medicine”.

She also admits that all the research shows a shocking percentage of these kids will resolve their gender incongruence, if left alone. It is not highlighted that most of these kids would simply turn out to be gay.

She admits that there are some clinicians who are less than confident about the interventions based on the diagnostic tools available. Here it is described it as “a less than solid foundation” for the medical interventions prescribed.

The arguments pro pubertal suppression centre on the children who have presented with a persistent rejection of their natal sex. The authors describe a myriad of mental health conditions that they argue are not co-morbid with the “gender dysphoria” but are rather caused by the Gender Identity Disturbance. They report parents and patients confirmed there was a relief of suffering once puberty was halted. This, they argue, gave the patients “time to think” a phrase that, some would argue, is undermined by the fact that 98% + continue onto cross sex hormones. Yet, the authors present the opposite argument, the continuance on this path is because the diagnostic criteria applied has a high degree of accuracy.

There is a high premium placed on “passability” as the opposite sex. The emphasis on this seems in part driven by the masculine appearance of the late transitioning males who wish to pass as women. This is less of an issue for females who take testosterone who, at least superficially, more likely to pass as small men.

The other argument is that stopping the development of secondary sexual characteristics removes some unnecessary surgeries. moreover it is argues that there are worse outcomes the later the surgery takes place. Finally the authors contend that not providing this option risks patients seeking illegal means to access the drugs.

The case against: When in doubt abstain?

We now move onto the arguments opposed to these early interventions. These centre around the difficulty of diagnosis and skepticism about the stability of the child’s /adolescent identity. In addition the physical development brought about through puberty may resolve the “gender incongruence” . (In particular relationships my develop that enable acceptance of a homosexual orientation which, bizarrely, is not mentioned).

The high rates of desistance are, to my mind, a particularly compelling argument. 80-95% would be better off if left alone! Again. no mention of how many of these would simply be gay!

Another risk relates to bone density and brain maturation.

The riskier surgery for males deprived of normal penile development.👇. The authors argue that new techniques have been developed to address this issue but note that Jazz Jennings required revisions after his surgery as do many other “transitioners” who have gone public about their surgeries.

This is all an experiment driven by the belief in “gender identity” as an innate facet of the “trans” child. Yet the authors speak of the torment of going through a natural puberty.

The authors describe blocking puberty as reversible but also concede that the impact on brain maturation is unknown. 🤷‍♀️

The authors conclude my claiming that not intervening is more of an ethical dilemma than intervening. We are a long way from ending this practice. Cass Review is out this week but, sadly, I don’t anticipate it saying what needs saying.

You can see the work of Michael Biggs in this YouTube. His work is exemplary.

Michael Biggs

My Substack

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

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

£10.00

Graham Linehan: On Newsnight

Featured

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

Tag: Puberty Blockers

Joanne (Pete) Lockwood

Like this:

I’m better than you: Jordan Gray

Like this:

Eve Echo

Like this:

Gender Affirming Care: 2008

Like this:

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:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

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: