Martine Rothblatt: Transgender to Transhuman: Chapter 5

Featured

This chapter is called Science and Sex. The “science” as you will see is, to put it mildly, contested.

Rothblatt begins with this quote which is interesting because this entire book is built on belief not empiricism.

He opens with a discussion of Thomas Kuhn who talked about how new knowledge is created by a fracturing of belief in existing knowledge; resulting in a paradigm shift. What Rothblatt is pushing is an end to the “belief” in sexual dimorphism and establishing the primacy of “gender identity”. Notice this common rhetorical trick from Rothblatt, 👇the conflation of two different issues, belief in the fact of sexual dimorphism; does NOT mean a belief in two “mental natures”. These are separate topics.

Kuhn did correctly identify a flaw in academia, where young researchers are reluctant to engage in work that criticises their seniors and older academics resist a new paradigm; which could undermine their own body of work. Rothblatt knows what he is doing because he promotes the idea that this area of research offers “interesting” opportunities for young researchers to create “new knowledge”. He also uses “revolutionary” which is an attractive buzzword to the young.

This is the new paradigm that Rothblatt seeks to embed. Notice that he wishes to disassociate reproduction from the female sex class and promote a new model of “sociotechnical” means. He is, of course, a supporter of surrogacy and developments experimenting to manipulate science to enable the possibility to outsource motherhood and even to allow males to gestate a child.

Another trick he uses, somewhat repetitively, is to equate sex separated spaces with segregation of the races. This is a common tactic used by Nancy Kelley who called Lesbians, unwilling to date penis-havers, “sexual racists”. It was also used by David Lammy during the passing of the Gender Recognition Act, in the U.K.

He also puts the cart before the horse; claiming separation of the sexes allows women to be treated as inferior. In reality, single sex spaces were hard won women’s rights activists to enable women to participate in public life and end the “urinary leash”.

Bearing in mind Rothblatt campaigns to end the collection of sex based data in the census he is not afraid to use census based data to advance his arguments. The wording here is odd, almost as if he is suggesting female infanticide is to save girls from the sad fate of being a woman. In reality females are aborted / murdered because males are prized over females.

In common with a lot of people, who’s critical thinking has been corrupted by queer theory and post modernist ideas that, crudely, “language shapes reality”. He genuinely believes that if we do away the labels male and female then sexism will cease to exist. At the same time we will be unable to track this because data will cease to be collected. This has already started to have consequences in, for example, crime statistics where male sex offenders are having their crimes recorded under the female category.

Rothblatt again draws parallels with sexist science claiming female brains were different and inferior. Once again there are feminist neuro-biologists who have attacked much of the purported “science” of lady brain. Personally I think it is unlikely that there are no differences but certainly much of the research is built on flimsy foundations. Cordelia Fine debunks a lot of this research as does Gina Rippon. It is also worth noting that many trans-activists claim that there is such a thing as a “female brain” and it can “accidentally” land in a male body.

As always Martin cherry picks the research to undermine the notion of two sexes. His argument is that because some women can do maths or read a map then biological sex doesn’t exist.

Having set up this straw man Rothblatt proceeds to argue sexual dimorphism cannot explain female mathematicians so we need a new paradigm based on the idea sex exists on a continuum.

The problem is that Rothblatt thinks if we stop calling men male this will eradicate male aggression. This is magical thinking. Until the sex offending class stop being responsible for 99% of sex offences this idea is madness. 👇

Chromatic Categorisation.

So what does Martine propose to replace sex categories with? Unbelievably it is this idea.

Here is a handy chart that he includes.

Seriously! Now might be a good idea to post another quote from Rothblatt from this chapter.

Good luck with this endless navel gazing claptrap.

The above table speaks volumes about Rothblatt’s internal psyche. He seems to have retained the same dualism aggressive versus nurturing of every sexist man ever. He is leaving the categories intact! (See Janice Raymond on this, in my series on Transsexual Empire).

Oh, honey it really isn’t realistic and “ungenitally infected” WTF! 😳.

Finally he links this all back to project transhumanism. He anticipates “some” people will be resistant to trans humans just as there will be *some* people resistant to the eradication of the sexes. Yep. There will be, resistance is building.

Just to contextualise this quote it comes from a man asked to define pornography and he said he couldn’t “but I know it when I see it.

If you want to tip the balance in favour of women and against these crazy billionaires you can donate here:

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

£10.00

Martine Rothblatt: A Billion Sexes!

Featured

Chapter 1.

This is part of a series on this book. This is the second edition. The original title was The Apartheid Of Sex.

In this edition Rothblatt elaborates on his original thesis and introduces us to the real project. A new type of human. Human Avatars.

 

I am allowing myself a wry chuckle at Rothblatt’s attempt to claim there are more than two sexes and also that “transgenderism” is a grassroots movement and labelling male and female is akin to South African apartheid. He also claims this emerged from feminist thinking which is a familiar distortion and, sadly, has convinced many a woman who claims the feminist label.

Rothblatt uses the fact that men and women don’t tend to adhere to sex stereotypes as an argument that male and female is a continuum. It is certainly true that many, I would even say most, people do not perform a pure Barbie or a G.I. Joe; I would argue that uber conformist “feminine” women or “masculine” men are a minority. If we were to draw up a list of characteristics, traditionally associated with either sex, I challenge you to find one person of your acquaintance who doesn’t deviate. This could be my body building, HGV driving, brother who is afraid of spiders and enjoys bird watching (feathered variety) and does a mean Beyoncé impression. Or his dynamo of an ex wife, a diminutive blonde, who dealt with the said spiders and is super ambitious, a leader and a force to be reckoned with. Rothblatt recognises all of this but, for him, it adds up to “Men can become women”; all entirely unconnected to his own identification as a “transgender woman” I am sure. 🤔

Sex assigned at birth.

The first step in embedding this ideology is to claim the identification of sex is problematic. Sadly the NHS and the British Medical Journal have both adopted this terminology. In fact there are a tiny number of babies, with an indeterminate sex at birth. A simple Karyotype test will confirm the biological sex and which disorder of sexual development (DSD) he, or she, suffers from. Each of these DSDs affect either males or females, conforming that we are, in fact sexually dimorphic.

Martina’s biology lets him down here because the vagina is not visible: he means the vulva. He is right that the life a baby will have be shaped from the moment they are dressed in pink or blue. The baby will be treated differently in conscious and unconscious ways. Girl babies are left to cry for longer, for example, boys rewarded for “cheeky” behaviour and girls admonished etc, etc.

From this Rothblatt leaps to the idea that sex is not immutable but is a “lifestyle choice”. Notice all these conclusions validate his choice to “live as a woman” whatever that means. Methinks the wish is father to the thought.

Professor Ann Fausto-Sterling.

It’s worth spending a bit of time on Fausto-Sterling and her views. The 4% is an exaggeration that includes all disorders of sexual development, many of which create no confusion about the sufferer’s biological sex and are only apparent when , for example, menstruation fails to start.

Here is another contribution from the Professor, in which she claims there are five sexes. Later she claimed she was being “ironic”.

I include this exchange because it amuses me. Colin is right but I have to admire her magisterial put down. 😂 (I know that makes me a bit contrary).

Richard Lewontin

Rothblatt also presses Lewontin into service. I have made some enquiries about his work to try to determine if Rothblatt simply inserted (sex) and Lewontin was talking about race; for which he is well known. Lewontin has now passed on so we have to rely on his existing body of work.

This is a quote from Lewontin, he argued against classifying humans by biology in terms of race. From what I can ascertain he also railed against the exclusion of women from specific professions but I would doubt that he also thought men should be able to undress beside his wife. (He had a long marriage and they died within days of each other).

Lady Brain.

I am not entirely sure where Rothblatt lands, ultimately, in relation to brain sex. He seems to argue that there are no biological differences, between men and women in respect of our gray matter, but then he also talks of the “transgendered brain”; the idea that a female brain has landed in a male body. I am going to assume that the Lawyer in him throws a number of arguments at the issue, in the hope that one will stick.

Rothblatt spends a bit of time on this and brings our old friend Fausto-Sterling into play. All that needs saying is that nobody separates spaces by “brain sex”. Spaces are separated on the basis of which sexed body houses the brain.

New Feminist Thinking

Let us see which feminists he has pressed into service. Sylvia Law is based in New York and employed at a University so I am going to assume she is on the same page as Rothblatt. Ruth Bader Ginsberg argued for fair treatment for the sexes using a man as her first case, reasoning that the all male panel adjudicating may be stirred to sympathy for one of their brothers; I think she knew biological sex was real. Simone De Beauvoir gets trotted out all the time by the hard of thinking.

Simone De Beauvoir

What De Beauvoir was arguing was that what we assume to be the nature of women is actually largely due to. female socialisation. You can watch her talk about her position in this interview:

Simone De Beauvoir

Here are a few clips:

Knows which sex gestates and bears children. Argues this is not the cause of female oppression it’s the pretext.

Finally Simone thinks women need spaces away from men to discuss issues that affect us.

Margaret Mead

Margaret Mead is an anthropologist most famous for her book Coming of Age in Samoa. She also wrote a book called Male and Female. In that book she examines the different ways women and men are expected to behave in different cultures. In some women are regarded as too weak in another women are the beast of burden and believed to have more capacity to carry loads on their heads. Sometimes the male children are seen as the vulnerable ones, in others it is the female children. Like De Beauvoir she sees the way being male or female, in terms of expected behaviours, as societally constructed. She does not, however, disregard the existence of two sexes.

You can read the entire book via open library.org. She does have a lot to say about the way different societies accommodate more “feminine” men who are sometimes accommodated, as homosexuals, via various manifestations of transvestism. She does bear in mind that however the expectations of the sexes vary between societies there is a core truth that appears in all societies.

John Money

John Money was a sexologist whose posthumous reputation is now besmirched by his role in the Rheimer twins. One of the twins had his penis burnt off during a botched circumcision. His parents came to Money for help and they were advised to raise one of the twins as a girl. Later it emerged that the twins had been sexually abused, by Money, when they were taken to see him. In the end the twin, raised as a girl, discovered his secret which explained his inability to fit in as a “girl”. He reverted to acknowledge his birth sex. Both twins committed suicide. Rothblatt mentions none of this.

Money is brought in to claim that differences between men and women are few and that the day is coming for a male pregnancy since fertilisation has occurred in women without wombs. Even uterus implants in females have a low success rate in terms of live births.

Rothblatt argues that technology has made the differences between males and females irrelevant because machinery can allow anyone to do the “heavy” work and formula can substitute for breast milk. Martine seems to have a bad case of womb envy.

I will leave this chapter there and return with Transgenderism, The Apartheid of Sex and Persona Creatus.

This should give you an idea of Rothblatt’s scattergun style of argument. He is a master of appropriation, cherry picking arguments, leaving out inconvenient facts. He is compulsively driven to mould the world to validate his desire to be the opposite sex while, at the same time, obliterating the reality of the sex to which he claims membership.

If you want to see male entitlement, ruthless quest for dominance and a desperation to achieve mastery there is no better case study.

You can support my work here.

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

£10.00

Bernadette Wren: Tavistock 2

Featured

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

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

Bernadette Wren:Tavistock

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

Hijra

Wren continues with this statement about “cisgender” people.

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

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

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

Authentic Self

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

Gender Fluid

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

Non-Binary people

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

Referral Rates to the Tavistock, Children’s Service

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

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

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

Article in The Times.

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

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

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

£10.00

Spreading Gender Ideology in Africa 5

Final part on “trans” activism in Africa. This series was based on two reports from conferences held in Africa. One of the conferences was funded by the International Trans Fund who were given 3 million dollars to promote this ideology, by Arcus foundation. I covered this in part one. The rest of the series looks at a 2017 conference organised by trans activists and a pro-prostitution lobby group.

You can read the full conference report here:

CFCS-VI-Report-ENG

For the final piece I just want to highlight some of the voices quoted in the report and draw attention to the commonalities with more “Western” styles of trans-activism and also where it diverges.

They are not quite so explicit about demanding access to single sex spaces as we have in the U.K. Many charities who work in the African context still advocate for the provision of toilet facilities because women forced to toilet outside are vulnerable to sexual assault. Thus you can see a kind of schizophrenia in International NGOs who try to reconcile the promotion of gender neutral facilities, in the west, with the opposite policies overseas. This was very clear to me on reading a report on addressing sexual assault in schools /Universities. A thread I did two years ago on a document produced by the United Nations (UN Women). I decided to blog on that document because it seemed to be written in an attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable and fits in well with this series. 👇

UN Women: Campus Safety

I would suggest that the trans lobby groups across Africa have similar aims to those in the U.K and North America but they don’t tackle it head on. This clip, for instance, is could be a reference to segregated spaces on the basis of sex but, given historic apartheid, they have plausible deniability.

Here the reference is to accessing “trans” spaces for those unable to access synthetic cross sex hormones. The reply from another activist makes it unlikely that “trans” people are excluding those unable to access these treatments, for two reasons. Firstly we are told, elsewhere in the report, about the low numbers of ”trans” people able to access hormones/surgeries and, secondly, many activists are arguing against it being a condition for “transition”. This leads me to conclude that the spaces the males wish to access are female spaces. Nevertheless, it suggests that activists were not yet confident enough, in 2018, to be forthright about this.

Ricky sounds the most like a U.K. trans activist and continues in this vein making it clear that whether, or not, to take medical treatment should be a personal choice.

👇Make men’s spaces unsex and stay out of women’s, single sex spaces Ricky.

Feminism?

There is no definitive statement about the sex of Patience but I am going to take a wild stab in the dark that Patience is male and his radical feminism bears no resemblance to radical feminism.

Chan rejects radical feminism, particularly the African version. 👇 He describes himself as a ”transfeminist” and equality for all which, as we know, is not any kind of feminist because it does not centre actual women.

Homosexuality.

I just want to add a couple of points about an undercurrent of resentment to homosexuals. More than one participant laments the lack of understanding of ”trans” as opposed to the gay male /lesbian community. Ricki complains of a lack of acceptance from within the community.

I read this as a suggestion to decouple the trans agenda from sexual orientation to avoid the stigma from the association with the gay community.

Another participant seems to think gaining rights for homosexuals is not the biggest fight facing the LGBTI + community. They also lament restrictions on accessing foreign funding.

Online Health care.

Another think they have in common with the UK is the reckless prescribing by virtual gender clinics. Here is an Ethiopian attendee describing the process 👇.

In conclusion

African trans activists seem reluctant to directly make a demand to be in single sex spaces. I am sensing an undercurrent of resentment to the LGB now that they have successfully inserted themselves into a gay rights movement. Since we know many detransitioners realise they were dealing with internalised homophobia this seems a reasonable way to interpret the quotes from Ricki.
Given the comment about restricted access to foreign funds I think a useful line of enquiry would be to keep an eye on conditions attached to foreign aid, especially from the European Union. Western governments could also drive this agenda by attaching conditions to trade agreements.

The role of Charitable foundations is a key feature driving the spread of gender identity ideology but we can’t ignore the role of corporations as one, South African, attendee noted 👇. Many of these corporations are driving the spread of Gender Identity Ideology via the World Economic Forum.

You can support my work here. Only do so if you have sufficient funds. I know there are also worthy legal causes and other crowd funders that need our support.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s global reach. Defending women’s sex based rights and gay rights from the intended consequences from this ideology.

£10.00

Spreading Gender Ideology in Africa 3

Featured

In part 2 we looked at how Trans activists are working with the media, police forces, politicians and the legal profession to advance their case across the African continent. The first conference I covered was funded, directly, by the International Trans Fund using funds provided by the Arcus Foundation. The 2017 conference was funded by an alliance of pro-prostitution lobby groups and LGBTI+ groups.

Intersex (Disorders of Sexual Development)

This section of the conference is labelled ”intersex” which is a term that has fallen out of favour with people who actually suffer from these medical conditions. They tend to prefer disorder, or differences, in sexual development (DSDs). Trans-activists exploit these medical condition to claim they prove that sex is a spectrum and finally that men can be women. It is common for people to lie and claim to have one of these conditions so I approach these claims with a healthy degree of skepticism.

In this part of the conference there is what seem to be a genuine section explaining that some people don’t accept the very tiny number of babies who have a visible DSD at birth. This seems plausible, however, telling a child they can ”choose their sex” is a lie. Each one of these disorders is sex specific.

Less plausible is the person who claims to be intersex, thought to be a boy but commenced menstruating and developing breasts as a teenager.

Legislation to protect people with DSDs is laudable and some of the medical practices can harm babies born with these medical conditions, however, some of these conditions are life threatening and do need early medical intervention. Many genuine people with DSDs feel they are being harmed when their conditions are hijacked by trans activists who reduce their medical status to an ”identity”.

Sex and Pleasure

There is only a short report on this session. The participants were asked to write down their sexual fantasies.

We were then treated to some of the fantasies. These were the ones shared in the conference report. 😳

This is how the rapporteur ended this section.

Body Economics

This session focuses on prostitution which, of course, they call ”sex work”. This is not a surprise since the conference organiser is a pro-prostitution lobby group. Again that description of being ”sensitised” to the sex-worker movement”. He is being groomed.
They are right about the violence meted out to prostituted, trans-identifying males. One of the reasons I think promoting prostitution is deeply harmful.

They cover efforts to record violence against prostitutes which nobody objects to but they are also working to decriminalie the trade in, predominantly, women’s bodies. They are working with the police, media and even religious leaders. Just to be clear, I am in favour of decriminalising the women, and men, engaged in prostitution but not the buyers and certainly not the pimps. Organisations claiming to be led by ”sex workers” are , in my opinion, just a front for the Pimp lobby.

These are the principles the participants are required to sign up to:

Just to prove my suspicion are well founded they conform they are working with the pimp lobby, allegedly to keep prostitutes safe.

The promotion of prostitution is particularly egregious since this is the leading cause of the murder of trans-identifed males. As documented on the Trans Murder Monitoring Project. 62% were murdered whilst in prostitution, it is also not a colour blind crime if you look at the % of people of colour. 👇

I will do more on this document to cover the ”Donor Dating” session which was an opportunity for groups to learn about funding they could tap into. One of those present was someone from the European Parliament who was keen to point out the EU have over taken the U.S in aid to Africa. My worry is that the conditions attached to any funding could act as a perverse incentive to accept this toxic export from “Western” countries.

You can support my work here. Only do so if you can afford I know there are competing demands on everyone’s funds. Any gift gratefully received .

Researching the spread of gender identity ideology. Focus on women’s sex based rights, and the negative impact on gay rights, especially the gay youth. Also keen to demonstrate this is neo-colonialism

£10.00

Trans4Me: Nottingham

Featured

I think these youth groups for ”trans-identifying” children and young adults need some scrutiny. I will do a series on these (tip-offs welcom). One of the people involved with this group (TRANS4ME) is, according to their linked-in, a current post-holder at the Childhood & Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). Another person is a former CAMHS employee, now linked to social media accounts that promote her porn content. Below are the instagram & facebook accounts for Trans4Me.

trans4menotts

They also have a facebook page.

Trans4Me

Trans4Me are promoted by Nottinghamshire NHS here 👇

LGBT Groups

Age ranges.

The link from Nottinghamshire NHS shows the age range for this group as 11-21. (I have blocked out the mobile number). The age ranges for this group seem to be quite fluid. The facilitator is named as Sharon O Love.

One of the common themes with these groups is the mixing of early teens with young adults. Trans4Me is a youth group for ”gender diverse” children, teens and young adults. In 2016 they advertised open events for age ranges 13-21. As you can see below: It is at best unfortunate that there is also a website (Trans4Me.co.u.k.) which sells on line, synthetic hormones. There is no evidence that there is any link but someone should be checking what comes up when teens search the name of the group. This website is linked below and it was the first hit when I searched their name. 👇

trans4me

This is the promotional material for Trans4me from 2016. No mention of the need for Parents/Guardians.

Sharon O Love is listed as working for Childhood and Adult Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and running an initiative on self harm. This is currently listed on their linkedin.

Linkedin

Working as a part-time DJ, using the same name, it is not difficult to find a twitter account promoting herself as a DJ. There is not much other than promoting their work but they do share content that any of those children would easily be able to find. I am perhaps incorrect in assuming this is a stage name; either way they are clearly using it in their official capacity as a CAMHS employee.

Sharon’s content is nowhere near as worrisome as one of the other Youth Facilitators, though they both share fetish wear associated with a sexual “Puppy” fetish. You can read about this here

Pup play

Here a couple of quotes from that article: 

Here is more inappropriate content from the CAMHS employee.

The other person (historically) connected with that youth group is a female with an unusual double-barrelled name. There is plenty in the public domain to connect them to this group. I am not going to name this individual because I cannot evidence a current connection to a youth group. There were also employed by CAMHs in Nottingham, as an advocacy worker.

Jacub was invited to talk to students about their transgender experience by Nottinghamshire Universities & colleges. Here they appear very fresh faced and youthful.

Jacub is billed as working with vulnerable teens, with mental health issues and we know they are running a youth group for children as young as 11. CAMHS are happy to promote this group and it is staffed by their employees. Nottinghamshire Council’s Autism team is also happy to promote it. (This despite concerns raised about the over-representation of autistic kids at “Gender Clinics”. Here the age range is shown as 12 -18. It seems to change depending on who is promoting the group.

The groups was visited by members of the police force, council staff, university staff, local amnesty group and a human rights organisation. 

Here is one of the pictures from the group which is eerily reminiscent of the pup fetish. Remember this group is advertising to children as young as 11 and it is run by employees of the Childhood and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS).

Jacub now appears to have moved to Manchester. There is no evidence of them working with young people, currently. They do appear in a smoking cessation promotion campaign run by Greater Manchester health hub and aimed at “LGBTQ” people. I found this promoted by LGBT Foundation.

They leave a clear trail from their name to various social media accounts. They are clearly on the “pup” scene.

The twitter account is full of explicit content. Presumably the only fans content will be much more explicit. The advertise themselves as a “pup” with a “handler”.

This would also appear to be them. See link to twitter account in the bio.

They appear to be placing themselves in very risky situations.

There are multiple examples of explicit content on the twitter page. I will spare you the full content (the censorship is mine) but when I say explicit it leaves so little to the imagination I don’t care to imagine what the paying subscribers are “treated” to:

The last publicly available link to CAMHS and Trans4Me, that I could find, was 2017. The sexting facebook page was created in April 2020. Jacub now appears to have no sexual boundaries and is clearly post testosterone and double mastectomy. Their “handler” appears to be male with Jacub adopting the submissive role. We have to start asking serious questions about these groups. Clearly Jacub is now unfit to work with vulnerable children. The question is were they also unfit in 2017? Are they a product of how that group was /is run or were they already unable to set boundaries?

I did deliberate about using actual pictures, even though I protected the name of the younger woman. In the end, whilst ”jacub”” is likely a victim of this ideology, victims can become perpetrators. I also thought it was important to show how corrupted she has become, in three short years. It also goes without saying that Parents have a right to run for the hills if she turns up at a youth support group. I feel nothing but compassion for the girl in the first picture and, of course, for her parents.

You can support my work here. Please don’t if you are on benefits or a small income. I now have a subsistence level income.

Researching the harms of Gender Identity Ideology. The harms to women and girls and our gay youth. This is not a social justice movement it is a social engineering movement to destroy child safeguarding and raise a generation with no sexual boundaries.

£10.00

Tara Hewitt: NHS.

Featured

This week the EHRC issued guidance which attempted to clarify, for service providers, that single sex services can be provided to women only. Tara Hewitt, an NHS employee, immediately took to twitter to denounce the guidance and urge senior NHS staff not to comply. Shockingly many senior people in the NHS Agreed.

EHRC Guidance.

The guidance itself is actually a restatement of the law. Even those men with a Gender Recognition Certificate, conferring a legal ”gender” status as a ”woman” ,can be legally excluded from female only spaces providing the exclusion is “legitimate and proportionate”. The problem we have had, for many years, is the widespread policy capture which has made service providers wary about using these exemptions, hence there is little case law to flesh out the circumstances in which women have the right to expect a single sex space actually excludes males. The Trans community is very litigious and between their legal challenges and the relentless ”trans” propaganda, NHS trusts have capitulated to the demands of the ”trans lobby”.

The end result has been this shocking case of a female patient, raped on a ward claiming it was female only. On reporting her rape she was told it had not happened because there was no man on the ward. The hospital itself lied to the victim.

For a hospital to collude with this is, of course, heinous but they are not helped by the privacy requirements built into the Gender Recognition Act. If the man in question had a Gender Recognition Certificate and this information is obtained because of your professional role, there are legal sanctions for revealing this information. At the present time the fine is set at Level 5 which is an unlimited financial penalty. This has created the bizarre situation where a member of staff is forced to tell you that an obvious man, is a woman.

What do we know about Tara?

This is Tara Hewitt. They are currently head of Diversity and Inclusion for the Northern Care Alliance (NHS).

Tara is also a trans-activist and co-founder of a Lobby group TELI.

Tara is employed by the NHS and once stood as a candidate for the Conservative Party. Because they have a public profile we know more about Hewitt than, perhaps, we would like. Tara is a Catholic who is opposed to women’s reproductive rights. In their spare time they also have a few interesting hobbies. {As covered in the Liverpool Echo, link below}.

Tara Hewitt

Tara has a YouTube channel and one of the uploads was a presentation given to staff from the Macmilla charity. It makes for a very interesting watch.

Tara Hewitt

Tara announces their job title as Diversity and Inclusion lead for UniversityHospitals Trust, South Manchester. Hewitt had been incited to give a talk to Macmillan by one of the people present who worked with them on the Manchester LGBT Cancer Support Alliance. Tara advises that they also work as a freelance diversity consultant and have worked with NHS Trusts across the U.K, they also lecture Health and Social Care students in different Universities. They have also advised prisons on inclusion. Tara was also part of an initiative called ”Trans Equality Legal Initiative” with these partners. 😳

Garden Court Chambers are currently being taken to an Employment Tribunal by Alison Bailey, one of the founders of LGB Alliance. You can read about her case here and also donate.

Alison Bailey

Action For Trans Health are one of the most extreme Trans Activist groups. Here are just a sample of the demands made, in a manifesto, which was public in 2018.

You may also remember the case of Jess Bradley, the first NUS Trans Officer who disappeared after posting pictures of himself indecently exposing himself at work. Here he is with Action For Trans Health.

As an aside, Tara is the worst presenter and totally unable to garner any engagement. I would love someone who had been there to tell me how it was received.

First there is some ramblings about intersectionality, with a trans spin. Then Tara tries to get participants to guess how many trans people will present with cancer. He claims this will be 300,000 out of a population he estimates at 600,000. He then proceeds to define trans people.

Transsexual in Tara’s world is someone who operates in a Gender Binary and has adopted the opposite Gender Role and this is irrespective of surgical status. According to Hewitt they dont need surgery to legitimate theor ”trans” status. Next he includes Drag Queens and Drag Kings. Next he moves on to cross-dressers and has this to say, in a room which appears to be predominantly, possibly all, female.

He doesn’t stop there:

It’s telling that this talk is met with stony silence. I would have reported this as sexual harassment. Tara then gives a mini lecture about why we should not judge so long as people are happy! (He can fuck off. I am judging, right now!). This is someone with no boundaries who we are allowing to influence policy and who also, by the way was appointed to Chair the Board of Governors at a boys school! (I checked he is no longer there).

He then lists a whole load of other ”identities” under the trans umbrella including transvestite which is when you want to parade your fetish in public. Some bether about non-binary and gender queer and them a tiresome lecture about pronouns….Sigh.

He also reminds the women to use the terminology that the trans person uses. One of them is that some transwomen prefer their penis a clitoris and it is polite to use the trans persons own terminology.

Tara then moves on to explain that a significant number of trans identified people are involved in ”sex work” and also many of them are sexually exploited. He does not link these two things and cautions his captive audience about not stigmatising those in the ”sex trade”. In order to reinforce the instructions to comply with the demands for preferred pronouns and not shaming men’s sexual proclivities, Tara throws in some made up statistics. The women are not even making eye contact.

This is who is influencing the NHS!

You can support my work here.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and the impact on women’s rights, gay rights and especially the medical scandal of what we are doing to children and youth at Gender Clinics.

£10.00

Who decides if I am a woman?

Featured

This is a post based on a Radio 4 programme, from 2013. Whittle is just one of a number of people interviewed. This programme also alerted me to the role of Alex Carlile, ex of the Liberal Democrat’s, who has sat in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Most of the contributors are proponents of Gender Identity Ideology with the exception of Julie Bindel.

Transcription here:

Analysis Woman Defined FINAL

I transcribed it because I find these sources are in danger of disappearing but you can still listen to it, as of March 2022, here 👇. {The featured image is the one used by the BBC by the way}

Analysis: Women. Who decided

The list of contributors:

James Barrett is features, lead clinician for the UK national Gender clinic, as is Alex Carlile, ex Liberal Democrat who tabled a bill to allow ”trans identified” people to change their birth certificates, in 1996. Also interviewed are Melissa Hines, who believes in self-defining your sex/gender and Richard O’Brien who believes he is 30% female and takes oestrogen, Ruth Pearce, a trans-identified male, and Stephen Whittle, a trans-identified female. Julie Bindel is somewhat outnumbered. Here is the presenter, Jo Fidgen.

The format is not a round table discussion. The presenter asks some direct questions and interjects her own voice as narrator, whether the notes of incredulity are faux-naive I will leave you to judge, when she reaches her breathless, excited conclusions.

First up Whittle casts doubt on the rigour of hospital staff assessing sex at birth. I find the calibre of this argument ludicrous, to be frank.

The presenter raises a contemporary furore after the Observer published a provocative comment piece by Julie Burchill calling “male-to-female” transsexuals a ”bunch of bedwetters in bad wigs”. The context for this piece was that Burchill’s friend, Suzanne Moore, had posted a piece about body shaming women; who are being sold the idea the ideal body shape is one favoured by Brazilian “Transsexuals”. Cue threats of rape and violence which resulted in the police being called and, predictably, claiming to be unable to help.

The presenter omits the above context but does admit it plays into the current debate and claims, whilst once she was confident she was a woman, ”Now, I’m not so sure”.

Next up Alex Carlile explains how he became interested in the plight of transsexuals. He was approached by a female constituent about which he has this to say:

Carlile goes onto explain how his constituent had various difficulties being a female but ”living as a man”. He then claims his constituent faced difficulties in using male facilities because he could have been accused of doing something wrong. Females are always used to support this argument because we all know it’s not females who commit 99% of sex offences, overwhelmingly against women. Men are unlikely to by intimidated by a female who, according to Carlile, is indistinguishable from any other man.

We are informed that Carlile tabled a bill, as far back as 1996, to allow ”transsexuals” to change their birth certificates to reflect the sex they wish they were. I had a look at that debate and was struck by one comment which sheds light on why falsifying birth certificates was more acceptable than gay marriage, which by the way was not legalised until nearly a decade after the Gender Recognition Act. Note also that Press For Change were lobbying these Conservatives decades ago. (Source:Hansard).

The Bill did not pass but, Carlile explains, it piqued Labour’s interest. Next up Whittle waxes lyrical about the UK, Gender Recognition Act which is described as ”State of the Art” in comparison to ”anywhere in the world”. In just five short years Whittle would see the GRA as out of date and advocate for self-identification of ”sex”!

We have a slight detour at this point to explain that Whittle has a ”vested interest” in this debate as a ”transman”. We also hear about how Whittle now has a surgically constructed ”penis” but has kept some, unspecified, female parts so has a sort of “mixed body”. Next Whittle says the quiet part out loud.

Fidgen interjects with a question about how radical this is and, finally, brings in Julie Bindel, who explains it is, in reality, ultra conservative.

Whittles rebuttal of this point is astonishing, to me, makes perfect sense to anyone whose thought processes have been addled by Queer Theory. 🤦‍♂️

Jo goes back to Bindel to ask if Stephen has a point. Bindel cuts to the heart of the matter. Feminism wants to dismantly gender stereotypes, transgender people want to uphold them. They rely on stereotypes of masculinity and femininity so they have a template to ”perform” their gender.

Ruth Pearce, a trans-identified male, repudiates this and claims he is quite scruffy and generally in jeans and T Shirts, even hoodies 🤷‍♀️. Pearce argues that Bindel is out of date. Stereotypical expectations are simply not a feature gender clinics anymore. Pearce claims he is a feminist and a trans perspective is not necessarily at odds with feminism. Ruth explains that he was seen as weird and strange as a teenage boy and was often asked if he was gay. His interests were typically associated with being a girl so now he identifies as one. To Ruth this is not shoring up stereotypes (🤔) and he believes, ultimately, we will abandon the categories of male and female. This is the magical thinking driving this ideology. Ruth thinks they are going to dismantle the ”gender binary” by, checks notes, aligning their own self-perception with what society says are typical interests for a woman. Ruth has rejected his sex on the basis of the very sexist stereotypes he claims he wants to destroy. Make it make sense!

Can’t defend what you can’t define.

Bizarrely the presenter thinks Pearce is agreeing with Bindel. To be clear, one of them is living a life embodying a stereotype which Bindel wants to dismantle. Bindel is not seeking the destruction of sex based categories which underpin women’s legal right to single sex spaces.

Hines, no not that one!

We are then introduced to a Cambridge Professor, Melissa Hines, to introduce some science. Hines is a neuroscientist and spends a lot of time working with people who have disorders of sexual development. I could take some headlines from her work which focus on toy preferences and ”gendered” brains influenced by higher than normal levels of testosterone. Hines recognises the importance of socialisation but also argues there are biological processes at work. This, seems perfectly plausible to me since humans are sexually dimorphic and evolution is likely to have introduced differential development in the sex that does the child-bearing. Conceding the complex interaction between nurture/nature doesn’t mean we are all biological essentialists who think women belong in the kitchen. It’s also important to retain some skepticism about claims in respect of #LadyBrains which is just as ideologically predicated as a 100% denial of the role of biology. Three books for anyone interested in following this up.

Hines lost me at this point, even the interviewer sounded a note of incredulity.

Hines therefore argues that exposure to higher levels of testosterone pre-disposes some females to adopt preferences associated with the opposite sex. Jo Fidgens adds in the known association of victims of childhood sexual abuse and a rejection of your sex. This gets little attention because we then proceed to discuss research into post mortem examinations of the brains of male transsexuals. Interestingly, Hines is on the fence about this research; questioning whether the experience of “gender dysphoria” causes the change in brain structure. (Search neuroplasticity).

James Barrett

James Barrett was lead clinician at a U.K Gender clinic and has appeared in my blogs frequently because he often appears as an expert witness in legal cases I have covered. Here he talks about how he would assess a patient who presented with gender identity issues. He makes if clear that the assessment must involve not just your self-identificaion but how you are percieved by others. This puts the burden for acceptance on females, in the main, who are mandated to #BeKind, validate these men and accept them men in our spaces. #NOThankyou

Born This Way?

Whilst accepting the evidence of a biological explanation is inconclusive we now consider the issue of Puberty Blockers. In 2011 the Tavistock Gender Clinic began experimenting /researching the effect of placing ”Gender Dysphoric” children on medication to block a natural puberty. This is still often described as a ”pause” and ”reversible”. It is not a ”pause” the long term impact is uncertain and 98%+ proceed to synthetic drugs to mimic the effects of cross-sex hormones. I have written about this a few times here:

Puberty Blockers

Julie Bindel is asked for her thoughts on this:

Julie is right to point out the danger of over-diagnosis in young Lesbians and Gay males. Not conforming to sex stereotypes is elevated in children who, left alone, would become homosexual adults. These are the last figures I have on same sex attracted referrals to the Tavistock Gender Clinic. With all the fuss about the #GayConversionTherapy ban why haven’t people realise that the main place this is happening is at Gender Clinics?

Single sex spaces.

Julie Bindel then brings up an incident with a pre-operative male behaving aggressively in a space for vulnerable women. I think the law is misinterpreted here because it is technically permissible to exclude a male, even with a GRC, from a single sex space. Though it is correct to say too many organisations fail to apply this exception. Bindel then raises the issue of males in female prisons even when he has committed a an offence against a female.

Fidgen then puts this hypthetical to Lord Carlile which leads to this, astonishing, exchange. {Worth noting, at this point, that Carlile was head of a Penal Reform charity, the Howard League, for a number of years}.

We next take a detour to learn that Richard O’ Brien takes oestrogen for his 30% female part. Ruth Pearce thinks the next legal battle will be to recognise people who don’t identify as male, or female, and Whittle boasts about how we have been ”de-gendering the law for twenty years. Whittle then tells what I am certain they think is a cute anecdote about his three year old asking how they know their twins are girls. Whittle’s wife explains they don’t. They made a guess and the babies can tell them, when they are older, if they got it wrong. I find that a rather sinister tale.

This was Jo’s conclusion.

The Denton’s document is a must read to understand how we got here. I covered it here:

That Denton’s Document

The conclusion Jo comes to reminds me of the book Pollyanna. It has not worked out that way.

The Battle of the X’s.

Time for a new suffragette movement and thankfully one is here:

You can learn about Sex Matters, and donate, here.

Respect my Sex

If you want to support my work you can do so here:

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s impact on women’s rights, gay rights and the healthy bodies of our kids. Trying to get one step ahead of the people who are deleting evidence as the medical scandal unfolds.

£10.00

Stephen Whittle 2

Featured

This is some content from YouTube. When I first penned this piece I could not find the original. Someone contacted me and alerted me to the YouTube which still exists. You can watch it here 👇

Hormones: Stephen Whittle

The screen shots I did, back in December 2020, are quite revealing.

Do it to Julia!

Hormones: Feminist, Transgender and Intersex

Before I begin a word about Whittle. Whittle is female but has taken testosterone, had multiple surgeries and adopted what they believe is a man’s ”gender” role. This would appear to be Whittle’s idea of ”living as a man”. Asked why the on-line discussions, about the Gender Recognition act, were so male-dominated with a noticeable absence of “transmen” this was the answer given: 👇 Sproggets! 🤷‍♀️ (Clip from that radicalisation portal that is mumsnet).

For background about Whittle here is an interview they did with Christine Burns, of the Trans Lobby Group, Press For Change.

Whittle: Interview

In this interview Whittle explains their sexual attraction to both sexes but how they married a woman. They have four children. Whittle fought to gain the right for their partner to be artificially inseminated, with donor sperm; also tried, thankfully failed, to be recorded as the “father” on the children’s birth certificates. Whittle was brought up in a council house on one of the largest council estates in Europe. The father sounds rather abusive and this is one of the stories Whittle tells about him. One wonders what toll it takes on the female psyche to be presented with such an overt display of aggressive male dominance?

The fact this was triggered by wearing apparel, traditionally reserved for the male sex class, is also intriguing. Is Whittle’s entire life a fuck you to the Father or an over-identification with the oppressor class? A strategy of escape or one for dominance? I suggest it is a combination of the two.

There are complex reasons for females to reject their sex class, some of them invite our compassion; such as extreme sexual abuse /paternal violence. Girls learn early that inhabiting a female body invites unwanted sexual contact. My compassion, for Whittle, is severely limited by the role they have played in throwing the bodies of other women in the paths of dangerous men. In the dismantling of women’s same sex spaces Whittle is, perhaps unwittingly, behaving like Winston Smith in 1984. Whittle’s life is one long “Do it to Julia”.

One of the ways Whittle harms women is a denial that male pattern offending remains the same in those who identify as ”trans”. One claim made in the Guardian had to be retracted.

The reality is the pattern of sex offending remains exactly the same. There is thus no argument for removing single sex spaces for women.

Whittle also had a side hustle of writing for porn magazines. The overlap between porn-saturated culture and trans identities is such a central feature of this ”community”. At least Whittle turned a profit.

Transitioned States: Hormones: Whittle et al.

Now to the event at which Whittle spoke. It was chaired by Jo Winning who works with Zoe Playdon running a course in Medical Humanities. I cover Zoe Playdon in this blog post. 👇

C. Burns: Trans Britain. Part 13a

Whittle is preceded by a campaigner on intersex rights, Valentino Vecchietti, who raises the issue of medicalising children with variations in sex characteristics /Disorders of Sexual development without informed consent. He includes the removal of gonads which leads to lifelong dependence on hormones, issues with bone density and sterility. This is precisely the same set of issues with blocking puberty but, of course, the “trans” lobby doesn’t want to talk about that. Vecchietti talks about “trans” and “queer” children. This is a clip from one of their slides.

The next speaker is Celia Roberts, a professor of Gender and Science Studies. 😳. She talks, with breathless excitement about hormones as agents of social change.

Roberts has studied hormones for twenty years and is clearly very enthusiastic about their use:

And here she goes 👇

Despite this, I found her quite a compelling speaker as she covers the role of hormones in factory farming, and horses bred to produce female hormones. The horse hormones were for use in both menopausal women and for trans-identified males. She points out that hormones extracted this way were found to be harmful to menopausal women but was strangely silent about the risks to trans-identified males. She does explore ways in which the administering of hormones can be “oppressive” and this includes the chemical castration of sex offenders and the hyper-stimulation of the ovaries of surrogate mothers in India. Nothing about what is happening to kids at gender abattoirs, though. She says that withholding hormones can also be oppressive though she does say using hormones should be approached with caution. Well worth watching and she drops the names of some “queer biologists” should you feel inclined to further research.

Stephen Whittle

Now we come to Whittle’s part. He opens with a slide about what you would do if you were offered a “happy pill”.

Whittle claims this question is routinely asked at Gender Identity Clinics here (U.K) and the United States. Whittle proceeds to say that of course people would answer yes but no such pill exists for “trans” people.

Are you happy with what you have done?

This is next of the slides Whittle uses to defend their work. People have criticised the impact on the Butch Lesbian community by the widespread “transitioning“ of Lesbian women. Whittle is often heckled by Lesbians, we are informed. Clearly they are perfectly aware of the impact on the Lesbian community. In this talk Whittle boasts that Butch Lesbians approach her and say they wish they had the guts to ”transition”. I was left with the impression that Whittle’s response to this, legitimate concern, is one of mockery.

Whittle goes on to describe “Butch Dykes” as unable to receive sexual pleasure and rejects this life for ”himself”.

Here Whittle shares a slide about the meteoric rise in girls referred to the U.K main Gender Clinic. This is a cause for concern to many, rational, people but, to Whittle, it is a sign of the success of the Trans Lobby. This is a cause for celebration because the stigma of being ”trans”, {becoming a lifelong dependent on the pharmaceutical industry} has been removed. As you can see kids as young as three are being referred to the Tavistock (Gender Identity Development Service G.I.Ds). If Whittle had checked with adult clinics they would not find a concomitant rise in adult females coming out as “men”. . 🤷‍♀️

Whittle knows autistic people are also over-represented at Gender Clinics. The phenomenon is so widely known trans-activists cannot deny it. Their spin is that theories about the origins of autism proves the idea of a wrongly sexed brain. An alternative hypothesis is the difficulties of responding to social cues makes many autistic kids less able to navigate social expectations for their sex. If much of sex stereotypical expectations is embedded via socialisation this explains why autistic males, and females, may find themselves out of step with their peers. Transgender Ideology promotes the idea these kids are really ”trans”.

Females with autism are often under-diagnosed so their prevalence at Gender clinics is even more striking. One theory about late diagnosis hinges on female socialisation providing autistic girls with better ”masking” skills. They are taught better social cues because ”reading” other people is a survival skill for the female sex class. As a result they “pass” as neuro typical, better than their male counterparts. Whittle also these youths often have co-morbidities of mental health issues. This still doesn’t raise any alarm bells for the Trans party faithful. Instead this is put down to ”minority stress”.

Here are some figures shared by an Autistic society. As you can see as many as 30% have autistic traits. Females, with diagnosed autism, are over-represented by 10:1.

Here the high priestess of the Church of Gender even claims affirming a ”gender identity” can cure autism. (This clip is taken from a discussion Dr Jo had with our own Helen Webberley of Gender GP infamy, on their podcast).

Next slide, as I recall, was to deflect criticism about trans obsession with sartorial choices indicating a ”transgender” identity. Here Whittle is saying ”Lesbians do it too”.

Here Whittle points to the rejection of female attire by ”trans” identified females. Notice that trans boys ”hate” and trans ”girls” desire the pink and frilly.

This was an interesting aside. Whittle calls Julie Bindel a friend though they disagree. The argument that, in an ideal world, nobody would feel the need to become dependent on pharmaceuticals /surgeries to live an ”authentic life” should be the mainstream opinion. It is, however, now likened to some sort of demonic plan for mass extermination.

My “happy pills”!

Here Whittle simply promotes #BigPharma. This section was introduced, by Whittle, as about my ”happy pills”. The impact of male levels of, synthetic, testosterone on a female are quite different to the impact on a natal male. The slide should have examined the impact of synthetic testosterone on a female body. Whittle could have refected on the elevated risk of multiple sclerosis (x7) for males taking synthetic hormones which mimic oestrogen at levels not normally found in males. Whittle also has multiple sclerosis but has no hesitation promoting drugs enhancing the risk for natal males. Trans-identified males are also having their testosterone blocked so, presumably this slide could be used as is a cautionary tale for them.

Here are some side effects. Obviously some of these are desired for those in flight from their sex. This is from a site targeting menopausal women so it says nothing about the impact on fertility or vaginal atrophy and elevated risk for a medically necessary hysterectomy.

I know there are professional feminists who are critical of media outlets that put the spotlight on individual Trans Lobbyists. I have no such hesitation. It is because of this ideology that our gay boys are on the #TuringTreatment and our young Lesbians are having, unnecessary, double mastectomies. Also in case you think Whittle is going to stop here is an interview where Whittle advocates forcing women to give up single sex spaces. Whittle is no friend to women.

Time for a spotlight on the vichy women collaborating with this ideology and placing their own, excessive, need for validation above the harms to women, girls and gay boys.

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

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and the harms it is doing to women and girls as well as gay boys, like my son.

£10.00

NHS Trans Policy

Featured

I have decided to do a series on all the NHS guidance on the denial of women’s rights; commonly disguised in their policies for patients with a ”trans-identity”. I am minded to do this because of the revelation that a man raped a woman, on an NHS ”women’s” ward. Following the rape the NHS lied to the woman, for a YEAR, claiming she could not have been raped because there were no MEN on the ward. This despite there being CCTV footage! You can read about this case here: 👇

Woman raped on women’s ward

Here are a few clips from the above article.

Make no mistake. Many, many health care professionals are concerned, nay furious, about these policies. Below is another clip.

By now it is clear that Lobby groups have infiltrated public, and private, sector organisations and senior staff have outsourced their critical thinking to transgender lobby groups. People who cannot accept biological truth, about themselves, are therefore driven by a compulsion to impose, dangerous, levels of sex denialism on the rest of us.
It is also clear this legal / policy capture has been happening for decades.

The policy I will look at today is from 2007. Here is the document:

Trans_peoples_health

The central deception, foisted on a supine bureaucracy, is that the policy is focused on “trans” people. This helps ensure nobody looks at the implications for other groups, specifically women.

The document was produced by a now defunct arm of the government, Central Office for Information which is what the COI on this clip states. 👇

The author, Julie Fish, is involved in LGBTQ issues. (She actually co-authored a book by someone I know quite well which was a bit of a shock). Social Work is pretty much captured, as we know.

Naturally it uses the language of Gender Identity Ideology. So calls into question the idea of ”two” genders and then says ”gender assigned at birth“.

Like Stonewall they include part-time cross dressers under the ”trans” umbrella: 👇

Even as far back as 2007 they were making the case for men to be in women’s spaces despite openly acknowledging most won’t have bodily modifications. To be clear, a surgically modified male is still not a woman but most people think men are at least disarmed to the extent of penis removal.

As we know the term ”Transgender” is now the main term used in the U.K but it is misleading to imply it only covers drag queens/kings. Many Drag Queens see themselves as simply gay men and the document avoids referencing men who are transvestic fetishists or men with autogynephilia. These are men with sexual paraphilia.

The document claims “transsexuals” have surgery and then prefer to be known simply as men or women. They tend to prefer to live in ”stealth”, we are told, if this was ever true it is not now! Later we are told MTF are at higher risk of violence because of lack of passing privilege. This is an attempt to get away with the idea of shy and retiring people who are in our spaces, we just don’t know it, and the idea theres an epidemic of violence against “transwomen”. If men are routinely attacking these males they must be clockable.

There are some lies about people with disorders of sexual development (DSDs). The reference uses the outdated term of ”hermaphrodite”, exaggerates the prevalence of the condition, and tries to imply they are part of the “trans” community. In fact there is no higher rate of people with chromosomal abnormalities in the ”trans” community. In the U.K a research project looked at referrals to Gender Clinics, found people with DSDs were not over-represented. Karyotype tests were then abandoned, as routine.



I have hesitated to cover the issue of DSDs when there are so many people, with these conditions, speaking out. Suffice to say their utility to the Trans activists is manifold. Firstly it serves a purpose to destabilise the notion we are sexually dimorphic and allows a captured elite to claim we no longer can define what a woman is. They are also used to claim being “trans” is a sort of “intersex of the brain”.  There is a compulsion to claim there is a biological basis for being “trans” to claim “born this way” and infer this is a recognised medical condition, not a mental disorder.  Here is a quote of a trans activist outlining this strategy:  ( This is a quote from MRKVoice.com) 👇

This is the sneaky way Lesbians and Gay men are redefined. If those who identify as ”trans” can by Lesbians /Gay men then you have decoupled biological sex from ”sexual orientation” This is why we have heterosexual males/ females identifying as Lesbians/Gay men. Note this clip was also laying the groundwork for the invention of the ”transgender child”.

The document uses the usual, emotional, blackmail about suicide in “trans” youth so I won’t repeat that here. I have done one piece questioning dodgy data on suicide and I have another one in the pipeline. The paper also emphasises the need to access medical responses for their ”identity” and recycles the idea that parents are abandoning our children and that the NHS routinely discriminates. This turns out to be about pronoun violations and not been allowed into the ward for the opposite sex.

They also claim they are left out of important health screening which is mainly due to removing their sex markers from NHS records. Basically they have been given exactly what they asked for and are now complaining.

This was an interesting ”mistake”. The document claims there is a Parliamentary Forum on Transsexualism. Yet if you follow the link it takes you to the Trans Lobby group : Press For Change.

Needless to say all the people consulted were gender extremists. Here is a sample.

On the references; many of the links are no longer there but I will follow up the referenced court cases in later blogs. {One of the court cases includes an individual who wants ”gender reassignment surgery” and claims his condition causes his epilepsy and only the removal of, I am presuming, his penis will cure it. Why are we listening to someone so obviously delusional?}.

Stephen Whittle and Christine Burns figure prominently in the referenced work. Here is a reminder about Burns. {From their book ”Trans Britain”. Chapter by trans activist, James Morton}. Prisons were chosen to normalise mixed sex spaces. We knew there would be sexual offences. These ideologues don’t care. Women and children are acceptable collateral damage in this War On Reality.

I am currently unwaged. Donations welcome.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology. How it has captured States and normalised the sterilisation of children. Many of who are just gay.

£10.00