Manufacturing Moral Panic: 3

This section outlines the authors thoughts on a “Gender Restrictive Worldview” which is how they characterise those resisting Gender Identity Ideology.

Anti-Gender Identity Ideology: Its a spectrum.

The conundrum facing the authors is how to demonise a group which includes women fighting for sex based rights; Lesbians opposing the colonisation of their spaces by males; parents opposed to medicalised responses to their Gay / Lesbian offspring. The answer is to single out Anti-democratic forces or religious conservatives and suggest we are acting in concert. Naturally the report does not address any of the legitimate but, instead, they claim Gender Critical/Radical Feminists are in an unholy (or Holy) alliance with Right wing, authoritarian regimes / Religious Conservatives. Writing from within the U.K context its hard to characterise this as anything other than unhinged. But, for the sake of argument, let me proffer an alternative perspective. The proponents of Gender Identity Ideology have handed a gift to right wing players, anti-democratic forces / authoritarian regimes who have grasped it with both hands!

As the paper relies on “forced-teaming” with children’s charities they begin by accusing the “opposition” of leveraging faux concern about children. They repeat this accusation throughout the report mainly focussed on the child’s bodily autonomy to express (medicate?) their ”Gender Identity”.

Background to the consortium who are behind the paper is covered here:

Manufacturing Moral Panic

Gender Justice

The title they have chosen for their own movement is the lovely sounding ”Gender Justice”. This allows them to imply they are on the side of women when their real aim is to elevate Gender Identity, above SEX, in law. This has significant implications, particularly under U.K Law because women are a protected characteristic as a sex class NOT as an identity.

The claim that Gender Justice has done anything positive for women’s rights is an egregious lie. Heres a short list of what this means for women: Women are facing the return of the urinary leash as toilets are made mixed sex. We are watching the beginning of the destruction of women’s sports, male rapists are being located in female prisons. Male crimes are being reported and recorded as female crimes. Men, who claim to be women, are running, party political, women’s groups (see the Green Party), a disproportionate number of places on the Jo Cox ”Women Into Leadership” programme were also taken by males, There are ZERO gains for women if we are redefined as an, all-inclusive, gender category.

The authors proceed to identify three factors which have contributed to the success of the backlash to Gender Identity Ideology. Here they claim that Gender Identity Ideology is being used as a substitute for ”Women’s Rights”; ”Equality”; ”the best interests of the child” all at the behest of the Vatican 😳. The reality is that women are fighting for our sex based rights and aghast at the erasure of female language and our dehumanisation as a collection of body parts. We raise child safeguarding because we do not believe it is in a child’s best interests to consent to Puberty Blockers and Cross-sex hormones, which will leave them sterile. I can assure you that the Pope is not in league with feminists of a radical persuasion. Papal opposition to women’s reproductive rights has set the Church on a collision, not a collaborative, course with feminists for decades, nay, centuries. This should not need pointing out but here we are…

It is a neocolonial movement if you import this ideology to parts of the world where women, and homosexuals have little or no rights. As catastrophic as this ideology has been for women, and gay rights, in the west, it has the potential to be far more deleterious in other parts of the globe. In Iran, for example, it is already seen as preferable to transition gay males, and Lesbians, rather than accept homosexuality. Exporting a belief in Gender Identity Ideology has the potential to be seen as a “cure” for homosexuality.

This is how they characterise Gender Restrictive Ideology.

A belief in two biological sexes: Spoiler alert Humans are sexually dimorphic. There are shades of opinion about how women and men are shaped by nature/nurture but Gender Critical Feminists recognising biological reality is not a belief in biological essentialism.
Women who recognise biology are not accepting an inferior position in the sex hierarchy. Quite the opposite.
Many of us are parents of gay males or Lesbians who do not believe our kids need to retreat into a faux-straight, medicalised closet.
The idea that Lesbians / Second wave feminists embrace a heteronormative view of the family and its reproductive mandate is beyond ludicrous.
The idea that a bunch of, often atheist, feminists are cloaking our religious motivation in secular language is another testerical falsehood.

Next up the association fallacy. The Pope believes in the family, the reproductive role of the biological female in news that suprises nobody. I think he would be suprised to know he is in a covert alliance with any brand of feminism, but radical feminists?

The authors deploy Donald Trump, Viktor Orban and Jay Bolsanaro as well as 4Chan fascists to smear by a non-existent association. What the Gender Justice Warriors have done is to hand populists an open goal by embracing the science denialism of Gender Identity Ideology.

Not content with this they accuse parents of denying their children’s rights by a refusal to grant bodily autonomy on the basis of gender and sexual identity. Let us unpack that. My son came out to me, as gay, age 11 as this is well below the age of legal consent my role was to accept his sexuality not support under age expressions of that sexuality. At 14 my son declared himself ”transgender” my role was to protect him from life-altering decisions until he reached maturity, not to allow Gender Identity Ideologues affirm his belief there is something wrong with his sex/sexuality. This entire movement seeks to drive a wedge between parents and children on this issue. You can draw analogies to Mao’s cultural revolution and Hitler Youth. Take your pick.

So, assuming they don’t mean bodily autonomy in respect of sexual behaviour, I can only assume they refer to accepting our children are #BornInTheWrongBody and affirming this belief by a social, or medical, transition. It is quite shocking to find a group of Children’s charitable organisations, signed up to this idea.

Here they reference Spanish Socialists who opposed 2020 bill which would allow teenagers to access hormone treatments without a diagnosis. The bill was also opposed by a far right group so they use this to smear the Spanish Socialist Worker’s party.

Note the final comment which demands funding organisations exclude feminist organisations which centre women in their work. If women don’t include males they are to be financially penalised. This is already happening, in the UK, with women only shelters and even rape crisis services cut off from funding if they are not Trans (meaning male) inclusive.

Next up they take aim at the U.K / Terf Island. Yes, there are numerous cases of male predators using a “trans-identity” to penetrate women’s spaces and bodies. Yes #BigPharma stands to make a killing from hormones by creating lifelong medical patients. There has been a 4000% increase in females presenting to U.K Gender Clinics and early detransitioners are predominantly female and, frequently, Lesbian.

All of the above issues are based on facts which are easily established.

The next target is the Women’s Human Rights Commission. Here they describe women with the acronym “Terf” . As I am sure the authors are aware “Terf” serves as a stand-in for bitch or witch and it is often accompanied by threats of violence, including rape.

You can check out the declaration by WHRC and sign it here: 👇

Declaration of Sex Based Rights

Minor Attracted People (MAPs)

Another worrying reference is to claim there is no movement to normalise paedophilia as another sexual orientation. You don’t need a PhD to find that MAP has become an acronym shared by many twitter accounts. Gay Rights campaigners fought for decades to dispel any association with pederasty. Recently there are high profile organisations seeking to disassociate a sexual interest in children from any intention to sexually offend. See Protasia Foundation, who even have a twitter account. They market themselves as committed to the prevention of child sexual abuse whilst promoting BDSM, Age-role play and Only fans. I am not convinced.

Tweets by ProstasiaInc

You can read more about this movement in this article. Below is an extract which documents an attempt to add paedophilia, as a sexual orientation, to the Manual of mental disorders. 👇. Happening in plain sight.

The normalisation of Pedophiles

Show us the evidence

The document attacks parental responsibility for our own children, denies the documentedpromotion of paedophilia as a sexual orientation, claims stating simple, biological truths are anti-trans. It repeats manifest untruths that are easily debunked. Attempts to smear women through association fallacy will fail. Buried in the 131 page document is this acknowledgement : They found NO EVIDENCE of any direct collaboration but they still accuse Gender Critical Feminists of being allied with the, mythical, Gender Restrictive Movement.

I am unwaged and do this full-time. If you are salaried and able to support my work it will be gratefully received.

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

Researching the impact of Gender Identity Ideology on women & girls as well as the consequences for Lesbians, Gay males and autistic kids. I do this full time and have no income. All my content is open access and donations help keep me going. Only give IF you can afford. Thank you to my generous donors.

£10.00

Foster Care: Final

Here are links to my series on the over-representation of Looked After Children and Gender Identity Issues.

In part 1 I looked at two legal cases involving “transgender” children. The first one is related to a foster parents who have had three of the children in their diagnosed with “Gender Dysphoria”. One was their biological child and the other two were wards of the state. Three unrelated children, in one family, referred to Gender Identity Services.

Looked After Children & Gender Dysphoria 1

In part 2 I looked at a Canadian Gender Identity Specialist. This specialist openly admits that 50% of his referrals, that is 500 children, have come to him from the “looked after ” sector. He also recommends that one way to get access to a medicalised pathway is to make claims of suicide ideation/attempts or self-harm.

Looked After Children & Gender Dysphoria. 2

Part 3 examined a paper which looked at data, on looked after and adopted children, from the UK Gender Identity Service (GIDs) based at the Tavistock.

Gender Dysphoria: Looked after Children. Part 3. U.K. GIDS

In part 4 I looked at a Foster Agency which provides guidance to Professionals in relation to Trans-Identified Youth in their care.

This post will look at some guidance provided for professionals working with children in Foster Care.

You can read the full document here:

Trans+Youth+in+Care+-+A+Guide+For+Social+Care+Professionals

The kit is aimed at Social Care Professionals. It is produced by an organisation called Three Circles Foster Care who are a private limited company. They are involved in the delivery of foster care services across the North West and in Yorkshire. They offer a range of services which include respite care, long and short term placements, pre-adoption placements and a service for unaccompanied minors.

They also offer services from a partner organisation, The National Teaching & Advisory Service which has a common director and offers courses for Foster Carers and Social Workers amongst others.

Here is a link to their website: https://www.threecirclesfostering.com/

The guidance was produced in collaboration with the LGBT Foundation and advice was taken from Trans Activist and NHS employee, Tara Hewitt following a consultaion with The Proud Trust. For those of you unfamiliar with Tara please note them boasting, to Mermaids, about safeguard referring children if the parents are deemed to be unsupportive of a “trans-identity”. The second clip is a newspaper article at the time that Tara was on the candidate list for the Conservative party. Tara has been quite open about their niche sexual interests: BDSM, Bondage, sado-masochism and pet play, which I believe is known as “Furry” fetish. Can’t think of a better person to be advising on an issue that comes under child safeguarding.

As well as The Proud Trust the acknowledgements also thank Susie Green, from Mermaids.

As you can see from the clip below the guidance is s deeply wedded to Gender Identity Ideology. Gender, we are told, is assigned, it includes transgender, non-binary, no gender, gender questioning…but this is not an exhaustive list. As an aside, I notice that even groups deeply wedded to Gender Identity Ideology betray a nervousness that they cannot keep up with the ever widening “identities” under the Transgenda Umbrella.

Children in care /Looked after children are wards of the state for multiple reasons. These children are likely to be among the most vulnerable in our society. It is likely those without a background of trauma/abuse are in a tiny minority. I would go so far as to say that any child, no longer with their birth family, has some issues of “identity” to reckon with because of their background.

The director is Jacob Sibley. In his biography it is noted that he has links to the LGBT Foundation, who, in turn are partnered with the new Gender Identity Clinic (Indigo) which was set up in Manchester to provide an affirmative pathway for trans-identified folks. Indigo Clinic is provide care for those 17 years and above; though its website says this is an initial client group which implies they wish to expand their services.

Three Circles also partner with charities and help support them. Here is one of those Charities. The Proud Trust.

You may have heard of The Proud Trust. They got into some public relations trouble through their controversion sex education. They took money earmarked for women and girls to promote their gender ideology and controversial guidance to sexuality. You can read about them here: https://www.transgendertrend.com/proud-trust-nothing-proud/

The guidance for professionals dealing with “trans” youth has totalitarian overtones. The phrase “educate yourself” springs to mind. In this piece they make it clear that their aim is much broader than you would expect for a guidance pack. They also produce a leaflet which is even more direct.

Trans+youth+in+foster+care

Here is a quote:

They have an ambitious aim of “educating the masses”. Should they not place the children front and centre of all they do and not an agenda to socially engineer society? There are a few quotes which are out and out propagandising their belief system. I would not approve of religious indoctrination to vulnerable kids and this is a much more sinister (and de-stablisiing” ideology to be pushing. Here are another couple of clips:

I can’t think of anything more de-humanising than the adoption of “it” for a pronoun. Indeed in the age of the misery memoir there was a popular one of the genre called “A child Called “It”. I would be seriously concerned if any child insisted on that as a pronoun. It cannot possibly reflect good self-esteem.

Kids in care are also being handed a powerful weopen to challenge the staff/foster parents charged with their care. More than once they are advised to contact the organisation if the foster parents, social workers or Doctors show any resistance to their demands. They provide a phone number so that the child can call their organisation direct if the Foster Carer’s fail to accept their “gender identity”.

Starkly they advise the child that the Foster parents are wrong and the child is given a phone number so the organisation can “put it right”. I can only imagine how intoxicating this power would be to a child, who may have felt pushed from pillar to post /disempowered by becoming a ward of state. To unequivocally assume these vulnerable children are able to make “adult” decisions about their “identity” and ensure that the foster carer knows they are under scrutiny by these organisations is creating a chilling effect.

In another quote the guidance seeks to conjure up the spectre of a police force at your door for using the wrong name, or even “mis-pronouncing” it! Use of a child’s previous name is referred to as “deadnaming” . I have seen similiar statements in school guidance. Sadly, as orwellian as this sounds, you can indeed be reported for a hate crime on similar spurious grounds. The offence is defined by the “victim” so if they say its a hate crime it has to be recorded as such.

In addition the guidance makes it clear that recruitment strategy should also seek to screen for “transphobic” foster carers and make sure prospective foster carers are on board with transgender ideology.

I do want to highlight the pro-medicalisation stance, for kids, of this guidance. They make it clear that Foster Carers should facilitate access to trans groups for their charges. They provide information on how to make referrals to Gender Identity Clinics. They also link to shops to buy “equipment” for kids to enable them to perform their gender identity.

The guidance also includes a graph documenting referrals to GIDS over the preceding years. If this does not make people sit up and notice I despair. Look at the growth. We are referring kids as young as 3. This is not unconnected to the fact that we have let this propaganda be disemminated across our education, medical sectors, all amplified by a media which seems obsessed by “transgender tipping points”..

No guide would be complete without propaganda around the life of a trans person. Selling your wares via victimology is a strategic move when advocating for social justice issues. It cannot help the mental health of young people who have determined their issues will be resolved by “transition”. I cannot begin to understand why Samaritans are silent about the manipulation of suicide ideation to promote their cause. Below is a list of the fearmongering claims from lobby groups. Treat all of this with the scepticism they deserve.

Here is a quote from a young person used in the booklet. The silence of the Samaritans is less suprising when you know they have been trained by GIRES (Trans lobby group). Their current CEO came from Girl Guiding and was in post when they agreed that self-identifed “women” could access shared spaces with female children. I have also been sent confirmation about some of the activists delivering training to Samaritans. That is for another blog.

I find so much that is alarming in both the leaflet and the full document I could add many more clips to this piece. I would recommend you download it and would be pleased to see twitter users doing their own threads highlighting other disturbing aspects of this guidance.

PETER TATCHELL

Featured

First of all kudos to GB News for tackling the issue of Gender Identity Ideology and having a, desperately needed, public debate. In this programme the perspectives of a Trans-Identified male, a Women’s rights campaigner, Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshall (A.K.A Posey Parker), Beverley Jackson (LGB Alliance), Gary Powell (Gay man) and Peter Tatchell (Human Rights campaigner) were interviewed. The U.K Charity, Stonewall, were invited to participate but, to no great surprise, declined to participate.

Today I want to unpack the contribution of Peter Tatchell. You can watch his contribution below.

Peter Tatchell : Gender Debate

Transcript here:

PETER TATCHELL GB NEWS

Peter Tatchell is a, self-styled, Human Rights campaigner, best known for his Gay Rights Activism. His high profile arrest, in Putin’s Russia, for protesting against draconian, anti-gay legislation garnered headlines across the world. He also known, especially in Zimbabwe, for attempting a citizens arrest of Robert Mugabe. Latterly, he is better known, in some circles, for situating himself at the centre of conflict between Trans rights & the rights of Women. He has also attracted criticism from Lesbians and Gay males for his stance on “trans-rights” for ignoring the impact on homosexuals, especially the Lesbian kind.

Peter seems quite keen to speak on this issue. So many Trans Lobby groups refuse to debate the issues so it is, perhaps, unsurprising his views were sought. What is less clear are his motives. Why is he inserting himself in the middle of such a controversial topic? He is, however, especially keen to dispel any notion that he has anything to gain, though a cynic would observe the topic garners a lot of publicity.

Perhaps it is an elaborate penance for a letter he signed, defending free speech, on the controversial topic of Trans Rights? This resulted in, by his own account, the worst abuse he has had in decades of campaigning: Article below 👇

Peter Tatchell and the Trans Backlash

Perhaps he is driven by an ideological commitment to disrupting /queering social norms? Whatever the reason he does seem overly invested in an issue which is unlikely to impact him, personally. Tatchell is keen to neutralise criticism that he is elevating his voice above trans-people. It is noticeable that he does not show a similar concern about speaking over women.

This latest intervention comes after he withdrew from a debate, with Kathleen Stock, on this topic. Trans activists were vocal in their condemnation of him for agreeing to debate Professor Stock. They did not want him lending any credibility to Kathleen’s (quite moderate) stance on this issue. Many women were also unhappy about debating the issue, specifically with Tatchell, but his withdrawal from the debate was driven by Trans Activists, not the pesky women folk. 👇

Alex, the interviewer, opens the debate with two questions. Both relate to the practical implications of biological sex denialism; it’s impact on women’s privacy and the medicalisation of children who display “Gender” non-conforming (GNC) behaviour. Lesbians and Gay males often deviate from performing sex stereotypical behaviour which is why this question is a good one to ask a Gay man with a reputation for defending gay rights. He doesn’t respond to the question about medical interventions on children.

[Both proto-gay males and lesbians can present,early, with atypical expressions of femininity/masculinity, sadly that issue was not explored in this segment. This was a shame because I would like to see Tatchell oppose the Gay Conversion Therapy on his doorstep but he probably knows the headlines would not be as good].

Tatchell opens with a (nervous?) statement about the capacity in which he is speaking. He is, emphatically, not there to speak on behalf of the trans community. He is there as a Human Rights campaigner to speak up for the rights of both women and transwomen. By which, he means, for the rights of males to be included in the category of women.

He demonstrates his neutrality, beautifully, by directing his ire at the previous speaker, a woman. Kellie-Jay, made it abundantly clear that the category of woman is based on SEX not Gender Identity. Tatchell used the, common, tactic of associating women, defending the colonisation of our existence, with homophobia meted out to Gay rights campaigners. He also accused Kellie-Jay of whipping up hysteria about the dangers posed by “transwomen”.

Firstly, Gay men did not demand to be re-categorised as “women” and granted access to spaces where women are undressing, or merely associating, in a female only space. The legal recognition of same sex attraction had ZERO impact on the protected characterstic SEX.

Secondly he has no data to suggest males, who identify as transwomen, present a lower risk to women than other males. It is perfectly possible this category houses more predatory males because it includes those with the paraphilia “autogynephilia”. Also because of the queering of the boundaries, between males and females, we are being asked to accept the notion that some women have a penis . He is defending an ideology which promotes the idea of be-penised women and that a Lady Dick can be distinguished from the average penis. This kind of Phallus in Wonderland, magical thinking, sadly, was not exposed in this interview. I suspect the interviewer may be unfamiliar with the more radical claims of the Gender Identity Ideologues. Or, she may believe the general public are not quite ready to deal with the more outlandish claims. Sadly these beliefs are gaining traction among the political and Chattering Classes.

The various segments were not done in a format that allowed a right of reply so Kellie-Jay was not able to respond to the claims, made above. I wonder if Tatchell knows he is echoing the #NotAllMen phallusy of Men’s Rights Activists? Women exclude males, as a SEX class, because we know that some males are sexual predators. We should not, however, have to invoke fear of sexual violence to demand a right to exclude males. We should be legally protected because we have a right to bodily privacy. We should be, legally, able to congregate, in female only spaces, to discuss issues that affect our sex and only our sex. We don’t want to include males in these discussions.

The “handful” argument is belied by the increased media reports of sexual offenders gathering under the Trans Umbrella. When we finally get actual data monitoring this category of males, specifically, I fear it will confirm women’s worst fears. Presently, the prevalence of trans sex offenders is difficult to ascertain. We do know that under U.K law Rape is an offence specifically involving a penis and that there are over 400, allegedly, female rapists in UK crime statistics. I imagine the number who are actually female is vanishingly small.

It is also only possible to get information by trawling through mis-leading media reports which consistently report Male crimes as if they were commissioned by Women. This is because media guidelines demand female pronouns for male sex offenders. Thanks IPSO! It is IPSO who produced the media guidelines which encourage the media to hide male crimes. Below is a short piece on these guidelines 👇

#TheseAreNotOurCrimes

Below is another diversionary tactic; the substitution of arguments about race to imply they are analogous to the issue of trans rights/women’s rights. By using this argument, Peter, tries to associate feminist arguments with racists. Instead of falling into this trap journalists should demand the interlocutor remain on topic. Argue the merits of your own case directly rather than implying that society needs to throw off the shackles of our backward Sexual Apartheid because it is bigotry akin to racism. For the avoidance of doubt, I don’t care what colour your dick is, for the purposes of women’s single sex spaces:

#AllDicksMatter

Tatchell then deploys another strategy. He claims the thing that women are complaining about has been going on for years and dismisses the “fuss” women are making. This is mendacious. The Transgender Lobby have just LOST (in the U.K) a very public campaign to allow any male to self-declare he is a woman. The new tactic is to claim males have been using women’s spaces for decades and we just didn’t notice! Sadly, for Peter, testosterone packs one hell of a punch and passing remains a pipe dream for most trans-id males, even those with resources to undergo significant surgery. Women are socialised to #BeKind but we do, in the main, recognise biological sex, evolution is such a Terf Bitch. Our safety depends on knowing if we are in a space with a male. Do we say anything thing? No! I refer you to #BeKind and our personal safety. We have all seen the Narcissistic rage of TRAs called “sir”, our lives depend on silence. Peter may interpret this as #Kindness but he is wrong to equate our silence with consent. It is more likely a result of #BeKind/ Doormat feminism or good old fashioned FEAR.

All the countries which have passed Self-ID legislation did so without holding a public debate. It was the public debate that did for this legislative change in the U.K. Grass roots resistance, led by a new group of women’s organisations, alerted ordinary women and we fought back. Women in Ireland, Malta and Argentina and the other countries were less prepared and this legislation was passed by stealth/ tacked onto popular causes. Professional women’s rights organisations were complicit and, consequently, women in these countries are only now waking up to the nightmare scenario the political classes have unleashed on women.

I have written extensively about the current process for obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) in the U.K. We have already given them to fully intact males, even where they have convictions for sexual assaults. For this reason I am not a defender of the status quo but allowing self-declaration would remove any gatekeeping. I would repeal the GRA and provide any protection needed, for refugees from masculinity, on some other basis. I would not allow males to identify into the legal category of woman, because it has been a disaster for women’s sex based rights.

Nobody can just declare they are “trans”

I assume Tatchell is here 👇 talking about the proposed changes to enact a self-id regime in the U.K, or the process in other countries. Here he is saying nobody can just “declare” they are trans by er, checks notes, outlining the process by which anyone can just declare they are trans!

Genius!

I do like his confidence. It seems such a shame to interrupt his confidence with some FACTS. Let me think of a few. Men in women’s sports, a man running a rape crisis centre and telling rape victims, afraid of ALL males, they need to unlearn their transphobia! Rapists in women’s prison, men taking a disproportionate number of places on the Women in Leadership (Jo Cocks) programme…I could go on.

Oh No! He said “Trans Women are Women”

Chanting a thought terminating cliche is beneath an intelligent man. I don’t doubt there are many issues faced by males who adopt the prescribed social norms for women. I don’t doubt they face sexual assault and harassment. Peter may not be aware that Hate Crime legislation doesn’t include the category of SEX, but does protect the category of “Transgender”. So, yes, he can produce the Hate Crime stats and all I have to counter it is a list of, not of the dead-named, but of the actual dead women. Misgendering is the least of our concerns.

This next bit is some forced-teaming from Tatchell. Come on girls, expend your energy being support humans to my undercover brothers, you know you want to! There is a concerted effort to invert the privilege hierarchy and place white males at the bottom of the pile, rhetorically speaking. To convince us black is white transperbole is deployed and, once again, he leverages the much discredited hate crime statistics. Not buying it.

The interviewer interjects at this point to thank Tatchell for his cogent and rational arguments. I instinctively bristle at a man being called rational. Fairly or not, what I hear is, rational as opposed to the hysterical women. Another pet peeve is the way this “debate” is portrayed as #BadOnBothSides. It is a War on Women. We are defending ourselves from the neo-colonialism that is Trans Activism. It is playing “nice” that has allowed the #BeKind Brigade to be, well “brigaded”. Women have been trans-jacked and fighting back is what you do when your rights are under attack. Additionally, anyone paying attention would see the threats of violence, much of it sexual violence, comes from the male people. Women’s counter “attack” is, at its worst, refusing to use female pronouns or commenting on masculine features.

So let’s hear more from a man white-knighting for this most marginalised community. Fact free assertions about inner identity, parroting the authentic selves narrative, bla bla bla, hate crime, marginalised etc etc. Also Peter is a libertarian dontchaknow. If people want to be lifelong medical patients they should be allowed. (I don’t think many people have argued for an end to all surgeries, though I would argue it should be a last resort AND still not grant access to spaces set aside for another sex) Peter is tilting at windmills.

Breathtaking arrogant assertion is his next gambit. People (by which he means women) are making a mountain out of a molehill. Women objecting to having our sex redefined to admit any male are over-reacting! These hysterical women are projecting onto a vulnerable community. So vulnerable they have managed to roll back gains women made over a hundred years ago. So marginal they have captured, nearly, the entire political class.

Safeguarding 101

Also👇the central plank of safeguarding is the need set to a bar high enough to protect vulnerable groups from the BAD APPLES! That’s 101 of safeguarding, design your policy with a focus on the BAD APPLES! Because predators will migrate to where the loopholes exist and this ideology is dismantling safeguards left, right and centre.

He can’t get any worse can he? Yep. He can. 😳. No we don’t ban cars Peter. We do make you pass a test, we make learners wear an L Plate, we fine people for motoring offences, we can ban you from driving and even imprison offenders. We also have social norms (and laws) against drink-driving. This is not the gotcha you think it is.

I like to think Alex had enough at this point. Here the interview should end, and it nearly does. I don’t think it’s a shame the debate is polarised. When someone proposes to socially engineer society, based on a toxic ideology, there is no compromise to be had. We can’t let men have some of women’s rights. The answer is NO! It is a shame that women are being forced to concede our hard won gains in 2021!.

Does Peter go gentle into his goodnight. No! he carried on and makes it, if you can believe it, much, much, worse.

His heart is breaking!

Gloves are off now. How FUCKING DARE you! I will decide who my sisters are thank you very much! We are not SUPPORT HUMANS, there to tend to those males you can’t bear to have in your sex class. YOU DO THE WORK! Maybe have a bit of a think about why you can’t tolerate variant masculinity in your spaces?

We are all Biological Essentialists (apparently)

Next up the old accusations of “biological essentialism”. The argument, he is making, is that Women are allowing ourselves to be defined, and limited by our biology. No, Peter, the “Biology is not Destiny” was an attempt to resist being defined ONLY by our reproductive functions. It did NOT mean we deny the basis of sex based oppression, which originates in our ability to gestate babies. Hence a significant amount of feminist activism has been about controlling our fertility in case you hadn’t noticed.

We were not marching for the right of Laurel Hubbard to lift weights with us!

Hijacking statements about women’s liberation to re-purpose them for trans idealogues is a tactic we have seen before. It lends credence to your argument, at a superficial level, if you can use our words against us. Way to put the MAN in HuMAN rights Peter.

Tactical Obfuscation

Next up he is claims being a woman is a psychological / emotional state. The last bit is nonsensical. No males are members of the sex class of women, irrespective of their intake of artificial hormones. The bit about reproductive capacity is nonsensical. What is he trying to say here? Even if the franken doctors manage to develop artificial wombs to validate a trans ID male, it STILL won’t make them a woman.

He surpasses himself with his sign off. He doesn’t mean hate us, he just knows better than we do. It is the smug, holier than thou, tone that is really enraging.

Thanks Peter. I feel I may be in danger of adding to the toxicity of this debate because all I have to say to you is FUCK OFF and when you get there FUCK OFF some more. (And I rarely swear on here but everybody has their breaking point.)

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

£10.00

Ruth Hunt interview by Talcum X

Featured

Introduction:

Ruth Hunt may believe that she got out of, the UK Charity, Stonewall, reputation intact, I am here to state that she did not. More public, and private, bodies are declining to renew membership, of the Charity’s many, money-making initiatives. Hunt may be congratulating herself that this did not happen on her watch. She is in for a rude awakening, this is her legacy. I intend to capture as much evidence as I can while we wait for the public accountability as the dominoes begin to topple.

Now that Hunt has been elevated to the the House of Lords I want to remind her that it took decades for Lord David Steel to be held to account; over his failure to deal with the child predator, and MP, Cyril Smith. How many more children could have been saved from abuse had he spoken up? Similarly how many of our, young, gay males and Lesbians will have been unnecessarily medicalised before Gender Identity Ideology is defeated. David Steel, eventually, resigned from his party and stood down from the House of Lords. His status did not save him. Stonewall had a proud history of standing up for Gay Rights but have now trashed their reputation. They bear a significant share of responsibiity for the harm Trans ideology has visited on young Lesbians and Gay Males. As CEO Ruth Hunt is similarly tarnished.

Ruth Hunt will indeed have a reputation, even a place in history, but it is one likely to take the proud out of PRIDE! Queer Capitalism indeed!

Primary Source:

Here is the interview. I have saved a copy. There will be mass deletions of tweets, interviews, newspaper articles. We need to archive as many of these as we can. We must NEVER forget who is reponsible for the promotion of this ideology. (Ruth Hunt has already deleted her Twitter account).

Owen Jones interviews Ruth Hunt

Here is a transcript. I have tried to reproduce it accurately but I did have to correct some parts, the intent was clear, but it didn’t translate to the written word. You can cross check the interview for yourself.

owen jones and ruth hunt

The Interview:

The interview takes place when Stonewall were campaigning for a review of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA). The GRA allows someone to obtain a revised birth certificate to reflect a “sex change”. The legislation was designed to facilitate a legal fiction for, we were told, a tiny number of people who we commonly considered to be “transsexual”. What Trans Activists, supported by Stonewall, wished to do was to allow anyone to identify as the opposite sex on a “self-identifying” basis. This would remove any gatekeeping and, as I have shown in previous blogs the process, as it exists now, already allows fully intact, male, rapists to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate.

In the U.K, this proposed “reform”, triggered alarm in many women and led to the formation of Women’s Place U.K and Fairplay For Women as well as other, groups like Standing For Women. Other groups like Object and Filia had existed prior to the GRA.

The strategy Stonewall used to enable this legislative change was to avoid debate. We were told there was no need for one and we should just “skip it”. This approach was perfectly represented by this campaign material.

Stonewall and other Trans Activists also opted for a policy of #NoDebate on the spuriousgrounds that we “debated” Gay Rights and we should simply #Skipit this time. This strategy was exemplified in BBC Radio 4 Women’s Hour attempts to cover the issue. Those representing the Trans Lobby would refuse the appear, on the same programme as Women’s Rights campaigners, claiming this would render them unsafe. This propagated the myth of a vulnerable community and also avoided any, direct, challenge to their arguments. Sometimes Woman’s Hour used taped segments, other times Trans activists refused to appear, at all. Many segments were simply cancelled because nobody, for the Trans Side, would agree to contribute.

Freddy McConnell (Trans-identified Female) outlined their stance, re debate, for the Guardian. Note the framing, discussing this issue is presented as a literal threat to life. It is also notworthy that females are often put up to oppose Women’s rights campaigners to avoid people concluding, correctly in my view, that Trans Lobby Groups are dominated by Men’s Rights Activists. It is a lot easier to get away with the hyperbole of “vulnerable” trans people when using a female with a small build.

Ruth Hunt remembers Stonewall Strategy slightly differently. In this interview she claims the problem is that they had over-estimated the capacity of the general public to engage in the debate in a mature enough fashion. Elitist claptrap. I would, however, agree with Ruth on one point they legal/policy proposals are indeed “naive”. I would suggest the truth of the matter is that Stonewall thought that they could adopt the strategy of passing legislative change by stealth. (See my piece on The Denton’s Document. Thankfully the days of them operating in the shadows are over. We See You, as they say, and we don’t like what we are seeing..

Owen’s response is to profess bafflement. Who are the people (can’t even bring himself to say “women) who want to discuss the conflict of rights between Women and Men? They would be WOMEN, Owen. This illustrates how out of touch Owen is with the Working Class on whose existence and lives he has built his career and income streams. Not one thought for the women in prison’s forced to share space with male rapists? Naturally he frames this as “anti-trans” rather than pro-women. He is grossly ill-informed.

Ruth also knows perfectly well she is talking about people with no desire for a “medical” transition. She even claims that women, opposed to male-bodied people in their spaces, are in danger of putting pressure on the NHS who would not be able to cope with the demand. On this point I can set Ruth’s mind at reast. Surgery does not convert a man into a woman and women still have the right to single sex spaces irrespective of surgical status.

This is how Ms Hunt frames the discussion about the Gender Recognistion Act. It is well worth watching the footage to see the jocular way she and Tiny Owen discuss this proposed amendment to the GRA. “It’s just admin”.

Owen cannot contain his glee at the opportuniity to laugh at all those silly women, kicking up a fuss about nothing.

Ruth then goes on to share her opinion on the existing, legal position. This is what is known as Stonewall Law. Repeat the law as you wish it to be not as it is. If the law already allowed all these things there would have been no need for the amendment. What she is doing here is making sure, even if the law does not change, they can continue training organisations across the land that single sex spaces are illegal.

Below is a clip from the Reindorf Report which investigated the no-platforming of Feminist academics from Essex University. Here’s what the author had to say about Stonewall.

Ruth then goes on to make a statement worthy of Goebels level propaganda. The breathtaking audacity of the following statement flabberghasted me to the point of a Benjamin “butter gasp”!

Yes! It’s not as if we don’t already have male rapists in female prisons, competing in women’s sports, taking Women’s Officer roles in the Green Party and Labour. Its not as if a male, who lied about his sex, is now running a Rape Crisis centre for women. Its not a if Mental Health Nurses are telling a female patient, undergoing a psychotic episode the person who has just exposed his penis to her is a “woman”. Its not as if a man in Monkey costume complete wearing a Dildo is going into Nurseries to read books for children!

Hurdles versus Loopholes.

This is a major social engineering process which requires females accept males in every conceivable space. I cannot resist sharing one final screenshot of this interview. This is where Ms Hunt made a (freudian?) slip and substituted the word “loophole” when, from the context, it seems she meant to say “hurdle”. Daft!

I am looking forward to looking at how Ruth squares this with her Christian Faith and why she claims she would be a good person to navigate the so called “Culture Wars”.

paypal.me/STILLTish

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

£10.00

Foster Care: Trans Guidance

Featured

Part 4 of my series on the over-representation of Looked After Children and Gender Identity Issues.

LOOKING AFTER TRANS YOUTH IN CARE

This post will look at some guidance provided for professionals working with children in Foster Care.

You can read the full document here:

Trans+Youth+in+Care+-+A+Guide+For+Social+Care+Professionals

They also offer services from a partner organisation, The National Teaching & Advisory Service which has a common director and offers courses for Foster Carers and Social Workers amongst others.

Here is a link to their website: https://www.threecirclesfostering.com/

The guidance was produced in collaboration with the LGBT Foundation and advice was taken from Trans Activist and NHS employee, Tara Hewitt following a consultaion with The Proud Trust. For those of you unfamiliar with Tara below they are boasting, to Trans Lobby group, Mermaids, about safeguard referring children if the parents are deemed to be unsupportive of a “trans-identity”. The second clip is a newspaper article at the time that Tara was on the candidate list for the Conservative party. Tara has been quite open about their niche sexual interests: BDSM, Bondage, sado-masochism and pet play, which I believe is known as “Furry” fetish. Can’t think of a better person to be advising on an issue that comes under child safeguarding.

As well as The Proud Trust the acknowledgements also thank Susie Green, from Mermaids.

As you can see from the clip below the guidance is deeply wedded to Gender Identity Ideology. Gender, we are told, is assigned, it includes transgender, non-binary, no gender, gender questioning…but this is not an exhaustive list. As an aside, I notice that even groups entrenched in Transgender belief systems cannot keep up with the ever expanding “identities” under the Transgenda Umbrella. There is a nervous tone to the disclaimers that other identities exist.

The director is Jacob Sibley. In his biography it is noted that he has links to the LGBT Foundation, who, in turn are partnered with the new Gender Identity Clinic (Indigo). The Indigo Clinic was set up in Manchester to provide an affirmative pathway for trans-identified folks. Indigo Clinic provide care for those 17 years and above; though its website says this is an initial client group which implies they wish to expand their services. I presume this means they wish to provide access to younger age groups. I will return to Indigo Clinic in a future post.

Three Circles also partner with charities and help support them. Here is one of those Charities. The Proud Trust.

You may have heard of The Proud Trust. They got into some public relations trouble through their controversion sex education. (You can do a search on “the dice game” + The Proud Trust should you wish to be exposed to this). This charity took money earmarked for women and girls yet seem entirely devoted to promoting gender ideology. I can highly recommend this post on The Proud Trust. https://www.transgendertrend.com/proud-trust-nothing -proud/

Educate Yourself!

The guidance for professionals dealing with “trans” youth has strong totalitarian overtones. Professionals are directed to educate themselves in Gender Identity Ideology and also propagate these beliefs. They make it clear that their aim is much broader than reaching professionals working with youth in care.

They also produce a leaflet which is even more direct about its “mission”. Full copy below:

Trans+youth+in+foster+care

Here is a quote:

They have an ambitious aim of “educating the masses”. Why does an organisation for foster children appear to have an agenda to socially engineer society? Below are a couple of quotes which are explicitly propagandising a belief system. I would not approve of the religious indoctrination of vulnerable kids and this, I argue, is a much more sinister (and de-stablising” ) ideology to be proselytising.

I can’t think of anything more de-humanising than the adoption of “it” for a pronoun. Indeed in the age of the misery memoir there was a popular one of the genre called “A child called “It” which detailed the abuse of a young boy whose mother labelled him “it”. I would be seriously concerned if any child insisted on “it” as a pronoun. It cannot possibly reflect good self-esteem.

At some point we have to examine the possiblity, rather than child-centred care, what we are witnessing a marketing campaign to embed an ideology.

Kids in care are also being handed a powerful weopen to challenge the staff/foster parents charged with their care. More than once children are urged to contact the organisation if foster parents, social workers or Doctors show any resistance to their demands. They provide a phone number so that the child can call their organisation direct if the Foster Carer’s fail to accept their “gender identity”.

Starkly they advise the child that the Foster parents are wrong and the child is given a phone number so the organisation can “put it right”. I can only imagine how intoxicating this power would be to a child, who may have felt pushed from pillar to post /disempowered by becoming a ward of state. The guidance unequivocally assumes these vulnerable children are able to make “adult” decisions about their “identity”. They also ensure foster carer knows they are under scrutiny by the organisation, their source of income, which is bound to create a chilling effect.

In addition the guidance makes it clear that recruitment strategy should also seek to screen for “transphobic” foster carers and make sure prospective employees are on board with transgender ideology.

I also want to highlight the pro-medicalisation stance, for kids, in this guidance. They make it clear that Foster Carers should facilitate access to trans groups for their charges. They provide information on how to make referrals to Gender Identity Clinics. They also link to shops to buy “equipment” for kids to enable them to perform their gender identity. Equipment such as breast binders, prosthetics (breasts and penises) and a link to a shop where they can be purchased. Gendered Intelligence are another trans lobby group.

The guidance also includes a graph documenting referrals to GIDS over the preceding years. If this does not make people sit up and notice I despair. Look at the growth. We are referring kids as young as 3! This is not unconnected to the fact that we have let this propaganda be disemminated across our education, medical sectors, all amplified by a media which seems obsessed by “transgender tipping points”..

No guide would be complete without propaganda around the life of a trans person. Selling your wares via victimology is a strategic move when advocating for social justice issues. It cannot help the mental health of young people who have been persuaded their issues will be resolved by “transition”. Below is a list of the fearmongering claims from lobby groups. Treat all of this with the scepticism they deserve. Most of them are self-reported incidents and via a self-selected group of transgender people. The use of suicide is a particularly egregious tactic I have debunked one set of data in an earlier piece: Suicide in the Trans Community

I find so much that is alarming in both the leaflet and the full document I could add many more clips to this piece. I would recommend you download it and would be pleased to see twitter users doing their own threads highlighting other disturbing aspects of this guidance.

I have had phone calls from Social Workers and Teachers concerned about this topic. I am also hearing from Canadian women that they fear this is disproportionately impacting on indigenous communities. I have no doubt I will be returning to this issue in future work.

Any support is gratefully received. Much of it gets recycled into funding legal cases, organisations helping expose the propaganda in respect of Transgender Identity Ideology.

Gender Dysphoria: Looked after Children. Part 3. U.K. GIDS

Featured

This post is based on a 2019 paper which looks at referrals to the U.K. Gender Clinic, GIDS, based at the Tavistock. The focus is on Adopted & Looked After Children (LACs). The full paper is included below. You can also access it via the link below:

Gender Dysphoria in LAC kids

Gender Dysphoria in looked-after and adopted young people in a gender identity development service – Tom Matthews, Victoria Holt, Senem Sahin, Amelia Taylor, David Griksaitis, 2019

Data Source:

The paper is from 2019 but uses data covering Tavistock patients during 2009 to 2011. It is unclear why the data doesn’t extend beyond this date. It may be significant that the data was extracted from clinical notes and, possibly, the researchers were required to harvest it manually. There appears to be a paucity of data collection, within GIDs, on the vulnerable groups referred to their service. Lack of ready access to data is frequently used as a reason to justify lack of compliance with Freedom of Information Requests. The law allows an organisation to deny an FOI if there is deemed to be an excessive amount of hours required to extract the data. GIDs have used this exemption multiple times on their FOI log. If you are familiar with the Keira Bell case you will recall the Judges who expressed surprise multiple times that data was not readily available.

If you are not familiar with the Keira Bell case I cover it below:

Kiera Bell: Judicial Review

Vulnerable Children & GIDS.

The researchers note the high rate of GIDS referrals from Looked after (LAC) and adopted children. They note that LACs make up 0.58% of the general population but 4.9% of GIDs referrals. Adopted children account for another 3.8% of referrals. The data, therefore, illustrates a significant over-representation of these groups in the GIDs patient population.

It is worth noting that children living with grandparents are counted in the category of children living with their biological family (YPBF). In my experience every child I know, who is living with grandparents, has some trauma in their background, often related to bereavement or alcohol/drug dependent parents. I would have preferred to see disaggregated data on this group of children. The children from disrupted family backgrounds are therefore under-estimated in the population defined by the researchers.

Below is a clip from the David Taylor report which raised concerns about GIDs back in 2005. The David Taylor report was eventually released 15 years later folllowing an information request. The GIDS service, at the Tavistock, resisted publication and they only capitulated when they lost an appeal to the Freedom of Information Commissioner. David Taylor also noted the GIDs referrals from vulnerable children with troubled backgrounds. Child abuse, multiple caregivers or otherwise deprived or injurious upbringings are more likely to present with Gender Identity Issues. This is not new information. (I have a copy of the Taylor report and intend to do a piece on it, shortly)

Adolescence is a time of profound identity exploration. This can be a difficult time even for adolescents within a stable family context. What Gender Identity Ideologues demand is that we affirm a “gender identity”, in children/teenagers as if it were a concrete, stable identity. They further argue that this represents an “authentic” self which nevertheless needs the administration of life altering medications/surgeries. At the same time we are told to bear the concept of “gender fluidity” in mind which instructs us to recognise that gender identity is subject to change.

Gender fluidity allows the ideology to account for the emergence of middle aged males who claim a female Gender Identity at a late stage. Many of these men are heterosexual fathers and often emerge from male dominated professions. There seems to be a preponderance of,ex-army, late transitioners which is an interesting phenomenon. Blanchard’s theory of autogynephilia seems to best describe these males. A midlife crisis, where Barry becomes Belinda, is a phenomenon with little in common with “transgender children“. However gender dysphoric children distract from the sexual motivations of adult males, validate their inner woman and serve as the equivalent of “beards” for AGP males.

I know! Sometimes I wish I did not know any of this stuff too.

Homosexuality

Another glaring omission from this data is the absence of any figures on how many are proto-gay kids. Coyly the researchers avoid the word “homosexual” and, instead talk about diverse sexual identities.

Co-morbidity in referrals to GIDS.

Another feature of children referred to Gender Identity Services is a higher than expected rate of autistic children. Children who had experienced bullying and were self-harming are also noted. Data from Finland shows extremely high rates of co-morbid psychiatric conditions. A whopping 68% were found to have had prior engagement with psychiatric services for reasons other then their Gender Dysphoria.

The research also looks at rates of referral to endocrinologists between the different groups. The Looked after group, who obtained a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria, had the highest rates. At the same time they had the lowest rates of meeting the threshold for a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria.

Parents of adopted children show the greatest reluctance to embark on medications and are described as exhibiting nervousness about how they would be perceived. The report authors’ perspective is that a lack of parental advocacy, for LAC/Adopted children is impeding treatment for Gender Dysphoria, for children not residing with their biological family.

Their preferred solution is to improve access to diagnosis/treatment by accelerating pre-treatment counselling. It is recommended that more frequent appointments may be necessary to ensure that LAC children are not disadvantaged. I share the concern about the lack of parental advocacy but from a diametrically opposed viewpoint. Parents have a key role in protecting their children from irreversible medical decisions they may come to regret. In Canada a father has recently been imprisoned after refusing to remain silent about the fact his teenage daughter has been put on testosterone and is on a path to double mastectomy. (I will cover that case in a later blog)

The GIDS based research illustrates a huge over-representation from children already identified as a vulnerable group. It is notable that the data in this paper is from 2009-11 and before the huge surge in referrals we have seen in recent years. Research in Finland produced an even higher figure (13%) for referrals in this group.

After I published my first piece I was sent a link to the Irish article, posted below, which raised similar issues re the profile of children referred to Gender Identity Services.

Irish Referrals for Gender Dysphoria

Transgender Equality Inquiry

The issue of looked after children has appeared in submissions to the Parliament’s Transgender Equality Inquiry. Susie Green, of the controversial charity Mermaids, issued a typically hyperbolic statement:

Bernadette Wren, of the Tavistock, issued a more moderate statement but implies that Looked After Children may not find their way to GIDs services and that Social Workers need to be confident in making sure they know what these children are entitled to…

Its time we started looking more critically about the idea of an innate gender identity and why this belief system has gained so much traction in (very)recent history. Children in care/ adopted children are among the most vulnerable in our society. There is little doubt in my mind that we are witnessing social engineering and the unintended (?) consequence is negatively impacting vulnerable children/teens. Foster children and those adopted are another group that needs safeguarding.

Once again we are seeing of issues of vulnerability in the children/teenagers harvested by Gender Identity Ideology.

Any donations welcome. Please don’t do so unless you can afford. I do this full-time and it enables me to pay for software, books and to recycle any monies to relevant causes.

Looked After Children & Gender Dysphoria. 2

Featured

Wallace Wong

Wallace Wong is a Gender Identity Specialist based in Vancouver. He boasts that, of the 1000 children in his care, 500 are children from the looked after system. That is children who are, in some way, wards of the state. Wallace Wong works for the Ministry of Children and Families and also has a private practice.

He arrived at his current career path after noticing how many “transwomen” were impacted by the HIV/AIDs crisis. He initially began working with adults but soon noticed that the age of those with “Gender Identity” confusion was becoming increasingly younger.

You can listen to the full audio at this site. I imagine that many of you may diverge from their larger aims (as do I) however, given the dearth of coverage in other media outlets I will link to their research. This is the only way to honour my commitment to provide primary sources, where possible. The link is below.

Wallace Wong

The clips in my piece were included in the vimeo embedded in the above link. I have listened to it, in its entirety, and can attest to the accuracy of the transcribing. It is a long presentation and I can’t do justice to all of the issues it raises but below is a brief overview.

Wong argues that we must not confuse gender incongruence/roles with being Transgender but most of the examples supplied are of boys who like “girly” things. Expect lots of references to princesses and pretty things. He dismisses research showing high rates of desistance in children who, historically, claimed a trans-identity. He argues that “gender” is innate and quotes some research about hard-wired neurological causes based on MRI scans proving #LadyBrain. He also quotes some self-reported adherence to sex stereotypical behaviour, typically associated with the opposite sex. I suspect Wallace has not heard of the, Shakespearean, quote “the wish was father to the thought” (Henry IV, Part II). We are treathing retrospective wish fulfilment as if it is peer reviewed evidence. Laverne Cox & Caitlin Jenner are wheeled out to confirm the idea that children know they are trans age three. Caitlin, you may remember managed to father five children and win Olympic medals during his male life. Laughably, at one point a video commentator appears to think the existence of Facebook “genders” has some sort of evidential significance.

He is also at pains to dismiss any concern that confusion could arise between emerging homosexuality and a proto transkid. Similarly he argues that high rates of autism can be expected because both autistic traits and transgender traits are biologically determined. High rates of co-morbid mental health issues are to be expected, he argues, because being transgender is hard.

Below Dr Wallace seems keen that we should know he is seeing patients as young as 3. He also makes it clear about the fast pace of this change and the fact that research has not kept pace with this development.

Below is where Wong makes the startling admission that 50% (500 out of his 1000 referrals) are from the Ministry of Children and families. This means they are somewhere in the care system and commonly referred to as “Looked After Children”. Dr Wallace doesn’t appear to have much professional curiosity about the exponential growth in “transkids” over this period.

Jenn Smith (also based in Vancouver) is a male who expresses “feminine” and ascribes this to his experience within the care system. Jenn argues that children in care are particularly vulnerable to “identity” issues which also extend to “gender identity”. It was Jenn Smith who first made me consider this aspect of the debate.

You can catch up with Jenn Smith on his YouTube channel and here Jenn Talks specifically about this issue here:

Jenn Smith: Foster Kids

Listening to Jenn Smith talk it is hard not to be concerned about an estimated figure of one in ten LAC (Looked After Children) identifing as transgender. This is contrasted with an estimated figure of one in 200 of children residing with their birth families. Another disturbing dimension is whether the indigenous children, over-represented in LAC settings, are also being medicalised as “transgender”. This has dangerous echoes of the scandal of sterilisation of indigenous peoples which is a stain on Canada’s history. If they are included in this population, of transkids, that is a damning indictment of those tasked with the welfare of children in British Columbia.

Wong does identify the dangers of social contagion in his presentation. I suspect this is now such an obvious phenomenon he feels obliged to address it. He prefaces the quotes below with some arguments that the internet has allowed “trans children” to develop an awareness of their identity and find acceptance, and knowledge, in on-line communities. Below, he at least acknowledges the dangers of kids, particularly those “on the spectrum” (referring to Autism I assume) to be swept along with trans-ideation.

Astonishingly he acknowledges that 20% of Transgender kids are autistic but this is simply dismissed because autistic kids and transgender kids are “born this way“. This is not an uncommon feature of arguments from Gender Identity proponents. Once you embrace the belief of an innate gender identity you can find evidence everywhere and fit facts to confirm your hypothesis. Conversely if, like me, you are a sceptic the ideology has more holes than a string vest.

He introduces videos throughout his presentation and one is a parent whose child came out to them at three years of age. I have not included the parent’s quote but suffice to say, like a lot of these tales, it is a boy who likes pink and sparkly things. We are told that her original therapist counselled a watch and wait approach and quoted an 80% figure for expectations of desistance. The same presentation proceeds to rubbish a study based in the Netherlands which supported this observation.

What the audience are not told is that there was only one Gender Identity clinic in the Netherlands so the researchers made the, entirely reasonable, assumption that loss to follow up could reasonably be correlated with desistance. The alternative was that the child had been taken abroad, and paid for treatment, rather than access the free treatment within the Netherlands.

Wong also rubbishes another study which found that most of the boys grew up to be gay. The unfortunately named “Sissy boys” were identified for their Gender non-conforming presentation. Here Wong argues that the study was flawed because they did not use boys who said they were actually girls. It does not seem to have occured to Wong that it was the 1970’s. Identifying as the other sex was not a social norm at the time. It is the near ubiquity of teaching about Gender Identity in our schools (especially in Canada) that has left a generation thinking you can choose your sex.

Wong then utters this statement which shows he is utterly disregarding any research that suggests he may be making an egregious error. To much laughter he dismisses any caution with this facile statement. Apparently, if the 80% is correct he is lucky enough to be seeing the 20% who would persist. Crassly he also argues that some of those kids may not appear in the figures because they will have committed suicide. As I have said, many times, there is just no evidence for this epidemic of transgender suicides in adolescents. Wong may feel blessed and lucky but it was bad luck for any child who walked into his office.

All of which takes me to the more egregious aspect of the advice Wong is dishing out. The question of how to overcome barriers to access to Gender Identity treatment was raised. Wong requests that this part of his presentation is not taped and then, after a side swipe at the gate-keeping goverment, he advises: “Pull a stunt. Suicide, every time, they will give you what you need“

This series is looking at the vulnerability of Children in Care; who have no parents to speak up for them. Not all the parents in Vancover are absent. It was also Vancouver who imprisoned a father who opposed the provision of testosterone for his teenage daughter and refused to remain silent. It would be interesting to see who was the Gender Identity Specialist involved in that case. Is there a connection?

I could not say but I certainly want to do a series on parents caught up in this nightmare.

If you can support my work it will be appreciated. Below is one way to do so until we get more media outlets willing to cover the issues I cover on my blog. Only if it is affordable and regardless my content will remain free.

My next piece will be on the percentage of kids in care referred to GIDs, in the U.K. Are the researchers concerned that these, vulnerable, kids have no parents to question the medical interventions proposed? Or. Are they worried children in care are not being treated fast enough? Watch this space.

paypal.me/STILLTish

£10.00

Looked After Children & Gender Dysphoria 1

Featured

The first alarm bells rung for me when this court case was heard. Lancashire County Council tried to withdraw the case but the foster parents involved insisted it went ahead. The parents argued a public airing was the only way to to remove any slur on their reputation. I am grateful for their stance because it has allowed us to see the arguments played out in public.

Here is a link to the source for the legal judgement and a PDF copy.

Foster Parents and GIDS

Lancashire County Council v TP & Ors(Permission to Withdraw Care Proceedings) [2019] EWFC 30 (09 May 2019)

It’s a complex judgement involving multiple interested parties; hence the number of legal representatives. The concerns centre on two of the children, one biological and one fostered, though wider issues were raised about the other 3 foster children in the family. The case raises concerns in respect of medical diagnoses, hospital visits and the role of the parents. I will, however, only focus on the issue of Gender Dysphoria. The extract below gives a flavour of the concerns raised:

Notwithstanding the judgement, which found in the parents favour, some witnesses expressed concern about the precipitate nature of the social transition of the two male children. Identified only as H & R, one is a biological child and another a foster child. So, they not biologically related. Already, by age 7, R is socially transitioned and has had a formal name change. H was socially transitioned at age 4. The parents are confident this is a permanent state of affairs. 👇

Furthermore, the court case reveals, the couple had an earlier foster placement who also had “Gender Identity” issues. The case notes that a number of the foster children had development or health issues. In the interests of balance it is important to remember these children had been removed from parental homes and suffered neglect / abuse prior to their arrival in this family setting.

One of the concerns was raised by an anonymous party who is described as a member of the extended family. The Local Authority received this referral which expressed concern about three members of the same family, presenting with Gender Dysphoria. Only two of the children remain in the care of this family and it is not clear whether the previous child had been treated, medically or otherwise, for their gender Identity issues.

It is also noted that contact had been made with the Tavistock (the U.Ks main Gender Identity Development Service) who had, in turn, referred them to Mermaids for additional support. Below are details of another case which sheds further light on the role of the judiciary in these complex cases.

The case of J (A Minor)

Mermaids is a UK charity who campaign on the issue of “transkids” and provide networking /support for parents and their children. It is worth noting that Mermaids also appeared in an earlier judgement, which they hotly contested. There were a number of similiarity in that case and the Judge, in that case made a series of criticisms about the parent, the Local Authority and the social workers involved in the case. In that case the mother lost custody of her male child. I include a transcript and some excerpts from that case below.

J (A Minor), Re [2016] EWHC 2430 (Fam) (21 October 2016)

Here is a sample of the judges criticisms in that case. These concerns were not negligible. Failure in safeguarding, naivety and professional arrogance. 👇 Damning!

Below is an ipso ruling over a complaint, from Mermaids, about press coverage of the above case. This is also worth reading.

Mermaids v The Times

The Times made a number of points and one of them was based on a facebook post made by Mermaids. In the post they expressed outrage the judge was alleged to have ordered the parents to cease engagement with the charity. Below are two excerpts from the Ipso ruling. Not the clean bill of health they may have been hoping for…😳

Back to the Lancashire case.

The court heard from a previous report, echoing that of Lisa North, who described the parents (CP & TP) as “highly manipulative people” and expressed concern that the Gender Identity issues were the result of the parent’s behaviour and part of a pattern of seeking medical diagnoses.

Ms Sayer, quoted below assigns more benign motivations to CP’s attitude to the Gender Dysphoria diagnosis. Nevertheless she expresses concern about how they could revert to their “assigned gender” after being socially transitioned.

The court next heard from an expert in the field of Gender Dysphoria. Dr Pasterski is one of a handful of experts who appear regularly in these court cases. One of the difficulties for the judicial system is a reliance on people who work in this field and, by definition, believe that Gender Identity is innate.

Dr Pasterski is familiar to me as she made an appearance in an earlier court case. This case was of a thrice married man, with seven children, and a conviction for obtaining explosives with intent to endanger life, who nevertheless manages to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate. (Remember this case when people argue how difficult it is to get legal recognition. In this case a single judge overturned the decision of the Gender Recognition Panel)

You can read about that case here: 👇

Ms Jay

Here is an excerpt, from the judicial transcript in the Ms Jay case, in which the Gender Recognition Panel cast doubt on the reliability of Dr Pasterski’s evidence.

Dr Pasterski is introduced, in the Lancashire case, with an emphasis on her 23 years of experience as a chartered psychologist and a gender identity specialist. I imagine the judge placed great weight on her testimony. Here Dr Pasterski rubbishes well established data on the number of children who desist from a trans-identity. She does this using the argument that anyone who desists from a trans identity was wrongly diagnosed. De-transitioners commonly face this argument. Despite having an actual diagnosis of “Gender Dysphoria”, from the Tavistock, it is frequently argued Keira Bell was not really “transgender”. The same people insist any diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria is so reliable it can be used to justify early intervention. Both these things cannot be true. Dr Pasterski also dismisses the idea of extensive co-morbidities in this demographic. I wish the Judge had asked for evidence of this because it contradicts all the research I have undertaken. (Something I will cover later in this series, specifically in relation to Foster Children).

During the case we also learn the family fostered a child from June 2004 to 2007 and this child also had “gender identitiy issues”. We don’t discover if this child had persisted, or where they are now, or whether they left simply due to reaching age of majority.

Dr Pasterski refrains from commenting on the third child but dismisses concerns about the likelihood of their being two (which as we know was really three) children with a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria, in one family. Pasterski emphasises that the condition has a basis in neurological or biological functioning and claims she has seen multiple cases in one family. This is a claim which could have done with more interrogation. Firstly the evidence for a neurological or biological basis for an innate Gender Identity is by no means settled science. (There are numerous articles debunking this claim which I cover elsewhere on this blog but the common element seems to be the concept of neuroplasticity.) Secondly it seems important to note that these three children were not biologically related all they have in common is the environment in which they are being brought up.

So, what prompted the School to make a referral to Children’s Services? There were concerns of fabricated and induced illness in respect of four children in the care of CP and TP and a reported concern about a casual reference to “here’s another one for the Tavistock” by TP.

In the final analysis the judgement determined that the children should remain in the care of these foster parents. A successful defence was mounted in relation to the hospital visits. These, it was argued, could be attributed to hyper vigilance, especially because at least one child had pre-existing conditions. The other incidents were designated as not more than a normal rates of accidents. Gender Identity experts dismissed concerns about why there would be two ( in reality there were three) foster placements who developed Gender Identity Issues.

This court case has been covered many times before, hence I have not, previously, included it on my blog. I cover it now because it will form part one of a series on “Looked After Children”. I will be looking at research based on GIDs data. I will also look at British Columbia (Canada). I will also cover published guidance given to foster carers. Since I indicated I would be covering this, my in-box is filling up with useful research and first hand accounts. I am being sent replies indicating this is a problem in Brazil, Australia and the United States and that it is a particular issue in indigenous communities.

My content remains open and free but if you can support me it would be appreciated. Please only do so if you can afford and don’t choose me over legal cases if funds are in short supply when divvying up the #WomanTax.

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

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth. Support is always appreciated (I have no income) but I would be equally happy if you contributed to a relevant legal case, a crowdfunder for Lesbian and Gay News or Safe Schools Alliance

£10.00

Tag: Safeguarding

Manufacturing Moral Panic: 3

I am unwaged and do this full-time. If you are salaried and able to support my work it will be gratefully received.

Like this:

Foster Care: Final

In part 4 I looked at a Foster Agency which provides guidance to Professionals in relation to Trans-Identified Youth in their care.

I find so much that is alarming in both the leaflet and the full document I could add many more clips to this piece. I would recommend you download it and would be pleased to see twitter users doing their own threads highlighting other disturbing aspects of this guidance.

Like this:

PETER TATCHELL

Like this:

Ruth Hunt interview by Talcum X

Like this:

Foster Care: Trans Guidance

LOOKING AFTER TRANS YOUTH IN CARE

Educate Yourself!

Like this:

Gender Dysphoria: Looked after Children. Part 3. U.K. GIDS

Data Source:

Vulnerable Children & GIDS.

Transgender Equality Inquiry

Like this:

Looked After Children & Gender Dysphoria. 2

Wallace Wong

Like this:

Looked After Children & Gender Dysphoria 1

The case of J (A Minor)

Back to the Lancashire case.

Like this:

I am unwaged and do this full-time. If you are salaried and able to support my work it will be gratefully received.

Share this:

Like this:

In part 4 I looked at a Foster Agency which provides guidance to Professionals in relation to Trans-Identified Youth in their care.

I find so much that is alarming in both the leaflet and the full document I could add many more clips to this piece. I would recommend you download it and would be pleased to see twitter users doing their own threads highlighting other disturbing aspects of this guidance.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

LOOKING AFTER TRANS YOUTH IN CARE

Educate Yourself!

Share this:

Like this:

Data Source:

Vulnerable Children & GIDS.

Transgender Equality Inquiry

Share this:

Like this:

Wallace Wong

Share this:

Like this:

The case of J (A Minor)

Back to the Lancashire case.

Share this:

Like this: