To finish of this series I decided to listen to the interview with Stella O’Malley and Sasha Ayad for the Gender: A wider Lens series. It is undoubtedly a coup to be granted a rare interview with Dr Ann Lawrence. You can listen here:
For those of you unfamiliar with the series, Lawrence identifies as a Male ”Transsexual” and is open about his motivation to ”transition”; namely Autogynephilia, a sexual paraphilia. Definition below.
O’Malley is a psychotherapists and Ayad is a Licenced adolescent therapist both deal with young, clients who present with Gender Dysphoria. Needless to say I am not privvy to their client list but it seems reasonable to suppose some of their clients must appear to fall into the AGP category. I have seen at least one YouTuber describing his sexual motivation to identify as female even though it is usually a paraphilia associated with older males. We, perhaps, have the near ubiquity of porn to thank for this phenomenon.
Lawrence writes a lot about adult, AGP males and their tendency to reconstruct their childhood memories to deemphasise the sexual motivations for their ”transition” so I always listen with a degree of skepticism about AGP narratives. Lawrence is a controversial figure among what is called the “Trans” community for being willing to acknowledge autogynephilia. This probably makes him more honest than most but very early in the interview he makes a claim that even children can present with autogynephilia. I am immediately uncomfortable with this framing. I will become more uncomfortable when he talks about documented cases, in sexology literature, of penile erections in toddlers when allowed to play with female clothing. I have not located these sources but I am immediately concerned about the veracity of these claims or, if the research exists, the ethics of any research into the erections of three year olds. One of the central tenets of queer theory involves the rejection of social norms and many activists seem to get a perverse kick in exploring the darker side of human impulses, paedophilia and zoophilia being two.
Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria
Asked about this phenomenon it is clear that Lawrence has not encountered the work of Lisa Littman who coined the term (ROGD). On the one hand Lawrence says his own parents would have seen his case as Rapid Onset gender Dysphoria but he is also keen that his work is out there so AGP males have an explanation of their ”condition”. On social contagion he concedes that it is very difficult to be female in this society so, in the age of the internet, rising numbers of females in flight from their sex don’t surprise him. I wonder if Lawrence is self-aware enough to know that one of the difficulties women and girls face is the hyper-sexualisation of of our bodies. Autogynephilic men are literally projecting their sexist notions of what makes a woman onto their own bodies but also, by extension onto the bodies of all women. They associate being female with feeling sexually aroused which is inherently sexist. I don’t think Lawrence understands his role in the discomfort girls feel about their bodies once puberty hits, he laments the fact that women and girls are disrespected by broader society but lacks self-awareness of his own contribution to the treatment of women.
On the role of the internet Lawrence says had he had access to the internet he would likely have ”transitioned” earlier. As it was he left it till he was in his forties, at the time of the interview he was 71.
Lawrence is good in this segment as he talks about how many AGP males deal with their shame by projecting anger and exhibit entitlement with a lack of empathy. I covered his paper on this topic earlier in the series: 👇
Asked about transwidows, Lawrence expresses sympathy for both wives and children of ”transitioned” fathers. Lawrence says entering a marriage with severe autogynephilia to be cautious about entering marriage, especially if they are embarking on marriage as a ”cure”; especially if your erotic urges are entirely self-directed. Stella brings up the stories of AGP husbands who are abusive. Lawrence does not really address the abuse but concedes it can be very harmful to have an AGP family member.
Lawrence ends with his thoughts on teenage males who exhibit autogynephilia. He imagines a past where he would have had himself castrated to avoid any masculinisation. He makes the case for AGP as a sexual orientation which is immutable. He believes there are intelligent boys who know their own mind at thirteen or fourteen and these boys should be allowed to obtain medical intervention. As an aside he references the practice of castrating boys to create singers with a better voice range (Castratos). He is mainly concerned about better cosmetic outcomes.
He finishes with a debt of acknowledgement to Ray Blanchard.
I doubt Lawrence would have agreed to a more challenging interview format and the fact that Stella and Sasha are both therapists, and possibly also because they are female, may have prompted Lawrence to agree to speak. Any attempt to legitimise autogynephilia as a sexual orientation should, in my view, be fiercely resisted. Similarly agreeing medical intervention at 13 or 14 for any male is a dangerous suggestion. Lawrence focuses on the ability of the adult male to better pass and suggests there is a route back for males who take this path. Naturally occurring sex hormones play a pivotal role in pubertal development; which continues up to age 25. Blocking puberty does not just stop the developing of genitalia but also has an impact on brain development which is poorly understood. Lawrence is projecting his own, adult, wish fulfilment onto adolescent boys.
If you can donate to help with costs for this blog you can do so here:
Full disclosure: Kathleen, very kindly, donated a signed copy of her book which she took the trouble to post to me. This was done despite Kathleen being aware that I was unlikely to agree with every one of her ideas or conclusions. It is true that I diverge on some issues but, nevertheless I highly recommend this book.
Kathleen (Professor Stock) writes from the perspective of an academic, philospher, whilst currently holding a post within a UK University. She has been subjected to a campaign of villification, from within her own discipline, and the university sector more generally. Even the main union for University staff, UCU, has not stepped up to protect women in Kathleen’s position. I cannot begin to imagine writing this book, from within academia, and I commend her courage in doing so. As Kathleen points out there is a huge struggle to get dissenting voices into the literature on this topic. This book represents a significant milestone in breaking this silence.
My reception of the book probably needs some clarity about my own perspective, or biases, if you will. I am not pure enough to claim the label radical feminist but I would say I am radical feminist adjacent; since their analysis makes the most sense to me. In a twist of fate I now find myself the mum of a trans-identified male and caught up in a fucked up, post modern, version of Sophie’s Choice. I am expected to hand my (gay) son over to the medical profession who, I am assured, will return a living “daughter”. My perspective is thus informed by both my feminism and the impact on my son. This is not easy terrain to navigate when you are also a stalwart defender of women’s, sex based, rights. It also makes me more, perhaps too, inclined to want to understand motivations for homosexual transitioners. My compassion should not be taken as compromise where women’s rights are concerned.
A brief history of Gender Identity
The book traces the origins of Gender Identity as a concept and covers feminist voices who argued that feminism could be advanced by a more extreme belief that sex differences were wholly “culturally constructed”. She covers Simone de Beauvoir, JohnMoney, Anne Fausto-Sterling (of “five sexes” fame), Judith Butler and also cites Julia Serano as one of the trans voices covered. I would have added the work of Janice Raymond to this list because “Transsexual Empire” is a seminal text on this area. Its omission may have been tactical because Raymond’s book tends to inflame those who see themselves as activists for the “Transgender” community.
John Money and Robert Stoller concieved of the idea we each have a “gender identity” which, as we have seen, is now being embedded in society and rapidly being privileged over biological sex.
This chapter also covers the Yogakarta principles which are essential to understanding how activists envision a world where gender identity is embedded in the law. There is also a section on the origin of the term “Terf” ; which is useful for those of you unaware of the history of it’s coinage.
What is sex?
The What is Sex chapter is a good debunking of the common arguments claiming it is difficult to define sex, that we are not sexually dimorphic and conflating issues of intersex (disorders of sexual development) with a trans identity. It may seem ludicrous but some, self-identified, serious academics proclaim we didn’t know to which sex to deny the vote. Apparently it was all a random act of disenfranchisement based on the nebulous concept of “gender identity”. If only Emmeline had come out as Edward Pankhurst the women’s rights movement could have been exposed as a complete waste of time. Below is a seaside postcard from the time.
For those of a philosophical bent this chapter will particularly appeal. I have rehearsed these arguments with trans-activists over many years so much of the content was familiar. One of the key issues that resonates with me is that we must not simply reduce everything to XX chromosomes. I am thinking of women with no abiliity to process testosterone. Their chromosomes will be XY but they will have had a female (oestrogen led) puberty They often have no idea they have male chromosomes until they fail to menstruate. (I am thinking of twitter user @ClaireCais when I type this and some of the painful things she has had to endure). If only for women with DSDs this chapter is important. It is also a useful source to debunk the false conflation of a transgender identity disorders of sexual development.
Why Sex Matters?
Stock then goes on to make a compelling case for why sex matters. She covers medicine, sport, sexual orientation and sex based statistics on crime. Women are still fighting for a world which doesn’t treat males as the default humans. Denying that sex is a significant variable in many areas will further, negatively, impact women. For more on this you can read Caroline Criado-Perez.
Though it is possible that somebody at the Guardian has read Kathleen’s book since the clarification, below, is from the Guardian in July 2021!
Now we are starting to see males competing, at the Olympics, in the women’s category will more people start speak out. Laurel Hubbard , who is competing in the 87kg women’s weight lifting category, may prove a tipping point.
Legal cases such as the issue of males in women’s prisons and the recording of male sex crimes as if they were committed by women is also covered in this chapter. I have covered many such cases on my blog about this so I am pleased to see this.
What is Gender Identity?
The topic on Gender Identity I found a difficult read, for personal reasons. As a woman I instintively recoiled from Monroe Bergdorf locating the film “clueless” as prompting their thoughts of transition. After watching this film they state: “Oh my God, this is where I fit in, these are my people”. Stock does not include some of the more controversial utterances from Monroe Bergdorf; one of them being to demand that women stop centring reproductive rights on a women’s march. This won’t please all readers but I think she is wise to avoid more sensationalist copy.
The recollections of Paris Lees and other gay trans people echo what I know of the impact homophobic bullying can have on self-acceptance. Interestingly this is a Paris Lees quote from an article (London Review of Books 2014). This was quite an honest assessment and pre-dates Lees adding “Adult Human Female” to their twitter bio:
On the topic of homosexual transsexuals I , inevitably, find myself conflicted. I want boys like my son to be protected in all their variant masculinity. I don’t want to enshrine “gender identity” in law and legitimise the sterilising of, likely gay, males. Neither do I want those gay males, who do fail to reconcile to their sex, to be unprotected. What I do know is that “gender identity ” must never take primacy over biological sex, for the sake of women. Enshrining “gender identity” in law would be disastrous for women’s rights. Sex also matters for trans-identified people. It is dangerous to become so immersed in an identity you deny that sex matters for your health care.
I was pleased to see this statement in the book: “in my view there are no cirumstances in which minors should be making fertility and health affecting decisions involving blockers, hormones or surgery”. Personally I take a harder line re decisions to embark on medical pathways. Achieving the magical age of majority is not sufficient for me. I know, from personal experience, our teenagers are being handed prescriptions with no counselling and no interrogation of what motivates a flight from their sex. I would ban it for under 25’s which we know is the average age of brain maturity. Whether it would deflect many from this path we can’t foresee. We do know many de-transitioners embarked on surgery, in their early twenties, only to regret it. Persuading legislators of this is likely to be an uphill, near impossible struggle, at this moment in time. Alarm bells should be ringing as the number of detransitioners in increasing daily. Sadly I fear many more broken bodies before this madness gets reined in.
In this chapter the author also attempts to elucidate the position of various schools of thought on Gender Identity. This is no mean feat giving the contradictions inherent in Gender Identity Ideology. This chapter uses the terminology of Trans Idealogues comparing “Cis” people to “trans people” and even using “non-trans”. That will irk some readers. However I see this chapter aimed at an audience (academics? politicians?) who have wholesale adopted the nomenclature of Gender identity Ideologues. The chapter does end with an unequivocal statement warning of the danger in accepting something which is “in danger of looking unverifiable as when Stonewall tells young people “” Someone else can’t tell you what your gender identity is – only you know how you feel””. This is not a sound basis on which to enact legislation, and perhaps using trans-approved language will convince more people?
What makes a woman?
There follows a long chapter interrogating “What makes a Woman” and looking at the definition of Adult Human Female versus Woman as Social Role. I suspect some people view this chapter as capitulation and some as compassionate. I subscribe to Adult Human Female but welcome the recognition that some people have built their lives around the narrative “Trans Women are Women”. These quotes sum up the difficulty, with the demand that the word “woman” is handed over to males in flight from their sex.
Marilyn Frye is quoted on page 152:
“If a woman has little or no economic or political power, or achieves little of what she wants to achieve, a major causal factor is she is a woman. For any woman of any race or economic class being a woman is significantly attached to whatever disadvantages and deprivations she suffers be they great or small” In response to the (much longer) quote Stock argues “Getting rid of the concept WOMAN would mean we couldn’t desribe, explain, predict or manage these distinctively caused phenomena”.
To those who have built their lives around the idea they are really women, Stock has this to say:
“People have built their lives around this narrative. Perhaps it feels as though I’m ripping all that away, and that causes you pain”.
I have seen this pain up close and its not the performative, twitter, transperbole: though that certain exists. It can be raw and very real. I think compassion has a very real place on this topic and it needn’t include abandoning a very clear view about the necessity for sex based rights and a male exclusionary feminism. We don’t need to be inhibited from centring women in our feminism, indeed it is a necessity if women’s rights organisations are to serve women, as a sex class.
Once again, I quote Miranda Yardley (male transsexual): “Refugees from masculinity exist” and add my own caveat “it is not women’s job to run the refugee camps”.
Immersed in a fiction
This chapter begins with some commentary on the passing of the Gender Recognition Act, 2004. This enshrined to idea of a “legal fiction” allowing males, then the majority sex visiting Gender Clinics, to have their birth certificate amended to show their sex as female. Its astonishing to see the quality (or lack thereof) of contributions to the debate on the passage of the bill in the House of Commons. Below is a link to historic archives on Hansard. I find myself in the unusual position, for me, of recommending Norman Tebbit’s contribution which Professor Stocks also references in this chapter.
Stock them goes on to discuss the difference between fiction and reality and quotes both Miranda Yardley and Fione Orlander. I met both Fionne and Miranda on the same night and it was the first time I spoke publicly about my situation. Here Miranda clearly states ” I now disavow use of the word “woman” for myself and other transgender males, preferring to use the term “transsexual” or “transsexual male”. I should also point out that both Miranda and Fionne used male facilities at the meeting.
Stock covers the therapeutic benefit , to the individual, of being immersed in a fictional belief about your place within the sex binary. She also expresses concern about the risk of losing capacity to think rationally about your biological reality. This detachment from reality can be maladaptive and harmful. Moreover what latter day trans activists are increasingly demanding is the coercion of others to overtly participate in this fiction. This can result in the controlling of others around you. I was particularly pleased to see this sentence“Yet it isn’t reasonable to expect the person who gave birth to you, or the person who married you, or your own children to permanently relate to you mentally as of a different sex when they know you are not”
In addition the author sounds the alarm about the corruption of data which occurs when “gender identity” is substituted for sex. A particular danger is to criminalise speech such as “misgendering”. Something, by the way, which is already criminalised in some of the United States.
How did we get here?
This chapter is an excellent overview of how trans-activists have been allowed to lobby government to set the legal agenda whilst politicans were negligent, in seeking contributions from women’s groups. Stonewall figure prominently, as do Mermaids, and The Guardian newspaper does not emerge covered in glory. Jess Bradley of Action for Trans Health is also consulted. Professor Stock refrains from any reference to the sacking of Jess Bradley. He was the first Trans Officer at Manchester University and departed for sharing a bit more his anatomy ,at work, than would be considered decent.
This chapter has an excellent overview of the propaganda deployed to further Transgender Ideology. One of these is the egregious use of suicide statistics, which are based on dubious data. Hate crime statistics also create a false narrative about widespread abuse of this population.
This chapter also looks at the pornified representations of women and those public “transwomen” who draw on these depictions to demonstrate membership of the female “gender”. These performances reify dehumanising representations of what it means to be a woman; another reason why women are not served by any alliance.
The chapter on autogynephilia is where our attitudes diverge. In part this because my empathy goes to the women who find their husbands are autogynephiles. These women are now getting a voice by organising as “trans-widows”. I have read enough of these accounts to see commonalities with men who coercively control their wives. Many of these women found themselves subject to degrading and humiliating treatment. At the extreme end it involved forced participation in sexual acts which validated their husbands alter ego. At the milder end women report having their personal style and friendship groups co-opted by their husbands almost as if they were replicating, or replacing, their wives.
Even, seemingly, benign, behavioural autogynephilia includes males inserting themselves into female spaces, and conversations, to gratify their need to assert their membership of the female group. The wives, or trans widows, then find themselves excluded from the support of women because their erstwhile husbands have colonised their places of refuge.
Kathleen asks why the lack of coverage, on the gender critical side, relating to trans-identified females. This is surely because, whilst it exists, androphilia (sexually fetishising a male identity) is relatively rare? Women tend to focus on “trans-men” as female and are concerned that many would, if left alone, simply be Butch Lesbians. Gay males are latterly, waking up to the encroachment of those females who identify as gay men on their spaces. Defending gay male spaces is surely the job of gay men and they do seem to be, belatedly, joining the debate in growing numbers.
A better activism in future.
Those not immersed in this debate may regard this chapter as even-handed and reaching out to those who have feared to dip their toe in the water. Others may bristle at the criticism of Radical/Gender Critical feminists.
Julia Long came in for some criticism by name. For the record I am an admirer of Julia Long’s uncompromising stance. I think we need straight-talking women who reject the mantle of “Be Kind”. As a (heterosexual) woman who lives with three males I think Lesbian feminists, of a separatist persuasion, have often been the clearest sighted about the threats Gender Identity Ideology poses to women’s rights. I wish I had listened to them sooner. I also find Julia funny, she has Ovaries of steel; and is unafraid to offend in her direct action. She appeals to my Yorkshire bluntness and I admire her, albeit from some ideological distance. She is unashamedly woman-centred and some of the terminology used is reminiscient of attacks used by Men’s rights activists. For me we need the range of activists challenging this ideology and some of the women shifting the overton window won’t be invited to the top table discussions but will have opened the doors for the women who do get a seat.
At the same time Julia warns about using terms, such as “transsexual” and “transwomen”. I no longer use the latter but I do sometimes use the former whilst also sometimes, speaking plainly about “men”. I am inconsistent in my application and I don’t advocate for my, selective, approach as a basis for any women’s movement. It just happens to be a response to my personal circumstances. I choose to use less alienating language for those I love, or like and respect. I therefore do perform “polite fiction” on this issue and live with some cognitive dissonance.
Kathleen also warns about the alienating use of words like “mutilated” when describing the surgical harms to girls; subject to double mastectomies and other surgical procedures. Again those of us with our offspring’s skin in the game, literally, adopt different tactics in this area. I do regard these surgeons as butchers who are mining my son’s body for profit. I am angry about this. At the same time we need to find a welcome back, into the sex class they never left, for detransitioners. I was irritated by blue-tick feminists (not Kathleen) getting the vapours about some graphic images of phallioplasty procedures. Simultaneously nobody wants to exacerbate the regret of those who have found their way out of the gender cult. This is extremely difficult terrain to navigate because we want people to stare directly at the reality and not minimise by using euphemisms like “top surgery”.
The chapter outlines some ways in which these disparate groups might make common cause. I honestly don’t know if the extreme sex denialism, of the Trans lobby, will allow for compromise. Will it allow women the right to define ourselves and exclude males in any settings?
At an individual level, I find some of the more ruminative transsexuals, suprisingly, find meaning in a radical feminist analysis. They see common elements in questioning sex based expectations and are reflective on how they may have followed very diffent paths had they encountered this framework. At the same time I know of transsexuals who found Kathleen’s analysis of their path as an immersion in a fiction meaningful. Invariably these are homosexual transsexuals who are not quite so invested in the need to validate the “woman” they wish to consecrate their lives to….
It is possible therefore that some of the linguistic concessions, in this book, will reach a new audience who would shrink from the plain speaking of a Janice Raymond. It is also a book written from within existing employment in academia and that surely has an impact on which audience it is intended to reach.
One page 272, there is a really useful list of all the areas which need more exploration (data) and research. She devotes three pages to these areas and it is quite shocking to consider the policy decisions taken without this data. Stock argues that their is a “surfeit high theory” in activism and public discussion. This includes Trans Studies. She goes on to say “High theory is abstract, totalising, seductively dramatic in its conclusions and relatively insulated from any directly observable empirical consequences – which ….makes it harder to dislodge”. She then returns to a critique of Judith Butler whose conclusions are “reached through a byzantine set of theoretical manoevres”. I think it fitting that a critique of the High Priestess of Gender Bollox is in the conclusion.
My conclusion. I think this is a very important book. I imagine every single reader will diverge at some points with the book’s stance. We all are in this with varying perspectives and we need to navigate a path to enable disagreements to be voiced from within feminism. I am one of six sisters and only one of them feels able to agree with me. I still love them and hope they will come round. Thanks for writing this book Kathleen. I hope I have done it justice.
Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth. Support is always appreciated (I have no income). All my content is open access so if you can’t speak publicly, and want to support those who can, only IF you have spare cash, this helps me keep going.
Transgender Guidance, for schools, draws support for its interpretation of the law from the Department of Education (DFE). This document illustrates how they have been cognitively captured by many of the prominent Trans Lobby groups. Many references to GIRES and Stonewall. None to women’s groups. Not a single one. The DFE also reference the Cornwall guidance which was the subject of my previous blog.
This is the document which advised schools how trans-identified pupils are covered by the, legally protected, characteristic of Gender Reassignment.
It is important to remember that sexual reassignment surgery is prohibited for under 18 year olds, on the NHS. Granting permission to male pupils, to use facilities in accordance with their “gender”, is mandating girls to accept penis in their intimate spaces. Gender reassignment was not intended to cover the modern idea of what it means to be trans.We did not consent to this.
The DFE briefing relies on advice from Stonewall and the Gender Identity and Research Education Society. (GIRES). A brief look at their supporters and trustees shows a heavy presence from trans-identified males. Below is a quick look at attitudes to sexual harassment from prominent transgender activists some of them associated with GIRES.
Anyone remember #MeToo? Is this the backlash?
Carlotta is not the only trans-identifying male who thinks women over react to men’s sense of entitlement to our bodies. There is a marked difference between a male and female perspective on sexual harassment. Paris Lees is advertised as a GIRES supporter on their website. Here Paris celebrates being objectified and arrogantly dismisses female fears about how transgender rights are being used to attack women’s right to single sex spaces. Ironically statistically escalators are more of a risk than Paris appreciated. There were, in fact, more people killed in escalator accidents than trans people were unlawfully killed, by all causes, in the year of this tweet. I would not trust Paris Lees to risk assess women’s expose to harm when single sex spaces become uni-sex.
A cursory look at the hyper-sexualised, look at me, performances of “femininity” from prominent TransGender activists bears witness to the fact that Paris Lees is not an outlier. Here Carlotta illustrates that males look at sexual abuse in a different way to women? For transgender males their perception is skewed because they have an excessive need to be validated, as women, which predisposes them to welcome what we repudiate.
I bring this up because, it seems to me, policy around sex segregated spaces is being DICKtated by males. Yes they may wish to identify as women but they seem unable to identify with our experience. The lobby groups advising government are drawn from this same population. Is it any wonder they have absolutely no idea of what it was like to grow up as a teenage girl? A cursory glance at the trustees of GIRES and supporters is enough to illustrate their likely bias.
As a result of these lobby groups we are opening up single-sex spaces at a time of unprecedented rates of sexual assault in schools. Here are a couple of slides from a presentation by MaureenO’Hara.👇. Over 600 rapes in a three year period. I was staggered by that figure.
Here is your regular reminder De Facto Self-identity, of “Gender” has already been introduced in policy if not in law.
The DFE will end up with a future appearance at the Inquiry into child sexual abuse, the only questin is when. We do not want to wait thirty years. We need to hold people accountable, during their time in office, and not when they are deceased or honoured with a with a seat in the House of Lord and a massive pension.
The usual suspects.
A lot has changed in the six years since this guidance was written. I suspect even the most zealous of Transgender Rights Activists (TRAs) didn’t anticipate the explosion of trans identifying children. My school, of 1000 pupils, had at least three females and one male in one year group! This is no longer “rare”. Eventually one would hope that politicians would wake up to the obvious connection between proselytising Gender Identity Ideology and rising rates of children claiming to be transgender.
Here the DFE expand on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and why it is deemed to cover school children.
👇 Again they link to GIRES website.
This was surely not the intention of the original lawmakers. Exhibit A. John Bercow. Hansard. Once again the interchangeability of gender as a proxy for sex makes for bad law. Bercow may have intended to reassure over single sex spaces or to obfuscate.
I am starting to come out in a rash when I see the word “gender”. The word that needs to be used all the time is sex. This quote below is disingenuous because all the guidance that flows from this has, effectively, stopped treating sex as a protected characteristic. This is a major change and not simply a reduction in paperwork.
I was not aware that harassment only applies to disability, race and sex but not the other categories listed. I will defer to legal peeps on what this means in reality. One noted feature of this is that gender identity is covered by hate crime legislation, even though it is not a legally protected characteristic. Sex, which is a protected character, is not covered. I am no fan of hate crime legislation, especially the ridiculous hate crime incident category, but women can’t point to any statistics on the hatred we experience using this method. A man can report misgendering as a hate crime but women can’t report any sexist abuse.! Women can’t laugh at a man but he can abuse us with impunity.
The inevitable referral to the Stonewall website and more links to GIRES material. The guide quoted below was made possible by funding from the Home Office which you can find confirmed in their accounts for year ending December 2013. When the fashion for outsourcing took over the governments, of all political persuasions, I had not understood this included sub contracting their own critical thinking. Lobby groups have been allowed to corrupt policy, and law, in this area for far too long.
It is well worth having a look at the GIRES website and, in particular, their trustees. Populated by trans activists with a strong presence from late -transitioning males with backgrounds in hyper-masculine occupations. They also have a trustee who is steeped in Queer Theory and can be found quoting Judith Butler in what reads like a PhD level argument for men who want to retain their penis. Here is a quote from Reubs Walsh from their public writing and their YouTube channel.
Reubs can also be found opposing the Keira Bell judgement and arguing for the early medicalisation of children. Once again I am struck by the contrast between adult men constructing arguments against surgery, presumably for themselves, but advocating medical solutions for children.
Support for my work. paypal.me.STILLTish
If you are unable to speak out and can support me to continue to undertake research my details are below. I am not in receipt of any form of income so every little bit helps me continue to devote myself full-time. Only give if you are able.
Puberty Blockers are promoted as an ideal way to allow your child to “pause” puberty whilst undergoing gender identity confusion. This is the consistent stance taken by “experts” in the field. This appears to have been taken on trust by the medical establishment and is now embedded within our own NHS. Here is the GID (Gender Identity Service) statement (accessed November 9th 2019).
Here is Polly Carmichael of the GIDS service. This is a clip from a documentary shown on Childrens BBC. Yep that’s right. CBBC. Which of the parents now dealing with Gender Dysphoric kids realised this was being propagandised to our kids? Not me.
Originally this blog had a link to Becoming Leo but it has now been removed. It was here Becoming Leo: CBBC
Yet when you access the service spec which GIDS work to you actually get this rather contradictory information. Seems that they *know* that far from a “pause” it actually sets these kids on an irreversible path to “gender affirmation surgery”. You can access this document here: Service Specification
So my question is why, if they know 100% go onto a medicalised pathway, are they still saying this allows for a “pause”? It isn’t new information. So what else do we know about puberty blockers? Here is the outcome of an investigation into a GIDS research programme that puts children on puberty blockers as young as age 12. The Health Research Authority conducted an investigation into the research programme after concerns had been raised. The full report can be accessed here:HRA Report on GIDS
For the purposes of this blog the pertinent admission is here
We have moved from “pause” to very careful selection of the group who are “likely” to progress. This sleight of hand diverts scrutiny from the role puberty has, formerly, played in resolving Gender Dysphoria. Historically it was the actual changes that occurred during puberty that resolved the dysphoria and allowed re-identification with biological sex. Stopping puberty means 100% go on lifelong dependence on cross-sex hormones and significant surgery. Something noted by key researchers in this field. Its even worse. Most of these youngsters, if left alone, would grow up to be Gay Males or Lesbians.
Here is a youtube which goes through all the Long Term Studies that look at persistence versus desistance rates. . It looks at the methodology in cluding the problematic aspects. Lack of control groups, changes in diagnostic criteria for Gender Identity Disorder (now Gender Dysphoria), loss to follow up in the studies and small sample size. Desistance rates
Despite all the caveats to the studies the incontrovertible fact is that the majority desist. IF, crucially, they are left to go through a natural puberty.
This article covers much of the same studies and comes to the same conclusion. Trans Kids.
I will leave part-one here and follow up with a detailed look at two studies. These raise serious questions on the evidence base on which the treatment protocols are based. A child who has puberty blockers followed by cross-sex hormones will be sterile. We know, historically, most were same sex oriented and we also know that there is, currently, an over-representation of autistic kids caught up in a trans-identity.
It came as a shock to find that pre-operative “transgender” males were being housed in the female prison estate. Given the jaw dropping idiocy of the policy I assumed, wrongly, this was a recent phenomenon, a temporary loss of State Sanity. I was wrong. While high profile cases, which resulted in sexual assaults on female inmates, (see Karen White and Paris Green ), have only just penetrated the public consciousness, it is not a recent aberration. It is policy. This has been going on since at least 2009! Because of legal cases like this one 👇
The claimant, in the above case, was a pre-operative, transgender male who had been convicted of manslaughter and imprisoned. 5 days after his release he committed an attempted rape. Following this offence he was returned to prison and sentenced to life imprisonment.
The prisoner had been granted a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) in 2006. Thus, only two years after the Gender Recognition Act (GRA)had been passed, a bodily intact, biological male, who would go on to commit attempted rape, was recognised as a “woman” for all purposes. Because of this legislation the prisoner was allowed to mount a legal challenge to his incarceration, in the male estate. Let that sink in. 👇
[As an aside the wording of the above reports the historic offence as “committed whilst a man”. This strongly suggests that, at the very least, post GRC offenses are recorded as committed by a female. Work is still on-going to find out the exact legal record keeping when someone “self-identifies” as female. More on this here Crime statistics:Sex v Gender]
Update September 2019:Going by the details provided in this case it seems likely that this is the same person invited to speak to the House of Lords on how we can better serve Transgender prisoners Sex Offender Advisor to the House of Lords
Details of the offence are below. Note that this offence was committed whilst staying in a female bail hostel.
Our law makers have re-defined woman and granted legal rights, as women, to males. This is an issue regardless of an individual’s criminal history. However, in this case, a GRC has been granted to a fully intact male who went on to attempt to rape a woman and still retained his GRC! This law (in practice) legally compels women to admit male bodied individuals into sex segregated spaces. The is a measure of how much contempt the legal systems has for women’s rights. Our right to privacy, dignity and safety has been stripped from us, by a male centred legislature. We have, by stealth, had our right to congregate, as a sex, and enjoy the company of other women, free from male interference, removed by a state sanctioned lie. Refugees from masculinity exist but women should not be legally compelled, or emotionally blackmailed, into running the refugee camps.
Below is a reference to the Gender Recognition Act from this court case. This is a lie. It is impossible to change sex. Women were assured this was only a “kind” “legal fiction”. Yet judgements are being handed down which show the State is treating it as a literal truth! This gives the lie to the, oft repeated, assertion that the GRA has no impact on the protected characteristic of sex (Equality Act 2010). The GRA collapses the female sex class into a male’s subjective sense of self-identity.
Men see only the societally imposed notion of what it means to be a women. They now take the objectified version of “womanhood” for women’s lived experience and reflect this stereotypical version of ourselves back at us.
The first book is a rebuttal of feminist charges against men focusing on sexual harassment, child abuse and domestic violence endured, by men, at the hands of women. In Girl the main protagonist is a man who is mistakenly given gender reassignment surgery. This is a staple of some fetish porn known as “forced feminisation”. An MRA and a Porn devotee. Welcome to the Sisterhood David!
Back to the case….
The Legal muddle this has created is even pointed out by the prisoner:The fact “trans-men” can select to remain in the female estate, and they do, tells its own tale. Sex Matters, it seems, when the State decides it does. Here is a discussion between Transmen on prison location. Male Pronouns yes. Male Prison? Hell no! Transmen discuss prison
State capture, by Transgender Ideology, inevitably involves the regressive endorsement of sex stereotypes. Below is a description of how this, legal, woman is enabled to live in the male estate. A case is made that the prison has been accommodating by allowing access to cosmetics, blouses and skirts. The Prisoner, we are told, “lives as a woman” . This is demonstrated by the inevitable links to the most regressive sex stereotypes which feminists have been deconstructing for centuries. Make-up doth not maketh the woman!
A wise woman on twitter (@HairyLeggedHarpy) interrogated a more reasoned, commentator on what he means by “living as a woman”. Ask to define it he listed sex stereotypical behaviours associated with a female role. Pressed to confirm whether he would say “living as a Black or Indigenous Man” he didn’t answer. So why is it OK to say “Living as a woman”? Do the cultural expectations of “being a woman” confer some sort of Lady Essence on women, which gender non-conforming men share?
Does anyone pay any credence to Rachel Dolezal’s claim to live as “black”? No. In a delicious irony, completely lost on MB, this was not Monroe Bergdorf’s favourite Netflix recommendation.
TransRacial Identity was roundly rejected but pay attention. This is the blurb for a course on Trans Racial Identity at Rhode Island University. “We will use the discourse of Transgenderism to build an alternate vocabulary of race”. Feeling a bit too weighed down with your white, male, privilege? Here’s a handy way to garner oppression points! If anyone can “identify” into a marginalised group any laws or policies enacted to protect or empower them, are rendered meaningless. Imagine if Dolezal had preached to black people that they had “cis-black privilege” and were her oppressors?
I digress. (Homage to Ronnie Corbett!) Back to the case in hand.
Below is a list of the reasons the prisoner was not felt to be a suitable candidate for parole. To release him into society presented “a risk to life and limb” but to incarcerate with vulnerable women was OK?
Below a recognition of the “risk” is cast aside because the claimant has a clinical need to associate with women for therapeutic reasons. So the women are to be validation aids for a male, with a history of sexual assault against women. Who asked women if we thought we were “peers”? Women should have had equal representation in these court cases but because of the insistence the GRA has no impact on women’s rights these wrong decisions are consistently made.
The nature of the risk to women is imperfectly understood by the participants in this legal farce. Here is what, in their view, constitutes mitigation for the rape attempt. Don’t worry it wasn’t that type of rape. The motivation was less sexual and more frustration and jealousy!
Witness the absolute rage of *some* Transactivists, when facts threaten their validation as female. Women cannot help being born female. Our very existence is a direct affront to those who aspire to be women. Where “passing privilege” is that rarest of things a threat to a “female” identity will always be embodied in the woman who merely exists. This is a different kind of misogyny. 👇
Dr Ann Lawrence, a transsexual and self-proclaimed autogynophile, on this topic. This paper on narcissistic rage is worth perusing to gauge the potential risk, to women, from AGP transsexuals. AGP, Shame & Narcissistic rage.
This clip from the claimant is very striking for the insistence that nobody can take away their “female” identity.
Because it is literally not possible to change sex many , older, transsexuals report significant counselling to reconcile themselves to this fact. Without this counselling in an era of “Transwomen are women” how much harder to face the truth on the occasions, when it is brought to your attention? Women are literally the emodiment of the denial that TWAW. Here is a clip from Dr Lawrence’s paper on the increased risk of narcissistic disorders in AGP males.
Despite the obvious risk to the female population it seems pretty clear that it is not the practice to actually *tell* the women that amongst their number is a male-bodied, attempted rapist, with a potential, predisposition to narcissistic rage. Another clip from the legal judgement 👇
At least one of the expert witnesses spelt out clearly the claimant’s own narcissism fuelled rage. Controlling, Aggressive, violent and sadistic. Does that sound like a risk to which women ought to be alerted. Is this compatible with “Living as a woman”?
Up next is Gender Identity Specialist, Dr James Barrett. Here we have a belated recognition that the women may have opinions about co-habiting with a male-bodied, attempted rapist. Predictably this is what he has to say about those uppity Prison women. They would be the “sort of women who enjoy conflict“. Women asserting boundaries is always badged aggression by those who wish to deny them.
So there you have it. A prisoner deemed to be too high risk for release, who had attempted rape, and was still equipped to do so, placed in a female prison. Female prisoners are disproportionately victims of male violence and sexual abuse. They are predominantly working class and have no social capital or voice. The silence of female MPs on this topic seeks volumes. Maybe, like, Layla Moran (Liberal Democrat MP) they will need to cultivate a talent for seeing into male souls to minimise the risk.