Tweedale. Part 4!

This is another one of the panels that hosted Tweedale. His contributions were illuminating, as were those of his co panelists. All of the other participants seemed well meaning but I am not sure they have thought beyond #BeKind.

The panel were discussing Faith and LGBT issues at Bradford University. Tweedale turned up in his signature choker with dark glasses and a top hat in view.

Here’s a link where you can watch 👇.

Faith and LGBT

Also on the panel were a Labour councillor, a Humanist /Feminist and Lesbian, a Catholic teacher and a Few Muslim voices, as you would expect in Bradford.

I was already aware of Dunbar who is very pro what he thinks of as “trans” rights. (He is the nephew of Andrea Dunbar, the playwright). In 2022 he announced he would not be standing at the next local elections.

Dunbar seems to see everything through the lens of the T, despite being a gay man; who’s very sexual orientation is under attack, by trans ideology.

Janice Thornton is a committed feminist activist having been involved in a grass roots organisation set up to oppose their local MP, Phillip Davies, who is outspoken in his opposition to feminist voices. She covers this in the talk and it shows a tiny organisation was able to mobilise opposition, to Davies, managing to get a march of over 1400 in a short time. Shipley was the town Womens Equality Party (WEP) chose to launch its first parliamentary candidate. There was local opposition to the decision, by WEP, to field a candidate thus splitting the vote and making it more, not less, likely that Davies would be returned to Parliament; which he duly was.

Jez Hodgson is a longtime teacher of religious education and, then, the regional cordinator of an organisation called Quest. I looked them up and this is what I found. It is indeed an LGBT+ Catholic group who, in the past, hosted Ruth Hunt, former CEO of Stonewall and herself a Catholic, plus Beardsley who is “transgender” and a United Reform Church Minister.

Two other attendees were the LGBT officers for Bradford University and Bradford College, respectively. Both seem like well meaning, young, people who want to make the world a better place, however misguided I think they were/are.

(NB. It should be “to” not “too”, in the image below. Apologies)

I cover this discussion not to bring opprobrium on the participants but to demonstrate how well meaning people go along with absurdities when confronted with this ideology. Tweedale, a man, introduces himself as a Lesbian in front of an actual Lesbian 😳. This is why we must stop the forced-teaming of the LGB with the T. Heterosexual men do not belong in the Gay Rights movement.

We also learn that Tweedale is a Pagan, former teacher, and quite proud of his innovative modification to the curriculum; adding Paganism. Claiming that all religions are accepting of LGBT peoples is a somewhat bold claim. 👇

Then one of the Muslim participants talks about the different interpretations of Islam throughout the ages and how cultural claims can distort Islamic teaching. He is very “inclusive” talking about his gay, Christian and Jewish friends. Unfortunately his “inclusive” stance also includes a tale that there was a “transgender” person who looked after one of the prophet Mohammed’s wives.

I am, obviously, not an Islamic scholar but I did a search to find reference to “Het” which I may have misheard. He is correct that some cultures found a way of integrating gay men in society, and to a lesser extent Lesbians, by pretending they were the opposite sex/gender. Some of these, muslim led, cultures, for example Iran, do not accept homosexuals, at all, but do accept men and women who adopt an opposite sex role and they also fund “transition” surgeries. It seems to be quite a complex picture. Here, Mohammed, is reported as being uncomfortable with men who adopt a “female” role.

Mukhannathun was also used to describe gay men and people with disorders of sexual development.

State Religion

There follows an interesting discussion about the role of secularism, separation of Church and State and what happens when the State adopts,and mandates, adherence to a specific religion. Tweedale had this to say which put me in mind of the State imposition of the neo-religion of Queer Theory /All things LGBTQ+.

Brexit, Trump and the Far Right.

There is an undercurrent of alarmism about the rise of the far right which, for some participants, is linked to the vote for Brexit. As someone who campaigned for Remain, including in Bradford, this seems somewhat unhinged, particularly as Bradford voted for Brexit and the voters for Brexit included a large section of the Asian diaspora. Tweedale was not the only one indulging in hyperbole on this topic and confusing the political landscape in the United States with that of the U.K.

Neo-Feminism jumps to Gender Fluidity

Next we hear from a female muslim who is a member of an “inclusive” mosque. First she describes the reaction to a female religious leader who appeared with uncovered hair. Shortly thereafter she burnishes her progressive credentials with a reference to gender identity ideology. LGBTQ+ is merely part of an off the peg list of approved beliefs which allow people to blend a concern about the visibility of female role models to move seamlessly onto a denial that male and female exist. Sigh.

Teaching LGBT + issues

This man is a secular member of the panel who is concerned about the campaign against compulsory sex education in schools, via, he says, powerful Religious Lobby groups. His first mistake was mentioning a member of the demented, Green Party and his second was conflating sex education with LGBT. I can’t be the only person who was very pro sex education in schools who would now be opposed because its a gift to Transgender Lobby groups/proponents of Queer Theory.

Topher interjects to proclaim a desire to be an activist teacher on LGBT issues.

The issue of disseminating transgender ideology is clearly extending to different faith communities and here a teacher/youth worker, claims her pupils, mainly muslim girls, chose LGBTQ topics of their own volition.

It is worth following this part of the dialogue and what is meant by “safe” spaces by this individual. Her perspective is that pupils must be allowed to express their opinions, or their “bigotry” so that they can be led to the sunny uplands of the correct opinions.

Now the Catholic teacher talks about his experience teaching in Catholic schools and he has an interesting observation on the impact of Section 28. This clearly contradicts the LGBT agenda and even the Gay Rights party line predating the addition of the T.

He continues on this theme and seems irritated by the assumptions of some the panel about current teaching in Catholic schools. This is an unhelpful narrative for the victimology aficionados who catastrophise the legacy of Section 28, even today, often to turbo charge fundraising.

Not sure what I think about this. When I was a teenager I went on a Catholic retreat, with my school. We all had to have one to one discussions with a monk /priest about our faith. My interview was a discussion about being an atheist and the idea whether people, like me, without faith have a moral compass. What did EVERY single one of the boys get asked about…?

You guessed it..their masturbatory habits 😳.

In comes Tweedale, a heterosexual man, to claim he was a hero during the time of Section 28, boasting that he pledged to break the law and he did. There is a strong streak of narcissism in these statements.

Not content with that bit of grandstanding he claims that he left teaching on a matter of principle and laughably that he wanted to promote critical thinking.

Something tells me this may not be the whole story about Tweedale’s exit from teaching. In the meantime he is being feted by other organisations.

All of the above puts me in mind of the Late, Great, Magdalen Berns.

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.

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

Un Women U.K. : Pickard 2

Featured

Bobbi Pickard : Part Two

You can read part one here:

UN Women UK: Pickard 1

Bobbi Pickard is a trans-identified man who came to my attention after UN Women U.K. nominated him, and a few other men, to represent women at a conference run by the United Nations. I have written about UN Women U.K. here: 👇

UN Women U.K. (Faux Feminism)

In part two we will look at Pickard’s company and corporate support and examine the role he claims to have played in advancing “trans” rights in complete disregard for the impact on other protected groups and the health of children designated “trans”.

Pickard founded this company, after claiming his woman identity in 2017. It was incorporated in 2022. There’s not much information in the accounts, in terms of donors. They don’t have a huge balance sheet. (There are new accounts due out shortly so I will update when they are out)

They seem to wield rather a lot of soft power rather than financial clout. Here’s on of the directors of Trans in the City. One of them is this Arlene Mcdermott, a Lesbian , who is in a senior position at the London Stock exchange. This explains why Pickard was the first “trans” person to close the London Stock exchange and why they have an annual event for “trans” people at the London Stock Exchange (LSEG).

Pickard’s website for Trans in the City boasts an impressive array of corporate sponsors.

According to his appearance on Gender Nebulous both Clifford Chance and JP Morgan have sponsored conferences /event venues.

Bobby’s own piece on the Trans In The City website shows an impressive array of contacts /supporters in his own right. Of course Stonewall, Diva appear as well as , shamefully, The Lesbian Visibility logo. However, Lesbian Visibility Week, in the U.K. , is the creature of Linda Riley who is Queen of the Vichy Lesbians.

Gender Nebulous Podcast /Youtube

Hosts: Victoria Hodges / Freda Wallace

Link To Gender Nebulous

Freda Wallace should,not need any introduction and I am not inclined to share the photo he posted from a Sex Dungeon, indulging in a sex act. Victoria can be found complaining about Center Parcs policy which decreed that men, who retain their penis, are not allowed to use the changing rooms for women and girls. Wallace is not the interviewer for this piece which was a solo spot for Hodges.

Pickard is not given to attacking “terfs” publicly or making the more outrageous statements. He’s a corporate man and knows how to moderate his tone to wield influence. He’s more likely to let his guard down when talking to other “trans” influencers. Hence this,on the Gender Nebulous podcast, where he can’t resist celebrating the (temporary) You Tube ban for Kellie J Keen.

In this podcast Bobbi talks about being a “trans” activist since the late 80’s, early 90’s and going to “trans” events across the country. It’s not clear what form this activism took, and whether it was merely cross-dressing events; certainly the events were described in terms more suggestive of social occasions, than protests.

Bobbi was on the organising commitee for Cheltenham Pride which attracted a who’s Who’ of Trans activists

In this segment some tension is revealed between Pickard’s organisation and Stonewall. It is alleged Stonewall claimed credit for a campaign that Pickard says originated with Trans In The City. It certainly seems to me that we need to make sure Stonewall don’t draw all the fire when this influential organisation seems to be flying under the radar.

Pickard is keen to emphasise their global reach which certainly seems more impressive than their accounts. (I will update when they submit their 2024 accounts which are due soon).

Pickard has been interviewed by Hodges in an earlier incarnation of his podcast called “Transclusive”. Pickard is very consistent about the role he sees himself playing to advance the rights of sex denialists.

Cool2Be Trans with Katie Neeve.

Katie is another heterosexual man and father who has been invited to represent women at the United Nations. Genevieve Gluck has a thread about “Katie” that provides a good introduction to who he is.

Katie Neeves

Bobbi opens with a story about his childhood and recalls his sitting under his mum’s (not the) ironing board wondering what he had done wrong because his mother didn’t buy him girl clothes and girl’s toys. He also recall, when he was five or six, going round to his nan’s house and raising the dressing up box for wigs and floaty clothes. His parents disapproved so he was reduced to dressing his action man in Barbie outfits. This was, he says, his true self that he was forced to hide away and the beginning of the self loathing and suicidal thoughts culminating in a night spent holding a knife to his throat at the age of 14. He finally “came out” age 48 having married and fathered kids in the meantime; his children are the reason why he wouldn’t change anything. This followed a reported suicide attempt after which he realised he had to “transition” or die. There follows a discussion where they both talk about how amazing gift that is “Gender Euphoria” .Both agree that they would not change their pasts.

Pickard then talks about setting up Trans in the City and coming out as the first “trans” person at BP, where he was a senior manager. The aim of Trans in The City was to get corporate sign up and at the time of this interview he claims to have 250 officially signed up and 300 unofficially aligned. Here is the list on their website today,

He then got involved in the campaign to reform the Gender Recognition Act . He noticed that, while there were excellent campaigns by Gendered Intelligence and Mermaids, there was nothing from the corporate world.

To this end Pickard talks about his role in instigating corporate backing. You will recall that women’s rights campaigners in effect stopped the introduction of Self-ID but Pickard and Neeves are claiming it as a victory for their side.

There follows a discussion about the lamentable situation for “trans” rights in the U.K. and how we are worse than Argentina. After “stopping the GRA” by which he means stopping any roll back of the existing protections for “gender reassignment” he then instigated the “Trans Rights Are Human Rights” campaign. We know, from above, that this was a joint campaign with Stonewall but he gives us a further insight into how that campaign came about. He intended it to counter the Women’s Rights campaigners who were talking “rubbish”. Of course he calls them “anti-trans” and has a sly dig at J.K Rowling.

He then credits Pedro Pino, of google.

He then explains that he was on a panel with Pino and he expressed his anger at the lack of concrete support from global corporates for “trans” rights. At the time Pino occupied a senior role at google. He has now moved onto YouTube.

Pino is a gay man who is completely signed up to the trans cult, here is is with the performative pronouns.

After sitting on a panel Pickard he connected Pickard with Stonewall.

Pino had history with Stonewall having partnered with them in the past.

Journalist, Jo Bartosch, spotted this extraordinary interference in U.K. domestic affairs in an article she penned in 2020.

Big Business and the GRA

Pickard then lists all the other corporates that have come on board with the “trans” agenda. It’s an impressive list.

Neeves then interjects to say he felt the turning point was when the British Army came on board and suggests this was a key lever to persuade Local Authorities to dispense with their fears this was too much of a political hot potato. Below Pickard confirms they have the support of the armed forces along with other corporate bodies.

Neves and Pickard then bask in the warm glow of all the support they have had since becoming full-time cross-dressers. They are certain that the vast majority of people are on their side and not the nasty feminists. They then talk about the need to educate people and how they forgive the clumsy language of neophytes, how noble!

Pickard then explains that this is a U.K specific issue (Go, Terf Island!) and that he runs courses all over the world, including the middle east, and encounters no resistance. (I assume he means countries that don’t allow women and homosexuals full human rights, so that should tell him something.). He is convinced that there only a tiny number of transphobes

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 am in extra need this month after having paid £288 for my site, Only give if you can afford!

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

NHS Policy ignores Sex! (Part 2)

Those of us who have been looking at Transgender policies, at NHS Trusts, have noticed that they are much more difficult to find. For a previous post, on Birmingham Hospital, I was sent an email copy of a policy which I had not found but was, apparently, available to employees. My suspicion is that NHS Trusts know that women are checking whether they are defending single sex spaces for vulnerable, female, patients. I suspect more of them are restricting their policy to their “intranet” to hide these policies from the general public. The policies for their employees are still mainly available and they tell a diabolical tale.

You can see the rest of this series, including part 1, at the link below. The Trans ideologues have been hard at work for decades and the women’s rights groups are notable by their absence. Men (in the main) have been allowed to write policy that primarily impacts women; just because they claim to have transcended their biological sex.

NHS & Transgender: Series

This policy is from the East Cheshire NHS Trust. I couldn’t find a pdf so I had to screen shot it. This is the link to the policy. Searching the NHS Trust website yields zero results .

Transgender support Policy

I have archived it too. Before I get to the policy see the link to the policy I could find easily. Here the Macclesfield hospital, part of the Trust insist that they operate single sex spaces.

What the trust policy actually says is that people should be treated according to how they identify, irrespective of their sex, which they cover by some guff about genital configuration; as if that’s irrelevant.

The policy drips with the language of the captured; tell tale sign is echoing the belief that sex is “assigned at birth” rather than observed and recorded; which is the case for over 99% of us. The policy is drafted with one group in mind who consider themselves “transgender”. They admit, however, that the policy will impact patients, staff, visitors, and contractors. Females make up 51% of the population but, I suspect,, will we are over-represented in the patient population, Most women will have a hospital experience via pregnancy and childbirth even if they are otherwise healthy. Our longevity also means we are likely to need hospital admission in later years. Did this Trust speak to any women’s groups? NO!

They did get help drafting the policy from The Gender Trust. This policy was drafted over a decade ago.

Part 1 covers The Gender Trust and man behind it.

NHS Policy ignores Sex! (Part 1)

Advice given by The Gender Trust to the NHS.

I should no longer be shocked at the betrayal of women, by the NHS, but, I confess, I was appalled at the gaslighting in this document. It begins by a statement on patient centred care and then pitches the notion of “most persecuted minority” and lays down the law about not tolerating any discrimination; which, I presume, covers women recognising a man’s biological sex. How bigoted!

The NHS Trust do make a statement about their opposition to discrimination on the following grounds 👇. This is a doctored list of the, legally, “protected characteristics” which they list but get them wrong and include “gender” instead of “gender reassignment”. More sleight of hand to come later in the document.

These are the facts about rape in hospitals. In the U.K. the crime of rape involves a penis. These are all Men!

After some stern words about disciplinary measures for non-compliance they move on to a list of definitions. In this section they make it clear they include “transvestites as “trans”. Given we know there is a paraphilia known as “transvestic fetishism” the hospital are recognising men ,with a sexual fetish, under the “trans” umbrella and as “women” according to their wishes.

The document goes on to say that some people may emerge as “trans” overnight. This becomes important because the Trust insist that, even these “overnight” “transitioners”. Note also that the badly worded Gender Recognition Act (GRA) allows a misrepresentation of the law that, in fact, does limit the rights of men, even with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) to female only spaces. A right which is poorly tested, via case law, and very much ignored in policy and practice.

There is a long section about the “privacy clauses” built into the GRA and the fines associated with disclosing the sex of a person, if disclosed to you in an official capacity. This, legally mandated, sex denialism, is why hospital staff are obliged to LIE to women’s faces if they see an obvious man in a female only space.

The section on the Human Rights Act (1998) acknowledges that one persons’s Human Rights cannot limit the Human Rights of another group; this is exactly what the NHS is doing here. Letting men’s rights trample over women’s rights. Forcing women to change in front of biological males is a form of torture, and, frankly, sexual assault. This is a reminder that men are treated as the default human.

This next but is contradictory on the Occupation requirements which were designed to restrict certain roles to a particular sex. This was supposed to allow female only rape crisis counsellors and for women to refuse intimate care from men. This is what the Trust has to say. The second paragraph contradicts the first.

There follows a detailed section on the employment of “transgender” people and the process for ensuring criminal record checks are obtained without revealing someone’s sex. I have a long-standing concern that this seems to rely on honestly disclosing your previous names and also, even if they are honest about their previous names, this means they can hide their sex from the employer.

After making it clear that there are no restrictions based on any bodily changes the NHS here mandates that females must accept males in their toilets and changing rooms. To be clear Nurses in my local trust are not allowed to wear their uniform on the way to, and from, work so must change, at work, twice a day.

This is the problem with the “real life test” it forces women to serve as handmaids to these men and validate him as something he is not; irrespective of her own discomfort. No man who really “identified” with women would be comfortable forcing them into this position. It shows a level of entitlement I can only describe as “male”. The sooner the NHS is forced to remove all these policies the better.

After another reminder about the severe punishments for “bullying and harassment” ; clearly designed to override women’s rights to object, the NHS Trust proceeds to explain that a man’s wishes are paramount. (I am saying “man” here because females don’t present the same risk to men and those who insist on being in men’s spaces are placing themselves at risk. At the same time these women are also disrespecting male boundaries).

As you can see the NHS trust prioritise part-time “women” over actual women; the biological and only kind. It gets worse: 👇 I cannot even bring myself to be grateful for the crumbs offered at excluding *some* men from open showers.

Single Sex Facilities.

There follows a long section on single sex facilities. Beginning with this belter. Here “full transition” can still mean the person has “Different genital or breast sex appearance”. This is absolute madness!

There follows a section on times where people will be held on the ward for their sex, in the case of females having hysterectomies who think they are men. It is noticeable that a female example is used here. {What the hospital should really be asking themself is why they are performing unnecessary hysterectomies on young women.}

I wonder how many women are going to be gratuitously offended by this policy of trying to ascertain your biological sex. Women are already being asked for preferred pronouns even while pregnant! Notice also the directive to comply immediately with the patient’s preference to be accommodated with the opposite sex illustrative of a total lack of consideration for female (or male) boundaries.

Apparently if sex is indeterminate it should be inferred from “presentation” and clothing but heaven forfend we take into account the sexed bodies. Imagine waking up in the male ward because you have short hair and wear trousers? Or worse, if you are a woman who has lost your hair because of chemotherapy or your breasts through a double mastectomy; you are already feeling stripped of your femininity and the hospital just compounds matters. I am not saying that the sex of a woman, in this situation, becomes unrecognisable but even to ask these questions, as a matter of routine, creates the potential for real offence and distress.

The next bit is unintentionally “transphobic” and raises issues about the differential of females post testosterone and males. The hospital betrays that it knows men generally don’t pass as women.

This brings us into the difficulty of “trans men” and female spaces. They do tend to pass, at least superficially, as men. Hence all the “gotchas” when people post their pictures and ask if women would be comfortable with these “women” in our spaces. Clearly many of us would not be, just based on appearance; they are likely to disrupt the social norms in female spaces. Which brings me to the difficulties faced by female detransitioners. I already know of a couple who feel like there is no way back and now dealing with a new kind of “sex dysphoria” about their actual sex. I wish I had an easy answer to this that doesn’t add to the distress of detransitioned females. Obviously I welcome then back into female spaces but I can’t undo any physical changes which may mean they are questioned, What a mess!

Parental Consent.

The next section makes it clear that the rights of parents must be over-ridden by the hospital staff if the child wishes it even if they are not deemed Gillick Competent. As mad as I would have been if my son was put on a female ward, against my wishes, my anger would be dwarfed if I were the mum of a girl placed on a male ward. As a parent I would then, potentially, face the anger of the parents of girls who resented my son being was placed with them, against my wishes. There is also an asymmetry, based on sex, here, my son would likely be more safe on a female ward, the reverse would be true for females. Because, guess what? Sex Matters!

The Impact Assessment.

The Trust acknowledges that 51% of the population is female but I can’t see a break down of the sex of its patients but I am going to hazard a guess that women make up the vast majority of their patients; given our longevity.

It then goes through each of the protected characteristics, bar one, to pretend they are in compliance with the Equality Act (2010). Before I get to the most egregious example I just want to say they have not addressed the impact of people with Muslim or Orthodox Jewish women; who are unable to share mixed sex spaces. Neither have they considered the heightened vulnerability of disabled women, forced to share spaces with men, including transvestic fetishists. Similarly for older women they have an enhanced vulnerability and may be deeply distressed by being lied to about the sex of the “woman” in the next bed.

However they sank really low with the omission of any consideration of one of the protected characteristics. They omitted SEX and they substituted “gender” ; making it clear this included “transgender” people. They then have the gall to say this policy will impact positively! I am genuinely unable to contain my anger at this.

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

NHS Policy ignores Sex! (Part 1)

Featured

Those of us who have been looking at Transgender policies, at NHS Trusts, have noticed they are much more difficult to find. For a previous post, on Birmingham Hospital, I was sent an email copy of a policy which I had not found but, which was available to employees. My suspicion is that NHS Trusts know women are checking whether they are defending single sex spaces for vulnerable, female, patients. I suspect more of them are restricting their policy to their “intranet” to hide these policies from the general public. The policies for their employees are still mainly available and they tell a diabolical tale.

You can see the rest of this series at the link below. The Trans ideologues have been hard at work for decades and the women’s rights groups are notable by their absence. Men (in the main) have been allowed to write policy that primarily impacts women; just because they claim to have transcended their biological sex.

NHS & Transgender: Series

This policy is from the East Cheshire NHS Trust. I couldn’t find a pdf so I had to screen shot it. This is the link to the policy. Searching the NHS Trust website yields zero results .

Transgender support Policy

I have archived it too. Here are some clips I could find easily. Here the Macclesfield hospital, part of the Trust insist that they operate single sex spaces. This is a deliberate strategy to LIE to women.

Quick reminder of the context in which hospitals are lying to women.

The policy drips with the language of the captured; tell tale sign is echoing the belief that sex is “assigned at birth”, rather than observed and recorded; which is the case for over 99% of us. The policy is drafted with one group in mind who consider themselves “transgender”. They admit, however, that the policy will impact patients, staff, visitors, and contractors. Females make up 51% of the population but, later, we will see that they are over-represented in the patient population, Most women will have a hospital experience via pregnancy and childbirth even if they are otherwise healthy. Our longevity also means we are likely to need hospital admission in later years. Did this Trust speak to any women’s groups? NO!

They did get help drafting the policy from The Gender Trust. This policy was drafted over a decade ago.

The Gender Trust

I did a bit of digging on The Gender Trust. It wasn’t entirely straight forward. They do have a website but it contained no link to its Charity status or details of who was behind the organisation. It also appeared to be inactive.

gendertrust.org.U.K.

The organisation. is a trans lobby organisation.

I managed to track down a Charity registration number but, it turned out the charitable registration had been removed, A search on the U.K. register, directly, yielded no results associated with this registration number. I did find this.

There was also a neither charity called The Gender Trust Association. I found a record on Total Giving which liked it to the same website as The Gender Trust but this charity has also been removed.

There appears to have been accounts filed up to at least 2010.

Thereafter no accounts were filed from at least 2015.

I was able to establish that our old friends the National Lottery had given grants to The Gender Trust. You can search their database for those in receipt of grants. It’s a bit of a clunky database but appears to show they had 4 grants, in total, amounting to £138,000.

Another search turned up the name of Michelle Bridgman acting as a spokesperson. This was the only name I could find; publicly linked to The Gender Trust, I searched Michelle Bridgeman. (I also got a tip off that The Gender Trust had been working with the Scout Association and a link to Bridgeman’s own website).

Michelle /Shelley Bridgeman.

Bridgeman has a website. (Thank you to my informant). Here is a link:

Michelle Bridgeman

Further digging revealed that Bridgeman is a heterosexual, married man who had fathered children, before “transitioning”. You can watch a Ted Talk by him and hear about his past as the “effeminate” son of a distant father and how his parents suffered the early loss of a baby girl. I mention this fact because the loss of a sibling, often, one of the opposite sex, seems to figure more than usual in these narratives.

Dare To Be You

Bridgmen talks at length about a court case he was involved in to oppose the requirement to have his marriage annulled, in order to get his “gender” recognised. (Or as he described it “to get equal rights with other women”.) A fight that took over 10 years and would result in a Supreme Court victory.

Bridgend explains he is registered as a counsellor /psychotherapist and works with both adults and children. He also seems to have been somewhat of a media commentator. Of course he appears on Lorraine Kelly’s show; she has been a chief propagandist for Gender Identity Ideology. [Though I believe the Kelly on TV is not the same person as Loraine Kelly, in real life , for tax purposes.]

Bridgeman has also written a book, which I have not read, but if anyone wishes me to review this let me know.

I had intended to do just one post on this policy but it ended up rather long so part 2 will go into more detail about the policy.

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

Stephen Whittle: Q & A: Gender

Featured

Future of Gender: Part 3 : Q & A

This post covers the Q & A section of a talk given by Professor Stephen Whittle, at Durham University in 2015. We pick up the talk at 59:22.

This will be added to my series on Whittle which you can find here:

Stephen Whittle

You can watch the YouTube of Whittle’s talk here:

The Future of Gender

The first question relates to this book by David Valentine:

The book is based on ethnographic research looking at mainly MTF (Male to female “transgender” people) who he sought out in the drag balls, clinics, bars, support groups and cross-dressing organisations.

The term “transgender” was gaining currency in social settings but also in policy, medical terminology and the legislative context.

Nevertheless there was some resistance to the term “transgender” from the people Valentine encountered, in the nineties; people who preferred to be identified by their sexual orientation and not their “gender identity”. 👇

Whittle is asked if David Valentine is correct that the use of the term “transgender” creates implicit hierarchies, based on race and class.

Whittle chooses to answer the question in terms of the desire, and ability, to pass as the opposite sex, should you wish to do so. She makes an interesting observation on how liberating the computer was in allowing you to pass as the sex you wished you were. On-line “we were who said we were” . A lot of this movement is fostered by the dis-embodied lives of the internet generation. The problem arises when you take your fantasy into real life and demand that it be allowed to trump reality. Nevertheless, Whittle adds, the debate has moved on and “trans” people no longer aspire to “pass” or blend in with normative body types; because the expectation that “trans” people should disappear was “the most oppressive thing that ever happened to us”. My response: Expecting women to accept an obvious man in our single sex spaces is “the most oppressive thing that ever happened to women”.

Whittle follows this up celebrating how many “trans” people there are now in the world; how the smart phone has brought them into our living rooms and trans activists are spreading all over the world. I can think of no other condition where we would celebrate a group of people who are going to be dependent on #BigPharma for life.

The next question comes from an American who ask a question about medical focused on replicating “cis-bodies” . He /She is from the U.S where you can “buy whatever” and he wonders how Whittle feels about bodies “outside the binary”. Whittle gives a rather surprising answer to this, explaining the limitations of achieving a male body for a “trans” man and how she had to reconcile to that difference once she removed her clothes. She now looks on with alarm (this was seven years ago) at people taking flaps of skin from their arms to construct a facsimile of a penis; with all the limitations in terms of sexual function. She even goes so far as to question clinicians “Why are you doing it on kids?”

On “tran women” she is even more blunt.

Whittle elaborates on this theme admitting that there is a lot of denial/self-deception about surgical outcomes. It’s worth sharing these statements in full:

Whittle also points out that our bodies are not like flat pack IKEA furniture, something Mary Harrington calls this treating our bodies as “meat lego”.

Whittle recounts tales he has heard from mother’s who had sons left disappointed at the outcome of the surgeries and its failure to deliver the new life /girlfriend anticipated. Whittle admits a desire to be blunt about these facts and encourage more realistic expectations; though the message is somewhat undercut with the next bit about how having unrealistic dreams can be enjoyable, nevertheless.

There follows a question about how racism was tackled and the use of an essentialist position about race, as a political strategy, even though nobody really believes an essentialist position about race. Whittle is asked how that compares to the politics of “gender”. Whittle talks about how the aim should be that we don’t see “race” anymore. Then she makes an analogy with gender and the gender based violence perpetrated against you because you are a girl, or a boy. (Whittle thinks “gender” creates this violence). Whittle is not explicit about an exact political proposal but the inference is things should get better for females, and males, if we didn’t see “gender”. This ignores the fact that the kind of violence females are subjected to is, frequently, sexual violence, i.e. because of our biological sex. If we pretend sex isn’t real then we can’t see sexism and it’s naive to think this would eradicate sexual violence. Yet, at 1:17 Whittle admits they don’t even know what “gender” is.

The next question is about Facebook and their 51 gender identities. During this exchange we learn that Whittle was involved in the Facebook consultation and personally added six of these “gender identities”. As part of their answer Whittle talks about finding two women with a different style of clothing and, if he asked them to swap clothes, they wouldn’t because “it just isn’t me”. He then makes it clear that he thinks these different styles of dress are different “genders”. Whittle then claims the ability to spot 8 different woman genders based just on looking at women’s outfits! Also she finds it harder with men because their clothing is more. boring; making it abundantly clear he thinks “gender” is your sartorial choices. In the next breath, she says, if you have 51 genders it becomes meaningless and a civilised society will just get rid of the idea of “gender”. I agree we should get rid of the notion of “gender identity” and understand that we are shaped by the treatment we receive as a result of our biological sex and our behaviour, to some degree, is predicated on our biological sex. This does not mean we fit neatly into sexist stereotypes or that women should be limited by our biology, neither can we simply disregard that female bodies are different.

Whittle then talks about cultures that have more than one “gender”. There are, indeed, different cultures that accommodate men, usually gay, by the idea of a different kind of male/gender. These may be a benign way to include gay men. There are less examples of similar accommodations for females. The ones I have found are in societies hardly liberating for women. There are cultures that allow a girl to be treated as “male” if there are no sons in the family. This does not remedy the general position of girls in these societies, instead, it allows the societal structure, which renders girls as less desirable, to remain intact. Similarly societies which allow widows to don a “male” identity to provide for her family. The status of women doesn’t change and, in fact, this exception props up the existing sex hierarchy. See “Bacha Posh”

Or the Burnesha of Albania. 👇

Final question is about the different generations of “trans” people with different understandings of what it means. Does this have implications for the cohesion of the community?

Whittle answers with, firstly, that nobody needs to know your gender and most of the time you don’t need to know what sex people are. He thinks we are obsessed with knowing if you are men, or women, male or female. He adds an anecdote about having to produce documentation showing that he was a woman.

This final statement exposes the regressive nature of this cult. Whittle seems unable to imagine a world where a woman demands to be able to do anything irrespective of her sex. Instead “trans” is envisaged as a liberating project if, crucially, you repudiate your sex. Whittle seems to think the only way a woman can conceive of an occupation which is not “traditional” for women is by identifying out of your sex.

How about a world where women can aspire to transcend societally imposed restrictions, for women, and still own their sex? That would be progressive. Instead, Whittle, seems to live her life as if the only way she could love other women and storm the citadel of male domination is pretending to be a man.

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

Stephen Whittle: Future of Gender

Featured

Part 1

This post covers a talk given by Professor Stephen Whittle at Durham University in 2015. It’s quite a long talk and there is a lot to cover so this is part 1.

This will be added to my series on Whittle which you can find here:

Stephen Whittle

You can watch the YouTube of Whittle’s talk here:

The Future of Gender

In the brief introduction Whittle’s achievements are listed and the fact that he advises governments around the world as well as the Council of Europe, European Union and The European Commission; bear this in mind when you listen to some of the more outlandish statements.

Whittle begins with an anecdote about how the concept of “gender” was explained to their four year old son, by Whittle’s wife, a nurse. He asked his parents how they know the twins were girls. This was the answer given to him:

Many years later Whittle overhears this same son passing on the same explanation to a friend and comments “we trained him well”. Whittle then elaborates on the process of sex determination by adding this explanation:

Next people with disorders of sexual development (DSDs) are pressed into service, to prop up gender identity ideology. At the risk of repeating myself, DSDs, do not mean anyone is born without a sex, we are a sexually dimorphic species. We are all either male or female.

Whittle anticipated the audience may be confused that she is questioning the Future of “Gender” when her whole life has been a quest to live as her “Gendered self”. So, why is she? The concept of “gender” ,she explains, has only a recent history. She then asks if Gender a matter of being “male” or “female”? Apparently the answer to that question is “no” because we also categorise animals as male or female but we don’t call them “girls” and “boys”. Well, we wouldn’t, would we,because this is the terminology for human beings. Apparently, this is because, according to Whittle, we don’t think dogs have a gender identity. (Conveniently overlooking that we do have words to differentiate the sexes in the animal kingdom).

Whittle then argues this is because “gender” is not “biologically related” and the gender you have is something separate from being biologically male or female. The next question is to ask if being male or female is socially constructed. Whittle says “possibly” and we will come back to this. He then asks if “masculine” and “feminine” are culturally determined. Apparently this is worth looking at in some depth so, Whittle promises, we will come back to it.

Whittle then examines whether we are defined by our hormones /chromosomes and then throws out a question to the audience asking if anyone knows what their chromosomes are. Predictably people don’t know. Whittle asks why we are defining humanity by our chromosomes when nobody knows what they are? This is a ludicrous argument. The number of people with chromosomal abnormalities is a tiny proportion of the population. Additionally, routine karyotype tests, to check for chromosomal abnormalities, at gender clinics, were abandoned; because they are not a feature of the referrals to such clinics. 99% of people can be correctly sexed with a simple observation of our genitalia. Whittle uses this argument to question one of the fundamental organising principles of society, based on biological sex. Our sex doesn’t always matter but sometimes it does; this could be for health reasons where your biological sex is a predictor of risk for certain health conditions; or where symptoms present differently in males and females. It matters for single sex spaces so women have safe spaces from the sex that commits 99% of sex offences.

Whittle uses this same argument to question the case of April Ashley, a male, who had his marriage annulled; because same sex marriage was illegal in the U.K at the time. Ashley had never tested their chromosomes, had removed their male genitalia and taken synthetic “female” hormones for decades. Whittle uses this argument to cast doubt on April’s sex to shore up her insistence that “gender identity” should take primacy over “sex”. She does this by casting doubt on the definition of biological sex and implying that April is a woman because their self-identity should take precedence over biological reality.

At 11:30 minutes in Whittle pokes fun at Civil Servants trying to establish if a Civil Partnership for same sex couples can be annulled on the grounds of non-consummation; ultimately they decided it couldn’t. This was because they could not decide which sex act would have to be performed to establish consummation. Whittle paints herself as the rational voice educating the stuffy Civil Servants. She also claims that she had to educate the Civil Servants on the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act which, in effect, allowed marriages for same sex couples, providing one had a Gender Recognition Act. I am not persuaded this happened.

Whittle then asks if “Gender” is a matter of attribution i.e. is it when we call our children our son or daughter that we somehow define their gender? This argument is, once again, intended to undermine the reality of biological sex and Whittle used her own situation to explain how this is flawed because:

The next consideration is to ask if “gender” is a matter of psychological differences. She doesn’t elaborate.

Whittle then argues that there are journals across the sciences, the natural sciences, biochemistry, psychology and even English Literature publishing hundreds of articles discussing “gender”, because it has become a profoundly important question. This question is only of importance to the navel-gazing, gender identity ideologues. Whittle then makes a joke about how it keeps people, invested in Gender Studies, in work. She is not wrong.

I am not going to lie the calibre of this talk is making me lose all respect for the Professorial class! Next Whittle says we have got the issue “arse about face” and proceeds to ask if anyone in the room fancies David Beckham. He assumes someone does, which is a fair assumption, but then she goes into the realms of gender woo woo.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say it’s reasonable to assume David Beckham has a penis and the discovery he had not, or had female genitalia, would be a deal breaker for heterosexual women, or gay men. It’s this kind of rhetoric that leads to confused teenage girls assuming gay men would be attracted to them. Exhibit A 👇 (Our kids really believe this).

And

In case it’s not clear Whittle thinks “gender presentation” drives sexual attraction. “Nothing whatsoever to do with their body”!

Bearing in mind Whittle is talking in 2015, the very year Stonewall added the T to its remit. 👇

Part two makes it clear Whittle knows the statistic about the sexual abuse women face and she still thinks abolishing single sex spaces is morally acceptable.

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

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:

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

£10.00

Tag: Queer Theory

Tweedale. Part 4!

Like this:

I’m better than you: Jordan Gray

Like this:

Un Women U.K. : Pickard 2

Like this:

NHS Policy ignores Sex! (Part 2)

Like this:

NHS Policy ignores Sex! (Part 1)

Like this:

Stephen Whittle: Q & A: Gender

Like this:

Stephen Whittle: Future of Gender

Like this:

Martine Rothblatt: Transgender to Transhuman: Chapter 5

Like this:

Martine Rothblatt: A Billion Sexes!

Like this:

Bernadette Wren: Tavistock 2

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: